, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 317–326 | Cite as

Impacts of Pathogen Introduction Risk on Importer Behavior and Gains from Trade in the Livestock Industry

  • Katherine D. LeeEmail author
  • David Finnoff
  • Peter Daszak
Original Contribution


Trade eliminates geographic barriers, allowing for novel exchange of goods and services, but also creates pathways for the unintentional spread of infectious pathogens such as foot and mouth disease. In the absence of trade regulation, a producer’s choice of import origin depends on relative prices and costs associated with trading partners. This paper develops a framework for exploring importer behavior in a non-regulated economy, allowing for price and risk heterogeneity among potential import sources. In the model, importers determine the risk of introducing foot and mouth disease to home soil and choose import volumes using risk and market data. When importers consider the possibility of unreported or undetected outbreaks, they choose to import from multiple sources to minimize risk and simultaneously create gains from trade over the regulated outcome. Our results have implications for the development of import and inspection policies that could be specifically designed to target highest risk imports of livestock.


Livestock trade Infectious disease Risk Biological invasions Foot and mouth disease 



This work was funded by NSF Grant 1414374 as part of the joint NSF-NIH-USDA Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program, and by UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Grant BB/M008894/1.


  1. Bates, Thomas W., Tim E. Carpenter, and Mark C. Thurmond. 2003. “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Vaccination and Preemptive Slaughter as a Means of Eradicating Foot-and-Mouth Disease.” American Journal of Veterinary Research 64 (7): 805–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cannon, R. M. 2009. “Inspecting and Monitoring on a Restricted Budget–Where Best to Look?” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92 (1–2): 163–74. Scholar
  3. EECFMD. 2012. “European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (ECCFMD) The Progressive Control Pathway for FMD Control (PCP-FMD): Principles, Stage Descriptions and Standards”.Google Scholar
  4. Fenichel, Eli P. 2013. “Economic Considerations for Social Distancing and Behavioral Based Policies during an Epidemic.” Journal of Health Economics 32 (2): 440–51. Scholar
  5. Fenichel, Eli P., Carlos Castillo-Chavez, M. G. Ceddia, Gerardo Chowell, Paula A. Gonzalez Parra, Graham J. Hickling, Garth Holloway, et al. 2011. “Adaptive Human Behavior in Epidemiological Models.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (15): 6306–11. Scholar
  6. Fèvre, Eric M., Barend M. de C. Bronsvoort, Katie A. Hamilton, and Sarah Cleaveland. 2006. “Animal Movements and the Spread of Infectious Diseases.” Trends in Microbiology 14 (3): 125–31. Scholar
  7. Glass, Robert J., Laura M. Glass, Walter E. Beyeler, and H. Jason Min. 2006. “Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 12 (11): 1671–81. Scholar
  8. Gramig, B. M., and R. D. Horan. 2011. “Jointly Determined Livestock Disease Dynamics and Decentralised Economic Behaviour.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 55 (3): 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hennessy, David. 2005. “Biosecurity and Infectious Animal Disease.” CARD Working Papers, November.
  10. Horan, R. D., Fenichel, E. P., Finnoff, D., and C. A. Wolf. 2015. “Managing Dynamic Epidemiological Risks through Trade.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 53: 192–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ifft, Jennifer, David Roland-Holst, and David Zilberman. 2011. “Production and Risk Prevention Response of Free Range Chicken Producers in Viet Nam to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (2): 490–97. Scholar
  12. International Monetary Fund. 2013. “Global Prospects and Policies”.Google Scholar
  13. Knight-Jones, T. J. D., and J. Rushton. 2013. “The Economic Impacts of Foot and Mouth Disease - What Are They, How Big Are They and Where Do They Occur?” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 112 (3–4): 161–73. Scholar
  14. Mayer, Thierry, and Soledad Zignago. 2011. “Notes on CEPII’s Distances Measures: The GeoDist Database”.Google Scholar
  15. Morely, R.S. 1993. “A Model for the Assessment of the Animal Disease Risks Associated with the Importation of Animals and Animal Products.” Revue Scientifique Et Technique 35 (1): 1055–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morin, Benjamin R., Charles Perrings, Ann Kinzig, and Simon Levin. 2015. “The Social Benefits of Private Infectious Disease-Risk Mitigation.” Theoretical Ecology 8 (4): 467–79. Scholar
  17. Perrings, Charles, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Julia Touza, and Mark Williamson. 2005. “How to Manage Biological Invasions under Globalization.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (5): 212–15. Scholar
  18. Schoenbaum, Mark A, and W Terry Disney. 2003. “Modeling Alternative Mitigation Strategies for a Hypothetical Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 58 (1–2): 25–52. Scholar
  19. Shankar, Bhavani, Subhash Morzaria, Alain Fiorucci, and Makara Hak. 2012. “Animal Disease and Livestock-Keeper Livelihoods in Southern Cambodia.” International Development Planning Review 34 (1): 39–63. Scholar
  20. Vose, D. J. 1997. “Risk Analysis in Relation to the Importation and Exportation of Animal Products.” Revue Scientifique Et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 16 (1): 17–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EcoHealth Alliance 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine D. Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Finnoff
    • 2
  • Peter Daszak
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural SociologyUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics and FinanceUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  3. 3.EcoHealth AllianceNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations