IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331165.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Food and Agricultural Markets at the Advent of the next WTO Round

Author

Listed:
  • Brockmeier, Martina
  • Salamon, Petra
  • Kurzweil, Marianne
  • Herok, Claudia

Abstract

The November 2001 declaration of the 4th Ministerial Conference in Doha provides the mandate for negotiations on a range of subjects, including agriculture. Negotiations on this topic began in early 2000 and are to end by 1 January 2005. A large number of governments have already submitted a negotiating proposal and besides aspects like special and differential treatment for developing countries and non-trade concerns, the classical themes market access, export subsidies and domestic support will again be high on the agenda. Analyzing a possible outcome of the WTO, we use the comparative-static general equilibrium GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project) model. To allow for deeper insight, the standard version of the model is accompanied by a more specific modeling of WTO related trade instruments like tariff rate quotas and limits on subsidized exports. Additionally, instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, e.g. production quotas and EU-budget, are also implemented in greater detail. Due to the nature of these instruments the complementarity approach of Gempack 8.0 is used. Since full impact of possible WTO outcomes is expected to take place in 2012 a range of preparatory simulations is required including projections based on external forecasts on macroeconomic developments, Agenda 2000 and EU enlargement. Taking into account a post EU enlargement situation in 2012, different stylized WTO scenarios will be carried out reflecting proposals like cut of all import taxes, reduction of direct payments, abolishment of export subsidies and expansion of tariff rate quotas. In the simulations, GTAP Data Base Version 5.2 will be used to generate an aggregation of 10 agricultural sectors, 7 food sectors and 3 non-agricultural sectors as well as 10 regions including beneath others EU-27, USA and CAIRNS and five production factors. Expected findings will cover impacts on trade, production and prices, and will enable us to detect sensitive sectors and regions concerning the different proposals.

Suggested Citation

  • Brockmeier, Martina & Salamon, Petra & Kurzweil, Marianne & Herok, Claudia, 2003. "Food and Agricultural Markets at the Advent of the next WTO Round," Conference papers 331165, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331165/files/1418.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian W.H. Parry & Roberton C. Williams III & Lawrence H. Goulder, 2002. "When Can Carbon Abatement Policies Increase Welfare? The Fundamental Role of Distorted Factor Markets," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 25, pages 471-503, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. C. E. Ferguson, 1965. "Time-Series Production Functions and Technological Progress in American Manufacturing Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 135-135.
    3. P.A. Black & N. Rankin, 1998. "On the Cost ‐ Increasing Effects of the New Labour Laws in South Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 66(4), pages 215-220, December.
    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. Marc Vielle & Alain L. Bernard, 1998. "Un exemple d'utilisation : le coût de politiques de réduction des gaz à effet de serre," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 136(5), pages 33-48.
    2. Fankhauser, Samuel & Jotzo, Frank, 2017. "Economic growth and development with low-carbon energy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86850, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Lawrence H. Goulder, 2013. "Markets for Pollution Allowances: What Are the (New) Lessons?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 87-102, Winter.
    4. Sanstad, Alan H. & DeCanio, Stephen J. & Boyd, Gale A. & Koomey, Jonathan G., 2001. "Estimating bounds on the economy-wide effects of the CEF policy scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(14), pages 1299-1311, November.
    5. Bjertnæs, Geir H. & Tsygankova, Marina & Martinsen, Thomas, 2013. "Norwegian climate policy reforms in the presence of an international quota market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 147-158.
    6. Mbéa Bell & Sylvain Dessy, 2017. "Market Power and Instrument Choice in Climate Policy," Cahiers de recherche 1704, Centre de recherche sur les risques, les enjeux économiques, et les politiques publiques.
    7. Rabeau, Yves, 1976. "La prévision de l’emploi dans le modèle de l’IRIC," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 52(2), pages 149-168, avril.
    8. Brita Bye & Karine Nyborg, 1999. "The Welfare Effects of Carbon Policies: Grandfathered Quotas versus Differentiated Taxes," Discussion Papers 261, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    9. Govinda R. Timilsina & Ram M. Shrestha, 2002. "General equilibrium analysis of economic and environmental effects of carbon tax in a developing country: case of Thailand," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 5(3), pages 179-211, September.
    10. Govinda R. Timilsina & Ram M. Shrestha, 2003. "General equilibrium analysis of economic and environmental effects of carbon tax in a developing country: case of Thailand," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 5(3), pages 179-211, April.
    11. Labandeira, Xavier & Labeaga, José M. & Rodríguez, Miguel, 2009. "An integrated economic and distributional analysis of energy policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5776-5786, December.
    12. Bin Ye & Jingjing Jiang & Lixin Miao & Ji Li & Yang Peng, 2015. "Innovative Carbon Allowance Allocation Policy for the Shenzhen Emission Trading Scheme in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Ian W.H. Parry, 2005. "Fiscal Interactions and the Costs of Controlling Pollution from Electricity," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(4), pages 849-869, Winter.
    14. Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Gechert, Sebastian & Kolcunova, Dominika, 2019. "Death to the Cobb-Douglas Production Function? A Meta-Analysis of the Capital-Labor Substitution Elasticity," MetaArXiv 6um5g, Center for Open Science.
    15. Ian W. H. Parry & Antonio Bento, 2001. "Revenue Recycling and the Welfare Effects of Road Pricing," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 103(4), pages 645-671, December.
    16. Kverndokk, Snorre & Rose, Adam, 2008. "Equity and Justice in Global Warming Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 135-176, October.
    17. van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2004. "Economics of Forest and Agricultural Carbon Sinks," Working Papers 18160, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    18. Sebastian Gechert & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova & Dominika Kolcunova, 2022. "Measuring Capital-Labor Substitution: The Importance of Method Choices and Publication Bias," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 45, pages 55-82, July.
    19. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    20. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 69-88, Summer.

    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:331165. 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.