Везде
Assessing the impact of food embargoes and economic sanctions on the commodity markets (the example of meat markets)
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Assessing the impact of food embargoes and economic sanctions on the commodity markets (the example of meat markets)
Annotation
PII
S042473880003319-9-1
DOI
10.31857/S042473880003319-9
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
K. Borodin 
ORCID: 0000-0001-6100-8848
Affiliation: All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Problems and Informatics after A.A. Nikonov, The Federal Research Center for Agrarian Economics and Social Development of Rural Territories — VNIIESH
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Edition
Volume 54 Number 4
Pages
41-59
Abstract

The author developed a method allowing to quantify the consequences of the embargo and sanctions on the commodity markets, the basis of which was a partial equilibrium model. Other methodological components — geometrical interpretation of winning (loosing) producers and consumers, as well as the regression equations, allowing to determine the price of producers in the forecast period. The method has been tested on the meat markets (beef, pork, poultry). Estimates were made of changes in foreign trade, prices of producers and consumers, the dynamics of production, loss of budget, the losses of producers and consumers. The results showed that the markets with a high dependence on imports under the influence of the embargo and sanctions in the welfare of losing more than the markets with less dependence. The strongest pressure in these conditions domestic producers are experiencing in the beef market. Pork producers benefited from the rise in prices, but consumers suffered, as well as the budget from a sharp reduction in revenues in the form of import duties. Poultry market showed good stability and welfare under the embargo and sanctions due to the high competition, mainly between the large enterprises. The difference between the proposed method and those known earlier is that studies are usually limited to assessments of changes in foreign trade, while in this paper the author made a complex analysis. In addition, relevant estimates were obtained for producer and consumer prices, production dynamics, budget losses by source, winnings (losses) for producers and consumers.

Keywords
embargo, food imports, sanctions, consequences, meat markets
Received
14.01.2019
Date of publication
15.01.2019
Number of purchasers
15
Views
3621
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite   Download pdf
1

References

1. Antonova M., Zeller M. (2007). A Time Series Analysis of the Beef Supply Response in Russia: Implications for Agricultural Sector Development Policies. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.135.7259 (accessed: January 2017, in Russian).

2. Borodin K.?G., Prokop’ev M.G., Strokov A.?S. (2013). Assessing the Prospects for the Development of the Poultry Market in Russia in the Context of the Country’s Accession to the World Trade Organization. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 2, 68–75 (in Russian).

3. Carone G. (1996). Modeling the U.S. Demand for Imports Through Cointegration and Error Correction. Journal of Policy Modeling, 18 (1), 1–48.

4. Caruso R. (2003). The Impact of International Economic Sanctions on Trade. An Empirical Analysis. Milan: Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano. Available at: http://econwpa.repec.org/eps/it/papers/0306/0306001.pdf (accessed: January 2017).

5. Chung C., Zhang T., Peel D.S. (2009). Effects of Country of Origin Labeling in the U.S. Meat Industry with Imperfectly Competitive Processors. Agricultural and Resource Economic Review. December. Available at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/59255/2/ARER%2038-3%20406-417%20Chung.pdf (accessed: January 2017).

6. Elsner K. (1999). Analyzing Russian Food Expenditure Using Micro-Data. IAMO discussion paper No. 23. Available at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/14909 (accessed: January 2017).

7. Hufbauer G., Oegg B. (2003). The Impact of Economic Sanctions on US Trade: Andrew Rose’s Gravity Model International Economics Policy Briefs. Number PB03-4. April. Available at: http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb03-4.pdf (accessed: January 2017).

8. Hupkova D., Bielik P. (2009). Estimating Demand Elasticities of Meat Demand in Slovakia. Available at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/58030/2/Hupkova.pdf (accessed: January 2017).

9. Kutlina-Dimitrova Z. (2015). The Economic Impact of the Russian Import Ban: A CGE Analysis. European Commission. Trade. Chief Economist Note. Issue 3. December. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/december/tradoc_154025.pdf (accessed: January 2017).

10. Ovcharova L.N., Biryukova S.S., Ter-Akopov S.A., Vardanyan E.G. (2014). What Has Changed in the Incomes, Expenditures and Consumption of the Russian Population? Moscow: HSE (in Russian).

11. Rose A.K. (2002). Do We Really Know that the WTO Increases Trade? NBER Working Paper No. 9273. Cambridge: NBER (October).

12. Rose A.K., Reuven G. (2001). Does a Currency Union affect Trade? The Time Series Evidence. NBER Working Paper No. 8396. Cambridge: NBER (July).

13. Siptits S.O., Romanenko I.A., Strokov S.N., Evdokimova N.E., Abramov A.A. (2009). Long-Term Forecasts of the Development of Agro-Food Markets in Russia. Moscow: VIAPI: ERD (in Russian).

14. Song W. (2006). Import Demand Elasticities for Agricultural Products in Korea. Available at: http://www.apeaweb.org/confer/sea06/papers/song.pdf (accessed: January 2017).

15. Wang D., Parton K.A., Deblitz C. (2008). Impact of Potential Dairy-Beef Production on China’s Beef Supply, Demand and International Trade. Australasian Agribusiness Review, 16, 18. Available at: http://www.agrifood.info/review/2008/Wang_Parton_Deblitz.pdf (accessed: January 2017).

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate