Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences [Dept. of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics]

Research Statement

December 2010

I am fortunate indeed to have learned so much from my advisors and colleagues. This ongoing learning experience has a huge impact on my work and, together with the interdisciplinary education I pursued throughout my graduate studies, helped me develop strengths in conceptualizing and quantifying my research questions. Whereas I graduated from Columbia University on May 2004 while completing a PhD in economics in the fields of international trade and industrial organization. I acquired knowledge throughout my graduate studies in international and commercial law, as well as in political science. I also took basic courses in physics and mathematics.
Upon completing my PhD, I joined the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology on a tenure track position. While recognizing the importance of climate change and its probable impact on trade, on September 2007 I came to UC Berkeley to become part of a team working on bio-­‐ energy. At that time interest in biomass, a form of solar energy humans have utilized for the last millennia that is composed of organic materials that stem from plants (including algae, trees and crops) and organic waste, was growing rapidly.
Although coming out of my PhD, the main focus of my work was international trade agreements and crony capitalism; the stay at UC Berkeley introduced me to energy and agricultural biotechnology. The nexus of these entire projects, however, is international trade, industrial organization, and political economy. Moving into agriculture and the environment only enriched the set of tools I am working with, and allowed me to expand my research and to deepen my knowledge in these areas.

1. Energy

Whereas non-­‐renewable, non-­‐recyclable conventional fossil based energy sources were the primary source of energy around the world for most of the 20th century, a number of economic and social trends suggest the emergence of new energy paradigms. These new paradigms are driven by increasingly costly oil, heightened concern about the environment and climate change, and rising demand for energy, principally in rapidly growing Asian countries integrated to the global trade system. According to the International Energy Agency, primary
energy demand by non-­‐OECD countries is projected to increase from about 6,000 Mtoe in 2010
to more than 10,000 Mtoe in 2030. Although the amount of energy supplied by renewable energy sources is also projected to increase dramatically, it is small compared to the predicted change in use of conventional as well as unconventional fossil based energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and coal. Current trends suggest global consumption of fuel will grow 26 percent between 2006 and 2030 and that more than 75 percent of this increased consumption will be met with liquids from oil sands, natural gas and coal.
Understanding the new energy paradigms is key to meeting the global challenge of increasing energy security, while de-­‐carbonizing the global economy. Although several alternative energy trajectories are technically feasible, they represent different environmental, socio-­‐economic and policy tradeoffs. My strength is in conceptualizing and quantifying these trends, both empirically and numerically; in performing interdisciplinary research and analyzing the tradeoffs, while taking into account economics, environment, and technology, as well as policy and the political economy that guides it.

1.1. Trade, biofuel, and the Environment

One topic to which my research makes novel contributions to is the link between energy food and the environment. In [C6] where I was the lead author, we show that increased scarcity of energy, reflecting an increase in the demand for energy in growing Asian countries, has led to the introduction of new technologies, including biofuels. Specifically, globalization and capital inflows increase demand for energy and production of biofuel, which leads to a decrease in food production, an increase in the price of food, and the loss of environmental land and farmland for food production. It is shown that whereas technological changes in capital-­‐ intensive goods escalates tension between energy, food and the environment, technological
changes in agricultural production, such as biotechnology, mitigates this pressure, as do second
generation biofuel technologies such as algae. Introducing a global public good to a trade model highlights the importance of an international environmental agreement on climate change; an agreement that will internalize the global externality. Introducing a local public good can explain why factor prices should no be equalized across countries. Reaching a partial solution and not pricing correctly all the environmental amenities, however, may make us worse-­‐off.
Building on [C6], in [B5] we argue that bio-­‐energy is not only affecting the energy markets, but it is also affecting food and the environment, and that policy should internalize these interactions, and any externality related to them. Policy should address climate change, land use changes, and food. Neglecting one, but not the other, might make us worse-­‐off compared to applying no policy at all. [B5] also highlights the importance of improving ag productivity, both for food and for bio-­‐energy. We plan to extend this line of work, and expand the discussion to include increasing return to scale and international environmental agreements, two facets that are central to energy extraction, production and consumption. We also plan to extend [C6] and comment on land policy and resource management in a global context, while extending the conceptual framework to payment for environmental services.

1.2 World oil markets and the introduction of alternative energy sources

A second topic, which I am leading, is oil markets, and their interactions with biofuels. We began by focusing on OPEC and the world oil market; that is, focusing on the supply side of the energy market [C4]. There we show that nationalizing oil production in rich oil countries can explain the fluctuations in crude oil prices. OPEC countries are exploiting their market power in international markets for crude oil, and are subsidizing domestic consumption of fuel at the pump. We find in [C4] that policies affecting domestic and international oil prices in OPEC countries are, on average, consistent with the cheap oil model, but not consistent with the cartel or revenue maximizing models. Differences of domestic fuel prices among OPEC countries suggest some countries give extra weight to domestic consumers' well being and pursue cheap oil polices. The conceptual framework we develop in [C4] is used to derive a
simple relation between import demand elasticity and oil prices, where the elasticity calculated using publicly available data fits the predictions derived by the literature. We also estimate the implications of cheap oil policies in OPEC countries on the international oil market and show that these policies have an impact on oil prices -­‐-­‐ an impact that grows with the share of oil consumed in these countries. We also show that gasoline policies in OPEC countries are different from diesel policies. This work also sheds new light on countries that are rich in natural resources. We plan to exploit this angle further, and link our discussion to the literature on the resource curse.
Building on [C4], we quantified the effect of biofuel on global oil markets ([A12] and [A16]), while extending the optimal export tax model to the global fuel market (henceforth, denoted the Cartel-­‐of-­‐Nations model), recognizing that crude oil extraction and production are concentrated in a few countries, namely, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and that there is a wedge between fuel prices in oil-­‐exporting and oil-­‐importing countries. We calibrate the Cartel-­‐of-­‐Nations model to include biofuel using 2007 data, and show that the introduction of biofuel reduces international fuel prices by 1.07% to 1.10%, as well as reduce the quantity of fossil fuel (i.e., gasoline and diesel) consumed by oil-­‐importing countries by 0.3% to 0.7%. The global amount of fuel consumed (gasoline, diesel, and biofuels), however, increases by 1.5% to 1.6%. This outcome suggests that although the introduction of biofuels changes the composition of the fuel consumed resulting in less carbon emissions per gallon of fuel consumed, it also increases global fuel consumption resulting in more carbon emissions. The magnitude of these two opposing forces, and therefore the environmental benefits from biofuels, depends on the supply elasticity of fossil fuel and on the pollution intensity of the biofuel feedstock used. Finally, the introduction of biofuels causes welfare in
oil-­‐exporting countries to decline by 1.05% to 1.76%, but it causes welfare in oil-­‐importing
countries to increase by 2.92% to 4.10%. We plan to improve our understanding of cheap oil policies by introducing econometric tools into the analysis and expanding the discussion above and beyond OPEC and crude oil; we plan to quantify the impact of non-­‐conventional fossil fuel sources on the market for crude oil.

1.3 Feeding the poor versus fueling the cars

A third topic to which my research led original contributions is the tradeoffs between food and fuel. Biofuels no doubt caused food prices to increase in recent years, but it is not common knowledge that they lowered fuel prices. Ours was amongst the first quantitative estimates of this impact [A3 and A6]. Even in quantifying the effect on food one has to also contend with factors such as rapid growth in demand in emerging economies, bad weather in key grain producing countries and rapid increase in energy price which also contributed to food price inflation. In our report to the World Bank [A17] we quantified some of the main factors responsible for the food commodity price inflation beginning in 2001 and culminating in the food crisis of 2008, namely, economic growth, biofuel expansion, exchange rate fluctuations, and energy price inflation. A novel aspect of the report is the representation of crop inventory, a factor that is underemphasized in the empirical literature. Inventory matters because its impact on prices increases as the level of inventory decreases. Incorporating an empirically estimated inventory demand function into the market-­‐clearing condition, we find that in the absence of shocks attributable to the four factors mentioned above, prices of corn, soybean, rapeseed, rice, and wheat would be 23% to 32% lower than the observed prices in 2007, and these shocks are responsible for 49% to 71% of price increases since 2001. On the other hand,
a model that does not allow inventory adjustment predicts that prices would have been 33% to
41% lower than that observed prices in 2007 and these shocks are responsible for 73% to 87% of price increases since 2001. Modeling that abstracts away inventory leads to predictions of higher price volatility due to each of the shocks. We show that growing demand for food induced by economic growth was the single largest factor responsible for food commodity
price inflation for the major grains, namely, rice, wheat and maize and also for soybean. Biofuel was the major factor for rapeseed, an important factor for corn and a moderately important factor for soybean. From a policy perspective, our analysis underscores the importance of improving agricultural productivity and inventory management for preventing future crises. We plan to publish this work under the World Bank umbrella, and also to use the numerical analysis to write an empirical paper on food commodity prices while employing Bayesian updating techniques.

