IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2020-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

China ‒ Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers: One Policy, Multiple Parameters Imply Modest Discipline

Author

Listed:
  • Dukgeun Ahn
  • David Orden

Abstract

This paper assesses key issues in the dispute over the United States’ claim that for certain grains China exceeded its limits on domestic support under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) during 2012-2015. The panel first determined that the base years for the reference price in calculating China’s market price support were 1996-1998, rather than 1986-1988 as stipulated in the AoA, and that production in the geographic regions where the support programs operated, not the smaller quantities purchased at administered prices, constituted eligible production. The panel then found China exceeded its limits in each of the four years for wheat, Indica rice and Japonica rice. The possibility was left open that a government can determine eligible production by setting maximum purchases at support prices in its regulatory framework. China used this option to claim that its programs for 2020 implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. We argue that use of outdated fixed external reference prices to measure the price gap, and defining eligible production by limits on purchases, distance calculation under the AoA from economic support measurement. The measurement issues compound the discord among Members over levels of agricultural support.

Suggested Citation

  • Dukgeun Ahn & David Orden, 2020. "China ‒ Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers: One Policy, Multiple Parameters Imply Modest Discipline," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/79, European University Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2020/79
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/69019/RSCAS_2020_79.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/69019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brink, Lars & Orden, David, 2020. "Taking Stock and Looking Forward on Domestic Support under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture," Commissioned Papers 303559, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    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. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.
    2. Orden, David & Brink, Lars, 2023. "Revising the WTO Measurement of Price Interventions to Better Constrain Trade-Distorting Farm Support," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335498, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Galtier, Franck, 2023. "Take an inch for a mile. About an error of metrics in WTO rules and its impact on the ability of countries to build public stocks for food security," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. David Orden, 2020. "Resilience and Vulnerabilities of the North American Food System during the Covid‐19 Pandemic," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 19(3), pages 13-19, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agreement on Agriculture; WTO US-China dispute; market price support; fixed external reference price; eligible production; wheat; rice; India.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
    • K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rsc:rsceui:2020/79. 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: RSCAS web unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsiueit.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.