Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T04:56:19.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Welfare Effects of an FMD Outbreak in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Philip L. Paarlberg ,
John G. Lee  and
Ann H. Seitzinger
Philip L. Paarlberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, W Lafayette, IN
John G. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, W Lafayette, IN
Ann H. Seitzinger
Affiliation:
Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Veterinary Services, Animal, and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Questions have been raised regarding the economic costs of a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the United States. This analysis examines how welfare changes are measured and argues that they must be decomposed by groups. Producers with animals quarantined and slaughtered because of FMD measure their welfare change using lost sales. Producers not quarantined measure their welfare change using producer surplus. The change in national sales revenue is accurate when the supply elasticity is low. Welfare changes for consumers also must be decomposed because the change in aggregate consumer surplus hides important shifts in welfare among groups of consumers.

Keywords

economic effectsfoot-and-mouth diseaselivestockmeatD60Q13Q17Q18
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , April 2003 , pp. 53 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2003

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

Allen, R., Dodge, C., and Schmitz, A.. “Voluntary Export Restraints as Protection Policy: The U.S. Beef Case.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65,2(May 1983):291–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blisard, N.Food Spending in American Households, 1997-98. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin 972, June 2001.Google Scholar
Bredahl, M.E., Meyers, W.H., and Collins, K.J.. “The Elasticity of Foreign Demand for U.S. Agricultural Products: The Importance of the Price Transmission Elasticity.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61,1(February 1979):58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, D.W. “Mad Cows, Drugged Cows, and Juggled Genes.” Choices (2nd Quarter 2001):6–9.Google Scholar
Capps, O. Jr., Tsai, R., Kirby, R., and Williams, G.. “A Comparison of Demands for Meat Products in the Pacific Rim Regions.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19,1(July 1994):210–24.Google Scholar
Eales, J. “A Symmetric Approach to Canadian Meat Demand Estimation.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21,2(December 1996):368–80.Google Scholar
Ekboir, J.M.Potential Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in California: The Role and Contribution of Animal Health Surveillance and Monitoring Services. Davis, CA: University of California, Agricultural Issues Center, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1999.Google Scholar
Greene, J., and Southard, L.. “U.S. Red Meat and Poultry Markets In a Global Setting.” Agricultural Outlook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, AGO-252, June-July 1998.Google Scholar
Huang, K.S. “Nutrient Elasticities in a Complete Food Demand System.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78,1(February 1996):21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, P.M. “Information and the Life Cycle Consumption of Hazardous Goods.” Economic Inquiry 19,4(1981):529–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leuck, D.The New Agricultural Trade Negotiations: Background and Issues for the U.S. Beef Sector. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, LDP-89-01, December 2001. Internet site: www.ers.usda.gov (Accessed August 27, 2002).Google Scholar
Marsh, J.M. “Estimating Intertemporal Supply Response in the Fed Beef Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76,3(August 1994):444–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCauley, E.H., New, J.C. Jr., Aulaqi, N.A., Sundquist, W.B., and Miller, W.M.. A Study of the Potential Economic Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Staff Paper TB-1597, May 1979.Google Scholar
Orden, D., and Romano, E.. “The Avocado Dispute and Other Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Under NAFTA.” Invited paper presented at the conference on NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working? San Antonio, TX, November 1996.Google Scholar
Paarlberg, P.L., Lee, J.G., and Seitzinger, A.H.. “Potential Revenue Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 220,7(April 2002):988–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smallwood, D.M., and Blaylock, J.R.. “Consumer Demand for Food and Food Safety: Models and Applications.” Economics of Food Safety. Caswell, J.A., ed., pp. 3–27. New York: Elsevier, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, J., Wainio, J., and Roningen, V.. A Database for Trade Liberalization Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS Staff Report AGES89-12, March 1989.Google Scholar
United Kingdom, Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (UK/DEFRA). Internet site: www.defra.gov.uk (Accessed January 15, 2002).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS). Agricultural Outlook. AGO-292. Washington, DC. June-July 2002.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA/FAS). Internet site: www.fas.usda.gov (Accessed August 27, 2002).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Customs Service, Electronic Bulletin Board. Internet site: www.customs.gov (Accessed March 21, 2002).Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Chapter 2. Internet site: www.usitc.gov (Accessed March 21, 2002).Google Scholar