IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/3576.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reducing Agriculture Tariffs Versus Domestic Support: What's More Important for Developing Countries?

Author

Listed:
  • Hoekman, Bernard
  • Ng, Francis
  • Olarreaga, Marcelo

Abstract

High levels of protection and domestic support for farmers in developed countries significantly affect many least developed countries (LDCs), both directly and through the price-depressing effect of agricultural support policies. High tariffs and domestic support may also lower the world price of agricultural products, benefiting net importers. This Paper assesses the impact of reducing these distortionary policies for a sample of 119 countries. We find significant differences in the impact of a 50 percent cut in tariffs and a 50 cut in domestic support for LDCs as compared to non-LDC developing countries. However, for both groups of countries tariff reductions have a much greater positive effect on exports and welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoekman, Bernard & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2002. "Reducing Agriculture Tariffs Versus Domestic Support: What's More Important for Developing Countries?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3576, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:3576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=3576
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Brenton & Miriam Manchin, 2014. "Making EU Trade Agreements Work: The Role of Rules of Origin," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: INTERNATIONAL TRADE, DISTRIBUTION AND DEVELOPMENT Empirical Studies of Trade Policies, chapter 14, pages 299-313, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Hoekman, Bernard, 2002. "Strengthening the global trade architecture for development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2757, The World Bank.
    3. Hoekman, Bernard, 2002. "Strengthening the global trade architecture for development: the post Doha agenda," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 23-45, March.
    4. Aaditya Mattoo & Devesh Roy & Arvind Subramanian, 2003. "The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and its Rules of Origin: Generosity Undermined?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 829-851, June.
    5. Hoekman, Bernard & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Tariff Peaks in the Quad and Least Developed Country Exports," CEPR Discussion Papers 2747, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Joachim Zietz, 1986. "The potential benefits to LDCs of trade liberalization in beef and sugar by industrialized countries," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 122(1), pages 93-112, March.
    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. Porto, Guido G., 2003. "Trade reforms, market access, and poverty in Argentina," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3135, The World Bank.
    2. Dimaranan, Betina V. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Keeney, Roman, 2003. "OECD Domestic Support and the Developing Countries," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22000, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Jales, Mário, 2010. "How Would A Trade Deal On Cotton Affect Exporting And Importing Countries?," WTO Doha Round 320115, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
    4. Mr. Stephen Tokarick, 2003. "Measuring the Impact of Distortions in Agricultural Trade in Partial and General Equilibrium," IMF Working Papers 2003/110, International Monetary Fund.
    5. Bernard Hoekman & David Vines, 2007. "Multilateral trade cooperation: what next?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 311-334, Autumn.
    6. Margaret S. McMillan & Alix Peterson Zwane & Nava Ashraf, 2007. "My Policies or Yours: Does OECD Support for Agriculture Increase Poverty in Developing Countries?," NBER Chapters, in: Globalization and Poverty, pages 183-240, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Ruben N. Lubowski & Andrew J. Plantinga & Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 529-550.
    8. James Scott & Rorden Wilkinson, 2012. "Changing of the guard: expert knowledge and ‘common sense’ in the Doha Development Agenda," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 16612, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    9. Lionel Fontagné, 2003. "Market Access and Domestic Support Measures," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 4(3), pages 3-10, October.
    10. Andrew H. Charlton & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2005. "A Development‐friendly Prioritisation of Doha Round Proposals," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 293-312, March.
    11. Stephen Tokarick, 2005. "Who Bears the Cost of Agricultural Support in OECD Countries?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 573-593, April.
    12. Lionel Fontagné, 2003. "Market Access and Domestic Support Measures," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 4(03), pages 3-10, October.
    13. Perry, Santiago, 2008. "Tropical and Diversification Products: Strategic Options for Developing Countries," WTO Doha Round 320144, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
    14. BOUËT Antoine & FONTAGNE Lionel & MIMOUNI Mondher, 2010. "Direct Measure of Protection: a Rehabilitation," EcoMod2003 330700023, EcoMod.
    15. Samiul Haque & Kenneth A. Foster & Roman Keeney & Kathryn A. Boys & Badri G. Narayanan, 2019. "Output and input bias effects of U.S. direct payments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 229-236, March.
    16. Acharya, Rohini & Daly, Michael, 2004. "Selected issues concerning the multilateral trading system," WTO Discussion Papers 7, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    17. Valdes, Alberto & Foster, William E., 2006. "Latin America's "New Open Regionalism" and WTO Negotiations: the case of agriculture," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 6(12), pages 1-32.
    18. BOUËT Antoine & BUREAU Jean-Christophe & DECREUX Yvan & JEAN Sébastien, 2010. "Is Northern Agricultural Liberalization Beneficial to Developing Countries?," EcoMod2003 330700021, EcoMod.
    19. Aaditya Mattoo & Mr. Arvind Subramanian, 2003. "What Would a Development-Friendly WTO Architecture Really Look Like?," IMF Working Papers 2003/153, International Monetary Fund.
    20. Shakur, Shamim & Rae, Allan N. & Chatterjee, Srikanta, 2004. "A Road Ahead From Cancun? Weighing Up Some Give-And-Take Scenarios In A Dda Spirit," Discussion Papers 23709, Massey University, Department of Applied and International Economics.
    21. repec:unt:escsti:sti84 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. Hoekman, Bernanrd & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2003. "Reducing agrcultural tariffs versus domestic support : what's more important for developing countries?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2918, The World Bank.
    2. Bernard Hoekman & Constantine Michalopoulos & L. Alan Winter, 2004. "Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the WTO: Moving Forward After Cancún," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 481-506, April.
    3. Hoekman, Bernard & Michalopoulos, Constantine & Winters, L. alan, 2003. "More favorable and differential treatment of developing countries : toward a new approach in the World Trade Organization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3107, The World Bank.
    4. World Bank, 2003. "Global Economic Prospects 2004 : Realizing the Development Promise of the Doha Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 14782.
    5. Bernard Hoekman, 2002. "Developing Countries and the Political Economy of the Trading System," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2002-126, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Olivier Cadot & Lili Yan Ing, 2016. "How Restrictive Are ASEAN's Rules of Origin?," Asian Economic Papers, MIT Press, vol. 15(3), pages 115-134, Fall.
    7. Aaditya Mattoo & Devesh Roy & Arvind Subramanian, 2003. "The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and its Rules of Origin: Generosity Undermined?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 829-851, June.
    8. José Anson & Olivier Cadot & Antoni Estevadeordal & Jaime de Melo & Akiko Suwa‐Eisenmann & Bolormaa Tumurchudur, 2005. "Rules of Origin in North–South Preferential Trading Arrangements with an Application to NAFTA," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 501-517, August.
    9. Fabien Candau & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "What Are EU Trade Preferences Worth for Sub-Saharan Africa and Other Developing Countries?," Working Papers 2005-19, CEPII research center.
    10. Zilberman, David & Hochman, Gal & Sexton, Steven E., 2008. "Food Safety, the Environment, and Trade," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48637, World Bank.
    11. Hefeker, Carsten, 2003. "Handels- und Finanzarchitektur im Umbruch: Globale Integration und die institutionelle Arbeitsteilung von IWF, Weltbank und WTO," HWWA Discussion Papers 225, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
    12. Kala Krishna, 2005. "Understanding Rules of Origin," NBER Working Papers 11150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Patricia Augier & Michael Gasiorek & Charles Lai Tong, 2005. "The impact of rules of origin on trade flows [‘Rules of origin and the EU-Med partnership: the case of textiles’]," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 20(43), pages 568-624.
    14. Prema-Chandra Athukorala, 2005. "Agricultural Trade Policy Reforms in India," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 6(1), pages 23-36, March.
    15. Alessandro Nicita & Marina Murina, 2014. "Trading With Conditions: The Effect Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures On Lower Income Countries’ Agricultural Exports," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 68, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    16. Céline Carrère & Jaime de Melo, 2015. "Are Different Rules of Origin Equally Costly? Estimates from NAFTA," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Developing Countries in the World Economy, chapter 12, pages 277-298, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, 2006. "Reciprocity and the hidden constitution of world trade," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 133-163, September.
    18. Cooke, Edgar F. A., 2012. "Is the impact of AGOA heterogeneous?," MPRA Paper 43277, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Olivier CADOT & Lili Yan ING, 2014. "How Restrictive Are ASEAN's RoO?," Working Papers DP-2014-18, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    20. Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Emilia Lamonaca, 2022. "Standards and regulatory cooperation in regional trade agreements: What the effects on trade?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1682-1701, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agriculture trade; developing countries; subsidies; tariffs; trade negotiations; WTO;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D58 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:3576. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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: (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.