IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/44215
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium with number 44215.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:44215
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.eaae.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. Jean-Christophe Bureau & Antoine Bouet, Yvan Decreux, Sébastien Jean, 2005. "Multilateral agricultural trade liberalization: The contrasting fortunes of developing countries in the Doha Round," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp060, IIIS.
  3. Guyomard, Herve & Laroche, Catherine & Mouel, Chantal Le, 1999. "An economic assessment of the Common Market Organization for bananas in the European Union," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(2), March.
  4. Anderson, Kym & Martin, Will, 2005. "Agricultural trade reform and the Doha development agenda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3607, The World Bank.
  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. 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.
  7. 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, 09.
  8. Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "EU Preferential Trade Arrangements and Developing Countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(10), pages 1415-1432, November.
  9. 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 321-35.
  10. 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).
  11. 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).
  12. Yongzheng Yang, 2005. "Africa in the Doha Round; Dealing with Preference Erosion and Beyond," IMF Policy Discussion Papers 05/8, International Monetary Fund.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.