Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:34:34.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Effects of a Countervailing Duty Order on the U.S. Lamb Meat Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Ronald A. Rabula
Ronald A. Rabula*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Crops Branch, Agriculture and Forest Products Division, U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), Washington, D.C.
Get access

Abstract

This paper provides the model, analysis, and results of the investigative research by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) staff on the U.S. lamb market impacts from the countervailing duty (CVD) order imposed on certain U.S. imports of New Zealand lamb meat during 1985–90. Presented here are the monthly three-stage least squares model of the U.S. lamb meat industry at the wholesale or meat-packing level, along with the econometric results and analyses obtained from the USITC investigation. Analysis of model results quantifies average estimated CVD-attributed effects on U.S. lamb price, demand and supply of domestically produced lamb, and U.S. lamb import levels. A number of economic parameter estimates and inference results concerning U.S. wholesale lamb market relationships are reported and are of interest, given the scarce published research on the U.S. lamb industry.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , April 1997 , pp. 82 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Armington, P. 1969a. “A Geographic Pattern of Trade and Effects of Price Changes.” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers 16: 197–201.Google Scholar
Armington, P. 1969b. “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production.” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers 16: 159–78.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. 1994. An Econometric Model of the U.S. Sheep and Mohair Industries for Policy Analysis. Ph.D. diss., Texas A & M University, College Station. [Anderson also provided other elasticity and parameter estimates implied by his model and simulations but not reported in the dissertation in an October 13, 1994, memorandum to the author.]Google Scholar
Capps, Oral Jr., Byrne, P.J., and Williams, G.W. 1995. “Analysis of Marketing Margins in the U.S. Lamb Industry.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24: 232–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, D., and Fuller, W. 1979. “Distribution of Estimates for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 74: 427–31.Google Scholar
Engle, R., and Granger, C. 1987. “Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing.” Journal of Econometrics 55: 251–76.Google Scholar
Fuller, W. 1976. Introduction to Statistical Time Series. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Granger, C., and Newbold, P. 1986. Forecasting Economic Time Series. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, R., and Palmquist, R. 1980. “The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations.” American Economic Review 70: 474–75.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. 1994. Time Series Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, A. 1990. The Econometric Analysis of Time Series. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Judge, G., Griffiths, W., Hill, R., and Lee, T. 1980. The Theory and Practice of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. 1985. A Guide to Econometrics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, E., and Jones, R. 1995. “Implications of U.S.-Mexico Tariff Reductions under NAFTA for the U.S. Sheep Industry.” Sheep Industry Development Research Journal 11: 4–13.Google Scholar
Texas Agricultural Market Research Center (TAMRC), Lamb Study Team. 1991. Assessment of Marketing Strategies to Enhance Returns to Lamb Producers, ed. Williams, G. TAMRC Commodity Market Research Rept. No. CM-1-91. Texas A & M University. December.Google Scholar
United States Code (USC). 19 USC, subsect. 1671 et seq.; subsect. 1303, sec. 303.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS). 1981-94. Cattle and Sheep Outlook.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS). 1994. Red Meats Yearbook, 1994. Statistical Bulletin No. 885.Google Scholar
USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS). Livestock Slaughter. Relevant monthly and annual summaries.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Customs Service. Database Official U.S. trade (import) in values and quantities for the period 1981-94.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 1988. National Income and Product Accounts, No. 2, 1959-88. For January 1980-December 1988 data.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 1995. Survey of Current Business 75 (7). For January 1989-May 1995 data. July.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). LABSTAT Data Base. National Industry, Employment, Hours, and Earnings Survey.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Producer Price Indexes. January 1981-June 1994. Relevant monthly issues.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 1995a. The Economic Effects of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders and Suspension Agreements, Investigation 332-344. USITC publication 2900. June.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 1995b. Lamb Meat: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. and Foreign Lamb Industries, Investigation No. 332-357. USITC publication 2915. August.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 1995c. Transcripts of the Proceedings, Hearing for USITC Investigation No. 332–357 Lamb Meat: Competitive Conditions Affecting the United States and Foreign Industries. Public hearing. Washington D.C., April 6.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 1993. Summary of Statutory Provisions Related to Import Relief. USITC publication 2663. July.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 1990. U.S. Imports of Lamb Meat: Final Monitoring Report, Investigation No. 332-264. USITC publication 2345. December.Google Scholar
Van Tassell, L., and Whipple, G. 1994. “The Cyclical Nature of the U.S. Sheep Industry.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19: 267–79.Google Scholar
Whipple, G., and Menkhaus, D. 1989a. “An Econometric Investigation of the Demand for Lamb.” Sheep Industry Development Research Journal 5: 7–25.Google Scholar
Whipple, G., and Menkhaus, D. 1989b. “Supply Response in the U.S. Sheep Industry.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71: 126–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whipple, G., and Menkhaus, D. 1990. “Welfare Implications of the Wool Act.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 15: 33–44.Google Scholar