Answer the 4 questions at the end of the case study

Answer the 4 questions at the end of the - Case Study ExampleIt is evident from the report of McGowan (2004) that putting defense of market bother 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 thingamajig tuna therefore only increasing world take aim as the get together States was not integrating with a particular market. Figure 1 illustrates the proscribe impacts to supply and demand that the imposition of an embargo imposes. Figure 1 Im present embargo not only created trade barriers for Mexico but also caused a deprivation 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 much(prenominal) a context, a consideration of the research work of Porter (2006) reveals the fact that USA should provide knowledge and resource support to Mexico fishermen in order to raise the use of alternate fishing methods instead of purse seine nets. Porter (2006) found that using purse seine nets can cause serious trauma 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 nettle 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(prenominal) 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 dolphins mortality rate because coagulation of other