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! ]

WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: Assessing the October 2005 Proposals

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Brink, Lars

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Proposals on domestic support were submitted in the WTO agriculture negotiations by the USA, the EU, and the G-20 in October 2005, based on the 2004 Framework agreement. This paper pays attention to the de minimis rules and the resulting de minimis allowances and projects future (2014) distorting support for the USA and the EU-15. It calculates the constraints resulting from projected values of production combined with the U.S., EU and G-20 proposals and compares their effectiveness in constraining components of distorting support and the projected future applied support. The de minimis rules make a difference in estimating how much distorting support can be provided in the future. Under the U.S. proposal the Overall commitment does not constrain either the USA or the EU. Under the EU and especially the G-20 proposals the Overall commitment constrains distorting support to be less than the sum of the cap on blue and the maximum usable components. This maximum is smaller than the sum of the commitment on Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) and the de minimis allowances. The U.S. proposal constrains only one component (Current Total AMS) and this only for the EU. The EU proposal does not constrain projected future applied support in either the USA or the EU. The G-20 proposal constrains the future Current Total AMS for both the USA and the EU. The G-20 proposal constrains projected future Overall distorting support for the EU but not for the USA.

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/14601
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium in its series Working Papers with number 14601.

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:iatrwp:14601

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: Agricultural and Food Policy; International Relations/Trade;

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. Brink, Lars, 2005. "WTO 2004 Agriculture Framework: Disciplines on Distorting Domestic Support," Working Papers 14587, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium. [Downloadable!]
  2. Daniel A. Sumner, 2003. "Implications of the US Farm Bill of 2002 for agricultural trade and trade negotiations," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd., vol. 47(1), pages 99-122, 03. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Chad E. Hart & Bruce A. Babcock, 2005. "Loan Deficiency Payments versus Countercyclical Payments: Do We Need Both for a Price Safety Net?," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications 05-bp44, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at Iowa State University. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  4. Bruce A. Babcock & Chad E. Hart, 2005. "How Much "Safety" Is Available under the U.S. Proposal to the WTO?," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications 05-bp48, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at Iowa State University. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
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. Butault, Jean-Pierre & Bureau, Jean-Christophe, 2006. "WTO Constraints and the CAP: Domestic Support in EU-25 Agriculture," Working Papers 18879, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements. [Downloadable!]
  2. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements. [Downloadable!]
  3. Jean-Pierre Butault & Jean-Christophe Bureau, 2006. "WTO Contstaints and the CAP: Domestic Support in EU 25 Agriculture," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp171, IIIS. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-11.


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.