IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Tarımsal Korumacılık, Korumacılığın Ölçümü ve Türkiye
[Agricultural Protectionism, Its Measurement and Turkey]

  • Demirdöğen, Alper

This study reviews conceptual framework of agricultural protectionism, relevant measurement issues, and changes in agricultural protectionism with time in selected countries based on the composition of supports. When measuring the levels of agricultural protection, OECD method, the most widespread one, was employed, and related criticisms were discussed. In order to determine levels of protection, 11 countries, which are thought to have a significant role in the world agricultural markets and/or in terms of protectionism, were selected. These countries were grouped as low, medium and high protection countries, based on their Nominal Assistance Coefficients. Further, differing applications and specific conditions of those countries were discussed. Producer Support Estimate Percentages, Nominal Assistance Coefficient and Nominal Protection Coefficient were used to analyze changes in the protection level of the countries. Nominal Assistance Coefficients are found to be as follows: 1,04-1,11 in low protection countries (Australia, Brazil, China), 1,16-1,43 in medium protection countries (United States of America, European Union, Canada, Russia, Turkey) and 2,12-2,76 in high protection countries (South Korea, Switzerland, Japan). Although share of decoupled payments in support compositions increases, share of market price supports causing price distortions is still high. Furthermore, it was also observed that importance of environmental issues is increasing in almost all countries. Based on nominal protection coefficient, it can be said that countries are protecting staple crops more. In this case, concerns of the countries on being self sufficient at least for these crops and decreasing their dependency on world markets are affecting the decisions of those countries. Hence, it can be concluded that agriculture will remain as the most controversial issue in free trade negotiations.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 35083.

in new window

Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:35083
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Anderson, Kym & Lloyd, Peter & MacLaren, Donald, 2008. "Distortions to agricultural incentives in Australia since world war II," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4471, The World Bank.
  2. Anderson, Kym & Kurzweil, Marianne & Martin, Will & Sandri, Damiano & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2008. "Measuring Distortions to Agricultural Incentives, Revisited," CEPR Discussion Papers 6924, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. Anderson, Kym & Valdes, Alberto, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Latin America," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper 48558, World Bank.
  4. Guo, Xiang-Yu & Yu, Zhi-Gang & Schmit, Todd M. & Henehan, Brian M. & Li, Dan, 2009. "An Empirical Evaluation of New Socialist Countryside Development in China," Working Papers 49002, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
  5. R. Lopez & I. Hathie, 2000. "The Structure of Government Intervention in African Agriculture," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 57-72.
  6. Mario Jales & Marcos Sawaya Jank & Shunli Yao & Colin Carter, 2006. "Agriculture in Brazil and China : challenges and opportunities," INTAL Working Papers 1296, Inter-American Development Bank, INTAL.
  7. Swinnen, Johan F.M. & Banerjee, Anurag N. & Gorter, Harry de, 2001. "Economic development, institutional change, and the political economy of agricultural protection An econometric study of Belgium since the 19th century," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 26(1), October.
  8. Liefert, William M. & Liefert, Olga, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Russia," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper 48386, World Bank.
  9. Jikun Huang & Xiaobing Wang & Huayong Zhi & Zhurong Huang & Scott Rozelle, 2011. "Subsidies and distortions in China’s agriculture: evidence from producer‐level data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(1), pages 53-71, 01.
  10. Cheng, Fuzhi & Orden, David, 2005. "Exchange Rate Misalignment and Its Effects on Agricultural Producer Support Estimates: Empirical Evidence from India and China," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19121, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  11. De Gorter, Harry & Swinnen, Johan, 2002. "Political economy of agricultural policy," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 36, pages 1893-1943 Elsevier.
  12. Anderson, Kym & Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Europe’s Transition Economies," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper 48556, World Bank.
  13. Kym Anderson, 2009. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives : A Global Perspective, 1955-2007," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 9436, March.
  14. Beghin, John C & Kherallah, Mylene, 1994. "Political Institutions and International Patterns of Agricultural Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(3), pages 482-89, August.
  15. Barber, William J., 1967. "A History of Economic Thought," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number barber1967.
  16. Alessandro Olper, 2001. "Determinants of Agricultural Protection: The Role of Democracy and Institutional Setting Alessandro Olper," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 75-92.
  17. Spoerer, Mark, 2010. ""Fortress Europe" in long-term perspective: agricultural protection in the European Community, 1957-2003," MPRA Paper 24120, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  18. Diao, Xinshen & Dyck, John H. & Skully, David W. & Somwaru, Agapi & Lee, Chinkook, 2002. "Structural Change and Agricultural Protection: Costs of Korean Agricultural Policy, 1975 and 1990," Agricultural Economics Reports 33921, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  19. Kym Anderson, 2010. "Global Distortions to Agricultural Markets: New Indicators of Trade and Welfare Impacts, 1960 to 2007," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2010-03, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
  20. Dimitri, Carolyn & Effland, Anne & Conklin, Neilson C., 2005. "The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy," Economic Information Bulletin 59390, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  21. Olper, Alessandro, 2007. "Land inequality, government ideology and agricultural protection," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 67-83, February.
  22. Corden, W. M., 1971. "The substitution problem in the theory of effective protection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 37-57, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:35083. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.