Search results

In this thesis, I dealt with the question if the so-called 'New New Trade Theory' can also be applied to the agricultural sector, and if so, which recommendations arise. The thesis consists of five discussion papers dealing with a special problem each. While the first two papers focus on theoretical issues, the third as well as fourth focus on methodological issues and the fifth on empirical subjects. In summary, the are no compelling reasons neither from a theoretical point of view nor from a methododological standpoint why the 'New New Trade Theory' should not be applied to the agricultural sector. In order to apply models of agricultural trade which assume heterogeneous agricultural enterprises to the agricultural sector, the necessary theoretical conditions can be justified theoretically as well as empirically. Furthermore, neither from a theoretical standpoint nor from a methodological point of view there is nothing to be said against applying the 'New New Trade Theory' to the agricultural sector because corresponding models can be integrated in an intermediated trade structure. The standard estimation approach for economietric trade models, Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood estimator, is also applicable to disaggregate trade models without restrictions. The positive statistical properties of the estimator remain unaffected. There is empirical evidence of the statistical and the economic relevance of the 'New New Trade Theory' for the practical agricultural market analysis. From the political point of view, there are also serious reasons to apply the 'New New Trade Theory' to the agricultural sector. According to the 'New New Trade Theory', trade policies have not only a direct influence on agricultural trade, but also on the productivity of agricultural enterprises, and therefore on the structural change in agriculture. Policies aiming at either increasing the productivity in agriculture or shaping the structural change in agriculture should take these interrelations into considerations. Contradicting policies should be avoided beforehand. Furthermore, the hitherto estimations of elasticities of trade flows have been too low, the trade elasticities should significantly higher. Conversely, higher elasticities of trade flows imply higher welfare gains by free trade emphazising the importance of liberalization policies in agricultural trade. As a result of this thesis, it can be said that the 'New New Trade Theory' is not only applicable to the agricultural sector, but it also should be applied from the perspective of agricultural market policy. The 'New New Trade Theory' provides new insights from which especially policy consulting should benefit. But there still is a need for further research because the theory has not been fully developed yet, and only a few studies have been conducted which have proved empirically the significance of the 'New New Trade Theory' for the agricultural sector.

First things first-contrary to popular opinion, the main reason farmers and grain traders use futures markets is not to hedge spot price and basis risks, but to ensure the profitability of the storage business. The scientific literature mainly discusses the minimum variance hedge ratio, which aims at minimizing spot price and basis risks. In practice, however, it is of little use to farmers and grain traders and has the potential to yield negative economic consequences. Minimum variance hedging (MVH) leads to over-hedging on inverse markets and under-hedging on carry markets. In both cases, the costs of storage cannot be (adequately) covered. It is therefore not surprising that farmers and grain traders do not actually use MVH. On a carry market, a good strategy is to trade the basis. The opposite is true for inverse markets where hedging on futures markets does not make sense. Here, it is better to follow a rather speculative strategy that takes account of price trends. In a nutshell: buy on a weak basis and sell on a strong basis (carry market), or speculate (inverse market).

The 2003 reforms of the Common Agricultural policy of the European Union introduced decoupled income transfers as the most prominent policy instrument. However, member states were given substantial discretion over the degree and timing of the reform implementation. As a result, different implementation schemes coexist within the EU, keeping certain parts of the income support coupled to current production levels. This coexistence leads to distortions of production incentives, factor misallocations, and artificial trade flows. Here, we examine these effects in the beef sector where full decoupling was not obligatory for all member states. Based on a cost minimization framework, we derive a sector-specific trade model with heterogeneous firms and quality differences. The model is used to examine the effects of different implementation schemes on intra-European calf trade. Empirical results confirm that the expected distortions to trade flows occured, violating the fundamental CAP principle of Market Unity.

Income growth, changing consumer preferences and technological progress are having a transformative effect on global food trade and, in particular, wheat markets. This is evidenced by two main developments: First, the growing demand for wheat in Asia and Africa is increasingly being met by the European Union (EU) and the Black Sea Region (BSR), which have replaced the United States (US) as the major players on the global wheat market. Second, and as a consequence, the Euronext futures market, which reflects the supply and demand fundamentals in the EU and the BSR, is becoming more important for international wheat price discovery. In light of these two changes, the EU and the BSR must take more responsibility for ensuring global food security and combating hunger and malnutrition. To achieve this, greater international cooperation is required, in particular between the big Western and Eastern economic powers. Unrestricted international trade is vital to ensure sufficient supply of food worldwide, while escalating economic sanctions and countersanctions endanger food security, especially in importdependent regions. Public debate on trade and economic sanctions must therefore be more objective and better take into account both regional and global needs.

Income growth, changing consumer preferences and technological progress are having a transformative effect on global food trade and, in particular, wheat markets. This is evidenced by two main developments: First, the growing demand for wheat in Asia and Africa is increasingly being met by the European Union (EU) and the Black Sea Region (BSR), which have replaced the United States (US) as the major players on the global wheat market. Second, and as a consequence, the Euronext futures market, which reflects the supply and demand fundamentals in the EU and the BSR, is becoming more important for international wheat price discovery. In light of these two changes, the EU and the BSR must take more responsibility for ensuring global food security and combating hunger and malnutrition. To achieve this, greater international cooperation is required, in particular between the big Western and Eastern economic powers. Unrestricted international trade is vital to ensure sufficient supply of food worldwide, while escalating economic sanctions and countersanctions endanger food security, especially in importdependent regions. Public debate on trade and economic sanctions must therefore be more objective and better take into account both regional and global needs.

Eine Auswertung von 35 Forschungsarbeiten über den Einfluss der Finanzspekulation auf die Agrarrohstoffmärkte gelangt zu folgenden Ergebnissen: Die weit überwiegende Mehrheit der Studien kann die in der öffentlichen Diskussion vorherrschenden Befürchtungen nicht bestätigen. Gemäß aktuellem Erkenntnisstand sprechen nur wenige und zudem schwache Befunde für die Auffassung, dass die Zunahme der Finanzspekulation in den letzten Jahren (1) das Niveau bzw. (2) die Volatilität der Preise für Agrarrohstoffe hat ansteigen lassen. Hierfür waren vielmehr realwirtschaftliche Faktoren verantwortlich. Deshalb sind die wissenschaftlichen Studien mehrheitlich nicht dafür, sondern dagegen, (3) regulatorische Marktzutrittsbarrieren zu errichten. Transaktionssteuern oder Positionslimits werden als sehr riskant angesehen. Zahlreiche Studien warnen explizit vor einer Überregulierung, die die Agrarmärkte nicht besser, sondern schlechter funktionieren lassen würde. Insofern ist der Alarm zur Finanzspekulation als Fehl-Alarm einzustufen: Wer den Hunger in der Welt wirksam bekämpfen will, muss realwirtschaftlich dafür Sorge tragen, dass das Angebot an Nahrungsmitteln mit der auf absehbare Zeit steigenden Nachfrage Schritt halten kann.