Review of World Economics

, Volume 147, Issue 2, pp 269–302 | Cite as

Novel indicators of the trade and welfare effects of agricultural distortions in OECD countries

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Distorted incentives Agricultural price and trade policies Trade restrictiveness index 

JEL Classifications

F13 F14 Q17 Q18 

References

  1. Anderson, J. E., & Neary, J. P. (2005). Measuring the restrictiveness of international trade policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, K., & Valenzuela, E. (2007). Do global trade distortions still harm developing country farmers? Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 143(1), 108–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, K., & Swinnen, J. (Eds.) (2008). Distortions to agricultural incentives in Europe’s transition economics. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, K., & Valenzuela, E. (2008). Global estimates of distortions to agricultural incentives, 1955 to 2007. Database available at http://www.worldbank.org/agdistortions.
  5. Anderson, K. (2009). Five decades of distortions to agricultural incentives, Ch. 1. In K. Anderson (Ed.), Distortions to agricultural incentives: A global perspective, 1955–2007. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, K., & Croser, J. L. (2009). National and global agricultural trade and welfare reduction indexes, 1955 to 2007. Washington, DC: World Bank. Database available at http://www.worldbank.org/agdistortions.
  7. Anderson, K., Lattimore, R., Lloyd, P. J., & MacLaren, D. (2009). Australia and New Zealand, Ch. 5. In K. Anderson (Ed.), Distortions to agricultural incentives: A global perspective, 1955–2007. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, K., & Swinnen, J. (2009). Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Ch. 6. In K. Anderson (Ed.), Distortions to agricultural incentives: A global perspective, 1955–2007. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Croser, J., & Anderson, K. (2010). Changing contributions of different agricultural policy instruments to global reductions in trade and welfare (CEPR Discussion Paper 7748). London.Google Scholar
  10. Croser, J. L., Lloyd, P. J., & Anderson, K. (2010). How do agricultural policy restrictions to global trade and welfare differ across commodities? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(3), 698–712.Google Scholar
  11. Feenstra, R. (1995). Estimating the effects of trade policy. In G. Grossman & K. Rogoff (Eds.), Handbook of international economics (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, B. (2009). United States and Canada, Ch. 4. In K. Anderson (Ed.), Distortions to agricultural incentives: A global perspective, 1955–2007. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Honma, M., & Hayami, Y. (2009). Japan, Republic of Korea, and Tawian, China Ch. 2. In K. Anderson (Ed.), Distortions to agricultural incentives: A global perspective, 1955–2007. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Irwin, D. (2010). Trade restrictiveness and deadweight losses from U.S. Tariffs, 1859–1961. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(3), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Josling, T. (2009). Western Europe, Ch. 3. In K. Anderson (Ed.), Distortions to agricultural incentives: A global perspective, 1955–2007. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Kee, H. L., Nicita, A., & Olerreaga, M. (2009). Estimating trade restrictiveness indexes. Economic Journal, 119(534), 172–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lloyd, P. J., Croser, J. L., & Anderson, K. (2010). Global distortions to agricultural markets: New indicators of trade and welfare impacts, 1960 to 2007. Review of Development Economics, 14(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD (2006). Agricultural policies, markets and trade in the Central and Eastern European countries and the new independent states: Monitoring and outlook. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  19. OECD (2009). Producer and consumer support estimates (online database accessed at http://www.oecd.org for 1986–2007 estimates; and OECD files for estimates using an earlier methodology for 1979–1985.
  20. Roningen, V. O. (2001). VORSIM version 5. http://www.vorsim.com.
  21. Tyers, R., & Anderson, K. (1992). Disarray in world food markets: A quantitative assessment. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Valdés, A., & Zeitz, J. (1980). Agricultural protection in OECD countries: Its cost to less developed countries. Research Report 21, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations