S1072: U.S. Agricultural Trade and Policy in An Uncertain Global Market Environment

(Multistate Research Project)

Status: Active

S1072: U.S. Agricultural Trade and Policy in An Uncertain Global Market Environment

Duration: 10/01/2023 to 09/30/2028

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

U.S. agriculture depends on international markets. The U.S. has long been a proponent of developing opportunities for trade through bilateral, regional, and multilateral economic integration. Recent events, including the Trade War between the U.S. and China, the United States-China Economic and Trade Agreement (Phase One trade deal), the renegotiated United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement on Beef and Beef Products, and the potential for a comprehensive free trade agreement between the U.S. and the United Kingdom (UK), create uncertainty regarding their implications for U.S. agriculture. The U.S. decision to rejoin the Paris Accord produces additional uncertainty on the environmental front that will affect U.S. agricultural trade, both regarding the reaction of countries that are destinations for U.S. agricultural products and the U.S. ability to compete through the elimination or reduction of environmental regulations. The tremendous economic growth in the United States also adds to U.S. purchasing power, likely exacerbating the Chinese trade surplus with the United States further. At the same time, income growth in Asia drives the growing demand for U.S. fiber, food, and full products. Although there is much evidence of a change in the stance of the U.S. concerning international trade, it is essential to note that the global context is also changing. This can be seen with Brexit, as the UK voted to secede from the European Union (EU), which created the need to renegotiate and modify numerous trade agreements involving the UK and the EU. The UK will be forced to develop or renegotiate pacts with the U.S., our competitors, and our customers. In addition, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has created additional uncertainty in international markets that can have widespread implications for U.S. agricultural producers and consumers.

The problem that comes to the fore is that it is often unclear what the implications of these actions will be for agriculture and related interest groups. With U.S. agricultural output growing faster than domestic demand for many products, U.S. farmers and agricultural firms have relied on export markets to sustain prices and revenues. As a result, U.S. agricultural exports have grown steadily over the past quarter century, reaching $177 billion in 2021, up from $66.5 billion in 1996. The product composition of agricultural exports shifted at roughly the same time, reflecting changes in global supply and demand. Most notably, exports of consumer-oriented products, including high-value products (HVP) such as dairy products, meats, fruit, and vegetable, showed remarkable growth driven by increasing population and income worldwide, as well as a growing diversification of diets. U.S. agricultural imports also expanded steadily over the past quarter century, primarily driven by growing domestic demand for an array of consumer-oriented products. Between 1996 and 2021, total agricultural imports more than quadrupled in value, reaching $171 billion in 2021. Consumer-oriented products have dominated U.S. agricultural imports and have grown faster than total agricultural product imports, increasing on average by nearly 7 percent annually since 1996. Increasing demand for year-round food variety has driven imports of horticultural products during the offseason in U.S. production. Horticultural products (including fruits, nuts, vegetables, and beverages) accounted for over half of U.S. agricultural imports in 2021. Sugar and tropical products (such as coffee, cocoa, and spices) accounted for approximately 15 percent of imports.

Given the importance and growth of international agricultural trade for U.S. agriculture and the U.S. economy, there is a need to determine the specific consequences for agricultural trade of these actions mentioned above. These implications include trade creation, destruction, diversion impacts, price, quantity, and welfare implications for various interest groups, including agricultural producers, agribusiness, consumers, and the environment. The principal benefits of this research include information about trade, supply response, import demands and export supplies, land values, price variability, agricultural value added, food safety, the environment, and emerging bio-energy issues. Improved competitiveness of the U.S. in international food and agricultural trade is expected to strengthen the employment base and increase income levels in respective states.

Research conducted within the proposed project addresses USDA Strategic Goals 1 “Ensure America’s Agricultural System is Equitable, Resilient, and Prosperous” and 2 “Foster an Equitable and Competitive Marketplace for All Agricultural Producers.” Previous multistate projects have focused on developing and modifying domestic agricultural legislation through the Farm Bill. While analysis of new domestic farm legislation will still be an essential objective of this project, the shifts in U.S. trade policies could have implications for all groups and sectors associated with U.S. agriculture. With these changing conditions and potential renegotiation or withdrawal from existing trade agreements, the objectives of this research also focus on the emerging issues and opportunities associated with agricultural trade and the global market environment during the next decade.

If this type of analysis does not go forward, stakeholders will have incomplete information concerning the economic impacts of changes in agricultural trade and the global market environment. While various commodity groups may have analysts who investigate their specific commodities and the related policies, the proposed work in this multi-state project will bring together a team of researchers to assess trade and policies across multiple commodities and products. The list of policy and trade issues available for research is long. Researchers can select a relevant subset focusing on the most current, critical issues with multistate collaboration. In so doing, the analysis provides results that transcend state lines. In addition, individual researchers will apply different methods and models to a selected trade or policy issue. The collective results will give a perspective that addresses the multi-dimensional aspects of an issue.

The work proposed here will contribute to understanding agricultural trade and policy. As a group of researchers from multiple institutions, this work’s output will address the various needs of the agricultural community and policymakers. As these constituencies are interested in a diverse group of products and policies both nationally and internationally, the collaboration of this project will address many of these different interests. The analysis will advance the science of economics of trade and policy in agriculture with new empirical techniques and new data. The outcomes of this research are expected to have positive consequences for numerous stakeholders associated with the U.S. food and agricultural sector. This includes agricultural producers, consumers, agribusiness firms, rural communities, policymakers, farm organizations, and related constituencies to have the information necessary for informed decision-making and policy design.

Related, Current and Previous Work

The most recent iteration of this multi-state project was S-1072: U.S. Agricultural Trade and Policy in a Dynamic Global Market Environment. This project was active from 2018 through 2023. Before this, S-1062: The Importance of U.S. Food and Agricultural Trade in a New Global Market Environment was active from 2013-2018. Before S-1062, the project was S-1043: Economic Impacts of International Trade and Domestic Policies on Southern Agriculture. This project was active from 2008 through 2013. Before S-1043, this project was S-1016: Impacts of Trade and Domestic Policies on the Competitiveness and Performance of Southern Agriculture. This project was active from 2003 through 2008. This multi-state group has researched agricultural trade and policies for the past 20 years, as documented in the NMISS system. In addition, many members of this group have been researching agricultural trade and policies for several decades.

To recap the accomplishments of this group, we will begin a decade ago in 2008. From 2008 through 2013, this group was S-1043: Economic Impacts of International Trade and Domestic Policies on Southern Agriculture. S-1043 studied trade and policy issues of importance to Southern agriculture. For example, the group completed research on the impacts of bio-energy alternatives on Southern agriculture. Applied research was also focused on the economic impacts of selected invasive species on critical production regions within the South, including zebra chip and citrus greening. The group also provided economic analysis on immigration reform alternatives to state and national policy-makers. Using applied economics, research also focused on agricultural market potential in Cuba, with results presented to industry and policy-makers. Finally, the group conducted various trade policy simulations to determine the impacts of alternative international trade agreements for commodities, including sugar, cotton, peanuts, beef, pork, wheat, and soybeans.

At the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, S-1043 presented logistics, trade, and price volatility papers. The group wrote public policy information leaflets to be disseminated to national policy-makers before finalizing the 2008 Farm Bill. In the Fall of 2012, S-1043 members contributed to developing the Emerging Issues in Global Animal Product Trade conference co-sponsored by the Farm Foundation, the Economic Research Service, NFP, and Texas Tech University’s Combest Endowed Chair for Agricultural Competitiveness. In risk management and monetary and fiscal policies, the group applied econometrics and simulations to determine the short and long-run effects of exchange rate uncertainty on agricultural input prices. The group also studied exchange rate effects on trade and international marketing.

Furthermore, the group also made significant efforts in research that focused on structural changes in global market development. Specifically, the group conducted studies on the structural changes in Chinese oil seeds and grains markets that are significant to U.S. exports. S-1043 also provided economic analyses on the effects of phytosanitary protocols on U.S. trade with Asia, U.S. food safety standards and export competitiveness in Asia-Pacific Countries, country-of-origin labeling (COOL), and food safety and quality issues. S-1043 members have also engaged in research efforts that provide economic analysis of major WTO rulings. In addition, the group has worked on modeling and simulating the impact of WTO-related provisions on the Cotton/Textile/Apparel complex, undervalued currencies, agricultural labor shortages, and invasive species.

From 2013 through 2018, S-1062: The Importance of U.S. Food and Agricultural Trade in a New Global Market Environment has examined U.S. agricultural trade and policy issues. For example, researchers have examined aspects of European Union policies and the potential impact of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which would create freer trade between the European Union and the United States (US). Members of the project have investigated the implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between Japan, Mexico, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Peru, the US, New Zealand, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and Vietnam. Several researchers have investigated the potential implications of TPP for US agriculture. However, the US recently withdrew from this proposed agreement, and the remaining eleven countries will likely sign the agreement without the US in March. Research regarding the TPP has examined how the US withdrawal from TPP impacts the US beef industry. Australia has preferential access to the Japanese beef market due to the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, but the US does not have an FTA with Japan. Research has also examined the possible impact of TPP on the rice market. S-1062 members have also examined the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Researchers have examined the impact of NAFTA on US and Mexican sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) markets since NAFTA became fully implemented for sugar in 2008.

S-1062 members have also developed economic models to generate projections of future agricultural commodities and biofuel markets domestically and internationally. Researchers studying these models collaborate with colleagues domestically and internationally to develop agricultural commodity and biofuel models that indicate how external factors, like petroleum prices and policies, will affect U.S. agriculture in the future. Researchers have also examined the competitiveness of U.S. cotton exports, corn, sorghum, and other commodities. For example, research has examined the impact of China’s participation in the global cotton market and its role as a critical export market for US sorghum, as well as the drivers of China’s new agricultural policies and trade protection after joining the WTO with projection into the following decades, identifying the strongest opportunities for exports of grain and animal products. The impact of country of origin labeling (COOL) on food products has been actively researched. This group has used cost-benefit analysis to analyze US tobacco, sugar, and sugar substitute policies. Books have been written about agriculture in Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. For example, the role of Russia in the world wheat market has been examined.

Researchers have also examined the Florida citrus sector and the impact of citrus greening. Applied economic analysis has examined food safety (e.g., Food Safety Modernization Act) and climate change policy. Research has studied many aspects of bioenergy (ethanol and biomass). Additionally, research has examined the US exports of the ethanol co-product, distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGs). This group also organized a conference in the Netherlands on TTIP, TPP, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This group has completed several studies on GMOs. Studies range from the impact of GMOs on food security to consumer preference studies regarding GMO labeling of foods. S-1062 members have published numerous books on Food Security and researched various aspects of water scarcity. US agricultural trade with Cuba has also been researched among group members. Research on precision technology and technological advancements made in Argentina and Brazil has been conducted along with various work on agriculture in African nations.

From 2018 through the present, S-1072: U.S. Agricultural Trade and Policy in a Dynamic Global Market Environment, examined issues related to U.S. and foreign country agricultural policies, U.S. food and agricultural trade, and the impact of international trade agreements. It should be noted that for the S-1072 iteration of this project, while Covid-19 interrupted many of the group’s normal activities, such as in-person conferences and meetings, this group still generated several publications. Prior to Covid-19 canceling conferences, the group was able to organize a panel session at the 2018 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual meeting and the 2019 American Economics Association Annual meeting about the China-U.S. trade war. 

S-1072 members also organized a special issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization on food security. Some S-1072 members belong to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri and have been responsible for developing different commodity baseline models used in policy and trade analysis. S-1072 member Merchant along with Wang were the co-editors of the 2018, “U.S.–China Trade Dispute and Potential Impacts on Agriculture," Choices Theme which was awarded the 2019 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Quality of Communication Award.

S-1072 generated publications examined issues ranging from Covid-19 disruptions to topics relevant to the trade war between the U.S. and China and global maritime disruptions. Examples include Muhammad et al. (2021), who examined how Covid-19 affected cotton import demand in China, Yenerall et al. (2022), who examined how Covid-19 affected in-person dining, and Muhammad et al. (2021), who questioned if China could meet its Phase One trade ware obligations with respect to the U.S.-China trade war. Chinese trade disputes were also examined through Sheldon (2022) and Chow and Sheldon (2023). In addition, Muhammad and Jones (2021) examined how U.S. forest products in China were affected by the U.S.-China trade war. Carter et al. (2022) and Steinbach (2022) studied the implications of maritime shipping disruptions on U.S. agricultural trade.

Previous Literature

Much research has been completed and is currently underway in international agricultural trade and policy. This section will review the literature on our project authored by many of our multi-state members. To begin, a major research area regards the effect of trade agreements and trade liberalization on agricultural markets of the impacted countries Publications on this topic include, among others: Grant and Lambert (2008); Telleria et al. (2008); Tokarick (2008); Brockmeier and Pelikan (2008); Hendricks and Nalley (2008); Reimer and Li (2010); Ghazalian and Cardwell (2010); Waugh (2010); Jean et al. (2010); Sun and Reed (2010); Serrano and Pinilla (2010); Meyers et al. (2010); Thompson et al. (2010); Femenia and Gohin (2011, 2009); Tamini et al. (2012, 2010); Mulik and Koo (2011); Verma et al. (2011); Grant and Boys (2012); Arkolakis et al. (2012); Anderson et al. (2015); Ngeleza and Muhammad (2015); Haong and Meyers (2015); Shaik (2016a,b); Grant (2017); Hejazi et al. (2017b); Shaik (2017); Lopez et al. (2017).

Research regarding the policies and progress of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has also been a researched topic (Gervais et al., 2008; Martin and Anderson, 2008; Carter and Gunning-Trant, 2010; Nuetah et al., 2011; Glauber and Westhoff, 2014; Countryman and Narayanan, 2017; Brink, Orden and Datz, 2017; Zhao, Miller, and Thompson, in press). The effects of the implementation of NAFTA have been studied by the following: Knutson, Westhoff, and Sherwell (2010); Lewis and Schmitz (2015); Schmitz and Lewis (2015); Zahniser et al. (2015). More recent potential preferential trade agreements have also been analyzed, such as TTIP and TPP, by the following: Countryman and Muhammad (2017); Muhammad, Countryman and Heerman (2017) Scmitz et al. (2017). Special attention has been focused on agricultural trade with China, as noted by Song et al. (2009); Tuan et al. (2010); Awokuse and Yin (2010); McCorriston and MacLaren (2010); Dean et al. (2011); Yeboah et al. (2012); Chen et al. (2012); Goodwin and Smith (2013); Muhammad et al. (2014); Muhammad (2015); Heerman et al. (2015); Marchant (2017); Hejazi et al. (2017a); Hejazi and Marchant (2017); Handson et al. (2017); Orden et al. (2017).

The impact of different domestic and foreign policies on agricultural markets has been analyzed by the following: Awokuse and Wang (2009); Schmitz et al. (2010); Bekkerman et al. (2012); Cooper (2010, 2009, 2009); Goodwin (2008, 2009); Goodwin et al. (2011); Goodwin and Rejesus (2008); Harwood (2009); Mukherjee et al. (2013); Paulson and Babcock (2008); Paulson and Schnitkey (2012); Petrolia and Ibendahl (2008); Schmitz et al. (2009); Serra et al. (2011); Ubilava et al. (2011); and Zulauf and Orden (2010); Debnath et al. (2016); Zulauf and Orden (2016); Hoang (2017); Shaik (2017), Scalco et al. (2017); Lopez et al. (2018); Sun et al. (2017); Mach and Thompson (in press); Yu et al. (in press). Specifically, the impact of food labeling policies on agricultural markets (e.g., country of origin labeling, genetically modified labeling) has also been explored by several researchers (Chung et al., 2009; Seok, Reed, and Saghaian, 2016; Lewis et al., 2016a; Lewis et al., 2016b; Lewis and Grebitus, 2016; DeLong and Grebitus, in press; Syrengelas et al., in press; Heerman and Sheldon, working paper)

Research has also examined the US and international food security, food safety, and health issues: Schmitz and Kennedy (2016); Kennedy and Schmitz (2017); Schmitz, Kennedy, and Schmitz (2016a); Schmitz, Kennedy, and Schmitz (2016b); Countryman (2016); Gallagher (2011); Kennedy, Lewis, and Schmitz (2016); Schroeder and Meyers (2016b); Peterson and Grant (2017); Lewis et al. (2017); Countryman and Hagerman (2017); Muhammad et al. (2017).

Research has also examined domestic and foreign agricultural and energy markets (Gunden et al., 2011; Naanwaab and Yeboah, 2012; Yeboah et al., 2012; Yeboah and Shaik, 2012; Muhammad, 2013; Muhammad et al., 2013; Naanwaab and Yeboah, 2013; Yeboah et al., 2014; Muhammad et al., 2015; Schmitz et al. 2016; Sujarwo et al., 2016; Laajimi et al., 2016; Heerman, 2016; Li et al., 2017; Kim et al., in press; Peterson and Grant, in press; Choi and Choi, in press a; Zhao et al., in press). For example, Kim et al. (in press) examined the dynamic and spatial relationships in US milled rice markets. Peterson and Grant (in press) examined the US fresh fruit and vegetable markets. A growing area of research involves the inter-relationships between trade and the environment (Verburg et al., 2008; Fooks et al., 2013; Kastner et al., 2011; Countryman et al., 2016; Enghiad et al., 2017; Grant et al., 2017).

The studies investigating macroeconomic issues related to agriculture have examined the impacts of monetary and exchange rate adjustments on international trade. Some examples of this work include Baek and Koo (2009, 2008, 2010, 2011); Bamba et al. (2008); Ge et al. (2010); Goswami and Nag (2012); Huchet-Bourdon and Cheptea (2011); Miljkovic and Paul (2008); Orden (2010); and Zhuang et al. (2008); Jones et al. (2013); Davis et al. (2014); Carvalho (2014); Garcia-Fuentes et al. (2016); Acemoglu et al. (2016); Schroeder and Meyers (2016a); Choi and Choi (in press b).

Research conducted in the area of bioenergy/biofuel economics includes work that investigates land use changes and policies such as the renewable fuels standard (Sheldon and Roberts, 2008; Senauer, 2008; Motaal, 2008; Hertel et al., 2008; Keeney and Hertel 2008; Gallagher(2010); Hertel and Beckman, 2010; Khanna et al., 2010; Lasco and Khanna, 2010; Meyer and Thompson, 2010; Lee and Sumner, 2010; Thompson, 2010; Thompson et al., 2011; Schmitz et al., 2011; Meyer et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2012; Switzer, 2012; Yeboah et al. 2013; Gallagher and Sleper(2016); Whistance et al., 2017).

A growing body of agriculture and trade nexus literature utilizes the gravity model. This literature evaluates the impact of non-tariff measures and trade agreements on trade (Grant and Lambert, 2008; Lambert and McKoy, 2009; Cipollina and Salvatici, 2010; Cissokho et al., 2013; Disdier et al., 2008; Disdier and Marette, 2010; Drogue and DeMaria, 2012; Grant, 2013; Grant and Boys, 2012; Haq et al., 2013; Karemera et al., 2011; Karemera et al., 2009; Li and Beghin, 2012; Olper and Raimondi, 2008; Raimondi and Olper, 2011; Saitone, 2012; Shepherd and Wilson, 2013; Tamini et al., 2010; Tran et al., 2012; Vigani et al., 2012; Wieck et al., 2012; and Winchester, 2012; Debnath et al., 2017). Beghin (2013) covers many of these topics with the gravity model and other approaches.

Members of S-1072 have researched policies affecting foreign countries. For example, Ali et al. (2019a; 2019b) examined how trade policies affect the Malaysian rice sector. Others have examined how policies affect food in China (e.g., Baylis et al., 2019), Iran (e.g., Sardehae et al., 2021; Radmehr and Henneberry, 2020), Brazil (e.g., Clements et al., 2019), Myanmar (Maredia et al., 2022), Bangladesh (Herrington et al., 2022), and Kosovo (e.g., Bajrami et al., 2019). Durand-Morant (2019) examined agricultural production potential in Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

With respect to US export products, Countryman and Muhammad (2018) examined how Chinese trade retaliation might diminish U.S. wine export potential. De Matteis et al. (2019) evaluated factors affecting U.S. distillers dried grains with solubles exports. Hejazi et al., (2019) examined the decline of U.S. export competitiveness in the Chinese meat import market. Muhammad et al. (2020) examined beef import demand implications associated with the Korean-US free trade agreement. Azzam and Dhoubhadel (2022) examined a dominant-duopoly competitive-fringe model for world soybean exports. Chinese consumer preferences for US beef and beef quality labeling was examined by Gao et al. (2023).

Studies examining issues spanning agricultural trade, trade barriers, and trade liberalization have been explored by various members of the group (e.g., Sharma et al., 2019; Soon and Thompson, 2019a,b; Soon et al., 2019; Westoff et al., 2019; Zhang and Merchant, 2019; Sheldon, 2022; Schweizer et al., 2022; Jeong and Gopinath, 2022; Muhammad and Thompson, 2022; Choi and Choi, 2022; Lahr et al., 2020; McCorriston and Sheldon, 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Greear and Muhammad, 2021; Muhammad and Jones, 2021). For example, McCorriston and Sheldon (2020) examined US trade policy compared to Brexit trade policies. Chen et al., (2020) examined the trade impacts of the tariff quota administration on China’s grain markets. Muhammad and Jones (2021) examined the effects of tariff exclusions on U.S. forest products in China.

Factors affecting U.S. agriculture and policy have also been explored (e.g., Yu et al., 2019; Carter et al., 2022; Lazard and Kennedy, 2020). For example, Yu et al. (2019) examined the importance of the Mississippi river to agricultural supply chains and Carter et al. (2022) examined ocean freight shipping delays.

Most recently, members of S-1072 have produced articles examining how trade and policy affect consumer products ranging from sugar-containing products (e.g., candy) to infant formula. Research has analyzed how US sugar policy affects the US sugar market, and particularly sugar-containing products (Trejo-Pech et al., 2020; DeLong and Trejo-Pech, 2022; Trejo-Pech et al., 2023). Muhammad et al. (forthcoming) examined the links between federal policies (including trade policies) and the infant formula shortage crisis.

Covid-19 was also a well-researched topic among members (e.g., Lai et al., 2020; Lai and Widmar, 2020; Sheldon and Grant, 2020; Jensen et al., 2021; Muhammad et al., 2021; Balagtas et al., 2021). For example, Sheldon and Grant (2020) examined the likely impact of Covid-19 on food and agricultural markets. Jensen et al. (2021) examined consumer online Covid-19 shopping behaviors. Muhammad et al. (2021) examined Covid-19 and cotton import demand in China. Members of S-1072 have also begun examining the Russian-Ukraine war and agricultural implications (e.g., Sheldon, 2022; Soojung et al., 2022).

As shown above, a vast amount of literature examines agricultural trade and policy issues. This literature has been supported by members of S-1072. Given that there are always changes to be analyzed regarding agricultural trade and policy, our proposed project objectives build on this literature and propose continuing to research this topic.

Related Projects

Currently, no other active multistate project is related to international trade. Regarding agricultural policy, SERA-35: Delta Region Farm Management and Agricultural Policy Working Group examines how farm policies influence the management of select agricultural producers in the Delta and surrounding regions.  No other active projects were identified with the keywords of “policy,” “trade,” or “international trade.” Therefore, we are the only identified multistate HATCH project examining issues related to international trade and policy, other than SERA-35, which is only focused on the Delta region.


  1. Determine the impacts of U.S. and foreign policies, pandemics, wars, regulations, market structures, and productivity on U.S. food and agricultural trade, the economy, and the environment. Specifically, to examine the impact of the following: a. foreign investment and multinational firms, b. international and national events and policies (e.g., Farm Bill, Covid-19 pandemic, Russia-Ukraine war, immigration and labor issues, food fraud, food labeling laws), and c. economic growth and changing policies of developing and emerging economies, including safeguards or other mechanisms that target food security.
  2. Determine the impacts of international trade agreements, trade wars, negative views of globalization, and institutions on U.S. food and agricultural trade, the economy, and the environment. Specifically, to examine the potential implications of the following: a. future preferential trade agreements (e.g., Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF)), b. trade wars and negative views of globalization (e.g., U.S.-China trade war), and c. disruptions caused by conflict (e.g., Ukraine-Russia war).


Methods to accomplish these objectives include econometrics, simulation, spatial and optimization models, and time series analysis. Market behavior, supply, and demand, along with risk and uncertainty, will be studied using these methods. The economic impacts will focus on changes in output, value-added, employment, the welfare of consumers and producers, and government expenditures. Measures of economic performance will focus on prices, trade, economies at the regional and national levels, and the environment. In addition, we will develop new methods and extend existing methods to accomplish these objectives.

Objective 1: 1. Determine the impacts of U.S. and foreign policies, pandemics, wars, regulations, market structures, and productivity on U.S. food and agricultural trade, the economy, and the environment. Specifically, to examine the impact of the following: a. foreign investment and multinational firms, b. international and national events and policies (e.g., Farm Bill, Covid-19 pandemic, Russia-Ukraine war, immigration and labor issues, food fraud, food labeling laws), and c. economic growth and changing policies of developing and emerging economies, including safeguards or other mechanisms that target food security. In the past five years there have been tremendous events that have affected U.S. food and agricultural trade. For example, the Trump trade war, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Ukraine-Russia war has had a large impact on agricultural markets. This project will consider how these events and other potential policy changes might affect food and agricultural trade.

For Objective 1, researchers will focus appropriate methods on selected trade or policy issues. In keeping with multistate collaboration, the committee explicitly selected the issues because they represent the current situation. The collective results will address the multi-dimensional aspects of international trade. The meta-themes of this goal include understanding the effects on agricultural trade of wars, pandemics, foreign direct investment and multinational firms, trade deficits, domestic and foreign policies, standards, and trade with developing economies. The team will generate research to address these issues individually and collectively across multiple commodities and policies.

Regarding Objective 1a, researchers in this project propose investigating multiple aspects of foreign direct investment (FDI) and multinational firms. For example, researchers have identified a need to expand previous work that examines the impact of international capital movements on product trade and to expand on previous literature that studies the relationship between multinational firms, specifically multinational agriculture firms, and intellectual property rights (Florida). Another line of investigation would examine the effects of trade deficit and FDI on countries’ gains from agricultural trade (Iowa). Other output might include estimates of the effects of Canadian FDI in the U.S. forestry industry in response to the Pine Beetle outbreak in Canada (Louisiana).

Objective 1b focuses primarily on the impact of specific events and policies in the U.S. and abroad and their effects on agricultural trade. The research questions and following methods applied toward meeting this objective are wide-ranging. Many empirical trade models (e.g., the gravity model), general equilibrium models (e.g., GTAP), and partial equilibrium models (e.g., FAPRI-MU) will be further developed and adapted to examine the relationships between policy announcements or other significant events, and international trade flows.

From a strict trade policy perspective, researchers propose developing econometric models to estimate the relationship between market access and barriers to entry (e.g., conditions, tariffs, non-tariff measures, etc.) that might hamper bilateral trade flows (Tennessee, North Carolina, North Dakota, Iowa). Specifically, they seek to consider these results by examining state-level trade flows. Retaliatory measures and their effects have also been identified as an area for the proposed research. In particular, researchers will seek to understand how such measures affect U.S. agricultural competitiveness in the global marketplace and how changes in trade flows might affect rural economies from both the production and consumption perspectives (Louisiana).

As the current farm bill is set to expire in 2023, there is particular interest in analyzing the impact of farm bills, past and present, as well as the impact of any potential changes in farm bill legislation that occur in the near term (Tennessee, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota).

We also anticipate demand for scientific assessment of agricultural and biofuel policies after the near-term needs as the next farm bill takes shape (Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and North Dakota).

There is also potential for changes in U.S. immigration policy to affect bilateral trade flows between the U.S. and countries around the globe and the potential for such policy shifts to alter the output mix of U.S. agriculture. Further, the importance of migration on production-trade efficiency will be examined following the methods outlined in Glazyrina and Shaik (2011). Finally, researchers in this project propose to develop econometric models to analyze the effects of immigration policy shocks on trade flows specific to East Asia and Latin America and the extent to which the output mix of U.S. livestock, fruit, and vegetable production is affected (North Carolina, North Dakota).

Researchers are also proposing to develop and apply economic tools to investigate further the effects of food fraud and food labeling laws in a globalized world (Tennessee, Wyoming). Typical ways to elicit consumers’ preferences for food labeling laws and opinions on food fraud include surveys and experimental approaches. For example, choice experiments, experimental auctions, and contingent valuation methods are typically used to determine consumers’ willingness to pay for different food labels.

Objective 1c covers the need for further research on food security issues and trade with developing economies. Several researchers have proposed other studies related to the U.S.-Africa trade, in particular (in Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina A&T, Missouri, and North Dakota). Specifically, some studies will develop tools to highlight the importance of distribution in addressing food security (Florida, Louisiana). In contrast, others will apply input-output and dynamic gravity models to focus on the specific effects of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (North Dakota and North Carolina A&T).

Others propose to undertake more commodity-specific analyses, paying particular attention to rice, cocoa, and coffee (Missouri, USDA). Methods include simulation models, demand system analysis, input allocation models, and other dynamic frameworks to assess how trade flows to developing countries have evolved and how they might continue to respond to different trade policies or consumer preferences.

Objective 2: Determine the impacts of international trade agreements, trade wars, negative views of globalization, and institutions on U.S. food and agricultural trade, the economy, and the environment. Specifically, to examine the potential implications of the following: a. future preferential trade agreements (e.g., Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF)), b. trade wars and negative views of globalization (e.g., U.S.-China trade war), and c. disruptions caused by conflict (e.g., Ukraine-Russia war).

