IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Current Round of Agricultural Trade Negotiations: Should We Bother About Domestic Support?

Author

Listed:
  • Rae, Allan N.
  • Strutt, Anna

Abstract

The current WTO agricultural trade negotiations began in March 2000 and became part of the Doha Development Agenda in late 2001. The previous Uruguay Round reached agricultural agreements in the areas of market access, export competition and domestic support. The current round is seeking agreements under similar headings. The effort to reach agreement over reductions in domestic support to farmers is complicated by a number of factors,for example, the extent to which such support affects production decisions, the wishes of governments to support farmers for pursuing multifunctional outcomes from agriculture, and the categorisation of a myriad of policy instruments into green, blue and amber boxes. These complications pose the risk of considerably extending the negotiations and diverting attention away from other areas of reform. But the sustainability of many domestic support policies depends on trade barriers, and reform of these trade barriers may force governments into reforming domestic support without requiring specific international agreements. We use the GTAP applied general equilibrium model to quantify and analyse a number of trade reform scenarios, with and without specific changes in domestic support. We conclude that substantial trade expansion and welfare gains can be achieved, even when domestic support is excluded from the multilateral agreement. Improved market access makes a far greater contribution to welfare gains than do reforms to domestic policies, and once substantive reforms to border policies have been achieved attention can then be turned to the lower-priority task of reforming domestic support.

Suggested Citation

  • Rae, Allan N. & Strutt, Anna, 2003. "The Current Round of Agricultural Trade Negotiations: Should We Bother About Domestic Support?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 4(2), pages 1-19.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ecjilt:23881
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.23881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/23881/files/04020098.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.23881?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. C. Edwin Young & Paul C. Westcott, 2000. "How Decoupled Is U.S. Agricultural Support for Major Crops?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 762-767.
    2. James Rude, 2000. "An Examination of Nearly Green Programs: Case Study for Canada," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 755-761.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    2. Dimaranan, Betina & Hertel, Thomas W. & Keeney, Roman, 2003. "OECD Domestic Support and the Developing Countries," GTAP Working Papers 1161, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    3. Hoekman, Bernanrd & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2003. "Reducing agrcultural tariffs versus domestic support : what's more important for developing countries?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2918, The World Bank.
    4. Anderson, Kym, 2004. "The Challenge of Reducing Subsidies and Trade Barriers," CEPR Discussion Papers 4592, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Antimiani, Alessandro & Conforti, Piero & Salvatici, Luca, 2005. "Alternative Market Access Scenarios in the Agriculture Trade Negotiations of the Doha Round," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23.
    6. Wang, W. & Wei, L., 2018. "China s Agricultural Price Control Policy and its Price and Welfare Implications: The Case of Soybean," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277342, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Yang, Jun & Huang, Jikun & Li, Ninghui & Rozelle, Scott & Martin, Will, 2011. "The impact of the Doha trade proposals on farmers' incomes in China," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 439-452, May.
    8. Pinto, Talita & Zanetti De Lima, Cicero & Gurgel, Angelo & Teixeira, Erly, 2016. "Spillover effects of rural credit: a CGE application for Brazilian regions," Conference papers 332761, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Binfield, Julian & Meyers, William & Westhoff, Patrick, 2005. "Modelling CAP Reform: Consensus or Conflict?," Conference papers 331431, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. BOUËT Antoine & BUREAU Jean-Christophe & DECREUX Yvan & JEAN Sébastien, 2010. "Is Northern Agricultural Liberalization Beneficial to Developing Countries?," EcoMod2003 330700021, EcoMod.
    11. Shakur, Shamim & Rae, Allan N. & Chatterjee, Srikanta, 2004. "A Road Ahead From Cancun? Weighing Up Some Give-And-Take Scenarios In A Dda Spirit," Discussion Papers 23709, Massey University, Department of Applied and International Economics.
    12. Urban, Kirsten & Jensen, Hans G. & Brockmeier, Martina, 2016. "How decoupled is the Single Farm Payment and does it matter for international trade?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 126-138.

