IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iatrtp/14573.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Export Competition Disciplines in the Doha Round

Author

Listed:
  • Young, Linda M.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Young, Linda M., 2005. "Export Competition Disciplines in the Doha Round," Trade Issues Papers 14573, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrtp:14573
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.14573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/14573/files/ip050003.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.14573?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. Dixit, Praveen M. & Josling, Timothy E., 1997. "State Trading In Agriculture: An Analytical Framework," Working Papers 14608, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Philip C. Abbott & Linda M. Young, 1999. "Wheat-Importing State Trading Enterprises: Impacts on the World Wheat Market," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(2), pages 119-136, July.
    3. Giovanni Anania & Mary E.. Bohman & Colin A. Carter & Alex F. McCalla (ed.), 2004. "Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3471.
    4. Prabhu Pingali & Randy Stringer, 2003. "Food Security and Agriculture in the Low Income, Food- Deficit countries: 10 years after the Uruguay Round," Working Papers 03-18, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
    5. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    6. 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 Economic Reports 34015, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Ackerman, Karen Z. & Dixit, Praveen M., 1999. "An Introduction To State Trading In Agriculture," Agricultural Economic Reports 33909, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Linda M. Young, 1999. "Prevalence and Reform of State Trading Importers in World Grain Markets," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(4), pages 351-362, December.
    9. Schluep, Isabelle & De Gorter, Harry, 2000. "The Definition of Export Subsidies and the Agreement on Agriculture," 2000 Conference, August 13-18, 2000, Berlin, Germany 197221, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Hyberg, Bengt & Smith, Mark & Skully, David & Davison, Cecil, 1995. "Export credit guarantees: The commodity credit corporation and US agricultural export policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 27-39, February.
    11. Young, Linda M., 1999. "Prevalence And Reform Of State Trading Importers In World Grain Markets," Research Discussion Papers 29241, Montana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Trade Research Center.
    12. Falcon, Walter P. & Monke, Eric A., 1980. "International Trade in Rice," Food Research Institute Studies, Stanford University, Food Research Institute, vol. 17(3), pages 1-28.
    13. 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.
    14. Schmitz, Andrew & Furtan, William Hartley & Brooks, Harvey G. & Gray, Richard S., 1997. "The Canadian Wheat Board: How Well Has It Performed?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-7.
    15. Bohman, Mary, 2005. "Agriculture in the WTO," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1-2, February.
    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. Yoon, Jung-hyun & Lim, Song Soo, 2013. "Potential trade distortion effects of state trading enterprises under the tariff-rate quota scheme," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 7, pages 1-19.

    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. Young, Linda M. & Abbott, Philip C. & Leetmaa, Susan E., 2001. "Export Competition: Issues And Options In The Agricultural Negotiations," Commissioned Papers 14624, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Yoon, Jung-Hyun & Lim, Song Soo, 2013. "Potential trade distortion effects of state trading enterprises under the tariff-rate quota scheme," Economics Discussion Papers 2013-22, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Dixit, Praveen M. & Josling, Timothy E. & Blandford, David, 2001. "The Current Wto Agricultural Negotiations: Options For Progress; Synthesis," Commissioned Papers 14623, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    4. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    5. William W. Wilson & Bruce L. Dahl, 2004. "Transparency and Bidding Competition in International Wheat Trade," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 52(1), pages 89-105, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Nilabja Ghosh, 2015. "Production, Market Structure and the Role of Public Policy: Foodgrains in the New Economy," Working Papers id:7511, eSocialSciences.
    8. Lavoie, Nathalie, 2003. "The Impact Of Reforming Wheat Importing State-Trading Enterprises On The Quality Of Wheat Imported," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21901, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Anania, Giovanni, 2010. "EU Economic Partnership Agreements and WTO negotiations. A quantitative assessment of trade preference granting and erosion in the banana market," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 140-153, April.
    10. Lavoie, Nathalie, 2003. "The Impact Of Reforming Wheat Importing State-Trading Enterprises On The Quality Of Wheat Imported," Working Paper Series 14512, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    11. Gloria O. Pasadilla, 2007. "Preferential trading agreements and agricultural liberalization in East and South-East Asia," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: Studies in Trade and Investment - AGRICULTURAL TRADE - PLANTING THE SEEDS OF REGIONAL LIBERALIZATION IN ASIA, volume 60, pages 75-130, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    12. 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.
    13. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    14. Moon, Wanki, 2010. "Multifunctional Agriculture, Protectionism, And Prospect Of Trade Liberalization," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 33(2), pages 1-33, July.
    15. Moon, Wanki, 2011. "Is agriculture compatible with free trade?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 13-24.
    16. Bourgeon, Jean-Marc & Jean, Sebastien & Maillet, Anais, 2015. "State Trading Enterprises and Price Stabilization," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Keith Walsh & Martina Brockmeier & Alan Matthews, 2005. "Implications of Domestic Support Disciplines for Further Agricultural Trade Liberalization," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp99, IIIS.
    18. Miller, Andrew D. & Langley, Suchada V. & Chambers, William, 2003. "Current Issues Affecting Trade And Trade Policy: An Annotated Literature Review," Working Papers 14596, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    19. Rude, James & Meilke, Karl D., 2005. "Implications of the July 2004 WTO Framework Agreement for Canadian Agriculture," Trade Policy Briefs 24150, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.
    20. Jana Hranaiova & Harry de Gorter, 2006. "State Trading and Tariff Rate Quotas: The Case of Korea’s Rice Imports," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(4), pages 632-651, November.

    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:14573. 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.