Duration: 10/01/2008 to 09/30/2013

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

A. International trade and competitive impacts stemming from changes in domestic agricultural and economic policies, combined with continued reforms in trade treaties and agreements, will be major factors influencing the continued competitiveness of the Southern agricultural sector. The Southern region is an important contributor to U.S. agricultural production, processing and exports. The region is the major supplier of cotton, peanuts, poultry, pecans, tobacco, cane sugar, rice, winter vegetables and citrus fruits and an important contributor to the production of grains, soybeans, feeder cattle, poultry, pork and dairy products. Addressing these issues is important for agricultural producers, policy makers, farm organization leaders, agribusiness firms, rural communities, and related constituencies in order for them to have the information necessary for informed decision making and policy design.

Research conducted within the proposed project will primarily address SAAESD Priority Area Goal 1, AN AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM THAT IS HIGHLY COMPETITIVE IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. Research will specifically address needs pertaining to sub-goals: G. Competitiveness in international markets; and J. Public policy & economics of agricultural production systems.

B. The outcome of this research project is expected to have positive consequences for several groups associated with Southern agriculture. First, through the work of this project; producers and agribusinesses would have timely, reliable information on which to base crucial economic decisions. Second, policy-makers would have access to information from this project upon which to base important domestic and trade policy decisions. In addition, the improved competitiveness of the southern agricultural industry is expected from the availability of research results and recommendations which are expected to strengthen the employment base and consequently to increase the income levels in the Southern States.

C. Regular Hatch and state experiment station funding, grants such as those of the USDA's National Research Initiative, and other sources can and will be used for international trade research by many scientists participating in this research proposal. Such funding typically tends to be used for state specific research which does not address or promote the overlapping interests of the states nor promote cooperative activities and joint undertakings. Funding from the rural development centers is used for joint undertakings but that funding is limited in quantity and is directed to domestic rural development issues although the rural development aspects of international trade could be addressed with such funds if they were adequate for the size of undertaking this effort requires. Thus, use of regional research funds and a regional research project is required to develop the cooperative effort needed for addressing regional and national issues. A regional project permits interaction between states that produces greater results than by the same amount of funds spent carrying out a series of individual state projects. This will be especially valid for this project since a large share of the principal investigators have developed good working relationships through cooperative efforts under S-1016 and previous regional projects over the past 25 years.

D. A multi-state effort is desirable for many reasons. First, the required research is extensive and requires the expertise of a variety of agricultural economics specializations including international trade, production economics, agricultural development, agribusiness, marketing, and policy. Except for the Economic Research Service, no single Agricultural Experiment Station has an adequate number or variety of scientific personnel for conducting the needed research. Thus, a multi-state effort helps assure that a critical mass will be assembled to accomplish the desired goals. Second, there are many agricultural products common to project participants where international trade effects will be significant and where collective, complementary and coordinated approaches will add more to the knowledge base than would be possible with several independent state efforts. Third, a multi-state effort will permit economies in data collection and analysis. An effort of the magnitude required for international trade research demands a large amount of data and a collective effort will save substantial resources compared with that needed for each station to collect and analyze the data. Fourth, a multi-state approach allows a coordinated effort that promotes efficiency and enhances productivity. The division of labor, among the various research participants allows all to benefit but reduces the effort of each and thus permits a larger total research effort. Finally, under S-1016 a considerable body of knowledge has been developed, a set of research skills enhanced, and a cooperative research approach strengthened. This proposed multi-state research project will build on that effort and allow a more comprehensive realization of the potential that the past effort has engendered.

E. The principal benefits of this Cooperative Regional Research Project include information pertaining to the impact and potential impact of domestic policy and WTO and Regional Trade Agreement reform on trade creation and diversion, supply response, import demand, land values, price variability, agricultural value added, food safety and security, emerging bio-energy issues, and the efficiency and welfare of the economy as a whole. Relevant, timely information is necessary as policy makers continue the current round of WTO negotiations and other regional trade agreements. To provide this type of information, existing models must be updated to account for changing world patterns (production, consumption and trade). At the same time, new models must be developed to examine relevant issues as they come to the fore (e.g., the increased emphasis on environmental issues that is likely in future negotiations). Results will be consolidated, published, and disseminated to the many users in an effective, timely, and efficient manner that should have the greatest positive impact on the regions agricultural sector. This will provide information to policy makers that will enhance their ability to formulate agricultural policies and enable Southern regional producers and agribusiness firms to exploit opportunities and avoid financial difficulties associated with the dynamic global economy. As investigators in this project expand and develop models to provide this information, there are several potential benefits that will further science in this area. Specifically, this project should provide new research methods to address these relevant problems as well as insights into adjustment needs. Research outlined in this proposal is expected to make a major contribution to the economic literature.

F. As stated in point A, addressing these issues is important for numerous stakeholders, including agricultural producers, policy makers, farm organization leaders, agribusiness firms, rural communities, and related constituencies to have the information necessary for informed decision making and policy design.

Related, Current and Previous Work

Related current and previous work includes the research conducted under S-1016, other regional research, related work by agricultural experiment station researchers, and work by other academic and non-academic researchers. There are no multi-state research projects, other than S-1016, devoted exclusively to the analysis of international trade in agricultural products. The members of the S-1016 project have conducted collaborative research related to numerous commodities and issues of importance to Southern Agriculture. For example, the group has completed research on the impacts of bio-energy alternatives on Southern Agriculture. Applied research has also focused on the economic impacts of selected invasive species on critical production regions within the South, including zebra-chip and citrus-greening. Animal and poultry disease impacts on trade and producers welfare have also been analyzed. The group has also provided economic analysis on immigration reform alternatives to state and national policy-makers. An applied research effort has also focused on agricultural market potential in Cuba, with results presented to industry and policy-makers. The group has conducted various trade policy simulations to determine the impacts of alternative international trade agreements for commodities including sugar, cotton, peanuts, beef, pork, poultry, wheat, and soybeans. The S-1016 group has held two national conferences, and has recently completed a third (November, 2007), to identify domestic policy options that are consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO and other trade agreements. The group has written public policy information leaflets to be disseminated to national policy-makers prior to finalizing the 2007 Farm Bill. S-1016 members were responsible for developing the Global Competitiveness section for a major national policy education program, The Future of North American Animal Agriculture, sponsored by the Farm Foundation.

A sound applied research base has been developed by S-1016. A new multi-state research project will continue and expand on previous work, and allow for the application of these and new methodologies to emerging domestic and international trade issues.

