Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:16:36.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the Effects of U.S. Meat Trade on Consumers' Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Kuo S. Huang
Kuo S. Huang*
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A set of ordinary and inverse demand systems for U.S. quarterly meat consumption is estimated for use to measure the effects of U.S. meat trade on consumers' welfare. The approach is useful to incorporate all direct- and cross-commodity effects into price forecasting and the Hicksian compensating variation measurement.

Keywords

compensating variationordinary and inverse demand systems
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , July 1993 , pp. 217 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, R.W. “Some Theory of Inverse Demand for Applied Demand Analysis.” Eur. Econ. Rev. 14(1980):281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A.J. “The Distance Function in Consumer Behaviour with Application to Index Numbers and Optimal Taxation.” Rev. Econ. Stud. 46(1979):391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A.J., and Muellbauer, J.. Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, J.A. “Exact Consumer's Surplus and Deadweight Loss.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 71(1981):662–676.Google Scholar
Huang, K.S.U.S. Demand for Food: A Complete System of Price and Income Effects. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. Tech. Bull. No. 1714, 1985.Google Scholar
Huang, K.S. “An Inverse Demand System for Composite U.S. Foods.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 70(1988):902–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, K.S.U.S. Demand for Food: A Complete System of Quantity Effects on Prices. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. Tech. Bull. No.1795, 1991.Google Scholar
Huang, K.S., and Hahn, W.F.. “Foreign Trade Implication for U.S. Demand for Beef.” USDA S-216 Regional Committee's Symposium on Policy Implications for U.S. Agriculture of Changes in Demand for Food, Washington D.C, 1991.Google Scholar
Just, R.E., Hueth, D.L., and Schmitz, A.. Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982.Google Scholar
Putnam, J.J., and Allshouse, J.E.. Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1968-89. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. Stat. Bull. No.825, 1991.Google Scholar
Shonkwiler, J.S. “Consumer's Surplus Revisited.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 73(1991):410–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolley, G.S., Thomas, V. and Wong, C.H.. Agricultural Price Policies and the Developing Countries. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Vertrees, J. Economic Implications of the Uruguay Round for U.S. Agriculture. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Analysis Staff, Office of Economics, 1991.Google Scholar
Willig, R.D. “Consumer's Surplus Without Apology.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 66(1976):589–597.Google Scholar