{"title":"Animal disease outbreaks and upstream soybean trade","authors":"Wuit Yi Lwin, K. Aleks Schaefer, Amy D. Hagerman","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Animal disease outbreaks have been extremely disruptive to global livestock industries in recent years. In light of the modern integration of international supply chains, to what extent have these disruptions been experienced by upstream stakeholders? This research investigates the upstream impacts of global animal disease outbreaks in the international soybean market. We employ a two-step procedure to deduce the impacts of animal disease on upstream soybean trade. We first use a standard, econometric gravity model to empirically estimate the relationship between observed trade and livestock production patterns (accounting for each country’s economic masses and trade frictions). We then conduct a counterfactual analysis with our estimated gravity relationships to assess the value of lost soybean trade using a global repository of disease-specific animal mortality data. Our results indicate that between 2005–2020, animal disease outbreaks have cost the international soybean market approximately $5 billion in lost trade. The average exporter loses as much as 2% of its export potential each year. These losses are primarily attributable to cattle disease outbreaks in East Asia and South America. Foot-and-mouth disease alone has cost the soybean trade market approximately $4 billion in lost trade over our sample period.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"127 ","pages":"Article 102685"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224000964/pdfft?md5=da147dd6ba2cc9253762d145580465c6&pid=1-s2.0-S0306919224000964-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224000964","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Animal disease outbreaks have been extremely disruptive to global livestock industries in recent years. In light of the modern integration of international supply chains, to what extent have these disruptions been experienced by upstream stakeholders? This research investigates the upstream impacts of global animal disease outbreaks in the international soybean market. We employ a two-step procedure to deduce the impacts of animal disease on upstream soybean trade. We first use a standard, econometric gravity model to empirically estimate the relationship between observed trade and livestock production patterns (accounting for each country’s economic masses and trade frictions). We then conduct a counterfactual analysis with our estimated gravity relationships to assess the value of lost soybean trade using a global repository of disease-specific animal mortality data. Our results indicate that between 2005–2020, animal disease outbreaks have cost the international soybean market approximately $5 billion in lost trade. The average exporter loses as much as 2% of its export potential each year. These losses are primarily attributable to cattle disease outbreaks in East Asia and South America. Foot-and-mouth disease alone has cost the soybean trade market approximately $4 billion in lost trade over our sample period.
期刊介绍:
Food Policy is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original research and novel evidence on issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies for the food sector in developing, transition, and advanced economies.
Our main focus is on the economic and social aspect of food policy, and we prioritize empirical studies informing international food policy debates. Provided that articles make a clear and explicit contribution to food policy debates of international interest, we consider papers from any of the social sciences. Papers from other disciplines (e.g., law) will be considered only if they provide a key policy contribution, and are written in a style which is accessible to a social science readership.