A substantial number of Hatch projects and/or competitive and special grants by individual or groups of researches at several agricultural experiment stations are concerned with international trade in specific agricultural commodities or general trade issues. Among these are projects for rice (Arkansas and California), cotton (Texas Tech), poultry (West Virginia), pork (Illinois), soybeans (Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin), dairy (Wisconsin, 2), grains (North Carolina, Iowa), wheat (North Dakota, Oklahoma), watermelons (South Carolina), livestock and meat (Kansas, Kentucky, Iowa, Missouri), processed foods (Indiana), wine and cherries (California), peanuts (Georgia). Some projects analyze trade issues for commodities important in a region or state (Utah/products important to Utah, Washington/agricultural products important to the Pacific Northwest, North Carolina/products important to NC and the U.S., North Dakota Great Plains products, Iowa/Midwestern products, Washington/agricultural and forestry products, Oregon/natural resource based products). A few projects examine general trade in agricultural products (Ohio, Washington, North Dakota, North Carolina, and the Economic Research Service, USDA). A few are directed at specific areas: the Caribbean (Florida); Asia (Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Washington, Vermont), LDCs (Indiana), Western Hemisphere (North Carolina), Europe (USDA). Some that are specifically related to the objectives of this project (trade agreements and competitiveness) include: trade barriers (Virginia), GATT (Indiana), liberalization and privatization (Indiana), risk and policy reform (North Carolina), trade assistance (Virginia), policy and trade (Arkansas, California), trade and small and minority businesses (North Carolina A&T), trade implications of exchange rates (California). To the extent that potential duplication may exist, which should be limited, participants on this project will engage individual researchers across the U.S. to avoid duplication of efforts.

A review of the general trade literature indicates that a large amount of research has been and is being done in the area of international trade, although the volume devoted to agricultural trade is considerably smaller than for industrial and other trade issues. Much of this work, however, is nationally focused, with little or no emphasis on the southern United States. This body of work of greatest relevance to this proposal is summarized briefly by major topics. Trade agreement work is relatively vast, but representative work as it relates to agricultural trade includes Hassan (1996), Josling (1993), Lee (1995), Makki, Tweeten and Glecker (1994), and Silvis and Van der Hamsvoort (1996). The effect of trade liberalization is another major research and publications on this topic include: Devadoss and Kropf (1996), Greenway et al. (1993), Pinckney (1993), Jiriyengwa (1993), Rusek (1996); and Awokuse (2007). Some typical policy studies include: Babula, Ruppel and Bessler (1995), Behgin, Brown and Zaini (1997), Chambers and Pick (1994), Diakosavvas (1995), Gopinah et al. (1997), Le Moukl (1995), Mahi and Roe (1996), Paarlberg (1995), and Paarlberg and Orden (1996) Taylor et al. (1996). Macroeconomic policy, while very important in international trade, appears to have received relatively little attention in agricultural trade literature; examples are Bilginsoy (1997) and Valdis (1993). A growing area of research involves the inter-relationships between trade and the environment, although there are relatively few specific references to agricultural trade and the environment; some relevant references include Copeland and Taylor (1995), and Espinosa and Smith (1995). Studies also have been performed which examine the impacts of monetary and exchange rate adjustments on international trade (Gilbert 1991; Fleisig and VanWillingham 1985; Jabara and Schwartz 1987; Labys and Maizels 1993; Labys, Thomas, and Gisbers 1989; and Awokuse and Yuan 2006). Research conducted in the area of bio-energy economics includes work by Gallagher (2005), Taylor, et al. (2006), Vogel (2007), Walsh, et al. (2003). Research conducted in the area of invasive species economics includes work by Acquaye, et al. (2005), Duncan, et al. (2004), Evans, (2003), and Pimentel, et al. (2005). A final group of relevant studies are those that focus on methodology such as Abbott and Kullio (1996), Kennedy, von Witzke and Roe (1996), Liu, Yao and Greener (1996), Makki, Tweeten and Glecker (1994), Gunter, Jeong and White (1996), Peterson et al. (1994), and Yang and Koo (1993). A recent book also is devoted to a methodology for trade analysis (Hertel 1996).

In summary, there is a substantial body of literature concerning agricultural trade. Much of this body is due to the contributions of the S-1016 researchers. However, the growing importance of international trade, trade agreements, and rapidly evolving domestic agricultural and general economic policies, including bio-energy, require that the expertise and cooperative endeavors developed under S-1016 continue to be utilized in addressing emergent problems and issues. Attention to these issues will extend and expand the knowledge base through the generation of critical information for the policy process and the development of new and improved models and modeling techniques.

Objectives

1. Determine economic impacts of changes in domestic policies on the competitiveness of Southern agriculture; and
   
2. Determine economic impacts of international institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank), trade agreements, and government regulation on the competitiveness of Southern agriculture
   

Methods

The research methods used in this project will emphasize cooperative efforts of the individual states and agencies involved in the activities. While researchers from the individual state experiment stations will be working on the products of interest to each, common methodologies will be used so that the results can be combined for regional applications and publications. This approach requires collaboration in collecting data, conducting the analyses and presenting the results, which can be utilized by all states that have an interest in the particular product without having to actually designate scientist years to the analyses. This approach will provide a more efficient use of limited resources and will allow for a more thorough analysis of policies, institutions, and commodities important to the South. A multi-state approach provides a mechanism for comparing results and determining causes of intra-regional variation. A collaborative research effort results in less duplication of effort and will, therefore, be more efficient. Objective 1: Determine economic impacts of changes in domestic policies on the competitiveness of Southern agriculture. The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment (FSRI) Act marked a major shift in U.S. agricultural policy from the 1996 FAIR Act by providing an environment in which environmental payments are more pronounced and payments are more closely tied to production. The FSRI Act maintains some of the planting flexibility found in the FAIR act, but alters payment criteria for producers of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, and cotton. Under the new Act, some government payments are decoupled, while other government payments are dependent on the level of production. In addition, the FSRI Act eliminated the peanut supply management program and replaced it with a program similar to other program crops. The 2007 Farm Bill will likely have payment components similar to those contained in the 2002 FSRI. Regardless, it will be critically important to analyze the impacts of new Farm Legislation on the competitiveness of Southern agriculture. Procedures: The impacts on competitiveness, trade flows, producer incomes, consumer welfare stemming from changes in U.S. domestic agricultural policies will be determined by the development of new models or modification of existing models. The analyses will determine direct impacts on the commodities affected and the indirect impacts on commodities which may be affected through competition for resources or where crop products serve as inputs into the production of other commodities, e.g., grains used in livestock production. Econometric, simulation, and other economic models will be used to accomplish these policy evaluations. Specific procedures include to (1) estimate supply response models for wheat, rice, cotton, sorghum, peanuts and sugar based on alternative agricultural policies, (2) revise the world wheat and policy simulation models on the basis of re-parameterized supply response equations, and (3) compare the simulation results with the base solution to evaluate the impacts of the agricultural policies on the U.S. meats, wheat, rice, cotton, peanuts, sorghum, and sugar industries and their competitiveness in global markets. Wailes (Arkansas) will coordinate the collaborative effort for rice, Hudson (Mississippi) for cotton, Fletcher (Georgia) for peanuts, Malaga (Texas Tech) for sorghum, and Koo (North Dakota State) for wheat. Kennedy (Louisiana State) and Koo will collaborate in the sugar modeling. Henneberry will analyze the economic, welfare, and trade impacts of domestic and international policies on meats (beef, pork, and poultry). Henneberry and Sanders (Oklahoma State) will research the impact of domestic and trade liberalization policies on trade and growth while Hudson (Mississippi State) will examine the impacts of changing U.S. policy on farm structure and international competitiveness. Rosson (Texas A&M) will assess the impacts of selected farm program provisions related to trade, such as Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling and their subsequent effects on business activity, income and employment in the South. Rosson will also continue to estimate the economic impacts of expanding agricultural exports to Cuba. Specifically, IMPLAN, an input-output model, will be used to estimate the effects of selected policy changes on economic output, value added and employment in the region. Jolly (Auburn) will provide support and access data bases for agricultural policy. Collaborators from the Economic Research Service will provide input on the historical distribution of farms. Gunter (Georgia) will examine relationships between U.S. agricultural policies and trade agreements, including differing regional impacts on U.S. agriculture. Yeboah (NC A&T) will examine the factors influencing U.S. bilateral agricultural trade with Central and South American countries and determine the trade creation and diversion effects of tariff removal on agricultural trade with these countries. Wailes (Arkansas) will use the Arkansas Global Rice Model (AGRM) to assess changes in domestic policies of our major rice export competitors and importers. Fletcher (Georgia) will use FLIPSIM to access changes in U.S. domestic policies including macroeconomic factors on the economic viability and competitiveness of the National Center for Peanut Competitivenesss 19 U.S. Representative Peanut Farms. Koo (North Dakota State) will update and use the global wheat and sugar simulation models at North Dakota State University to determine the impacts of changes in the domestic policies of both U.S. and foreign countries on competitiveness. Jolly and Thompson (Auburn) will use a CGEE model to evaluate how the domestic policies of U.S. main competitors affect the competitiveness of the U.S. agricultural and forest products from the Southeastern United States. Reed (Kentucky) will use partial equilibrium models to measure the effects of increased economic growth and liberalized exchange rate policies on US competitiveness in grain and meat trade. Henneberry will use a displacement equilibrium model to measure the welfare impacts of non-price promotion, Country of Origin Labeling, and trade barriers on producers and marketers of U.S. meats. Kinnucan (Auburn) will determine the welfare effects of non-price export promotion of foreign countries on U.S. producers and consumers. Hudson (Mississippi State) will examine the changes in agricultural policy in foreign countries on the competitiveness of Southern agriculture, especially cotton. The opportunity cost of irrigation water used in the Mexican state of Chihuahua will be estimated by Rosson (Texas A&M) and compared to costs in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (LRGV). Rosson (Texas A&M) will also analyze the status of livestock competition, trends in Canadian production regions, and impacts on U.S. livestock markets. Yeboah (NC A&T) will apply a general gravity framework to estimate the effects of macroeconomic factors on the flow of agricultural commodities between the United States and Central and South American countries. Objective 2: Determine economic impacts of international institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank) and trade agreements on the competitiveness of Southern agriculture. Methods: Econometric, simulation, and spatial equilibrium models will be used. In addition, export demand equations will be developed and estimated to analyze import behavior of agricultural commodities and products in major importing countries. Researchers involved in this procedure will consult in the initial stages of the project and periodically to develop appropriate methods, to coordinate activities and to avoid duplication. The important provisions resulting from the Doha development agenda of the WTO will be addressed in this objective. These provisions include tariff reductions, reforms in export competition, and changes resulting from trade-distorting domestic support. Procedure 2.A: Effects of international institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank). A multi state research effort will be used to analyze these issues and determine their impact on the competitiveness of Southern agriculture. The stations and their primary commodities are: Arkansas (Wailes), rice; Delaware (Awokuse), corn, soybeans and poultry; Florida (Van Sickle), citrus fruits and vegetables; Georgia (Fletcher), peanuts; Kentucky (Reed), dairy and wood products; Louisiana State (Kennedy), rice and sugar; Mississippi State (Allen and Hudson), corn, cotton, soybeans and poultry; Texas A&M (Rosson), animal protein and related products; North Dakota State (Koo) and Oklahoma State (Henneberry), wheat and sugar; Texas Tech (Malaga), cotton and sorghum. (Work on trade in other commodities will be undertaken by individual researchers as problems and issues arise.) In addition to research on specific commodities Mississippi State (Allen) will analyze the impacts of intellectual property rights provisions as they apply to soybeans; Oklahoma State (Henneberry) will look at the new WTO rulings and the alignment of domestic policies with the rulings. Mississippi State (Allen) will examine the factors causing the government agencies (FDA, USDA, etc.) to reject food imports for entrance into the United States. Allen will also determine the impact on Southern Agriculture of Federal Agencies critical infrastructure responses and new security regulations. Furthermore, Delaware (Awokuse) will investigate the impact of macroeconomic and market reform policies in foreign nations on US agricultural trade. A major study on the U.S. proposal in the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations will be conducted by Wailes (Arkansas) in assessing impacts of the U.S. proposal and other countries proposals on competitiveness of the U.S. rice industry. Rosson (Texas A&M) will develop an analytical framework to estimate the qualitative impacts of freer trade likely to result from ongoing multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations. This will be a joint activity of cooperating members of S-1016. Allen (Mississippi State) will use econometric and spatial equilibrium models to determine the factors that affect the reasons why countries join or become part of trade agreements or regional economic integration institutions such as the proposed FTAA. Thompson and Jolly (Auburn) will use a small-scale general equilibrium model to determine Southern agricultural production and income distribution and determine its adjustment to WTO policies. Kinnucan (Auburn) will examine the domestic producer impacts of targeted tariffs on U.S. agricultural producers. Malagas (Texas Tech) efforts will be focused on the modeling and simulation of the impact of WTO related provisions on the Cotton/Textile/Apparel complex. Yeboah (NC A&T) will estimate the impact of undervalued currencies and exchange rate fluctuations on commodities of importance to Southern agriculture. Procedure 2.B: Effects of regional, bilateral, and related trade agreements. NAFTA, CAFTA, and other free trade agreements are affecting many agricultural commodities important to the Southern Region, some favorably and others unfavorably. The European Union, MERCOSUR, APEC and other agreements and trading blocks have impacts on Southern agriculture. Thus, it is important to determine actual and potential impacts of such agreements and to assess strategies to meet the challenges and/or to take full advantage of opportunities from such developments so that U.S. and Southern producers benefit as much as possible. Many of the issues and needs are similar to those described in objective 2A, but other research issues are different. For example, the movement toward complete free trade for agricultural products between the U.S., Canada and Mexico under NAFTA in 2008 will affect Southern agricultural producers more rapidly than will the slower movements toward freer trade in the WTO. Southern agricultural products also tend to be subject to treatment as sensitive products in trade negotiations, resulting in delayed trade reform. Understanding the political economy and negotiation process variables that influence such treatment is needed. Procedures: Various econometric and simulation models will be developed to evaluate U.S. and Southern exports to its NAFTA partners as well as U.S. imports from those countries. Both econometric trade and spatial equilibrium models will be developed to investigate trade effects of free trade agreements such as the European Union, MERCOSUR, and APEC. During the first year of the project, researchers from the various stations involved in this sub-objective will meet to evaluate methodological issues and to coordinate their activities to assure that the research is complementary and not duplicative. While the research effort will not be limited to these products, Arkansas (Wailes) will concentrate on rice and the negotiation treatment of sensitive products; Georgia (Fletcher) on peanuts; Mississippi State (Allen, Hudson, and Herndon) will consider corn, cotton, soybeans and soybeans products, and poultry; North Dakota State (Koo) will develop and estimate models for wheat and processed agricultural products; and Texas A&M (Rosson), animal protein and related products. Mississippi State (Allen) will examine the impact of global, regional, and bilateral trade agreements on selected Southern agricultural and food products. Henneberry (Oklahoma State) will analyze the economic impacts of NAFTA and meat trade among NAFTA countries. Hudson (Mississippi State) will examine the interface between regional free trade agreements and domestic policy, focusing on how these agreements might constrain U.S. policy in the future. Wailes (Arkansas) will study the trade creation and diversion effects of regional trade agreements for rice, including the NAFTA, and APEC. Econometric models of negotiated tariff schedule reform and case studies by Wailes (Arkansas) will analyze sensitive products including rice, poultry, dairy, wheat and corn. Both econometric models and the policy simulation models will be used by Koo (North Dakota State) to analyze effects of the WTO and regional free trade agreements on U.S. agricultural competitiveness for all agricultural commodities and products. Thompson (Auburn) will study the implications of regional trade agreements on agricultural and forest production in the South. Malaga (Texas Tech) will undertake the continuous analysis of the NAFTA impacts on the US-Mexico trade in cotton/textiles, grain sorghum, and livestock/beef, with emphasis on rising marketing/transportation issues. Reed (Kentucky) will analyze the dynamic effects of EU enlargement on corn, soybean, and meat trade. Yeboah (NC A&T) will utilize a Gravity model to explain bilateral trade in soybean and pork products between the United States and China. Procedure 2.C: Effects of market behavior, performance and expansion on the competitiveness of Southern agriculture. Methods: Market behavior, including supply and demand, risk and uncertainty will be studied using various simulation methods. Econometric techniques will be primarily employed to accomplish this objective, along with various simulation methods. Economic impacts will focus on changes in economic output, value added and employment, utilizing IMPLAN, an economic input-output model. Economic performance will focus on price analysis and other important variables. Trade flows and their impacts on regional economies in the South will be emphasized. Rosson (Texas A&M) will estimate the economic impacts of agricultural labor shortages on horticulture, dairy and beef production in Texas and selected other states. Impacts of selected invasive species will be updated and reported

