IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v51y1997i03p413-444_44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Policy Reform and the Uruguay Round: Synergistic Linkage in a Two-Level Game?

Author

Listed:
  • Paarlberg, Robert

Abstract

Domestic agricultural subsidy policies in the United States and in the European Union (EU) underwent substantial liberal reforms between 1990 and 1996. In the United States in 1990, Congress reduced acreage on which farmers could receive income-support payments (deficiency payments) by 15 percent under a budget reconciliation act. In the EU in 1991–92, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was dramatically modified under a set of reforms (the MacSharry reforms) that reduced internal cereal price guarantees by 29 percent over three years and obliged larger EU farmers to leave 15 percent of their arable land idle as a further check on excess production. Then in 1995–96, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act, a sweeping measure that eliminated for at least seven years all deficiency payments to farmers as well as all annual land-idling programs. U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, asserted that this new law would “change agricultural policy [in the United States] more fundamentally than any law in sixty years.”

Suggested Citation

  • Paarlberg, Robert, 1997. "Agricultural Policy Reform and the Uruguay Round: Synergistic Linkage in a Two-Level Game?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 413-444, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:51:y:1997:i:03:p:413-444_44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818397440146/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. de Gorter, Harry, 2008. "Explaining Inefficient Policy Instruments," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48638, World Bank.
    2. Sebastian Stępień & Jan Polcyn & Michał Borychowski, 2021. "Determinanty zrównoważonego rozwoju ekonomiczno-społecznego rodzinnych gospodarstw rolnych w Polsce," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 56-86.
    3. Moon, Wanki & Sakuyama, Takumi, 2021. "The Political Economy of Agricultural Trade Policy in Northeast Asia: Comparisons with the West and between Japan and Korea," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315192, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Irene Musselli, 2016. "Farm Support And Trade Rules:Towards A New Paradigm Under The 2030 Agenda," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 74, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    5. Fertő, Imre, 1999. "A Európai Unió közös agrárpolitikájának gazdaságtana II. A CAP politikai gazdaságtana [The economics of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, Part II. The political economy of CAP]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 813-822.
    6. Junk, Julian & Blatter, Joachim, 2010. "Transnational attention, domestic agenda-setting and international agreement: Modeling necessary and sufficient conditions for media-driven humanitarian interventions [Transnationale Aufmerksamkeit," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2010-301, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Early birds: Special interests and the strategic logic of international cooperation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 113-140, July.
    8. Jean-Pierre P. Langlois & Catherine C. Langlois, 2004. "Holding Out for Concession: The Quest for Gain in the Negotiation of International Agreements," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 261-293, April.
    9. Sharma, Sachin Kumar & Sawant, Aditi & Vats, Parkhi & Naik, Sadhna & Lahiri, Teesta, 2020. "Disciplining trade-distorting support to cotton in the US: an unresolved issue at the WTO negotiations," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 33(2), December.
    10. Eugénia da Conceição-Heldt, 2009. "Delegation of Power and Agency Losses in EU Trade Politics," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 18, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    11. Sebastian Stępień & Jan Polcyn & Michał Borychowski, 2021. "Determinanty zrównoważonego rozwoju ekonomiczno-społecznego rodzinnych gospodarstw rolnych w Polsce," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, vol. 1, pages 56-86, January.
    12. Kiryluk-Dryjska, Ewa, 2016. "Negotiation analysis using the theory of moves—Theoretical background and a case study," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 44-53.
    13. Zdenek Kudrna & Patrick Müller, 2017. "Harmonizing Internationally to Harmonize Internally: Accounting for a Global Exit from the EU's Decision Trap," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 815-831, July.
    14. Lutz James M., 2011. "Governments of the Left and Openness to Imports," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, December.
    15. Redmond, Willie J., 2003. "A quantification of policy reform: an application to the Uruguay Round Negotiations on Agriculture," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 25(9), pages 893-910, December.
    16. Diana Panke & Gurur Polat & Franziska Hohlstein, 2021. "Satisfied or not? Exploring the interplay of individual, country and international organization characteristics for negotiation success," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 403-429, April.

    More about this item

    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:cup:intorg:v:51:y:1997:i:03:p:413-444_44. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    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.