Agency rivalry in a shared regulatory space and its impact on social welfare: The case of aquaculture regulation

Abate, Tenaw G.; Nielsen, Rasmus; Nielsen, Max

doi:10.1080/13657305.2017.1334243

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These trends are somewhat surprising given that aquaculture is controversial in the United States. There are several concerns with respect to environmental sustainability (Abate, Nielsen, & Nielsen, ; Abolofia, Asche, & Wilen, ; Fischer, Guttormsen, & Smith, ; Quezada & Dresdner, ), even though there is evidence that regulations, when properly implemented and enforced, can address these issues (Osmundsen, Almklov, & Tveterås, ; Tveterås, ) and that aquaculture is a sustainable food production technology compared to many alternatives (Froehlich, Runge, Gentry, Gaines, & Halpern, ). Several studies find a preference for wild seafood (Davidson, Pan, Hu, & Poerwanto, ; C. A. Roheim, Bush, Asche, Sanchirico, & Uchida, ; C. Roheim, Sudhakaran, & Durham, ), although there is some evidence this can be mitigated with ecolabels for some species and in some markets (Bronnmann & Asche, ; Bronnmann & Hoffman, ).…”

Section: Us Seafood Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. seafood consumption

Shamshak

Anderson

Asche

et al. 2019

J World Aquaculture Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

U.S. seafood consumption has changed dramatically in recent decades and has become increasingly dominated by the consumption of a limited number of species that are primarily imported and predominantly sourced from aquaculture. In getting to this point, the United States has been, and still is, at the forefront of some of the most important trends in global seafood markets. Hence, discussing the factors influencing U.S. seafood consumption patterns is an interesting and informative endeavor and will most likely also have strong predictive power for the continued development of seafood markets in the United States. In this article, we will discuss the transitions in the U.S. seafood market, primarily focusing on the period from 1990 to the present, highlighting the main factors that facilitated this development. This article provides an overview of U.S. landings, aquaculture production, exports, and imports and also explores contributing trends in global export and import markets. This will be followed by a discussion of U.S. per capita consumption patterns and an examination of the consolidation of species consumed over time. Finally, implications for future trends in seafood consumption and production are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Us Seafood Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. seafood consumption

Shamshak

Anderson

Asche

et al. 2019

J World Aquaculture Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Osmundsen et al, (2017) called for a more adaptive regulatory system that would avoid restricting new productivity-enhancing technologies on aquaculture farms. Abate, Nielsen and Nielsen (2018) discussed the effects of inter-agency rivalry, ideological perspectives of regulatory personnel, and the subsequent effects on the regulatory environment for industries such as aquaculture.…”

Section: Inefficiency Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of regulations on technical efficiency of U.S. baitfish and sportfish producers

Senten

Dey

Engle³

2018

Aquaculture Economics & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stringency of the regulatory environment has been shown to negatively affect the growth of aquaculture. A technical efficiency analysis of baitfish/sportfish production in the United States was performed using a stochastic production frontier model and a jointly estimated maximum-likelihood procedure (Frontier 4.1). Determinants of inefficiency were assessed for their relationship to farm efficiency. Mean technical efficiency for U.S. baitfish and sportfish producers was found to be 77%. Several regulatory variables were found to be significant in explaining the variation in levels of efficiency, including the number of annual renewals of permits and licenses and the amount of manpower required to comply with regulations. Results support the hypothesis that the current regulatory environment in the United States has reduced efficiency and economic competitiveness of baitfish and sportfish producers.

show abstract

“…Osmundsen, Almklov, and Tveterås () examined why aquaculture fits the criteria of being a “wicked” problem in the sense that the often‐prescriptive nature of regulatory implementation and the rigidity of the regulatory system do not provide for flexibility to adjust to the dynamic nature and rapid pace of technological advances of aquaculture. Abate, Nielsen, and Nielsen () extended this work by developing a conceptual framework of the influence of rivalry among regulatory agencies and the effects of individual ideologies on development and enforcement of specific regulatory requirements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory costs on U.S. salmonid farms

Engle

Senten

Fornshell

2019

J World Aquaculture Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic effects of the implementation of regulations on aquaculture farms in the United States, while of concern, are not well understood. A national survey was conducted of salmonid (trout and salmon) farms in 17 states of the United States to measure on‐farm regulatory costs and to identify which regulations were the most costly to this industry segment. The response rate was 63%, with a coverage rate of 94.5% of the U.S. production of salmonids. The regulatory system resulted in increased national on‐farm costs of $16.1 million/year, lost markets with a sales value of $7.1 million/year, lost production of $5.3 million/year, and thwarted expansion attempts estimated at $40.1 million/year. Mean farm regulatory costs were $150,506/farm annually, or $2.71/kg; lost markets with annual sales values of $66,274/farm; annual lost production of $49,064/farm; and an annual value of thwarted expansion attempts estimated at $375,459/farm. Smaller‐scale farms were affected to a disproportionately greater negative extent than larger‐scale farms. Per‐farm regulatory costs were, on average, greater for foodfish producers than for producers selling to recreational markets, but per‐kg regulatory costs were greater for those selling to recreational compared to foodfish markets. Regulatory costs constituted 12% of total production and marketing costs on U.S. salmonid farms. The greatest regulatory costs were found to be effluent discharge regulations. The majority of regulatory costs were fixed costs, but regulatory barriers to expansion precluded compensatory adjustments to the business in spite of growing demand for salmonid products. Results of this study show that the on‐farm regulatory cost burden is substantial and has negatively affected the U.S. salmonid industry's ability to respond to strong demand for U.S. farm‐raised salmonid products. Results also suggest that the regulatory system has contributed to the decline in the number of U.S. salmonid farms. While regulations will necessarily have some degree of cost to farms, the magnitude of the on‐farm regulatory cost burden on U.S. salmonid farms calls for concerted efforts to identify and implement innovative regulatory monitoring and compliance frameworks that reduce the on‐farm regulatory cost burden.

show abstract

Agency rivalry in a shared regulatory space and its impact on social welfare: The case of aquaculture regulation

Cited by 34 publications

References 30 publications

U.S. seafood consumption

U.S. seafood consumption

Effects of regulations on technical efficiency of U.S. baitfish and sportfish producers

Regulatory costs on U.S. salmonid farms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About