Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:50:58.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2023

Lars Brink  and
David Orden
Lars Brink
Affiliation:
Agriculture, Trade and Policy Advisor
David Orden
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Agricultural Domestic Support Under the WTO
Experience and Prospects
 , pp. 242 - 257
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, P., Johnston, B., Blandford, D. et al. 1988. Bringing agriculture into the GATT: Assessing the benefits of trade liberalization. Commissioned Paper No. 2. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.Google Scholar
Abler, D., and Blandford, D.. 2005. Decoupling – Policy implications. Working Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets, Committee for Agriculture. AGR/CA/APM(2005)22/FINAL. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Ackrill, R., and Kay, A.. 2011. Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy 18(1): 72–89.Google Scholar
Ackrill, R. and Kay, A.. 2009. Historical learning in the design of WTO rules: The EC sugar case. The World Economy 32(5): 754–771.Google Scholar
AgIncentives. 2021. International Organizations Consortium for Measuring the Policy Environment for Agriculture. www.ag-incentives.org.Google Scholar
Agreement on Agriculture. 15 April 1994. LT/UR/A-1A/2. https://docs.wto.org.Google Scholar
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 15 April 1994. LT/UR/A-1A/9. https://docs.wto.org.Google Scholar
Aguiar, A., Chepeliev, M., Corong, E., McDougall, R. and van der Mensbrugghe, D.. 2019. The GTAP data base: Version 10. Journal of Global Economic Analysis 4(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, D., and Orden, D.. 2021. China – Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers: One policy, multiple parameters imply modest discipline. World Trade Review 20(4): 389–404.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. (ed.). 2009. Distortions to Agricultural Incentives: A Global Perspective 1955–2007. London: Palgrave Macmillan; Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Anderson, K., and Valenzuela, E.. 2021. What impact are subsidies and trade barriers abroad having on Australasian and Brazilian agriculture? Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 65(2): 265–290.Google Scholar
Aquino Bonomo, C. S. 2019. Reshaping international trade with the WTO Dispute Settlement: The sugar case (DS 265/266/283). In The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: A Developing Country Perspective, ed. Amaral Júnior, A., Oliveira Sá Pires, L. M., and Carneiro, C. L.. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, pp. 289–303.Google Scholar
Banga, R. 2014. Impact of green box subsidies on agricultural productivity, production and international trade. Background Paper No. RVC-11. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. 2016. The relationship between the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the SCM Agreement: An analysis of hierarchy rules in the WTO legal system. Journal of World Trade 50(1): 7–20.Google Scholar
Barton, J. H., Goldstein, J. L., Josling, T. E. and Steinberg, R. H.. 2006. The Evolution of the Trade Regime. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Birner, R., Gupta, S. and Sharma, N.. 2011. The Political Economy of Agricultural Policy Reform in India: Fertilizers and Electricity for Irrigation. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Blandford, D. 2019. Policy challenges in the management of natural resources. In Global Challenges for Future Food and Agricultural Policies, ed. Blandford, D. and Hassapoyannes, K.. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 125–151.Google Scholar
Blandford, D., and Josling, T.. 2007. Should the green box be modified? IPC Discussion Paper. International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bown, C., and Kolb, M.. 2020. Trump’s trade war timeline: An up-to-date guide. Trade and Investment Policy Watch. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2021. An ensemble of potential changes in the WTO rules on domestic support in agriculture: Comparing support space and measured support. Slide presentation. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, Annual Meeting, December 12–14.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2020. Measuring price support under WTO domestic support rules: How much advantage from being an Article XII member? Slide presentation. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, Annual Meeting, December 15.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2019. Product-specific, non-product-specific or in between: Practices and consequences under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Slide presentation. Annual Meeting, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, December 8–10.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2018a. Farm support, domestic policies and the WTO rules: The world is changing. In Volume III: International Trade Rules for Food and Agricultural Products, Handbook of International Food and Agricultural Policies, ed. Meilke, K. and Josling, T.. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 243–275.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2018b. Two indicators, little in common, same name: Market Price Support. CAP Reform. www.capreform.eu/.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2015a. Policy space in agriculture under the WTO rules on domestic support. Working Paper #15‑01. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2015b. Investment and input subsidies: A growing category of farm support exempted from WTO limits. Slide presentation. Annual meeting, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, December 13–15.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2011. The WTO disciplines on domestic support. In WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support, ed. Orden, D., Blandford, D., and Josling, T.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–58.Google Scholar
Brink, L. 2006. WTO constraints on U.S. and EU domestic support in agriculture: The October 2005 proposals. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 7(1): 96–115.Google Scholar
Brink, L., and Orden, D.. 2020. Taking stock and looking forward on domestic support under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Commissioned Paper 23. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.Google Scholar
Bureau, J.-C. 2017. Does the WTO discipline really constrain the design of CAP payments? CAP Reform. www.capreform.eu/.Google Scholar
Cahill, C., and Tangermann, S. (coordinators). 2021. New pathways for progress in multilateral trade negotiations in agriculture. With L. Brink, S. Fan, J. Glauber, A. González, T. Groser, A. Gulati, J. Hewitt, A. Hoda, A. Matthews, and G. Valles Galmés. Pathways Group.Google Scholar
Cahill, S. 1997. Calculating the rate of decoupling for crops under CAP/Oilseeds reform. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48(3): 349–378.Google Scholar
Chambers, R., and Voica, D.. 2016. “Decoupled” farm program payments are really decoupled: The theory. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99(3): 773–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplin, S., Robinson, V., LePage, A. et al. 2019. Pilot results-based payment approaches for agri-environment schemes in arable and upland grassland systems in England. Final Report to the European Commission. Natural England and Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Villoria, N. and Xia, T.. 2020. Import protection in China’s grain markets: An empirical assessment. Agricultural Economics 51(2): 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2021. Kunming Declaration. CBD/COP/15/5/Add.1. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.Google Scholar
Coppens, D. 2014. WTO Disciplines on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Balancing Policy Space and Legal Constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coppess, J. 2018. The Fault Lines of Farm Policy: A Legislative and Political History of the Farm Bill. Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Daugbjerg, C., and Swinbank, A.. 2009. Ideas, Institutions and Trade: The WTO and the Curious Role of EU Farm Policy in Trade Liberalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davey, W., and Sapir, A.. 2010. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton Recourse to Article 21.5 by Brazil, WT/DS267/AB/RW (2 June 2008). World Trade Review 9(1): 181–199.Google Scholar
DeClerck, F. A. J., Koziell, I., Sidhu, A. et al. 2021. Biodiversity and agriculture: Rapid evidence review. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE).Google Scholar
de Gorter, H. 2009. The distributional structure of U.S. green box subsidies. In Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals, ed. Meléndez-Ortiz, R., Bellmann, C. and Hepburn, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Gorter, H., Just, D. R. and Kropp, J. D.. 2008. Cross-subsidization due to infra-marginal support in agriculture: A general theory and empirical evidence. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(1): 42–54.Google Scholar
Dewbre, J., Antón, J. and Thompson, W.. 2001. The transfer efficiency and trade effects of direct payments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(5): 1204–1214.Google Scholar
DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade). 2021. India – Measures Concerning Sugar and Sugarcane (DS580). Australia’s Integrated Executive Summary. 20 May.Google Scholar
Díaz-Bonilla, E. 2017. Food security stocks and the WTO legal framework. In Agriculture, Development, and the Global Trading System: 2000–2015, ed. Bouët, A. and Laborde Debucquet, D.. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, pp. 285–324.Google Scholar
Effland, A. 2011. Classifying and measuring agricultural support: Identifying differences between the WTO and OECD systems. Economic Information Bulletin Number 74. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Elbehri, A., Umstaetter, J. and Kelch, D.. 2008. The EU sugar policy regime and implications of reform. Economic Research Report Number 59. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
FAO, UNDP and UNEP. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity: Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2021. Value of agricultural production. FAOSTAT.Google Scholar
FAO. 1975. Agricultural protection and stabilization policies: A framework of measurement in the context of agricultural adjustment. Conference. C 75/LIM/2.Google Scholar
FAO. 1973. Agricultural protection: Domestic policy and international trade. Conference. C 73/LIM/9.Google Scholar
Ford, J. R. D. 2021. Domestic support in the WTO agriculture negotiations: Outcomes for MC12: Decreasing trade distorting domestic support to increase food security. CUTS International, Geneva.Google Scholar
Gale, F. 2021. Potential wheat demand in China: Applicants for import quota. Economic Research Report Number 295. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Galtier, F. 2017. Looking for a permanent solution on public stockholding programmes at the WTO: Getting the right metrics on the support provided. Think Piece. The E15 Initiative: Strengthening the Global Trade and Investment System for Sustainable Development. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and World Economic Forum, Geneva.Google Scholar
Galtier, F. 2015. Identifying, estimating and correcting the biases in WTO rules on public stocks. A proposal for the post-Bali food security agenda. Working Paper MOISA 2015-5. UMR Marchés, organisations, institutions et stratégies d’acteurs. CIRAD, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
García Vargas, A. 2021. Promoting transparency on agricultural policies at the WTO: Lessons from Latin America and the Caribbean. In The Road to the WTO Twelfth Ministerial Conference: A Latin American and Caribbean Perspective, ed. Piñeiro, V., Campos, A. and Piñeiro, M.. San José, Costa Rica: Interamerican Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture and International Food Policy Research Institute, pp. 97–120.Google Scholar
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. 15 April 1994. LT/UR/A-1A/1/GATT/1. https://docs.wto.orgGoogle Scholar
GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). 1988a. The Trade Distortion Equivalent (TDE): An aggregate indicator of adverse trade effects of measures of support and protection for agriculture. MTN.GNG/NG5/W/46.Google Scholar
GATT. 1988b. Short-term measures (other than immediate measures) in the framework of the measures proposed by the European Communities. MTN.GNG/NG5/W/62.Google Scholar
GATT. 1987. United States Proposal for Negotiations on Agriculture. MTN.GNG/NG5/W/14.Google Scholar
GATT. 1958. Trends in International Trade – Report by a Panel of Experts. Sales No. GATT/1958-3. Geneva: The Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.Google Scholar
Glauber, J. W. 2018a. Domestic support measures in the context of adaptation / mitigation to climate change. Background Paper for The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2018. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Glauber, J. W. 2018b. Unraveling reforms? Cotton in the 2018 farm bill and beyond. In Agricultural Policy in Disarray, ed. Smith, V. H., Glauber, J. W. and Goodwin, B. K.. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Glauber, J., and Lester, S.. 2021. China – Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products: Against the grain: Can the WTO open Chinese markets? A contaminated experiment. World Trade Review 20(4):1–16.Google Scholar
Glauber, J., and Sinha, T.. 2021. Procuring food stocks under World Trade Organization farm subsidy rules: Finding a permanent solution. IISD Report. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.Google Scholar
Glauber, J., Laborde, D. and Piñeiro, V.. 2021. New disciplines for domestic support. In The Road to the WTO Twelfth Ministerial Conference: A Latin American and Caribbean Perspective, ed. Piñeiro, V., Campos, A. and Piñeiro, M.. San José, Costa Rica: Interamerican Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture and International Food Policy Research Institute, pp. 29–42.Google Scholar
Glauber, J. W., Hepburn, J., Laborde, D. and Murphy, S.. 2020. What national farm policy trends could mean for efforts to update WTO rules on domestic support. IISD Report. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.Google Scholar
Gohin, A., and Bureau, J.-C.. 2006. Modelling the EU sugar supply to assess sectoral policy reforms. European Review of Agricultural Economics 33(2): 223–247.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B., and Mishra, A.. 2006. Are “decoupled” farm program payments really decoupled? An empirical evaluation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(1): 73–89.Google Scholar
Gotor, E. 2009. The reform of the EU sugar trade preferences toward developing countries in light of the Economic Partnership Agreements. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 10(2): 15–29.Google Scholar
Grant, J. H., Xie, C. and Boys, K. A.. 2022. Firms, agricultural imports and tariff-rate quotas: An assessment of China’s wheat, corn and rice imports using firm-level data. