IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/saeasj/205588.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greening the Sri Lankan Trade: Tariff Policy Liberalisation in Non-Plantation Agriculture and the Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Somaratne, W.G

Abstract

Sri Lanka has implemented major trade policy reform measures to create an internationally competitive environment for the Sri Lankan agricultural and manufacturing products, during the last two decades. However, the policy analysts have not paid due attention to the likely economic and environmental impacts of trade policy liberalisation, including reforms to be undertaken within the framework of the GATT/Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (GURAA), the South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA), and the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA). This paper analyses the likely macro and meso economic effects and agro-environmental effects of tariff policy liberalisation as a ‘green’ policy device within the policy framework of GURAA, SAPTA and SAFTA, using an appropriately modified computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the Sri Lankan economy. The general equilibrium approach is chosen because many of the policy changes have economywide ramifications. The focus of the paper is mainly on the tariff liberalisation, non-plantation agriculture and land degradation-induced environmental management in the hilly regions of Sri Lanka. Proper management of land in the non-plantation agriculture sector is particularly of importance as policy-induced changes in land use patterns in the hilly region impact directly on downstream-irrigated agriculture, and hydropower generation. This model extends previous CGE models of the Sri Lankan economy by further desegregating the agricultural sector by regional land types and crops, and explicit incorporation of on-site and off-site impacts of land degradation. The analyses show that trade policy liberalisation, within the policy framework of GURAA, SAPTA and SAFTA have benign macro, meso economic and environmental impacts. Hence, tariff policy liberalisation can be categorised as a ‘green’ policy device. However, inspection of their quantitative effects on environmental variables indicates that there is a potential for additional and complementary economic and environmental policy options to combat micro level agro-economic issues and land degradation.

Suggested Citation

  • Somaratne, W.G, 2000. "Greening the Sri Lankan Trade: Tariff Policy Liberalisation in Non-Plantation Agriculture and the Environment," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 3, pages 1-33.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saeasj:205588
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205588
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205588/files/4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205588?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. James A. Tobey & Henri Smets, 1996. "The Polluter-Pays Principle in the Context of Agriculture and the Environment," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 63-87, January.
    2. Martin,Will & Winters,L. Alan (ed.), 1996. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521586016.
    3. Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1987. "Some Theoretical Aspects of Agricultural Policies," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 2(1), pages 43-60, January.
    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. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    2. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman, 2010. "Services Trade and Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(3), pages 642-692, September.
    3. Siebert, Horst, 2005. "TAFTA - a dead horse or an attractive open club?," Kiel Working Papers 1240, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. 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.
    5. Cuong Le Van & Nguyen To The, 2019. "Farmers’ adoption of organic production," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 33-59, February.
    6. Götz, Christian & Heckelei, Thomas & Rudloff, Bettina, 2010. "What makes countries initiate WTO disputes on food-related issues?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 154-162, April.
    7. Ingo Borchert & Batshur Gootiiz & Aaditya Mattoo, 2014. "Policy Barriers to International Trade in Services: Evidence from a New Database," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 162-188.
    8. Lucian Cernat & Sam Laird & Alessandro Turrini, 2003. "How Important are Market Access Issues for Developing Countries in the Doha Agenda?," International Trade 0302004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. J. Mutti & R. Sampson & B. Yeung, 2000. "The effects of the Uruguay round: empirical evidence from U.S. industry," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 59-69, January.
    10. Hans Binswanger & Ernst Lutz, 2003. "Agricultural trade barriers, trade negotiations and the interests of developing countries," Chapters, in: John Toye (ed.), Trade and Development, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Walmsley, Terrie L. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Ianchovichina, Elena, 2001. "Assessing the Impact of China’s WTO Accession on Foreign Ownership," Conference papers 330941, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    12. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8070 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Fugazza, Marco & Maur, Jean-Christophe, 2008. "Non-tariff barriers in CGE models: How useful for policy?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 475-490.
    14. J.M. Finger & Philip Schuler, 2002. "Implementation of Uruguay Round Commitments: The Development Challenge," Chapters, in: Institutions and Trade Policy, chapter 17, pages 258-272, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. James R. Markusen & Thomas F. Rutherford & David Tarr, 2000. "Foreign Direct Investments in Services and the Domestic Market for Expertise," NBER Working Papers 7700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Paola Conconi & Manuel García-Santana & Laura Puccio & Roberto Venturini, 2018. "From Final Goods to Inputs: The Protectionist Effect of Rules of Origin," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(8), pages 2335-2365, August.
    17. repec:zbw:bofitp:2017_002 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Trade Liberalization, Agriculture, and Poverty in Low-income Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    19. Jeff Alwang & Jaime Ortiz & George Norton, 1995. "Interacciones entre Políticas de Precios y Gastos en Investigación Agropecuaria," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 32(96), pages 199-216.
    20. G. Alenka Guzmán Chávez. & Hortensia Gómez Víquez. & Francisco López Herrera., 2018. "Patentes y crecimiento económico, el caso de México durante el TLCAN," Economía: teoría y práctica, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México, vol. 0(2), pages 177-204, Agosto.
    21. Parakrama Samaratunga & Manoj Thibbotuwawa, 2006. "Customs Mapping and Analysis of South Asian Agricultural Trade Liberalization Effort," Working Papers 2606, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT), an initiative of UNESCAP and IDRC, Canada..
    22. Dieter Schmidtchen & Jenny Helstroffer & Christian Koboldt, 2021. "Regulatory failure and the polluter pays principle: why regulatory impact assessment dominates the polluter pays principle," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 109-144, January.

    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:saeasj:205588. 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/slaeaea.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.