IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v9y2010i02p289-318_99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Special Safeguard Mechanism for Agricultural Imports: what experience with other GATT/WTO safeguards tells us about what might work

Author

Listed:
  • FINGER, J. MICHAEL

Abstract

The success of existing GATT/WTO safeguard or flexibility provisions to sustain long-run liberalization stems from their procedural criteria (e.g., transparent and participatory decisions to impose new import restrictions) overcoming their suspect economic criteria (e.g., injury). The proposed SSM includes no procedural and minimal notification requirements. It would expand by arithmetic formulas the bounds within which a Member might unilaterally impose new import restrictions. Simulations indicate that the formulas provide a poor guide for policy – they would (a) allow an import restriction more often in situations when it is not beneficial than when it is, and (b) in situations in which an import restriction would help, they more often ban it than allow it. If procedural requirements are out – i.e., developing Members insist on a ‘usable’ safeguard – then the simple rule ‘bound rates may be exceeded for a maximum of [x] tariff lines at any one time’ is better economics than the proposed price and volume triggers. (No economic criteria are better than bad economic criteria.) Each Member would have the flexibility to change its lists of Special Products and Sensitive Products, there being a limit on the numbers of products on the lists at any one time.

Suggested Citation

  • Finger, J. Michael, 2010. "A Special Safeguard Mechanism for Agricultural Imports: what experience with other GATT/WTO safeguards tells us about what might work," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 289-318, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:9:y:2010:i:02:p:289-318_99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745609990243/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. Malkawi, Bashar H., 2016. "Trade Defense Actions in Arab Countries Free Trade Agreements with the U.S: The Case of Safeguards," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(1), pages 16-40.
    2. Lee Yong-Shik, 2016. "The Long and Winding Road – Path Towards Facilitation of Development in the WTO: Reflections on the Doha Round and Beyond," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 437-465, December.
    3. Thennakoon, Jayanthi & Anderson, Kym, 2015. "Could the proposed WTO Special Safeguard Mechanism protect farmers from low international prices?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 106-113.
    4. Hoekman, Bernard & Martin, Will & Mattoo, Aaditya, 2010. "Conclude Doha: it matters!," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 505-530, July.
    5. Kym Anderson, 2016. "Agricultural Trade, Policy Reforms, and Global Food Security," Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-46925-0, October.
    6. Osman, Rehab Osman Mohamed, 2012. "The EU Economic Partnership Agreements with Southern Africa: a computable general equilibrium analysis," Economics PhD Theses 0412, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Jayanthi Thennakoon, 2015. "Political Economy of Altering Trade Restrictions in Response to Commodity Price Spikes," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 434-447, May.

    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:wotrrv:v:9:y:2010:i:02:p:289-318_99. 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/wtr .

    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.