Food Aid and Agricultural Cargo Preference

Bageant, Elizabeth; Barrett, Chris; Lentz, Erin

doi:10.1093/aepp/ppq024

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the cost of cereals in Table 5 of [8], we set c f = $0.363/kg for cash-based interventions and let c s $0.567/kg plus the shipping cost for transoceanic shipments. Compliance with the agricultural cargo preference in 2006 (which was then set at 75% US-flag carriers) was estimated to increase shipment costs by 46% [13], implying that U.S.-flag carriers were 61.3% more costly than competitive shipping (i.e., 0.75(1.613)+0.25 = 1.46). Hence, if the shipping cost of $0.228/kg in Table 5 of [8] represents compliance with using 75% US-flag carriers, then the competitive shipping cost rate is $0.228/1.46 = $0.156/kg.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…83-644) requires that 50% of U.S. food aid volume be delivered on U.S.-flag vessels, which increases shipping costs [13] and food insecurity [14]. A reduction from 75% to 50% occurred as a result of the 2012 Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act; in addition, Section 318 of the original version of the 2014 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, H.R.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the Impact of U.S. Food Assistance Delivery Policies on Child Mortality in Northern Kenya

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. is the main country in the world that delivers its food assistance primarily via transoceanic shipments of commodity-based in-kind food. This approach is costlier and less timely than cash-based assistance, which includes cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement, where food is bought in or nearby the recipient country. The U.S.’s approach is exacerbated by a requirement that half of its transoceanic food shipments need to be sent on U.S.-flag vessels. We estimate the effect of these U.S. food assistance distribution policies on child mortality in northern Kenya by formulating and optimizing a supply chain model. In our model, monthly orders of transoceanic shipments and cash-based interventions are chosen to minimize child mortality subject to an annual budget constraint and to policy constraints on the allowable proportions of cash-based interventions and non-US-flag shipments. By varying the restrictiveness of these policy constraints, we assess the impact of possible changes in U.S. food aid policies on child mortality. The model includes an existing regression model that uses household survey data and geospatial data to forecast the mean mid-upper-arm circumference Z scores among children in a community, and allows food assistance to increase Z scores, and Z scores to influence mortality rates. We find that cash-based interventions are a much more powerful policy lever than the U.S.-flag vessel requirement: switching to cash-based interventions reduces child mortality from 4.4% to 3.7% (a 16.2% relative reduction) in our model, whereas eliminating the U.S.-flag vessel restriction without increasing the use of cash-based interventions generates a relative reduction in child mortality of only 1.1%. The great majority of the gains achieved by cash-based interventions are due to their reduced cost, not their reduced delivery lead times; i.e., the reduction of shipping expenses allows for more food to be delivered, which reduces child mortality.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Impact of U.S. Food Assistance Delivery Policies on Child Mortality in Northern Kenya

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Disaggregating food aid by commodity type (grains, pulses, and higher value products), Lentz et al (forthcoming) find that grains and most pulses tend to be substantially cheaper to procure locally than grains and pulses delivered as US food aid. The cost differential likely reflects that bulkier products cost more to ship relative to underlying commodity value, especially from the US, where US Cargo Preference law requires the use of the generally more expensive US-flagged shippers (Bageant et al, 2010). However, for higher value products, such as vegetable oil and CSB, shipping from the U.S. can be more cost efficient, although this varies (Lentz et al, forthcoming).…”

Section: Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economics and nutritional impacts of food assistance policies and programs

Lentz

Barrett

2013

Food Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. © FAO 2013 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO's endorsement of users' views, products or services is not implied in any way.

show abstract

“…As just one example, the U.S. currently requires a minimum share of its food aid be shipped on U.S.-flag vessels. This requirement costs U.S. taxpayers $140 million in 2006, which is roughly equal to the cost of non-emergency food aid to Africa (Bageant et al, 2010).…”

Section: Global Food Monitoring With Buffer Stocksmentioning

confidence: 99%