IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v56y2008i4p429-444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

WTO Disciplines on Domestic Support and Market Access in Agri‐Food Supply Chains

Author

Listed:
  • Jean‐Philippe Gervais
  • Bruno Larue
  • Harvey E. Lapan

Abstract

Multilateral negotiations on agriculture in the WTO are making very little progress as developed economies are reluctant to bind trade‐distorting domestic support and import tariffs at levels acceptable to developing countries. This paper presents the basic Bagwell–Staiger framework as it relates to agricultural trade negotiations. In its basic version, market access commitments are sufficient to achieve efficient trade agreements. We show that vertical linkages between agricultural goods and processed food commodities may prevent countries to reach an efficient trade agreement. We argue that the features of agricultural supply chains hinder the argument that total discretion over domestic policies is appropriate. Les négociations multilatérales de l'OMC sur l'agriculture progressent très lentement étant donné que les pays développés hésitent à maintenir un soutien interne qui fausse les échanges et des barrières tarifaires à des niveaux acceptables pour les pays en développement. Le présent article traite du modèle Bagwell–Staiger dans le contexte des négociations sur le commerce des produits agricoles. Dans sa version de base, les engagements quant à l'accès au marché sont suffisants pour permettre des échanges commerciaux efficaces. Nous montrons que les liens verticaux entre les produits agricoles et les produits alimentaires transformés peuvent empêcher les pays d'atteindre un accord commercial efficace. Nous soutenons que les caractéristiques des chaînes d'approvisionnement agricole entravent l'argument voulant que l'entière discrétion quant aux politiques intérieures soit appropriée.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean‐Philippe Gervais & Bruno Larue & Harvey E. Lapan, 2008. "WTO Disciplines on Domestic Support and Market Access in Agri‐Food Supply Chains," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 429-444, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:56:y:2008:i:4:p:429-444
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00139.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00139.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00139.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2001. "Domestic Policies, National Sovereignty, and International Economic Institutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 519-562.
    2. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2006. "Will International Rules on Subsidies Disrupt the World Trading System?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 877-895, June.
    3. John C. Beghin & Ataman Aksoy, 2003. "Agricultural Trade and the Doha Round: Lessons from Commodity Studies," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-bp42, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    4. Christian Broda & Nuno Limão & David E. Weinstein, 2018. "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 2, pages 13-46, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    6. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2011. "What Do Trade Negotiators Negotiate About? Empirical Evidence from the World Trade Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1238-1273, June.
    7. Kym Anderson & Bernard Hoekman & Anna Strutt, 2001. "Agriculture and the WTO: Next Steps," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 192-214, May.
    8. Jean-Philippe Gervais & Harvey E. Lapan, 2001. "Optimal Production Tax and Quota under Time Consistent Trade Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 921-933.
    9. Blandford, David & Boisvert, Richard N., 2002. "Non-Trade Concerns And Domestic/International Policy Choice," Working Papers 14615, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    10. Wilfrid Legg, 2003. "Presidential Address Agricultural Subsidies: Measurement and Use in Policy Evaluation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 175-201, July.
    11. Krueger, Anne O., 1999. "Developing countries and the next round of multilateral trade negotiations," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2118, The World Bank.
    12. Brian R. Copeland, 1990. "Strategic Interaction among Nations: Negotiable and Non-negotiable Trade Barriers," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 84-108, February.
    13. Lapan, Harvey E, 1988. "The Optimal Tariff, Production Lags, and Time Consistency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 395-401, June.
    14. Lee, Gea M., 2007. "Trade agreements with domestic policies as disguised protection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 241-259, March.
    15. Josh Ederington, 2002. "Trade and Domestic Policy Linkage in International Agreements," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1347-1368, November.
    16. Anne Krueger, 1999. "The Developing Countries and the Next Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(7), pages 909-932, September.
    17. Gervais, Jean-Philippe & Lapan, Harvey E., 2002. "Time consistent export quotas in an oligopolistic world market," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 445-463, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maggi, Giovanni, 2014. "International Trade Agreements," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 317-390, Elsevier.
    2. Lee, Gea M., 2016. "Optimal international agreement and restriction on domestic efficiency," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 138-155.
    3. Kyle Bagwell & Chad P. Bown & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "Is the WTO Passé?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1125-1231, December.
    4. Staiger, Robert & Bagwell, Kyle & Bown, Chad, 2015. "Is the WTO Passé?," CEPR Discussion Papers 10672, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Ralph Ossa, 2011. "A "New Trade" Theory of GATT/WTO Negotiations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(1), pages 122-152.
    6. Bown, Chad P., 2014. "Trade policy instruments over time," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6757, The World Bank.
    7. Gea Myoung Lee, 2011. "Optimal International Agreement and Treatment of Domestic Subsidy," Working Papers 01-2011, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    8. JINJI Naoto, 2009. "An Economic Theory of the SPS Agreement," Discussion papers 09033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    9. Olper, Alessandro, 2017. "The political economy of trade-related regulatory policy: environment and global value chain," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(3), February.
    10. Nuno Limão, 2018. "Trade policy, cross-border externalities and lobbies: do linked agreements enforce more cooperative outcomes?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 9, pages 257-281, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Inaba, Masaru & Nutahara, Kengo, 2009. "The role of investment wedges in the Carlstrom-Fuerst economy and business cycle accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 200-203, December.
    12. Pol Antràs & Robert W. Staiger, 2012. "Offshoring and the Role of Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3140-3183, December.
    13. Obashi, Ayako, 2019. "Trade agreements with cross-border unbundling," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Richard Chisik, 2010. "Limited Incremental Linking and Unlinked Trade Agreements," Working Papers 023, Ryerson University, Department of Economics.
    15. Ederington,Josh & Ruta,Michele, 2016. "Non-tariff measures and the world trading system," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7661, The World Bank.
    16. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "The Design of Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 22087, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Robert W. Staiger & Alan O. Sykes, 2009. "International Trade and Domestic Regulation," NBER Working Papers 15541, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Hans Binswanger & Ernst Lutz, 2003. "Agricultural trade barriers, trade negotiations and the interests of developing countries," Chapters, in: John Toye (ed.), Trade and Development, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2014. "Emerging economies, trade policy, and macroeconomic shocks," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 261-273.
    20. Limão, Nuno & Handley, Kyle, 2013. "Policy Uncertainty, Trade and Welfare: Theory and Evidence for China and the U.S," CEPR Discussion Papers 9615, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C20 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:56:y:2008:i:4:p:429-444. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.