IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/1500.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agricultural trade liberalization in the Uruguay Round : one step forward, one step back?

Author

Listed:
  • Ingco, Merlinda D.

Abstract

After evaluating the Uruguay Round's impact on agriculture and border protection in the next decade, the author concludes that while there was significant reform of the rules - particularly the conversion of nontariff barriers into tariffs and the reduction and binding of all tariffs - in practice, trade will probably be liberalized less than expected. The objective of the Round was to reverse protectionism and remove trade distortions. This may not be achieved in practice, at least not until further reductions are carried out in future rounds of negotiations. The major exception to this conclusion is in high-income Asian countries, where protection for major commodities will be significantly reduced. The tariffication and binding of all tariffs on agricultural products represents a significant step forward. Liberalization is implicit because countries are prohhibited from arbitrarily raising tariffs to new higher levels. But many of the newly established tariffs are so high in many countries as to effectively prohibit trade. Patterns of liberalization vary considerably by commodity and by country. Generally, the extent of liberalization was diminished by binding tariffs to the base period of 1986-88, when border protection was at a high point. In most OECD countries, this was worsened by"dirty tariffication:"the new base tariffs offered even greater protection than the nontariff barriers they replaced. Even after the commitments to tariff reductions in the Round, the ad valorem measure of the final binding tariffs will remain higher than the average rate of protection in 1982-93. A number of developing countries in East Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East chose to lock in prior liberalization efforts on some products. But for most commodities, there will be little actual liberalization, since most developing countries chose to bind their tariffs at a maximum level. Even when countries reduced already-bound rates, bound tariffs remained significantly higher than current applied rates, giving countries the flexibility to raise tariffs later. The high level of bound tariffs may allow countries to apply variable tariffs below the bound level, thus failing to stabilize tariffs and improve market access. Moreover, the Round did not touch many of the worst distortions in developing countries, such as import subsidies, export taxes, state-trading monopolies, and domestic policies that implicitly tax agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingco, Merlinda D., 1995. "Agricultural trade liberalization in the Uruguay Round : one step forward, one step back?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1500, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1995/08/01/000009265_3961019135742/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krueger, Anne O & Schiff, Maurice & Valdes, Alberto, 1988. "Agricultural Incentives in Developing Countries: Measuring the Effect of Sectoral and Economywide Policies," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 2(3), pages 255-271, September.
    2. Josling, Timothy E. & Honma, Masayoshi & Lee, Jaeok & MacLaren, Donald & Miner, William M. & Sumner, Daniel A. & Tangermann, Stefan & Valdes, Alberto, 1994. "The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture: An Evaluation," Commissioned Papers 14621, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Robert E. Baldwin, 1989. "Measuring Nontariff Trade Policies," NBER Working Papers 2978, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 1997. "Measurement of Non-Tariff Barriers," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 179, OECD Publishing.
    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. Olivier Cadot & Julien Gourdon, 2016. "Non-tariff measures, preferential trade agreements, and prices: new evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 152(2), pages 227-249, May.
    2. Zhao, Jing & Miller, J. Isaac & Binfield, Julian & Thompson, Wyatt, 2022. "Modeling and Forecasting Agricultural Commodity Support in the Developing Countries," Commissioned Papers 321785, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    4. Scott Bradford, 2000. "Rents, Votes, and Protection: Explaining the Structure of Trade Barriers Across Industries," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1717, Econometric Society.
    5. Olivier Cadot & Julien Gourdon, 2016. "Non-tariff measures, preferential trade agreements, and prices: new evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 152(2), pages 227-249, May.
    6. Merlinda D. Ingco, 1996. "Tariffication in the Uruguay Round: How Much Liberalisation?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 425-446, July.
    7. Uttam Kumar Deb, 2006. "Rules of Origin and Non-Tariff Barriers in Agricultural Trade: Perspectives from Bangladesh and Cambodia," Working Papers 1206, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT), an initiative of UNESCAP and IDRC, Canada..
    8. Schiff, Maurice*Valdes, Alberto, 1998. "Agriculture and the macroeconomy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1967, The World Bank.
    9. Catherine Araujo-Bonjean & Gérard Chambas, 2001. "Le paradoxe de la fiscalité agricole en Afrique subsaharienne," Revue Tiers Monde, Programme National Persée, vol. 42(168), pages 773-788.
    10. Barrett, Christopher B., 1999. "The effects of real exchange rate depreciation on stochastic producer prices in low-income agriculture," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 215-230, May.
    11. Coxhead, Ian A. & Jayasuriya, Sisira, 2003. "Trade, Liberalization, Resource Degradation and Industrial Pollution in Developing Countries: An Integrated Analysis," Staff Papers 12691, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    12. Delpeuch, Claire & Leblois, Antoine, 2014. "The Elusive Quest for Supply Response to Cash-Crop Market Reforms in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Cotton," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 521-537.
    13. Romeo M. Bautista & Sherman Robinson & Finn Tarp & Peter Wobst, 2001. "Policy Bias and Agriculture: Partial and General Equilibrium Measures," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 89-104, February.
    14. Kym Anderson, 2006. "Reducing Distortions to Agricultural Incentives: Progress, Pitfalls, and Prospects," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1135-1146.
    15. Barrett, Christopher B., 1998. "Immiserized growth in liberalized agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 743-753, May.
    16. Henning Tarp Jensen & Sherman Robinson & Finn Tarp, 2010. "Measuring Agricultural Policy Bias: General Equilibrium Analysis of Fifteen Developing Countries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1136-1148.
    17. Kym Anderson & Johan Swinnen, 2008. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Europe's Transition Economies," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6502, December.
    18. Arribas, Iván & Bensassi, Sami & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2020. "Trade integration in the European Union: Openness, interconnectedness, and distance," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Balie, Jean & Strutt, Anna & Nelgen, Signe & Narayanan, 2018. "Infrastructure investments for improved market access in subSaharan Africa: A CGE analysis," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(2), June.

    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:wbk:wbrwps:1500. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    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.