Global agricultural trade, which increased at the end of 2020, has been described as “resilient” to the impacts of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic; however, the size and channels of its quantitative impacts are not clear. Using a reduced-form, gravity-based econometric model for monthly trade, we estimate the effects of COVID-19 incidence rates, policy restrictions imposed by governments to curb the outbreak, and the de facto reduction in human mobility/lockdown effect on global agricultural trade through the end of 2020. We find that while agricultural trade remained quite stable through the pandemic, the sector as a whole did not go unscathed. First, we estimate that COVID-19 reduced agricultural trade by the approximate range of 5 to 10 percent at the aggregate sector level; a quantified impact two to three times smaller in magnitude than our estimated impact on trade occurring in the non-agricultural sector. Second, we find sharp differences across individual commodities. In particular, we find that non-food items (hides and skins, ethanol, cotton, and other commodities), meat products including seafood, and higher value agri-food products were most severely impacted by the pandemic; however, the COVID-19 trade effect for the majority of food and bulk agricultural commodity sectors were found to be insignificant, or in a few cases, positive. Finally, we also examine the effects across low vs high income countries, the changing dynamics of the pandemic’s effect on trade flows, and the effects along the extensive product margins of trade.
Mexico and Canada successfully challenged the U.S. mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork as inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, which ultimately led to arbitration over the level of trade lost due to the COOL measure. During this phase of the dispute, Mexico, Canada, and the United States provided the Arbitration Panel with estimates of the trade losses caused by COOL that were produced using different quantitative methods. The U.S. estimates were based on an equilibrium displacement model (EDM). This article presents a version of the EDM used by the U.S. Government to calculate trade losses due to COOL. The Panel developed its own analysis combining econometric analysis and an EDM that used only supply‐side information to calculate changes in Canadian and Mexican livestock trade. The U.S. EDM includes both the supply and demand sides of the market. We use the U.S. EDM and the Panel's assumptions to re‐estimate the value of lost trade due to COOL. The inclusion of demand‐side effects and domestic COOL costs produces lower estimated trade damages than those produced using the Panel's analysis, validating the EDM as a useful quantitative tool for this type of trade policy analysis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.