David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The WTO negotiations on agriculture remain deadlocked after four years of discussion, and efforts to find a solution at Cancun failed. Analysis shows that the recent draft Cancun text offers more flexibility than earlier proposals, and such flexibility most likely implies a lower level of ambition overall. However, developing countries are less able to take advantage of this flexibility and their bound tariffs will be reduced to levels at or below applied rates. The reduction in levels of intervention and the expiry of the Peace Clause make it more likely that there will be greater resort in the future to safeguards and countervailing measures. Analysis of the various proposals using the UNCTAD/FAO Agricultural Trade Policy Simulation Model (ATPSM) shows that most of the benefits from liberalization accrue to developed countries, which currently have the highest levels of intervention. The group of developing countries, which include both exporters and importers of agricultural products, gain from liberalization, but those gains are small and unevenly distributed. In fact, net-food importing developing countries tend to lose because of higher world prices. Within developing countries, producers tend to gain from higher world prices at the expense of consumers. Since negotiating positions suggest that governments attach a higher weight to producer than consumer benefits, a possible solution to the impasse lies in switching support in developed countries from border measures to less-trade-distorting measures such as direct income support. Providing compensation to current beneficiaries of European Union support in ACP countries for the erosion of preferences may also assist in the search for a compromise.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. S. Gavora & E. E. Lister (1989). Practical and Ethical Considerations of Agricultural Research Assistance for the Third World. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (4):307-322.
Gillian Moon, Capturing the Benefits of Trade? Local Content Requirements in Wto Law and the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development.
Teppo Eskelinen (2011). Global Basic Structure and Institutions: The WTO as a Practical Example. Journal of Global Ethics 7 (1):47 - 58.
Malgorzata Kurjanska & Mathias Risse (2008). Fairness in Trade II: Export Subsidies and the Fair Trade Movement. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (1):29-56.
Benjamin M. Munro (2011). Anwarul Hoda and Ashok Gulati: WTO Negotiations on Agriculture and Developing Countries. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (6):669-671.
Siti Musa (2009). The Relationship Between Food Security and Trade Liberalization. International Corporate Responsibility Series 4:191-208.
Unctad Trade Analysis Branch Ditc, Roadblock to Reform: The Persistence of Agricultural Export Subsidies.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #499,539 of 1,410,267 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,872 of 1,410,267 )
How can I increase my downloads?