Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics

, Volume 145, Issue 1, pp 107–126 | Cite as

Liberalizing the Swiss Meat Market with the EU: Welfare Effects and Impacts on Third Countries

  • Isabelle Schluep Campo
  • Robert Jörin
Open Access


This article analyzes the welfare effects of multilateral versus bilateral trade liberalization between Switzerland and the EU in the meat sector. A multi-market multi-region partial equilibrium model is used. The removal of tariffs and tariff rate quotas between Switzerland and the EU results in noticeable net welfare gains for Switzerland. The impacts on the EU and on the rest of the world are minimal. However, multilateral trade liberalization is still first best.


Free trade agreement welfare effects partial equilibrium analysis meat market 


D60 Q17 Q18 


  1. Abdulai, Awudu (2002), “Using Threshold Cointegration to Estimate Asymmetric Price Transmission in the Swiss Pork Market”, Applied Economics, 34 (6), pp. 679–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armington, Paul S. (1969), “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production”, IMF Staff Papers, 16, pp. 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anwander Phan Huy, Sibyl, Maya Herzog, and Felix F. Wehrle (2006), „COOP Einkaufstourismusstudie“,
  4. Banse, Martin, and Harald Grethe (2006), “Using the Logistic Functional Form for Modeling International Price Transmission in Net Trade Simulation Models”, Presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economist Conference, Gold Coast, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. DeRosa, Dean A., and Michael A. Trueblood (2001), “A Trade and Food Security Model for Low-Income Countries”, Seminar Presented to USDA/ERS, January 24, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Eidgenössische Zollverwaltung (EZV) (undated), „Zolltarif — Tares“,
  7. European Commission (undated), “TARIC — Tarif intégré des Communautés Européennes”,
  8. FAO (undated), “World Agricultural Trade Matrix (WATM)”, available at
  9. EFTA (undated), “Legal Texts”
  10. FAPRI (2008), US and World Agricultural Outlook, Ames.Google Scholar
  11. FAPRI (undated), “FAPRI Tools”,
  12. Francois, Joseph F., and H. Keith Hall (1997), “Partial Equilibrium Modeling” in: Joseph Francois and Kenneth Reinert (eds), Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis, Cambridge, pp. 122–155.Google Scholar
  13. Hauser, Heinz, und Thomas A. Zimmermann (2001), “Regionalismus oder Multilateralismus?”, Die Volkswirtschaft, 5, pp. 4–8.Google Scholar
  14. Hertel, Thomas W. (1992), „Partial vs. General Equilibrium Analysis of Trade Policy Reform“, The Journal of Agricultural Economics, 44, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  15. Huang, Kuo S., and Biing-Hwan Lin (2000), “Estimation of Food Demand and Nutrient Elasticities from Household Survey Data”, USDA/ERS, Technical Bulletin No. 1887.Google Scholar
  16. Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, and Richard E. Baldwin (2006), The Shape of a Swiss-US Free Trade Agreement, Policy Analyses in International Economics 76, Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Huff, Bruce, and Vernon O. Roningen (2002), “Impact of the Elimination of Canadian Refined Sugar Tariff on Imports from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua”, Policy Analysis Division, Research and Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Google Scholar
  18. Joerin, Robert, and Yvan Lengwiler (2004), “Learning from Financial Markets: Auctioning Tariff-Rate Quotas in Agricultural Trade”, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 140 (4), pp. 521–541.Google Scholar
  19. Kowalczyk, Carsten (2000), “Welfare and Integration”, International Economic Review, 41 (2), pp. 483–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mathis, James H. (2002), Regional Trade Agreements in the GATT/WTO: Article XXIV and the Internal Trade Requirement, The Hague.Google Scholar
  21. Minsch, Ruedi, und Peter Moser (2006), Zollunion + Alternative zum EU-Beitritt, Zürich.Google Scholar
  22. OECD-FAO (2007), Agricultural Outlook 2007–2016, Paris.Google Scholar
  23. Rickertsen, Kyrre, and Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel (2003), “Health, Nutrition and Demand for Food: A European Perspective”, in: Wen S. Chern and Kyrre Rickertsen (eds), Health, Nutrition and Food Demand, Wallingford (UK), pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
  24. Roningen, Vernon O. (undated), “VORSIM Model Building Framework for Microsoft Excel (version 9.1)”,
  25. Roningen, Vernon O. (1997), “Multi-Market, Multi-Region Partial Equilibrium Modeling”, in: Joseph Francois and Kenneth Reinert (eds), Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis, Cambridge, pp. 231–256.Google Scholar
  26. Roningen, Vernon O., and Praveen Dixit (1986) “Modeling Bilateral Trade Flows with the Static World Policy Simulation (SWOPSIM) Modeling Framework”, USDA ERS Staff Report no. AGES861124, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  27. Schluep Campo, Isabelle (2004), Market Access Options in the WTO Doha Round: Impacts on the Swiss Meat Market, ETH Dissertation Nr. 15614, Agrarökonomische Monographien und Sammelwerke, Kiel.Google Scholar
  28. Schluep Campo, Isabelle, Robert Jörin, Dominique Aubert, Ben Spycher, and Simon Zbinden (2004), „Marktzutritts-Optionen in der WTO-DOHA Runde: Auswirkungen auf den Schweizer Fleischmarkt“, ETH Zürich.Google Scholar
  29. Viner, Jacob (1950), The Customs Union Issue, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Environmental Decisions, Agricultural Economics GroupSwiss Federal Institute of TechnologyZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations