Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:46:38.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Do the Japanese Discriminate Against Australian Beef Imports?: Evidence From the Differential Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Dave D. Weatherspoon
Affiliation:
Agribusiness at Florida A&M University
James L. Seale Jr.
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida

Abstract

This paper considers an application of the differential approach to Japanese demand for beef imports from 1970 to 1993. Results of homothetic demand and negative (significant) own-price elasticities indicate that the Japanese did not discriminate against Australian beef, but the decrease in Australia's trade shares was due to changes in relative prices.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1995

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

Alston, J.M., Carter, C.A., Green, R., and Pick, D.. “Whither Armington Trade Models.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1990):455–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armington, P.S.A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production.International Monetary Trend, Staff Paper 16, 1969, pp. 159–78.Google Scholar
Barten, A. P.Consumer Allocation Models: Choice of Functional Form,Catholic University of Leuven and CORE, December 1991.Google Scholar
Bewley, R.Allocation Models: Specification, Estimation, and Applications. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1986.Google Scholar
Coyle, W.T.The 1984 U.S. - Japan Beef and Citrus Understanding: An Evaluation.U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service. Publication No. 222, 1984.Google Scholar
Coyle, W.T., “The Basic Mechanisms of Japanese Farm Policy.United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service. Publication No. 1478, February 1990.Google Scholar
Coyle, W.T., and Dyck, J.. “It Will Benefit American Agriculture.Choices 4(1989):2731.Google Scholar
Davis, George C, Kruse, N. C, “Consistent Estimation of Armington Demand Models.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(1993):719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, B.G., and Lau, L.J.. “Elasticities of Substitution and Export Demands in a World Trade Model.European Economic Review 4(1973):347–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, W.J., and Driel Van, J.Differential Consumer Demand Systems,European Economic Review 21 (1985):375390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, K.Why is Demand Homogeneity so Often Rejected?Economics Letters 1 (1978): 187191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Objections About U.S. Trade.The Wall Street Journal, 16 March, 1992, p. 11 A.Google Scholar
Seale, J.L. Jr. “A Rotterdam Application to International Trade in Fresh Apples: A Differential Approach.Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 17(1992): 138–49.Google Scholar
Theil, H.Theory and Measurement of Consumer Demand, Volume 2, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1976.Google Scholar
Theil, H., and Clements, K. W.. Applied Demand Analysis: Results from System-Wide Approaches. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1987.Google Scholar
United Nations, Statistical Papers, Commodity Trade Statistics, United Nations, New York, N.Y., various years.Google Scholar
Wahl, T.I., Hayes, D.J., and Williams, G.W.. “Dynamic Adjustment in the Japanese Livestock Industry Under Beef Import Liberalization.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (1991): 118–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, L.A.Separability and the Specification of Foreign Trade Functions.Journal of International Economics 17(1984):239–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Working, H.Statistical Laws of Family Expenditure.Journal of the American Statistical Association 38 (1943):4356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar