IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae06/25399.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Constraining U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: The October 2005 WTO Proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Brink, Lars

Abstract

In October 2005 the USA, EU, and G-20 submitted proposals on domestic support in the WTO agriculture negotiations. We consider the de minimis rules and allowances, project future (2014) distorting support for the USA and the EU-15, calculate the constraints resulting from projected values of production combined with the U.S., EU and G-20 proposals, and compare their effectiveness in constraining components of distorting support and future applied support. The de minimis rules make a significant difference for future allowed support. Under the U.S. proposal the Overall commitment constrains neither the USA nor the EU. Under the EU and especially the G-20 proposals the Overall commitment constrains distorting support to be less than the sum of the cap on blue and the Maximum Usable Components (MUC). The MUC is smaller than the sum of the commitment on Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (TAMS) and all de minimis allowances. Despite seemingly large percentage reductions, the three proposals would impose only very modest, if any, constraints on projected 2014 applied domestic support.

Suggested Citation

  • Brink, Lars, 2006. "Constraining U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: The October 2005 WTO Proposals," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25399, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25399
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.25399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/25399/files/pp062567.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.25399?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Westhoff, Patrick C. & Brown, Scott & Hart, Chad E., 2006. "When Point Estimates Miss the Point: Stochastic Modeling of WTO Restrictions," Staff General Research Papers Archive 31341, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2008. "Agricultural trade reform under the Doha Agenda: some key issues ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(1), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Kerr, William A., 2015. "Food Security, Strategic Stockholding and Trade-Distorting Subsidies: Is There a Permanent Solution?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 16(1), pages 1-13.
    3. Brockmeier, Martina & Pelikan, Janine, 2008. "Agricultural market access: A moving target in the WTO negotiations?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 250-259, June.
    4. Kerr, William A., 2007. "Too Smart for Their Own Good! Complexity, Capacity and Credence in Trade Negotiations," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14.

    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. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    2. Brink, Lars, 2006. "WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: The October 2005 Proposals," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20.
    3. Thompson, Wyatt & Lu, Yaqiong & Gerlt, Scott & Yang, Xianyu & Campbell, J. Elliott & Kueppers, Lara M. & Snyder, Mark A., 2018. "Automatic Responses of Crop Stocks and Policies Buffer Climate Change Effects on Crop Markets and Price Volatility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 98-105.
    4. Zebedee Nii-Naate & Alison Burrell, 2012. "Partial stochastic analysis with the European Commission's version of the AGLINK-COSIMO model," JRC Research Reports JRC76019, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Giovanni Anania, 2007. "Multilateral trade negotiations, preferential trade agreements and European Union’s agricultural policies," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 3, July.
    6. Meyer, Seth D. & Binfield, Julian C.R. & Westhoff, Patrick C., 2010. "Making the market: How U.S. Policy influences near term agriculture and biofuel industry production and profitability under technology adoption," 114th Seminar, April 15-16, 2010, Berlin, Germany 61089, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Wyatt Thompson & Scott Gerlt & J. Elliott Campbell & Lara M. Kueppers & Yaqiong Lu & Mark A. Snyder, 2017. "A Cost of Tractability? Estimating Climate Change Impacts Using a Single Crop Market Understates Impacts on Market Conditions and Variability," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 346-362.
    8. Patrick Westhoff & Julian Binfield, 2008. "US Farm Bill 2008: Back to the Future? La loi agricole de 2008 aux États‐Unis : Retour vers le futur? Das US‐Landwirtschaftsgesetz von 2008: Zurück in die Zukunft?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 7(3), pages 17-23, December.
    9. Britz, Wolfgang & Heckelei, Thomas, 2008. "Recent Developments In Eu Policies – Challenges For Partial Equilibrium Models," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6315, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Elobeid, Amani & Tokgoz, Simla, 2008. "AJAE Appendix for “Removing Distortions in the U.S. Ethanol Market: What Does It Imply for the United States and Brazil?”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-30, February.

    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:ags:iaae06:25399. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.