Suchergebnisse

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).

Since the work of FEENSTRA (2002), the standard ANDERSON & VAN WINCOOP (2003) Gravity Model has been estimated using a fixed effects approach. However, a fixed effects approach has a major drawback: it does not allow for the estimation of exporter- and importer-invariant variables. Thus, economically relevant variables such as exporter and importer gross domestic product are disregarded. Here, we propose a random intercept model to address this gap. This approach not only provides identical estimates to a fixed effects approach, but also allows for the estimation of exporter- and importer-invariant variables.

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.

Nicht zuletzt infolge merklich gestiegener Einkommen, veränderter Verbraucherwünsche und beachtlicher technologischer Fortschritte verzeichnet der weltweite Agrarhandel in den vergangenen drei Jahrzehnten historische Entwicklungen. Diese betreffen (insbesondere) auch die internationalen Märkte für Weizen. Erstens, die stark zunehmende Weizennachfrage in asiatischen und afrikanischen Ländern wird mehr und mehr von Ländern der Europäischen Union (EU) sowie der Schwarzmeerregion (BSR) bedient, die die Vereinigten Staaten (USA) als Hauptakteur im globalen Weizengeschäft abgelöst haben. Zweitens, hat seit Mitte des letzten Jahrzehnts der EuronextTerminmarkt für Mahlweizen, der speziell die Angebots- und Nachfragebedingungen am europäischen Weizenmarkt reflektiert, gegenüber den bisher dominierenden US-Terminmärkten an Bedeutung hinzugewonnen. Damit stehen die EU sowie die BSR einmal mehr in Verantwortung, wenn es um die Versorgung der Weltbevölkerung mit Nahrungsmitteln und damit um den Kampf gegen Hunger und Unterernährung geht. Um dieser Herausforderung gerecht zu werden, empfiehlt sich eine engere Kooperation auf internationaler Ebene besonders zwischen den großen westlichen und östlichen Volkswirtschaften. Bekanntlich bedarf es weitgehend ungestörter internationaler Handelsbeziehungen, um globale Versorgungsrisiken zu reduzieren. Im Gegensatz dazu bedrohen eskalierende Wirtschaftssanktionen und resultierende Gegensanktionen die Ernährungssicherheit, insbesondere in importbedürftigen Entwicklungsländern. In diesem Kontext ist nachdrücklich eine Versachlichung politischer sowie öffentlich geführter Debatten zu Handels- oder Wirtschaftssanktionen zu fordern. Insbesondere müssen die negativen Konsequenzen von Sanktionen stärker Berücksichtigung finden. Es ist eine Binsenweisheit, dass internationale Geschäftsbeziehungen nicht nur das wirtschaftliche Wohlergehen der Menschen befördern, sondern auch zur Abschwächung internationaler Konflikte beitragen können.

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.

This article sketches an ethics of (financial) speculation in futures markets. (1) It identi-fies an intentionalistic fallacy prevalent in moral criticisms of speculation in general and of financial speculation in particular. (2) It scrutinizes the degree to which the recent debate on financial speculation with agricultural commodities follows the general pat-tern of moral criticism and its intentionalistic fallacy. (3) It then provides a theoretical and empirical in-depth analysis of long-only index funds engagement in futures markets and concludes that moral criticisms which put them in the pillory as "hungermakers" are unjust(ified). This proves that ethics, understood as a theory of morality, can criticize moral criticisms of financial speculation on moral grounds. (4) Finally, this article dis-cusses the option of interdisciplinary cooperation between ethics and economics.

Dieser Literaturüberblick wertet 35 Forschungsarbeiten aus, die zwischen 2010 und 2012 veröffentlicht wurden und den Einfluss der Finanzspekulation auf die Agrarroh-stoffmärkte empirisch untersuchen: Gemäß aktuellem Erkenntnisstand spricht wenig für die Auffassung, dass die Zunahme der Finanzspekulation in den letzten Jahren (a) das Niveau bzw. (b) die Volatilität der Preise für Agrarrohstoffe hat ansteigen lassen. Hier-für waren vielmehr realwirtschaftliche Faktoren verantwortlich. Deshalb sind die wis-senschaftlichen Studien mehrheitlich nicht dafür, sondern dagegen, (c) regulatorische Marktzutrittsbarrieren zu errichten. Insofern ist der zivilgesellschaftliche Alarm zur Fi-nanzspekulation als Fehl-Alarm einzustufen: Wer den Hunger in der Welt wirksam be-kämpfen will, muss realwirtschaftlich dafür Sorge tragen, dass das Angebot an Nah-rungsmitteln mit der auf absehbare Zeit steigenden Nachfrage Schritt halten kann.