2011
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-011-9490-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Disguised Protectionism, Global Trade Rules and Alien Invasive Species

Abstract: Invasive species, International trade, Political economy, Disguised protectionism,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The World Trade Organization, for example, has the principal mandate of promoting global trade. One of the spillover effects of this mission is the global transmission of invasive species, but the means to address invasive species are weak compared with the forces driving the global market (93). Adopting the telecoupling framework can help assign responsibilities of addressing spillover effects (such as CO 2 emissions and species invasion) to consumers and producers (for example, via regulation at the source of extraction or consumption) as well as others such as traders of goods and products across space.…”
Section: Translate Findings Into Policy and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The World Trade Organization, for example, has the principal mandate of promoting global trade. One of the spillover effects of this mission is the global transmission of invasive species, but the means to address invasive species are weak compared with the forces driving the global market (93). Adopting the telecoupling framework can help assign responsibilities of addressing spillover effects (such as CO 2 emissions and species invasion) to consumers and producers (for example, via regulation at the source of extraction or consumption) as well as others such as traders of goods and products across space.…”
Section: Translate Findings Into Policy and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three broad types of response are recommended: (i) engage the criticisms but shift debate from questions of scientific fact to questions of policy response, (ii) do not deny scientific uncertainty where it exists as a natural part of scientific advancement, but do not overstate it, and (iii) emphasise evidence where scientific controversy is being manufactured to manipulate policy outcomes e.g. [16]. Specific responses to some of the commonly levelled criticisms of invasion biology are also available [4].…”
Section: Box 2: Responding To Ias Denialismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some theoretical papers, such as Copeland (1990), predict that changes in standards and other compensating non-tariff barriers will not fully offset tariff reductions, resulting in a lower overall level of protection when tariffs are bound at a lower level. Other papers, such as Margolis and Shogren (2012) suggest that standards changes can leave the net level of protection even higher than the pre-tariff-liberalization level. A simple way of testing the net impact of reductions in bound tariffs on the overall rate of protection is to regress imports on bound tariffs (excluding SPS measures and any other non-tariff barriers).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%