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Journal Articles
• Books and Book Chapters
• Professional Papers
• Conferences Organized

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Better ability to understand and predict changes resulting from changes in trade agreements.
• Better ability to understand and predict changes resulting from changes in domestic policy.
• More clientele exposure to trade research and information.

Milestones

(2008): 2008-2013 - Organize and conduct organized symposia and invited paper sessions at regional, national, and international professional meetings and other fora to extend the applied research results obtained within this regional research project.

(2010): Organize and conduct a major conference outlining the changes occurring in trade agreements and their effects on Southern agriculture.

(2012): Conduct a regional workshop related to emerging issues in trade agreements and their effects on important clientele groups and commodities in the southern United States. Proceedings from this conference will be disseminated as a web-based regional experiment station bulletin.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

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/or organizes major regional and national conferences with both web access to proceedings and popular press coverage.

Organization/Governance

The Regional Technical Committee organization and functioning follow that suggested in the Manual for Cooperative Regional Research, pages 18-22 (1992). The membership includes the regional administrative advisor (non-voting); a Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES) representative (non-voting); and a technical representative from each participating agricultural experiment station appointed by the Director.

Other agencies and institutions may participate at the invitation of the Administrative Advisor. More than one representative of a participating agricultural experiment station, agency, research group or institution may serve on the technical committee and serve as officers of the committee. However, each agricultural experiment station, agency, research group or institution is limited to one vote regardless of the number of participants.

All members of the Technical Committee are eligible for office, regardless of the sponsoring agency affiliation. This organization is as follows:

Officers: The chairperson is elected by the voting members to a two-year term and may be reelected for additional terms of office. The chairperson, in consultation with the administrative advisor, notifies the technical committee members of the time and place of meetings, prepares the agenda, and presides at meetings of the technical committee and executive committee. He or she is responsible for preparing the annual report of the regional project. The existing S-1016 chairperson will serve as the chair of the new committee for a one-year term (through Fall 2009). At that time, a new chairperson for the new committee will be elected for a two-year term.

Secretary: The secretary records the minutes and performs other duties assigned by the technical committee or the administrative advisor. He or she is elected by the voting members to a two-year term and may be reelected for additional terms of office. The existing S-1016 secretary will serve as the secretary of the new committee for a one-year term (through Fall 2009). At that time, a new secretary for the new committee will be elected for a two-year term.

Subcommittees: The Project has an executive committee that is designated to conduct the business of the committee between meetings and perform other duties as assigned by the technical committee. It consists of the Project chairperson, secretary, and two other members of the committee. These two members are elected by the voting members of the technical committee to two-year terms and may be reelected for additional terms of office. They serve staggered terms with one member being elected each Fall. One of these members will serve as the liaison between this Project and the Southern Extension Policy and Trade Committee. Other subcommittees are named by the chairperson as needed for specific assignments such as developing procedures, planning conferences, and preparing publications.

Literature Cited

Abbott, P.C. and P.K.S. Kullio. 1996. Implications of Game Theory for International Agricultural Trade. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 78(Aug):738-44.

Acquaye, Albert K. A., Julian M. Alston, Hyunok Lee, Daniel A. Sumner. (2005). Economic Consequences of Invasive Species Policies in the Presence of Commodity Programs: Theory and Application to Citrus Canker, Review of Agricultural Economics 27(3):498-504.

Adcock, Flynn J., Darren Hudson, Parr Rosson, Harold M. Harris, Jr. and Cary W. Herndon. The Global Competitiveness of the North American Livestock Industry, Choices, Third Quarter, 2006, 21 (3).

Adcock, Flynn, Joe Outlaw, Parr Rosson Roland Fumasi, and Yan Xia. Southwest Regional Perspectives on Specialty Crop Policy Options and Consequences, Project Report, July 2006.

Adcock, F., D. Hudson, P. Rosson, H. Harris, and C. Herndon. The Global Competitiveness of the North American Livestock Industry. Choices, 21(2006): 171-176.

Adcock, Flynn and Parr Rosson. The U.S. Chile Free Trade Agreement: Issues for Agriculture. Center for North American Studies, CNAS 2004 1, July 2004.

Anderson, Kym, Will Martin, and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe (2006). ADistortions to World Trade: Impacts on Agricultural Markets and Farm Incomes,@ Review of Agricultural Economics 28(2):168B194.

Anderson, Kym, and Martin Will (2005). Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, The World Economy 28(9):1301-1327

Atici, C., and P.L. Kennedy, Tradeoffs Between Income Distribution and Welfare: The Case of Turkeys Integration into the European Union, Journal of Policy Modeling, 27,5(2005):553-563.

Awokuse, T.O. (2007) Market Reforms, Spatial Price Dynamics and China's Rice Market Integration: A Causal Analysis with Directed Acyclic Graph. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 32(1): 58-76.

Awokuse, T.O. and Y. Yuan (2006). Impact of Exchange Rate Volatility on U.S. Poultry Exports, Agribusiness: An International Journal, 22(2): 233-245.

Babula, R.A., F.J. Ruppel and D.A. Bessler. 1995. U.S. Corn Exports: the Role of the Exchange Rate. Ag. Econ. 13(Nov):75-88.

Baek, J. and Koo, W.W., Dynamic Interrelationships between the U.S. Agricultural Trade Balance and the Macroeconomy, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, forthcoming.

Baek, J. and Koo, Identifying Macroeconomic Linkages to U.S. Agricultural Trade Balance, Canadian J. of Agricultural Economics, forthcoming.

Behgin, J.C., A.B. Brown and M.H. Zaini. 1997. Impacts of Domestic Content Requirement on the U.S. Tobacco and Cigarette Industries. Ag. Econ. 15(Jan):201-212.

Bilginsoy, C. 1997. A Macroeconomic Analysis of the Terms of Trade in Turkey. J. Development Studies 33(Aug):797-818.

Bureau, Jean-Christophe, Sebastien Jean, and Alan Matthews (2006). The Consequences of Agricultural Trade Liberalization for Developing Countries: Distinguishing Between Genuine Benefits and False Hopes, World Trade Review 5(2):225-249.

Burfisher, Mary E., and Elizabeth A. Jones (1998). Regional Trade Agreements and U.S. Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Report No. (AER771), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November.

Chambers, R.G. and D.H. Pick. 1994. Marketing Orders as Nontariff Trade Barriers. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 76(Feb):47-54.

Cho, Guedae, Ian M. Sheldon, and Steve McCorriston. (2002). Exchange Rate Uncertainty and Agricultural Trade, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(4):931 942.

Coble, K., C. Miller, and D. Hudson. Deccoupled Farm Payments and Expectations for Base Updating. Review of Agricultural Economics, in press.

Copland, B.R. and M.S. Taylor. 1995. Trade and the Environment: A partial Analysis. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 77(Aug):765-71.

Costa de Farias, Rafael, C. Parr Rosson, III and Ecio de Farias Costa. Decreasing Brazils Transportation Costs Through Improvement in Infrastructure: A General Equilibrium Analysis on the Soybean Complex World Market, Journal of Food Distribution Research, March 2007, 38 (1).

Deepika M G. (2006) Agricultural Trade and its Linkages to Macroeconomic Variables in the Indian Economy, Icfai Journal of Agricultural Economics 3(1):7 21.
Devadoss, S. and J. Kropf. 1996. Impacts of Trade Liberalization under the Uruguay Round on the Worl Surga Market. Ag. Econ. 15(Nov):83-96.

Diakosavvas, D. 1995. How Integrated is the World Beef Market? The Case of Australia and U.S., Beef Markets. Ag. Econ. 12(Apr):37-54.

Duncan, Celestine A., John J. Jachetta, Melissa L. Brown, Vanelle F. Carrithers, Janet K. Clark, Joseph M. DiTomaso, Rodney G. Lym, Kirk C. McDaniel, Mark J. Renz, and Peter M. Rice. (2004) Assessing the Economic, Environmental, and Societal Losses from Invasive Plants on Rangeland and Wildlands, Weed Technology 18(5):1411B1416.

Durand-Morat, A. and E. Wailes. 2006. Sensitive product designation in the Doha Round: the case of rice. Proceedings, 31st Rice Technical Working Group Meeting, The Woodlands, TX, February, 2007. http://www.uaex.edu/RTWG/Meetings.htm

Elobeid, Amani, and John Beghin (2006). Multilateral Trade and Agricultural Policy Reforms in Sugar Markets, Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(1):23B48.

ESCOP. 1996. Opportunities to Meet Changing Needs: An Update on the Strategic Agenda for the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, in ESCOP Strategic Plan Update, http://agcomwww.Texas A&M.edu/agcom/saaesd/strategy/escoplan/cross.htm#H.

Espinosa, J.A. and V.K. Smith. 1995. Measuring the Environmental Consequences of Trade Policy: A Nonmarket CGE Analysis. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 78(Aug): 772-77.

Evans, Edward A. (2003). Economic Dimensions of Invasive Species,@ Choices Second Quarter.

Fleisig, H. and S. Van Willingham. 1985. Primary Commodities Prices, the Business Cycle and the Real Exchange Rate. Working Paper, London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.

Gallagher, Paul W. (2005). Economics and Rural Development of Bioenergy, Staff General Research Paper No. 12303, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

Gilbert, C.L. 1991. Response of Primary Commodity Prices to Exchange Rate Changes. In: L. Philips, ed., Commodity Futures and Financial Markets. Dordecht: Kluwar.

Gopinah, M., C. Andrade, M. Shane and T. Roe. 1997. Agricultural Competitiveness: The Case of the United States and Major European Countries. Ag. Econ. 16(May):99-110.

Greenway, D., C.W. Morgan, A.J. Rayner and G.V. Reed. 1993. Trade Liberalization and Domestic Price Stability in an Agricultural Commodity Market. Applied Econ. 25(Feb):199-206.

Gunter, L.F., K.H. Jeong and F .C. White. 1996. Multiple Trade Goals in a Trade Model with Explicit Factor Markets. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 78(May):313-30.

Hassan, Z.A. 1996. Agreement on Agriculture in the Uruguay Round of GATT: From Punta del Este to Marakesh. Ag. Econ. 15(Sept):29-46.

Henneberry, Shida and Joao Mutondo. Food Labels: Implications for U.S. Agricultural Imports. Journal of Agribusiness, vol. 25, No. 2 (Fall 2007):197-214.

Henneberry, Shida and Seong-huyk Hwang. Meat Demand in S. Korea: An Application of the Restricted Source-Differentiated AIDS Model. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics., Volume 39, No. 1, April 2007, pages 47-60.

Henneberry, Shida R. and Walter Armbruster. Emerging Roles for Food Labels: Inform, Protect, Persuade, Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. XXXIV, Number 3, November 2003, pp. 62-69.

Hertel, W.T., ed. 1996. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Hudson, Darren, Tian Xia, Osei Yeboah Foreign Direct Investment and Domestic Industries: Market Expansion or Outsourcing? Review of Agricultural Economics, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1-7.

Hudson, D.,C. P. Rosson, J. Robinson, and J. Malaga. The WTO Cotton Case and US Domestic Policy. Choices. 2nd Quarter, 2005, 20(2). On-line journal of the American Agricultural Economics Association, available at http://www.choicesmagazine.org, July 2005.

Jabara, C. and N. Schwartz. 1987. Flexible Exchange Rates and Commodity Prices. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 69:580-90.

Jiriyengwa, S.J. 1993. Grain Market Liberalization and Social Gains: The Grain Marketing Board in Zimbabwe. Food Policy 18(Aug):316-24.

Josling, Timothy, E., Mechel S. Paggi, C. Parr Rosson, III and M. Darren Hudson. International Setting, The 2007 Farm Bill: Policy Options and Consequences, Farm Foundation, www.farmfoundation.org, February 2007.

Josling, Timothy (1998). Agricultural Trade Policy: Completing the Reform. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC

Josling, T. 1993. Multilateralism: A Constraint on Unilateralism, and Regionalism in Agricultural Trade Am. J. Ag. Econ. 75(Nov):803-9.

Kennedy, P. Lynn and Won W. Koo (2002). Agricultural Trade Policies in the New Millennium, Food Products Press, An imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., New York.

Kenkel, Phil and Shida Henneberry. "An Economic Analysis of Unit-Train Facility Investment, Revista Mexicana de Agronegocias (Agribusiness Review for Mexico and Latin America), Year 10, Volume 19, Number 4, July- December, 2006, pages 52-81.

Koo, W.W., P.L. Kennedy, and A. Skripnitchenko, Regional Preferential Trade Agreements: Trade Creation and Diversion Effects, Review of Agricultural Economics, 28,3(2006):408-415.

Koo, W.W. and P.L. Kennedy. International Trade and Agriculture, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. First Edition, 2005.

Koo, Won W. and William Wilson (2002). Agricultural Trade under CUSTA, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York.

Kennedy, P.L., H. von Witzke and T.L. Roe. 1996. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: A Non-Cooperative and Cooperative Game Approach. European Rev. of Ag. Econ. 23(4):381-400.

Labys, W. and A. Maizels. 1993. Impact of Commodity Price Fluctuations on the Developed Economies. J. Policy Modeling 15(3):335-52.

Labys, W., H.C. Thomas and D.J. Gisbers. 1989. Monetary and Economic Influence in Econometric Models of International Commodity Price Behavior. In R. Guimares, B. Kingsman and S. Taylor, eds. A Reappraisal of the Efficiency of Financial Markets. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Le Moukl, C. 1995. Import Tariffs, Domestic Distortions and Market Linkages: Rebalancing EU Cereals Protection. European Rev. of Ag. Econ. 22-4:447-568.

Lee, D.R. 1995. Western Hemisphere Economic Integration: Implications and Prospects for Economic Trade. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 77(Dec):1274-82.

Lee, D.S., and P.L. Kennedy, A Political Economic Analysis of U.S. Rice Export Programs to Japan and South Korea: A Game Theoretic Approach, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88,2(2006): 420-431

Lee, D.S., P.L. Kennedy, and S.M. Fletcher, An Analysis of Latin American Peanut Trade, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 38,1(2006): 1-16

Lee, D.S., and P.L. Kennedy, Demand Behavior of U.S. High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and its Implications for the U.S. Sweetener Market: A Cointegration Analysis, Korean Journal of Agricultural Management and Policy, (2006) forthcoming.

Lee, D.S., Y. Wang and P.L. Kennedy, Implications of U.S. Rice Export Promotion Programs: The Case of Latin America, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, 2,2(2006): 205-219.

Liu, A., S. Yao and R. Greener. 1996. A CGE Model of Agricultural Policy Reform in the Phillipines. J. Ag. Econ. 47(Jan):18-27.

Mahi, L. and T.L. Roe. 1996. The Political Economy of Reforming the 1992 CAP Reform. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 78(Dec):1214-23.

Makki, S.S., L. Tweeten and J. Glecker. 1994. Agricultural Trade Negotiations as a Strategic Game. Ag. Econ. 10(Jan):71-80.

