887 resultados para EXPORT SUBSIDIES
Resumo:
The welfare effect of a foreign capital inflow in an economy which practises an export-oriented trade policy is examined. The latter takes the form of optimally designed export subsidies, minimizing the welfare costs of existing import tariffs. Under the practice of this policy, an inflow of foreign capital is shown to have anambiguous welfare effect. An empirically relevant condition for welfare improvement is derived and discussed.
Resumo:
If an export subsidy is efficient, that is, has a surplus-transfer role, then there exists an implicit function relating the optimal level of the subsidy to the income target in the agricultural sector. If an export subsidy is inefficient no such function exists. We show that dependence exists in large-export equilibrium, not in small-export equilibrium and show that these results remain robust to concerns about domestic tax distortions. The failure of previous work to produce this result stems from its neglect of the income constraint on producer surplus in the programming problem transferring surplusfrom consumersand taxpayers to farmers.
Resumo:
Our differences are three. The first arises from the belief that "... a nonzero value for the optimally chosen policy instrument implies that the instrument is efficient for redistribution" (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 3). Consider the two equations: (1) o* = f(P3) and (2) = -f(3) ++r h* (a, P3) representing the solution to the problem of maximizing weighted, Marshallian surplus using, simultaneously, a per-unit border intervention, 9, and a per-unit domestic intervention, wr. In the solution, parameter ot denotes the weight applied to producer surplus; parameter p denotes the weight applied to government revenues; consumer surplus is implicitly weighted one; and the country in question is small in the sense that it is unable to affect world price by any of its domestic adjustments (see the Appendix). Details of the forms of the functions f((P) and h(ot, p) are easily derived, but what matters in the context of Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's Comment is: Redistributivep referencest hatf avorp roducers are consistent with higher values "alpha," and whereas the optimal domestic intervention, 7r*, has both "alpha and beta effects," the optimal border intervention, r*, has only a "beta effect,"-it does not have a redistributional role. Garth Holloway is reader in agricultural economics and statistics, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy, and Development, University of Reading. The author is very grateful to Xavier Irz, Bhavani Shankar, Chittur Srinivasan, Colin Thirtle, and Richard Tiffin for their comments and their wisdom; and to Mario Mazzochi, Marinos Tsigas, and Cal Turvey for their scholarship, including help in tracking down a fairly complete collection of the papers that cite Alston and Hurd. They are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Note, in equation (1), that the border intervention is positive whenever a distortion exists because 8 > 0 implies 3 - 1 + 8 > 1 and, thus, f((P) > 0 (see Appendix). Using Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's definition, the instrument is now "efficient," and therefore has a redistributive role. But now, suppose that the distortion is removed so that 3 - 1 + 8 = 1, 8 = 0, and consequently the border intervention is zero. According to Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, the instrument is now "inefficient" and has no redistributive role. The reader will note that this thought experiment has said nothing about supporting farm incomes, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with efficient redistribution. Of course, the definition is false. It follows that a domestic distortion arising from the "excess-burden argument" 3 = 1 + 8, 8 > 0 does not make an export subsidy "efficient." The export subsidy, having only a "beta effect," does not have a redistributional role. The second disagreement emerges from the comment that Holloway "... uses an idiosyncratic definition of the relevant objective function of the government (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 2)." The objective function that generates equations (1) and (2) (see the Appendix) is the same as the objective function used by Gardner (1995) when he first questioned Alston, Carter, and Smith's claim that a "domestic distortion can make a border intervention efficient in transferring surplus from consumers and taxpayers to farmers." The objective function used by Gardner (1995) is the same objective function used in the contributions that precede it and thus defines the literature on the debate about borderversus- domestic intervention (Streeten; Yeh; Paarlberg 1984, 1985; Orden; Gardner 1985). The objective function in the latter literature is the same as the one implied in another literature that originates from Wallace and includes most notably Gardner (1983), but also Alston and Hurd. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 86(2) (May 2004): 549-552 Copyright 2004 American Agricultural Economics Association This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:58:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 550 May 2004 Amer. J. Agr. Econ. The objective function in Holloway is this same objective function-it is, of course, Marshallian surplus.1 The third disagreement concerns scholarship. The Comment does not seem to be cognizant of several important papers, especially Bhagwati and Ramaswami, and Bhagwati, both of which precede Corden (1974, 1997); but also Lipsey and Lancaster, and Moschini and Sckokai; one important aspect of Alston and Hurd; and one extremely important result in Holloway. This oversight has some unfortunate repercussions. First, it misdirects to the wrong origins of intellectual property. Second, it misleads about the appropriateness of some welfare calculations. Third, it prevents Alston, Smith, and Vercammen from linking a finding in Holloway (pp. 242-43) with an old theorem (Lipsey and Lancaster) that settles the controversy (Alston, Carter, and Smith 1993, 1995; Gardner 1995; and, presently, Alston, Smith, and Vercammen) about the efficiency of border intervention in the presence of domestic distortions.
Resumo:
Export subsidies on processed foods are an important trade policy instrument for the European Union. GATT Article XVI legitimised the use of export subsidies on primary agricultural products, under certain circumstances, but forbade the use of export subsidies on non-primary products. However it was never satisfactorily resolved whether export subsidies could be paid on the primary agricultural products incorporated into processed products, such as pasta. The Uruguay Round Agreements, and particularly the Agreement on Agriculture (the URAA), apparently legitimised the EU’s practice of paying export subsidies on incorporated agricultural products, at least while the Peace Clause was in force. With the demise of the Peace Clause the question arises whether GATT Article XVI has any residual force, given that the range of primary agricultural products exempted by Article XVI from the ban on export subsidies is narrower than the list of agricultural products covered by the URAA.
Resumo:
"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise en droit (LL.M) option recherche"
Resumo:
El objetivo principal de esta monografía es identificar cuáles son las razones que justifican las contradicciones entre el discurso y el comportamiento de Estados Unidos en el marco de la Organización Mundial del Comercio, particularmente con relación a prácticas anticompetitivas derivadas del programa de protección a la agricultura del país. Para ello se analizan el interés nacional y los elementos de la seguridad nacional a partir de los cuales éste se ha construido. También se evalúan los procesos de formulación de política comercial y las interacciones entre los representantes políticos, las asociaciones de productores y el sector privado para mostrar como este comportamiento contradictorio corresponde a la legitimización de un interés particular.
Resumo:
The gradualist approach to trade liberalization views the uniform tariffs implied by MFN status as an important step on the path to free trade. We investigate whether a regime of uniform tariffs will be preferable to discriminatory tariffs when countries engage in non-cooperative interaction in multilateral trade. The analysis includes product differentiation and asymmetric costs. We show that with the cost asymmetry the countries will disagree on the choice of tariff regime. When the choice of import tariffs and export subsidies is made sequentially the uniform tariff regime may not be sustainable, because of an incentive to deviate to a discriminatory regime. Hence, an international body is needed to ensure compliance with tariff agreement.
Resumo:
Progress in the Doha Round is assessed against the changes to the common agricultural policy (CAP) brought about by the Fischler reforms of 2003-2004, and that proposed for sugar. An elimination of export subsidies could place EU exports of processed foods at a competitive disadvantage because of high sugar and milk prices. Provided the single payment scheme falls within the green box, the likely new limits on domestic support should not be problematic for the post-Fischler CAP. However, an ambitious market access package could open up EU markets and bring pressure for further reform. If there is no Doha agreement, existing provisions will continue to apply, but without the protection of the Peace Clause; and increased litigation is likely. Further CAP reform is to be expected.
Resumo:
Includes bibliography
Resumo:
Includes bibliography
Resumo:
Includes bibliography
Resumo:
Includes bibliography
Resumo:
Access to Latin American and Caribbean Exports in the United States market, 2001-2002 is the seventh annual report released by the ECLAC Washington Office, updating information contained in previous reports. Its aim is to compile and make available information on trade inhibiting measures that Latin American and Caribbean exports encounter in the United States market. This report needs to be placed in the context of a trade relationship between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean, which has grown strongly over the years to the benefit of both economies. Moreover, it must be viewed against the background of the commitment to achieve the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), through which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. In this regard, it is hoped that this report will further contribute to transparency and the elimination of obstacles to the free flow of trade in the Americas. The classification of trade inhibiting measures follows the definition used in the U.S. Trade Representatives (USTR) yearly publication National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Based on this structure, the report focuses on the three areas of greatest relevance for Latin America and the Caribbean: Imports Policies (e.g., tariffs and other import charges, quantitative restrictions, import licensing, customs barriers). Standards, testing, labeling and certification (e.g., unnecessarily restrictive application of phytosanitary standards). Export subsidies (e.g., export financing on preferential terms and agricultural export subsidies that displace other foreign exports in third country markets).
Resumo:
Access to Latin American and Caribbean Exports in the United States market, 2001-2002 is the eighth annual report released by the ECLAC Washington Office, updating information contained in previous reports. Its aim is to compile and make available information on trade inhibiting measures that Latin American and Caribbean exports encounter in the United States market. This report needs to be placed in the context of a trade relationship between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean, which has grown strongly over the years to the benefit of both economies. Moreover, it must be viewed against the background of the commitment to achieve the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), through which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. In this regard, it is hoped that this report will further contribute to transparency and the elimination of obstacles to the free flow of trade in the Americas. The classification of trade inhibiting measures follows the definition used in the U.S. Trade Representatives (USTR) yearly publication National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Based on this structure, the report focuses on the three areas of greatest relevance for Latin America and the Caribbean: Imports Policies (e.g., tariffs and other import charges, quantitative restrictions, import licensing, customs barriers). Standards, testing, labeling and certification (e.g., unnecessarily restrictive application of phytosanitary standards). Export subsidies (e.g., export financing on preferential terms and agricultural export subsidies that displace other foreign exports in third country markets).