IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Export Competition Disciplines in the Doha Round

Listed author(s):
  • Young, Linda M.
Registered author(s):

    The Doha Round Ministerial Decision called for "Reduction of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies." The Export Competition Pillar of the agricultural negotiations includes direct export subsidies, export credits, state trading enterprises and food aid. The July framework gives further instruction that disciplines should ensure the parallel elimination of all export subsides with equivalent effect by a credible end date. The July Framework states that all direct export subsidies will be eliminated, so that the task remaining is to decide on the time frame and other details of the transition period. The elimination of export subsidies would be a significant achievement. While greater gains are expected to accrue from reform of domestic subsidies and improvements in market access, export subsidies have long been condemned as greatly distorting to world markets and detrimental to competitive exporters and import competing producers. As export subsidies are a compliment to policies such as high internal prices, their elimination will prevent the reemergence of some distorting forms of producer support. WTO members would benefit from being flexible about the details of the transition period if necessary to ensure achievement of this long-term goal. Food aid can act as an implicit export subsidy in some situations; however, disciplines on the subsidy component of food aid must preserve it humanitarian and developmental roles. Food aid programs with a market development objective should be eliminated. Food aid from surpluses accumulated due to agricultural policy could be disciplined by mandating that they be donated through the UN's World Food Program, in order to minimize possible political motivations for donations. However, many other disciplines that have been proposed would likely result in lower levels of food aid overall. The July Framework states that disciplines on food aid should prevent commercial displacement, an emphasis that indicates that the WTO is not the appropriate institution to develop detailed rules for food aid. A new institutional home with appropriate representation from recipients and the development community should be charged with assisting the WTO in developing further appropriate rules for food aid. The July Framework also states that government subsidies for STEs will be eliminated. A further discipline requiring countries maintaining STES to offer duty-free access to their domestic market for the goods they manage would eliminate the possibility that a highpriced domestic market is used to subsidized exports. Beyond these two measures, it is difficult to propose disciplines on STEs, as both economic analysts and member governments widely disagree on the impact of exporting STEs on world markets. Elimination of STEs monopoly rights is likely to result in further market power on the part of the private firms remaining in the market, and will not resolve concerns over market power, transparency and price discrimination on the part of both STEs and private firms. It is recommended that STEs be disciplined within negotiations on competition policy, so that both STEs and private firms are addressed. The July Framework also mandates that export credit programs of more than 180 days be eliminated, a major step towards reducing the subsidy component of export credit programs. Negotiations are now focused on developing detailed rules for export credit programs. Due to the recent WTO ruling on the US cotton program, it is important that rules for export credit programs ensure that programs are structured to avoid a net cost to the government. Progress in the negotiations indicate that WTO members want to eliminate the subsidy element of export credit programs even at the cost of eliminating the potential additionality that these programs can create when they assist importers in alleviating liquidity constraints. Special and differential treatment for developing country members can be realized through granting longer transition periods in the elimination of direct export subsidies. Likewise, if STEs are mandated to coexist with the private sector, developing countries should be exempted, and elimination of government subsidies to STEs should have a longer transition period. It is proposed to create a new export credit program to assist developing countries in alleviating liquidity constraints for food imports. If this program is not limited by budgetary constraints or excessive conditionality for recipients, it could provide a significant step in meeting the goals of the Doha Round and previous WTO commitments to developing country food security. Parallel elimination of various forms of export subsidies is ideal and helpful in achieving the political consensus for reform. However, parallel elimination should not compromise the important role that food aid can play in the food security and development of developing countries. It can perhaps best be achieved by writing simple rules that eliminate over time the use of government funds for direct export subsidies, export credit programs and state trading.

    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:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium in its series Trade Policy Issues Papers with number 14573.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 2005
    Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrtp:14573
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    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.:

    in new window

    1. Dixit, Praveen M. & Josling, Timothy E., 1997. "State Trading In Agriculture: An Analytical Framework," Working Papers 14608, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 6889, January.
    3. Diao, Xinshen & Elbehri, Aziz & Gehlhar, Mark J. & Gibson, Paul R. & Leetmaa, Susan E. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Nelson, Frederick J. & Nimon, R. Wesley & Normile, Mary Anne & Roe, Terry L. & Shapouri, S, 2001. "Agricultural Policy Reform In The Wto: The Road Ahead," Agricultural Economics Reports 34015, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Ackerman, Karen Z. & Dixit, Praveen M., 1999. "An Introduction To State Trading In Agriculture," Agricultural Economics Reports 33909, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Young, Linda M., 1999. "Prevalence And Reform Of State Trading Importers In World Grain Markets," Trade Research Center Research Discussion Papers 29241, Montana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics.
    6. Falcon, Walter P. & Monke, Eric A., 1979. "International Trade in Rice," Food Research Institute Studies, Stanford University, Food Research Institute, issue 03.
    7. Veeman, M. & Fulton, M. & Larue, B., 1999. "International Trade in Agricultural and Food Products: The Role of State Trading Enterprises," Papers 1999, Gouvernement du Canada - Agriculture Canada.
    8. Schmitz, Andrew & Furtan, William Hartley & Brooks, Harvey G. & Gray, Richard S., 1997. "The Canadian Wheat Board: How Well Has It Performed?," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 12(1).
    9. Bohman, Mary, 2005. "Agriculture in the WTO," Amber Waves, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February.
    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:iatrtp:14573. 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.