IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v27y2000i3p259-280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing EU and US trade liberalisation under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • J-C Bureau
  • L Fulponi
  • L Salvatici

Abstract

We take bound tariffs under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) as the starting point and attempt to measure how much liberalisation in agriculture will be achieved by the European Union (EU) and the US by the end of the implementation period of the Agreement. Using the Trade Restrictiveness Index (TRI) and the Mercantilistic Trade Restrictiveness Index (MTRI) as indicators, we assess the tariff structures chosen by the EU and the US in terms of their welfare and market access impacts. The effects of the actual UR Agreement commitments are compared with alternative tariff reduction schemes such as the 'Swiss formula' and a uniform reduction in tariffs. Copyright 2000, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 27(3), pages 259-280, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:27:y:2000:i:3:p:259-280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    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. Anania, Giovanni, 2001. "Modeling Agricultural Trade Liberalization. A Review," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20758, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Janine Pelikan & Martina Brockmeier, 2008. "Tariff Aggregation and Market Access: An Empirical Assessment for Canada and the EU," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 413-427, December.
    4. Pelikan, J. & Brockmeier, M., 2009. "Wohlfahrtswirkungen einer Handelsliberalisierung: Welchen Einfluss hat die Zollaggregation auf die Modellergebnisse?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 44, March.
    5. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Salvatici, Luca, 2002. "WTO Negotiations on Market Access in Agriculture: A Comparison of Alternative Tariff Cut Scenarios for the EU and the US," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24883, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Bchir, Mohamed Hedi & Decreux, Yvan & Guérin, Jean-Louis & Jean, Sébastien, 2002. "Key Assumptions in AGE Trade Models: An Assessment using the Mirage Model," Conference papers 331050, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    8. Gibson, Paul R. & Wainio, John & Whitley, Daniel B. & Bohman, Mary, 2001. "Profiles Of Tariffs In Global Agricultural Markets," Agricultural Economic Reports 34055, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Jean‐Christophe Bureau & Houssein Guimbard & Sébastien Jean, 2019. "Agricultural Trade Liberalisation in the 21st Century: Has It Done the Business?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 3-25, February.
    10. Luca Salvatici & Silvia Nenci, 2017. "New features, forgotten costs and counterfactual gains of the international trading system," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 592-633.
    11. Fereira, Semertesides Bitica & Cateia, Júlio Vicente, 2023. "Trade reform, infrastructure investment, and structural transformation in Africa: Evidence from Guinea-Bissau," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    12. Ramos, Maria Priscila, 2007. "Politique Commerciale, Qualité et Environnement: une Application aux Négociations Commerciales entre l’Union Européenne et le Mercosur," MPRA Paper 12640, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Meilke, Karl D. & Rude, James & Burfisher, Mary E. & Bredahl, Maury E., 2001. "Market Access: Issues And Options In The Agricultural Negotiations," Commissioned Papers 14625, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    14. 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.
    15. Youssef Chahed & Sophie Drogue & Luca Salvatici, 2001. "Protection du secteur agricole dans les pays tiers : un outil pour les négociations du Millenium Round," Working Papers hal-02827128, HAL.
    16. Cernat, Lucian & Gerard, Daphne & Guinea, Oscar & Isella, Lorenzo, 2018. "Consumer benefits from EU trade liberalisation: How much did we save since the Uruguay Round?," DG TRADE Chief Economist Notes 2018-1, Directorate General for Trade, European Commission.

    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:oup:erevae:v:27:y:2000:i:3:p:259-280. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.