IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332488.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Effects on U.S., EU, and World Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Beckman, Jayson
  • Burfisher, Mary
  • Arita, Shawn
  • Mitchell, Lorraine
  • Thornsbury, Suzanne
  • Wainio, John
  • Zahniser, Steven

Abstract

The United States and the European Union (EU) have committed to negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the goal of liberalizing trade and investment. The United States and the EU are both large economies that together account for almost 47 percent of global GDP (EC, 2013). In 2012, the United States exported $351 billion worth of goods and services to the EU, and imported $449 billion from the EU (EC, 2014). Their agricultural bilateral trade was valued at $25 billion in 2012. Reducing market access barriers between the two economies will undoubtedly alter trade flows, commodity prices, and consumption and production patterns within the United States and EU, and with third-party countries as well. The goals of the TTIP include the elimination of tariffs and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), increased investment, and reduction of the barriers imposed by non-tariff measures (NTMs). Agriculture poses special challenges in the negotiations. Tariffs remain high on many farm commodities and NTMs are widely used, particularly for meat and dairy products, and these may carry important interactive effects with tariff and TRQ barriers. There are the added challenges of issues related to food quality and safety, and consumer perceptions and preferences. Strong consumer preferences for food safety and quality characteristics will influence the competitiveness of suppliers, even if bilateral trade barriers are successfully removed. Our analysis uses a variant of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) computable general equilibrium (CGE) model that combines GTAP-AGR, a CGE model that describes land use by agroecological zone, and GTAP-E, a CGE model that describes in detail the biofuels sector and its competition with traditional fuels. We disaggregate nine of the agricultural and resource sectors in the GTAP v9 (2011) database to create a 51-sector model that describes key agricultural commodities in U.S.-EU trade, including beef, poultry, milk products, fruits, vegetables, nuts, several types of processed foods, and several types of biofuels and their intermediate inputs. Regions in the model are the United States, the EU, and other countries of interest. The latter include NAFTA partners (Mexico and Canada) because increased trade with the EU might reduce trade in the NAFTA area. Brazil, India, and China are also included in the analysis to better understand the impacts of TTIP on these large and dynamic economies. We describe agricultural tariffs and NTMs in detail, using multiple quantitative and qualitative approaches to describe the NTMs that inhibit trade in these products. We implement a stylized and hypothetical TTIP scenario in which all tariffs and NTMs are assumed to be eliminated, and TRQ amounts are increased. Eliminating tariffs in GTAP is relatively straightforward because all commodities have an associated import or export tax. These are simply reduced to zero for all agricultural commodities. Increasing TRQs requires implementing the TRQ structure in GTAP (following Elbehri and Pearson (2005) in modeling TRQs in a mixed complementary problem format), and then making assumptions based on how much the in-quota portion will be increased. Removing NTMs is much more difficult as such barriers are more difficult than tariffs to identify, measure, or implement in GTAP; for this step, once the modeling is implemented we will reduce or eliminate fixed and variable costs. The TTIP agreement will likely bring about large changes to agricultural trade between the United States and the EU, which will spill over into trade with other countries (e.g., NAFTA) and bring about changes in prices, and altered levels of production and consumption. Although the impacts of removing tariffs might be substantial, removing NTM barriers or raising the in-quota portion of the TRQs may outweigh tariff removals. Furthermore NTMs and TRQs can carry important synergistic effects, that is both might be used for a given sector. Our work deconstructs the impacts of these three trade instruments to provide policy makers with an informed assessment for trade negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Beckman, Jayson & Burfisher, Mary & Arita, Shawn & Mitchell, Lorraine & Thornsbury, Suzanne & Wainio, John & Zahniser, Steven, 2014. "The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Effects on U.S., EU, and World Agriculture," Conference papers 332488, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/332488/files/7023.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. De Masi, G. & Giovannetti, G. & Ricchiuti, G., 2013. "Network analysis to detect common strategies in Italian foreign direct investment," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(5), pages 1202-1214.
    2. Elhanan Helpman, 2010. "Labor Market Frictions as a Source of Comparative Advantage, with Implications for Unemployment and Inequality," NBER Working Papers 15764, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Patricia Kotnik & Eva Hagsten, 2018. "ICT use as a determinant of export activity in manufacturing and service firms: Multi-country evidence," Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci/Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics and Business, vol. 36(1), pages 103-128.
    4. Acar, Mustafa & Afyonoglu, Burcu & Kus, Savas & Vural, Bengisu, 2007. "Turkey’s Agricultural Integration with the EU: Quantifying the Implications," Conference papers 331657, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Chen, Natalie & Juvenal, Luciana, 2022. "Markups, quality, and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    6. Joachim Wagner, 2012. "Exports, R&D and productivity: a test of the Bustos-model with German enterprise data," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(3), pages 1942-1948.
    7. Yuegang Song & Songlin Jin & Zhenhui Li, 2022. "Venture Capital and Chinese Firms’ Technological Innovation Capability: Effective Evaluation and Mechanism Verification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-20, August.
    8. Benkovskis, Konstantins & Wörz, Julia, 2018. "What drives the market share changes? Price versus non-price factors," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 9-29.
    9. Charlotte Emlinger & Viola Lamani, 2020. "International trade, quality sorting and trade costs: the case of Cognac," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(3), pages 579-609, August.
    10. Alexandre Janiak & Paulo Santos Monteiro, 2011. "Inflation and Welfare in Long‐Run Equilibrium with Firm Dynamics," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(5), pages 795-834, August.
    11. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman, 2010. "Services Trade and Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(3), pages 642-692, September.
    12. Kalantzis, Fotios & Niczyporuk, Hanna, 2021. "Can European businesses achieve productivity gains from investments in energy efficiency?," EIB Working Papers 2021/07, European Investment Bank (EIB).
    13. Dmitri Kirpichev & Enrique Moral-Benito, 2018. "The costs of trade protectionism: evidence from Spanish firms and non-tariff measures," Working Papers 1814, Banco de España.
    14. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    15. Ricardo A. Lopez, 2007. "Exports and Productivity – Comparable Evidence for 14 Countries," CAEPR Working Papers 2007-028, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    16. Wang, Xu & Zhang, Xiaobo & Xie, Zhuan & Huang, Yiping, 2016. "Roads to innovation: Firm-level evidence from China:," IFPRI discussion papers 1542, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Corsetti, Giancarlo & Martin, Philippe & Pesenti, Paolo, 2007. "Productivity, terms of trade and the `home market effect'," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 99-127, September.
    18. Dennis, Allen & Shepherd, Ben, 2007. "Trade costs, barriers to entry, and export diversification in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4368, The World Bank.
    19. Alexander Hijzen & Sébastien Jean & Thierry Mayer, 2011. "The effects at home of initiating production abroad: evidence from matched French firms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 147(3), pages 457-483, September.
    20. Sourafel Girma & Yundan Gong & Holger Görg & Zhihong Yu, 2009. "Can Production Subsidies Explain China's Export Performance? Evidence from Firm‐level Data," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 111(4), pages 863-891, December.

    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:pugtwp:332488. 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/gtpurus.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.