IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Partnership Agreements and WTO negotiations. A quantitative assessment of trade preference granting and erosion in the banana market


  • Anania, Giovanni


No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Anania, Giovanni, 2008. "Economic Partnership Agreements and WTO negotiations. A quantitative assessment of trade preference granting and erosion in the banana market," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44215, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:44215

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Utilisation and Tariff Reduction in EU Imports from ACP Countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(9), pages 1243-1266, September.
    2. Kersten, Lutz, 1995. "Impacts of the EU Banana Market Regulation on International Competition, Trade and Welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 22(3), pages 321-335.
    3. Yongzheng Yang, 2005. "Africa in the Doha Round; Dealing with Preference Erosion and Beyond," IMF Policy Discussion Papers 05/8, International Monetary Fund.
    4. Antoine Bouët & Jean-Christophe Bureau & Yvan Decreux & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "Multilateral Agricultural Trade Liberalisation: The Contrasting Fortunes of Developing Countries in the Doha Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(9), pages 1329-1354, September.
    5. Rikke Thagesen & Alan Matthews, 1997. "The EU's Common Banana Regime: An Initial Evaluation," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 615-627, December.
    6. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 6889.
    7. David Vanzetti & Santiago Fernandez de Córdoba & Veronica Chau, 2005. "Banana Split: How Eu Policies Divide Global Producers," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 31, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    8. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "The 2006 Reform of the EU Domestic Policy Regime for Bananas. An Assessment of its Impact on Trade," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 9880, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Guyomard, Herve & Laroche, Catherine & Le Mouel, Chantal, 1999. "An economic assessment of the Common Market Organization for bananas in the European Union," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 105-120, March.
    10. Read, Robert, 2001. "The Anatomy of the EU-US WTO Banana Trade Dispute," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 2(2).
    11. Giovanni Anania, 2006. "The 2005 WTO arbitration and the new EU import regime for bananas: a cut too far?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 449-484, December.
    12. Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "EU Preferential Trade Arrangements and Developing Countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(10), pages 1415-1432, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Anania, Giovanni & Scoppola, Margherita, 2011. "Assessing the Impact of Trade Policy Changes: Does Market Structure Matter?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114222, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item


    WTO; Economic Partnership Agreements; trade preferences; preference erosion; spatial models; bananas; International Relations/Trade;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:eaae08:44215. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.