With respect to objective 2a, international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are still significant players in international trade. Therefore, keeping up with changes in these institutions is vital to the movement of international trade. Previous work considered the impacts of new trade agreements, such as the signed FTAs with Colombia and Korea (KORUS) and the potential Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), U.S-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

To meet objective 2b, one needs to explore the public’s negative views of trade. For example, since the supply chain disruptions from Covid-19, there is an increased sense of wanting to ensure a percentage of products are made domestically. Further, the Russian-Ukraine war exposed the vulnerability of the EU to be dependent on Russian oil. Thus, there is needed research in the area of consumer ethnocentrism, and public sentiment towards free trade (Tennessee). Researchers have also identified a need to assess the impacts of withdrawing or pulling out of trade agreements. The motivation stems partly from the U.S. decision to pull out of the TPP, and there is already research examining the potential cost of that withdrawal (Florida and Tennessee). There is also motivation from the stagnation of a TTIP agreement between the U.S. and the EU. Finally, there is some interest regarding future or potential preferential trade agreements. If the current aversion to large, multilateral trade agreements leads to several new bilateral agreements, researchers involved with this project are poised to examine the effects of these agreements on U.S. agricultural trade flows. (Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Iowa, and USDA).

To meet objective 2c, researchers will evaluated the trade and global agricultural product flow disruptions caused by the Ukraine-Russia war. Researchers have already begun researching this avenue.

Measurement of Progress and Results


  • Journal Articles Comments: peer reviewed academic publications
  • Books and Book Chapters
  • Professional Papers
  • Conference Presentations
  • Organized Conferences

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

  • Increase ability to understand and predict changes resulting from changes in trade agreements.
  • Increase ability to understand and predict changes resulting from changes in domestic policies.
  • Understand how global events like war and pandemics can impact agricultural trade.
  • More clientele exposure to trade research and information.
  • Milestones


(2023):Conduct an international conference regarding global agricultural value chains. This conference was co-hosted with the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.

(2025):Conduct an AAEA Annual Meeting track session on agricultural trade and policy.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan


Outreach Plan

Information will be made available to users through refereed and non-refereed articles, technical publications, as well as through organized symposia and selected papers at professional meetings and books. In addition, the committee regularly sponsors, participates in, and organizes major regional and national conferences with web access to proceedings and widespread press coverage.


All members of this multi-state HATCH project are eligible for office. This organization is as follows:

Officers: The chairperson is elected by the voting members to a one-year term and may be re-elected for additional terms of office. In consultation with the administrative advisor, the chairperson notifies the committee members of the time and place of meetings, prepares the agenda, and presides at the committee and executive committee meetings. They are responsible for preparing the annual report of the project. The existing S-1062 chairperson will serve as the chair of the new committee for a one-year term (through Fall 2018). Following the end of the chairperson’s term, the secretary of the project will then become the chairperson.

Secretary: The secretary records the minutes and performs other duties assigned by the committee or the administrative advisor. They are elected by the voting members to a one-year term and will then become committee chairs. The existing S-1062 secretary will serve as the secretary of the new committee for a one-year term (through Fall 2018). At that time, a new secretary for the new committee will be elected for a one-year term as secretary and then will become chair in the following year.

Subcommittees: The Project has an executive committee designated to conduct the committee’s business between meetings and perform other duties as assigned by the committee. It consists of the Project chairperson, secretary, and two other committee members. These two members are elected by the committee’s voting members to one-year terms and may be reelected for additional terms of office. Other subcommittees are named by the chairperson as needed for specific assignments such as developing procedures, planning conferences, and preparing publications.

Literature Cited

Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., and Kerr, W. 2016. Networks and the macroeconomy: An empirical exploration. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 30(1), 273-335.

Ahn, Soojung, Dongin Kim and Sandro Steinbach (2022). “The Impact of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine on Grain and Oilseed Trade,” Agribusiness: An International Journal, first published online.

 Ali, R.B., J. Luckstead, A. Durand-Morat, and E. Wailes. The Impacts of Trade and Self-Sufficiency Policies on Heterogeneous Rice Farms in Malaysia. Review of Development Economics 23:1659–1673. 2019.

Ali, R.B., A. Durand-Morat, E. Wailes, and J. Luckstead. Self-Sufficiency and International Trade Policy Strategies in the Malaysian Rice Sector: Approaches to Food Security Using Spatial Partial Equilibrium Analysis. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 16(1), June 2019.

Anderson, J. E., Larch, M., and Yotov, V. Y. 2015. Growth and trade with frictions: A structural estimation framework. NBER Working Paper No. 21377.


Arkolakis, C., Costinot, A., and Rodriguez-Clare, A. 2012.  New trade models, same old gains? American Economic Review 102(1): 94-130.


Awokuse, T.O., and H. Yin. 2010. "Does Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Protection Induce More Bilateral Trade? Evidence from Chinas Imports." World Development 38(8):1094-1104.


Awokuse, T.O., and X. Wang. 2009. "Threshold Effects and Asymmetric Price Adjustments in U.S. Dairy Markets." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(2):269-286.

 Azzam, A. and S. Dhoubhadel. 2022. "A Dominant-Duopoly Competitive-Fringe Model of the World Soybean Export Market." International Journal of Trade and Global Markets (in press).

Baek, J., and W.W. Koo. 2009. "Assessing the Exchange Rate Sensitivity of U.S. Bilateral Agricultural Trade." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(2):187-203.


---. 2008. "Identifying Macroeconomic Linkages to U.S. Agricultural Trade Balance." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(1):63-77.


---. 2010. "The U.S. Agricultural Sector and the Macroeconomy." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42(3):457-465.


---. 2011. "How Sensitive Is U.S. Agricultural Trade to the Bilateral Exchange Rate? Evidence from Bulk, Intermediate, and Consumer-Oriented Products." Agricultural Economics 42(3):387-403.

 Balagtas, J.V., J. Cooper, and M.A. Marchant, editors, 2021. “Agricultural Market Response to COVID-19," Choices, Quarter 3. Available online: https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/agricultural-marketresponse- to-covid-19

Bamba, I., M. Reed, and S. Saghaian. 2008. "Monetary Policy Impacts on Coffee and Cocoa Prices." Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 4(2):273-291.

 Bajrami, E., E.J. Wailes, B. Dixon, A. Musliu, and A. Durand-Morat. Do coupled subsidies increase milk productivity, land use, herd size and income? Evidence from Kosovo. Studies in Agricultural Economics 121: 134-143. 2019. https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1913.

Baylis, Kathy, Linlin Fan and Lia Nogueira. 2019. “Agricultural Market Liberalization and Household Food Security in Rural China.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101(1):250-269, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay031

Beghin, J., ed. 2013. Non-Tariff Measures with Market Imperfections: Trade and Welfare Implications. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Bekkerman, A., V.H. Smith, and M.J. Watts. 2012. "The SURE Program and Incentives for Crop Insurance Participation: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis." Agricultural Finance Review 72(3):381-401.


Brink, L., D. Orden and G. Datz. 2017. “BRIC Agricultural Policies through a WTO Lens” reprinted in Agriculture, Development, and the Global Trading System: 2000-2015 (Antoine Bouet and David Laborde, editors). Chapter 5. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (article originally published in Journal of Agricultural Economics 64:1(2013):197-216. On web: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15738coll2/id/131381/rec/7


Brockmeier, M., and J. Pelikan. 2008. "Agricultural Market Access: A Moving Target in the WTO Negotiations?" Food Policy 33(3):250-259.


Carter, C. A., and Gunning‐Trant, C. 2010. US trade remedy law and agriculture: trade diversion and investigation effects. Canadian Journal of Economics, 43(1), 97-126.


Carter, C.A, Steinbach, S., and Zhuang, X. 2022. “Supply Chain Disruptions and Containerized Agricultural Exports from California Ports,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (first published online).

 Carter, A., Sandro Steinbach and Xiting Zhuang (2022). “Supply Chain Disruptions and Containerized Agricultural Exports from California Ports,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (first published online).

Carvalho, V. M. 2014. From micro to macro via production networks. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(4), 23-47.

 Chen, Bowen, Nelson B. Villoria and Tian Xia (2020). “Trade Impacts of Tariff Quota Administration in China’s Grain Markets: An Empirical Assessment.” Agricultural Economics 51:2, pp. 191-206.

Chen, W., M.A. Marchant, and A. Muhammad. 2012. "China's Soybean Product Imports: An Analysis of Price Effects Using a Production System Approach." China Agricultural Economic Review 4(4):499-513.


Choi, Y. and E. Kwan Choi. (in press a) “International Trade in Branded and Generic Products.” World Economy.


Choi, Y. and E. Kwan Choi. (in press b). “Currency Devaluation and Unemployment in an Open Economy.” Economic Modelling.

Choi, Yoonho and E. Kwan Choi, “Why Exchange Rate Pass-Through Matters in Foreign Exchange Market, “ Economic Modelling, May 2022 (110), 105795

Chow, D.C.K., and I.M. Sheldon. Forthcoming 2023. “A Private Bargaining and Efficient Breach Approach to the Problem of U.S.-China Trade: Bringing a Non-Violation Case in the WTO.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.

Chung, C., T. Zhang, and D.S. Peel. 2009. "Effects of Country of Origin Labeling in the U.S. Meat Industry with Imperfectly Competitive Processors." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38(3):406-417.


Cipollina, M., and L. Salvatici. 2010. "Reciprocal Trade Agreements in Gravity Models: A Meta-Analysis." Review of International Economics 18(1):63-80.


Cissokho, L., J. Haughton, K. Makpayo, and A. Seck. 2013. "Why Is Agricultural Trade within ECOWAS So High?" Journal of African Economies 22(1):22-51.

 Clements, Y., D. Calil, and L. Ribera. “Brazil’s Agricultural Production and Its Potential as Global Food Supplier.” Choices. 3rd Quarter 34:3 (2019).

Cooper, J. 2010. "Average Crop Revenue Election: A Revenue-Based Alternative to Price-Based Commodity Payment Programs." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92(4):1214-1228.


