IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v43y2020i8p2222-2236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

US–Brazilian cotton policies

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Devadoss
  • Jeff Luckstead

Abstract

Brazil filed a lawsuit with the WTO against the United States for providing cotton production and export subsidies, and the WTO ruled in favour of Brazil. Brazil threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs if the United States does not comply with the WTO rulings. After a prolonged litigation stretching from 2002 to 2010, both countries agreed to a negotiated settlement wherein the United States paid Brazilian cotton producers to compensate for any adverse effects. This study develops a political economic model to theoretically analyse US cotton policies, Brazil's threat of retaliatory tariffs and the negotiated settlement between the two countries. The theoretical results show that the volume of cotton output, supply price response, politicians' apathy for the public welfare, elasticities of excess supply/demand and the magnitude of US transfers play a crucial role in determining US policies. This study contributes to the literature by being the first to model political economic aspects of the complex system of trade and domestic policies in the cotton industry using a three‐country framework, tariff retaliation and transfers between the countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Devadoss & Jeff Luckstead, 2020. "US–Brazilian cotton policies," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 2222-2236, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:43:y:2020:i:8:p:2222-2236
    DOI: 10.1111/twec.12941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12941
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/twec.12941?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kishore Gawande & Usree Bandyopadhyay, 2000. "Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 139-152, February.
    2. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "Trade Wars and Trade Talks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 675-708, August.
    3. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    4. Devadoss, Stephen & Luckstead, Jeff, 2018. "Effects Of The 2014 Farm Bill Policies On Cotton Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 169-187, May.
    5. Devadoss, Stephen & Luckstead, Jeff, 2018. "Production and Moral Hazard Effects of 2014 Cotton Farm Bill Policies," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266763, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Kreps,David M. & Wallis,Kenneth F. (ed.), 1997. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521589833.
    7. Brock, William A & Magee, Stephen P, 1978. "The Economics of Special Interest Politics: The Case of the Tariff," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 246-250, May.
    8. Elena Paltseva, 2014. "Protection for Sale: The case of oligopolistic competition and interdependent sectors," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1195-1216, November.
    9. Campiche, Jody, 2013. "Details of the Proposed Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) Program for Cotton Producers and Potential Strategies for Extension Education," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(3), pages 569-575, August.
    10. Rigoberto A. Lopez & Xenia Matschke, 2006. "Food Protection for Sale," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 380-391, August.
    11. Lorea Blasco & Stephen Devadoss & Leroy Stodick, 2009. "A general equilibrium analysis of the effects of Doha Round Declaration and African Cotton Initiative on Zambian cotton sector," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 115-137.
    12. Chang, Pao-Li, 2005. "Protection for sale under monopolistic competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 509-526, July.
    13. Kreps,David M. & Wallis,Kenneth F. (ed.), 1997. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521589819.
    14. B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Menu Auctions, Resource Allocation, and Economic Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(1), pages 1-31.
    15. William Ridley & Stephen Devadoss, 2014. "US–Brazil Cotton Dispute and the World Cotton Market," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1081-1100, August.
    16. Devashish Mitra, 2016. "Endogenous Lobby Formation and Endogenous Protection: A Long-Run Model of Trade Policy Determination," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Trade Policy Theory, Evidence and Applications, chapter 1, pages 3-21, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Ram C. Acharya, 2015. "Trade Policy in Lobbying Equilibrium: With Non-Traded and Traded Final Goods and Intermediate Inputs," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 313-336, July.
    18. Kee, Hiau Looi & Olarreaga, Marcelo & Silva, Peri, 2007. "Market access for sale," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 79-94, January.
    19. Giovanni Maggi & Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, 1999. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1135-1155, December.
    20. Phillip McCalman, 2004. "Protection for Sale and Trade Liberalization: an Empirical Investigation," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 81-94, February.
    21. Campiche, Jody L., 2013. "Details of the Proposed Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) Program for Cotton Producers and Potential Strategies for Extension Education," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45, pages 1-7, August.
    22. Kreps,David M. & Wallis,Kenneth F. (ed.), 1997. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521589826.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Willmann, Gerald, 2003. "Why Legislators are Protectionists: The Role of Majoritarian Voting in Setting Tariffs," Economics Working Papers 2003-10, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    2. Kato, Hayato, 2015. "Lobbying and Tax Competition in an Agglomeration Economy: A Reverse Home Market Effect," CCES Discussion Paper Series 56, Center for Research on Contemporary Economic Systems, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    3. Giovanni Facchini, 2004. "The political economy of international trade and factor mobility," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 1-32, February.
    4. Ethier, Wilfred J., 2007. "The theory of trade policy and trade agreements: A critique," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 605-623, September.
    5. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Marvasi, Enrico, 2019. "Protection for sale under monopolistic competition: Beyond the CES," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Anna Maria Mayda & Rodney D. Ludema & Miaojie Yu & Zhi Yu, 2018. "The political economy of protection in GVCs: Evidence from Chinese micro data," Working Papers gueconwpa~18-18-07, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    7. Hayato Kato, 2018. "Lobbying and tax competition in an oligopolistic industry: a reverse home-market effect," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 276-295, July.
    8. Ludema, Rodney D. & Mayda, Anna Maria & Yu, Zhi & Yu, Miaojie, 2021. "The political economy of protection in GVCs: Evidence from Chinese micro data," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Mirabelle Muûls & Dimitra Petropoulou, 2013. "A swing state theory of trade protection in the Electoral College," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(2), pages 705-724, May.
    10. Facchini, Giovanni & Mayda, Anna Maria & Mishra, Prachi, 2011. "Do interest groups affect US immigration policy?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 114-128, September.
    11. Nuno Limão & Patricia Tovar, 2018. "Policy choice: Theory and evidence from commitment via international trade agreements," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 6, pages 179-198, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Rodney D. Ludema & Anna Maria Mayda, 2010. "Do Terms-of-Trade Effects Matter for Trade Agreements? Evidence from WTO Countries," Development Working Papers 293, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    13. Barbara Annicchiarico & Enrico Marvasi, 2018. "Protection for Sale with Price Interactions and Incomplete Pass-Through," Working Papers LuissLab 18141, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    14. Ridley, William & Devadoss, Stephen, 2024. "Determinants of Policy Responses in the US–China Tit-for-Tat Trade War," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Preprint), January.
    15. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas R., 2014. "Political support for trade policy in the European Union," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 243-253.
    16. Larry D. Qiu, 2004. "Lobbying, multisector trade, and sustainability of free‐trade agreements," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 1061-1083, November.
    17. Enrico Marvasi, 2013. "Protection for Sale, Monopolistic Competition and Variable Markups," Working Papers - Economics wp2013_11.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    18. Baybars Karacaovali, 2015. "Varying Political Economy Weights of Protection: The Case of Colombia," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 290-312, July.
    19. Baybars Karacaovali, 2011. "Trade Policy Determinants and Trade Reform in a Developing Country," Working Papers 201115, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    20. Nathan Nunn & Daniel Trefler, 2006. "Putting the Lid on Lobbying: Tariff Structure and Long-Term Growth when Protection is for Sale," NBER Working Papers 12164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:43:y:2020:i:8:p:2222-2236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0378-5920 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.