IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

WTO Negotiations on Market Access in Agriculture: a Comparison of Alternative Tariff Cut Proposals for the EU and the US


  • Bureau Jean-Christophe

    () (Institut Nationale Agronomique)

  • Salvatici Luca

    () (University of Molise)


This paper provides a summary measure of the possible new commitments in the area of agricultural market access undertaken by the European Union and the United States, using the Trade Restrictiveness Index (TRI) as the tariff aggregator. We take the 2001 bound tariffs as the starting point and attempt to assess how much liberalization in agriculture could be achieved in the European Union and the United States as a result of the present negotiations. We compute the index for 20 agricultural commodity aggregates under the actual commitments assuming a specific functional form for import demand. We compare the present levels of the TRI with three hypothetical cases: a repetition of the same set of tariff cuts commitments of the Uruguay Round according to a EU proposal prior to the 2003 WTO ministerial meeting, a uniform 36% reduction of each tariff, an harmonization ( "Swiss" ) formula based on the initial US proposal.

Suggested Citation

  • Bureau Jean-Christophe & Salvatici Luca, 2004. "WTO Negotiations on Market Access in Agriculture: a Comparison of Alternative Tariff Cut Proposals for the EU and the US," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-35, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:topics.4:y:2004:i:1:n:8

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 1996. "A New Approach to Evaluating Trade Policy," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 107-125.
    2. McDaniel, Christine A. & Balistreri, Edward J., 2002. "A Discussion on Armington Trade Substitution Elasticities," Working Papers 15856, United States International Trade Commission, Office of Economics.
    3. Neary, J Peter, 1998. " Pitfalls in the Theory of International Trade Policy: Concertina Reforms of Tariffs, and Subsidies to High-Technology Industries," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(1), pages 187-206, March.
    4. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 2003. "The Mercantilist Index of Trade Policy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(2), pages 627-649, May.
    5. Luca Salvatici, 2001. "Trade Distortion Indexes and Applied General Equilibrium Models: The Case of the Common Agricoltural Policy," Working Papers 45, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Public Economics.
    6. John C. Beghin & Jean-Christophe Bureau, 2017. "Quantitative Policy Analysis Of Sanitary, Phytosanitary And Technical Barriers To Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 3, pages 39-62 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Russell H. Hillberry & Michael A. Anderson & Edward J. Balistreri & Alan K. Fox, 2005. "Taste Parameters as Model Residuals: Assessing the "Fit" of an Armington Trade Model," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(5), pages 973-984, November.
    8. Bach, Christian F. & Martin, Will, 2001. "Would the right tariff aggregator for policy analysis please stand up?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 621-635, August.
    9. Gibson, Paul R. & Wainio, John & Whitley, Daniel B. & Bohman, Mary, 2001. "Profiles Of Tariffs In Global Agricultural Markets," Agricultural Economics Reports 34055, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. J-C Bureau & L Fulponi & L Salvatici, 2000. "Comparing EU and US trade liberalisation under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 27(3), pages 259-280, September.
    11. Tatsuo Hatta, 1977. "A Theory of Piecemeal Policy Recommendations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 1-21.
    12. Hugh M. Arce & Kenneth A. Reinert, 1994. "Aggregation and the Welfare Analysis of US Tariffs," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 21(6), pages 26-30, October.
    13. Lloyd, P J, 1975. "Substitution Effects and Biases in Nontrue Price Indices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 301-313, June.
    14. Diao, Xinshen & Elbehri, Aziz & Gehlhar, Mark J. & Gibson, Paul R. & Leetmaa, Susan E. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Nelson, Frederick J. & Nimon, R. Wesley & Normile, Mary Anne & Roe, Terry L. & Shapouri, S, 2001. "Agricultural Policy Reform In The Wto: The Road Ahead," Agricultural Economics Reports 34015, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. Patrick A. Messerlin, 2001. "Measuring the Costs of Protection in Europe: European Commercial Policy in the 2000s," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 102.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Jean-Christophe Bureau & Luca Salvatici, 2005. "Agricultural trade restrictiveness in the European Union and the United States," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 479-490, November.
    2. Rod Tyers, 2004. "Implicit Policy Preferences and Trade Reform by Tariff Aggregates," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2004-445, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    3. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    4. Xie, Zhenzhen & Li, Jiatao, 2015. "Demand Heterogeneity, Learning Diversity and Innovation in an Emerging Economy," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 277-292.
    5. Listorti, Giulia & Tonini, Axel & Kempen, Markus & Adenauer, Marcel, 2013. "How to Implement WTO Scenarios in Simulation Models: Linking the TRIMAG Tariff Aggregation Tool to Capri," 135th Seminar, August 28-30, 2013, Belgrade, Serbia 160388, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Alessandro Antimiani & Piero Conforti & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Restrictiveness of Bilateral Trade Policies: A Comparison between Developed and Developing Countries," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 144(2), pages 207-224, July.
    7. Brockmeier, Martina & Pelikan, Janine, 2006. "Agricultural Market Access: A Moving Target in the WTO Negotiations?," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25428, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Martina Brockmeier & Janine Pelikan, 2006. "A Portfolio Theory of International Capital Flows," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp125, IIIS.
    9. Alessandro Olper & Valentina Raimondi, 2008. "Market Access Asymmetry in Food Trade," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 144(3), pages 509-537, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Himics, Mihály & Britz, Wolfgang, 2016. "Flexible and welfare-consistent tariff aggregation over exporter regions," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 375-387.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade


    Access and download statistics


    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:bpj:bejeap:v:topics.4:y:2004:i:1:n:8. 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: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.