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! ]

Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Chad E. Hart () (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD))
John C. Beghin

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

Abstract

This paper focuses on the third pillar of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the discipline of agricultural domestic support. The paper examines the current definition of agricultural domestic support used by the WTO, focusing on the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) and other forms of support that are less to least distorting (Blue and Green Box payments). The analysis looks at the recent experience of four member states (the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Brazil). The structure of recent support varies considerably by country. Some countries, notably the United States, have strategically used the de minimis exemption to deflate their support figures substantially in order to remain within AMS limits, even though total support has exceeded these limits. The paper investigates the possible effects of changing the definition of the AMS so that it better reflects current support conditioned by market forces. If market prices (world and/or domestic) were to be used to compute current market support, a greater variability of the AMS would result, and violations of AMS limits would be more likely given the anticyclical nature of policies included in the AMS, especially for the United States and European Union. We also identify possible changes that would lead to more substantial trade reforms. In particular, we argue for phasing out the de minimis exemption and Blue Box support, adding a generous Green Box definition, which would allow countries to move quickly away from trade-distorting policies (Amber Box and the most trade-distorting Blue Box policies), followed by a phase-down of Green Box payments over time. The recent reforms of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) exemplify the spirit of the first part of the recommendation, while resistance to phase-down of Green Box payments may be overcome by a "reasonable" reduction schedule.

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 file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/04bp43.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: Full Text
Download Restriction: no
File URL: http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/synopsis.aspx?id=557
File Format: text/html
File Function: Online Synopsis
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University in its series Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications with number 04-bp43.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Nov 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:04-bp43

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 578 Heady Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011-1070
Phone: (515) 294-1183
Fax: (515) 294-6336
Email:
Web page: http://www.card.iastate.edu/
More information through EDIRC

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

Related research
Keywords: aggregate measure of support agricultural domestic support amber box AMS blue box Doha green box World Trade Organization WTO.

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. Anderson, Kym & Martin, Will & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2005. "Distortions to world trade: impacts on agricultural markets and farm incomes," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3736, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Hoekman, Bernanrd & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2003. "Reducing agrcultural tariffs versus domestic support : what's more important for developing countries?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2918, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
  3. 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.
  4. John Baffes, 2005. "The "Cotton Problem"," World Bank Research Observer, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 109-144.
  5. Antoine Bouet & Lionel Fontagne & Sebastien Jean, 2005. "Is Erosion of Tariff Preferences a Serious Concern?," Working Papers 2005-14, CEPII research center. [Downloadable!]
  6. Finger, J M, 1974. "GATT Tariff Concessions and the Exports of Developing Countries-United States Concessions at the Dillon Round," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(335), pages 566-75, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Martin, Will & Warr, Peter G, 1993. "Explaining the Relative Decline of Agriculture: A Supply-Side Analysis for Indonesia," World Bank Economic Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 381-401, September.
  8. Wacziarg, Romain & Wallack, Jessica Seddon, 2004. "Trade liberalization and intersectoral labor movements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 411-439, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Hoekman, Bernard & Ozden, Caglar, 2005. "Trade preferences and differential treatment of developing countries : a selective survey," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3566, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
  10. W. Jill Harrison & J. Mark Horridge & K.R. Pearson, 2000. "Decomposing Simulation Results with Respect to Exogenous Shocks," Computational Economics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 227-249, June. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  11. Messerlin, Patrick, 2003. "Agriculture in the Doha Agenda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3009, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
  12. Finger, J. Michael & Schuknecht, Ludger, 1999. "Market access advances and retreats : the Uruguay Round and beyond," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2232, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
  13. Sebastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2005. "Consequences of Alternative Formulas for Agricultural Tariff Cuts," Working Papers 2005-15, CEPII research center. [Downloadable!]
  14. Young, C Edwin & Westcott, Paul C, 2000. " How Decoupled Is U.S. Agricultural Support for Major Crops?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 762-67, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Keeney, Roman & Thomas Hertel, 2005. "GTAP-AGR : A Framework for Assessing the Implications of Multilateral Changes in Agricultural Policies," GTAP Technical Papers 1869, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University. [Downloadable!]
  16. Marcelo Olarreaga & Çaglar Özden, 2005. "AGOA and Apparel: Who Captures the Tariff Rent in the Presence of Preferential Market Access?," The World Economy, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(1), pages 63-77, 01. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. L. Alan Winters, 2002. "Trade Liberalisation and Poverty: What are the Links?," The World Economy, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 25(9), pages 1339-1367, 09. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Antoine Bouet & Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagne & Sebastien Jean & David Laborde, 2004. "A Consistent, Ad-Valorem Equivalent Measure of Applied Protection Across the World: The MAcMap-HS6 Database," Working Papers 2004-22, CEPII research center. [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. Keith Walsh & Martina Brockmeier & Alan Matthews, 2005. "Implications of Domestic Support Disciplines for Further Agricultural Trade Liberalization," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp99, IIIS. [Downloadable!]
  2. repec:isu:genres:12735 is not listed on IDEAS
  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? Use the JEL tree to browse through the database by subfields.

This page was last updated on 2008-10-8.


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.