In a related paper ([A13]) we build on the intuition developed when working on the supply side of energy markets. We believe that to answer the question if biofuel is the culprit in the recent food commodity price spike, the interactions between energy and food must be modeled and OPEC introduced, and the impact of biofuels compared with other factors that are argued by the literature to be important. In [A13] we analyzed the multiple contributions of energy
and biofuels to the increase in food prices, within a multi-­‐market framework. We divide the
energy impact on food commodity prices into two factors: the allocation of land to biofuel crops (which reduces food and feed availability and increases the aggregate demand for food commodities), and the increase in energy prices (which increases production costs and reduces the supply of food commodities). OPEC affects both. Thus, we employ the framework we develop in [C4] to analyze how OPEC affects energy prices, and how the introduction of alternative energy sources, such as biofuel, affect OPEC's choices. Moreover, to gain a perspective on biofuel’s contributions to the food commodity price boom of 2003-­‐2008, we
also assess the impact of the increase in the demand for food commodities in China and India
on food commodity prices.

1.4 The boom and bust nature of the ethanol industry

Perhaps no recent economic development has greater potential to reshape agriculture and farm policy than the emergence of a large and growing biofuel industry. We were among the first to illustrate the biofuel effect on agriculture [A4] while utilizing a partial equilibrium analysis to show that biofuel policy can substitute for traditional agricultural policy intended to boost farm welfare. In [A4] we also show how food market volatility can induce periods of
boom and bust in the ethanol industry, causing episodes of bankruptcy and reduced capital investment, such as was observed in the U.S. in 2007 and 2008.

1.5 A technology response to regulation

Working on regulation led us to rethink the appropriateness of the putty-­‐clay structure. The putty-­‐clay approach assumes in the short-­‐run fixed-­‐proportions technology, and is frequently used to analyze the impacts of environmental regulations. In reality however, capital embodied in costly fixed assets may be modified in the short-­‐run. We expand the traditional putty-­‐clay approach in [D36], a paper that I led, and introduce the notion of putty-­‐doh, where short-­‐term modifications are feasible. We analyze and compare the impacts of pollution tax, intensity standard, and technology standard on an industry with heterogeneous production units under both putty-­‐clay and putty-­‐doh. We identify conditions where at the social optimum aggregate pollution is larger under putty-­‐doh with pollution abating modifications. When comparing tax and intensity standard that aims to achieve the same pollution target, under putty-­‐clay the tax reaches pollution target with lower cost but less output whereas under putty-­‐doh the tax may also result in more output. We are currenlty extending our static framework to a dynamic one and introduce investment explicitly into the analysis. We also plan to introduce credit trading into our framework and analyze its implications.

1.6 Others: Lifecycle assessments and indirect effects

My collaboration with Deepak Rajagopal and David Zilberman resulted in a series of papers on policy and lifecycle assessments ([B3] and [B4]). This work explains how regulation of GHG emissions from biofuels using LCA, while accounting for uncertainty and heterogeneity, might be implemented. Whereas the goal of LCA is to estimate the physical environmental footprint of a technology, the normative goal of policy is to maximize social welfare. This requires a framework, which integrates technical relationships and behavioral economic models in a simple yet meaningful way. This led us to assess the implications of proposed regulation in the U. S., both at the federal level (the proposed Renewable Fuel Standard) and by California (the California Low Fuel Standard). In [D35] we compare two quantity-­‐based instruments, namely, technology mandates such as biofuel mandates and performance standards such as fuel carbon intensity standards, in terms of their impact on fuel prices, on greenhouse gas emissions and on diversifying fuel supply away from conventional crude oil. Using a two-­‐region partial-­‐ equilibrium model, we show that a carbon standard leads to both a greater reduction in domestic emissions and greater increase in emissions (and emission intensity) abroad than a biofuel mandate, when both policies reach the same domestic share for biofuel. To the extent policy makers consider unconventional fossil fuels such as oilsands as being beneficial for energy security (say, for the reason that oilsands are concentrated in non-­‐OPEC regions), biofuel mandates are preferable to fuel carbon standards. Domestic price of fuel increases at least as much under a carbon standard as under a biofuel mandate. This work also led to work on indirect land use changes and its implications [A14], which we also touch on in [B5] and [C6], and to indirect fuel use [A15].
We are extending this line of research assuming a representative two-­‐region model of the global oil market in which, one region implements a domestic biofuel mandate and the other does not, and show that the net change in global fuel consumption due to the policy, which we term indirect fuel use change (IFUC), can have a significant impact on the net GHG emissions associated with biofuel. If LCA-­‐based regulations are designed to account for indirect emissions such as indirect land use change, then we argue that IFUC emissions cannot be ignored. Our work also shows how different policies can affect the environmental impact from adopting a given clean technology differently.
Our work also offers evidence that evaluate the benefit from current generation biofuels and the prospects of future generations. In [A10] I helped write a review describing the concept of sustainability in the context of biofuels and then discussing the factors affecting the economic viability of current and next-­‐generation biofuels and their environmental and social sustainability. Work that I contributed resulted in three papers, [A3] [A5] and [A7]: while [A7] looks at the different policy facets of biofuels, [A3] and [A5] look at the interactions between agricultural biotechnology and biofuels. In [A8] I conducted a preliminary survey on the variety of different renewable sources that have been targeted for expansion, the biomass technologies, especially those for converting biomass to liquid biofuels for transportation, and the cutting-­‐edge knowledge in genomics and biotechnology, process chemistry, and engineering that is being applied to produce new types of energy feedstock and process them into novel biofuels.

