1 / 29

“Protectionism, Trade, and Measures of Damage from Exotic Species Introductions”

“Protectionism, Trade, and Measures of Damage from Exotic Species Introductions”. Costello & McAusland AJAE 2003. Jenkins (1996). “broad tools such as bans or restrictions on imports may be necessary to protect biodiversity”. Invasive Species - Rules of Thumb*.

elpida
Download Presentation

“Protectionism, Trade, and Measures of Damage from Exotic Species Introductions”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. “Protectionism, Trade, and Measures of Damage from Exotic Species Introductions” Costello & McAuslandAJAE 2003

  2. Jenkins (1996) • “broad tools such as bans or restrictions on imports may be necessary to protect biodiversity”

  3. Invasive Species - Rules of Thumb* • In estimates of damages from invasives, most are attributed to agriculture • OTA (1993): 90-93% of estimated $4.7-$6.5 million annual cost from invasives • Pimental et al (2000): >50% of estimated >$100 billion annual cost from invasives *Some of these are ignored in this paper; Costello, Springborn, McAusland and Solow (2007) incorporates these mathematically and empirically.

  4. Invasive Species - Rules of Thumb continued. • Disturbed land is more susceptible to invasion (e.g. agricultural use versus primeval forest) • Trade in goods and services provides platform for unintentional introductions of non-native species (esp. agricultural imports, shipping and packing materials, ballast water, tourism) • *Successful introductions are facilitated by bio-geographic similarities between host and source region

  5. Invasive Species - Rules of Thumb continued. • Likelihood that an “arrival” will become established is increasing in the number of times the species is “exposed” to host region • “tens rule”: 10% of introduced species become casual , 10% of these become established (10% of these become a pest) • *A Source’s potential pool of exotics is finite---sampling without replacement • *Newly arrived exotics aren’t usually discovered for quite some time (chance, damages high, systematic species survey)

  6. Notation • λ: average time between arrivals • q: probability an arrival successfully invades Home • k: type of damage • dik: r.v. measuring type-k instantaneous damage imposed by ith successful invader • A: agricultural output • Y: manufacturing output • C: Home demand for agricultural goods • M: net import volume • Mj: net imports of product j • r: discount rate • D: discounted damages • P: price of agricultural goods • τ: ad valorem tariff rate

  7. Statistical model

  8. Successful Arrivals • “arrivals” distributed exponentially (with pdf = λe-λx where • rate variable λ(M) is increasing in M • 1/λ equals expected time between arrivals • q = (exogenous) fraction of arrivals that succeed (i.e. become invasive) • Assume arrivals are independent of one another. Then over one unit of time we’d expect qλ successful arrivals to occur. • More formally, define J(T) = Number of successful introductions by time T • Because arrivals are independently, identically exponentially distributed then J(T) is a poison process with rate μ(M)≡ qλ(M).

  9. Damages • There are k=1,...,K different types of damages • E.g. damages to crops (weeds), ecosystems (extinctions), human health (disease) • dik= instantaneous damages of type k from successful introduction i • dik is a random variable with CDF Φk(x;A)

  10. Aggregate damage • Dik(T)=present value of type k damage occurring through time T by ith successful introduction = = dik x (discount factor dependent on when invader i arrived) • Dik(T) will have conditional density function Ftik(δ;A) (= probability that a successful arrival at time ti has type-k damage of less than δ) • Dk(T)=present value of type k damage from all successful introductions to time T

  11. Dk(T) Dk(T) is a Compound Poisson random variable with Poisson Parameter Tμ • A Compound Poisson random variable is the sum of a "Poisson-distributed number" of independent identically-distributed random variables. • In our model the number of invading species is a Poisson-distributed number, however the damages are not i.i.d. because the discount terms depend on arrival times, and thus so does the distribution. However Ross (1996) offers the following: • Calculate the distribution of Dkconditioning on J. • Ross (1996) theorem 2.3.1 tells you that, even though the arrival times of the species are unknown, they’ll have the same distribution as the “order statistics” corresponding to J independent random variables uniformly distributed over the interval (0,T) with CDFs . • Allowing for J to instead be a Poisson random variable, then we know our distribution Dk(T) has the same distribution as does a Poisson compound distribution with Poisson parameter Tμ(M)---just like J---and compound distributions just like those order statistics.

