Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Pre and Post Agricultural Trade Liberalization on the Marketing of Agricultural Product in Nigeria (1977 - 2011)

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Peace Eze ◽  
C. O. Obikeze
2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEAN-CHRISTOPHE BUREAU ◽  
SÉBASTIEN JEAN ◽  
ALAN MATTHEWS

Recent analyses suggest that the impact of agricultural trade liberalization on developing countries will be very uneven. The Doha Round focuses on tariff issues, but some developing countries currently have practically duty-free access to European and North American markets under preferential regimes. Multilateral liberalization will erode the benefits of these preferences, which are presently rather well utilized in the agricultural sector. While South American and East Asian countries should benefit from an agricultural agreement, African and Caribbean countries are unlikely to do so. The main obstacles to the exports of the sub-Saharan African and Least Developed Countries appear to be in the non-tariff area (sanitary, phytosanitary standards), which increasingly originate from the private sector and are not dealt with under the Doha framework (traceability requirements, etc.). An agreement in Doha is unlikely to solve these problems and open large markets for the poorest countries. While this is not an argument to give up multilateral liberalization, a more specific and differentiated treatment should be considered in WTO rules, and corrective measures should be implemented.


Author(s):  
Libor Grega

Changes in the perception of economic growth within the context of sustainable development lead to the broadly defined concept of further development of all industries, while agriculture plays qualitatively new role in this concept. Agriculture is not any more viewed only as an industry ensuring nutrition of population, but also its non-production benefit has growing importance. There is growing importance of the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture both in the Czech Republic and in the whole European Union, where agriculture historically played an important role in landscape formation and determined the development of social structures, while these aspects have growing importance for formulating of agricultural policies. Multifunctionality reflects the fact, that agriculture produces many food and non-food commodities, while some of them have the character of externalities and public goods.One of important conditions of efficient conception of agricultural policy is the answer on the question, what is the impact of growing trade liberalization on social welfare, respectively welfare of producers and consumers, if there are positive agricultural externalities. The analysis brings comparison in welfare development when externalities are internalized and when they are not. There are important consequences for social welfare, if state does not evaluate extra-production benefit of agriculture in a proper way.For the distribution analysis of benefits and costs of agricultural trade liberalization in presence of positive externalities connected with agricultural production, e.g. the analysis of impacts on consumers, producers and social welfare, is used traditional international trade model.Under the present tendency to liberalization of world agricultural markets there should be an effort of policy makers to internalise agricultural externalities. If there are agricultural industries, which are net exporters and at the same time produce positive agricultural externalities, trade liberalization brings additional increase of social welfare, connected with increased production of given agricultural commodity and at the same time increased production of positive agricultural externality. Growth of social welfare will be higher if positive agricultural externality will be internalised.For agricultural industries with positive externalities which are net importers, the change of social welfare brought by trade liberalization is not obvious. It depends on concrete character of cost and demand curves. However in any case, the social welfare will be higher with internalised externality that without internalization.


2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Tokarick

There has been a great deal of public discussion over the impact that agricultural trade liberalization would likely have, especially on low-income countries. Unfortunately, the public discussion has been characterized by a number of misconceptions. This paper provides a clarifying discussion of the issues involved. Among the key points addressed are 1) agricultural “subsidies” are not nearly as large as has been portrayed; 2) tariffs are actually far more distortionary than subsidies and some low-income countries actually benefit from rich country subsides; and 3) widespread tariff reductions will not inflict large damage on developing countries as a result of preference erosion. The case for removing agricultural trade barriers remains compelling, even without the exaggerations and misconceptions.


2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jikun HUANG ◽  
Yang JUN ◽  
Zhigang XU ◽  
Scott ROZELLE ◽  
Ninghui LI

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document