US phytosanitary restrictions: the forgotten non-tariff barrier

IF 1 Q2 LAW
Marie-Agnès Jouanjean, Jean-Christophe Maur, Ben Shepherd
{"title":"US phytosanitary restrictions: the forgotten non-tariff barrier","authors":"Marie-Agnès Jouanjean, Jean-Christophe Maur, Ben Shepherd","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-10-2015-0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThis paper aims to provide new evidence that the US phytosanitary regime is associated with a restrictive market access environment for fruit and vegetable products. One chief reason seems to be that the US regime uses a positive list approach, under which only authorized countries can export. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nThe methodology of the paper is primarily qualitative. This paper reviews the US sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) system and its scope for use to protect markets, in addition to protecting life and health. The approach is institutional and political economic. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nFor most products, only a portion of global production is authorized for export to the USA. Even among authorized countries, only a small proportion is actually exported. As a result, the number of countries exporting fresh fruit and vegetables to the USA is far lower than those exporting to countries like the EU and Canada, but it is on a par with markets known to be restrictive in this area, such as Australia and Japan. Using a data set of fruit and vegetable market access and political contributions, this paper also provides evidence showing that domestic political economy considerations may influence the decision to grant market access to foreign producers. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nThe US SPS system has not previously been analyzed in this way, and the distinction between negative and positive list approaches is highlighted in terms of its implications for third-party exporters. Similarly, the analysis of political contributions is novel and suggestive of an important dynamic at work in the determination of the US policy.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":"15 1","pages":"2-27"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-10-2015-0027","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-10-2015-0027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to provide new evidence that the US phytosanitary regime is associated with a restrictive market access environment for fruit and vegetable products. One chief reason seems to be that the US regime uses a positive list approach, under which only authorized countries can export. Design/methodology/approach The methodology of the paper is primarily qualitative. This paper reviews the US sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) system and its scope for use to protect markets, in addition to protecting life and health. The approach is institutional and political economic. Findings For most products, only a portion of global production is authorized for export to the USA. Even among authorized countries, only a small proportion is actually exported. As a result, the number of countries exporting fresh fruit and vegetables to the USA is far lower than those exporting to countries like the EU and Canada, but it is on a par with markets known to be restrictive in this area, such as Australia and Japan. Using a data set of fruit and vegetable market access and political contributions, this paper also provides evidence showing that domestic political economy considerations may influence the decision to grant market access to foreign producers. Originality/value The US SPS system has not previously been analyzed in this way, and the distinction between negative and positive list approaches is highlighted in terms of its implications for third-party exporters. Similarly, the analysis of political contributions is novel and suggestive of an important dynamic at work in the determination of the US policy.
美国植物检疫限制:被遗忘的非关税壁垒
本文旨在提供新的证据,证明美国植物检疫制度与水果和蔬菜产品的限制性市场准入环境有关。一个主要原因似乎是,美国政府采用正面清单制度,即只有获得授权的国家才能出口。这篇论文的方法主要是定性的。本文综述了美国卫生和植物检疫措施(SPS)制度及其在保护生命和健康之外保护市场的应用范围。这是一种制度上和政治上的经济方法。对于大多数产品,只有全球生产的一部分被授权出口到美国。即使在授权国家中,实际出口的也只有一小部分。因此,向美国出口新鲜水果和蔬菜的国家数量远低于向欧盟和加拿大等国家出口新鲜水果和蔬菜的国家数量,但与澳大利亚和日本等在这一领域受到限制的市场数量相当。利用水果和蔬菜市场准入和政治贡献的数据集,本文还提供了证据,表明国内政治经济考虑可能影响向外国生产商提供市场准入的决定。原创性/价值美国SPS制度以前从未以这种方式进行分析,负面清单和正面清单方法之间的区别在其对第三方出口商的影响方面得到强调。同样,对政治献金的分析也很新颖,表明在美国政策的确定过程中,有一种重要的动态在起作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Trade Law and Policy is a peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal with a focus upon the nexus of international economic policy and international economic law. It is receptive, but not limited, to the methods of economics, law, and the social sciences. As scholars tend to read individual articles of particular interest to them, rather than an entire issue, authors are not required to write with full accessibility to readers from all disciplines within the purview of the Journal. However, interdisciplinary communication should be fostered where possible. Thus economists can utilize quantitative methods (including econometrics and statistics), while legal scholars and political scientists can invoke specialized techniques and theories. Appendices are encouraged for more technical material. Submissions should contribute to understanding international economic policy and the institutional/legal architecture in which it is implemented. Submissions can be conceptual (theoretical) and/or empirical and/or doctrinal in content. Topics of interest to the Journal are expected to evolve over time but include: -All aspects of international trade law and policy -All aspects of international investment law and policy -All aspects of international development law and policy -All aspects of international financial law and policy -Relationship between economic policy and law and other societal concerns, including the human rights, environment, health, development, and national security
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信