---. 2009. "The Empirical Distribution of the Costs of Revenue-Based Commodity Support Programs--Estimates and Policy Implications." Review of Agricultural Economics 31(2):206-221.


---. 2009. "Payments under the Average Crop Revenue Program: Implications for Government Costs and Producer Preferences." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38(1):49-64.


Countryman, A.M. 2016. “The Food Safety Modernization Act and Agricultural Imports.” Choices, 1st quarter.


Countryman, A.M. and A. Hagerman, 2017. “Retrospective Economic Analysis of Foot and Mouth Disease Eradication in the Latin American Beef Sector.” Agribusiness: An International Journal, (33)3: 257-273. (2016 IF: 0.939)


Countryman, A.M., and A. Muhammad. 2017. “The Effects of TTIP Market Access Reform on EU Consumer Demand for Beef.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 15(1): 10 pages.

 Countryman, A.M., and A. Muhammad (2018) “Chinese Trade Retaliation May Diminish U.S. Wine Export Potential” Choices 33(2): 1-7.

Countryman, A. M., and B. Narayanan. 2017. “Price Volatility Effects of the Special Safeguard Mechanism in the Presence of Specific Tariffs.” Economic Modelling, (64): 399-408. (2016 IF:1.481)


Countryman, A.M., J. Francois, and H. Rojas-Romagosa. 2016. “Melting Ice Caps: Implications for Asia-North America Linkages and the Panama Canal.” Journal of International Trade and Global Markets, 9(4): 325-369.


Davis, C, A Muhammad, D Karemera, & D Harvey. 2014. “The Impact of Exchange Rate Volatility on World Broiler Trade” Agribusiness: An International Journal 30:46-55.


Dean, J. M., Fung, K. C., and Wang, Z. 2011. Measuring vertical specialization: The case of China. Review of International Economics, 19(4), 609-625.


Debnath, D., W. Thompson, M. Helmar, and T. Orman. 2016. “Effect of the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) on Cotton Markets of Turkey and the World.” Journal of Cotton Science 20: 46-55.


Debnath, D., J. Whistance, W. Thompson, and J. Binfield. 2017. Complement or Substitute: Ethanol’s Uncertain Relationship with Gasoline under Alternative Petroleum Price and Policy Scenarios. Applied Energy, 191, 385-397.

 DeLong, K.L. and C. Trejo-Pech. 2022. “Factors Affecting Sugar-Containing-Product Prices.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 54(2): 334-356. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2022.12

DeLong, K. L. and C. Grebitus. In Press. “Genetically Modified Labeling: The Role of Consumers’ Trust and Personality.” Agribusiness: an International Journal.

 De Matteis, M.C., T.E. Yu, C.N. Boyer, and K.L. DeLong. 2019. “Analyzing Determinants of U.S. Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles Exports.” Agribusiness: an International Journal, 35(2):168-181. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21575


Disdier, A.-C., L. Fontagne, and M. Mimouni. 2008. "The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2):336-350.


Disdier, A.-C., and S. Marette. 2010. "The Combination of Gravity and Welfare Approaches for Evaluating Nontariff Measures." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92(3):713-726.


Drogue, S., and F. DeMaria. 2012. "Pesticide Residues and Trade, the Apple of Discord?" Food Policy 37(6):641-649.

 Durand-Morat, A. “Agricultural Production Potential in Southern Cone: Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay” Choices. 3rd Quarter 34:3 (2019).

Enghiad*, A., D. Ufer*, A. M. Countryman, and D. D. Thilmany. 2017. “An Overview of Global Wheat Market Fundamentals in an Era of Climate Concerns.” International Journal of Agronomy: 15 pages.


Eum, J., Sheldon, I., and Thompson, S. In press. Asymmetric trade costs: Agricultural trade among developing and developed countries.  Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization.


Femenia, F., and A. Gohin. 2011. "Dynamic Modelling of Agricultural Policies: The Role of Expectation Schemes." Economic Modelling 28(4):1950-1958.


---. 2009. "On the European Responsibility in the Agricultural Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Modelling the Impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy." World Economy 32(10):1434-1460.


Fooks, J.R., S.J. Dundas, and T.O. Awokuse. Forthcoming. 2013. "Are There Efficiency Gains from the Removal of Natural Resource Export Restrictions? Evidence from British Columbia." The World Economy 36(8): 1098-114.


Glauber, J. W., P.Westhoff. "The 2014 Farm Bill and the WTO." American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(4), 1-11. May 2015. Available at http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/5/1287.


Glazyrina, A., S. Shaik. 2011. “Evaluating the Role of Migration on Technical Efficiency.” Selected prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Corpus Christi, TX, February 5-8, 2011.


Gallagher, Paul, “International Price Transmission:  A Case Study of Corn Price Relationships between the US and African Markets”, Presented at The International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium (IATRC) annual meeting, December 13, 2011, St. Pete., Florida.


Gallagher, Paul, and Daniel Sleper “The market and consumer welfare effects of mid-level ethanol blends in the US fuel market”, Journal of Energy Policy 98(2016):149-159.


Gallagher, P., “Corn Ethanol Growth in the US without Adverse Foreign Land Use Change: Defining Limits and Devising Policies”, Biofuels, Bioprod., and Bioref.  4:296-309(2010).


Garcia-Fuentes, P.A., P.L. Kennedy, and G.F.C. Ferreira. (2016). "U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Case of Remittances and Market Size." Applied Economics, DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2016.1170931


Gao, S., C. Grebitus, and K.L. DeLong. 2023. “Chinese Consumers’ Preferences for Beef Quality Labeling.” European Review of Agricultural Economics, 50(3):1,064-1,102.  https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad009

Ge, Y., H.H. Wang, and S.K. Ahn. 2010. "Cotton Market Integration and the Impact of China's New Exchange Rate Regime." Agricultural Economics 41(5):443-451.


Ghazalian, P.L., and R. Cardwell. 2010. "Did the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture Affect Trade Flows? An Empirical Investigation for Meat Commodities." International Advances in Economic Research 16(4):331-344.


Goswami, B., and R.N. Nag. 2012. "Macroeconomics of Agricultural Trade Liberalization." Global Economic Review 41(3):233-242.


Goodwin, B.K. 2008. "The Incidence and Implications of Binding Farm Program Payment Limits." Review of Agricultural Economics 30(3):554-571.


---. 2009. "Payment Limitations and Acreage Decisions under Risk Aversion: A Simulation Approach." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(1):19-41.


Goodwin, B.K., and V.H. Smith. 2013. What Harm Is Done by Subsidizing Crop Insurance? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 489–97.


Goodwin, B.K., A.K. Mishra, and F. Ortalo-Magne. 2011. The Buck Stops Where? The Distribution of Agricultural Subsidies. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers 16693.


Goodwin, B.K., and R.M. Rejesus. 2008. "Safety Nets or Trampolines? Federal Crop Insurance, Disaster Assistance, and the Farm Bill." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(2):415-429.


Grant, J.H. 2017 Forthcoming. "Proliferating Regionalism: Implications for Agriculture and Food Trade," Forthcoming in Handbook of Agricultural Economics Volume III: International Trade Rules for Food and Agricultural Products, Josling (eds).


Grant, J.H., E. Peterson, and K.K. Klein. 2017. “Assessing the Economic Implications of Reduced Water Availability and Better Management Practices on Representative Farms in Southern Alberta," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(2): 189-217.


Grant, J.H., and K.A. Boys. 2012. "Agricultural Trade and the GATT/WTO: Does Membership Make a Difference?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94(1):1-24.


Grant, J.H., and D.M. Lambert. 2008. "Do Regional Trade Agreements Increase Members' Agricultural Trade?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(3):765-782.

 Greear, EK, & A Muhammad (2021) “Tariff Elimination and the Competitiveness of Wine-Exporting Countries in Japan” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 50: 76-98. doi:10.1017/age.2020.25.

Gunden, C, Thomas, T, Miran, B.. and Yeboah, O. (2011): Environmental Implications of Economic Efficiency in Cotton Production: A Case Study from Turkey; Journal of Environmental Monitoring & Restoration, 7, Pg. 42-49


Harwood, J. 2009. "An Overview of the U.S. Agricultural Economy and the 2008 Farm Bill." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38(1):8-17.


Hanson, J., M.A. Marchant, F. Tuan, and A. Somwaru. 2017. “U.S. Agricultural Exports to China Increased Rapidly Making China the Number One Market.” Quarter 2. Available online: http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/us-commodity-markets-respond-to-changes-in-chinas-ag-policies/us-agricultural-exports-to-china-increased-rapidly-making-china-the-number-one-market


Haq, Z.U., K. Meilke, and J. Cranfield. 2013. "Selection Bias in a Gravity Model of Agrifood Trade." European Review of Agricultural Economics 40(2):331-360


Heerman, K.E.R. 2016.  Technology, ecology and agricultural trade.  Journal of International Economics.


Heerman, K.E.R., Arita, S, and Gopinath, M. 2015. Asia-Pacific integration with China versus the United States: Examining trade patterns under heterogeneous agricultural sectors.  American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97(5): 1324-1344.


Heerman, K.E.R., and Sheldon, I. 2017.  Eco-labelling and the gains from agricultural and food trade: A Ricardian approach.  Working Paper, Ohio State University.


Hejazi, M, J. Zhu and M. Marchant. 2017a. “The Impact of Diversifying China’s Global Agri-Food Suppliers on U.S. Exports: A Case Study of China’s Meat Import Demand.” Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the 2017 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. July 30-August 1, 2017.


Hejazi, M. and M.A. Marchant. 2017. “China’s Evolving Agricultural Support Policies.” Choices. Quarter 2. Available online: http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/us-commodity-markets-respond-to-changes-in-chinas-ag-policies/chinas-evolving-agricultural-support-policies


Hejazi, M, J.H. Grant and E. Peterson. 2017b. “Tariff Changes and the Margins of Trade: A Case Study of US Agri-Food Imports,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 42(1): 68-89.

