IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/744.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

True Friends and Enemies of Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Harrison, G. W.
  • Rutstrom, E.

Abstract

We employ an empirical general equilibrium model of the CAP to determine which factors and countries would be expected to be opposed to or support reform of the CAP. The objective is to determine who the "friends" and "enemies" of the CAP are. The analysis studies the extent to which lobbying activity by these interested parties could be expected to encourage or discourage internal EC reform of the CAP. Several alternative polices to reform the CAP are evaluated in this manner, so as to determine if one or other set of policies has greater chance of being accepted. Specifically, we study the recent MacSharry proposals for reform, as well as the stated negotiating positions presented at the GATT. The result will be a summary assessment of the relative politico-economic acceptability of these reform proposals within the EC. Our results lead to a very simple policy conclusion. Given the se of policy packages considered here, there is little doubt that the EC is most inclined to adopt the full MacSharry proposal. This suggests that pushing the U.S. or Helstrom proposals is not likely to lead to EC acceptance unless the EC receives significant compensation from other aspects of the multilateral trade negotiations. If one is just looking for a reform package in agriculture that can be negotiated without consideration of other types of sidepayments than the full MacSharry proposal would have to be the favorite from the EC perspective. Without further disaggregation of the analysis to identify the U.S. or Japan we can only note that the full MacSharry proposal is the best of the group as far as overall welfare goes for the rest of the world. Of course, agricultural interests in the rest of the world have strong preference for the U.S. proposal. These results also imply that a negotiation stance that called the EC to implement the "raw" MacSharry proposal without the elaborate scheme of sidepayments that are built into it would be dangerous. It
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Harrison, G. W. & Rutstrom, E., 1992. "True Friends and Enemies of Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy," Staff General Research Papers Archive 744, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:744
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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:isu:genres:744. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.