Hopes And Fears: The New World Trade Negotiations And Southern Agriculture
Understanding the impacts of the Uruguay Round (UR) Agreement on southern commodities serves as a starting point to assess the potential impacts of the next global trade negotiations in terms of hope (expanding export markets) and fear (new competition). Key issues examined include whether or not the UR Agreement resulted in new markets or new competition for key southern commodities-cotton, poultry, tobacco, and rice. For new markets, export data were analyzed to determine if exports increased since the passage of the UR Agreement in 1994. Also, countries that are leading world importers of these southern commodities were identified and data analyzed to determine whether the U.S. is exporting to these top markets. Alternatively, to assess whether the UR Agreement resulted in new competition for southern commodities, countries that are leading world exporters were identified and data analyzed to determine whether the U.S. is among them. Data analyses was supplemented with interviews of southern commodities experts who assess impacts of the GATT-UR and identify issues for the next round of global trade negotiations.
Volume (Year): 31 (1999)
Issue (Month): 02 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.saea.org/jaae/jaae.htm|
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.:
- William Amponsah & Dale Colyer & Curtis M. Jolly, 1999. "Global Trade Integration and Economic Convergence of Developing Countries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1142-1148.
- Gail L. Cramer & James M. Hansen & Eric J. Wailes, 1999. "Impact of Rice Tariffication on Japan and the World Rice Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1149-1156.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15367. 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.