Advertisement

International Trade with Price Supports and Environmental Constraints: The Canadian Hog Industry

  • Richard Gray
  • Robert Romain
  • Hartley Furtan
Chapter
  • 133 Downloads
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 20)

Abstract

The national resource endowments specific to individual countries have long been thought of as one of the sources of comparative advantage in trade. As production processes have had more serious ecological impacts, and as wealthier consumers have demanded improved environmental quality, the ability of a country’s ecological system to absorb pollutants has become more important as a source of comparative advantage. This phenomenon is especially important for agriculture and agricultural trade. For instance, groundwater nitrification has become a very important issue in dense livestock production areas of the European Union (E.U.) and North America. The environmental costs and abatement costs associated with livestock manure have become a significant economic factor in these regions.

Keywords

World Trade Organization Abatement Cost Trade Agreement Cost Curve Trade Rule 
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. Abbott, P.C. and S.L. Haley. 1988. “International Trade Theory and Natural Resource Concepts,” in J.D. Sutton, ed., pp. 35–62. Agricultural Trade and Natural Resources— Discovering the Critical Linkages. Boulder, CO and London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. CPC (Canadian Pork Council). 1999. Pork Statistics. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Pork Council.Google Scholar
  3. CPC. 1999. Internet website: www.canpore.ca/sGoogle Scholar
  4. Chalfant, J.A., R.S. Gray, and K.J. White. 1991. “Evaluating Prior Beliefs in a Demand System: The Case of Meat Demand in Canada.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(2): 476–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Schmitz, A., D. Sigurdson, and O. Doering. 1986. “Domestic Farm Policy and the Gains from Trade.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(4): 820–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Segerson, K. 1988. “Natural Resource Concepts in Trade Analysis,” in J.D. Sutton, ed., pp. 9–34. Agricultural Trade and Natural Resources: Discovering the Critical Linkages. Boulder, CO and London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Trade Compliance Center. 1993. North American Free Trade Side Agreement On Environmental Cooperation. Internet website: http://199.88.185.106/tcc/data/commerce3trnl/TCC_2/Nafta/Naftaside2.htmlGoogle Scholar
  8. WTO (World Trade Organization). 1999. Internet website: www.wto.caGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Gray
    • 1
  • Robert Romain
    • 2
  • Hartley Furtan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanCanada
  2. 2.Laval UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations