IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea03/22032.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact Of Groundnut Trade Liberalization: Implication For The Doha Round

Author

Listed:
  • Matthey, Holger
  • Diop, Ndiame
  • Beghin, John C.
  • Sewadeh, Mirvat

Abstract

We use a partial-equilibrium multi-market international model to analyze trade and agricultural policies affecting peanut/groundnut products markets. The model covers four goods (food and crush quality groundnuts, groundnut oil and cake) in 13 countries/regions including a large set of developing countries (Argentina, China, the Gambia, India, Malawi, Mexico, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa). Welfare is evaluated by looking at the consumer's equivalent variation, quasi-profits in farming (groundnut farming, livestock), quasi-profit in crushing, and taxpayers' revenues and outlays implied by distortions. We calibrate the model on recent historical data. We analyze several groundnut trade liberalization scenarios. The impact of the reforms is measured in deviation from the recent historical baseline. Trade liberalization in groundnut markets has a strong South-South dimension opposing two large developing countries (India and China) to smaller developing countries mainly located in Africa. Current Chinese and Indian policies substantially depress the world prices of edible groundnuts, groundnut oil and groundnut meal. Following the removal of these distortions, African exporters present in these world markets would gain because they are net sellers of the cash crops. Consumers in China and India would be better off as well with lower consumer prices resulting from the removal of high tariffs more than offsetting the higher world prices of groundnut oil. The cost of adjustment would fall on farmers in India and China who would have to shift to other crops or activities. Crushing in India would also decrease because crushing margins would deteriorate. Net buyers of groundnut products in OECD countries will be worse off. We draw implications for Doha negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthey, Holger & Diop, Ndiame & Beghin, John C. & Sewadeh, Mirvat, 2003. "The Impact Of Groundnut Trade Liberalization: Implication For The Doha Round," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22032, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:22032
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.22032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/22032/files/sp03be07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.22032?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. John Beghin & Jean-Christophe Bureau & Sophie Drogue, 2004. "Calibration of incomplete demand systems in quantitative analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(8), pages 839-847.
    2. Badiane, Ousmane & Kinteh, Sambouh, 1994. "Trade pessimism and regionalism in African countries: the case of groundnut exporters," Research reports 97, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Gary Adams & Patrick Westhoff & Brian Willott & Robert E. Young, 2001. "Do “Decoupled” Payments Affect U.S. Crop Area? Preliminary Evidence from 1997–2000," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1190-1195.
    4. Beghin, John C. & Roland-Holst, David & Van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2002. "How Will Agricultural Trade Reforms in High-Income Countries Affect the Trading Relationships of Developing Countries?," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10665, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Ibrahima Hathie & Rigoberto A. Lopez, 2002. "The impact of market reforms on the Senegalese peanut economy," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 543-554.
    6. Diop, Ndiame & Beghin, John & Sewadeh, Mirvat, 2004. "Groundnut policies, global trade dynamics, and the impact of trade liberalization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3226, The World Bank.
    7. John C. Beghin & Holger Matthey, 2003. "Modeling World Peanut Product Markets: A Tool for Agricultural Trade Policy Analysis," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 03-wp332, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    8. Tsunehiro Otsuki & John S. Wilson, 2001. "What price precaution? European harmonisation of aflatoxin regulations and African groundnut exports," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(3), pages 263-284, October.
    9. Kherallah, Mylene & Govindan, Kumaresan, 1999. "The Sequencing of Agricultural Market Reforms in Malawi," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 8(2), pages 125-151, July.
    10. Rucker, Randal R & Thurman, Walter N, 1990. "The Economic Effects of Supply Controls: The Simple Analytics of the U.S. Peanut Program," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 483-515, October.
    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. Diop, Ndiame & Beghin, John & Sewadeh, Mirvat, 2004. "Groundnut policies, global trade dynamics, and the impact of trade liberalization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3226, The World Bank.

    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. Beghin, John & Diop, Ndiame & Matthey, Holger, 2006. "Groundnut trade liberalization: Could the South help the south?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1016-1036, June.
    2. John C. Beghin & Holger Matthey, 2003. "Modeling World Peanut Product Markets: A Tool for Agricultural Trade Policy Analysis," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 03-wp332, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    3. Fletcher, Stanley M. & Nadolnyak, Denis A., 2005. "Accommodating Imperfect Competition in A Model of World Peanut Trade," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19460, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Mofya-Mukuka, Rhoda & Shipekesa, Arthur M., 2013. "Value Chain Analysis of the Groundnuts Sector in the Eastern Province of Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 171869, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Diop, Ndiame & Beghin, John & Sewadeh, Mirvat, 2004. "Groundnut policies, global trade dynamics, and the impact of trade liberalization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3226, The World Bank.
    6. Agyekum, Michael & Jolly, Curtis M., 2017. "Peanut trade and aflatoxin standards in Europe: Economic effects on trading countries," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 114-128.
    7. KM Shivakumar & S.Kombairaju & M.Chandrasekaran, 2007. "Trade Policy Analysis of Edible Oil Imports of India under CGE framework," EcoMod2007 23900083, EcoMod.
    8. Bo Xiong & John Beghin, 2017. "Disentangling Demand-Enhancing And Trade-Cost Effects Of Maximum Residue Regulations," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 6, pages 105-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Elizabeth Hoffman & Gary D. Libecap, 1994. "Political Bargaining and Cartelization in the New Deal: Orange Marketing Orders," NBER Chapters, in: The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy, pages 189-222, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Anirudh Shingal & Malte Ehrich, 2019. "Trade effects of standards harmonization in the EU: improved access for non-EU partners," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) Working Paper 372, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), New Delhi, India.
    11. Adrián Rabadán & Ángela Triguero, 2021. "Influence of food safety standards on trade: Evidence from the pistachio sector," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 489-514, July.
    12. Inaba, Masaru & Nutahara, Kengo, 2009. "The role of investment wedges in the Carlstrom-Fuerst economy and business cycle accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 200-203, December.
    13. -, 2010. "Experiencias de articulación entre los sectores público y privado para la implementación de tratados de libre comercio," Documentos de Proyectos 3849, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    14. Tessmann, Jannes, 2021. "Strategic responses to food safety standards – The case of the Indian cashew industry," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 23(C).
    15. Monica Schuster & Miet Maertens, 2013. "8 Private Food Standards and Firm-Level Trade Effects: A Dynamic Analysis of the Peruvian Asparagus Export Sector," Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, in: Nontariff Measures with Market Imperfections: Trade and Welfare Implications, pages 187-213, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Glauber, Joseph W. & Effland, Anne, 2016. "United States agricultural policy: Its evolution and impact:," IFPRI discussion papers 1543, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Nasreen Nawaz, 2022. "A Dynamic Optimal Trade Facilitation Policy," The International Trade Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 102-122, March.
    18. Ronen, Eyal, 2017. "The Trade-Enhancing Effect Of Non-Tariff Measures On Virgin Olive Oil," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 5(3), July.
    19. Walter N. Thurman, 1993. "The Welfare Significance and Nonsignificance of General Equilibrium Demand and Supply Curves," Public Finance Review, , vol. 21(4), pages 449-469, October.
    20. Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Emilia Lamonaca, 2019. "The Effects of Non‐tariff Measures on Agri‐food Trade: A Review and Meta‐analysis of Empirical Evidence," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(3), pages 595-617, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    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:ags:aaea03:22032. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.