Search

The paper is devoted to the investigation of agricultural protectionism. The scope of the liberalization of international trade in agricultural products since its’ start after the Uruguay Round is estimated. The U.S and the EU agricultural trade policy is taken into consideration. The scope of that agricultural liberalization is estimated as limited because of the immense increase of NTMs, emergence of “fragmented protectionism” – protectionist measures are still in place for sensitive products. The huge change in agricultural trade policy is revealed – shift from ‘hard core’ (true protectionist) non­tariff barriers to ‘soft’ NTMs that are more about technical and safety requirements than trade barriers. Special attention is paid to hidden form of agricultural protectionism in the US and EU. The key symptoms of these forms of protectionism include significant increase of NTMs, massive implementation of government support measures to producers that are only de jure green. Доклад посвящен исследованию проявлений протекционизма в международной торговле сельскохозяйственной продукцией. Оценка уровня протекционистской защиты сельскохозяйственного рынка проведена на примере ведущих участников мирового агросектора – США и ЕС. Установлен в целом ограниченный масштаб проведенной агролиберализации за период с начала ее инициации решениями Уругвайского раунда переговоров стран­членов ВТО. Определено, что зафиксированная в соглашениях ВТО либерализация международной торговли сельхозпродукцией выразилась в общем снижении тарифов, селективном отказе от наиболее искажающих нетарифных ограничений и создании нормативной основы по применению основных видов нетарифных мер (НТМ) при сохранении очагового протекционизма, значительном возрастании спектра нетарифных ограничений и закреплении за НТМ статуса ключевого торгового барьера. При этом выявлено, что произошел важнейший сдвиг в регулировании международной торговли сельскохозяйственной продукции, заключающийся в переходе от «жестких» НТМ, имеющих очевидную протекционистскую основу, к мерам, ориентированным на осуществление не столько торговой, сколько технической политики. Особое значение приобрела скрытая форма агропротекционизма, выражающиеся в преимущественно использовании НТМ и активном применении инструментов поддержки производителей, лишь формально не являющихся искажающими. Статья подготовлена при поддержке РФФИ (отделение гуманитарных и общественных наук) в рамках научного проекта №17-37-01004.

Recent globalization has been characterized by a decline in the costs of cross-border trade in farm and other products. It has been driven primarily by the information and communication technology revolution and—in the case of farm products—by reductions in governmental distortions to agricultural production, consumption and trade. Both have boosted economic growth and reduced poverty globally, especially in Asia. The first but maybe not the second of these drivers will continue in coming decades. World food prices will depend also on whether (and if so by how much) farm productivity growth continues to outpace demand growth and to what extent diets in emerging economies move towards livestock and horticultural products at the expense of staples. Demand in turn will be driven not only by population and income growth, but also by crude oil prices if they remain at current historically high levels, since that will affect biofuel demand. Climate change mitigation policies and adaptation, water market developments and market access standards particularly for transgenic foods will add to future production, price and trade uncertainties.

TEZ8545 Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana, 2011. Kaynakça (s. 155-164) var. xiv, 165 s. : res., çizelge ; 29 cm. This study reviews conceptual framework of agricultural protectionism, relevant measurement issues, and changes in agricultural protectionism with time in selected countries based on the composition of supports. When measuring the levels of agricultural protection, OECD method, the most widespread one, was employed, and related criticisms were discussed. In order to determine levels of protection, 11 countries, which are thought to have a significant role in the world agricultural markets and/or in terms of protectionism, were selected. These countries were grouped as low, medium and high protection countries, based on their Nominal Assistance Coefficients. Further, differing applications and specific conditions of those countries were discussed. Producer Support Estimate Percentages, Nominal Assistance Coefficient and Nominal Protection Coefficient were used to analyze changes in the protection level of the countries. Nominal Assistance Coefficients are found to be as follows: 1,04-1,11 in low protection countries (Australia, Brazil, China), 1,16-1,43 in medium protection countries (United States of America, European Union, Canada, Russia, Turkey) and 2,12-2,76 in high protection countries (South Korea, Switzerland, Japan). Although share of decoupled payments in support compositions increases, share of market price supports causing price distortions is still high. Furthermore, it was also observed that importance of environmental issues is increasing in almost all countries. Based on nominal protection coefficient, it can be said that countries are protecting staple crops more. In this case, concerns of the countries on being self sufficient at least for these crops and decreasing their dependency on world markets are affecting the decisions of those countries. Hence, it can be concluded that agriculture will remain as the most controversial issue in free trade negotiations. Bu çalışmada tarımsal korumacılığın kavramsal çerçevesi, ölçüm sorunu ve başlıca ülkelerde destek bileşimlerine bağlı olarak tarımsal korumacılığın zaman içerisindeki değişimi incelenmiştir. Tarımsal korumacılığın ölçümü bölümünde, dünyada bu amaçla en fazla kullanılan yöntem olan OECD yaklaşımı esas alınmış ve yönteme ilişkin eleştiriler tartışılmıştır. Başlıca ülkelerin korumacılık düzeyinin belirlenmesi için dünya tarım ürünleri piyasalarında etkili olan ve/veya korumacılık açısından önem arz eden 11 ülke belirlenmiştir. Ülkeler Nominal Yardım Katsayılarına göre düşük, orta ve yüksek düzeyde koruma sağlayan ülkeler olmak üzere üç gruba ayrılmıştır. Ayrıca ülkelerin farklı uygulamaları ve özgün koşulları dikkate alınarak kendi içerisinde de incelenmişlerdir. Ülkelerin korumacılık düzeylerinin değişiminde başlıca göstergeler olarak Yüzde Üretici Destek Tahmini, Nominal Yardım Katsayısı ve Nominal Koruma Katsayısı değerleri kullanılmıştır. Nominal Yardım Katsayıları düşük düzey koruma sağlayan ülkeler grubunda 1,04 ile 1,11 (Avustralya, Brezilya, Çin), orta düzeyde 1,16 ile 1,43 (Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Avrupa Birliği, Kanada, Rusya, Türkiye) ve yüksek düzeyde 2,12 ile 2,76 (Güney Kore, İsviçre, Japonya) arasında değişmiştir. Üretimden bağımsız desteklerin destek bileşimleri içerisindeki oranı genel olarak artsa da, fiyat çarpıklıklarına yol açarak ticareti bozan pazar fiyatı desteğinin oranı hala yüksektir. Ayrıca neredeyse bütün ülkelerin politikalarında çevre konusunun öneminin arttığı görülmüştür. Nominal Koruma Katsayısına göre ülkelerin temel gıda hammaddesi durumunda olan ürünleri daha fazla koruduğu söylenebilir. Bu durumda, ülkelerin en azından bu ürünlerde kendine yeterli olma ve dünya piyasalarına olan bağımlılığı azaltma kaygıları etkili olmaktadır. Bu yüzden tarımın serbest ticaret görüşmelerinde en sorunlu alan olma özelliğini daha uzun yıllar koruyacağı söylenebilir. Bu çalışma Ç.Ü. Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Birimi tarafından desteklenmiştir. Proje No: ZF2011YL22.

The concept of multifunctional agriculture has been suspected of 'disguised' or 'veiled' protectionism by proponents of market-oriented reforms since the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture(URAA). In this article, I review the history and nature of agricultural protectionism and probe the concept of multifunctional agriculture from economics and broader social science perspectives. Then, I contend that agricultural protectionism in the second half of the 20th century was, in fact, a revelation of the demand for the multifunctional roles of agriculture, heightened by industrial policies designed by developed countries to secure the survival and growth of agriculture to a socially acceptable point. An implication of this contention is that we are not likely to have a trading system in agriculture as liberalized as manufacturing/industrial sectors. The frame of debate for agricultural trade is neither protectionism vs. trade liberalization nor market vs. government any longer. I propose that the relevant frame should be centered around the question of how to fine-tune government interventions and the WTO’s trade rules to better serve agriculture-related goals unique to each country across the world. The traffic light box system from the Uruguay Round signified a starting point of promising mechanism that could harmonize market rules with the social demand for multifunctional and sustainable agriculture. The negotiators in the WTO multilateral talks should discard the perception that it is always a virtue to liberalize agricultural trade.

The article is devoted to the historical analysis of patterns of agrarian protectionism policy forming in developed countries. The problems and the objective regularities of protection agricultural policies realization in European countries on the different stages of economic development are investigated. The estimation of both positive and negative arguments of the policy under modern conditions of economic integration and membership in the WTO is accomplished., Використання цивілізованих методів протекціоністської підтримки на етапі активізації інтеграційних процесів в світовій економіці спрямовано на підвищення конкурентоспроможності та ефективності сільського господарства, що дозволить у майбутньому зберегти його ключову роль в економіці та забезпечити сталий сільський розвиток.

This paper analyzes the economic effects of agricultural price and merchandise trade policies around the world as of 2004 on global markets, net farm incomes, and national and regional economic welfare and poverty, using the global economy wide Linkage model, new estimates of agricultural price distortions for developing countries, and poverty elasticity's approach. It addresses two questions: to what extent are policies as of 2004 still reducing rewards from farming in developing countries and thereby adding to inequality across countries in farm household incomes? Are they depressing value added more in primary agriculture than in the rest of the economy of developing countries, and earnings of unskilled workers more than of owners of other factors of production, thereby potentially contributing to inequality and poverty within developing countries (given that farm incomes are well below non-farm incomes in most developing countries and that agriculture there is intensive in the use of unskilled labor)? Results are presented for the key countries and regions of the world and for the world as a whole. They reveal that, by moving to free markets, income inequality between countries will be reduced at least slightly, all but one-sixth of the gains to developing countries will come from agricultural policy reform, unskilled workers in developing countries the majority of whom work on farms will benefit most from reform, net farm incomes in developing countries will rise by 6 percent compared with 2 percent for non-agricultural value added, and the number of people surviving on less than US$1 a day will drop 3 percent globally.

During the 1960s and 1970s most developing countries imposed anti-agricultural policies, while many high-income countries restricted agricultural imports and subsidized their farmers. Both sets of policies inhibited economic growth and poverty alleviation in developing countries, while doing little to assist small farmers in high-income countries. Since the 1980s, however, many developing countries began to reduce the anti-agricultural bias of sectoral policies, and from the early 1990s the European Union began to move away from price supports to more-direct forms of farm income payments. This paper summarizes a forthcoming book that seeks to explain this evolving pattern of distortions to incentives conceptually and econometrically by making use of new political economy theory and a new globally comprehensive and consistent set of estimates of the changing extent of annual distortions over the past half-century. The distortion estimates involve more than 70 products that cover around 70 percent of the value of agricultural output in each of 75 countries that together account for over 90 percent of the global economy, and they expose the contribution of the various policy instruments (both farm and non-farm) to the net distortion to farmer incentives. Such a widespread coverage of countries, products, years and policy instruments has allowed this collection of studies to test a wide range of hypotheses suggested by the new political economy literature, including the importance of institutions. As a set it sheds much new light on the underlying forces that have affected incentives facing farmers in the course of national and global economic and political development, and hence on how those distortions might change in the future - or be changed by concerted actions to offset political pressures from traditionally powerful vested interests.

This chapter begins with a brief summary of the long history of national distortions to agricultural markets. It then outlines the methodology used to generate annual indicators of the extent of government interventions in markets, details of which are provided in Anderson and appendix A. A description of the economies under study and their economic growth and structural changes over recent decades is then briefly presented as a preface to the main section of the chapter, in which the nominal rates of assistance and consumer tax equivalents (NRA and CTE) estimates are summarized across regions and over the decades since the 1950s. These estimates are discussed in far more detail in the regional chapters that follow. A summary is also provided of an additional set of indicators of agricultural price distortions presented in chapter eleven that are based on the trade restrictiveness index first developed by Anderson and Neary (2005). In chapter twelve the focus shifts from countries to commodities, and all the various distortion indicators are used to provide a sense of how distorted are each of the key farm commodity markets globally. Then chapter thirteen uses the study's NRA and CTE estimates to provide a new set of results from a global economy-wide model that attempts to quantify the impacts on global markets, net farm incomes and welfare of the reforms since the early 1980s and of the policies still in place as of 2004. The chapter concludes by drawing on the lessons learned to speculate on the prospects for further reducing the disarray in world agricultural markets.

