IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331138.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

OECD Domestic Support and the Developing Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Dimaranan, Betina
  • Hertel, Thomas
  • Keeney, Roman

Abstract

This paper aims to shed light on the potential interests of developing countries in reforms to domestic support for agriculture in the OECD economies. In order to accomplish this goal, we begin by reviewing the literature on the impacts of domestic support on key variables, including farm income, in the OECD economies themselves. We then proceed to revise the standard GTAP model of global trade, based on recent work at the OECD, in order to permit it to better capture these impacts. A series of stylized simulations are subsequently offered to illustrate the differential impacts of alternative types of domestic support. These suggest the possibility of policy re-instrumentation, whereby farm income is stabilized in the face of cuts to overall support levels by shifting the mix of subsidies away from the more trade-distorting instruments which also tend to be ineffective tools for boosting farm incomes. We then explore in considerable detail the mechanisms by which OECD agricultural reforms affect developing country welfare. The primary channel for such effects works through the terms of trade which in turn depend in part on whether a country is a net exporter or a net importer of the affected OECD products. Long term support for agricultural program commodities in OECD countries, coupled with relative taxation in many developing countries, has left the latter increasingly dependent on imports of these subsidized products. This has, in turn, made them more vulnerable to agricultural reforms that raise these prices. As a result, we find that an across-the-board, 50% cut in all domestic support for OECD agriculture leads to welfare losses for most of the developing regions, as well as for the combined total group of developing countries. The 50% cut in domestic support also results in large declines in farm incomes in Europe, and, to a lesser degree, North America. This makes such a reform package an unlikely political event. An alternative approach to reforming agricultural policies in the OECD would be to focus on broad-based reductions in market price support. This has already been occurring in the EU, in particular, where domestic support has increasingly replaced border measures. As demonstrated in this paper, the basic economic principles of agricultural support policies suggest that a shift from market price support to land-based payments could generate a “win-win” outcome whereby farm incomes are maintained and world price distortions are reduced. This is the direction charted by the OECD in its recent “Positive Reform Agenda” for agriculture. We formally examine such an agricultural reform scenario, implementing a 50% cut in market price support for OECD agriculture, with a compensating set of land payments designed to maintain farm income in each of the member economies. This comprehensive reform scenario results in increased welfare for most developing countries, with gains on other commodities offsetting the terms of trade losses from higher program crop prices. We conclude that developing countries will be well advised to focus their efforts on improved market access to the OECD economies, while permitting these wealthy economies to continue – indeed even increase – domestic support payments. Provided these increased domestic support payments are not linked to output or variable inputs, the trade-distorting effects are likely to be small, and they can be a rather effective way of offsetting the potential losses that would otherwise be sustained by OECD farmers. This type of policy re-instrumentation will increase the probability that such reforms will be deemed politically acceptable in the OECD member economies, while simultaneously increasing the likelihood that such reforms will also be beneficial to the developing economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Dimaranan, Betina & Hertel, Thomas & Keeney, Roman, 2003. "OECD Domestic Support and the Developing Countries," Conference papers 331138, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331138/files/1354.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lewell F. Gunter & Ki Hong Jeong & Fred C. White, 1996. "Multiple Policy Goals in a Trade Model with Explicit Factor Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(2), pages 313-330.
    2. Hoekman, Bernanrd & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2003. "Reducing agrcultural tariffs versus domestic support : what's more important for developing countries?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2918, The World Bank.
    3. Abler, David G & Shortle, James S, 1992. "Environmental and Farm Commodity Policy Linkages in the U.S. and the EC," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 19(2), pages 197-217.
    4. Rae, Allan N. & Strutt, Anna, 2003. "The Current Round of Agricultural Trade Negotiations: Should We Bother About Domestic Support?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 4(2), pages 1-19.
    5. Elena Ianchovichina & Will Martin, 2004. "Impacts of China's Accession to the World Trade Organization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 18(1), pages 3-27.
    6. Hertel, Thomas W. & Will Martin, 1999. "Would Developing Countries Gain from Inclusion of Manufactures in the WTO Negotiations?," GTAP Working Papers 397, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    7. Martin, W. & Winters, L.A., 1995. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," World Bank - Discussion Papers 307, World Bank.
    8. John E. Floyd, 1965. "The Effects of Farm Price Supports on the Returns to Land and Labor in Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 148-148.
    9. 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.
    10. Joe Dewbre & Jesús Antón & Wyatt Thompton, 2001. "The Transfer Efficiency and Trade Effects of Direct Payments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1204-1214.
    11. Rae, Allan N. & Strutt, Anna, 2003. "The Current Round of Agricultural Trade Negotiations: Should We Bother About Domestic Support? Technical Annex," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 4(2), pages 1-6.
    12. Olarreaga, Marcelo & Ng, Francis, 2002. "Reducing Agriculture Tariffs Versus Domestic Support: What's More Important for Developing Countries?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3576, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas F. Rutherford & David G. Tarr, 2017. "Quantifying The Uruguay Round," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Trade Policies for Development and Transition, chapter 16, pages 363-388, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Kym Anderson & Betina Dimaranan & Joe Francois & Tom Hertel & Bernard Hoekman & Will Martin, 2001. "The Cost of Rich (and Poor) Country Protection to Developing Countries," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 10(3), pages 227-257.
    15. Hertel, Thomas W. & Will Martin, 1999. "Would Developing Countries Gain from Inclusion of Manufactures in the WTO Negotiations?," GTAP Working Papers 397, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    16. Martin,Will & Winters,L. Alan (ed.), 1996. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521586016, September.
    17. Thomas W. Hertel, 1989. "Negotiating Reductions in Agricultural Support: Implications of Technology and Factor Mobility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(3), pages 559-573.
    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. Dimaranan, Betina V. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Keeney, Roman, 2003. "OECD Domestic Support and the Developing Countries," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22000, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Antimiani, Alessandro, 2004. "A New Index to Evaluate the Effective Protection: An Application in a CGE Context," Conference papers 331191, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Mr. Stephen Tokarick, 2003. "Measuring the Impact of Distortions in Agricultural Trade in Partial and General Equilibrium," IMF Working Papers 2003/110, International Monetary Fund.
    4. Kym Anderson, 2005. "Agricultural trade reform and poverty reduction in developing countries," Chapters, in: Sisira Jayasuriya (ed.), Trade Policy Reforms and Development, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Shakur, Shamim & Rae, Allan N. & Chatterjee, Srikanta, 2004. "A Road Ahead From Cancun? Weighing Up Some Give-And-Take Scenarios In A Dda Spirit," Discussion Papers 23709, Massey University, Department of Applied and International Economics.
    6. Rivera, Sandra A. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2005. "How does China’s growth affect India? An Economywide Analysis," Conference papers 331359, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. 武田 史郎, 2007. "貿易政策を対象とした応用一般均衡分析," Discussion Papers (Japanese) 07010, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    9. T. Ademola OYEJIDE, 2000. "Interests And Options Of Developing And Least-Developed Countries In A New Round Of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," G-24 Discussion Papers 2, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    10. Van Herck, Kristine & Vranken, Liesbet, 2011. "Direct Payments and Rent Extraction by Land Owners: Evidence from New Member States," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115543, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Paul Feichtinger & Klaus Salhofer, 2016. "Decoupled Single Farm Payments of the CAP and Land Rental Prices," Working Papers 652016, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.
    12. repec:zbw:inwedp:582015 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. John C. Beghin & David Roland-Holst & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2002. "Global Agricultural Trade and the Doha Round: What are the Implications for North and South?," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 02-wp308, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    14. Van Herck, Kristine & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "Direct Payments and Land Rents: Evidence from New Member States," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126777, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Bruce A. Babcock & John C. Beghin & Jacinto F. Fabiosa & Stephane De Cara & Amani Elobeid & Cheng Fang & Chad E. Hart & Murat Isik & Holger Matthey & Alexander E. Saak & Karen Kovarik & FAPRI Staff, 2002. "Doha Round of the World Trade Organization: Appraising Further Liberalization of Agricultural Markets, The," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 02-wp317, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    16. Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs & Johan Swinnen, 2010. "EU Land Markets and the Common Agricultural Policy," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-31.
    17. Tarr, David G., 2013. "Putting Services and Foreign Direct Investment with Endogenous Productivity Effects in Computable General Equilibrium Models," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 303-377, Elsevier.
    18. repec:zbw:inwedp:652016 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Bernard Hoekman & Kym Anderson, 2000. "Developing-Country Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 171-180.
    20. Domingues, Edson P. & Haddad, Eduardo A. & Hewings, Geoffrey, 2008. "Sensitivity analysis in applied general equilibrium models: An empirical assessment for MERCOSUR free trade areas agreements," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 287-306, May.
    21. Kathuria, Sanjay & Martin, Will & Bhardwaj, Anjali, 2001. "Implications for South Asian countries for abolishing the Multifibre Arrangement," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2721, The World Bank.
    22. Ciaian, Pavel & Kancs, d'Artis & Swinnen, Johan F.M. & Van Herck, Kristine & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "Institutional Factors Affecting Agricultural Land Markets," Working papers 120251, Factor Markets, Centre for European Policy Studies.

    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:pugtwp:331138. 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/gtpurus.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.