 Hejazi, M., M.A. Marchant, J. Zhu and X. Ning. 2019. "The Decline of U.S. Export Competitiveness in the Chinese Meat Import Market." Agribusiness: An International Journal Special Issue "The Twenty-First Century Agribusiness in China." 35(1):114-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21588

Hendricks, N.P., and L.L. Nalley. 2008. "Who Benefits from Global Agricultural Trade Liberalization? The Case of Wheat and Maize." Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 4(2):141-157.


Hertel, T., and J. Beckman. 2010. Commodity Price Volatility in the Biofuel Era: An Examination of the Linkage between Energy and Agricultural Markets. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, GTAP Working Papers.


Hertel, T., W. Tyner, and D. Birur. 2008. Biofuels for All? Understanding the Global Impacts of Multinational Mandates. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, GTAP Working Papers.

 Herrington, C., Maredia, M., Ortega, D.L., Taleon, V., Birol, E., Sarkar, A.R., Rahaman, S. (2022). Rural Bangladeshi Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Nutrition via Zink Biofortified Rice and Decreased Milling Practices. Agricultural Economics.

Hoang, H. “Analysis of food demand in Vietnam and impacts of short-term market shocks on quantity and calorie consumption.” Accepted for publication at Agricultural Economics. May, 2017.


Hoang, H. and W.Meyers. 2015. “Price stabilization and impacts of trade liberalization in the Southeast Asian rice market.” Food Policy 57:26-39.


Huchet-Bourdon, M., and A. Cheptea. 2011. "Informal Barriers and Agricultural Trade: Does Monetary Integration Matter?" Agricultural Economics 42(4):519-530.


Jean, S., D. Laborde, and W. Martin. 2010. "Formulas and Flexibility in Trade Negotiations: Sensitive Agricultural Products in the World Trade Organization's Doha Agenda." World Bank Economic Review 24(3):500-519.

Jensen, K.L., J.N. Yenerall, X. Chen and T.E. Yu. 2021. “United States Consumers’ Online Shopping Behaviors and Intentions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 53(3):416-434.

 Jeong, S., and M. Gopinath. 2022. “International Market Information and Agricultural Commodity Price Dynamics.” Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies (forthcoming).

Jones, K, A Muhammad, & K Mathews. 2013. “Source-Differentiated Analysis of Exchange Rate Effects on U.S. Beef Imports” International Journal of Trade and Global Markets 6(4): 406-20.


Karemera, D., S. Managi, L. Reuben, and O. Spann. 2011. "The Impacts of Exchange Rate Volatility on Vegetable Trade Flows." Applied Economics 43(13-15):1607-1616.


Karemera, D., P. Reinstra-Munnicha, and J. Onyeocha. 2009. "Impacts of Free Trade Agreement on US State Vegetable and Fruit Trade Flows." Journal of Economic Integration 24(1):116-134


Kastner, T., M. Kastner, and S. Nonhebel. 2011. "Tracing Distant Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Products from a Consumer Perspective." Ecological Economics 70(6):1032-1040.


Keeney, R., and T. Hertel. 2008. The Indirect Land Use Impacts of U.S. Biofuel Policies: The Importance of Acreage, Yield, and Bilateral Trade Responses. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, GTAP Working Papers.


Kennedy, P.L., K. Lewis, and A. Schmitz, (2016), “Food Security through Biotechnology: The Double-Edged Sword of GM Crops” in World Agricultural Resources and Food Security, Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar, pp. 250-271.


Kennedy, T.G. Schmitz (Eds.), Volume 17, Frontiers of Economics and Globalization. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 2017.


Khanna, M., J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman. 2010. Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy. New York and Dordrecht: Springer.


Kim, M., H.A., Tejeda and E. Yu. In Press. “Dynamic and Spatial Relationships in US Milled Rice Markets.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review.


Knutson, R.D., P. Westhoff, and P. Sherwell. 2010. "Trade Liberalizing Impacts of Nafta in Sugar: Global Implications." International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 13(4):1-16.


Laajimi, A., K. Schroeder, W. Meyers, and J. Binfield. 2016. “The Tunisia Wheat Market in the Context of World Price Volatility: A Stochastic Partial Equilibrium Approach”. Journal of Food Products Marketing.

 Lahr, ML, Ferreira, JP, Többen, JR. (2020) Intraregional trade shares for goods‐producing industries: RPC esimates using EU data. Pap Reg Sci. 99: 1583– 1605. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12541

Lai, J., Morgan, S., Kassas, B., Kropp, J., and Gao, Z. (2020). Spending of Economic Stimulus Payments and Changes in Food Purchasing During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Choices, 35(3),1-8.

Lai, J., and Widmar, N.O., (2020). Revisiting the Digital Divide in the COVID‐19 Era. Applied economic perspectives and policy, 00(00),1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13104

Lambert, D., and S. McKoy. 2009. "Trade Creation and Diversion Effects of Preferential Trade Associations on Agricultural and Food Trade." Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(1):17-39.


Lasco, C., and M. Khanna (2010) "US-Brazil Trade in Biofuels: Determinants, Constraints, and Implications for Trade Policy", Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy ed. M. Khanna,J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman. New York and Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 251-266.

 Lazard, P.M., and P.L. Kennedy (2020), “Trouble at Old River: The Impact of a Mississippi River Avulsion on U.S. Soybean Exports,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, 51,3(Nov. 2020): In Press.

Lee, H., and D.A. Sumner (2010) "International Trade Patterns and Policy for Ethanol in the United States", Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy ed. M. Khanna,J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman. New York and Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 327-345.


Lewis, K.E., C. Grebitus, and R. Nayga, Jr. 2016a. “U.S. Consumer Preferences for Imported and Genetically Modified Sugar: Examining Policy Consequentiality in a Choice Experiment.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 65:1-8.


Lewis, K.E.  and C. Grebitus. 2016. “Why U.S. Consumers Support Country of Origin   Labeling: Examining the Impact of Ethnocentrism and Food Safety.” Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 28(3):254-270.


Lewis, K.E., C. Grebitus, and R. Nayga, Jr. 2016b. “The Importance of Taste in Experimental Auctions: Consumers’ Valuation of Calorie and Sweetener Labeling of Soft Drinks.”   Agricultural Economics, 47:47-57.


Lewis, K.E. and T. G. Schmitz. 2015. “The Impact of Partial Mexican Government Ownership on U.S. and Mexican Sugar Trade.” Journal of Agribusiness, 33(1): 17-38.


Lewis, K.E., C. Grebitus, G. Colson, and W. Hu. 2017. “German and British Consumer Willingness to Pay for Beef Labeled with Food Safety Attributes.” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(2):451-470.


Li, X., R.A. Lopez, and R. Wang. 2017. Energy Price Shocks and Milk Price Adjustments.” Applied Economics Letters, 25(4): 268-271.


Li, Y., and J.C. Beghin. 2012. "A Meta-Analysis of Estimates of the Impact of Technical Barriers to Trade." Journal of Policy Modeling 34(3):497-511.


Liu, X., M. Farmer, and S. Capareda. 2012. "Supply Variation of Agricultural Residues and Its Effects on Regional Bioenergy Development." AgBioForum 15(3):315-327.


Lopez, R. A., X. He, and A. Azzam. 2018. “Stochastic Frontier Estimation of Market Power in the Food Industries.” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(1): 3-17.


Lopez, R.A., X. He, and E. de Falcis. 2017. “What Drives the New Chinese Agricultural Subsidies?” World Development, 93(c):  279-292.


Mach, J and S.R. Thompson. (in press). “The EU dairy Market after the Milk Quota Abolition,” Agrarian Perspectives.


Marchant, M.A. 2017. “Theme Overview: U.S. Commodity Markets Respond to Changes in China's Ag Policies.” Choices. Quarter 2. Available online: http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/us-commodity-markets-respond-to-changes-in-chinas-ag-policies/theme-overview-us-commodity-markets-respond-to-changes-in-chinas-ag-policies

 Maredia, M., Goeb, J., Ortega, D., Synt, N.L.K., Zu, A. M. (2022). Preferences for pandemic recovery policies: Perspectives of Myanmar agri-food system participants. Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Martin, W., and K. Anderson. 2008. "Agricultural Trade Reform under the Doha Agenda: Some Key Issues." Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52(1):1-16.

McCorriston, S. and I.M. Sheldon, “Economic Nationalism: US Trade Policy vs. Brexit”, Ohio State Business Law Journal, 14(1), 2020.

McCorriston, S., and D. MacLaren. 2010. "Assessing the Distortionary Impact of State Trading in China." Agricultural Economics 41(3-4):329-335.


Meyers, W.H., P. Westhoff, J. Fabiosa, and D.J. Hayes. 2010. "The FAPRI Global Modeling System and Outlook Process." Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 6(1):1-19.


Meyer, S., and W. Thompson (2010) "Demand Behavior and Commodity Price Volatility under Evolving Biofuel Markets and Policies", Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy ed. M. Khanna,J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman. New York and Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 133-148.


Meyer, S., J. Binfield, and P. Westhoff. 2012. "Technology Adoption under US Biofuel Policies: Do Producers, Consumers or Taxpayers Benefit?" European Review of Agricultural Economics 39(1):115-136.


Miljkovic, D., and R. Paul. 2008. "Income Effects on the Trade Balance in the United States: Analysis by Sector." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(3):967-982.


Motaal, D.A. 2008. "The Biofuels Landscape: Is There a Role for the WTO?" Journal of World Trade 42(1):61-86


Muhammad, A. 2013. “Estimating Import Demand in the Presence of Seasonal Trade and Unobserved Prices” Applied Economics Letters 20(5):446-51.


Muhammad, A, A Leister, L McPhail, & W Chen. 2014. “The Evolution of Foreign Wine Demand in China” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 58:392-408.


Muhammad, A. 2015. “Price Risk and Exporter Competition in China’s Soybean Market” Agribusiness: An International Journal 31:188-97.

Muhammad, A, A D’Souza, & W Amponsah. 2013. “Violence, Instability, and Trade: Evidence from Kenya's Cut Flower Sector” World Development 51:20-31.

