Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T21:14:50.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy of Agricultural Trade Negotiations on the Uruguay Round of MTN: Can the U.S. and European Community Reach an Acceptable Compromise in the GATT?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Glen C.W. Ames
Glen C.W. Ames*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultual Economics and Applied Economics at theUniversity of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A model of the political economy of agricultural policy formulation was used to analyze the current stalemate in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The combination of social welfare increasing and transferring policies in the European Community and the U.S. is one of the primary causes of the deadlock in trade negotiations. The Community's farm policy of high internal price supports, limited market access, and export subsidies represents short-term equilibria in the market for social-welfare policies which distribute benefits to producers at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. Thus, the opportunity for internal reform of the CAP leading to a compromise in the GATT negotiations is problematic at best. However, international commitments to agricultural policy reform will force the Community to make concessions which will bring equivalent change in domestic policy.

Keywords

Uruguay round of Multilateral Trade Negotiationsinterantional tradeGATT
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 163 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AGRA Europe. No. 1424. “EC Farm Ministers Give Cool Reception to CAP Reform Plans.” 25 January, 1991. pp. E/1–E/2.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1429, “Agreement on Need for CAP Reform-But not How to Achieve it.“ 1 March, 1991. p. P/3.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1442, “EC Farm Prices Agreed.” 31 May, 1991. pp. E/1–E/6.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1447, “Commission Tables Detailed CAP Reform Proposals.” 5 July, 1991. pp. P/4–P/7.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1472, “GATT: Details of the Dunkel ‘Compromise’ Paper.” 3 January, 1992. pp. E/l–E/3.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1474, “FEDOIL Backs New EC Oilseeds Regime.” 17 January, 1992. p. E/8.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1483, “GATT Panel Finds Against New EC Oilseeds Regime.” 20 March, 1992. pp. P/3–P/4.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1492, “Historic Agreement on CAP Reform.” 22 May, 1992. pp. P/l–P/15.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1493, “Mixed Reactions to CAP Reform Agreement.” 29 May, 1992. pp. E/2–E/4.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1495, “U.S. ‘Hit List’ of EC Products in Oilseeds Dispute.” 12 June, 1992. pp. E/1–E/4.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1500, “Expert View on CAP Reform/Agrimoney Policy Impact.” 17 July, 1992. pp. E/3–E/4.Google Scholar
AGRA Europe. No. 1502, “No GATT Deal Before 1993.” 31 July, 1992. p. P/1.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. “On Why Agriculture Declines with Economic Growth.” Agr. Econ., 1(1987): 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities. “Commission Proposals on the Prices for Agricultural Products and on Related Measures (1991–1992)”. Com(91) 72 final - Vol. 1, Brussels, Belgium, March 1, 1991.Google Scholar
Council of the European Communities. “The Development and Future of the CAP - Reflections Paper of the CAP.” Press Release, Brussels, Belgium, February 1, 1991.Google Scholar
Council of the European Communities. “1579th Council Meeting - Agriculture.” Press Release 6539/92, Brussels, Belgium, May 22, 1992.Google Scholar
Council of the European Communities. “Presidency Report — Delors II Package.” 7913/92 RAU 41, Brussels, Belgium, July 17, 1992.Google Scholar
De Janvry, A., and Sadoulet, E.. “Alternative Approaches to the Political Economy of Agricultural Policies: Convergence of Analytics, Divergence of Implications.” In Agriculture and Government in an Interdependent World: Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Maunder, A. and Valdes, A., eds., Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1989, pp. 245–246.Google Scholar
Danforth, John C. United States Senate. Letter Addressed to ‘the President’ April 10, 1992.Google Scholar
Drazek, Paul, and Paggi, Mechel S.. “Is the Uruguay Round Dead?” Choices. 2nd Quarter 1991, pp.34–35.Google Scholar
European Communities - Commission. Treaties Establishing the European Communities (ECSC, EEC, EAEC) - Single European Act - Other Basic Instruments, Abridged edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1987.Google Scholar
Herlihy, Michael T., and Weiss, Kenneth R.. “Profiles of Agriculture in the United States and European Community.” Western Europe Agriculture and Trade Report. RS-90-4 ATAD, ERS, Washington, DC: USDA ERS West Eur. Agr. and Trade Rpt. RS-90-4, Nov. 1990.Google Scholar
Moyer, H.W., and Josling, T.E.. Agricultural Policy Reform: Politics and Process in the EC and the USA. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Rausser, G.C., and Foster, W.E.. “Political Preference Functions and Public Policy Reform.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 72(1990): 641–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Western Europe Agriculture and Trade Report. Washington, DC: Ag. and Trade Anal. Div. Rpt. RS-90-4, Nov. 1990.Google Scholar