Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Economics of Agriculture and Food MarketsAgricultural economics and policiesGlobal trade and economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oligopoly in grain production and consumption: an empirical study on soybean international trade in China

Open access
Yan, Jinling, Xue, Yongjie, Quan, Congna, Wang, Bo, Zhang, Yanan·2023·Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja
DOI 10.1080/1331677x.2022.2142818
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What has been neglected in much of the existing studies of the influence of seasonal and regional characteristics of agriculture on the market power and national security. This paper constructs a multivariate equations model to investigate the monopoly power of seasonal suppliers and national security in China’s soybean market. The results show no relationship between market share and monopoly power; and that CR3 and HHI show China’s soybean import market has been the highest oligopoly type, but the model suggest that exporters (the U.S., Brazil and Argentina) have very weak monopoly power and China has no monopsony power; and that the performance of some exporters’ soybeans is affected by others, while others are relatively independent in market. This is due to the non-substitutability of the product, the non-substitutability of the buyer and the seller, etc., which causes the mutual dependence of the seller and buyer, and their market power cancel each other out. The seasonality and regionality of soybean production is the root. Considering national security, it is necessary to take the seasonal and regional characteristics of exporters into account to disperse trade risks and oppose monopolisation of international food production and trade.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1331677x.2022.2142818

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. 10.19581/j.cnki.ciejournal.1994.11.011 · DOI
  2. Dayan, L., & Jing, Z. (2016). An analysis on the effects of changes in import structure on China’s soybean import price under the background of imperfect competition. Management Review, 28(9), 31–40.
  3. Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M., & Melitz, M. J. (2018). International trade: Theory & policy. Pearson Education Limited.
  4. Ma, S., & Wang, J. (2012). Whether there is a "Big Country Effect" in China’s grain import trade: Based on the analysis of soybean import market power. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 33(9), 24–32+110.
  5. Nakajima, T. (2012). Estimating time variation of market power: Case of us soybean exports (No. 323-2016-11346. 2012). University of Tokyo.
  6. Nakano, T. (2011). TPP and national subjugation. Shueisha Inc.
  7. Shougennji, S. (2006). Policy reform in Japanese agro-food sectors. University of Tokyo Press.
  8. Su, D., & Su, Z. (2021). The industrial economics (5th ed.). Higher Education Press.
  9. Voora, V., Larrea, C., & Bermudez, S. (2020). Global market report: Soybeans. JSTOR.
  10. 10.16339/j.cnki.hdxbcjb.2019.02.021 · DOI
  11. Yamazawa, I. (2015). TPP, RCEP and rice policy in Japan. Intentional Trade and Investment, 27(3), 45–59.

Cited by

See all 12

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yan, J., Xue, Y., Quan, C., Wang, B., & Zhang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Hebei Agricultural University (CN)
  • School of Economics, Shandong Women’s University, Jinan, China
  • Yantai University (CN)
ORCID
Wang, Bo
Venue
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-12-05
Volume
36
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1331-677X (ISSN-L)
  • 1848-9664
DOI
10.1080/1331677x.2022.2142818
OpenAlex
W4311623143
Cited by
12
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Hrčak Portal of scientific journals of Croatia (University Computing Centre) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of China (19CJY023)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economics of Agriculture and Food Markets
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Agricultural economics and policies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Global trade and economics
Keywords
oligopoly, soybean trade, soybean imports, market power, market share, Herfindahl-Hirschman index, monopsony power, food security, agricultural seasonality, regional specialization, China

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.