IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/fpaper/04-bp43.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization

Author

Abstract

This paper focuses on the third pillar of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the discipline of agricultural domestic support. The paper examines the current definition of agricultural domestic support used by the WTO, focusing on the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) and other forms of support that are less to least distorting (Blue and Green Box payments). The analysis looks at the recent experience of four member states (the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Brazil). The structure of recent support varies considerably by country. Some countries, notably the United States, have strategically used the de minimis exemption to deflate their support figures substantially in order to remain within AMS limits, even though total support has exceeded these limits. The paper investigates the possible effects of changing the definition of the AMS so that it better reflects current support conditioned by market forces. If market prices (world and/or domestic) were to be used to compute current market support, a greater variability of the AMS would result, and violations of AMS limits would be more likely given the anticyclical nature of policies included in the AMS, especially for the United States and European Union. We also identify possible changes that would lead to more substantial trade reforms. In particular, we argue for phasing out the de minimis exemption and Blue Box support, adding a generous Green Box definition, which would allow countries to move quickly away from trade-distorting policies (Amber Box and the most trade-distorting Blue Box policies), followed by a phase-down of Green Box payments over time. The recent reforms of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) exemplify the spirit of the first part of the recommendation, while resistance to phase-down of Green Box payments may be overcome by a "reasonable" reduction schedule.

Suggested Citation

  • Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications 04-bp43, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:fpaper:04-bp43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/04bp43.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=557
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Wacziarg, Romain & Wallack, Jessica Seddon, 2004. "Trade liberalization and intersectoral labor movements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 411-439, December.
    3. W. Jill Harrison & J. Mark Horridge & K.R. Pearson, 2000. "Decomposing Simulation Results with Respect to Exogenous Shocks," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 15(3), pages 227-249, June.
    4. L. ALAN WINTERS & NEIL McCULLOCH & ANDREW McKAY, 2015. "Trade Liberalization and Poverty: The Evidence So Far," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Non-Tariff Barriers, Regionalism and Poverty Essays in Applied International Trade Analysis, chapter 14, pages 271-314 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2005. "Consequences of Alternative Formulas for Agricultural Tariff Cuts," Working Papers 2005-15, CEPII research center.
    6. Hoekman. Bernard & Prowse, Susan, 2005. "Economic policy responses to preference erosion : from trade as aid toaid for trade," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3721, The World Bank.
    7. Keeney, Roman & Thomas Hertel, 2005. "GTAP-AGR : A Framework for Assessing the Implications of Multilateral Changes in Agricultural Policies," GTAP Technical Papers 1869, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    8. Marcelo Olarreaga & Çaglar Özden, 2005. "AGOA and Apparel: Who Captures the Tariff Rent in the Presence of Preferential Market Access?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 63-77, January.
    9. L. Alan Winters & Terrie L. Walmsley & Zhen Kun Wang & Roman Grynberg, 2003. "Liberalising Temporary Movement of Natural Persons: An Agenda for the Development Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 1137-1161, August.
    10. John Baffes, 2005. "The "Cotton Problem"," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 20(1), pages 109-144.
    11. Messerlin, Patrick, 2003. "Agriculture in the Doha Agenda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3009, The World Bank.
    12. Bernard Hoekman & Francis Ng & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2004. "Agricultural Tariffs or Subsidies: Which Are More Important for Developing Economies?," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 18(2), pages 175-204.
    13. Antoine Bouët & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "Is Erosion of Tariff Preferences a Serious Concern?," Working Papers 2005-14, CEPII research center.
    14. Finger, J M, 1974. "GATT Tariff Concessions and the Exports of Developing Countries-United States Concessions at the Dillon Round," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(335), pages 566-575, September.
    15. repec:oup:revage:v:28:y:2006:i:2:p:168-194. is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Finger, J. Michael & Schuknecht, Ludger, 1999. "Market access advances and retreats : the Uruguay Round and beyond," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2232, The World Bank.
    17. Thomas W. Hertel & L. Alan Winters, 2006. "Poverty and the WTO : Impacts of the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 7411.
    18. Antoine Bouët & Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2004. "A Consistent, Ad-Valorem Equivalent Measure of Applied Protection Across the World: The MAcMap-HS6 Database," Working Papers 2004-22, CEPII research center.
    19. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Distortions to World Trade: Impacts on Agricultural Markets and Farm Incomes," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 168-194.
    20. Martin, Will & Warr, Peter G, 1993. "Explaining the Relative Decline of Agriculture: A Supply-Side Analysis for Indonesia," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 7(3), pages 381-401, September.
    21. Hoekman, Bernard & Ozden, Caglar, 2005. "Trade preferences and differential treatment of developing countries : a selective survey," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3566, The World Bank.
    22. L. Alan Winters, 2002. "Trade Liberalisation and Poverty: What are the Links?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(9), pages 1339-1367, September.
    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. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 6889.
    2. Butault, Jean-Pierre & Bureau, Jean-Christophe, 2006. "WTO Constraints and the CAP: Domestic Support in EU-25 Agriculture," Working Papers 18879, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    3. Takahashi, Daisuke & Honma, Masayoshi, 2009. "Evaluation of the Japanese Rice Policy Reforms under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51421, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Dobson, William D., 2005. "Free Trade Agreements and The Doha Round of WTO Negotiations -- Implications for the U.S. Dairy Industry," Discussion Papers 37464, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and Development.
    5. 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.
    6. Philippidis, George & Hubbard, Lionel J. & Renwick, Alan W., 2006. "A CGE Analysis of the Harbinson Proposal: Outcomes for the EU25," Working Papers 45992, Scottish Agricultural College, Land Economy Research Group.
    7. Takahashi, Daisuke, 2012. "The distributional effect of the rice policy in Japan, 1986–2010," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 679-689.
    8. Godo, Yoshihisa, 2012. "Evaluation of Japanese Agricultural Policy Reforms Under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 125102, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Acmoody, Jacob & Balagtas, Joseph Valdes & Gray, Allan W., 2006. "Farm Level Incidence of the U.S. Farm Policy Proposal to the WTO," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21260, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Godo, Yoshihisa & Takahashi, Daisuke, 2008. "Japan: Shadow WTO Agricultural Domestic Support Notifications," IFPRI discussion papers 822, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Godo, Yoshihisa, 2012. "Evaluation of Japanese Agricultural Policy Reforms Under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 125101, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Daisuke Takahashi, 2009. "Quantitative evaluation of the Japanese rice policy reforms under the WTO agreement on agriculture," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 712-725.

    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:ias:fpaper:04-bp43. 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: http://edirc.repec.org/data/faiasus.html .

    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 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.

    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.