Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T13:46:37.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing contributions of different agricultural policy instruments to global reductions in trade and welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2011

JOHANNA CROSER  and
KYM ANDERSON
JOHANNA CROSER*
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide
KYM ANDERSON*
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide
*
*Email: johlou@gmail.com
**Email: kym.anderson@adelaide.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Trade negotiators and policy advisors are keen to know the relative contributions of different farm policy instruments to international trade and economic welfare. Nominal rates of assistance or producer support estimates are incomplete indicators, especially when (as in many developing countries) some commodities are taxed and others are subsidized, in which case positive contributions can offset negative contributions. This paper develops and estimates a new set of more-satisfactory partial equilibrium indicators of the relative contribution of different farm policy instruments to reductions in agricultural trade and welfare. It does so by drawing on the trade restrictiveness index literature and a recently compiled database on distortions to agricultural prices for 75 developing and high-income countries over the period 1960 to 2004. Results confirm earlier findings that border taxes are the dominant instrument affecting global trade and welfare, but they also suggest declines in export taxes contributed nearly as much as cuts in import protection to the trade and welfare effects of agricultural policy reforms since the 1980s.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 297 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Johanna Croser and Kym Anderson 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

Anderson, J. E. and Neary, J. P. (2005), Measuring the Restrictiveness of International Trade Policy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. E., Bannister, G., and Neary, J. P. (1995), ‘Domestic Distortions and International Trade’, International Economic Review, 36(1): 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. (2009), ‘Five Decades of Distortions to Agricultural Incentives’, in Anderson, K. (ed.), Distortions to Agricultural Incentives: A Global Perspective, 1955–2007, London: Palgrave Macmillan and Washington, DC: World Bank, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. and Croser, J. L. (2009), National and Global Agricultural Trade and Welfare Reduction Indexes, 1955 to 2007, database at www.worldbank.org/agdistortions.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. and Croser, J. L. (2010), ‘New Indicators of How Much Agricultural Policies Restrict Global Trade’, Journal of World Trade, 44(5): 1109–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K., Kurzweil, M., Martin, W., Sandri, D., and Valenzuela, E. (2008), ‘Measuring Distortions to Agricultural Incentives, Revisited’, World Trade Review, 7(4): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. and Martin, W. (eds.) (2006), Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, London: Palgrave Macmillan, and Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Anderson, K., Martin, W., and Valenzuela, E. (2006), ‘The Relative Importance of Global Agricultural Subsidies and Market Access’, World Trade Review, 5(3): 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. and Nelgen, S. (2010), ‘Trade Barrier Volatility and Agricultural Price Stabilization’, CEPR Discussion Paper 8102, London, November and World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5511, Washington, DC, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. and Valenzuela, E. (2008), Estimates of Global Distortions to Agricultural Incentives, 1955 to 2007, database freely available at http://www.worldbank.org/agdistortions and, in report-builder format, at http://cies.adelaide.edu.au/agdistortions/database/report.Google Scholar
Croser, J. L. and Anderson, K. (2010), ‘Changing Contributions of Different Agricultural Policy Instruments to Global Reductions in Trade and Welfare’, CEPR Discussion Paper 7748, London, March and World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5345, Washington, DC, June.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croser, J. L., Lloyd, P. J., and Anderson, K. (2010), ‘How Do Agricultural Policy Restrictions to Global Trade and Welfare Differ Across Commodities?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(3): 698–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diao, X., Somwaru, A., and Roe, T. (2001). ‘A Global Analysis of Agricultural Policy Reform in WTO Member Countries’, in Burfisher, M. et al. (eds.), Agricultural Policy Reform in the WTO: The Road Ahead, Agricultural Economics Report No. 802, Economic Research Services, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Feenstra, R. C. (1995), ‘Estimating the Effects of Trade Policy’, in Grossman, G. N. and Rogoff, K. (eds.), Handbook of International Economics, Vol. 3, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Harberger, A. C. (1959), ‘Using the Resources at Hand More Effectively’, American Economic Review, 49(2): 134–146.Google Scholar
Hertel, T. W. and Keeney, R. (2006), ‘What's at Stake: The Relative Importance of Import Barriers, Export Subsidies and Domestic Support’, in Anderson, K. and Martin, W. (eds.), Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, London: Palgrave Macmillan and Washington, DC: World Bank, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B., Ng, F., and Olarreaga, M. (2004), ‘Agricultural Tariffs versus Subsidies: What's More Important for Developing Countries?’, World Bank Economic Review, 18(2): 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D. (2010), ‘Trade Restrictiveness and Deadweight Losses from US Tariffs, 1859–1961’, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(3): 111–133.Google Scholar
Kee, H. L., Nicita, A., and Olearraga, M. (2009), ‘Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indexes’, Economic Journal, 119(534): 172–199.Google Scholar
Krueger, A. O., Schiff, M., and Valdes, A. (1988), ‘Agricultural Incentives in Developing Countries: Measuring the Effect of Sectoral and Economy-wide Policies’, World Bank Economic Review, 2(3): 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, A. O., Schiff, M., and Valdes, A. (1991), The Political Economy of Agricultural Pricing Policy, Vol. 1: Latin America, Vol. 2: Asia and Vol. 3: Africa and the Mediterranean, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press for the World Bank.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P. J., Croser, J. L., and Anderson, K. (2010), ‘Global Distortions to Agricultural Markets: New Indicators of Trade and Welfare Impacts, 1960 to 2007’, Review of Development Economics, 14(2): 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanan, G. and Walmsley, T. L. (eds.) (2008), Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 7 Data Base, West Lafayette, IN: Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, http://www.gtap.orgGoogle Scholar
OECD (2010), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
Serra, T., Zilberman, D., Goodwin, B. K., and Featherstone, A. (2006), ‘Effects of Decoupling on the Mean and Variability of Output’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 33(3): 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyers, R. and Anderson, K. (1992), Disarray in World Food Markets: A Quantitative Assessment, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar