IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wtowps/ersd202015.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The value of the Committee on Agriculture: Mapping Q&As to trade flows

Author

Listed:
  • Jackson, Lee Ann
  • Maggi, Federica
  • Piermartini, Roberta
  • Rubínová, Stela

Abstract

What is the value of the WTO Committee on Agriculture? How much trade do countries talk about at the WTO? Do low-income countries participate less than they should in the work of the Committee? How important are issues not covered by notifications? What are the most important issues on which to focus negotiations? In this paper, we attempt to answer these questions building and analysing a new database. WTO regular bodies and the Secretariat collect information on measures notified and concerns raised by members on these measures in text format. We transform the qualitative database maintained through the AG-IMS into a quantitative one. We first introduce a new methodology to associate each question to a product and to its HS 4-digit code. Then, we attempt to match each of the 5'526 questions asked between 1996 and 2016 to the bilateral flows of the corresponding questioner and respondent at the HS 4-digit level. Our working dataset relies on the 3'295 questions that we are able to match. Using this new database, we show that (i) questions covered at least $778 billion of agricultural trade over the period 1996-2016 (or 3% of total trade in agriculture); (ii) on average, when a Member receives a question the questioners account for 48 per cent of its trade in the main product concerned; (iii) for each Member/product the share of trade discussed in the Committee is correlated with its share of global trade in agriculture; (iv) questions related to subsidies and to non-notified measures cover an increasing amount of trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Jackson, Lee Ann & Maggi, Federica & Piermartini, Roberta & Rubínová, Stela, 2020. "The value of the Committee on Agriculture: Mapping Q&As to trade flows," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2020-15, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wtowps:ersd202015
    DOI: 10.30875/46ba7a21-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/228654/1/1743260792.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30875/46ba7a21-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. Kuenzel, 2019. "Do trade flows respond to nudges? Evidence from the WTO’s Trade Policy Review Mechanism," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 735-764, August.
    2. Robert Wolfe, 2020. "Reforming WTO Conflict Management. Why and How to Improve the Use of “Specific Trade Concerns”," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/53, European University Institute.
    3. Jan Karlas & Michal Parízek, 2019. "The Process Performance of the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism: Peer‐Reviewing Reconsidered," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 10(3), pages 376-384, September.
    4. Cassehgari Posada, Kian & Ganne, Emmanuelle & Piermartini, Roberta, 2020. "The role of WTO committees through the lens of specific trade concerns raised in the TBT committee," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2020-09, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    5. Karttunen,Marianna B., 2020. "Transparency in the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108486453.
    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. Robert Wolfe, 2020. "Reforming WTO Conflict Management. Why and How to Improve the Use of “Specific Trade Concerns”," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/53, European University Institute.
    2. Bernard Hoekman & Charles Sabel, 2021. "Plurilateral Cooperation as an Alternative to Trade Agreements: Innovating One Domain at a Time," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S3), pages 49-60, April.
    3. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis & Douglas R. Nelson, 2023. "Geopolitical competition, globalisation and WTO reform," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1163-1188, May.
    4. Bernard Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2021. "WTO Reform: Back to the Past to Build for the Future," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S3), pages 5-12, April.
    5. Cassehgari Posada, Kian & Ganne, Emmanuelle & Piermartini, Roberta, 2020. "The role of WTO committees through the lens of specific trade concerns raised in the TBT committee," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2020-09, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    6. Matteo Fiorini & Bernard Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis & Douglas Nelson & Robert Wolfe, 2021. "Stakeholder Preferences and Priorities for the Next WTO Director General," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S3), pages 13-22, April.
    7. Bernard Hoekman & Douglas Nelson, 2020. "Subsidies, Spillovers and Multilateral Cooperation," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/12, European University Institute.
    8. Nelson, Douglas & Puccio, Laura, 2021. "Nihil novi sub sole: The Need for Rethinking WTO and Green Subsidies in Light of United States – Renewable Energy," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 491-508, October.
    9. Nelson, Douglas, 2021. "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? US – Countervailing Measures (China) (21.5)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 556-565, October.
    10. Malo Beguin, 2022. "Specific Trade Concerns and Technical Barriers to Trade: evidence from a new database," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2022023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    11. Bernard Hoekman & Robert Wolfe, 2021. "WTO Reform As a Triangular Problem among China, the EU and the US," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 22(02), pages 12-16, March.
    12. Faude, Benjamin, 2020. "Breaking gridlock: how path dependent layering enhances resilience in global trade governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103927, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Bernard Hoekman & Robert Wolfe, 2021. "Reforming the World Trade Organization: Practitioner Perspectives from China, the EU, and the US," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 29(4), pages 1-34, July.
    14. John Beghin & Jill O’Donnell, 2021. "Trade Agreements in the Last 20 Years: Retrospect and Prospect for Agriculture," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 63-68, December.
    15. Robert Wolfe, 2021. "Informal Learning and WTO Renewal: Using Thematic Sessions to Create More Opportunities for Dialogue," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S3), pages 30-40, April.
    16. Benjamin Faude, 2020. "Breaking Gridlock: How Path Dependent Layering Enhances Resilience in Global Trade Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(4), pages 448-457, September.
    17. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2020. "To AB or Not to AB? Dispute Settlement in WTO Reform," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/34, European University Institute.
    18. Robert Wolfe, 2020. "Informal Learning and WTO Renewal. Using Thematic Sessions to Create More Opportunities for Dialogue," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/51, European University Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural trade policies; Trade policy monitoring; WTO Transparency; WTOReforms; value of WTO; WTO as discussion forum;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
    • 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:zbw:wtowps:ersd202015. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wtoerch.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.