IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/5569.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Relative Importance of Global Agricultural Subsidies and Market Access

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, Kym
  • Martin, Will
  • Valenzuela, Ernesto

Abstract

The claim by global trade modelers that the potential contribution to global economic welfare of removing agricultural subsidies is less than one-tenth of that from removing agricultural tariffs puzzles many observers. To help explain that result, this paper first compares the OECD and model-based estimates of the extent of the producer distortions (leaving aside consumer distortions), and shows that 75 percent of total support is provided by market access barriers when account is taken of all forms of support to farmers and to agricultural processors globally, and only 19 percent to domestic farm subsidies. We then provide a back-of-the-envelope (BOTE) calculation of the welfare cost of those distortions. Assuming unitary supply and demand elasticities, that BOTE analysis suggests 86 percent of the welfare cost is due to tariffs and only 6 percent to domestic farm subsidies. When the higher costs associated with the greater variability of trade measures relative to domestic support are accounted for, the BOTE estimate of the latter?s share falls to 4 percent. This is close to the 5 percent generated by the most commonly used global model (GTAP) and reported in the paper?s final section.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, Kym & Martin, Will & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2006. "The Relative Importance of Global Agricultural Subsidies and Market Access," CEPR Discussion Papers 5569, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:5569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP5569
    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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    2. Keeny, Roman & Hertel, Thomas, 2005. "GTAP-AGR: A Framework for Assessing the Implications of Multilateral Changes in Agricultural Policies," Technical Papers 283422, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    4. Kym Anderson & Ernesto Valenzuela, 2007. "Do Global Trade Distortions Still Harm Developing Country Farmers?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 143(1), pages 108-139, April.
    5. Diao, Xinshen & Somwaru, Agapi & Roe, Terry L., 2001. "A Global Analysis Of Agricultural Trade Reform In Wto Member Countries," Bulletins 12984, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    6. Huff, Karen & Thomas W. Hertel, 2001. "Decomposing Welfare Changes in GTAP," GTAP Technical Papers 308, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    7. Richard H. Snape, 1991. "International Regulation of Subsidies," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 139-164, June.
    8. Bernard Hoekman & Francis Ng & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2004. "Agricultural Tariffs or Subsidies: Which Are More Important for Developing Economies?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 18(2), pages 175-204.
    9. World Bank & International Monetary Fund, 2005. "Global Monitoring Report 2005 : Millennium Development Goals— From Consensus to Momentum," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7325, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Doha Merchandise Trade Reform: What Is at Stake for Developing Countries?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 169-195.
    2. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    3. Leudjou, Roland R., 2012. "The Doha Round and Food Security in the Dairy Sector in Cameroon: A Global Simulation Model (GSIM) Approach," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Thomas W. Hertel & Roman Keeney & Maros Ivanic & L. Alan Winters, 2015. "Why Isn't the Doha Development Agenda more Poverty Friendly?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Non-Tariff Barriers, Regionalism and Poverty Essays in Applied International Trade Analysis, chapter 18, pages 375-391, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Urban, Kirsten & Jensen, Hans G. & Brockmeier, Martina, 2016. "How decoupled is the Single Farm Payment and does it matter for international trade?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 126-138.
    6. 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.
    7. Kym Anderson & Ernesto Valenzuela, 2007. "Do Global Trade Distortions Still Harm Developing Country Farmers?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 143(1), pages 108-139, April.
    8. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    9. Anderson, Kym & Martin, Will & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2013. "Estimating Effects of Price-Distorting Policies Using Alternative Distortions Databases," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 877-931, Elsevier.
    10. Kym Anderson, 2016. "Agricultural Trade, Policy Reforms, and Global Food Security," Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-46925-0.
    11. 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.
    12. Elisa, Dienesch & Sadibou, Fall Cheickh Sadibou & Laetitia, Leroy, 2011. "The Impact of domestic remittances on Households' Income Distribution in a context of Global Food Crisis," Conference papers 332044, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    13. Fugazza, Marco & Maur, Jean-Christophe, 2008. "Non-tariff barriers in CGE models: How useful for policy?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 475-490.
    14. Guido Porto, 2010. "International Market Access and Poverty in Argentina," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 396-407, May.
    15. Erwin Corong & Thomas Hertel & Robert McDougall & Marinos Tsigas & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2017. "The Standard GTAP Model, version 7," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 2(1), pages 1-119, June.
    16. Lofgren, Hans & Diaz-Bonilla, Carolina, 2006. "Economywide Simulations of Ethiopian MDG Strategies," Conference papers 331488, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    17. Ernesto Valenzuela & Kym Anderson & Thomas Hertel, 2008. "Impacts of trade reform: sensitivity of model results to key assumptions," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 395-420, February.
    18. Anderson, Kym & Valenzuela, Ernesto & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2009. "Welfare and Poverty Effects of Global Agricultural and Trade Policies Using the Linkage Model," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 52785, World Bank.
    19. John C. Beghin & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen, 2017. "Nontariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 2, pages 13-38, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2007. "The Doha agenda and agricultural trade reform: the role of economic analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 77-87, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trade policy reform; Computable general equilibrium modeling; Agricultural protection; Economic welfare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • D58 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:5569. 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: the person in charge (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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.