Agricultural Trade Liberalization

  • Bernadette Andreosso-O’Callaghan


As was seen in the previous chapter, agriculture is still of particular significance to the EU, as it is the major importer and the second largest exporter of food products in the world. Consequently, the EU is a very prominent and vocal member of what is today known as the World Trade Organization (WTO). Successful rounds of multilateral trade negotiations in the past have led to a decrease in the level of protection facing developing as well as developed countries. The situation of the agricultural sector, where protection in the developed countries grew enormously in relative terms until the mid-1980s, is generally in contrast with a background of falling tariffs experienced in the manu-facturing sector. Indeed, average tariff levels on manufacturing products have decreased from 40 to 50 per cent of the import value in 1950 to an average of 3.9 per cent in the 1990s. Thanks to the last round of multi-lateral negotiations, the Uruguay Round (UR), average tariffs on fish products declined by more than a quarter (Senti and Conlan, 1998).


World Trade Organization Trade Liberalization Common Agricultural Policy Uruguay Round Agricultural Trade 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott, P.C. (2002) ‘Tariff-rate quotas: Failed market access instruments?’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 29: 1, 1st quarter, 109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackrill, R. (2000) The Common Agricultural Policy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, K. and Josling, T. (1993) The Challenges to Economists of Multilateral Trade Negotiations on Agricultural Protection (Food Research Institute Studies, Vol. XXII, No. 3, 275–304).Google Scholar
  4. Baudin, P. (1991) ‘La fixation des prix agricoles pour 1991/1992’, Revue du Marché Commun et de l’Union Européenne, No. 349, Juillet/Aout, 535–51.Google Scholar
  5. Balassa (1988) ‘Agricultural policies and international resource allocation’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 15: 2/3, 159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byé, M. (1950) ‘Unions douanières et données nationales’, Economie Appliquée, Janvier–Mars, 121–58.Google Scholar
  7. CEC (1991) The Development and Future of the Common Agricultural Policy — Proposals of the Commission, COM (91) 100 final, 1 February, Brussels.Google Scholar
  8. CEC (1992) Volet agricole de la négociation Gatt et réforme de la PAC (CommissionGoogle Scholar
  9. Communication CEC (92) 2267 final).Google Scholar
  10. CEC (1994) The Economics of the Common Agricultural Policy European Economy No. 5 (Brussels/Luxembourg).Google Scholar
  11. CEC (2001, 2002) The Agricultural Situation in the European Union 1999 and 2000 Reports (Brussels and Luxemburg).Google Scholar
  12. Charvet, J.P. (1997) La France Agricole — Dans son Environnement Européen et Mondial (Editions Lids: Paris).Google Scholar
  13. Clark, D.P. (1998) ‘Are poorer developing countries the targets of US protectionist actions?’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47: 1, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corden, W.M. (1972) ‘Economies of scale and customs union theory’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 80, 465–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Economic Strategy Institute (1992) The Uruguay Round and the United States: A Critical Analysis. ESI, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  16. Elwell, C. and Reifman, A. (1993) The Uruguay Round — A Macroeconomic Assessment, June 1, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Washington.Google Scholar
  17. EUROSTAT (2002) Yearbook 2002 — The Statistical Guide to Europe (Brussels and Luxembourg).Google Scholar
  18. FAO (2002) World Food Summit — Five Years Later. Food Agricultural Organization: Rome, 10–13 June.Google Scholar
  19. GATT (1952) Basic Instruments and Selected Documents. Vol. I, Part III, Article XXIV, Section 8(a), Geneva.Google Scholar
  20. Giersch, H. (1949/50) ‘Economic union between nations and the location of industries’, Review of Economic Studies, No. 2, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gowland, D. and James, S. (eds) (1991) Economic Policy after 1992 (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company).Google Scholar
  22. Guyomard, H., Mahé, L.P., Munk, K. and Roe, T. (1993) Agriculture in the Uruguay Round - ambitions and realities. CEC Economic Papers, No. 101, March, Brussels.Google Scholar
  23. Henson, S. and Loader, R. (2001) ‘Barriers to agricultural exports from developing countries: the role of sanitary and phytosanitary requirements’, World Development, 29: 1, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, H. (1997) ‘Food Insecurity as a Sustainability Issue: lessons from Honduran Maize Farming’, in J.P. de Groot and R. Ruben (eds) Sustainable Agriculture in Central America (New York: MacMillan).Google Scholar
  25. Killick, T. (2001) ‘Globalization and the rural poor’, Development Policy Review, 19: 2, 155–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennedy, P.L. and Atici, C. (1998) ‘A sectoral analysis of agricultural trade liberalization’, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 30: 2, December.Google Scholar
  27. Krueger Anne, O., Schiff, M. and Valdés, A. (1988) ‘Agricultural incentives in developing countries: measuring the effect of sectoral and economywide policies’, World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, 255–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Monde (1992) Wednesday 25 November 1992.Google Scholar
  29. Mahé, L.P. and Tavéra (1989) ‘Bilateral harmonization of EC and US agricultural policies’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 15, 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahé, L.P. (1997) ‘Environment and quality standards in the WTO: New protectionism in agricultural trade? A European perspective’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 29: 3/4, 3rd and 4th Quarter, 480–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthews, A. (2001) ‘Developing countries’ position in WTO agricultural trade negotiations’, Development Policy Review, 20: 1, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD (1995) Agricultural Policies, Markets and Trade in OECD Countries — Monitoring and Outlook. Paris.Google Scholar
  33. OECD (1999) Post-Uruguay Round Tariff Regimes — Achievements and Outlook. Paris.Google Scholar
  34. OJEC (1992) L180 and L181, 1 July, Brussels.Google Scholar
  35. Page, S. and Hewitt, A. (2002) ‘The new European trade preferences: does ’Everything But Arms’ (EBA) help the poor?’, Development Policy Review, 20: 1, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roningen, V.O. and Dixit, P. (1989) Economic Implications of Agricultural Policy Reform in Industrial Market Economies (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington DC).Google Scholar
  37. Senti, R. and Conlan, P. (1998) WTO — Regulation of World Trade after the Uruguay Round (Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag).Google Scholar
  38. Sheehy, S.J. (1995/96) ‘Options for CAP Reform in the next trade round — with special reference to milk’, Proceedings of the Agricultural Economics Society of Ireland 111–34.Google Scholar
  39. Sheldon, I.M. (2002) ‘Regulation of biotechnology: will we ever “freely” trade GMOs?’, European Review of Agricultural Economics 1st quarter, 29: 1, 155–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swinbank, A. (1999) ‘CAP reform and the WTO: compatibility and develop-ments’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 26: 3, 289–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. USTR (1990) Office of the United States Trade Representative. October, Washington.Google Scholar
  42. Valdis, A. and Zietz, J. (1980) Agricultural Protection in OECD Countries: Its cost to Less-Developed Countries, International Food Policy Research Institute, Research Report 21, Washington DC: IFPRI, December.Google Scholar
  43. Viner, J. (1950) The Customs Union Issue (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).Google Scholar
  44. World Bank and OECD (1993) Trade Liberalization: Global Economic Implications. 26 September (Washington and Paris).Google Scholar
  45. Yeats, A. (1981) ‘The influence of trade and commercial barriers on the industrial processing of natural resources’, World Development Report, 9, 485–94 (Washington: World Bank).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bernadette Andreosso-O’Callaghan 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernadette Andreosso-O’Callaghan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations