IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpit/0502006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Issues on Agricultural Negotiations in the FTAA and Linkages With the Doha Round

Author

Listed:
  • Julio J. Nogues

    (Universidad Di Tella)

Abstract

An FTAA that provides gains to all participants remains a major challenge for LA. Given the demanding pre-conditions required in these and other negotiations with industrial countries, I am unsure whether all LA countries will be able to confront this challenge successfully. It is of paramount importance that Governments can document clear net gains to their societies, because otherwise a few years down the road, regional relations may become soured by an under-performing FTAA.

Suggested Citation

  • Julio J. Nogues, 2005. "Issues on Agricultural Negotiations in the FTAA and Linkages With the Doha Round," International Trade 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpit:0502006
    Note: Type of Document - doc; pages: 35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/it/papers/0502/0502006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/it/papers/0502/0502006.ps.gz
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/it/papers/0502/0502006.doc.gz
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Michael Finger & Julio J. Nogués, 2002. "The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 321-340, March.
    2. J.M. Finger & Philip Schuler, 2002. "Implementation of Uruguay Round Commitments: The Development Challenge," Chapters, in: Institutions and Trade Policy, chapter 17, pages 258-272, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Gardner, Bruce L., 2002. "North American Agricultural Policies And Effects On Western Hemisphere Markets Since 1995, With A Focus On Grains And Oilseeds," Working Papers 28602, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    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. Nogues, Julio, 2004. "Unequal exchange: developing countries in the international trade negotiations," MPRA Paper 86172, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "Developing Countries at Doha: A Political Economy Analysis," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(9), pages 1205-1233, September.
    3. Hans Binswanger & Ernst Lutz, 2003. "Agricultural trade barriers, trade negotiations and the interests of developing countries," Chapters, in: John Toye (ed.), Trade and Development, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2023. "The Least developed countries' TRIPS Waiver and the Strength of Intellectual Property Protection," EconStor Preprints 271537, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    5. Xufang Zhang & Changyou Sun & Jason Gordon & Ian A. Munn, 2020. "Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    6. Maskus, Keith E. & Wilson, John S. & Tsunehiro Otsuki, 2000. "Quantifying the impact of technical barriers to trade : a framework for analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2512, The World Bank.
    7. Julio J. Nogues, 2005. "Agricultural Protectionism: Debt Problems and the Doha Round," International Finance 0502005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Sam LAIRD, 2007. "Aid for Trade: Cool Aid or Kool-Aid?," G-24 Discussion Papers 48, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    9. Abbott, Philip C., 2003. "Agricultural Trade Liberalization and Adjustment in Developing Countries," Policy Reform and Adjustment Workshop, October 23-25, 2003, Imperial College London, Wye Campus 15731, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    10. Drusilla K. Brown & Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M Stern, 2002. "Computational Analysis of Multilateral Trade Liberalization in the Uruguay Round and Doha Development Round," Working Papers 489, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    11. de Jong, Eelke & Bogmans, Christian, 2011. "Does corruption discourage international trade?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 385-398, June.
    12. Elena Ianchovichina & Terrie Walmsley, 2005. "Impact of China's WTO Accession on East Asia," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 261-277, April.
    13. Rodrik, Dani, 2000. "Trade Policy Reform as Institutional Reform," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2189, Inter-American Development Bank.
    14. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Domestic reform as a rationale for gradualism in international cooperation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 400-427, July.
    15. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    16. Bernard Hoekman & Will Martín, 1999. "Some Market Access Issues for Developing Countries in a Millennium Round: Results from Recent World Bank Research," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 36(109), pages 947-978.
    17. Richard Kozul-Wright & Paul Rayment, 2004. "Globalization Reloaded: An Unctad Perspective," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 167, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    18. Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, 2006. "Reciprocity and the hidden constitution of world trade," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 133-163, September.
    19. Bernard Hoekman & David Vines, 2007. "Multilateral trade cooperation: what next?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(3), pages 311-334, Autumn.
    20. Mayda, Anna Maria & Ludema, Rodney D & McClure, Jonathan C. F., 2015. "Dragons, Giants, Elephants and Mice: Evolution of the MFN Free Rider Problem in the WTO Era," CEPR Discussion Papers 10961, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Latin America; FTAA negotiations; Agricultural protectionism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • F2 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business

    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:wpa:wuwpit:0502006. 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.