Mane, R and E.J. Wailes (2006). Impacts of trade liberalization results from the Arkansas Global Rice Model. Proceedings, 31st Rice Technical Working Group Meeting, The Woodlands, TX. http://www.uaex.edu/RTWG/Meetings.htm

Mane, R. and E. Wailes (2006). Impact of trade liberalization in rice: assessing alternative proposals. Selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, Long Beach, CA. July 2006. http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=21930&ftype=.pdf

Meilke, Karl, Mitch Wensley, and Merritt Cluff. (2001) AThe Impact of Trade Liberalization on the International Oilseed Complex,@ Review of Agricultural Economics 23(1):2-17.

Mutondo, Joao E. and Shida Rastegari Henneberry. A Source Differentiated Analysis of U.S. Meat Demand. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3 (December 2007): pp. 515-533.

Nelson, F. and L. Schertz, ed. 1996. Provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. USDA-ERS Commercial Agriculture Division Ag. Info. Bulletin No. 729. Paarlberg, P.L. 1995. Agricultural Export Subsidies and Intermediate Trade Goods. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 77:(Feb)119-28.

Paarlberg, Philip L., Maury Bredahl and John G. Lee (2002). Multifunctionality and Agricultural Trade Negotiations, Review of Agricultural Economics 24(2):322-335.

Paarlberg, R. and D. Orden. 1996. Explaining U.S. Farm Policy In 1996 and Beyond: Changes in Party Control and Changing Market Conditions. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 78(Aug):709-21.

Paggi, M.S., P.L. Kennedy, F. Yamazaki, and T. Josling, Regional Trade Agreements and Implications for U.S. Agriculture: The Case of DR-CAFTA, Choices, 20,2(2005):137-141.

Pan, Suwen, Mohamadou Fadiga, Samarendu Mohanty, and Mark Welch. (2007). Cotton in a Free Trade World, Economic Inquiry 45(1):188 197.

Penson, John B., Oral Capps, Jr., C. Parr Rosson, III and Richard T. Woodward. Introduction to Agricultural Economics, Prentice-Hall, Fourth Edition, 2006.

Peterson, E. B., T. W. Hertel and J. V. Stout. 1994. AA Critical Assessment of Supply-Demand Models in Agricultural Trade. Am. J. Ag. Econ. 76(Dec):1305-13.

Petrolia, D.R., and P.L. Kennedy, Increasing the U.S. Tariff-Rate Sugar Quota for Cuba and Mexico: A Partial-Equilibrium Simulation, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 35,3(December 2003): 589-597.

Pimentel, David, Rodolfo Zuniga and Doug Morrison. (2005). Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien invasive species in the United States, Ecological Economics 52(3):273-288.

Pinckney, T. C. 1993. Is Market Liberalization Compatible with Food Security: Storage, Trade and Price Policies for Maize in Southern Africa. Food Policy 18(Aug):325-333.

Poosiripinyo, Rangsit and Michael Reed. Measuring Market Power in the Japanese Chicken Meat Market in New Topics in International Agricultural Trade and Development. Miljkovic, editior. Nova Science Publishers. 2006: 135-148.

Poosiripinyo, Rangsit and Michael Reed. Measuring Market Power in the Japanese Chicken Meat Market Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 1 (2005): 135-48.

Reed, Michael. Outsourcing and Foreign Direct Investment: Boon or Bane? Discussion. Review of Agricultural Economics 27 (2005) No. 3: 402-4.

Rosson, Parr, Michelle Niemeyer and Flynn Adcock. Economic Impacts of Reduced Migrant Labor on the Texas Dairy Sector, CNAS Issue Brief 2007-07, November 1, 2007.

Rosson, Parr, Michelle Tomlinson and Flynn Adcock. Economic Impacts of Reduced Migrant Labor on U.S. and Texas Agriculture, CNAS Issue Brief 2007-06, October 26, 2007

Rosson, Parr, Flynn Adcock, Michelle Niemeyer, Georgia Clark and Alejandro Varela. Labor Use in the Texas Onion Industry, CNAS Issue Brief 2007-05, May 11, 2007

Rosson, Parr, Michelle Niemeyer, Jose Pena, Flynn Adcock, Marco Palma and Luis Ribera. An Initial Assessment of the Economic Impacts of E. Coli on the Texas Spinach Industry, CNAS Issue Brief, 2007-04, April 12, 2007.

Rosson, Parr, David Anderson, Flynn Adcock and Michelle Tomlinson. Impacts of the Lost Mexican Market for U.S. Cattle, CNAS Issue Brief, 2007-03, April 5, 2007.

Rosson, Parr, Michelle Tomlinson and Flynn Adcock. Estimated Economic Impacts of Reduced Migrant Labor Supply on Vegetable, Fruit and Nursery Industries, CNAS Issue Brief March 28, 2007.

Rosson, III, C. Parr, Mechel S. Paggi and Larry Sanders. Biosecurity and Trade, The 2007 Farm Bill: Policy Options and Consequences, Farm Foundation, www.farmfoundation.org, February 2007.

Rosson, Parr, Michelle Niemeyer, Marco Palma, Luis Ribera and Flynn Adcock. Economic Impacts of Greening on the Texas Citrus Industry, CNAS Issue Brief, 2007-01, February 12, 2007.

Rosson, Parr, Michelle Niemeyer, Marco Palma and Luis Ribera. Economic Impacts of Zebra Chip on the Texas Potato Industry. CNAS Issue Brief, December 21, 2006.

Rosson, Parr, Michelle Niemeyer and Flynn Adcock. Economic Impacts of Immigration Reform Options. Center for North American Studies, Issue Brief, October 25, 2006.

Rosson, C. Parr, Guest Editor. Forces Shaping Change: WTO, Trade Agreements, and Market Integration. Choices. 2nd Quarter, 2005, 20(2). On-line journal of the American Agricultural Economics Association, available at http://www.choicesmagazine.org, July 2005

Rosson, C. Parr. Overview, Forces Shaping Change: WTO, Trade Agreements, and Market Integration. Choices. 2nd Quarter, 2005, 20(2). On-line journal of the American Agricultural Economics Association, available at http://www.choicesmagazine.org, July 2005.

Rosson, C. Parr, III and Flynn J. Adcock. Food Chain Disruptions and Trade: The Importance of North American Market Integration. Choices. 2nd Quarter, 2005, 20-2. On-line journal of the American Agricultural Economics Association, http://www.choicesmagazine.org, July 2005.

Rosson, C. Parr, III and Flynn J. Adcock. The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling on U.S. Agriculture. International Agriculture and Trade Disputes: Case Studies in North American Agriculture. Andrew Schmitz, et al, Editors. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2005.

Rosson, C. Parr, III. GMOs and Trade. Texas Agriculture, Vol. 19, No. 4, Texas Farm Bureau, Waco, TX, September 19, 2003.

Rosson, C. Parr, III. WTO Talks: US, EU Move Closer on Global Trade. Texas Agriculture, Vol. 19, No. 4, Texas Farm Bureau, Waco, TX, September 19, 2003

Rosson, Parr, and Flynn Adcock. Estimated Irrigation Water Use in Chihuahua, Mexico, 1980-2001. Center for North American Studies Issue Brief, CNAS IB2003-03, September 12, 2003.

Rosson, Parr. EU-US Agricultural Framework Agreement, Center for North American Studies Issue Brief, CNAS IB2003-02, September 12, 2003.

Rosson, Parr and Flynn Adcock. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Deepening Economic Integration and Responses to Competition. Prepared for Western Economics Association International annual meetings, July 11-15, 2003, Denver, Colorado. Center for North American Studies, CNAS 2003-3, July 2003.

Rosson, Parr, and Flynn Adcock. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling and U.S. Beef. Center for North American Studies Issue Brief, CNAS IB2003-01, June 17, 2003.

Rosson, Parr. Agricultural Exports to Cuba. Livestock Weekly, Vol. 55, No. 21, May 11, 2003.

Rosson, Parr, and Flynn Adcock. Policy Changes, Trade Tensions, and Disputes: Focus on Grains and Pulses. Prepared for Policy Disputes Information Consortium, April 23-26, 2003, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Center for North American Studies, CNAS 2003-2, April 2003.

Rosson, Parr, and Flynn Adcock. The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling on U.S. Agriculture. Center for North American Studies, CNAS 2003-1, March 2003.

Rusek, C. 1996. Trade Liberalization in Developed Countries: Movement to Market Control of Agricultural Trade in the United States, Japan, and the European Union. Admin. Law Rev. 48:(Fall)493-501.

Saghaian, Sayed and Michael Reed. "Monetary Policy Impacts on U.S. Livestock-Oriented Agricultural Prices." Progress in Economic Research Volume 9 Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY. 2006: 45-62

Schmitz, Andrew, Charles Moss, Troy Schmitz, and Won W. Koo (2005). International Trade Disputes: Case Studies in North America, The University of Calgary Press, Alberta, Canada.

Silvis, H.J. and C.P.C.M. Van der Hamsvoort. 1996. The AMS in Agricultural Trade Negotiations: A Review. Food Policy 21(Dec):527-39.

Smith, V. and J. Glauber. 1997. The Effects of the 1996 Farm Bill on Feed and Food Grains. Montana State Univ., Trade Research Center Policy Issue paper No. 3, Sept.

Susanto, Dwi, Parr Rosson, and Flynn J. Adcock. Market Integration and Convergence to the Law of One Price in the North American Onion Markets.@ Agribusiness: An International Journal. Wiley InterScience, Hoboken, New Jersey, Volume 24, Issue No. 2, Spring 2008.

Susanto, Dwi, C. Parr Rosson, III, and Flynn J. Adcock. Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the North American Free Trade Agreement: The Case of the Agricultural Sector, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 39, 1 (April 2007): 121-134.

Taylor, E.L., D.A. Bessler, M.L. Waller and M.E. Rister. 1996. Dynamic Relationships between U.S. and Thai Rice Prices. Ag. Econ. 14:(Jul)123-34.

Taylor, Richard , Jeremy Mattson, Jose Andino, and Won W. Koo (2006). Ethanols Impact on the U.S. Corn Industry, Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 580, Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.

USDA. 1994. Fiscal Year 1996 Priorities and Fiscal Year 1994-1995 Accomplishments for Research, Extension, and Higher Education, A Report to the Secretary of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture, Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, http://www.nalusda.gov/services_and_products/ag_pubs/jcfas/.

USDA. 1997. Strategic Plan, 1997-2002: A Healthy and Productive Nation in Harmony with the Land. Http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm.

Valdis, A. 1993. The Macroeconomic Environment Necessary for Agricultural Trade and Price Policy Reforms. Food Policy 18(Aug):272-82.

Yang, S.R. and W.W. Koo. 1993. A Generalized Armington Trade Model: Respecification. Ag. Econ. 9(Dec):347-56.

Vogel, K.P. (2007). Switchgrass: Production, Economics, and Net Energy. Meeting Abstract. http://www.ars.usda.gov/meetings/Biofuel2007/abstracts.htm

Wailes, E.J. 2006. Challenges and prospects for U.S. rice policy in the 2007 Farm Bill debate. Proceedings, 31st Rice Technical Working Group Meeting, The Woodlands, TX, February, 2007. http://www.uaex.edu/RTWG/Meetings.htm

Wailes, Eric J. (2005). Rice global trade, protectionist policies, and the impact of trade liberalization. In Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries. Eds. M. Ataman Aksoy and John C. Beghin. World Bank.

Wailes, Eric J, (2004). Implications of the WTO Doha Round for the Rice Sector. Proceedings, World Rice Conference. FAO, United Nations. http://www.fao.org/rice2004/en/pdf/wailes.pdf

Walsh, Marie E., Daniel G. de la Torre Ugarte, Hosein Shapouri, and Stephen P. Slinsky. (2003). ABioenergy Crop Production in the United States: Potential Quantities, Land Use Changes, and Economic Impacts on the Agricultural Sector,@ Environmental and Resource Economics 24(4):313-333.

Xiao, Qing and Michael Reed. Export and Production Growth: Evidence from Three Major Wheat Exporters Of Australia, Canada, and the United States Applied Economics 39 (2007): 309-21.

Yeboah, Osei, Victor Boadu, Henry Thompson. Chinas Accession into the WTO and its Impacts on the U.S. Pork Industry. World Trade Impacts on U.S. Farm Policy: http://cnas.Texas A&M.edu. June 2005.

Young, E. and P. Westcott. 1996. The 1996 U.S. Farm Act Increases Market Orientation. Washington, D.C.: USDA-ERS Commercial Agriculture Division Ag. Info. Bulletin No. 726

Zahniser, Steven, and John Link (eds.) (2002). Effects of North American Free Trade Agreement on Agriculture and the Rural Economy. WRS-02-1, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, July.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AL, AR, FL, GA, IA, KS, KY, LA, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, SC, TN, TX, VA

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Auburn University, Texas Tech University, USDA, USDA, FAS