IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iis/dispap/iiisdp061.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agricultural Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Alan Matthews

Abstract

This paper examines the case for special and differential (S&D) treatment for developing countries within the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the particular instruments or exemptions it should contain. The S&D treatment currently allowed to developing countries in the Agreement and the use they have made of it is first described. The range of proposals put forward by developing countries (and by development NGOs in developed countries) is summarised, and the S&D provisions in the August 2004 Framework Agreement for Establishing Modalities in Agriculture are outlined. The reasons why developing countries want special and differential treatment under the AoA are discussed. Some of the main proposals in the Development Box are then reviewed in the light of the justifications presented by its proponents. The paper concludes that the potential exists in the Framework Agreement to take a significant step towards “operationally effective and meaningful provisions” for S&D treatment. While noting this positive outcome, the important objective for developing countries of gaining a reduction in the trade-distorting support and protection by developed countries should not be forgotten. Classification-

Suggested Citation

  • Alan Matthews, 2005. "Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agricultural Negotiations," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp061, IIIS.
  • Handle: RePEc:iis:dispap:iiisdp061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/documents/discussion/pdfs/iiisdp61.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lionel Fontagné & Thierry Mayer & Soledad Zignago, 2005. "Trade in the Triad: how easy is the access to large markets?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 1401-1430, November.
    2. Lionel Fontagné & Jean-Louis Guérin & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "Market Access Liberalisation in the Doha Round: Scenarios and Assessment," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(8), pages 1073-1094, August.
    3. Hervé Boulhol, 2004. "Technology Differences, Institutions and Economic Growth: a Conditional Conditional Convergence," Working Papers 2004-02, CEPII research center.
    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. Mustafizur Rahman & Kazi Mahmudur Rahman, 2006. "Proposed Changed to WTO Special and Differential Treatment Provisions: An Analysis from the Perspective of Asian LDCs," Working Papers 1306, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT), an initiative of UNESCAP and IDRC, Canada..
    2. Alan Matthews, 2006. "More Differentiated Special Treatment in the Agriculture Agreement: beyond concept to practice," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp108, IIIS.
    3. Alan Matthews & Hannah Chaplin & Thomas Giblin & Marian Mraz, 2007. "Strengthening Policy Coherence for Development in Agricultural Policy: Policy Recommendations to Irish Aid," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp188, IIIS.
    4. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Jean, Sebastien & Matthews, Alan, 2005. "Concessions and Exemptions for Developing Countries in the Agricultural Negotiations: The Role of the Special and Differential Treatment," Working Papers 18858, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    5. Filippo Arfini & Fabio Landini, 2009. "Multifunctionality and Rural Development in Africa: An Evaluation at the Household Level," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 2, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    CGE model; Doha Round; agriculture; tariff preferences; domestic support.;

    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:iis:dispap:iiisdp061. 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: (Colette Keleher). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cetcdie.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.

    We have no 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.

    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.