Muhammad, A., J. Yenerall, T. Malone, and K.L. DeLong. Accepted and Forthcoming. “Formula for Disaster: Exploring the Links Between Federal Policies and the Infant Formula Crisis.” Choices.

Muhammad, A., J. Thompson, and K.L. DeLong. 2020. “Implications of KORUS on U.S. beef in South Korea.” International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 13(4): 378-393. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTGM.2020.10023006

Muhammad, A, & J Thompson (2022) “Whiskey, Brexit, and the Trade War” The International Trade Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853908.2022.2111006

 Muhammad, A, & K Jones (2021) “The End of the Trade War? Effects of Tariff Exclusions on U.S. Forest Products in China” Forest Policy and Economics 122: 102350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102350.

Muhammad, A, & K Jones (2021) “The End of the Trade War? Effects of Tariff Exclusions on U.S. Forest Products in China” Forest Policy and Economics 122: 102350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102350.

Muhammad, A, SA Smith, & JH Grant (2021) “Can China Meet its Purchase Obligations Under the Phase One Trade Agreement?” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13180

 Muhammad, A, SA Smith, & TE Yu (2021) “COVID-19 and Cotton Import Demand in China” Agribusiness: An International Journal 37(1): 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21682freference.

Muhammad, A, SA Smith, & TE Yu (2021) “COVID-19 and Cotton Import Demand in China” Agribusiness: An International Journal 37(1): 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21682freference.

Muhammad, A, S Zahniser, & EG Fonsah. 2015. “A Dynamic Analysis of U.S. Banana Demand by Source: A Focus on Latin American Suppliers” International Journal of Trade and Global Markets 8: 281-96.


Muhammad, A, A D’Souza, B Meade, R Micha, & D Mozaffarian. 2017. “How Income and Food Prices Influence Global Dietary Intakes by Age and Sex: Evidence from 164 Countries” BMJ Global Health 2:e000184; DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000184.


Muhammad, A., Countryman, A. M., & Heerman, K. E. 2017. “Effects of Tariff Concessions on Japanese Beef Imports by Product and Source.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 1- 20.


Mukherjee, D., B.E. Bravo-Ureta, and A. De Vries. 2013. "Dairy Productivity and Climatic Conditions: Econometric Evidence from South-Eastern United States." Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 57(1):123-140.


Mulik, K., and W.W. Koo. 2011. "Substitution between U.S. And Canadian Wheat by Class." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(4):417-433.


Naanwaab, Cephas and Osei Yeboah, “Demand for Fresh Vegetables in the United States: 1970-2010,” Economics Research International; September 2012.


Ngeleza, GK, & A Muhammad “Preferential Trade Agreements between the Monetary Community of Central Africa and the European Union: Stumbling or Building Blocks? A General Equilibrium Approach” Journal of International Development 27 (2015): 251-72.


Naanwaab, Cephas and Osei Yeboah, “Determinants of Productivity in Africa: The Role of Economic Freedom; Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, vol.6 (32), April 2013.


Nuetah, J.A., T. Zuo, and X. Xian. 2011. "Agricultural Export Subsidies and Domestic Support Reform under the WTO System: What Does It Mean for Welfare in West Africa?" World Economy 34(12):2044-2062.


Orden, D. 2010. "Recent Macroeconomic Dynamics and Agriculture in Historical Perspective." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42(3):467-476.


Orden, D., L. Brink, and M. Hejazi.* 2017. "The WTO Dispute on China’s Agricultural Support." Quarter 2. Available online: http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/us-commodity-markets-respond-to-changes-in-chinas-ag-policies/the-wto-dispute-on-chinas-agricultural-supports


Olper, A., and V. Raimondi. 2008. "Agricultural Market Integration in the OECD: A Gravity-Border Effect Approach." Food Policy 33(2):165-175.


Paulson, N.D., and B.A. Babcock. 2008. "Get a Grip: Should Area Revenue Coverage Be Offered through the Farm Bill or as a Crop Insurance Program?" Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 33(2):137-153.


Paulson, N.D., and G.D. Schnitkey. 2012. "Policy Concerns of Midwestern Grain Producers for the 2012 Farm Bill." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94(2):515-521.


Petrolia, D.R., and G.A. Ibendahl. 2008. "Conservation Programs: Will Grain Production Reclaim Acres in the South?" Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(2):559-572.


Peterson, E.B. and J.H. Grant. 2017. “Assessing the Impact of BSE Outbreak in US and Canada Using Historical Simulations.” Center for Agricultural Trade Working Paper CAT- 2017-01, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, July 2017.


Peterson, E. and J.H. Grant. In Press. “Survival of the Fittest: Export Duration and Failure into United States Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Markets,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Radmehr, S. and S. R. Henneberry. 2020. “Energy Price Policies and Food Prices: Empirical Evidence from Iran.” Energies, Special Issue: Energy Policy and Policy Implications 2020, 13(15), August 4, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13154031  

Raimondi, V., and A. Olper. 2011. "Trade Elasticity, Gravity and Trade Liberalisation: Evidence from the Food Industry." Journal of Agricultural Economics 62(3):525-550.

 Reimer, J.J., M. Li. 2010. “Trade Costs and the Gains from Trade in Crop Agriculture.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(4):1024–1039.

 Saitone, T.L. 2012. "Are Minimum Quality Standards Imposed by Federal Marketing Orders Acting as Nontariff Trade Barriers?" Agribusiness 28(4):483-504.

Sardehae, Fakari, B.; Shahnoushi, N.; Mohammadi, H.; Rastegari Henneberry, S. 2021. “The Limitations and Capacities of Crops and Horticultural Production in Iran.” Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, Vol 23, Issue 4, July 2021. www.Jast.modares.ac.ir

Scalco, P., R.A. Lopez, and X. He. 2017. “Buyer and/or Seller Power? An Application to the Brazilian Milk Market.” Applied Economics Letters, 24(16): 1173-1176.


Schmitz, A., C. Moss, T. Schmitz, W. Furtan, and H. Schmitz. 2010. Agricultural Policy, Agribusiness, and Rent-Seeking Behaviour, Second Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.


Schmitz, A., H. Furtan, and T.G. Schmitz. 2009. "Agricultural Policy: High Commodity and Input Prices." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38(1):18-35.


Schmitz, A., and P.L. Kennedy (2016), “Food Security and the Role of Food Storage” in Food Security in a Food Abundant World: An Individual Country Perspective, Schmitz, A., Kennedy, P.L., Schmitz, T.G. (Eds.). Volume 16, Frontiers of Economics and Globalization. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Schmitz, A., Kennedy, P.L., Schmitz, T.G. (Editors), (2016a). Food Security in a Food Abundant World: An Individual Country Perspective. Volume 16, Frontiers of Economics and Globalization. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Schmitz, A., Kennedy, P.L., Schmitz, T.G. (Editors), (2016b). World Agricultural Resources and Food Security. Volume 17, Frontiers of Economics and Globalization. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Schmitz, T.G. and K.E. Lewis. 2015. “Impact of NAFTA on U.S. and Mexican Sugar   Markets.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 40(3):387-404.


Schmitz, A., Kennedy, P.L., Schmitz, T.G. (Eds.), Volume 17, Frontiers of Economics and Globalization. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Forthcoming.


Schmitz, A., N. Wilson, C.B. Moss, and D. Zilberman, eds. 2011. The Economics of Alternative Energy Sources and Globalization: Bentham Science Publishers.


Schmitz, A., Zhu, M., & Zilberman, D. (2017). The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Japan’s Agricultural Trade. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 15(1).


Schroeder, K. and Meyers, W. H. 2016a. “Credit and Finance Issues in the Eurasian Wheat Belt.” Book chapter in Gomez y Paloma, S., Mary, S., Langrell, S., and Ciaian, P., eds., The Role of the Eurasian Wheat Belt to Regional and Global Food Security. September 2016.


Schroeder, K. and W. Meyers. 2016b. The Status and Challenges of Food Security in Europe and Central Asia. In Food Security in a Food Abundant World (Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, Volume 16) (Schmitz, Kennedy, Schmitz Eds.).

 Schweizer, Heidi, Sandro Steinbach and Xiting Zhuang (2022). “A Portrait of Firms that Trade in Meat Products,” Western Economics Forum, forthcoming.

Senauer, B. 2008. "Food Market Effects of a Global Resource Shift toward Bioenergy." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(5):1226-1232.


Seok, Jun Ho, Michael Reed, and Sayed Saghaian. “The Impact of SQF Certification on U.S. Agri-Food Exports.” International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics 4 (2016): 1-16.


Serra, T., B.K. Goodwin, and A.M. Featherstone. 2011. "Risk Behavior in the Presence of Government Programs." Journal of Econometrics 162(1):18-24.


Serrano, R., and V. Pinilla. 2010. "Causes of World Trade Growth in Agricultural and Food Products, 1951-2000: A Demand Function Approach." Applied Economics 42(25-27):3503-3518.


Shaik, S. (Coordinator/Organizer), Conference, 2018 Farm Policy and Bill:  Issues and Opportunities Conference, North Dakota Corn Growers Association, North Dakota Farmers Union and American Crystal Sugar, Ramada Plaza Suites, Fargo, N.D. (April 12, 2017).


Shaik, S. 2017. Evaluating the Role of Trade Risk on Efficiency and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of World, Southern Agricultural Economic Association, Mobile, AL, February 4-7, 2017.


Shaik, S. 2016a. Does Porter Hypothesis hold for Agriculture Productivity, Trade and Externalities? Southern Economic Association, Washington, DC, November 19-21, 2016.


Shaik, S. 2016b. Does Trade and Trade Risk Affect Efficiency and Productivity? Application to Asian and African Agriculture, North American Productivity Workshop IX, Quebec City, Canada June 15th – 18th 2016.

 Sharma, A., J.H. Grant, and K.A. Boys. 2019. “The Bright Side of the Generalized System of (Trade) Preferences: Lessons from Agricultural Trade,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 44(1): 32-61.

Sheldon, I., and M. Roberts. 2008. "U.S. Comparative Advantage in Bioenergy: A Heckscher-Ohlin-Ricardian Approach." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(5):1233-1238.

 Sheldon, I.M. 2022. “The US’s Power-Based Bargaining and the WTO: Has Anything Really Been Gained?” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 44(3): 1424-39.

Sheldon, I.M. 2022. “Ukraine: The Breadbasket of Europe,” Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, Ohio State University.

Sheldon, I.M. and J. Grant, “Global Trade in Agricultural Products: The Likely Impact of COVID-19”, in Economic Impacts of COVID-19 on Food and Agricultural Markets, CAST, June 2020.

Shepherd, B., and N.L.W. Wilson. 2013. "Product Standards and Developing Country Agricultural Exports: The Case of the European Union." Food Policy 42(0):1-10.


Song, B., M.A. Marchant, M.R. Reed, and S. Xu. 2009. "Competitive Analysis and Market Power of Chinas Soybean Import Market." International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 12(1):21-42.


Sujarwo, Michael Reed, and Sayed Saghaian. “Changing Technical, Allocative, and Economic Production Efficiency of Small-Scale Farmers in Indonesia: The Case of Shallot Production.”   Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 10 (2016): 31-52.


Sun, L., and M.R. Reed. 2010. "Impacts of Free Trade Agreements on Agricultural Trade Creation and Trade Diversion." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92(5):1351-1363.


Sun, S., R.A. Lopez X. Liu. 2017. “Property Rights, Labor Mobility and Collectivization: The Impact of Institutional Changes on China's Agriculture in 1950–1978.” International Review of Economics & Finance, 25(November): 345-452.


Steinbach, S. 2022. “Port Congestion, Container Shortages, and U.S. Foreign Trade,” Economics Letters, 213: 110392.

 Soon, B.M., and W. Thompson. “Japanese Beef Trade Impact from BSE Using a Time-Varying Armington Model.” Agribusiness: an International Journal 1-17. 2019.

Soon, B.M., and W. Thompson. “Non-Tariff Measures and Product Differentiation: Hormone-Treated Beef Trade from the United States and Canada to the European Union.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1-15. July 22, 2019. DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12200.

Soon, B.M., P. Westhoff, and W. Thompson. “The Impact of Potential Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Renegotiation on the Korean Rice Market and Trade.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 1-16. 2019.

Switzer, S. (2012) "Biofuels, Food Security and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture", Research Handbook on the WTO Agriculture Agreement: New and Emerging Issues in International Agricultural Trade Law ed. J.A. McMahon, and M.G. Desta, Research Handbooks on the WTO.


Syrengelas, K.G., K.L. DeLong, C. Grebitus, R. M. Nayga, Jr. In Press. “Is the Natural Label Misleading? Examining Consumer Preferences for Natural Beef.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.


Tamini, L.D., J.-P. Gervais, and B. Larue. 2010. "Trade Liberalisation Effects on Agricultural Goods at Different Processing Stages." European Review of Agricultural Economics 37(4):453-477.


Tamini, L., P. Ghazalian, J.-P. Gervais, and B. Larue. 2012. "Trade Liberalization in Primary and Processed Agricultural Products: Should Developing Countries Favour Tariff or Domestic Support Reductions?" International Economic Journal 26(1):85-107.


Tamini, L.D., J.-P. Gervais, and B. Larue. 2010. "Trade Liberalisation Effects on Agricultural Goods at Different Processing Stages." European Review of Agricultural Economics 37(4):453-477.


Telleria, R., C. Ludena, B. Shankar, and R. Bennett. 2008. "Would a Free Trade Agreement between Bolivia and the United States Prove Beneficial to Bolivian Households?" Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 5(1):147-170.


Thompson, W. 2010. "Biofuel Effects on Markets and Indirect Effects on Land Use and Food." Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 6(1):117-131.


Thompson, W., P. Charlebois, and G. Tallard. 2010. "'Trades Like Chicken? Three Representations of Chicken Trade for Policy and Market Analysis'." Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 6(2):157-171.


Thompson, W., S. Meyer, and P. Westhoff. 2011. "What to Conclude About Biofuel Mandates from Evolving Prices for Renewable Identification Numbers?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(2):481-487.


Tokarick, S. 2008. "Dispelling Some Misconceptions About Agricultural Trade Liberalization." Journal of Economic Perspectives 22(1):199-216.


Tran, N., N.L.W. Wilson, and S. Anders. 2012. "Standard Harmonization as Chasing Zero (Tolerance Limits): The Impact of Veterinary Drug Residue Standards on Crustacean Imports in the EU, Japan, and North America." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94(2):496-502.

Trejo-Pech, C.J.O., K.L. DeLong, D.M. Lambert, and V. Siokos. 2020. “The Impact of US Sugar Prices on the Financial Performance of US Sugar-Using Firms.” Agricultural and Food Economics, 8(6): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00161-5

 Trejo-Pech, C.J.O., K.L. DeLong, and R. Johansson. 2023. “How Does the Financial Performance of Sugar-Using Firms Compare to other Agribusinesses? An Accounting and Economic Profit Rates Analysis.” Agricultural Finance Review, 83(3): 453:477. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-08-2022-0103

Tuan, F., J. Hansen, A. Somwaru, A. Marchant, N. Kalaitzandonakes, and F. Zhong. 2010. "Hypothetical Commercialization of Biotech Soybeans in China: Impacts on Domestic Markets and International Trade." Journal of Life Sciences 4(3):52-60.


Ubilava, D., B.J. Barnett, K.H. Coble, and A. Harri. 2011. "The SURE Program and Its Interaction with Other Federal Farm Programs." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(3):630-648.


Verburg, P.H., B. Eickhout, and H. van Meijl. 2008. "A Multi-Scale, Multi-Model Approach for Analyzing the Future Dynamics of European Land Use." Annals of Regional Science 42(1):57-77.


Verma, M., T.W. Hertel, and E. Valenzuela. 2011. "Are the Poverty Effects of Trade Policies Invisible?" World Bank Economic Review 25(2):190-211.


Vigani, M., V. Raimondi, and A. Olper. 2012. "International Trade and Endogenous Standards: The Case of GMO Regulations." World Trade Review 11(3):415-437.


Waugh, M.E.  2010.  International trade and income differences.  American Economic Review 100(5): 2093-2124.

 Westhoff, P., T. Davids and B.M. Soon. “Impacts of Retaliatory Tariffs on Farm Income and Government Programs.” Choices (Quarter 4, 2019). Available online: http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/the-economic-impacts-of-trade-retaliation-on-us-agriculture-a-one-year-review/impacts-of-retaliatory-tariffs-on-farm-income-and-government-programs

Whistance, J., S. Meyer, and W. Thompson. “Interactions between California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the National Renewable Fuel Standard.” Energy Policy 101: 447-455. 2017.


Wieck, C., S.W. Schluter, and W. Britz. 2012. "Assessment of the Impact of Avian Influenza-Related Regulatory Policies on Poultry Meat Trade and Welfare." World Economy 35(8):1037-1052.


Winchester, N. 2012. "The Impact of Regulatory Heterogeneity on Agri-Food Trade." World Economy 35(8):973-993.


Yeboah, O. A., Shaik, S., Agyekum, A. F. & Melikpor-Lee, J. (2014). Energy Substitution in U.S. Electricity Generation, Journal of Business and Economics, Volume 5, No. 10. Pp Academic Star Publishing Company. ISSN 2155-7950


Yeboah, A., Naanwaab, C., Yeboah, O. A., Owens J., & Bynum J. (2013). Economic Feasibility of Sustainable High Oilseed-Based Biofuel Production: The Case for Biodiesel in North Carolina. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Volume 16, Issue


Yeboah, Osei-Agyeman, Victor Ofori-Boadu, and Henry Thompson (2012); “U.S. Pork and China Trade in Specific Factors Model.” Agricultural Economic Review Vol.13, No. 2


Yeboah, Osei, Albert Allen, Cihat Gunden and Akua Akuffo, “Efficiency Measure in Nitrogen Management under U.S. Trade-Induced Corn Production,” Southwestern Journal of Economics; September 2012 Vol. XI, No III.


Yeboah, Osei and Saleem Shaik, “Evaluating the Causes of Rising Food Prices in Low and Middle Income Countries; Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics; August 2012 Issue.


Yenerall, J.N., K.L. Jensen, X. Chen, and T.E. Yu. 2022. “COVID-19 Risk Perception and Restaurant Utilization after Easing In-person Restrictions.” Food Policy, 107:102266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102206.

Yu, J., A. Smith, and D. A. Sumner. In press. Effects of Crop Insurance Premium Subsidies on Crop Acreage, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. DOI:10.1093/ajae/aax058

 Yu, T.E., B. Sharma, and B.C. English. 2019. “Investigating Lock Delay on the Upper Mississippi River: a Spatial Panel Analysis.” Networks and Spatial Economics, 19:275-291.

Zahniser, S., Angadjivand, S., Hertz, T., Kuberka, L., & Santos, A. 2015. NAFTA at 20: North America's Free Trade Area and Its Impact on Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

 Zhang, Wei and Mary A. Marchant, in press/2019. “U.S.-China Sorghum Trade Analysis within the Trade Conflict: Growth, Trends, and Forecast.” Journal of Management Policy and Practice.

Zhao, J., J.I. Miller, and W. Thompson. (in press). “Modeling and Extrapolating Wheat Producer Support Using Income and Other Factors.” Journal of Agricultural Economics.


Zhuang, R., W.W. Koo, and J. Mattson. 2008. "Growing U.S. Trade Deficit in Consumer-Oriented Agricultural Products." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(3):953-965.


Zulauf, C., and D. Orden. 2010. "The Revenue Program Option in the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill: Evaluating Performance Characteristics of the ACRE Program." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39(3):517-533.


Zulauf, Carl and David Orden. “80 Years of Farm Bills,” Choices, Quarter 4, 2016.


Land Grant Participating States/Institutions


Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Log Out ?

Are you sure you want to log out?

Press No if you want to continue work. Press Yes to logout current user.

Report a Bug
Report a Bug

Describe your bug clearly, including the steps you used to create it.