IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iffp21/37879.html

Agricultural producer support estimates for developing countries : measurement issues and evidence from India, Indonesia, China, and Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Orden, David
  • Cheng, Fuzhi
  • Nguyen, Hoa
  • Grote, Ulrike
  • Thomas, Marcelle
  • Mullen, Kathleen
  • Sun, Dongsheng

Abstract

The levels of support that trade and domestic farm policies afford to agriculture, and the related processes of policy reform intended to improve the economic efficiency of agricultural production, processing, and marketing, are important issues for developing countries. The effects of policy on agriculture are well documented for wealthy countries, especially by the established and respected studies from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. However, systematic analysis is often lacking for poor countries because of the difficulty and cost of measuring policy effects consistently over time and across commodities. This study contributes to filling the existing research gap by examining the impacts of agricultural policies and policy reforms on the incentives of agricultural producers in India, Indonesia, China, and Vietnam. It investigates critical measurement issues and analyzes the levels of market price support and producer support estimates for key commodities and in aggregate for each country. The results show a range of outcomes. In India a countercyclical support policy is evident despite market-oriented institutional reforms; in Indonesia high levels of support for agriculture have persisted; while China and Vietnam have moved away from past disprotection toward modest support for agriculture. The results demonstrate the importance of tracking the transitions of agricultural policy that improve farmers’ incentives as economic growth occurs, as well as the difficulty of making reforms in cases of entrenched policy interventions. The report is part of a series of recent studies carried out by researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute and their partners on the impact of domestic support policies, trade policy, and trade agreements on the poor in developing countries. These include studies of the impact of alternative outcomes from the World Trade Organization Doha Development Round, the effects of global cotton markets on poverty in Benin and Pakistan, the impact of rice policy on poverty in the Philippines, and analysis of the potential effects of trade liberalization in the Near East and North Africa region. These studies provide policymakers with objective, empirically based analyses to inform pro-poor policies related to agricultural support and trade. We hope the report will contribute to informed policy discussions both at the domestic level and in international negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Orden, David & Cheng, Fuzhi & Nguyen, Hoa & Grote, Ulrike & Thomas, Marcelle & Mullen, Kathleen & Sun, Dongsheng, 2007. "Agricultural producer support estimates for developing countries : measurement issues and evidence from India, Indonesia, China, and Vietnam," Research Reports 37879, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iffp21:37879
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.37879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/37879/files/rr152.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.37879?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:lic:licosd:32312 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Huang, Jikun & Liu, Yu & Martin, William J. & Rozelle, Scott, 2007. "Integrating China’s Agricultural Economy into the Global Market: Measuring Distortions in China’s Agricultural Sector," 2007: China's Agricultural Trade: Issues and Prospects Symposium, July 2007, Beijing, China 55023, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    4. Anderson, Kym & Kurzweil, Marianne & Martin, Will & Sandri, Damiano & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2008. "Measuring distortions to agricultural incentives, revisited," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 675-704, October.
    5. Dr Ray Trewin, 2009. "Poultry Sector Support and Protection, Structural Change and Disease Risk," International and Development Economics Working Papers idec09-01, International and Development Economics.
    6. Huang, Jikun & Liu, Yu & Martin, Will & Rozelle, Scott, 2009. "Changes in trade and domestic distortions affecting China's agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 407-416, October.
    7. Trung Thanh Nguyen & Siegfried Bauer & Ulrike Grote, 2016. "Does Land Tenure Security Promote Manure Use by Farm Households in Vietnam?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, February.
    8. Thanh Pham Thien Nguyen & Son Hong Nghiem & Eduardo Roca & Parmendra Sharma, 2016. "Bank reforms and efficiency in Vietnamese banks: evidence based on SFA and DEA," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(30), pages 2822-2835, June.
    9. Johan Swinnen & Kym Anderson, 2008. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Europe's Transition Economies," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6502, April.
    10. Nilsson, Lars, 2011. "The European Commission's proposal for the next EU Generalised System of Preferences," Conference papers 332095, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Hübler, Michael, 2010. "Can Carbon Based Tariffs Effectively Reduce Emissions? A Numerical Analysis with Focus on China," Conference papers 331921, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    12. Kym Anderson & Gordon Rausser & Johan Swinnen, 2013. "Political Economy of Public Policies: Insights from Distortions to Agricultural and Food Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(2), pages 423-477, June.
    13. Wusheng Yu & Hans G. Jensen, 2010. "China’s Agricultural Policy Transition: Impacts of Recent Reforms and Future Scenarios," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 343-368, June.
    14. Marianne Kurzweil & Kym Anderson & Damiano Sandri & Will Martin & Ernesto Valenzuela, 2008. "Methodology for Measuring Distortions to Agricultural Incentives," World Bank Publications - Reports 28271, The World Bank Group.
    15. Kym Anderson, 2009. "Distorted Agricultural Incentives and Economic Development: Asia's Experience," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 351-384, March.
    16. Thanh Pham Thien Nguyen & Son Hong Nghiem & Eduardo Roca & Parmendra Sharma, 2016. "Efficiency, innovation and competition: evidence from Vietnam, China and India," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1235-1259, November.
    17. Anderson, Kym & Croser, Johanna L. & Sandri, Damiano & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2009. "Agricultural Distortion Patterns Since the 1950s: What Needs Explaining?," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 50305, World Bank.
    18. Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott & Martin, William J. & Liu, Yu, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in China," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48478, World Bank.
    19. Kym Anderson, 2009. "Krueger/Schiff/Valdes Revisited: Agricultural Price and Trade Policy Reform in Developing Countries since the 1980s," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2009-22, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    20. 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).
    21. Bao Ho Dinh & Hai Nguyen Phuc & Trinh Bui & Hau Nguyen, 2020. "Declining Protection for Vietnamese Agriculture under Trade Liberalization: Evidence from an Input–Output Analysis," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-11, June.
    22. Croser, Johanna & Anderson, Kym, 2011. "Changing contributions of different agricultural policy instruments to global reductions in trade and welfare," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 297-323, July.
    23. Davenport, Scott V. & Chadha, R. & Gale, R., 2009. "Competition Policy Reform in Agriculture: A Comparison of the BRICs Countries," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48154, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    24. Pursell, Garry & Gulati, Ashok & Gupta, Kanupriya, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in India," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48483, World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:iffp21:37879. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/ifprius.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.