2. Agriculture biotechnology

The non-­‐adoption by many countries of already developed and commercially proven first generation traits and the slowdown in the development of a wide range of second generation traits—can both be attributed to the implementation of precautious policy regimes withholding approvals of biotechnology, or the reluctance or inability of governments to implement any functioning policies at all. But why is it that some countries, such as the U.S. or Argentina, find it reasonable and politically feasible to allow the technology to be rapidly adopted within their agricultural sectors, while other countries, such as Europe and many developing countries, find it either unreasonable or politically unfeasible? In [A9] we develop a political economy framework to analyze the formation of agricultural biotechnology regulations and to shed some new light on this question. By accounting for the different interests within society and the interactions amongst them, we try to shed light on how the very different regulatory environments for genetically modified organisms have emerged in the U.S., Europe, and developing countries. Specifically, we question the notion that regulatory differences between the U.S. and Europe primarily reflect differences in consumer’s underlying attitudes, as many argue. Instead we highlight the roles of other economic interests in framing the debate and influencing the policymaking process by influencing the perceived benefit from this technology. This is crucial. Our political economic analysis suggests that the broad social welfare gains from introducing the technology are likely to be distributed amongst many consumers and small farmers, particularly those in developing countries, who may not have strong influence over regulators because of their relatively small individual stakes, lack of expertise, and lack of collective cohesion. On the other hand, our analysis suggests a “strange bedfellows” constellation of more concentrated economic interests, including incumbent agrochemical manufacturers, certain farm groups, and environmental protest activists, have incentives to negatively characterize this technology in the public debate arena and support regulations that block or slow its introduction. We extend this debate in [D34] to include, in addition to political economic motives, lack of reliability and its impact on the regulator‘s decisions. We are now in the process of quantifying these effects. We are currently revisiting [D34], as well as empirically further investigating the impact of regulation on genetically modified traits.

3. Trade agreements

It is precisely because the contracting parties of the GATT/WTO have made it their top priority to reduce trade distortions that ”safeguards,” as an exception to the general rule of liberalizing trade, comes into play. For when governments know they can increase tariffs temporarily, in response to a surge in the volume of imports, this gives them a big incentive to agree to a more substantial tariff reduction during the negotiation stage. An interesting question is how should the safeguard clause be constructed. In [A2] I illustrate that restricting trade instruments to non-­‐discrimination links trade agreements to non-­‐trade agreements and, under certain conditions, helps governments further lower tariffs and/or domestic standards (policies).
In [A11] we illustrate the importance of imperfect information in self-­‐enforcing trade agreements, and show that expected welfare is higher with current period uncertainty, and a high level of uncertainty may even undermine the need for a safeguard clause. We derived the results by extending Bagwell and Staiger (The American Economic Review 80 (1990), 779–95) to account for current period uncertainty.
In [D8] paper we ask whether countries that join (voluntary) international agreements can be characterized, and how they are differentiated from countries that do not join, or that choose to join at a later date. To address this question, we model a voluntary international agreement as
a hybrid of a coalition game and a non-­‐cooperative game. We then characterize which
countries enter the agreement earlier, rather than later, by showing that countries that gain the most from a potential agreement join the negotiation round first. This conclusion is driven by two hypotheses: (a) countries stand to lose from a failed negotiation round; and (b) the
division rules we use (which are inspired by basic concepts from cooperative game theory).
This is, in fact, the efficient equilibrium, which maximizes the coalition's surplus. Moreover, while adding exogenous hypotheses on the coalition's surplus and on the probability of a successful negotiation, we gain a better understanding of the gradual formation of international agreements: We derive a rationale for governments to enter into agreements sequentially and call attention to the efficiency of such a behavior. Some empirical evidence that supports the paper's findings is offered, focusing on the European Economic Community.

I am currently working on the link between trade and environmental agreements, and have already written a short essay on this topic to the WTO. During my stay at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, I have been a graduate advisor to several students and the main advisor for two students working on trade agreements; one worked on regional agreements
and its impact on regional peace agreements, while the other worked on multi-­‐issue bargaining in trade agreements. Currently, we are extending her work on multi-­‐issue bargaining, and testing the predictions made by the model.

4. International trade and crony capitalism

Another research area, which I am working on, and which began with work done for the American Economic Association Meetings in Chicago, January 2007, is crony capitalism and international trade ([D6]). In [D32] and [D33] we question the conventional wisdom that says international trade promotes better institutions. We illustrate that opening to trade is not a remedy for weak political institutions, although it does create further wealth to the economy. Trade increases social welfare, but it also results in more crony capitalism and in a more concentrated industry. It results in the elite abusing the political economic environment, and using their de jure political power, to corrupt the political institutions further. Although the elite prevents the economy from fully exploiting the benefits from trade, and they do lead to over investment in the provision of the public good, we show numerically that opening to international trade does increase efficiency. The elite do not simply redeploy rents in the economy; they also create new rents, which they then extract. These conclusions suggest that in developing economies, where the democratic regime is weak and political connections
matters, opening to international trade may result in an oligarchy regime and trade may not be the right remedy.

5. Non-­academic research

In addition to academic research, I have also engaged with policy practitioners and was part of a team that performed two public consulting jobs to the World Bank. The first project discussed ways in which national governments, firms, and individuals respond to policy related to food safety, environmental protection, and trade. These responses must be considered in the development of policy to ensure the best possible outcomes. We develop a model of risk analysis that relies on interdisciplinary knowledge and the best available science. It accounts for uncertainty about policy impacts and scientific knowledge and incorporates stochastic environmental factors. We argue that use of such a model in the development of health and

environmental policy can overcome capture by domestic forces opposed to trade liberalization.
The effectiveness of policy, of course, is dependent upon firm and consumer response to policy. We consider the optimization of exporting firms amid a framework of import inspection and find that increased inspection may not reduce risk to food safety or the environment.
The second project was mentioned above ([A17]). In that second report we quantified some of the main factors responsible for the food commodity price inflation beginning in 2001 and culminating in the food crisis of 2008, namely, economic growth, biofuel expansion, exchange rate fluctuations, and energy price inflation.

 

Papers:

 

Refereed:

[A17] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, Govinda Timilsina, and David Zilberman. “Quantifying the causes of the global food commodity price crisis,” World Bank working paper, forthcoming.
[A16] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, and David Zilberman. “The effect of biofuel on the international oil market,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, forthcoming.
[A15] Deepak Rajagopal, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “Indirect fuel use change (IFUC)
and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies,” Energy Policy, 2010.
[A14] David Zilberman, Gal  Hochman, and Deepak Rajagopal. “Indirect Land Use: One consideration too many in biofuel regulation,” ARE Update, Vol. 13, No. 4, March/April 2010.
[A13] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, and David Zilberman. “Are Biofuels the Culprit: OPEC, Food, and Fuel,” The American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 100, No. 2, pages

183-­‐187, May 2010.

