WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: The October 2005 Proposals
The USA, the EU and the G-20 submitted proposals on domestic support in the WTO agriculture negotiations in October 2005. This research projects future support, allowances and constraints for the USA and the EU under these proposals. Accounting properly for the de minimis rules generates a "maximum usable components" constraint, which, even when added to the cap on blue, can be more constraining than the new overall commitment. The overall commitment under the U.S. proposal constrains neither the USA nor the EU in the future. However, the overall commitment under the EU and G 20 proposals constrains both the USA and the EU to provide less future overall support than the sum of the cap on blue and maximum usable components. In general the three proposals are weak in constraining future distorting support in the USA and the EU.
Volume (Year): 07 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Suite 820, 410 22nd Street East, Saskatoon SK, S7K 5T6|
Phone: (306) 244-4800
Fax: (306) 244-7839
Web page: http://www.esteycentre.com/
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.:
- Bruce A. Babcock & Chad E. Hart, 2005. "How Much "Safety" Is Available under the U.S. Proposal to the WTO?," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-bp48, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
- Daniel A. Sumner, 2003.
"Implications of the US Farm Bill of 2002 for agricultural trade and trade negotiations,"
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), pages 99-122, 03.
- Sumner, Daniel A., 2003. "Implications of the US Farm Bill of 2002 for agricultural trade and trade negotiations," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ecjilt:23822. 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.