IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/recoru/ecoru_0013-0559_2000_num_255_1_5166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

La politique agricole dans les négociations internationales

Author

Listed:
  • Louis-Pascal Mahé
  • Cathie Laroche-Dupraz

Abstract

[eng] THE FRENCH AGRICULTURAL POLICY WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL ROUNDS : TIME OF AGGIORNAMENTO . The paper covers the main topic of the French agricultural trade policy: the cap and the gatt. We review some developments of the cap in relation to the successive gatt rounds. Against early evidence of difficulties, the cap was not significantly adjusted, even in 1984, before the 1992 reform under the pressure of the Uruguay Round and of the previous concessions making the grain policy untenable. The French agricultural strategy is seen as too narrowly focused on the financial and trade benefits derived from the customs union and the financial solidarity principle. The French agricultural policy is paradoxical for a structural exporter as it relies extensively on market support, intervention and restitutions. Some explanations of this French paradox are suggested, and the supra national nature of the cap viewed as a main factor. Agenda 2000 and the « Loi d'orientation » could launch a far reaching agricultural policy, consistent with the European model of the countryside, if the whole support to the farm sector were channelled through the system of the «Contrats territoriaux d'exploitation», based not on agricultural products volumes, but on agricultural practices and effective environmental services. [fre] L'article porte sur le principal volet extérieur de la politique agricole française: les relations entre la PAC et le GATT. Il examine les liens entre l'évolution de la pac et les cycles de négociations du gatt. En dépit des nombreux problèmes apparus, la pac n'a pas changé de manière significative, même en 1984, avant la réforme de 1992 et le cycle Uruguay. La stratégie française nous paraît trop influencée par une vision à court terme de l'intérêt national basée sur le retour budgétaire et l'avantage commercial. Les concessions perçues comme mineures lors des premiers rounds du gatt ont rendu la politique céréalière intenable. La politique agricole française est paradoxale, car fondée sur le soutien des prix en situation d'exportateur structurel. Des explications de cette spécificité française sont avancées, dont le caractère supranational de la pac. L'agenda 2000 et la Loi d'orientation pourraient préfigurer une politique agricole d'avenir, cohérente avec un modèle européen de l'espace rural, si l'ensemble du soutien passait par le dispositif des cte et était fondé sur des pratiques agricoles et non sur des productions.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis-Pascal Mahé & Cathie Laroche-Dupraz, 2000. "La politique agricole dans les négociations internationales," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 255(1), pages 135-153.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:recoru:ecoru_0013-0559_2000_num_255_1_5166
    DOI: 10.3406/ecoru.2000.5166
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecoru.2000.5166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecoru.2000.5166
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecoru_0013-0559_2000_num_255_1_5166
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/ecoru.2000.5166?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. Olson, Mancur, 1985. "The Exploitation and Subsidization of Agriculture in Developing and Developed Countries," 1985 Conference, August 26-September 4, 1985, Malaga, Spain 182530, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Jean-Marc Boussard, 1985. "La production agricole répond-elle aux prix ?," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 167(1), pages 20-27.
    3. Hervé Guyomard & Yves Léon & Louis-Pascal Mahé, 1992. "La réforme de la PAC et les négociations du GATT : un pas nécessaire pour un compromis minimal ?," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 254(1), pages 41-61.
    4. Louis P. Mahé & Michel Roudet, 1980. "La politique agricole française et l'Europe verte : impasse ou révision ?," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 135(1), pages 12-27.
    5. Louis P. Mahé & J.-C. Poupa & T. Trochet, 1984. "Un protectionnisme plus équilibré : le FEOGA et la réforme de la PAC," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 164(1), pages 17-22.
    6. Timothy E. Josling & Stefan Tangermann & T. K. Warley, 1996. "Agriculture in the GATT," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-37890-2.
    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. Carl GAIGNÉ & Cathie LAROCHE DUPRAZ & Alan MATTHEWS, 2015. "Thirty years of European research on international trade in food and agricultural products," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 96(1), pages 91-130.

    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. Jacques Blanchet & Alain Revel & Alexandra Linglin & Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet & Véronique Wormser, 1997. "L'intégration des PECO à la nouvelle PAC. Une double révolution inachevée," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 240(1), pages 49-58.
    2. Glauber, Joseph W., 2017. "Agricultural insurance and the WTO:," IFPRI book chapters, in: Bouët, Antoine & Laborde Debucquet, David (ed.), Agriculture, development, and the global trading system: 2000– 2015, chapter 10, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Trofimov, Ivan D., 2017. "Political economy of trade protection and liberalization: in search of agency-based and holistic framework of policy change," MPRA Paper 79504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Kramb, M.C., 2001. "Eine ökonomische Analyse von sanitären und phytosanitären Außenhandelsmaßnahmen am Beispiel des „Hormonstreites“ zwischen der EU und den USA," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 37.
    5. Wusheng Yu & Hans G. Jensen, 2010. "China’s Agricultural Policy Transition: Impacts of Recent Reforms and Future Scenarios," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 343-368, June.
    6. Tangermann, Stefan, 1997. "Agricultural Implications of EU Eastern Enlargement and the Future of the CAP," 1997: Economic Transition in Central and East Europe, and the Former Soviet Union: Implications ... Symposium, June 12-14, 1997, Berlin, Germany 50839, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    7. Jörg-Volker Schrader, 2000. "CAP reform, the Berlin summit, and EU enlargement," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 35(5), pages 231-242, September.
    8. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Measuring Effects of Trade Policy Distortions: How Far Have We Come?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 413-440, April.
    9. Marie-Ange VEGANZONES-VAROUDAKIS, 2000. "Market Access, Export Subsidies, Domestic Support and the WTO Negociations: a Review and Synthesis," Working Papers 200008, CERDI.
    10. W. H. Furtan & Blain M. van Melle, 2004. "Canada's Agricultural Trade in North America: Do National Borders Matter?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 317-331.
    11. Lajtos, Ildikó, 2010. "Verhandlungsverhalten und Anspruchsanpassung im internationalen Verhandlungsprozess: Die WTO-Agrarverhandlungen zum Abbau exportwettbewerbsfördernder Maßnahmen," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 55, number 94723.
    12. Anderson, Kym, 2004. "Setting the Trade Policy Agenda: What Roles for Economists?," Working Papers 14574, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    13. Donaldson, A. B. & Flichman, G. & Webster, J. P. G., 1995. "Integrating agronomic and economic models for policy analysis at the farm level: The impact of CAP reform in two European regions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 163-178.
    14. Karmen Erjavec & Emil Erjavec, 2021. "Framing agricultural policy through the EC’s strategies on CAP reforms (1992–2017)," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Karl Meilke & Dermot Hayes & Yves Surry & Jay Fabiosa & Frank Fuller, 2001. "Trade liberalization in the international pork sector : analysis of zero-for-zero option," Post-Print hal-01594094, HAL.
    16. Herve Guyomard & Louis Pascal Mahe & Terry L. Roe, 1994. "L'agriculture au GATT et la nouvelle PAC : la fin d'une exception ?," Post-Print hal-01593896, HAL.
    17. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    18. Swinbank, Alan, 2004. "Dirty Tariffication Revisited: The EU and Sugar," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14.
    19. Souleymane Soumahoro, 2014. "Export Taxes and Consumption: A �Natural Experiment� from C�te d'Ivoire," HiCN Working Papers 182, Households in Conflict Network.
    20. Sauvé, Pierre, 2013. "The Road to Bali: ERIA Perspectives on the WTO Ministerial and Asian Integration," Papers 645, World Trade Institute.

    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:prs:recoru:ecoru_0013-0559_2000_num_255_1_5166. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecoru .

    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.