IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000438/017622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protecting “sensitive” agricultural products in Colombia : a political economy approach

Author

Listed:
  • María Angélica Arbeláez
  • Sebastián Higuera
  • Roberto Steiner
  • Sandra Zuluaga

Abstract

Como parte de una amplia agenda de reformas estructurales, a comienzos de los anos noventa Colombia emprendió un importante programa de liberalización comercial, enfocado principalmente en la reducción de aranceles. En las dos últimas décadas el uso extendido de barreras no arancelarias y de otras medidas de protección ha reversado parcialmente el esfuerzo de liberalización, en particular para algunos productos agrícolas considerados sensibles. Colombia también se destaca como el único país de América Latina en el que la agricultura tuvo un desempeno mediocre durante la década de precios altos de los productos básicos, con una política sectorial enfocada más en la protección que en la provisión de bienes públicos. Por supuesto, la política comercial no ocurre en el vacío, sino que es, más bien, el resultado de complejas interacciones políticas entre diversos grupos de interés. Para arrojar luz sobre la economía política de la protección de los productos agrícolas sensibles en Colombia, en este documento analizamos los casos de arroz y azúcar. Ambos están fuertemente protegidos, pesan mucho en las canastas de consumo de los hogares y forman parte de complejas cadenas de valor agregado. El análisis de fuentes secundarias y de más de 20 entrevistas semiestructuradas nos permite entender mejor el “por qué” de la protección comercial. Identificamos ganadores y perdedores y discutimos los canales de influencia de jugadores claves, incluyendo productores agrícolas y sus organizaciones, la industria procesadora de alimentos, grandes conglomerados económicos, el Congreso, los medios de comunicación y algunos ministerios altamente politizados. También discutimos los mecanismos de compensación utilizados en los pocos episodios de liberalización que se han llevado a cabo, incluyendo especialmente el TLC con EE. UU. Mostramos que los productores agrícolas están bien organizados, apoyados por grupos de presión como las “Dignidades”, y tienen más peso político que los consumidores --quienes suelen no oponerse a la protección agrícola-- y que la industria procesadora --cuyo contra cabildeo es más débil que el cabildeo de los productores.

Suggested Citation

  • María Angélica Arbeláez & Sebastián Higuera & Roberto Steiner & Sandra Zuluaga, 2018. "Protecting “sensitive” agricultural products in Colombia : a political economy approach," Coyuntura Económica, Fedesarrollo, vol. 48(1-2), pages 153-205, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:col:000438:017622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/11445/3846
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Kym & Valdes, Alberto, 2008. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Latin America and the Caribbean," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48575, World Bank.
    2. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    3. Olper, Alessandro, 1998. "Political Economy Determinants of Agricultural Protection Levels in EU Member States: An Empirical Investigation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 25(4), pages 463-487.
    4. -, 2002. "El conglomerado del azúcar del valle del Cauca, Colombia," Desarrollo Productivo 4523, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    5. Marcela Meléndez Arjona & Guillermo Perry, 2009. "Industrial policies in Colombia," Working Papers Series. Documentos de Trabajo 9138, Fedesarrollo.
    6. Miguel Urrutia, 1991. "On the Absence of Economic Populism in Colombia," NBER Chapters, in: The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America, pages 369-391, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Rudiger Dornbusch & Sebastian Edwards, 1991. "The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number dorn91-1.
    8. Jorge García García & María Mercedes Collazos & Enrique Montes Uribe, 2015. "Las instituciones en el sector externo colombiano: ¿Apoyo o escollo al comercio?," Borradores de Economia 889, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    9. Juan José Perfetti & Jesús Botero & Sandra Oviedo & David Forero & Sebastián Higuera & Manuel Correa & José García, 2017. "Política comercial agrícola: nivel, costos y efectos de la protección en Colombia," Informes de Investigación 15714, Fedesarrollo.
    10. Olivier Cadot & Jaime de Melo & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2015. "Lobbying, Counterlobbying, and the Structure of Tariff Protection in Poor and Rich Countries," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Modeling Developing Countries' Policies in General Equilibrium, chapter 13, pages 295-316, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Jairo Núnez & María del Pilar Ruiz & Julieth Parra & Miguel Ortíz, 2018. "Estudio sobre el impacto socioeconómico del sector agroindustrial de la cana en Colombia," Informes de Investigación 17323, Fedesarrollo.
    12. Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2009. "Political Economy of Agricultural Distortions: The Literature to Date," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 50308, World Bank.
    13. Tito Yepes & Juan Mauricio Ramírez & Leonardo Villar & Juliana Aguilar, 2013. "Infraestructura de transporte en Colombia," Cuadernos de Fedesarrollo 11563, Fedesarrollo.
    14. Ito, Takatoshi & Krueger, Anne O. (ed.), 1993. "Trade and Protectionism," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226386683.
    15. Johan F. M. Swinnen, 1994. "A Positive Theory of Agricultural Protection," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 1-14.
    16. María Angélica Arbeláez & Alexander Estacio & Mauricio Olivera, 2010. "Impacto socioeconómico del sector azucarero colombiano en la economía nacional y regional," Cuadernos de Fedesarrollo 9285, Fedesarrollo.
    17. Rudiger Dornbusch & Sebastian Edwards, 1991. "The Macroeconomics of Populism," NBER Chapters, in: The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America, pages 7-13, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Xiaobo Lü & Kenneth Scheve & Matthew J. Slaughter, 2012. "Inequity Aversion and the International Distribution of Trade Protection," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(3), pages 638-654, July.
    19. Víctor Manuel NIETO & Andrés BETANCUR & Gina Marcela CALDERON, 2016. "Una Nota sobre la Evolución de la Tasa de Protección Efectiva y la Tasa de Protección Nominal en Colombia (2002 – 2014)," Archivos de Economía 14584, Departamento Nacional de Planeación.
    20. Dutt, Pushan & Mitra, Devashish, 2009. "Explaining Agricultural Distortion Patterns : The Roles of Ideology, Inequality, Lobbying and Public Finance," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 50299, World Bank.
    21. Sebastián Edwards & Roberto Steiner, 2000. "On The Crisis Hypothesis of Economic Reform: Colombia 1989-91," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 37(112), pages 445-493.
    22. Marcela Meléndez Arjona & Guillermo Perry, 2009. "Industrial policies in Colombia," WORKING PAPERS SERIES. DOCUMENTOS DE TRABAJO 009138, FEDESARROLLO.
    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. María Angélica Arbeláez & Sebastián Higuera & Roberto Steiner & Sandra Zuluaga, 2019. "The political economy of protection of some “sensitive” agricultural products in Colombia," Informes de Investigación 17195, Fedesarrollo.
    2. Dutt, Pushan & Mitra, Devashish, 2009. "Explaining Agricultural Distortion Patterns : The Roles of Ideology, Inequality, Lobbying and Public Finance," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 50299, World Bank.
    3. Gawande, Kishore, 2005. "The structure of lobbying and protection in U.S. agriculture," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3722, The World Bank.
    4. Mejia, Daniel & Posada, Carlos-Esteban, 2007. "Populist policies in the transition to democracy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 932-953, December.
    5. Gawande, Kishore & Hoekman, Bernard, 2006. "Lobbying and Agricultural Trade Policy in the United States," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(3), pages 527-561, July.
    6. Christopher Ball & Andreas Freytag & Miriam Kautz, 2019. "Populism-What Next? A First Look at Populist Walking-Stick Economies," CESifo Working Paper Series 7914, CESifo.
    7. Rafael Santos, 2007. "Bogotá: the collapse of a political machine," Documentos CEDE 4011, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    8. Briceño Avalos, Hernán Ricardo, 2013. "The Industry oriented Asian Tigers and the Natural Resource based Pacific Alliance Economic Growth Models," MPRA Paper 61665, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas R., 2014. "Political support for trade policy in the European Union," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 243-253.
    10. Johan F. M. Swinnen, 2009. "The Growth of Agricultural Protection in Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(11), pages 1499-1537, November.
    11. Mauricio Cárdenas & Zeinab Partow, 1998. "¿Importa la independencia? el caso del Banco Central colombiano," Coyuntura Económica, Fedesarrollo, June.
    12. Ntentas, Raphael, 2021. "Quantifying political populism and examining the link with economic insecurity: evidence from Greece," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112579, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Bin, Sheng, 2000. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy in China," Working Papers 10/2000, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Politics & Philosophy.
    14. Seghezza, Elena & Pittaluga, Giovanni B., 2018. "Resource rents and populism in resource-dependent economies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 83-88.
    15. Alessandro Olper & Johan Swinnen, 2013. "Mass Media and Public Policy: Global Evidence from Agricultural Policies," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 27(3), pages 413-436.
    16. Manuel Funke & Moritz Schularick & Christoph Trebesch, 2023. "Populist Leaders and the Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(12), pages 3249-3288, December.
    17. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas & Pelkmans-Balaoing, Annette, 2008. "Endogenous Protection in General Equilibrium: Estimating Political Weights in the EU," CEPR Discussion Papers 6979, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Fredy Cepeda-Lopez & Fredy Gamboa-Estrada & Carlos Leon-Rincón & Hernán Rincon-Castro, 2022. "Colombian Liberalization and Integration into World Trade Markets: Much Ado about Nothing," Revista de Economía del Rosario, Universidad del Rosario, vol. 25(2), pages 1-44, December.
    19. Matevž (Matt) Rašković & Katalin Takacs Haynes & Anastas Vangeli, 2024. "The emergence of populism as an institution and its recursive mechanisms: A socio-cognitive theory perspective," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 19-40, March.
    20. Pablo García S. & Camilo Pérez N., 2017. "Desigualdad, inflación, ciclos y crisis en Chile," Estudios de Economia, University of Chile, Department of Economics, vol. 44(2 Year 20), pages 185-221, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Colombia; Protección Comercial; Agricultura; Economía Política;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:col:000438:017622. 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: Patricia Monroy (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fedesco.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.