IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare09/48154.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competition Policy Reform in Agriculture: A Comparison of the BRICs Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Davenport, Scott V.
  • Chadha, R.
  • Gale, R.

Abstract

This paper forms part of a project titled ‘Facilitating Efficient Agricultural Markets in India: An Assessment of Competition and Regulatory Reform Requirements funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). The project follows from previous research which found that India’s border reforms need to be complemented by ‘behind-the-border’ domestic reforms if government policy objectives of improved productivity, higher rural employment and incomes and enhanced food security are to be met. The project is being undertaken by Indian and Australian collaborators with expertise in agricultural policy development. Stage 1 of the project is designed to develop a common understanding among those collaborators of contemporary market based policy development principles and the extent to which they have been adopted in other developing countries. The BRICs economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, as well as South Africa, were chosen for this purpose. A comparative overview of agricultural policy developments in these economies is underway drawing observations about policy reform impacts on agricultural production and the extent to which policy reforms have been consistent with competition policy and microeconomic reform principles applied in developed economies, such as Australia. The extent to which trade practices law has emerged in developing economies as an alternative to direct regulation is also considered. Preliminary findings are reported to facilitate broader discussion and encourage input from interested parties. Stage 2 of the project, commencing later in 2009, will involve the application of competition policy principles to the marketing regulations of a selection of agricultural industries in India. Consideration will be given to clarifying regulatory objectives, assessing their consistency with accepted forms of ‘market failure’ and assessing whether regulatory measures address those policy objectives in a manner least restrictive on competition. As well as facilitating efficient policy reform within India’s agricultural sector, the project aims to enhance the development of market based agricultural policy frameworks and the policy development skills of Indian and Australian policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Davenport, Scott V. & Chadha, R. & Gale, R., 2009. "Competition Policy Reform in Agriculture: A Comparison of the BRICs Countries," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48154, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:48154
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.48154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/48154/files/Davenport.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.48154?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. Allan Rae, 2008. "China's agriculture, smallholders and trade: driven by the livestock revolution? ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 283-302, September.
    2. Lawrence J. White, 2008. "The Role of Competition Policy in the Promotion of Economic Growth," Working Papers 08-19, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    3. Orden, David & Cheng, Fuzhi & Nguyen, Hoa & Grote, Ulrike & Thomas, Marcelle & Mullen, Kathleen & Sun, Dongsheng, 2007. "Agricultural producer support estimates for developing countries: Measurement issues and evidence from India, Indonesia, China, and Vietnam," Research reports 152, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Osborne, Stefan & Trueblood, Michael A., 2002. "Agricultural Productivity And Efficiency In Russia And Ukraine: Building On A Decade Of Reform," Agricultural Economic Reports 33937, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Crean, Jason & Milham, Nick & Singh, Rajinder, 2013. "Economic assessment of technologies aimed at reducing air pollution in rice-wheat farming system in north-west India," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152178, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Onyebuchi Iwegbu & Leonardo Bornacki Mattos, 2022. "Financial development, trade globalisation and agricultural output performance among BRICS and WAMZ member countries," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(8), pages 1-27, August.

    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. Zijun Luo & Xu Tian, 2018. "Can China’s meat imports be sustainable? A case study of mad cow disease," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(9), pages 1022-1042, February.
    2. Kym Anderson & Johan Swinnen, 2008. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Europe's Transition Economies," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6502, December.
    3. Thanh Pham Thien Nguyen & Son Hong Nghiem & Eduardo Roca & Parmendra Sharma, 2016. "Efficiency, innovation and competition: evidence from Vietnam, China and India," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1235-1259, November.
    4. Hewitt, Joanna, 2008. "Impact evaluation of research by the International Food Policy Research Institute on agricultural trade liberalization, developing countries, and WTO's Doha negotiations:," Impact assessments 28, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Bezlepkina, Irina V. & Huirne, Ruud B.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & Oskam, Arie J., 2005. "Analysing Variation in Russian Dairy Farms, 1990-2001," 94th Seminar, April 9-10, 2005, Ashford, UK 24444, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Kym Anderson & Gordon Rausser & Johan Swinnen, 2013. "Political Economy of Public Policies: Insights from Distortions to Agricultural and Food Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(2), pages 423-477, June.
    8. Einex, Christian & Lissitsa, Alexej & Parkhomenko, Sergiy, 2005. "Getreideproduktion in der Ukraine: eine komparative Analyse von Produktionskosten [Grain production in Ukraine – A comparative analysis of production costs]," IAMO Discussion Papers 79, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    9. Anderson, Kym & Kurzweil, Marianne & Martin, William J. & Sandri, Damiano & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2008. "Methodology for Measuring Distortions to Agricultural Incentives," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48326, World Bank.
    10. Kym Anderson, 2009. "Distorted Agricultural Incentives and Economic Development: Asia's Experience," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 351-384, March.
    11. Croser, Johanna & Anderson, Kym, 2011. "Changing contributions of different agricultural policy instruments to global reductions in trade and welfare," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 297-323, July.
    12. Pursell, Garry & Gulati, Ashok & Gupta, Kanupriya, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in India," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48483, World Bank.
    13. Raushan Bokusheva & Heinrich Hockmann, 2006. "Production risk and technical inefficiency in Russian agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(1), pages 93-118, March.
    14. Daoud, Adel & Reinsberg, Bernhard & Kentikelenis, Alexander E. & Stubbs, Thomas H. & King, Lawrence P., 2019. "The International Monetary Fund’s interventions in food and agriculture: An analysis of loans and conditions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 204-218.
    15. Einax, Christian & Lissitsa, Alexej & Parkhomenko, Sergiy, 2005. "Getreideproduktion In Der Ukraine -- Eine Komparative Analyse Von Produktionskosten," IAMO Discussion Papers 14892, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    16. Thanh Pham Thien Nguyen & Son Hong Nghiem & Eduardo Roca & Parmendra Sharma, 2016. "Bank reforms and efficiency in Vietnamese banks: evidence based on SFA and DEA," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(30), pages 2822-2835, June.
    17. Pisek Gerdsri & Dundar F. Kocaoglu, 2013. "Evaluating Nanotechnologies For The Development Of National Agriculture Industry," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(02), pages 1-21.
    18. Irina Bezlepkina & Arie Oskam & Alfons Oude Lansink & Ruud Huirne, 2004. "Development and performance of Russian agricultural enterprises, 1990-2001," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 439-457.
    19. Huang, Jikun & Liu, Yu & Martin, William J. & Rozelle, Scott, 2007. "Integrating China’s Agricultural Economy into the Global Market: Measuring Distortions in China’s Agricultural Sector," 2007: China's Agricultural Trade: Issues and Prospects Symposium, July 2007, Beijing, China 55023, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    20. Anderson, Kym & Kurzweil, Marianne & Martin, Will & Sandri, Damiano & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2008. "Measuring distortions to agricultural incentives, revisited," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 675-704, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aare09:48154. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.