Earnings from farming in many developing countries have been depressed by a pro-urban bias in own-country policies as well as by governments of richer countries favoring their farmers with import barriers and subsidies. Both sets of policies, which reduce national and global economic welfare and contribute to global inequality and poverty, have been undergoing reform since the 1980s. Using the linkage model of the global economy and modifications to the pre-release of version 7 of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) protection database for 2004, this paper seeks to compare the effect of those reforms to date with those that would come from removing remaining agricultural and trade policies. Two sets of results are thus presented: one showing the effects of policy reforms between 1980-84 and 2004, the other showing what the removal of remaining distortions as of 2004 could be. Both sets of results indicate improvements in the real value of agricultural output and exports, the real returns to farm land and unskilled labor, and real net farm incomes in most developing country regions despite the adverse effect on the international terms of trade for some developing countries that are net food importers or are enjoying preferential access to agricultural markets of high-income countries. Landowners in those high-income countries still offering their farmers price supports could readily afford to compensate them from the benefits of removing remaining agricultural protectionism.

'This powerful work written with competence and passion by Dr Jian-Ming Zhou deserves the utmost attention of the policy makers who take decisions on agriculture throughout the world' Ex-Italian Premier Prof Giuliano Amato. The book challenges Schultz’s assertions: (1) small farmers are rational; (2) low income countries saddled with traditional agriculture do not have the problem of many farmers leaving agriculture for nonfarm jobs; (3) part-time farming can be efficient; (4) economies of scale do not exist in agriculture; and (5) investment in human capital counts much more than institutional changes and is the key to agricultural growth. It reveals that after the first land reform of distributing land to small farmers, the irrational and polyopolistic land use by able-bodied part-time and absent farmers earning higher offfarm income but unwilling to lease the under-producing land beyond their family consumption need to full-time farmers, has been a global obstacle with both public and private land ownership, traditional and modern agriculture, fragmented small and consolidatorily enlarged land, low and high income economies, food under-self-sufficiency and overproduction, and developing and developed countries, even if land property rights have been well defined and sale/lease allowed. [Polyopoly is invented by the author to denote the control of a resource by many sellers in contrast to monopoly (by one seller) and oligopoly (by a few sellers)]. It has harmed agriculture, rural development, income distribution, government expenditure, competition, trade, environment, etc. It has become the most fundamental microeconomic root of the three persisting global macroeconomic problems: food under-selfsufficiency, overproduction and agricultural protectionism. Hirschman has ignored that this obstacle has hampered the linkage effects. Evidences in Asia; Africa; Latin America; Central-Eastern Europe and Central Asia; Western Europe; North America and Oceania are presented. Revising relevant US and Western European legislations, it provides effective and appropriate Proposals to, without affecting private land ownership, simultaneously reach eight aims: (1) minimize/abolish/prevent protectionism, while (2) avoiding overproduction and (3) irrational production abandonment; (4) boost competitive full-time large farmers, whereas (5) not crowding part-time and absent small farmers out of agriculture; (6) reach/maintain basic self-sufficiency in cereals, meanwhile (7) promoting multi-functionality of other agricultural and rural sectors and (8) improving the environment. They would be useful also for public land ownership. Hence launching a second land reform - land use reform., Previously posted in ( http://www.iao.florence.it/documentation/publications/publipage.php?id=74 )

