Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:29:41.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supplier Substitutability and the Impacts of the 1980 U.S. Grain Embargo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Philip C. Abbott ,
Philip L. Paarlberg  and
Paul M. Patterson
Philip C. Abbott
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Philip L. Paarlberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Paul M. Patterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 1980 U.S. suspension of grain sales to the Soviet Union illustrates the importance of the choice of conceptual framework for empirical analysis of international trade problems. A spatial equilibrium model of wheat and coarse grains trade assumes perfect substitution among exporting nations' commoditites by importers and, thus, precludes the embargo from having a large impact. The imperfect substitutability assumption of an Armington model results in larger consequences from the embargo. For small shocks, the Armington model better captures the rigidities characteristic of international grain markets. The spatial model provides insights on adjustments to large shocks, but rigidities persist in actual markets.

Keywords

grain embargospatial equilibriumdifferentiated productsArmington modelsSoviet Union
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , December 1988 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1988

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

Armington, P.S. “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production.” IMF Staff Papers, 16(1969):159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredahl, M.E., Meyers, W.H., and Collins, K.J.. “The Elasticity of Foreign Demand for U.S. Agriculture Products: The Importance of the Price Transmission Elasticity.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 61(1979):58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueroa, E. “The Impacts of Movements in U.S. Exchange.Rates on Commodity Trade Pat terns and Composition.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of California-Davis. December 1986.Google Scholar
Gardiner, W.H., and Dixit, P.M.. “Price Elasticity of Export Demand: Concepts and Estimates.” ERS Staff Report No. AGES860408, Economic Research Service U. Department of Agriculture. May 1986.Google Scholar
Grennes, T., Johnson, P.R., and Thursby, M.. The Economics of World Grain Trade. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977.Google Scholar
Halow, J. “North American Export Grain Association—Policy Statement.” Trade Policy Perspectives: Setting the Stage for 1985 Agricultural Legislation. Senate Print 98-263, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1984. pp. 287–294.Google Scholar
Harrer, B., and Binkley, J.. “International Transportation Rates for U.S. Exports.” Station Bulletin No. 264, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University. December 1979.Google Scholar
Holland, F.D., and Sharpies, J.A.. “World Wheat Trade: Implications for U.S. Exports.” Staff Paper No. 84-20, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University. November 1984.Google Scholar
Mackie, A.B., Hiemstra, S.W., and Rosen, S.L.. World Food Grain Trade, 1962-83: Wheat, Rice, and Wheat Flour. Statistical Bulletin No. 734. Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. October 1985.Google Scholar
McKinnon, J.G. “An Algorithm for the Generalized Transportation Problem.” Regional Sci. and Urban Econ., 5(1975):445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paarlberg, P.L., Webb, A.J., Dunmore, J.L., and Deaton, J.L.. “The U.S. Competitive Position in World Commodity Trade.” Agricultural-Food Policy Review: Commodity Program Perspectives. AER No. 530, Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. July 1985.Google Scholar
Patterson, P. “An Application of the Armington Trade Flow Model in International Wheat and Coarse Grains Markets.” M.S. Thesis, Purdue University. August 1987.Google Scholar
Schmitz, A., and Bawden, D.L.. The World Wheat Economy: An Empirical Analysis. Giannini Foundation Monograph No. 32. March 1973.Google Scholar
Shei, S-Y., and Thompson, R.L.. “The Impact of Trade Restrictions on Price Instability in the World Wheat Market.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 59(1977):628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takayama, T., and Judge, G.G.. Spatial and Temporal Price and Allocation Models. Amsterdam: North Holland. 1971.Google Scholar
Thompson, R.L. A Survey of Recent U.S. Developments in International Agricultural Trade Models. Bibliographies and Literature of Agriculture No. 21, Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. September 1981.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Embargoes, Surplus Disposal, and U.S. Agriculture. AER No. 564. December 1986.Google Scholar