4.6 Article

Risk, arbitrage, and spatial price relationships: Insights from China's hog market under the African Swine Fever

Journal

JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
Volume 166, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103200

Keywords

Arbitrage; Dynamic spatial price relationships; Hog market; Information; Market integration

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the dynamic spatial mechanisms of market integration using the 2018 outbreak of African Swine Fever (ASF) in China and the subsequent ban on cross-province shipment of hogs as a natural experiment. The findings suggest that a greater distance between provinces weakens spatial price links post-ban, indicating insufficient arbitrage due to imperfect public information regarding ASF. The temporary market segmentation leads to substantial dead-weight-loss.
Spatial market integration, an important means to increase market efficiency and boost economic development, is often affected by policy changes such as trade liberalization and trade restrictions. With unique weekly data on provincial hog prices, we use the 2018 outbreak of African Swine Fever (ASF) in China and the subsequent ban on cross-province shipment of hogs as a natural experiment to study dynamic spatial mechanisms underlying market integration. We employ a high-dimensional spatial model to estimate pairwise inter-province price links over several periods around the ASF outbreak for 29 Chinese provinces. Regressions reveal that a greater interprovince distance weakens the spatial price links post-ban, but not before the ban, which indicates insufficient arbitrage likely due to imperfect public information regarding ASF. The temporary market segmentation implies substantial dead-weight-loss. Our findings highlight the role of public information on risks in maintaining market integration and efficiency under supply-side disruptions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available