Agricultural Trade Liberalisation And The Uruguay Round
With the Punta del Este Declaration, agriculture was accorded prominence in the GATT negotiations and, for the first time, national support policies were on the agenda. In this paper, the progress of the negotiations on agriculture is reviewed in an attempt to understand the factors which shaped the final outcome and to assess the likely impact of the round on liberalising agricultural trade. Although the immediate impact is likely to be modest, the round will provide longer term benefits to agricultural trade through the extension of the GATT rules-based system to agriculture. The framework which has been laid should provide a sound basis for future negotiations. Within the multilateral framework, the pace of change is a function of the willingness of all parties to compromise and this is evident in the Uruguay Round's outcome which reflects the European Union's agricultural reform agenda.
Volume (Year): 40 (1996)
Issue (Month): 01 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200|
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- D. Gale Johnson, 1975. "World Agriculture, Commodity Policy, and Price Variability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(5), pages 823-828.
- Ingco, Merlinda D., 1995. "Agricultural trade liberalization in the Uruguay Round : one step forward, one step back?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1500, The World Bank.
- Johnson, D. Gale, 1987.
"World Agriculture In Disarray Revisited,"
Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 31(02), August.
- D. Gale Johnson, 1987. "World Agriculture In Disarray Revisited," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 31(2), pages 142-153, 08.
- MacLaren, Donald, 1991.
"Agriculture in the Uruguay Round: A Perspective from the Political Economy of Protectionism,"
1991 Conference (35th), February 11-14, 1991, Armidale, Australia
145921, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- MacLaren, Donald, 1991. "Agriculture in the Uruguay Round: A Perspective from the Political Economy of Protectionism," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(01), April.
- Anderson, Kym, 1995.
"Agricultural Competitiveness After the Uruguay Round,"
Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics,
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(03), December.
- Anderson, Kym, 1995. "Agricultural Competitiveness After the Uruguay Round," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 148786, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Martin, Will & Winters, L. Alan, 1996. "An Economic Assessment of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture," 1996 Conference (40th), February 11-16, 1996, Melbourne, Australia 149719, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Tyers,Rod & Anderson,Kym, 2011.
"Disarray in World Food Markets,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521172318, October.
- Burrell, Alison M., 1995. "EU Agricultural Policy in 1993-94: Implementing CAP Reform," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(01), April.
- Winters, L Alan, 1990. "The Road to Uruguay," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(403), pages 1288-1303, December.
- Alan Swinbank, 1989. "The Common Agricultural Policy and the Politics of European Decision Making," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 303-322, 06.
- Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(03), pages 427-460, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ajaeau:22359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.