IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iamc14/212560.html

Welfare effects of partial and full liberalization of international trade on the agriculture in Uzbekistan

Author

Listed:
  • Sattarov, Doniyor
  • Mal, Puran

Abstract

Agriculture sector plays crucial role in the economy of Uzbekistan. However, the reduction of the share of agriculture sector in national GDP can be explained by increasing the share of other sectors in national economy. There is growth in gross production of agriculture but, agricultural sector is still characterized by unsustainable production patterns and agricultural institutions of the country are controlled to a large extent through government intervention. Two crops have strategic significance for Uzbekistan: wheat for domestic consumption and cotton for export. The Government decides to grow cotton and wheat as well as fix the output prices. Uzbekistan Farmers receive lower prices for the main crops than world prices, but they also receive inputs such as fertilizers or fuel at cheaper prices. The partial implementation of reforms such as privatization and liberalization of agricultural markets affect the development of agriculture and agricultural trade in Uzbekistan (UZB). This paper highlights the major effects of market and price liberalization (50% and 100%) on agricultural trade using the partial equilibrium model AGRISIM which is based on the "Static World Policy Simulation Model" (SWOPSIM) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). With the help of this model, changes in general economic conditions, policy intervention in agricultural markets and foreign trade are simulated. This study suggests that the issues of sustainable agriculture development and food security in Uzbekistan can be achieved through, liberalization of agricultural markets and trade specially wheat and cotton.

Suggested Citation

  • Sattarov, Doniyor & Mal, Puran, 2014. "Welfare effects of partial and full liberalization of international trade on the agriculture in Uzbekistan," ReCCA-Conference 2014 212560, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iamc14:212560
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.212560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212560/files/SATTAROV%20and%20MAL%20-2014%20RECCA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.212560?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. Roningen, Vernon & Sullivan, John & Dixit, Praveen, 1991. "Documentation of the Static World Policy Simulation (SWOPSIM) Modeling Framework," Staff Reports 278599, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Saunders, Caroline M. & Wreford, Anita, 2003. "Mitigation Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Impacts On A Developed Country Highly Dependent On Agriculture," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25912, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Ames, Glenn C.W. & Gunter, Lewell F. & Davis, Claudia D., 1996. "Analysis Of The U.S.-European Community Oilseeds Agreement," Faculty Series 16646, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    3. Ames, Glenn C. W. & Gunter, Lewell & Davis, Claudia D., 1996. "Analysis of USA-European Community oilseeds agreements," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 97-112, November.
    4. Saunders, Caroline M. & Wreford, Anita, 2003. "Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58273, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Mutambatsere, Emelly, 2006. "Trade Policy Reforms in the Cereals Sector of the SADC Region: Implications on Food Security," Working Papers 127055, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    6. Kirschke, D. & Weber, G., 2004. "Internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Optionen für die EU-Agrarpolitik," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    7. Ryan, James G., 2003. "Evaluating the impact of agricultural projection modeling using the "IMPACT" framework," Impact assessments 17, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Kaye-Blake, William & Saunders, Caroline M., 2006. "Estimated Contribution of Four Biotechnologies to New Zealand Agriculture," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21133, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Caroline Saunders & Anita Wreford & Selim Cagatay, 2006. "Trade liberalisation and greenhouse gas emissions: the case of dairying in the European Union and New Zealand ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(4), pages 538-555, December.
    10. Ames, Glenn C.W. & Gunter, Lewell F. & Davis, Claudia D., 1996. "Analysis Of The U.S.-European Community Oilseeds Agreement," Faculty Series 16646, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    11. Saunders, Caroline M. & Roningen, Vernon O., 2001. "Trade And The Environment. Linking A Partial Equilibrium Trade Model With Production Systems And Their Environmental Consequences," 2001: International Trade in Livestock Products Symposium, January 2001, Auckland, New Zealand 14552, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    12. Kevin P. Gallagher & Frank Ackerman & Luke Ney, "undated". "Economic Analysis in Environmental Reviews of Trade Agreements: Assessing the North American Experience," GDAE Working Papers 02-01, GDAE, Tufts University.
    13. 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.
    14. Asci, Serhat C. & Paggi, Mechel & Yamazaki, Fumiko, . "Implications of Trans-Pacific Partnership for the US Dairy Industry," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(B), pages 1-16.
    15. Martinez, Steve W. & Dixit, Praveen M., 1992. "Domestic Food Assistance Programs: Measuring Benefits to Producers," Staff Reports 278672, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    16. James Gleckler & Robert Koopman & Luther Tweeten, 1993. "European economic integration and the consequences for US agriculture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 325-337.
    17. Bishop, Phillip M. & Pratt, James E. & Novakovic, Andrew M., 1993. "Analyzing the Impacts of the Proposed North American Free Trade Agreement on European-North American Dairy Trade Using a Joint-Input, Multi-Product Approach," Staff Papers 121341, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    18. Heng-Chi Lee & Bruce McCarl & Uwe Schneider & Chi-Chung Chen, 2007. "Leakage and Comparative Advantage Implications of Agricultural Participation in Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 471-494, May.
    19. Benirschka, Martin & Koo, Won W., 1995. "World Wheat Policy Simulation Model: Description and Computer Program Documentation," Agricultural Economics Reports 23333, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    20. Caroline Saunders & Selim Cagatay, 2003. "Commercial release of first‐generation genetically modified food products in New Zealand: using a partial equilibrium trade model to assess the impact on producer returns in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(2), pages 233-259, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:iamc14:212560. 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/iamoode.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.