  12. Why is the distribution of Dk(T) important? • Calculate E[Dk(T)] and examine how it changes with M and A • The expected value of a compound random variable Y=ΣiNXi is E(Y)=E(N)E(X). • Since J has expected value Tμ and the expected value of the order statistics (i.e. X) is /T Then E[Dk(T)]=

  13. The model so far: we’ve got expected damages as a product of functions of the volume of imports M and the scale of agricultural output A.

  14. The obvious trade stuff

  15. two sectors: • agriculture A • domestic price = P • ROW price = P* • manufactures Y (numeraire) • misc assumptions: • balanced trade • CRS production technologies • perfect competition • Home is Small

  16. M≡ max{MA,MY} • . = elasticity of import demand with respect to domestic agriculture price • .

  17. Proposition 1 • Starting from an initial tariff of zero, increasing the tariff rate decreases the rate of successful exotic species introductions to Home; that is

  18. Proof • dμ(M)/dτ = qλ’(M)dM/dτ • What’s the sign of dM/dτ?

  19. If are an Ag Importer • If MA>0 then • P=P*(1+τ) • dP/dτ=P*>0 • . • Hence dMA/dτ<0 both are positive

  20. If are an Ag Exporter • If MY>0 then • P=P*/[1+τ] • dP/dτ<0 • . • Hence dMY/dτ<0

  21. Implication of Proposition 1: • Tariffs shrink platform for arrivals

  22. 1 P What’s impact of a tariff on Expected type-k damage? sign depends on importer status (+) >0 (+) positive provided expected damages are positive This term missing in the paper

  23. What’s the sign of εFk? • Recall Fk gives the CDF of type k damage from invasive i • If i is likely to cause more damage when agricultural activity is high then expect εFk>0 • “augmented damage” • e.g. crop weeds • If i is likely to cause same damage ... then εFk=0 • “neutral damage” • e.g. aquatic invasions (zebra mussel) • If i is likely to cause less damage ... then εFk<0 • “diminished damage” • e.g. ???

  24. Proposition 2 • For a small open economy that initially imports agricultural goods, an increase in the tariff rate τ • unambiguously reduces expected Neutral and Diminished type damages and • raises expected Augmented type damages k if and only if

  25. if instead the country exports agricultural goods, then an increase in its tariff rate • unambiguously reduces expected Augmented and Neutral type damages and • raises expected Diminished type damages k if and only if

  26. Implication of Proposition 2 • If are an Ag. importer, raising the tariff • shrinks the platform for arrivals • expands agricultural activity • increasing volume of crops susceptible to crop damage • increasing amount of land disturbed • expanding platform for species incursions into habitat for indigenous species • diminished and neutral type damages unambiguously decline, augmented type damages may rise • If are an Ag. exporter, raising the tariff • shrinks platform for arrivals • drives mobile factors out of agricultural production, causing agriculture to shrink • only diminished type damages have potential to increase.

  27. Example - Sugar • US support for sugar generate US price = 2 x ROW price • is similar to a 100% tariff except no beneficial tariff rent • Since 1934 harvested acreage for all crops in US fell by .1%/annum • over same period, land under sugarcane production grew at average annual rate of 1.6%

  28. currently infests 20% of texas sugarcane believed to have come in on imported goods detected on sugarcane, lemon grass, sorghum and broomcorn imports Texas damages estimated at $10 -$20 million (/yr?) while harvest valued only at $64 million Mexican rice borer Source: Texas A&M U http://insects.tamu.edu/images/insects/color/sorghum/sor069.jpg

  29. So if we see estimates of crop damage fall, are overall damages falling? • model suggests tariff liberalization (regarding agricultural imports) may reduce estimates of crop damages from invasives • however “neutral” type damages (species extinctions) may simultaneously rise • Ecological damages are non-trivial! • Invasives implicated in decline of 400 of US’s listed endangered species (as of 2000) • Point: estimates of crop damage are a poor proxy for ecological damage from invasives • Jenkins may be right!

More Related