Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures, tables, and boxes
- List of contributors
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Agriculture and the trade negotiations: a synopsis
- Part I Experience and lessons from the implementation of WTO agreements
- Part II Interests, options, and objectives in a new trade round
- Part III New trade rules and quantitative assessments of future liberalization options
- 8 Market access, export subsidies, and domestic support: developing new rules
- 9 Options for enhancing market access in a new round
- 10 Liberalizing tariff-rate quotas: quantifying the effects of enhancing market access
- 11 The global and regional effects of liberalizing agriculture and other trade in the new round
- 12 Modeling the effects on agriculture of protection in developing countries
- 13 Liberalizing sugar: the taste test of the WTO
- 14 Bananas: a policy overripe for change
- Part IV New trade issues and developing country agriculture
- Author index
- Subject index
- References
8 - Market access, export subsidies, and domestic support: developing new rules
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures, tables, and boxes
- List of contributors
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Agriculture and the trade negotiations: a synopsis
- Part I Experience and lessons from the implementation of WTO agreements
- Part II Interests, options, and objectives in a new trade round
- Part III New trade rules and quantitative assessments of future liberalization options
- 8 Market access, export subsidies, and domestic support: developing new rules
- 9 Options for enhancing market access in a new round
- 10 Liberalizing tariff-rate quotas: quantifying the effects of enhancing market access
- 11 The global and regional effects of liberalizing agriculture and other trade in the new round
- 12 Modeling the effects on agriculture of protection in developing countries
- 13 Liberalizing sugar: the taste test of the WTO
- 14 Bananas: a policy overripe for change
- Part IV New trade issues and developing country agriculture
- Author index
- Subject index
- References
Summary
The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) requires countries to reduce agricultural protection in three broad areas: market access, export subsidies, and domestic support. This chapter evaluates the effectiveness of commitments under each of these three pillars, and offers recommendations for strengthening their effectiveness under a new round.
Re-evaluating market access
Tariffs and liberalizing trade
Countries have fulfilled their market access commitments through “tariffication” and “quotification.” To meet their access commitments, many countries scheduled two tariffs under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs): a lower first-tier for in-quota imports, and a higher second-tier tariff for out-of-quota imports. The URAA imposed no uniformity across countries or commodities regarding these tariffs, so quota rents are also unequal across countries and commodities. Thus the agreement has produced different effects – realized and potential – on trade liberalization in different countries. Many second-tier tariffs have been prohibitively high (aided by the process of “dirty tariffication”), while some countries have used creative methods to minimize access (known as “dirty quotification”).
Negotiators did not assume that countries would fill their TRQs: the in-quota tariff may be so high or the quota so large that underfill occurs. What's more, a low quota fill rate does not necessarily imply inefficiency, as supply may be unavailable or demand insufficient.
Nor does a fill rate of 100 percent or more necessarily imply efficiency.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Agriculture and the New Trade AgendaCreating a Global Trading Environment for Development, pp. 151 - 175Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2004
References
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics), 1999. “World Trade Organization Agricultural Negotiations: Important Market Access Issues,” Research Report, 99.3, Canberra
, , and , 1992. “United States Export Subsidies in Wheat: Strategic Trade Policy or Expensive Beggar-Thy-Neighbor Tactic?,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 534–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, P., 1999. “Risk Management and Safety Nets for Farmers,” Choices, 3rd quarter
Bergsten, C. F., K. A. Elliott, J. J. Schott, and W. E. Takacs, 1987. “Auction Quotas and United States Trade Policy,” 19, Institute of International Economics, Washington, DC
Boughner, D. and H. de Gorter, 1998. “The Economics of 2-Tier Tariff-Rate Import Quotas: The Agreement on Agriculture in the World Trade Organization and US Dairy Policy,” paper presented at the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium Annual Meeting, December, 13–15, St. Petersburg, Florida, revised April 1999
