This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Market Access

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Jales, Mario
Josling, Tim
Nassar, Andre
Tutwiler, Ann
Abstract

The negotiation of improved market access in agriculture is crucial to the success of the Doha Round. The depth of tariff cuts will be the main indication of the level of ambition of the agricultural talks and hence the Round as a whole. Agricultural tariffs remain five times higher than tariffs in industrial goods, and account for the bulk of the distortions in agricultural trade. Recent analysis indicates that 92 percent of the global gains from trade liberalization in agriculture result from removing market access barriers. The July Framework reaffirmed the objective of substantial improvements in market access. This is to be accomplished by a single approach, a tiered (or banded) formula for tariff cuts, with the higher tariff rates being subject to the highest cuts. Negotiations have centered on how many bands to select, where to place the thresholds, and how progressive to make the band-specific reductions. The issue of whether to impose a tariff cap was left undecided in the Framework Agreement. Tariff caps have the advantage of reducing tariffs that are so high that they are little different from an import ban. If the cap is set at a low enough level, real trade improvements may follow. The Framework Agreement specifies that each Member may identify in the schedule a number of products as "Sensitive Products." However, analysis has shown that even exempting as little as two percent of tariff lines from formula based cuts would substantially reduce the expected gains from market access improvements. This points up the need for significant increases in TRQs for Sensitive Products to achieve significant improvements in market access. All tariff lines subject to TRQs, whether or not they are classified as Sensitive Products, should be subject to quota volume expansion. Improving the administration of TRQs and reducing in-quota tariffs are both important objectives for the Doha Round. There is considerable scope to improve the efficiency and transparency of quota regimes. The continued availability of the Special Safeguard for Agriculture by WTO members "remains under negotiation." But abuse of such a safeguard in order to protect domestic producers thwarts the objective of improved market access. Some limitations will need to be introduced if the safeguard is to be continued under the new agreement. The Framework Agreement emphasizes that Special and Differential Treatment is to be an integral part of the market access outcome. This can be ensured by several provisions. Developing countries can specify a number of products as Special Products, based on criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural development needs. The difficulty is in devising concrete criteria for selecting these products. The Framework Agreement also endorses the creation of a Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing countries. Tariff cuts in the Doha Round can erode the value of preferences and can have important consequences for some countries. Preference-granting countries could offset the declining value of those preferences either through financial transfers or additional market access for all products from the current preferred exporters. Least Developed Countries (LDCs) should not be required to undertake any reduction commitments, though they might wish to do so for their own economic advantage. Developed countries should provide duty- and quota-free access to LDCs to encourage full integration into the trade system.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/14570
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium in its series Trade Policy Issues Papers with number 14570.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrtp:14570

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://iatrcweb.org/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).

Related research
Keywords: International Relations/Trade;

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Bernard Hoekman & Francis Ng & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2004. "Agricultural Tariffs or Subsidies: Which Are More Important for Developing Economies?," World Bank Economic Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 175-204.
  2. Sebastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2005. "Consequences of Alternative Formulas for Agricultural Tariff Cuts," Working Papers 2005-15, CEPII research center. [Downloadable!]
  3. Jean, Sebastien & Laborde, David & Martin, Will, 2005. "Sensitive Products: Selection and Implications for Agricultural Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 18860, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Brockmeier, Martina & Pelikan, Janine, 2006. "Agricultural Market Access: A Moving Target in the WTO Negotiations?," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25428, International Association of Agricultural Economists. [Downloadable!]
  2. Martina Brockmeier & Janine Pelikan, 2006. "A Portfolio Theory of International Capital Flows," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp125, IIIS. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? A few items listed on IDEAS are over 2000 years old!

This page was last updated on 2009-11-26.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.