[A12] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal and David Zilberman. “The Effect of Biofuels on Crude
Oil Markets,” AgBioForum, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2010.
[A11] Gal  Hochman and Ella Segev. “Managed Trade with Imperfect Information,”
The International Economic Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, pages 187-­‐211, February 2010.
[A10] Madhu Khanna, Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, Steven E. Sexton and David Zilberman. “Sustainability of Food, Energy and Environment with Biofuels,” CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, Vol. 028, No. 4, 2009.
[A9] Gregory D. Graff, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “The Political Economy of
Agricultural Biotechnology Policies,” AgBioForum, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2009.
[A8] Deepak Rajagopal, Steven E. Sexton, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “Recent Developments in Renewable Technologies: R&D Investment/Synthetic Biology,” Annual Review of Resource Economics, Vol. 1, pages 621-­‐644, 2009.
[A7] Steven E. Sexton, Deepak Rajagopal, Gal  Hochman, David W. Roland-­‐Holst, and David Zilberman. “Biofuel policy must evaluate environmental, food security and energy goals to maximize net benefits,” California Agriculture, Vol. 63, No. 4, 2009.
[A6] Deepak Rajagopal, Steven E. Sexton, Gal  Hochman, David W. Roland-­‐Holst, and David
Zilberman. “Model estimates food-­‐versus-­‐biofuel trade-­‐off,” California Agriculture, Vol. 63, No.
4, 2009.
[A5] Steven E. Sexton, David Zilberman, Deepak Rajagopal, and Gal  Hochman. “The Role of
Biotechnology in the Sustainable Biofuel Future,” AgrBioForum, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2009.
[A4] Gal  Hochman, Steven E. Sexton, and David Zilberman. “The Economics of Biofuel Policy and Biotechnology,” Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2008.
[A3] Steven E. Sexton, Deepak Rajagopal, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “Food Versus
Fuel: How Biofuels Make Food More Costly and Gasoline Cheaper,” ARE Update, Vol. 12, No. 1,
September/October 2008.
[A2] Gal  Hochman. “Trade Negotiations, Domestic Policies, and the Most Favored Nation
Clause,” The Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 41, No. 3, pages 781-­‐795, August 2008.
[A1] Eyal  Brill, Gal  Hochman, and Eithan Hochman. “Aspects of Privatization of a Water
Region,” The Economic Quarterly, Anno 44, No. 2, pages 241-­‐262, June 1997.

Published chapters in books:

[B7] Zilberman, David, Deepak Rajagopal, Steven E. Sexton, Gal  Hochman, and Teresa Serra. “The Economics of Biofuels, Food, and the Environment,” In The Economics of Alternative Energy Sources and Globalization, Editors: Andrew Schmitz, Norbert Wilson, Charles Moss, and David Zilberman (Oak Park: Bentham Books, forthcoming).
[B6] Gal  Hochman, Gordon Rausser, and David Zilberman. “U.S. versus E.U. Biotechnology Regulations and Comparative Advantage: Implications for Future Conflicts and Trade” In Cooperating in Managing Biosafety and Biodiversity: California, the United States and the European Union, Editors: J. Swinnen and D. Vogel, 2010.
[B5] Gal  Hochman, Steven E. Sexton, and David Zilberman. “Food and Biofuel in a Global Environment,” in Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy (series: natural resource management and policy), Editors: Madhu Khanna, Jürgen Scheffran, and David Zilberman,
2009.
[B4] Deepak Rajagopal, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “A simple framework for regulation of biofuels,” in Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy (series: natural resource management and policy), Editors: Madhu Khanna, Jürgen Scheffran, and David Zilberman,
2009.
[B3] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, and David Zilberman. “Regulation of GHG Emissions from Biofuel Blended Energy,” in Environmental and Rural Development Impacts, Editor: Madhu Khanna, 2009.
[B2] Sexton, Steven E., Deepak Rajagopal, Gal  Hochman, David W. Roland-­‐Holst, and David Zilberman. “Biofuel: distributional and other implications of current and the next generation technologies,” in Risk, Infrastructure and Industry Evolution, Editors: Burton C. English, R. Jamey Menard, and Kim Jensen, pages 12-­‐23, 2008.
[B1] Eyal Brill, Gal  Hochman, and Eithan Hochman “Privatization and Regulation of Multi-­‐ Source Water Usage,” in Conflicts and Cooperation on Trans-­‐Boundary Water Resources, Editors: Richard Just and Sinaia Netanyahu, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998, pages
249-­‐265.

Online repository:

[C9] Gal  Hochman and David Zilberman. “Trade and the Environment,” WTO Discussion Forum: World Trade Report 2010, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr10_21july10_e.htm.
[C8] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, and David Zilberman. “The effect of biofuel on the international oil market,” AgEcon Search online repository, 2010.
[C7] Deepak Rajagopal, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “Lifecycle based regulation of fuels: A Rube Goldberg Contraption of Climate policy,” United States Association of Energy Economics Dialogue 2010 http://dialogue.usaee.org/.
[C6] Gal  Hochman, Steven E. Sexton, and David Zilberman. “The Economics of Trade, Biofuel, and the Environment,” CUDARE Working Papers Series No. 1100, 2010.
[C5] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, and David Zilberman. “The Effect of Biofuels on the
International Oil Markets,” CUDARE Working Papers Series No. 1099, 2010.
[C4] Gal  Hochman and David Zilberman. “OPEC and Cheap Oil Policies: The Export Tax
Paradigm,” CUDARE Working Papers Series No. 1097, 2010.
[C3] Gal  Hochman, Gordon Rausser, and David Zilberman. “U.S. versus E.U. Biotechnology Regulations and Comparative Advantage: Implications for Future Conflicts and Trade,” California – EU Regulatory Cooperation Project Workshop, October 2008, http://igov.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/papers0809.html#top.
[C2] David Zilberman, Gal  Hochman, and Steven E. Sexton. “Food Safety, the Environment, and
Trade,“ Agricultural Distortions Working Paper 67, July 2008.
[C1] Gal  Hochman, Gordon Rausser, Steven E. Sexton and David Zilberman. “Agricultural Biotechnology in California and the EU,” CIG Working Paper No. 65, February 2008, http://igov.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/papers0708.html.

Conferences:

[D37] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal and David Zilberman. “The Effects of Alternative Energy Sources On the International Oil Market,” AAEA, CAES, & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting in Denver, July 25-­‐July 27, 2010.
[D36] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, and David Zilberman. “A Technological Response to Environmental Policy: From Putty-­‐clay to Putty-­‐doh,” 4th World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists held at the Université du Québec à Montréal, June 28-­‐July 2nd, 2010.
[D35] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal and David Zilberman. “Emissions and Energy Security: Comparing Clean Fuel Mandates and Fuel Carbon Standards,” 4th World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists held at the Université du Québec à Montréal, June 28-­‐ July 2nd, 2010.
[D34] Gal  Hochman, Greg Graff, and David Zilberman. “What role for socio-­‐economic assessments? Economic theory of regulation and implications for bio-­‐safety assessment,” 4th World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists held at the Université du Québec à Montréal, June 28-­‐July 2nd, 2010.
[D33] Gal  Hochman, Chris Tabakis, and David Zilberman. “The Impact of International Trade on Institutions and Infrastructure,” The Canadian Economic Association Annual Conference in Quebec City, May 28-­‐30, 2010.
[D32] Gal  Hochman, Chris Tabakis, and David Zilberman. “The Impact of International Trade on Institutions and Infrastructure,” Midwest International Trade Meeting, May 14-­‐16, 2010.
[D31] David Zilberman, Gal  Hochman, and Deepak Rajagopal. “Indirect Land Use: One consideration too many in biofuel regulation,” Biofuels Law and Regulation Conference, Urbana Champaign, April 9, 2010.
[D30] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal and David Zilberman. “OPEC, biofuel, and food prices,” The ACS 239th National Meeting in San Francisco, March 2010.
[D29] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal and David Zilberman. “Are Biofuels the Culprit: OPEC, Food, and Fuel,” The American Economic Association Meetings in Atlanta, January 2010.
[D28] Gal  Hochman, Deepak Rajagopal, Steven E. Sexton, and David Zilberman. “The Economics of Biofuel, Food, and the Environment,” The Economics of Alternative Energy Sources and Globalization: The Road Ahead November 15-­‐17, 2009.
[D27] Gal  Hochman and David Zilberman. “Food, Energy and the Environment: Synergies and
Tradeoffs,” Bioeconomy: Food, Energy and the Environment, July 1, 2009.
[D26] Deepak rajagopal, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “Climate change and Energy security: Renewable fuel standard versus emission intensity standard,” IAEE/USAEE San-­‐ Fransisco Meeting, June 22-­‐24, 2009.
[D25] Gal  Hochman, Chris Tabakis, and David Zilberman. “Trade and Corruption,” The
American Economic Association Meetings in San Francisco, January, 2009.
[D24] Zilberman, David, Deepak Rajagopal, Steven E. Sexton, Gal  Hochman, and Teresa Serra. “The Economics of Biofuels, Food, and the Environment,” keynote presentation at the Latin American Environmental Economics (ALEAR) conference, San Jose, Costa Rica, March 20, 2009.
[D23] Zilberman, David, Rajagopal, Deepak, Steven E. Sexton, and Gal  Hochman. “Biofuel Policy and Food Prices,” The Workshop on Socioeconomic Impacts of Biofuel: The Road Ahead, Chicago, IL, November 15, 2008.
[D22] Hochman,  Gal, Deepak Rajagopal, and David Zilberman. “Gasoline Prices, OPEC, and
Biofuel,” The Farm Foundation Bioeconomy Workshop, Washington, D. C., March 30, 2009.
[D21] Rajagopal, Deepak, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “Incorporating Economics into Life Cycle Analysis,” The Latin American Environmental Economics (ALEAR) conference, San Jose, Costa Rica, March 19, 2009.
[D20] Greg Graff, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “How European Resistance to Biotechnology Has Hurt the Developing World,” The Biofuel Situation and Policies in Developing Countries, University of California, Berkeley, May 7-­‐8, 2009.
