IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/natres/v11y1987i4p363-368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Study Groups Versus Commodity Agreements: An Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • W. KEITH BUCK

Abstract

Since World War II there have been several attempts to establish intergovernmental mineral commodity arrangements involving both the producing and consuming countries. Two different forms have been used, the consultative forum and the commodity agreement (with binding economic provisions). The two different approaches are compared using as examples the six post‐World War II International Tin Agreements and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group. The study group or consultative forum appears to work better.

Suggested Citation

  • W. Keith Buck, 1987. "Study Groups Versus Commodity Agreements: An Appraisal," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 11(4), pages 363-368, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:natres:v:11:y:1987:i:4:p:363-368
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.1987.tb00006.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1987.tb00006.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1987.tb00006.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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Werner Gocht & Ulrich Petersen, 1994. "Minerals and the Common Fund for Commodities," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 18(2), pages 143-151, May.

    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:wly:natres:v:11:y:1987:i:4:p:363-368. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1477-8947 .

    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.