[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iatrcp/14618.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Implementation Of The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture And Issues For The Next Round Of Agricultural Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Tangermann, Stefan
  • Honma, Masayoshi
  • Josling, Timothy E.
  • Lee, Jaeok
  • MacLaren, Donald
  • McClatchy, Don
  • Miner, William M.
  • Pursell, Garry
  • Sumner, Daniel A.
  • Valdes, Alberto
Abstract
Contact for this paper: Stefan Tangermann, Institute of Agricultural Economics, University of Gottingen, Gottingen, Germany. Among the many new achievements made in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, the ambitious and wide-ranging Agreement on Agriculture (The Agreement) was a significant departure from the way agriculture had traditionally been treated in the international trading order. Completely new rules and commitments were established in the areas of market access, export competition and domestic support. While it was generally agreed that the nature of these new WTO provisions for agriculture pointed in an appropriate direction and held promise for the longer run process of reforming the multilateral trading regime for agriculture, it was also clear that the quantitative parameters agreed for the current implementation period of the Agreement were not yet very demanding in most cases. Moreover, right from the start observers and analysts agreed that the actual impact of the new disciplines for agricultural policies and trade agreed at Marrakesh in 1994 would very much depend on the way in which they were going to be implemented in practice. Would the new commitments countries had accepted require or induce changes in their policies? Was access to markets really going to be improved? Were the new elements of managed trade, resulting from the host of new tariff rate quotas, going to have negative impacts on trading relations? Would the new constraints on export subsidization turn out to be binding? Could the new provisions on domestic support, and in particular existence of the "green box" be expected to influence national decision making on the instrumentation of agricultural policies? Would countries try to find loopholes in the Agreement which might allow them to escape the constraining effects of some of the new disciplines? Did one have to expect that the frequency of trade disputes in agriculture might further increase? And would the new WTO rules for dispute settlement be able to deal with such trade frictions more successfully? Was the newly established WTO Committee on Agriculture going to be a useful forum for settling any disagreements at an early stage, and for making sure that the reform process in agriculture was kept on track? The current six-year implementation period under the Agreement (lasting until the year 2000, with four more years for developing countries to implement their reduction commitments) is now approaching its mid-term. It is still too early for a final assessment of how effective the Agreement has been. However, interesting and important insights can already been gained from the way governments have so far implemented the new rules and commitments. An assessment of the experience made in the first half of the implementation period should be useful for the remainder of the implementation process. Moreover, the time is ripe for a stock-taking as governments begin to prepare for the next round of agricultural negotiations, on the "continuation of the reform process", scheduled under the Agreement to be initiated in 1999. Such a mid-term assessment of how the Agreement is being implemented, and of the resulting issues for the next round of negotiations, is exactly what the present paper tries to achieve. The main part of the paper consists of chapters 2 to 9, looking into the way the Agreement is being implemented by major countries and country groups (USA, European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Japan, Korea, South Asia, Latin America). Chapter 10 provides a brief overview of that country experience and reviews developments in Geneva, in the Committee on Agriculture and in the settlement of agricultural disputes. On the basis of all that analysis, chapter 11 then discusses issues for the next round of agricultural negotiations. Chapter 12, finally, draws conclusions regarding the future of agricultural trade liberalization.

Suggested Citation

  • Tangermann, Stefan & Honma, Masayoshi & Josling, Timothy E. & Lee, Jaeok & MacLaren, Donald & McClatchy, Don & Miner, William M. & Pursell, Garry & Sumner, Daniel A. & Valdes, Alberto, 1997. "Implementation Of The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture And Issues For The Next Round Of Agricultural Negotiations," Commissioned Papers 14618, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrcp:14618
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.14618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/14618/files/cp12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.14618?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. Orden, David & Paarlberg, Robert L. & Roe, Terry L., 1996. "A Farm Bill for Booming Commodity Markets," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 11(2), pages 1-4.
    2. Tanner, Carolyn, 1996. "Agricultural Trade Liberalisation And The Uruguay Round," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(1), pages 1-35, April.
    3. Josling, Timothy E., 1993. "Agriculture In A World Of Trading Blocs," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 37(3), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Majd, Nader, 1995. "The Uruguay Round and South Asia : an overview of the impact and opportunities," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1484, The World Bank.
    5. Stefan Tangermann, 1996. "Implementation Of The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture: Issues And Prospects," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 315-337, January.
    6. Valdes, A, 1996. "Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policy in Latin America during Major Policy Reform," World Bank - Discussion Papers 349, World Bank.
    7. Young, C. Edwin & Westcott, Paul C., 1996. "The 1996 Farm Act Increases Market Orientation," Agricultural Information Bulletins 262100, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Swinbank, Alan & Ritson, Christopher, 1995. "The impact of the GATT agreement on EU fruit and vegetable policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 339-357, August.
    9. Timothy E. Josling & Stefan Tangermann & T. K. Warley, 1996. "The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Agriculture in the GATT, chapter 8, pages 175-216, Palgrave Macmillan.
    10. Sumner, Daniel A., 1995. "Farm Programs And Related Policy In The United States," Proceedings of the 1st Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshop, 1995: Understanding Canada\United States Grain Disputes 16742, Farm Foundation, Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshops.
    11. Daniel A. Sumner, 1995. "Agricultural Policy Reform in the United States," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53510, September.
    12. Vousden,Neil, 1990. "The Economics of Trade Protection," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521346696, September.
    13. Timothy E. Josling, 1993. "Agriculture In A World Of Trading Blocs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 37(3), pages 155-179, December.
    14. Josling, Timothy E., 1993. "Agriculture in a World of Trading Blocs," 1993 Conference (37th), February 9-11, 1993, Sydney, Australia 147398, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    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. Josling, Timothy E., 1998. "International Trade Policy: The Wto Agenda For Agriculture," Agricultural Policy Papers 23686, Massey University, Centre for Applied Economics and Policy Studies.
    2. Choi, Jung-Sup & Sumner, Daniel A., 2000. "Opening Markets while Maintaining Protection: Tariff Rate Quotas in Korea and Japan," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 91-102, April.
    3. Runge, C. Ford, 1998. "An Assessment Of U.S. Agricultural Policy And Linkages To Trade And Environmental Issues," Conference Papers 14499, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    4. Dixit, Praveen M. & Josling, Timothy E. & Blandford, David, 2001. "The Current Wto Agricultural Negotiations: Options For Progress; Synthesis," Commissioned Papers 14623, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Tangermann, Stefan, 2001. "Has The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture Worked Well?," Working Papers 14586, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    6. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Tangermann, Stefan, 2000. "Tariff Rate Quotas in The EU," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 70-80, April.
    7. de Gorter, Harry & Abbott, Philip C. & Barichello, Richard R. & Boughner, Devry S. & Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Choi, Jung-Sup & Coleman, Jonathan R. & Herrmann, Roland & Kramb, Marc Christopher & Shel, 2001. "Issues In Reforming Tariff-Rate Import Quotas In The Agreement On Agriculture In The Wto," Commissioned Papers 14617, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    8. Sumner, Daniel A., 2000. "Opening Global Markets For Agriculture: The Next Wto Round," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 18(1), pages 1-12, March.
    9. Martin, Lizbeth & Paarlberg, Philip L. & Lee, John G., 1999. "Bargaining For European Union Farm Policy Reform Through U.S. Pesticide Restrictions," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-10, October.
    10. Timothy Josling, 2000. "The agricultural negotiations: an overflowing agenda," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 82(Jul), pages 53-76.

