IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v24y2002i2p336-352..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative U.S. and EU Sugar Trade Liberalization Policies and their Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Won W. Koo

Abstract

This study analyzes the impacts of alternative trade liberalization policies in the United States and the European Union (EU) on the U.S. sugar industry. A global sugar policy simulation model was used for this analysis. The study results indicate that the U.S. sugar industry may be able to survive if both the United States and the EU liberalize their sugar trade. However, if only the United States eliminates its sugar programs, all U.S. sugar-producing regions would be threatened.

Suggested Citation

  • Won W. Koo, 2002. "Alternative U.S. and EU Sugar Trade Liberalization Policies and their Implications," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 336-352.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:24:y:2002:i:2:p:336-352.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9353.00023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Beghin & Barbara El Osta & Jay R. Cherlow & Samarendu Mohanty, 2003. "The Cost Of The U.S. Sugar Program Revisited," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(1), pages 106-116, January.
    2. Stephen Devadoss & Jurgen Kropf, 1996. "Impacts of trade liberalizations under the Uruguay Round on the world sugar market," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 83-96, November.
    3. Devadoss, Stephen & Kropf, Jurgen, 1996. "Impacts of trade liberalizations under the Uruguay round on the world sugar market," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 83-96, November.
    4. Usda Ers, 1989. "In the News," Food Review/ National Food Review, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 12(4), December.
    5. Benirschka, Martin & Koo, Won W. & Lou, Jianqiang, 1996. "World Sugar Policy Simulation Model: Description And Computer Program Documentation," Agricultural Economics Reports 23432, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    6. Babcock, Bruce A. & Beghin, John C. & Mohanty, Samarendu & Fuller, Frank H. & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Kaus, Phillip J. & Fang, Cheng & Hart, Chad E. & Kovarik, Karen & Womack, Abner W. & Young, Robert E, 2000. "FAPRI 2000 World Agricultural Outlook," FAPRI Staff Reports 32045, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI).
    7. Usda Ers, 1989. "In the News," Food Review/ National Food Review, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 12(3), September.
    8. Roningen, Vernon O. & Dixit, Praveen M., 1989. "Economic Implications Of Agricultural Policy Reforms In Industrial Market Economies," Staff Reports 278843, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Joachim Zietz, 1986. "The potential benefits to LDCs of trade liberalization in beef and sugar by industrialized countries," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 122(1), pages 93-112, March.
    10. Wong, Gordon & Sturgiss, Robert & Borrell, Brent, 1989. "The Economic Consequences of International Sugar Trade Reform," Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) Archive 316166, Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.
    11. Keith E. Maskus, 1989. "Large Costs and Small Benefits of the American Sugar Programme," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 85-104, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moyo, Sibusiso & Spreen, Thomas H., 2011. "An Update on the Consequences of EU Sugar Reform," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, September.
    2. Huan-Niemi, Ellen & Niemi, Jyrki S., 2003. "The Impact of Preferential, Regional and Multilateral Trade Agreements: A Case Study of the EU Sugar Regime," ENARPRI Working Papers 25134, European Network of Agricultural and Rural Policy Research Institutes (ENARPRI).
    3. Ellen Huan-Niemi & Jyrki Niemi, 2003. "The impact of preferential, regional and multilateral trade agreements: a case study of the EU sugar regime," ENARPRI Working Papers 001, ENARPRI (European Network of Agricultural and Rural Policy Research Institutes).
    4. Gotor, Elisabetta & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2011. "The impact of the EU sugar trade reform on poor households in developing countries: A general equilibrium analysis," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 568-582, July.

    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. Schmitz, Andrew & Vercammen, James, 1990. "Trade Liberalization in the World Sugar Market: Playing on a Level Field?," CUDARE Working Papers 198574, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, "undated". "When Modern Agricultural (BIO)Technologies Meet Obsolete Trade PoliciesL The Case of the European Union's Sugar Industry," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 125079, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2001. "Welfare Effects Of Transgenic Sugarbeets In The European Union: A Theoretical Ex-Ante Framework," Working Papers 31852, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    4. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2001. "Ex-Ante Evaluation Of The Economic Impact Of Agricultural Biotechnology In The European Union: The Case Of Transgenic Sugarbeets," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20631, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Poonyth, Daneswar & Westhoff, Patrick & Womack, Abner & Adams, Gary, 2000. "Impacts of WTO restrictions on subsidized EU sugar exports," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 233-245, April.
    6. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2002. "Impact Of Agricultural Biotechnology In The European Union'S Sugar Industry," Working Papers 31854, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Lord, Ron & Barry, Robert D., 1990. "The World Sugar Market--Government Intervention and Multilateral Policy Reform," Staff Reports 278353, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Zhai, Fan, 2006. "Preferential Trade Agreements in Asia: Alternative Scenarios of "Hub and Spoke"," Conference papers 331509, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Gotor, Elisabetta & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2011. "The impact of the EU sugar trade reform on poor households in developing countries: A general equilibrium analysis," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 568-582, July.
    10. Schmitz, Andrew, 1995. "Sugar: The Free Trade Myth and the Reality of European Subsidies," International Working Paper Series 237436, University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department.
    11. John C. Beghin & Barbara El Osta & Jay R. Cherlow & Samarendu Mohanty, 2003. "The Cost Of The U.S. Sugar Program Revisited," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(1), pages 106-116, January.
    12. Svatoš, M. & Maitah, Mansoor & Belova, Anna, 2013. "World Sugar Market – Basic Development Trends and Tendencies," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Larson, Donald F. & Borrell, Brent, 2001. "Sugar policy and reform," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2602, The World Bank.
    14. Huan-Niemi, Ellen & Niemi, Jyrki S., 2003. "The Impact of Preferential, Regional and Multilateral Trade Agreements: A Case Study of the EU Sugar Regime," ENARPRI Working Papers 25134, European Network of Agricultural and Rural Policy Research Institutes (ENARPRI).
    15. Huan-Niemi, Ellen & Kerkela, Leena, 2005. "Reform in the EU Sugar Regime: Impact on the Global Sugar Markets," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24733, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Shunxiang Wu & Stephen Devadoss & Yaochi Lu, 2003. "Estimation and decomposition of technical efficiency for sugarbeet farms," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 471-484.
    17. Elobeid, Amani & Tokgoz, Simla, 2008. "AJAE Appendix for “Removing Distortions in the U.S. Ethanol Market: What Does It Imply for the United States and Brazil?”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-30, February.
    18. Kazi Abrar Hossain & Syed Abul Basher & A.K. Enamul Haque, 2018. "Quantifying the impact of Ramadan on global raw sugar prices," International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(4), pages 510-528, June.
    19. Marcel ADENÄUER & Kamel LOUHICHI & Bruno HENRY DE FRAHAN & Heinz Peter WITZKE., 2010. "Impact of the "Everything but Arms" Initiative on the EU Sugar Sub-Sector," EcoMod2004 330600001, EcoMod.
    20. Abhinav Narayanan & Shekhar Tomar, 2023. "Farm support and market distortion: Evidence from India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(3), pages 966-993, May.

    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:oup:revage:v:24:y:2002:i:2:p:336-352.. 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: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.