Standards as Barriers Versus Standards as Catalysts: Assessing the Impact of HACCP Implementation on U.S. Seafood Imports

218 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Effects of Non‐tariff Measures on Agri‐food Trade: A Review and Meta‐analysis of Empirical Evidence (2018, background): “In this regard, studies that investigate the impacts of NTMs implemented by developed countries against developing countries are frequent in literature, and tend to show negative effects on trade performances of developing countries (e.g. Anders and Caswell, 2009; Disdier and Marette, 2010).”
Non-Tariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains (2015, background): “Some authors find that standards are a significant source of trade restrictiveness for middle- and low-income countries (e.g., Anders and Caswell, 2009; Hoekman and Nicita, 2011; Tran et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2003b), while others indicate that standards or their harmonization have no impact at…”
Disentangling Demand-Enhancing and Trade-Cost Effects of Maximum Residue Regulations (2014, unknown): “This is the trade-cost effect, which corresponds to the “standards as barriers” argument in the international development literature (e.g., Otsuki, Wilson, and Sewadeh, 2001; Anders and Caswell, 2009).”
The Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Market Entry and Trade Flows (2016, unknown): “They provide evidence that NTMs hamper trade (Gebrehiwet, Ngqangweni and Kirsten, 2007; Disdier, Fontagné and Mimouni, 2008; Anders and Caswell, 2009), while harmonization of regulation fosters trade (De Frahan and Vancauteren, 2006).”