Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T04:58:37.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. Demand for Source–Differentiated Shrimp: A Differential Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Keithly Jones ,
David J. Harvey ,
William Hahn  and
Andrew Muhammad
Keithly Jones
Affiliation:
The Animal Products, Grains, and Oilseeds Branch, Markets and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA
David J. Harvey
Affiliation:
The Animal Products, Grains, and Oilseeds Branch, Markets and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA
William Hahn
Affiliation:
The Animal Products, Grains, and Oilseeds Branch, Markets and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA
Andrew Muhammad
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University
Get access

Abstract

Estimates of price and scale elasticities for U.S. consumed shrimp are derived using aggregate shrimp data differentiated by source country. Own-price elasticities for all countries had the expected negative signs, were statistically significant, and inelastic. The scale elasticities for all countries were positive and statistically significant at the 1% level with only the United States and Ecuador having scale elasticities of less than one. For the most part, the compensated demand effects showed that most of the cross-price effects were positive. Our results also suggest that despite the countervailing duties imposed by the United States, shrimp demand was fairly stable.

Keywords

CBSconditional demandcountervailing dutyimportsscale elasticityshrimpC32D12Q13Q22
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 609 - 621
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, G.J., and Blundell, R.W.. “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in Dynamic Singular Equation Systems.” Econometrica 50(1982):1559–1571.Google Scholar
Asche, F. “A System Approach to the Demand for Salmon in the European Union.” Applied Economics 28(1996):97–101.Google Scholar
Asche, F. “Trade Disputes and Productivity Gains: The Curse of Farmed Salmon Production.” Marine Resource Economics 12(1997):67–73.Google Scholar
Asche, F. “Testing the Effects of Anti-dumping Duty: The U.S. Salmon Market.” Empirical Economics 26(2001):343–55.Google Scholar
Asche, F., Bremnes, K.H., and Wessells, C.. “Product Aggregation, Market Integration, and Relationships Between Prices: An Application to World Salmon Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(1999):68–81.Google Scholar
Asche, F., Salvanes, K.G., and Steen, F.. “Market Delineation and Demand Structure.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(1997):139–50.Google Scholar
Barton, A.P. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of a Complete Demand System of Equations.” European Economic Review 1(1969):7–73.Google Scholar
Baughman, L.M. “Shrimp Antidumping Petition Would Jack Up Prices to Shrimp-Consuming Industries.” The Trade Partnership, Washington, DC. 2004. Internet site: www.tradepartnership.com (Accessed April 23, 2007).Google Scholar
Bhattarcharyya, B. “The Indian Shrimp Industry Organizes to Fight the Threat of Anti-Dumping Action.” WTO, Managing the Challenges of WTO Participation: Case Study-Case Study 17. Geneva, Switzerland. 2005. Internet site: 192.91.247.23/English/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case17_e.htm (Accessed April 23, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blauer, R. “Shrimp Imports Increase Despite Confirmed Antidumping.” Fish and Seafood Products: Market News, March 2007. Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, Washington, DC. 2007. Internet site: www.fas.usda.gov/ffpd/Newsroom/Articles/shrimp_imports.asp (Accessed April 23, 2007).Google Scholar
Burton, M.P. “The Demand for Wet Fish in Great Britain.” Marine Resource Economics 7(1992):57–66.Google Scholar
Deaton, A.S., and Muellbauer, J.. “An Almost Ideal Demand System.” American Economic Review 70(1980a):312–26.Google Scholar
Deaton, A.S., and Muellbauer, J.. Economics Consumer Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980b.Google Scholar
Diop, H., Harrison, R.W., and Keithly, W.R. Jr. “Impact of Increasing Imports on the United States Southeastern Region Shrimp Processing Industry 1973–1996.” Selected Paper, American Agricultural Economics Association, Nashville, TN, 1999. Internet site: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid= 1460&ftype=.pdf (Accessed December 15, 2006).Google Scholar
Eales, J., Durham, C., and Wessells, C.R.. “Generalized Models of Japanese Demand for Fish.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(1997):1153–1163.Google Scholar
Green, R., Roke, D., and Hahn, W.. “Standard Errors for Elasticities: A comparison of Bootstrap and Asymptotic Standard Errors.” Journal of Business Economics Statistics 5(1987):145–50.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. “Top 10 U.S. Consumption by Species Chart.” 2007. Internet site: www.aboutseafood.com/media/top_10.cfm (Accessed April 23, 2007).Google Scholar
Keithly, W.R. Jr., and Diagne, A.. “An International Import Demand and Export Supply Model for Shrimp and Impacts of Changes in World Production on the U.S. Dockside Price.” International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade Conference Proceedings, 1998.Google Scholar
Keller, W.J., and Driel, J. Van. “Differential Consumer Demand Systems.” European Economic Review 27(1985):375–90.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W. “Futility of Targeted Fish Tariffs and an Alternative.” Marine Resource Economics 18(2003):211–24.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W., and Myrland, O.. “The Relative Impact of the Norway-EU Salmon Agreement: A Midterm Assessment.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 53(2002):195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W., and Myrland, O.. “The Effectiveness of Antidumping Measures: Some Evidence for Farmed Atlantic Salmon.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(2006):459–77.Google Scholar
Long, D. “U.S. Shrimp Industry Wins Final Antidumping Cases Against Six Countries.” Southern Shrimp Alliance Press Release. 2005.Google Scholar
Mwega, F. “Import Demand Elasticities and Stability during Trade Liberalization: A Case Study of Kenya.” Journal of African Economies 2(1993):381–416.Google Scholar
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce). “Fishery Statistics of the United States, 2005.” Silver Springs, MD. 2007. Internet site: www.st.nmfs.gov/stl/fus/fus05/index.html (Accessed April 23, 2007).Google Scholar
Park, H., Thurman, W.N., and Easley, J.E. Jr. “Modeling Inverse Demand for Fish: Empirical Welfare Measurements in the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries.” Marine Resource Economics 19(2004):333–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, D., and Zantow, K.. “Attribution of Injury in the Shrimp Antidumping Case: A Simultaneous Equations Approach.” Economics Bulletin 6(2005):1–10.Google Scholar
Theil, H. “Applied Economic Forecasts.” North Holland, Amsterdam. 1966.Google Scholar
Thomas, D.D., and Ulubasoglu, M.A.. “The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Import Demand.” Journal of Economic and Social Research 4(2004):1–26.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 227, November 1998.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission. “Certain Frozen or Canned Warm Water Shrimp and Prawn from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam.” Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068 (Final). Publication # 3748, January, 2005.Google Scholar
Zwaniecki, A. “U.S. Duties Imposed on Frozen Shrimp from Six Countries Trade Panel to Review India, Thailand Cases to Assess Tsunami Impact.” The Washington File, January 2005. Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Internet site: usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m= January&x = 20050106172826S Aikceinawz 0.3572199&t=xarchives/xarchitem.html (Accessed April 23, 2007).Google Scholar