Brink, L., 2000. “Domestic Support Issues in the Uruguay Round and Beyond,” Economic and Policy Analysis Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, agr.ca/policy/epad
and , 1991. “Are More Exports Always Better? Comparing Cash and In-Kind Export Subsidies,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 142–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chau, N. and H. de Gorter, 2000. “Disentangling the Production and Export Consequences of Direct Farm Income Payments,” contributed paper, annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, August 2, Tampa, Florida
Choi, J., D. A. Sumner, and J. Song, 1998. “Importing State-Trading Enterprises in Korea and Japan: Evolution, Operation, and Implications,” paper presented at the “Role of State and Agricultural Trade” Workshop co-organized by the North American Forum, Stanford University and Agricultural Issues Center, November 20–22, University of California, Davis
de Gorter, H. and U. Kask, 2000. “Analyzing the Economics of Trade Liberalization with Tariff-Quotas in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture,” UN Conference on Trade and Development Working Paper, Trade Analysis Branch, Geneva
de Gorter, H. and Y. Tsur, 1995. “Supply and Welfare Effects of Income Stabilization Programs: NISA versus NTSP,” report to Policy Branch, Industry Performance and Analysis Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa
, 1998. “The Production Effects of Agricultural Income Support Policies Under Uncertainty,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, 1996. “Tariffication in the Uruguay Round: How Much Liberalization?,” The World Economy, 19(4), 425–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leetmaa, S. and K. Ackerman, 1998. “Export Subsidy Commitments: Few are Binding, but Some Members Try to Evade Them,” Economic Research Service, Agriculture in the World Trade Organization/WRS–98–44, December, Updated in United States Department of Agriculture's World Trade Organization Briefing Room, 1999
, 1991. “Economic Issues in Tariffication: an Overview,” Agricultural Economics, 5, 101–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2000. “A Preliminary Report of Domestic Support Aspects of Uruguay Round Implementation,” COM/AGR/APM/TD/WP, February 9, Paris
Peterson, J. M., B. J. Minten, and H. de Gorter, 1999. “Economic Costs of the US Wheat Export Enhancement Program: Manna from Heaven or from Taxpayers?,” International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium Working Paper, 99–2, Washington, DC
Rude, James, 1999. “Green Box Criteria: A Theoretical Assessment,” Canadian AgriFood Trade Research Network, CATRN Paper, 1999–02, eru.ulaval.ca/catrn/publications.htm
Ruiz, L., 2000. “The Impacts of Export Subsidy Reduction Commitments in the Agreement on Agriculture: Implications for the Millennium Round,” MSc thesis, Cornell University, May
Ruiz, L. and H. de Gorter, 2000. “The Impacts of Export Subsidy Reduction Commitments in the Agreement on Agriculture on International Trade,” paper presented at the conference Global Agriculture in the New Millennium, 25–26 May, New Orleans
Schluep, I., 1999. “The Law and Economics of Consumer Only Financed Export Subsidies: A Context for the World Trade Organization Panel on Canadian Dairy Pricing Policy,” MSc thesis, Cornell University
Schluep, I. and H. de Gorter, 2001. “The Definition of Export Subsidies and the Agreement on Agriculture,” in G. Peters and P. Pingalli (eds.), Tomorrow's Agriculture: Incentives, Institutions, Infrastructure and Innovations, Aldershot: Ashgate
, 1999. “Economics of Tariff-Rate Quota Administration,” International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium Working Paper, 99–6, MayGoogle Scholar
Sumner, D., 1996. “The Role of Domestic Market Price Regulations in International Trade: The Case of Dairy Policy in the United States,” paper presented to the AEA, San Francisco, January
World Trade Organization (World Trade Organization), 1994. Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, Geneva
Skully, D. W., 1999. “Final Report on Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products,” WT/DS103/R, WT/DS113/R, 17, March, Geneva
Skully, D. W., 2000a. “Tariff and Other Quotas,” Background Paper G/AG/NG/S/7, 23 May, restricted, Geneva
Skully, D. W., 2000b. “Member's Usage of Domestic Support Categories, Export Subsidies and Export Credits,” Background Paper, G/AG/NG/S/12, 15 June, restricted, Geneva
and , 2000. “How Decoupled are US Agricultural Support for Major Crops?,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82, 762–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2
- Cited by