    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. Glebe, Thilo W., 2011. "Welfare economics of agricultural trade liberalisation and strategic environmental policy," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 8(2).
    2. MacLaren, Donald, 1995. "The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture: A New World Order for Agricultural Trade?," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(01), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Edwards, Geoff & Fraser, Iain, 2001. "Reconsidering agri-environmental policy permitted by the Uruguay round agreement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 313-326, May.
    4. Dell'Aquila, Crescenzo & Sarker, Rakhal & Meilke, Karl D., 1999. "Regionalism And Trade In Agrifood Products," Working Papers 14591, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Bergschmidt, Angela & Hartmann, Monika, 1998. "Agricultural trade policies and trade relations in transition economies," IAMO Discussion Papers 12, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    6. Bergschmidt, Angela & Hartmann, Monika, 1998. "Agricultural Trade Policies And Trade Relations In Transition Economies," IAMO Discussion Papers 14896, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    7. Chantal Le Mouël, 1999. "Élargissement à l'Est et négociations commerciales internationales : quelle marge de manœuvre pour la PAC ?," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 329(1), pages 35-54.
    8. GAIGNE, Carl & LAROCHE DUPRAZ, Cathie & MATTHEWS, Alan, 2015. "Thirty years of European research on international trade in food and agricultural products," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(1), March.
    9. Siebert, Jerry, 1997. "California Agriculture Issues and Challenges," Monographs, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation, number 263826, December.
    10. Josling, Tim & Tangermann, Stefan, 1998. "The Agricultural and Food Sectors," UCAIS Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, Working Paper Series qt06q6w1b8, UCAIS Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, UC Berkeley.
    11. Larue, Bruno & Lapan, Harvey E. & Gervais, Jean-Philippe, 2010. "Tariff-Rate Quotas, Rent-Shifting and the Selling of Domestic Access," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, May.
    12. Marie-Ange VEGANZONES-VAROUDAKIS, 2000. "Market Access, Export Subsidies, Domestic Support and the WTO Negociations: a Review and Synthesis," Working Papers 200008, CERDI.
    13. Oyewumi, Olubukola Ayodeju, 2005. "Modeling tariff rate quotas in the South African livestock industry," Master's Degree Theses 28064, University of the Free State, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    14. Robert Jörin & Yvan Lengwiler, 2004. "Learning from Financial Markets: Auctioning Tariff-Rate Quotas in Agricultural Trade," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 140(IV), pages 521-541, December.
    15. Anderson, Kym & Kurzweil, Marianne & Martin, William J. & Sandri, Damiano & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2008. "Methodology for Measuring Distortions to Agricultural Incentives," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48326, World Bank.
    16. Oyewumi, Olubukola Ayodeju & Jooste, Andre & Britz, Wolfgang & van Schalkwyk, Herman D., 2008. "Trade Liberalization in the South African Livestock Industry: implications for rural development," 2007 Second International Conference, August 20-22, 2007, Accra, Ghana 51997, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    17. Guyomard, Herve & Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Gohin, Alexandre & Le Mouel, Chantal, 2000. "Impact of the 1996 US FAIR Act on the Common Agricultural Policy in the World Trade Organisation context: the decoupling issue," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 17-34, February.
    18. Swinbank, Alan, 2004. "Dirty Tariffication Revisited: The EU and Sugar," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14.
    19. Joerin, Robert, 2001. "The Impact Of Tariff-Rate Quotas And Imperfect Competition On Market Access," 2001: International Trade in Livestock Products Symposium, January 2001, Auckland, New Zealand 14556, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    20. Sayan, Serdar & Tin, Ela, 1998. ""Green Box" Measures For Agricultural Support: How Decoupled Can They Really Be? An Investigation Within Sam And Cge Frameworks," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20852, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    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:ags:iatrcp:14618. 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/iatrcea.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.