[D19] Zilberman, David, Deepak Rajagopal, Steven E. Sexton, and Gal  Hochman. “Biofuel Policy and Food Prices,” The Joint Annual Meeting of The Geological Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Houston, TX, October 7, 2008.
[D18] Sexton, E. Steven, Deepak Rajagopal, David Zilberman, and Gal  Hochman. “Food Versus Fuel: How Biofuels Make Food More Costly and Gasoline Cheaper,” The Giannini Foundation Symposium: Causes and Consequences of the Food Price Crisis, Bancroft Hotel, Berkeley, CA, October 10, 2008.
[D17] Hochman,  Gal, Steven E. Sexton, and David Zilberman. “The Economics of Trade, Biofuel, and the Environment,” The International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium Annual General Meeting, Scottsdale, Arizona, December 7, 2008.
[D16] Rajagopal, Deepak, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “Regulation of GHG Emissions from Biofuel Blended Energy,” The 28th United States Association for Energy Economics/International Association of Energy Economics (IAEE/USAEE) American Conference, New Orleans, LA, December 3-­‐5, 2008.
[D15] Rajagopal, Deepak, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “A Simple Framework for Regulation of Biofuels,” The 28th United States Association for Energy Economics/International Association of Energy Economics (IAEE/USAEE) North America Conference, New Orleans, December 3-­‐5, 2008.
[D14] Rajagopal, Deepak, Gal  Hochman, and David Zilberman. “Regulation of GHG Emissions from Biofuel Blended Energy,” presented at the Farm Foundation Conference, St. Louis, MO, October 15-­‐16, 2008.
[D13] Gal  Hochman, Chris Tabakis and David Zilberman. “Trade and Corruption,” The 7th
Conference on Research on Economic Theory and Econometrics in Naxos, Greece, July 11-­‐14,
2008.
[D12] Gal  Hochman, Steven E. Sexton and David Zilberman. “The Economics of Biofuel, Trade and the Environment,” The Canadian Economic Meetings, in Vancouver, June 5-­‐8, 2008.
[D11] David Zilberman, Gal  Hochman, and Steven E. Sexton. “Food Safety, Trade, and the
Environment,” World Bank, June 30, 2008.
[D10] Gal  Hochman, Gordon Rausser, Steven E. Sexton and David Zilberman. “Agricultural Biotechnology in California and the EU,” EU – California Regulatory Cooperation Project Workshop, University of California, Berkeley, February 22-­‐23, 2008.
[D9] Gal  Hochman and Chris Tabakis. “Constitutional Changes and Trade,” ETSG in Athens, Greece, September 2007.
[D8] Gal  Hochman and Rann Smorodinsky. “The Gradual Nature of International Trade
Agreements,” European Meeting of the Econometric Society in Budapest, Hungary, August
2007.
[D7] David Zilberman, Steven E. Sexton, Deepak Rajagopal, Gal  Hochman, and David W. Roland-­‐Holst. “The Intersection of Energy and Agriculture: Implications of Rising Energy Demand,” USDA, Washington, D.C., February 27, 2007.
[D6] Gal  Hochman and David Zilberman. “The Corruption of Transition,” The American
Economic Association Meetings in Chicago, January 2007.
[D5] Gal  Hochman. “The Most-­‐Favored-­‐Nation Clause, Linkages, and Tariffs,” The 21st Meeting of the European Economic Association in Vienna, Austria, August 2006.
[D4] Gal  Hochman.“A Political Explanation to the Lerner Index,” The 9th EUNIP International
Conference, University of Limerick, Ireland, June 2006.
[D3] Gal  Hochman. “The Most-­‐Favored-­‐Nation Clause, Linkages, and the Choice of Safeguard Regimes,” The Changing Structure of World Trade and Investment and its Impact on Poverty and Income Inequality, Beer-­‐Sheva, Israel, March 2006.
[D2] Gal  Hochman. “Incumbents and the Diffusion of Information on Demand,” Econometric
Society World Congress, London, England, August 2005.
[D1] Gal  Hochman. “Antitrust as a Mean of Diffusing Information about Demand,” The 4th
Global Conference on Business and Economics Proceedings, Oxford, England, June 2005.

Useful Links

-----