IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea14/177181.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Latin American Agriculture in a World of Trade Agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Josling, Tim
  • Paggi, Mechel
  • Wainio, John
  • Yamazaki, Fumiko

Abstract

Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries have been among the most active participants in the negotiation of regional and bilateral FTAs. The countries of the region are members of 73 of the 259 FTAs notified to the WTO as currently in force, with 29 of these agreements containing tariff concessions made to one or more Latin American partners: the remaining 44 are between an LAC member country and a third country. Among LAC countries already linked by an FTA, a large percentage of agricultural tariffs are already duty free. But the progress in this direction seems to have stalled, with continued tensions in MERCOSUR and political difficulties in the Andean Community. Negotiation of the proposed Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA) has been shelved, and the MERCOSUR-EU negotiations are moving at an imperceptible speed. Meanwhile other countries are moving ahead rapidly by negotiating ambitious mega-agreements, particularly the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). The only LAC countries actively involved in the TPP talks are Mexico, Chile, and Peru. If either or both of these mega-agreements are concluded the impacts on the region could be significant. These impacts include trade diversion and preference erosion in major import markets, as competitors improve their market access. They could also involve the 3 de facto acceptance of regulatory decisions made by the mega-agreement partners. The Latin American strategies toward these potentially significant agreements and the impacts of the TPP and T-TIP on Latin American agriculture have so far gone largely unstudied. Several possible avenues exist for Latin American countries to counter the impact of a TPP and TTIP on agricultural exports. One possible avenue would be to strengthen existing bilateral trade agreements within the region and to rely on multilateral trade negotiations to improve market access in other regions. Another possible strategy would be to link existing multi-country agreements, such as MERCOSUR and the Pacific Alliance, to NAFTA, in effect reviving the idea for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) under a different structure. Another possibility would be to complete and expand the scope of the MERCOSUR-EU FTA talks, to include other LAC countries. A fourth possible action would be for those countries that are not yet part of the negotiations to “sign on” to the TPP in so far as it is an “open access” agreement.

Suggested Citation

  • Josling, Tim & Paggi, Mechel & Wainio, John & Yamazaki, Fumiko, 2014. "Latin American Agriculture in a World of Trade Agreements," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 177181, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea14:177181
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.177181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/177181/files/Josling%20Yamazaki%20Wainio%20Paggi.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.177181?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donner Abreu, Maria, 2013. "Preferential rules of origin In regional trade agreements," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2013-05, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    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. Andersson, Martin & Palacio, Andrés, 2019. "The Revival of Agriculture and Inclusive Growth during the Commodity Boom in Latin America?," Lund Papers in Economic History 208, Lund University, Department of Economic History.
    2. Calil, Yuri Clements Daglia & Ribera, Luis A., 2020. "EU–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement: Implications for Agriculture," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304548, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Roel Jongeneel & Siemen Berkum & Hans Vrolijk, 2016. "Summary," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 15(2), pages 26-33, August.
    2. Jaime DE MELO & Ben SHEPHERD, 2018. "The Economics of Non-Tariff Measures: A Primer," Working Papers P212, FERDI.
    3. Azmeh, Shamel, 2015. "Transient global value chains and preferential trade agreements: rules of origin in US trade agreements with Jordan and Egypt," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64601, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Siemen van Berkum & Roel Jongeneel & Myrna van Leeuwen, 2018. "Brexit's Agri‐trade Impacts on the Netherlands," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(2), pages 38-46, August.
    5. Gabriel Felbermayr & Devashish Mitra & Rahel Aichele & Jasmin Katrin Gröschl, 2017. "Europe and India: Relaunching a Troubled Trade Relationship," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 80.
    6. Hyung Sik Choi & Torbjörn Jansson & Alan Matthews & Klaus Mittenzwei, 2021. "European Agriculture after Brexit: Does Anyone Benefit from the Divorce?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 3-24, February.
    7. Shamel Azmeh, 2015. "Transient global value chains and preferential trade agreements: rules of origin in US trade agreements with Jordan and Egypt," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 8(3), pages 475-490.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade; Political Economy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea14:177181. 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.