IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v57y2009i1p1-21.html

WTO Constraints on Domestic Support in Agriculture: Past and Future

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Brink

Abstract

The domestic support provisions in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture originate in the 1958 Haberler Report. Economic analysis often overlooks the agreement's legally important distinctions. Few domestic support issues lead to dispute settlement proceedings. The Doha negotiations would result in more constraints on domestic support than the sole commitment on Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) in the present agreement: ceilings on overall trade‐distorting support and blue box payments, and also product‐specific caps. Some 18 members would reduce their Total AMS commitments, and 25 would reduce the de minimis percentages. Most members would not reduce their constraints at all or only little. If today's developing countries continue to grow as they did in recent decades, their capacity to support agriculture increases significantly. If they then choose to support agriculture as today's developed countries did at the same stage of economic development, the future WTO constraints on trade‐distorting domestic support would allow them to provide considerably more such support than developed countries. Les règles sur le soutien interne de l'Accord sur l'agriculture de l'OMC tirent son origine du rapport ≪Haberler≫ de 1958. L'analyse économique oublie souvent les distinctions d'importance juridique de l'accord. Peu de questions en soutien interne entraînent des procédures de règlement des différends. Les négociations de Doha se solderaient par plus de contraintes sur le soutien que le seul engagement de l'accord actuel, celui sur la mesure globale de soutien (MGS) totale. Ces contraintes comprennent des plafonds sur le soutien interne global ayant des effets de distorsion des échanges et sur les paiements dans la boîte bleue, ainsi que des plafonds par produit. Environ 18 membres réduiraient leurs engagements sur la MGS totale, et 25 membres réduiraient les pourcentages de minimis. La plupart des membres ne réduiraient pas leurs engagements ou les réduiraient seulement un peu. Si la croissance économique des pays, qui aujourd'hui sont en voie de développement, continue au même taux que dans les décennies récentes, leur capacité de soutenir leur agriculture augmente. S'ils choisissaient dans l'avenir de soutenir leur agriculture, comme l'ont fait les pays qui sont aujourd'hui les pays développés lorsqu'ils se trouvaient au même stage de développement, les contraintes futures de l'OMC sur le soutien interne faussant les échanges permettraient aux pays en voie de développement d'accorder de tel soutien dans des montants considérablement plus importants que ceux des pays développés.

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Brink, 2009. "WTO Constraints on Domestic Support in Agriculture: Past and Future," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(1), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:57:y:2009:i:1:p:1-21
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.01135.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.01135.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.01135.x?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. Brink, Lars, 2007. "Classifying, Measuring and Analyzing WTO Domestic Support in Agriculture: Some Conceptual Distinctions," Working Papers 14581, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Brink, Lars, 2001. "Establishing Domestic Support Commitments Through A Harmonization Formula," Working Papers 14613, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. repec:wbk:wbpubs:8150 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. James Rude, 2008. "Production Effects of the European Union's Single Farm Payment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 457-471, December.
    5. Wilfrid Legg, 2003. "Presidential Address Agricultural Subsidies: Measurement and Use in Policy Evaluation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 175-201, July.
    6. Kym Anderson, 2009. "Distorted Agricultural Incentives and Economic Development: Asia's Experience," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 351-384, March.
    7. Brink, Lars, 2005. "WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: Assessing the October 2005 Proposals," Working Papers 14601, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    8. repec:wbk:wbpubs:28241 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Kym Anderson, 2006. "Reducing Distortions to Agricultural Incentives: Progress, Pitfalls, and Prospects," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1135-1146.
    10. Brink, Lars, 2006. "WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: The October 2005 Proposals," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(01), pages 1-20.
    11. repec:wbk:wbpubs:11855 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Jim Hansen & Francis Tuan & Linxiu Zhang & Agapi Somwaru, 2011. "Do China's agricultural policies matter for world commodity markets?," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 6-25, January.
    2. Díaz-Bonilla, Eugenio, 2017. "Food security stocks: Economic and operational issues," IFPRI book chapters, in: Bouët, Antoine; Laborde Debucquet, David (ed.), Agriculture, development, and the global trading system: 2000– 2015, chapter 8, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Díaz-Bonilla, Eugenio, 2014. "On food security stocks, peace clauses, and permanent solutions after Bali," IFPRI discussion papers 1388, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Beckman, Jayson & Dyck, John & Heerman, Kari, "undated". "The Global Landscape of Agricultural Trade, 1995-2014," Economic Information Bulletin 265270, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Wusheng Yu & Hans G. Jensen, 2010. "China’s Agricultural Policy Transition: Impacts of Recent Reforms and Future Scenarios," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 343-368, June.
    6. Díaz-Bonilla, Eugenio, 2015. "Lost in translation: The fractured conversation about trade and food security," IFPRI discussion papers 1490, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. H. Bruce Huff, 2010. "Making Doha More Developmentally Friendly for Agriculture," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(1), pages 23-35, March.
    8. Orden, David, 2013. "The Changing Structure of Domestic Support and Its Implications for Trade," Commissioned Papers 146657, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.

    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. McCalla, Alex F., 2007. "Implications of WTO Developments for Market Integration," 2007 NAAMIC Workshop IV: Contemporary Drivers of Integration 163900, North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortium (NAAMIC).
    2. Kerr, William A., 2015. "Food Security, Strategic Stockholding and Trade-Distorting Subsidies: Is There a Permanent Solution?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 16(01), pages 1-13.
    3. Kerr, William A., 2009. "Recession, International Trade and the Fallacies of Composition," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 10(01), pages 1-11.
    4. Cardwell, Ryan T., 2008. "Food Aid and the WTO: Can New Rules Be Effective?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 9(01), pages 1-20.
    5. Kerr, William A., 2007. "Too Smart for Their Own Good! Complexity, Capacity and Credence in Trade Negotiations," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14.
    6. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2008. "Agricultural trade reform under the Doha Agenda: some key issues ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(1), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Brockmeier, Martina & Pelikan, Janine, 2008. "Agricultural market access: A moving target in the WTO negotiations?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 250-259, June.
    8. Agnieszka Sapa & Agnieszka Baer-Nawrocka, 2014. "Konwergencja wydajności pracy w rolnictwie a intensywność handlu rolno-żywnościowego w amerykańskich ugrupowaniach handlowych," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 111-131.
    9. John Davis, 2018. "Communicating Economic Concepts and Research in a Challenging Environment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 591-605, September.
    10. Cornelius Hirsch & Harald Oberhofer, 2017. "Bilateral Trade Agreements and Trade Distortions in Agricultural Markets," FIW Working Paper series 176, FIW.
    11. Miho Shirotori & Bolormaa Tumurchudur & Olivier Cadot, 2010. "Revealed Factor Intensity Indices at the Product Level," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 44, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    12. Henning Tarp Jensen & Sherman Robinson & Finn Tarp, 2010. "Measuring Agricultural Policy Bias: General Equilibrium Analysis of Fifteen Developing Countries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1136-1148.
    13. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    14. Susanne Fricke & Lodovico Muratori, 2017. "Spatial price transmission and trade policies: new evidence for agricultural products from selected sub-Saharan African countries with high frequency data," Working Papers 5/17, Sapienza University of Rome, DISS.
    15. Elisa Gatto & Alba Marino & Guido Signorino, 2013. "Biodiversity and risk management in agriculture: what do we learn from CAP reforms? A farm-level analysis," ERSA conference papers ersa13p805, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Matthews, Alan & Salvatici, Luca & Scoppola, Margherita, 2017. "Trade Impacts of Agricultural Support in the EU," Commissioned Papers 252767, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    17. Jean‐Philippe Gervais & Bruno Larue & Harvey E. Lapan, 2008. "WTO Disciplines on Domestic Support and Market Access in Agri‐Food Supply Chains," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 429-444, December.
    18. Blandford, David & Orden, David, 2008. "United States: Shadow WTO Agricultural Domestic Support Notifications," IFPRI discussion papers 821, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Hübler, Michael, 2010. "Can Carbon Based Tariffs Effectively Reduce Emissions? A Numerical Analysis with Focus on China," Conference papers 331921, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    20. Boháčková, I., . "Several Comments on Creation and Use of PSE Indicator within Measuring of Financial Transfers to Agricultural Producers," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 7(01), pages 1-11.

    More about this item

    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:bla:canjag:v:57:y:2009:i:1:p:1-21. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.