    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. Bascou, Pierre & Londero, Pierluigi & Munch, Wolfgang, 2004. "Reform and Adjustment in the European Union: The 2003 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and Enlargement," IAPRAP\IATRC Summer Symposium, Adjusting to Domestic and International Agricultural Reform in Industrial Countries, June 6-7, 2004, Philadelphia, PA, 15769, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    2. Elodie Douarin & Laure Latruffe, 2011. "Potential impact of the EU Single Area Payment on farm restructuring and efficiency in Lithuania," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 87-103.
    3. Douarin, Elodie & Latruffe, Laure, 2009. "Will the EU Single Area Payment decrease farm efficiency in the New Member States?," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51625, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Frederic Courleux & Herve Guyomard & Fabrice Levert, 2007. "Étude prospective sur le fonctionnement des marchés des droits au paiement et de la réserve nationale mis en place dans le cadre de la réforme de la PAC de juin 2003," Working Papers hal-01595356, HAL.
    5. Tyner, Wallace E. & Jacquet, Florence & Gray, Allan W., 2005. "Farm Income Stabilization: A Central Goal for American and European Policies," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24683, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Paul Lewin, 2005. "America Latina: Hambre y Alimentos en Abundancia," Development and Comp Systems 0503004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Laure Latruffe & Boris E. Bravo-Ureta & Alain Carpentier & Yann Desjeux & Víctor H. Moreira, 2017. "Subsidies and Technical Efficiency in Agriculture: Evidence from European Dairy Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 783-799.
    8. Glauber, Joseph W. & Effland, Anne, 2016. "United States agricultural policy: Its evolution and impact:," IFPRI discussion papers 1543, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2009. "How Coupled Are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of the Evidence," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-24, April.
    10. Laure Latruffe & Boris E. Bravo-Ureta & Alain Carpentier & Yann Desjeux & Víctor H. Moreira, 2017. "Subsidies and Technical Efficiency in Agriculture: Evidence from European Dairy Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 783-799.
    11. Devadoss, Stephen & Gibson, Mark J. & Luckstead, Jeff, 2016. "The Impact of Agricultural Subsidies on the Corn Market with Farm Heterogeneity and Endogenous Entry and Exit," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-20, September.
    12. Hailemariam Teklewold, 2021. "How effective is Ethiopia’s agricultural growth program at improving the total factor productivity of smallholder farmers?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(4), pages 895-912, August.
    13. Frýd, Lukáš & Sokol, Ondřej, 2021. "Relationships between technical efficiency and subsidies for Czech farms: A two-stage robust approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    14. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2007. "How Coupled are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of Coupling Mechanisms and the Evidence," Working Papers 7347, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Burns, Christopher & Prager, Daniel, "undated". "Do Direct Payments and Crop Insurance Influence Commercial Farm Survival and Decisions to Expand?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235693, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Gardner, Bruce L., 2002. "North American Agricultural Policies And Effects On Western Hemisphere Markets Since 1995, With A Focus On Grains And Oilseeds," Working Papers 28602, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    17. Ahmadov, Fariz & Mishra, Ashok K. & Barnett, Barry J., 2006. "Perception of Decoupled Government Payments: Evidence from a National Survey," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35473, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Weerasooriya, Senal & Reimer, Jeff, 2017. "General Equilibrium Analysis of the Farm Bill: Food Versus Farm Subsidies," Conference papers 332877, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Zhu, Xueqin & Demeter, Robert Milan & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2008. "Competitiveness of dairy farms in three countries: the role of CAP subsidies," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44143, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Mariarosaria Agostino & Ercan Enzo Comert & Federica Demaria & Sabrina Ruberto, 2024. "What kinds of subsidies affect technical efficiency? The case of Italian dairy farms," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 116-138, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    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:ags:ecjilt:23881. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esteyca.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.