IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iatrtp/14570.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Access

Author

Listed:
  • Jales, Mario
  • Josling, Timothy E.
  • Nassar, Andre Meloni
  • Tutwiler, M. Ann

Abstract

The negotiation of improved market access in agriculture is crucial to the success of the Doha Round. The depth of tariff cuts will be the main indication of the level of ambition of the agricultural talks and hence the Round as a whole. Agricultural tariffs remain five times higher than tariffs in industrial goods, and account for the bulk of the distortions in agricultural trade. Recent analysis indicates that 92 percent of the global gains from trade liberalization in agriculture result from removing market access barriers. The July Framework reaffirmed the objective of substantial improvements in market access. This is to be accomplished by a single approach, a tiered (or banded) formula for tariff cuts, with the higher tariff rates being subject to the highest cuts. Negotiations have centered on how many bands to select, where to place the thresholds, and how progressive to make the band-specific reductions. The issue of whether to impose a tariff cap was left undecided in the Framework Agreement. Tariff caps have the advantage of reducing tariffs that are so high that they are little different from an import ban. If the cap is set at a low enough level, real trade improvements may follow. The Framework Agreement specifies that each Member may identify in the schedule a number of products as "Sensitive Products." However, analysis has shown that even exempting as little as two percent of tariff lines from formula based cuts would substantially reduce the expected gains from market access improvements. This points up the need for significant increases in TRQs for Sensitive Products to achieve significant improvements in market access. All tariff lines subject to TRQs, whether or not they are classified as Sensitive Products, should be subject to quota volume expansion. Improving the administration of TRQs and reducing in-quota tariffs are both important objectives for the Doha Round. There is considerable scope to improve the efficiency and transparency of quota regimes. The continued availability of the Special Safeguard for Agriculture by WTO members "remains under negotiation." But abuse of such a safeguard in order to protect domestic producers thwarts the objective of improved market access. Some limitations will need to be introduced if the safeguard is to be continued under the new agreement. The Framework Agreement emphasizes that Special and Differential Treatment is to be an integral part of the market access outcome. This can be ensured by several provisions. Developing countries can specify a number of products as Special Products, based on criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural development needs. The difficulty is in devising concrete criteria for selecting these products. The Framework Agreement also endorses the creation of a Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing countries. Tariff cuts in the Doha Round can erode the value of preferences and can have important consequences for some countries. Preference-granting countries could offset the declining value of those preferences either through financial transfers or additional market access for all products from the current preferred exporters. Least Developed Countries (LDCs) should not be required to undertake any reduction commitments, though they might wish to do so for their own economic advantage. Developed countries should provide duty- and quota-free access to LDCs to encourage full integration into the trade system.

Suggested Citation

  • Jales, Mario & Josling, Timothy E. & Nassar, Andre Meloni & Tutwiler, M. Ann, 2005. "Market Access," Trade Issues Papers 14570, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrtp:14570
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.14570
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/14570/files/ip050002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.14570?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. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    2. Bernard Hoekman & Francis Ng & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2004. "Agricultural Tariffs or Subsidies: Which Are More Important for Developing Economies?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 18(2), pages 175-204.
    3. Antoine Bouët & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "Is Erosion of Tariff Preferences a Serious Concern?," Working Papers 2005-14, CEPII research center.
    4. Jean, Sebastien & Laborde, David & Martin, William J., 2005. "Sensitive Products: Selection and Implications for Agricultural Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 18860, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    5. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2005. "Consequences of Alternative Formulas for Agricultural Tariff Cuts," Working Papers 2005-15, CEPII research center.
    6. Ingco,Merlinda D. & Winters,L. Alan (ed.), 2004. "Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521826853.
    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. Martina Brockmeier & Janine Pelikan, 2006. "Agricultural Market Access: A Moving Target in the WTO Negotiations?," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp125, IIIS.
    2. Brockmeier, Martina & Pelikan, Janine, 2006. "Agricultural Market Access: A Moving Target in the WTO Negotiations?," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25428, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Brockmeier, Martina & Pelikan, Janine, 2008. "Agricultural market access: A moving target in the WTO negotiations?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 250-259, June.

    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. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    2. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    3. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Doha Merchandise Trade Reform: What Is at Stake for Developing Countries?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 169-195.
    4. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Would Multilateral Trade Reform Benefit Sub-Saharan Africans?," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 15(4), pages 626-670, December.
    5. Romain Perez & Mustapha Sadni Jallab, 2009. "Preference erosion and market access liberalization: the African dilemma in multilateral negotiations on agriculture," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 145(2), pages 277-292, July.
    6. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    7. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Distortions to World Trade: Impacts on Agricultural Markets and Farm Incomes," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 168-194.
    8. Hewitt, Joanna, 2008. "Impact evaluation of research by the International Food Policy Research Institute on agricultural trade liberalization, developing countries, and WTO's Doha negotiations:," Impact assessments 28, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Martin, William J. & Anderson, Kym, 2008. "Agricultural trade reform under the Doha Agenda: some key issues," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(1), pages 1-16.
    10. Giovanni Anania, 2007. "Multilateral trade negotiations, preferential trade agreements and European Union’s agricultural policies," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 3, July.
    11. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    12. Allexandro Mori Coelho & Maria Lúcia L. M. Pádua Lima & Samir Cury & Sergio Goldbaum, 2006. "Impacts Of The Proposals For Tariff Reductions In Nonagricultural Goods (Nama)," Anais do XXXIV Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 34th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 121, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    13. Mohamed Hedi Bchir & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2006. "Binding Overhang and Tariff-Cutting Formulas," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(2), pages 207-232, July.
    14. Abate, Gashaw T. & Badiane, Ousmane, 2018. "Determinants of African agricultural exports," IFPRI book chapters, in: Africa agriculture trade monitor 2018, chapter 5, pages 85-109, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Guido Porto, 2010. "International Market Access and Poverty in Argentina," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 396-407, May.
    16. Thomas W. Hertel & Roman Keeney & Maros Ivanic & L. Alan Winters, 2015. "Why Isn't the Doha Development Agenda more Poverty Friendly?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Non-Tariff Barriers, Regionalism and Poverty Essays in Applied International Trade Analysis, chapter 18, pages 375-391, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Burrell, Alison M. & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mallado, Aida Gonzalez & Michalek, Jerzy, 2012. "EU market access for agricultural products in the Doha Development Round: A sensitive issue," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126950, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Kym Anderson, 2016. "Agricultural Trade, Policy Reforms, and Global Food Security," Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-46925-0, August.
    19. Mary Amiti & John Romalis, 2007. "Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 54(2), pages 338-384, June.
    20. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Jean, Sebastien & Matthews, Alan, 2006. "The Consequences of Agricultural Trade Liberalization for Developing Countries," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25471, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:iatrtp:14570. 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/iatrcea.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.