Advertisement

Trade Distortions in a Free-trade Zone: The Case of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Restrictions

  • Thomas H. Spreen
  • John J. VanSickle
  • Charlene M. Brewster
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 20)

Abstract

The intent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is to create a customs union, or free-trade zone, among the countries of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, in which goods and services can be freely traded. The European Union (E.U.) is even more ambitious in that it not only allows tariff-free trade but has also created a common currency. The Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) is a free-trade zone that encompasses Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and is similar in scope to the zone designated in NAFTA.

Keywords

Methyl Bromide North American Free Trade Agreement Enforcement Cost Trade Distortion Harmful Pest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. FASS (Florida Agricultural Statistics Service). Various issues. Citrus Summary. Orlando, FL: FASS.Google Scholar
  2. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Various issues. Citrus Statistics. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. Harper, C. and D. Zilberman. 1992. “Pesticides and Worker Safety.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74: 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Just, R. and D. Hueth. 1979. “Welfare Measures in a Multimarket Framework.” American Economic Review 69: 947–954.Google Scholar
  5. Lichtenberg, E. and D. Zilberman. 1990. “Efficient Regulation of Human Health and Safety Under Uncertainty: California Water Quality Case Studies,” in D. Zilberman and J. Siebert, eds., Economic Perspectives on Pesticide Use in California. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Muraro, R.P., J.W. Hebb, and E.W. Stover. 1998. “Budgeting Costs and Returns for Indian River Citrus Production, 1997–98.” Economic Information Report 98–5, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida (August).Google Scholar
  7. Nyamusika, N., T. Spreen, O. Rae, and C.B. Moss. 1994. “A Bioeconomic Analysis of Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex.” Review of Agricultural Economics 16: 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Orden, D. and E. Romano. 1996. “The Avocado Dispute and Other Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Under NAFTA.” Invited paper presented at the NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working? symposium, San Antonio, Texas (November).Google Scholar
  9. Paarlberg, P.L. and P.C. Abbott. 1986. “Oligopolistic Behavior by Public Agencies in International Trade: The World Wheat Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(5): 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Roberts, D., T.E. Josling, and D. Orden. 1999. “Technical Barriers to Trade: An Analytical Framework.” Technical Bulletin No. 1876, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Taylor, C. and R. Howitt. 1993. “Aggregate Evaluation Concepts and Models,” in G. Carlson, D. Zilberman, and J. Miranowski, eds., Agricultural and Environmental Resource Economics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. WTO (World Trade Organization). 1999. “Understanding the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures.” Internet website: http://www.wto.org/wto/goods/spsund.htm (April).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas H. Spreen
    • 1
  • John J. VanSickle
    • 1
  • Charlene M. Brewster
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FloridaUSA

Personalised recommendations