After the first global land reform for ownership transfer from large owners to peasants with no or little land, the irrational land use by able-bodied part-time and absent (particularly small) farmers earning higher off-farm income but unwilling to lease under-producing land beyond family consumption need to full-time farmers at low rents has become a world-wide obstacle. Full-time farmers have had to use tiny farms, cut forest for land, or quit agriculture. Many developing nations suffer under-production, while developed ones heavily subsidize farmers causing over-production and agricultural protectionism. The Doha Round in the World Trade Organization has been started in 2001, planned to complete in 2004, but blocked because the developed countries have agreed to substantially reduce agricultural subsidies, while claimed that this would cause farmers not to produce and loss of agriculture, and asked the developing countries to unaffordably open non-agricultural markets for compensation. Challenging Nobel laureate Theodore W. Schultz and nominee Albert Otto Hirschman, and improving the Western European and US laws, the author proposes to (1) give full-time farmers access to the under-producing land beyond family consumption need of part-time and absent farmers (Dual Land System); and (2) convert the environmentally sensitive land permanently to the nature after constant over-production. Keeping private land ownership, they could simultaneously (1) prevent protectionism, (2) over- and (3) under-production; (4) sustain full-time large and (5) part-time and absent small farmers; (6) reach cereals basic self-sufficiency; (7) promote multi-functionality of the other agricultural and rural sectors; and (8) improve the environment. Hence launching the second global land reform for rational and competitive use. Subsequently, the developed countries could abolish agricultural protectionism without losing agriculture, unnecessary for the developing countries to unaffordably open non-agricultural markets for compensation, reaching breakthrough in the Doha Round. The developing could also adopt them to solve the irrational land use and consequent problems. International responses: ‘Unique Way for a Breakthrough in WTO Doha Negotiations; Paramount, Core, Crucial issues; Great concern to all, Fully shares your concerns; Good analysis, Highly deserving, Great interest, Extremely interesting, Intriguing, Very valuable contribution, Very serious, Completely relevant, Thoughtful, Worthwhile, Well-written, Indeed important, Helpful, Useful, Constructive, Impressive, Admirable; Innovative, Non-conventional, Transcend the usual schemes, Novel, Inspirational; No alternatives; Appreciation, Compliments; Mandate to welcome, Warmly thank, Commend you; Make your topic to the international development agenda; Has taken full account of your theory, Encourage you to continue, We will continue to examine your ideas further, Bear them in mind when framing future policy proposals; You are a very valuable researcher.’, Paper for the E-Conference of the ICARRD - International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Organizer: FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Date: December 2005 – January 2006 Location: Rome, Italy Originally published at ( http://www.icarrd.org/en/proposals/Zhou.pdf ) and ( http://www.icarrd.org/proposals/Zhou.pdf )

Submitted by Gisely Teixeira (gisely.teixeira@uniceub.br) on 2016-11-29T17:40:31Z No. of bitstreams: 1 60000192.pdf: 489635 bytes, checksum: e9b0f0d1beec3d15f8f6482995f7d4d0 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Rayanne Silva (rayanne.silva@uniceub.br) on 2016-12-12T22:40:02Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 60000192.pdf: 489635 bytes, checksum: e9b0f0d1beec3d15f8f6482995f7d4d0 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2016-12-12T22:40:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 60000192.pdf: 489635 bytes, checksum: e9b0f0d1beec3d15f8f6482995f7d4d0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005 A presente dissertação explora o tema do comércio internacional de produtos agrícolas, com o objetivo de identificar as forças conflituosas que direcionam o rumo das negociações no âmbito da Organização Mundial de Comércio. Toma-se a dicotomia Norte-Sul como ponto de partida. Tendo em vista que o estudo se concentra na história, percebe-se que, aos menos nas primeiras cinco décadas de operação do GATT, outras conformações antagônicas detêm maior influência sobre o regime do comércio internacional de produtos agrícolas. O embate entre Estados Unidos e Comunidade Européia na década de oitenta é fundamental para entender a sistemática do Acordo Agrícola em vigência. Com o aumento do interesse de países em desenvolvimento, o cenário muda nas negociações da Rodada Doha. O uso mais freqüente de elementos como tratamento preferencial, não reciprocidade e discriminação positiva em benefício de países de baixa renda torna o diálogo Norte-Sul mais relevante ao se analisar o regime do comércio internacional de produtos agrícolas. No entanto, reconhece-se que a tensão entre economias centrais continua exercendo um papel fundamental nesse tocante.