IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/motcsr/29175.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nafta, Gatt, And Agriculture In The Northern Rockies And Great Plains

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, Vincent H.

Abstract

Over the past seven years, the U.S. government has been involved in trade negotiations that have led to one bilateral and two multilateral agreements whose provisions have substantive implications for U.S. agricultural trade. The first of these sets of trade negotiations led to the bilateral Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CFTA). The second resulted in the current multilateral General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which was implemented on January 1, 1995. The third set of negotiations, initiated under the Bush Administration, led to the multilateral North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was approved by Congress in November 1993 and implemented on January 1, 1994. The three agreements signed by the U.S. since the late 1980's have been substantively different from most previous agreements because each explicitly addressed trade in agricultural commodities. The result has been that, to a greater or lesser degree, CFTA, NAFTA, and GATT have altered or will alter the structure and behavior of world and domestic markets for agricultural commodities. These commodities include wheat and barley, sugar, and cattle and beef products; such changes are of importance to many Montana producers. The purpose of this report is to provide a detailed description of the agricultural provisions of NAFTA and the recent GATT agreement for wheat, barley, sugar, and cattle and boxed beef, and to discuss possible implications for producers of these commodities. The report does not investigate the consequences of the CFTA. The report begins by describing the general nature of these types of agreements. Brief histories and descriptions of the provisions of NAFTA and GATT are presented as well as overviews of the general agricultural provisions of the two agreements. The final section contains more detailed discussions of the provisions and implications of the agreements that directly relate to wheat, barley, sugar, and livestock products. The author concludes that for U.S. wheat producers, the consequences of both NAFTA and GATT appear to be favorable. Due to NAFTA, Mexican imports of U.S. wheat are likely to rise moderately. How NAFTA will impact U.S. and Canadian competition for the Mexican wheat market is unclear. The implications of GATT for wheat are also modest but generally favorable. Some countries will reduce tariff rates for wheat over the implementation period and improve import access to domestic markets. These adjustments are likely to encourage slight increases in world demand for wheat exports that will provide modest benefits for U.S. wheat producers. Historically, Mexico has levied high tariffs and implemented quantity restrictions via import licensing arrangements for barley imports from Canada and the U.S. Under NAFTA, Mexico allocated an initial quota of 120,000 metric tons per year to U.S. barley producers. This duty-free quota will be increased to about 195,000 metric tons in 2004. Tariffs on over-quota imports will also be removed by 2004. U.S. and Canadian barley producers are likely to benefit from increased Mexican import demand. The implications of GATT for barley are modest but generally favorable. As with wheat, some countries will reduce tariff rates for barley over the implementation period and/or improve import access to domestic markets. These adjustments are also likely to encourage slight increases in world demand for barley exports, thereby benefitting U.S. barley producers. With respect to cattle and beef, under the NAFTA agreement, the U.S. and Mexico have simply exempted each other from their respective import quotas. Prior to NAFTA, Mexico did not impose tariffs on live cattle or beef imports but did levy a small tariff on imports of edible offal. This tariff will be phased out by 2003. The U.S. also abolished modest tariffs on imports of Mexican fresh, chilled, and frozen beef, and imported feed and feeder cattle. Under the GATT agreement, several major beef-producing countries made commitments to reduce trade restrictions and internal supports. The U.S. has agreed to increase access at a low rate of duty and to reduce tariffs on over-quota imports by 15 percent by the year 2000. Some beef-importing countries such as Japan and South Korea have agreed to reduce tariffs and subsidies for domestic producers. The Trade Research Center is sponsoring research to analyze the impact of changes on U.S. beef prices due to GATT and NAFTA. Upcoming publications will discuss that issue. Under NAFTA, trade in sugar and sugar-containing products is subject to extensive provisions. Gradually, over the transition period 1994-2009, Mexico's access to the U.S. market will be expanded to a quota of 250,000 metric tons, if Mexico becomes a net surplus producer. These trade policy adjustments are likely to have minimal effects on the U.S. sugar industry over the first six years of the fifteen-year transition period, but their long-run effects are likely to be much more substantial. The GATT agreement contained only small changes for U.S. sugar policy and is not expected to have much impact on the U.S. sugar market. This special report contains a detailed description of the agricultural provisions of GATT and NAFTA that are of particular interest to producers in the Northern Plains and Rockies. The Center is sponsoring research projects to analyze the economic impacts of these trade agreements on the economy of the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, Vincent H., 1997. "Nafta, Gatt, And Agriculture In The Northern Rockies And Great Plains," Special Reports 29175, Montana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Trade Research Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:motcsr:29175
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.29175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/29175/files/sr01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.29175?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. Premakumar, V. & Oerter, K. & Smith, D. & Meyers, William H., 1994. "Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture: Summary of Commitments from Selected Country Schedules," Staff General Research Papers Archive 822, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Jeffrey J. Schott, 1994. "Uruguay Round: An Assessment," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 64, January.
    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. Colyer, Dale, 2001. "Impacts Of Nafta On U.S.-Mexico Agricultural Trade," Conference Papers 19105, West Virginia University, Department of Agricultural Resource Economics.

    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. J. Mutti & R. Sampson & B. Yeung, 2000. "The effects of the Uruguay round: empirical evidence from U.S. industry," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 59-69, January.
    2. Aradhna Aggarwal, 2003. "Patterns and determinants of anti-dumping: A worldwide perspective," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 113, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    3. Paqué, Karl-Heinz & Stehn, Jürgen & Horn, Ernst-Jürgen & Scharrer, Hans-Eckart & Koopmann, Georg, 1996. "National technology policies and international friction: Theory, evidence, and policy options," Kiel Discussion Papers 279, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Siegfried Bender & Kui-Wai Li, 2002. "The Changing Trade and Revealed Comparative Advantages of Asian and Latin American Manufacture Exports," Working Papers 843, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    5. Michael D. Bordo & Barry Eichengreen & Douglas A. Irwin, 1999. "Is Globalization Today Really Different than Globalization a Hunderd Years Ago?," NBER Working Papers 7195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Peter G. WARR, 1997. "The Uruguay Round And The Developing Countries: Thailand And The Philippines," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 35(2), pages 142-165, June.
    7. Kala Krishna & Marie Thursby, 1997. "Whither Flat Panel Displays?," NBER Chapters, in: The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 247-271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. J. David Richardson, 2000. "The WTO and market-supportive regulation: a way forward on new competition, technological and labor issues," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 82(Jul), pages 115-130.
    9. Vanzetti, David, 1996. "The next round: Game theory and public choice perspectives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4-5), pages 461-477.
    10. William R. Cline, 1995. "Evaluating the Uruguay Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 1-23, January.
    11. Ian Wooton & Maurizio Zanardi, 2002. "Trade and Competition Policy: Anti-Dumping versus Anti-trust," Working Papers 2002_6, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Oct 2002.
    12. Kei-Mu Yi, 2003. "Can Vertical Specialization Explain the Growth of World Trade?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(1), pages 52-102, February.
    13. Jones, James R., 1995. "Maritime Shipping Issues And Us Agricultural Exports," A.E. Research Series 305142, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    14. Meilke, Karl D. & Sarker, Rakhal, 1997. "Four case studies of agri-food CVDs and a proposal for reforming national administered protection agencies," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 17(2-3), pages 147-164, December.
    15. Lovely, Mary E., 1997. "Playing by the new subsidy rules: capital subsidies as substitutes for sectoral subsidies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3-4), pages 463-482, November.
    16. Peter G. Warr & Helal Ahammad, 1997. "Food aid, food policy and the Uruguay round: implications for Bangladesh," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(3), pages 169-185, January.
    17. Carsten Kowalczyk & Donald R. Davis, 1998. "Tariff Phase-Outs: Theory and Evidence from GATT and NAFTA," NBER Chapters, in: The Regionalization of the World Economy, pages 227-258, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Guash, J. Luis & Rajapatirana, Sarath, 1998. "Total strangers or soul mates? - antidumping and competition policies in Latin America and the Caribbean," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1958, The World Bank.
    19. Devadoss, Stephen & Kropf, Jurgen, 1995. "Impacts Of Trade Liberalizations Under The Uruguay Round On The World Sugar Market," A.E. Research Series 305134, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    20. Marcelo de Paiva Abreu, 1998. "Brazil, the GATT, and the WTO: history and prospects," Textos para discussão 392, Department of Economics PUC-Rio (Brazil).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    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:motcsr:29175. 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/damtsus.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.