Answer the 4 questions at the end of the case study

Answer the 4 questions at the end of the - Case Study Example It is evident from the report of McGowan (2004) that putting denial of market access for Mexico is unjustified due to the fact that other countries like fishing agencies of Costa Rica and Ecuador and even USA are also purse seine method to catch tuna; therefore only increasing world demand as the United States was not integrating with a particular market. Figure 1 illustrates the negative impacts to supply and demand that the imposition of an embargo imposes. Figure 1 Imposing embargo not only created trade barriers for Mexico but also caused a loss of millions of dollars for the countries involved in the dispute. It is evident from the argument of McGowan (2004) that fishermen of Mexico use purse seine methods due to non availability of alternatives; alternatives which ultimately could have saved the life of dolphins. Within such a context, a consideration of the research work of Porter (2006) reveals the fact that USA should provide knowledge and resource support to Mexico fisherme n in order to encourage the use of alternate fishing methods; instead of purse seine nets. Porter (2006) found that using purse seine nets can cause serious damage to aquatic eco-system and might even increase death threats for dolphins. However, fishermen in Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) still using purse seine nets which are posing death threat for dolphins. ... Question 2: Did the U.S. denial of market access ultimately work? Answer: The U.S. imposed a denial of market access for tuna imports from countries like Mexico, Costa Rica and Ecuador which were known to use purse seine nets. Recently, the USA and Mexico have both appealed to World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding favoritism in tuna exportation (United States Trade Representative, 2012). Mexico subsequently challenged the U.S. denial by stating that fishermen of the USA are also using purse seine nets to catch tuna. In 1992, after the meeting between USA representatives of countries whose market access was denied by U.S, Dolphin safety panels were installed in most of the nets. As could easily have been predicted, the United States denial of market access had both positive and negative impacts. Firstly, it allowed the partner nations to lose a great deal of business revenue and merely shifted the supply and demand curve for tuna throughout the regional and global markets. Secondly , it can be stated to have had a positive impact due to the fact that the United States and partner nations realized that this trade dispute was having negative impacts upon their own respective economies; thereby encouraging them to address the issue and seek to improve tuna fishing technology to better safeguard the plight of the dolphins. Due to such measures, dolphin mortality rate was decreased significantly between1986 to 1998. Figure 2: Decrease in Total Dolphin Death (Source: Czinkota & Ronkainen, 2002) However, U.S denial of market access cannot be classified as only factor behind the sharp decrease in dolphin’s mortality rate because coagulation of other