No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Welfare Analysis of Port User Fees: The Case of Grain and Soybean Exports
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2015
Abstract
User fees have become a popular means of financing public services, including certain transportation facilities. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 includes provisions for user fees to finance part of the costs of operations, maintenance, and new construction of the U.S. port system. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the welfare implications of this legislation. An analytical model is developed and used to estimate the impact of port user fees on grain and oilseed producers, consumers, and the government. The results of the analysis indicate that the user fee has a relatively small effect on producer welfare and that the efficiency gains resulting from the replacement of the government subsidy for port operations, maintenance, and new construction with a user fee are negligible.
- Type
- Submitted Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1988
References
Baumel, CP., Hauser, R.J., and Beuliew, J.. Impact of Waterway User Charges on Corn, Wheat, and Soybean Flows: Study of Inland Technical User Taxes and Charges. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, PB-82-196023, March 1982.Google Scholar
Binkley, J.K., Havlicek, J. Jr, and Shabman, L.A.. The Effects of Inland Navigation User Charges on Barge Transportation of Wheat. Research Division Bulletin 137, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1978.Google Scholar
Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve Bulletin, Washington D.C., various issues.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.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 61(1979):58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casavant, K. and Thayer, R.. Impact of Lower Granite Dam and Waterway User Charges on Pacific Northwest Wheat Movement. Research Bulletin 0887, Washington State University, 1980.Google Scholar
Gardiner, W.H., and Dixit, P.M.. Price Elasticity of Export Demand. Foreign Agricultural Economic Report 228, ERS/USDA, Washington D.C., 1987.Google Scholar
Hammon, A. “The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and Ports.” Marine Policy Reports. Vol. 9, No. 3, Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware, March 1987.Google Scholar
Kreinin, M.E.International Economics: A Policy Approach. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
Silberberg, E. “Duality and the Many Consumer Surpluses.” Amer. Econ. Rev, 62(1972):942–952.Google Scholar
U.S. Army.Corps of Engineers. Chief of Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works, Office of Policy, Washington D.C., personal communication, 1986.Google Scholar
U.S. Army.Corps of Engineers. “Deep-Draft Navigation Cost Recovery Analysis.” U.S. Army.Corps of Engineers Office, Chief of Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works Office of Policy, Washington D.C., 1982.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fats and Oils Outlook and Situation. Economic Research Service, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Feed Outlook and Situation. Economic Research Service, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Wheat Outlook and Situation. Economic Research Service, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Foreign Production, Supply and Distribution of Agricultural Commodities (Tape). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 1984.Google Scholar
Viscencio-Brambila, H. Impact of Port User Charges on the U.S. Grain.Export Marketing System and Producers' Welfare. Unpublished dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, 1985.Google Scholar
Willig, R.D. “Consumer's Surplus Without Apology.” Amer. Econ. Rev., 66(1976):589–597.Google Scholar