Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T09:24:17.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - The difficult task of disciplining domestic support

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2011

David Orden
Affiliation:
International Food Policy Research Institute
David Blandford
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Tim Josling
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
David Orden
Affiliation:
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
David Blandford
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Tim Josling
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

When the WTO was launched at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round negotiations its members committed to a new set of disciplines for agricultural domestic support, market access and export competition. It was recognized at the time that the domestic support disciplines were rather porous. Their architecture was consistent with the modest objectives that WTO members had collectively agreed to reduce distortions in world markets. What was uncertain at that point was just how the agreed-upon disciplines would interact with subsequent domestic agricultural policy decisions. In particular, it was not known to what extent the new rules and commitments would motivate countries to shift their policies in the less trade-distorting direction envisioned by the Agreement on Agriculture.

For domestic support the only fixed numerical commitment under the Agreement was to a nominal ceiling (or zero binding) on the sum of certain trade-distorting amounts of support calculated annually in the Current Total AMS. Countries making ceiling commitments set the ceilings at relatively high levels as a result of using a 1986−88 base period with low world prices and high support. By the time the Agreement was signed prices had increased and support moderated, so it was recognized that these commitments provided substantial flexibility. Green box measures in all countries, and certain types of support through development programs in developing countries, were exempt from any ceiling.

Type
Chapter
Information
WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support
Seeking a Fair Basis for Trade
, pp. 391 - 432
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abler, D., and Blandford, D.. 2005. A review of empirical studies on the acreage and/or production response to US production flexibility contract payments under the FAIR Act and related payments under supplementary legislation. OECD report AGR/CA/APM(2004)21/Final.
Gorter, H., Just, D. R., and Kropp, J. D.. 2008. Cross-subsidization due to inframarginal support in agriculture: A general theory and empirical evidence. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(1): 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbehri, A., and Sarris, A.. 2009. Non-distorting Farm Support to Enhance Global Food Production. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Femenia, F., Gohin, A., and Carpentier, A.. 2010. The decoupling of farm programs: Revisiting the wealth effect. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92(3): 836–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, B., Hardie, I., and Parks, P. J.. 2010. United States farm commodity programs and land use. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92(3): 803–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, B. K., and Mishra, A. K.. 2005. Another look at decoupling: Additional evidence of the production effects of direct payments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(5): 1200–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, B. K., and Mishra, A. K. 2006. Are “decoupled” farm program payments really decoupled?American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(1): 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josling, T., Blandford, D., and Earley, J.. 2010. Biofuel and biomass subsidies in the US, EU and Brazil: Towards a transparent system of notification. IPC Position Paper. International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council.
Karapinar, B., and Häberli, C. (ed.) 2010. The End of Cheap Food and the WTO. Cambridge University Press.
Kirwan, B. E. 2009. The incidence of US agricultural subsidies on farmland rental rates. Journal of Political Economy 117(1): 138–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meléndez-Ortiz, R., Bellmann, C. and Hepburn, J. (ed.) 2009. Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Orden, D., Paarlberg, R., and Roe, T.. 1999. Policy Reform in American Agriculture: Analysis and Prognosis. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
,WTO. 2008. Revised draft modalities for agriculture. TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4, 6 December.
,WTO 2010. Total value of agricultural production: Note by the Secretariat. TN/AG/S/21/Rev.4, 23 February.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×