IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/1953.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade policies and incentives in Indian agriculture : methodology, background statistics, and protection and incentive indicators, 1965-95

Author

Listed:
  • Pursell, Garry*Gupta, Anju

Abstract

This paper is the first in a series of studies to provide background data and protection and incentive indicators for 13 major Indian crops, which have been estimated in connection with extensive research on Indian agricultural incentives. The general methodology of the studies is described in the first section of the paper. The second section of the paper focuses on sugarcane and sugar. It shows that between 1965 and 1994 real domestic prices of sugar and cane were quite stable in India, declining an average of 0.6 percent (sugar) and 0.3 percent (cane) a year. During the same 29 years the free market price of sugar fluctuated widely (expressed in India rupees) but in real terms increased about 1.3 percent a year. This contrasts in trends reflects the real devaluation of the rupee after 1986 but meant that by the early 1990s, at world sugar prices of US 13-15 cents a pound or higher, India's domestic prices were roughly equivalent to, or below, world reference prices. Because of the fluctuations in world free market prices, nominal protection of sugar and sugarcane production in India--as measured by differences between domestic prices and border reference prices--also fluctuated. Nominal protection was 1) high during low world prices in the 1960s and the mid-1980s; 2) negative when world prices were high in the mid-1970s and early 1980s; and 3) moderate to low by previous standards between 1989 and 1994. Incentives for cane production did not change much when allowance is made for the nominal protection and tradable inputs (principally fertilizers) or subsidies for the principal nontradable imports (canal irrigation, credit, and electricity for pumpsets). Incentives for cane production were somewhat higher in Uttar Pradesh than in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. Half of Indian cane production is used by artisanal producers of gur and small-scale de facto unregulated producers of khandsari sugar. Because of India's complex regulatory system--especially in the important sugar producing state, Uttar Pradesh--incentives are significantly higher for unregulated activities than for the modern sugar mill sector. Regulations subject sugar mills to controls that require them to 1) sell specific quantities of their sugar productions at low"levy"prices; 2) sell molasses production at a fraction (0.1 or less) of open market and border prices; and 3) pay minimum prices (for specific quantities of cane) at above free market prices, except in years of cane shortages.

Suggested Citation

  • Pursell, Garry*Gupta, Anju, 1998. "Trade policies and incentives in Indian agriculture : methodology, background statistics, and protection and incentive indicators, 1965-95," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1953, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/09/14/090224b082b05e1d/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Trade0policies00indicators001965095.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valdes, Alberto & Zietz, Joachim, 1995. "Distortions in world food markets in the wake of GATT: Evidence and policy implications," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 913-926, June.
    2. Martin, W. & Winters, L.A., 1995. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," World Bank - Discussion Papers 307, World Bank.
    3. Lord, Ron & Barry, Robert D., 1990. "The World Sugar Market--Government Intervention and Multilateral Policy Reform," Staff Reports 278353, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. N. Jayaram & Surendra K. Gupta & A.P. Barnabas & Sachchidananda & P.S. Pachauri & M.L. Khattar & B.N. Sampath & H. R. Khanna, 1985. "India," India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, , vol. 41(1), pages 177-179, January.
    5. Dorosh, Paul & Valdés, Alberto, 1990. "Effects of exchange rate and trade policies on agriculture in Pakistan:," Research reports 84, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Barry, Robert D. & Angelo, Luigi & Buzzanell, Peter J. & Gray, Fred, 1990. "Sugar: Background for 1990 Farm Legislation," Staff Reports 278852, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Gulati, Ashok, 1990. "Fertiliser Subsidy: Is the Cultivator 'Net Subsidised?'," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 45(1), January.
    8. Ingco, Merlinda D., 1995. "Agricultural trade liberalization in the Uruguay Round : one step forward, one step back?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1500, The World Bank.
    9. Borrell, Brent & Duncan, Ronald C., 1990. "A survey of the costs of world sugar policies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 522, The World Bank.
    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. Scott McDonald & Cecilia Punt, 2004. "Trade Liberalisation, Efficiency and South Africa's Sugar Industry," Working Papers 2004012, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2004.
    2. AfDB AfDB, 2008. "Working Paper 95 - Agricultural Trade Policy Reform in South Africa," Working Paper Series 2308, African Development Bank.
    3. Chitiga, Margaret & Kandiero, Tonia & Ngwenya, P., 2008. "Agricultural trade policy reform in South Africa," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 47(1), pages 1-26, March.
    4. AfDB AfDB, 2008. "Working Paper 95 - Agricultural Trade Policy Reform in South Africa," Working Paper Series 2228, African Development Bank.

    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. Hans Binswanger & Ernst Lutz, 2003. "Agricultural trade barriers, trade negotiations and the interests of developing countries," Chapters, in: John Toye (ed.), Trade and Development, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. 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.
    3. Safadi, Raed & Laird, Sam, 1996. "The Uruguay Round agreements: Impact on developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(7), pages 1223-1242, July.
    4. Auboin, Marc & Laird, Sam, 1998. "EU import measures and the developing countries," WTO Staff Working Papers TPRD-98-01, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    5. Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "Developing Countries at Doha: A Political Economy Analysis," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(9), pages 1205-1233, September.
    6. Finger, J. Michael & Schuknecht, Ludger, 1999. "Market access advances and retreats : the Uruguay Round and beyond," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2232, The World Bank.
    7. Johnston, Warren E., 1994. "California Field Crops: Location and Trends in Acreage, Yields, and Production, 1945-1991," Information Series 251900, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation.
    8. DeRosa, Dean A. & Govindan, Kumaresan, 1996. "Agriculture, trade, and regionalism in South Asia," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 293-315.
    9. Schiff, Maurice*Valdes, Alberto, 1998. "Agriculture and the macroeconomy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1967, The World Bank.
    10. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    11. Rahman, Mustafizur, 1997. "Recent policy of trade liberalization in Bangladesh and issues of regional cooperation in South Asia," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 117-141.
    12. Arindam Das-Gupta & Ira Gang, 2000. "Decomposing Revenue Effects of Tax Evasion and Tax Structure Changes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 7(2), pages 177-194, March.
    13. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Trade Liberalization, Agriculture, and Poverty in Low-income Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    14. 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).
    15. Ira N. Gang & Arindam Das-Gupta, 1998. "Decomposing Revenue Effects of Tax Evasion, Base Broadening and Tax Rate Reduction," Departmental Working Papers 199506, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    16. Fakhri, Hasanov, 2010. "The Impact of Real Effective Exchange Rate on the Non-oil Export: The Case of Azerbaijan," MPRA Paper 29556, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Zafar Iqbal Qureshi, 2005. "Impact of Management Practices on Employee Effectiveness in South Asia," Labor Economics Working Papers 22273, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    18. Besley, Timothy & Leight, Jessica & Pande, Rohini & Rao, Vijayendra, 2016. "Long-run impacts of land regulation: Evidence from tenancy reform in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 72-87.
    19. Sheriffdeen A. Tella & Olumuyiwa G. Yinusa & Ayinde Taofeek Olusola & Saban Celik, 2011. "Global Economic Crisis And Stock Markets Efficiency: Evidence From Selected Africa Countries," Bogazici Journal, Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Bogazici University, Department of Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 139-169.
    20. Arvind PANAGARIYA, 2000. "The Millennium Round And Developing Countries: Negotiating Strategies And Areas Of Benefits," G-24 Discussion Papers 1, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

    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:wbk:wbrwps:1953. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.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.