Advertisement

Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 227–243 | Cite as

Economic impact of ocean fish populations in the global fishery

  • Andrew J. Dyck
  • U. Rashid Sumaila
Article

Abstract

Our goal in this paper is to estimate the total output in an economy that is currently dependent (at least partially) on current fisheries output. We therefore applied the Leontief technological coefficients at current production and then estimate total output supported throughout the economy at the current level of production. Estimates of gross revenue from capture fisheries suggest that the direct value of output for this sector is US $80–85 billion annually (Sumaila et al., Journal of Bioeconomics 9(1):39–51, 2007; Willmann et al., The Sunken Billions, World Bank, FAO, Washington DC, Rome, 2009). However, as a primary or a potential economic base industry, there are a vast number of secondary economic activities—from boat building to international transport—that are supported by world fisheries, yet these related activities are rarely considered when evaluating the economic impact of fisheries. This study applies an input–output methodology to estimate the total direct, indirect, and induced impact of marine capture fisheries on the world economy. While results suggest that there is a great deal of variation in fishing output multipliers between regions and countries, when we apply the output multipliers to the capture fisheries sector at the global level, we find that significant indirect and induced effects place the impact of this sector to world output nearly three times larger than the value of landings at first sale, at between US $225 and 240 billion per year.

Keywords

Fisheries Input–output World economy Economic impact 

JEL Classification

Q22 D57 F01 L79 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Béné C., Macfadyen G., Allison E. H. (2007) Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhat M. G., Bhatta R. (2006) Regional economic impacts of limited entry fishery management: An application of dynamic input–output model. Environment and Development Economics 11(6): 709–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christ, C. F. (1955). A review of input–output analysis. In Input–output analysis: An appraisal (pp. 137–182). UMI. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2866.
  4. de Mesnard L. (2002) Note about the concept of net multipliers. Journal of Regional Science 42(3): 545–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Mesnard L. (2006) A critical comment on Oosterhaven–Stelder net multipliers. The Annals of Regional Science 41(2): 249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietzenbacher E. (2005) More on multipliers. Journal of Regional Science 45(2): 421–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heen K. (1989) Impact analysis of multispecies marine resource management. Marine Resource Economics 6(4): 331–348Google Scholar
  8. Hoagland, P., Jin, D., Thunberg, E., & Steinback, S. (2005). Economic activity associated with the northeast shelf large marine ecosystem: Application of an input–output approach. In Sustaining large marine ecosystems: The human dimension (pp. 159–181). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Jin D., Hoagland P., Dalton T. M. (2003) Linking economic and ecological models for a marine ecosystem. Ecological Economics 46(3): 367–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leontief W. (1953) Domestic production and foreign trade: The American capital position re-examined. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 97(4): 332–349Google Scholar
  11. Leontief W. (1966) Input–output economics. Oxford University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Leontief W., Morgan A., Polenske K., Simpson D., Tower E. (1965) The economic impact—industrial and regional—of an arms cut. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47: 217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leung P., Pooley S. (2001) Regional economic impacts of reductions in fisheries production: A supply-driven approach. Marine Resource Economics 16(4): 251–262Google Scholar
  14. Loveridge S. (2004) A typology and assessment of multi-sector regional economic impact models. Regional Studies 38(3): 305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oosterhaven J. (2006) The net multiplier is a new key sector indicator: Reply to de Mesnard’s comment. The Annals of Regional Science 41(2): 273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oosterhaven J., Stelder D. (2002) Net multipliers avoid exaggerating impacts: With a bi-regional illustration for the Dutch transportation sector. Journal of Regional Science 42(3): 533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pontecorvo G., Wilkinson M., Anderson R., Holdowsky M. (1980) Contribution of the ocean sector to the united states economy. Science 208(4447): 1000–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Radtke, H. D., Carter, C. N., & Davis, S. W. (2004). Economic evaluation of the northern pikeminnow management program. Report prepared for Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.Google Scholar
  19. Roy N., Arnason R., Schrank W. E. (2009) The identification of economic base industries, with an application to the Newfoundland fishing industry. Land Economics 85(4): 675–691Google Scholar
  20. Seung C. K., Waters E. C. (2006) A review of regional economic models for fisheries management in the U.S. Marine Resource Economics 21(1): 101–124Google Scholar
  21. Sumaila U. R., Marsden A. D., Watson R., Pauly D. (2007) A global ex-vessel fish price database: Construction and applications. Journal of Bioeconomics 9(1): 39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Willmann, R., Kelleher, K., Arnason, R., & Franz, N. (2009). The sunken billions. Washington DC; Rome: World Bank; FAO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Fisheries CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Sea Around Us, Fisheries CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations