| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
084745
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper uses an agricultural trade policy simulation model to quantitatively evaluate the effects of Blue Box policy reform on agricultural production and trade, and further provides specific proposals regarding China's reform position. The results indicate that, if the reform could achieve a reduction in distorting supports in more developed countries, China's total agricultural production would increase, accompanied by a decrease in agricultural imports and a slight increase in exports. In terms of social welfare, producers would gain significantly, consumers would lose and government would not suffer greatly, which is in accordance with current agricultural policies in China. As a core member of G20, China should approve a subsidy level as low as possible required by Blue Box to achieve "substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic supports".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
180245
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Developing members at the WTO face a shrinkage in policy space for supporting their agricultural sector due to the limited room available under the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Contrastingly, most developed members can provide high levels of product-specific support without breaching their commitments on account of their support entitlements. For some of these members, the so-called ‘Blue Box’ under the AoA, plays a pivotal role in expanding the policy space with respect to domestic support to agricultural products. Though a lot of scholarship has discussed and examined other support provisions under the AoA, the ‘Blue Box’ remains relatively shrouded in mystery. Testimony to this is the fact that although the Blue Box has found use amongst developed members, no developing member, except for China in 2016, has ever used the Blue Box to support their producers. Given the impasse in the Doha Round of negotiations and limited flexibilities available under the AoA, this paper examines the feasibility and compatibility Blue Box measures with developing members’ socio-economic situation. Findings of this paper bring to fore the variations in member practice and the operational flexibilities available in implementing Blue Box programmes to support agriculture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|