Volume 8, Issue 3, September 2019, Page: 106-113
Evaluation of the Impact of Various Doha Round Conclusion Scenarios at the WTO Agricultural Negotiation
Kone Siaka, Management and Applied Economics Department, National Polytechnic Institute Houphouet Boigny, Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire
Noufou Coulibaly, Management and Applied Economics Department, National Polytechnic Institute Houphouet Boigny, Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire
Yapi Yapo Magloire, Agriculture and Animal Science Department, National Polytechnic Institute Houphouet Boigny, Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire
Djina Djolo Jean Marc Junior, Management and Applied Economics Department, National Polytechnic Institute Houphouet Boigny, Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire
Received: Jul. 28, 2019;       Accepted: Aug. 29, 2019;       Published: Sep. 19, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.eco.20190803.13      View  94      Downloads  13
Abstract
This paper evaluates the impacts of various scenarios proposed in the context of the WTO Doha Round agricultural negotiations and a new scenario that considers differential treatment for developing countries. The objective of this paper is to contribute to find the desired consensus among WTO members to facilitate trade and avoid trade wars. We used the Agricultural Trade Policy Simulation Model (ATPSM) to measure impacts and use the ADAMS model to measure the equity of the various scenarios. We considered seven negotiating scenarios (1) Uruguay Round Agreement, (2) C4 country proposal, (3) EU proposal, (4) USA proposal, (6) our proposal and (7) full liberalization of trade. The results showed that our proposal increases the cotton producers’ price by 10.8%, better than the C4 countries proposal (9.0%) and USA proposals (6.1%). Our proposal for agricultural agreements increases the world price (8.1%), the consumer’s price (7.4%) and the volume of exports (2.3%), certainly to a lesser degree than that of the C4 countries proposal but more than the USA proposal. In terms of the equity criterion, it is as favorable as the other scenarios compared to the status quo of the Uruguay Round. Our proposal presents the elements for a compromise to conclude the Doha Round, with benefits for developing countries and the introduction of a new mechanism of international solidarity.
Keywords
Agriculture Agreements, International Trade, Cotton, Doha Development Round, Equity, WTO
To cite this article
Kone Siaka, Noufou Coulibaly, Yapi Yapo Magloire, Djina Djolo Jean Marc Junior, Evaluation of the Impact of Various Doha Round Conclusion Scenarios at the WTO Agricultural Negotiation, Economics. Vol. 8, No. 3, 2019, pp. 106-113. doi: 10.11648/j.eco.20190803.13
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Jason H. Grant and Kathryn A. Boys, Agricultural Trade and the GATT/WTO: Does Membership Make a Difference? American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 94, No. (1), 2011, pp. 1-24. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aar087% J American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
[2]
Tadash IIto and Takahide Aoyagi, Did the least developed countries benefit from duty-free quota-free access to the Japanese market? Japan and the World Economy. Vol. 49, No. (2), 2019, pp. 32-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2018.09.002.
[3]
Bader Bakhit M. AlModarra, Defining the Contours of the Public Morals Exception under Article XX of the GATT 1994. Journal of International Law and Trade Policy. Vol. 18, No. (2), 2017, pp. doi: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/268478.
[4]
Ralf Peters and David Vanzetti, User manual and handbook on Agricultural Trade Policy Simulation Model (ATPSM). Policy issues in international trade and commodities, no. 24. New York: United Nations. 2004, 55.
[5]
J. Stacy Adams, Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and, Social Psychology. Vol. 67, No. (5), 1963, pp. 422-436.
[6]
G. Akerlof and J. Yellen, The Fair Wage-Effort Hypothesis and Unemployment The Quaterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 105, No. (2), 1990, pp. 255-283.
[7]
George A. Akerlof, Explorations in Pragmatic Economics, ed. OXFORD. 2005.
[8]
Cheung Chai Hong, A Study on the Legal Issues Arising from the Investigation on Various Industrial Impacts of Trade in Services Outside of the WTO Framework. Social Sciences. Vol. 7, No. (2), 2018, pp. 88-93. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20180702.16.
[9]
Daniel A. Sumner, A quantitative simulation analysis of the impacts of u. s. cotton subsidies on cotton prices and quantities. 2003. p. 50.
[10]
Antoine Bouët and David Laborde, Plurilateral agreements: a promising trade liberalization modality? Presented at the 22nd Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Warsaw, Poland). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN: Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP). Retrieved from Vol. No., 2019, pp. doi: https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=5878.
[11]
Dinesh Marothia, Will Martin, A. Janaiah, and C. L. Dadhich, WTO and Domestic Support under USA Farm Act 2014: Implications for Developing Countries in the IAAE-ISAE Inter-Conference Symposium on Re-visiting Agricultural Policies in the Light of Globalisation Experience: The Indian Context. 2016: India.
[12]
Kouwoaye Amevi Rocard, Is GATT/WTO Membership Decreasing Poverty in Developing Countries?, in the 7th Annual Canadian Agri-Food Policy Conference,. 2017: Ottawa, Ontario. p. 2.
[13]
Kym Anderson and Will Martin, Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda. The World Economy. Vol. 28, No. (9), 2005, pp. 1301-1327.
[14]
Michael Friis Jensen, African Demands for Special and Differential Treatment in the Doha Round: An Assessment and Analysis. Development Policy Review. Vol. 25, No. (1), 2007, pp. 91-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00361.x.
[15]
Sachin Kumar Sharma, WTO and policy space for agriculture and food security: issues for China and India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. Vol. 31, No. (2), 2018, pp. 207-219. doi: 10.5958/0974-0279.2018.00038.1.
[16]
Sanjaya Acharya and Solomon Cohen, Trade liberalisation and household welfare in Nepal. Journal of Policy Modeling. Vol. 30, No. (6), 2008, pp. 1057-1060.
[17]
Johan F. M. Swinnen, A Positive Theory of Agricultural Protection. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 76, No. (1), 1994, pp. 1-14.
[18]
Kym Anderson, WILL Martin, and Dominique Van Der Mensbrugghe, Distortions to World Trade: Impacts on Agricultural Markets and Farm Incomes. Review of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 28, No. (2), 2006, pp. 168-194. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00280.x.
[19]
Popat Meizal, Griffith Garry, and Mounter Stuart, The Economic Impact of Imports on the Australian Pig Industry: Is it Time for the WTO’s Safeguard Measures? 1. Replicating and Updating the 2008 Productivity Commission Analyses. Australian Agribusiness Review. Vol. 25, No., 2017, pp. 20.
[20]
Ian M. Sheldon, Daniel C. K. Chow, and William McGuire, Trade Liberalization and Institutional Constraints on Moves to Protectionism: Multilateralism vs. Regionalism, in 2018 Annual Meeting of the Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA), January 5-7, 2018. 2017: Philadelphia, PA. p. 32.
Browse journals by subject