Suchergebnisse

Despite recent reforms, world agricultural markets remain highly distorted by government policies. Traditional indicators of agricultural and food price distortions such as producer and consumer support estimates (PSEs and CSEs) can be poor guides to the policies' trade effects. Two recent studies provide much better indicators of trade (and welfare)-reducing effects of farm price and trade policies, but they provide somewhat differing numbers. This article explains why those estimates differ and how they might be improved for use in ongoing annual monitoring of the trade restrictiveness of agricultural policies in both high-income and developing countries. ; The authors are grateful for funding from World Bank Trust Funds provided by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP), the United Kingdom (DfID), Japan, and Ireland, as well as from the Australian Research Council.

Despite recent reforms, world agricultural markets remain highly distorted by government policies. Traditional indicators of agricultural and food price distortions such as producer and consumer support estimates (PSEs and CSEs) can be poor guides to the policies' trade effects. Two recent studies provide much better indicators of trade (and welfare)-reducing effects of farm price and trade policies, but they provide somewhat differing numbers. This article explains why those estimates differ and how they might be improved for use in ongoing annual monitoring of the trade restrictiveness of agricultural policies in both high-income and developing countries. ; The authors are grateful for funding from World Bank Trust Funds provided by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP), the United Kingdom (DfID), Japan, and Ireland, as well as from the Australian Research Council.

Trade negotiators and policy advisors are keen to know the relative contributions of different farm policy instruments to international trade and economic welfare. Nominal rates of assistance or producer support estimates are incomplete indicators, especially when (as in many developing countries) some commodities are taxed and others are subsidized, in which case positive contributions can offset negative contributions. This paper develops and estimates a new set of more-satisfactory partial equilibrium indicators of the relative contribution of different farm policy instruments to reductions in agricultural trade and welfare. It does so by drawing on the trade restrictiveness index literature and a recently compiled database on distortions to agricultural prices for 75 developing and high-income countries over the period 1960 to 2004. Results confirm earlier findings that border taxes are the dominant instrument affecting global trade and welfare, but they also suggest declines in export taxes contributed nearly as much as cuts in import protection to the trade and welfare effects of agricultural policy reforms since the 1980s. ; The authors are grateful for funding from World Bank Trust Funds provided by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP), the United Kingdom (DfID) and Ireland, as well as from the Australian Research Council.

Agricultural markets in OECD countries have long been highly distorted by government policies. Traditional weighted average aggregates of the price distortions involved, such as producer and consumer support estimates (PSEs and CSEs), can be poor indicators of the trade restrictiveness and economic welfare losses associated with them, especially if a country's support estimates vary a lot across the product range. Certainly estimates of trade and welfare effects of price supports can be obtained from sectoral or economywide models using price elasticity estimates, but the results can be contentious if there is no consensus on what model specification and elasticity parameters to use. This paper shows that, if there is a willingness to accept simple assumptions about elasticities, it is possible to generate indicators of the welfare and trade restrictiveness of agricultural policies using no more than the price and quantity data needed to generate PSEs and CSEs. These new indexes thus provide an attractive supplement to the current policy monitoring regime developed by the OECD Secretariat. ; Funding from World Bank Trust Funds provided by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP) and the United Kingdom DfID), and from the Australian Research Council, is gratefully acknowledged.

Trade negotiators and policy advisors are keen to know the relative contributions of different farm policy instruments to international trade and economic welfare. Nominal rates of assistance or producer support estimates are incomplete indicators, especially when (as in many developing countries) some commodities are taxed and others are subsidized, in which case positive contributions can offset negative contributions. This paper develops and estimates a new set of more-satisfactory partial equilibrium indicators of the relative contribution of different farm policy instruments to reductions in agricultural trade and welfare. It does so by drawing on the trade restrictiveness index literature and a recently compiled database on distortions to agricultural prices for 75 developing and high-income countries over the period 1960 to 2004. Results confirm earlier findings that border taxes are the dominant instrument affecting global trade and welfare, but they also suggest declines in export taxes contributed nearly as much as cuts in import protection to the trade and welfare effects of agricultural policy reforms since the 1980s. ; The authors are grateful for funding from World Bank Trust Funds provided by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP), the United Kingdom (DfID) and Ireland, as well as from the Australian Research Council.

Agricultural markets in OECD countries have long been highly distorted by government policies. Traditional weighted average aggregates of the price distortions involved, such as producer and consumer support estimates (PSEs and CSEs), can be poor indicators of the trade restrictiveness and economic welfare losses associated with them, especially if a country's support estimates vary a lot across the product range. Certainly estimates of trade and welfare effects of price supports can be obtained from sectoral or economywide models using price elasticity estimates, but the results can be contentious if there is no consensus on what model specification and elasticity parameters to use. This paper shows that, if there is a willingness to accept simple assumptions about elasticities, it is possible to generate indicators of the welfare and trade restrictiveness of agricultural policies using no more than the price and quantity data needed to generate PSEs and CSEs. These new indexes thus provide an attractive supplement to the current policy monitoring regime developed by the OECD Secretariat. ; Funding from World Bank Trust Funds provided by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP) and the United Kingdom DfID), and from the Australian Research Council, is gratefully acknowledged.

For decades, agricultural price and trade policies in Sub-Saharan Africa hampered farmers' contributions to economic growth and poverty reduction. This paper draws on a modification of so-called trade restrictiveness indexes to provide theoretically precise partial-equilibrium indicators of the trade and welfare effects of agricultural policy distortions to producer and consumer prices in 19 African countries since 1961. Annual time series estimates are provided not only by country but also, for the region, by commodity and by policy instrument. The findings reveal the considerable extent of policy reform over the past two decades, especially through reducing export taxation; but they also reveal that national policies continue to reduce trade and economic welfare much more in Sub-Saharan Africa than in Asia or Latin America. ; This work is a product of a World Bank research project on Distortions to Agricultural Incentives (Project P093895, see www.worldbank.org/agdistortions) which was financially supported by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP), the United Kingdom (DfID) and Ireland; and by the Australian Research Council (DP0880565).

For decades, agricultural price and trade policies in Sub-Saharan Africa hampered farmers' contributions to economic growth and poverty reduction. This paper draws on a modification of so-called trade restrictiveness indexes to provide theoretically precise partial-equilibrium indicators of the trade and welfare effects of agricultural policy distortions to producer and consumer prices in 19 African countries since 1961. Annual time series estimates are provided not only by country but also, for the region, by commodity and by policy instrument. The findings reveal the considerable extent of policy reform over the past two decades, especially through reducing export taxation; but they also reveal that national policies continue to reduce trade and economic welfare much more in Sub-Saharan Africa than in Asia or Latin America. ; This work is a product of a World Bank research project on Distortions to Agricultural Incentives (Project P093895, see www.worldbank.org/agdistortions) which was financially supported by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP), the United Kingdom (DfID) and Ireland; and by the Australian Research Council (DP0880565).

Despite recent reforms, world agricultural markets remain highly distorted by policies. Traditional indicators of those price distortions such as producer and consumer support estimates (PSEs and CSEs) can be poor guides to the policies' economic effects.Recent theoretical literature provides scalar index numbers of trade- and welfare-reducing effects of price and trade policies which this paper builds on to develop more-satisfactory indexes that can be generated using no more than the data used to generate PSEs and CSEs.We then exploit a new Agricultural Distortion database to provide time-series estimates of index numbers for 75 developing and high-income countries over the past half-century ; Funding from World Bank Trust Funds provided by the governments of the Netherlands (BNPP) and the United Kingdom (DfID), and from the Australian Research Council, is gratefully acknowledged.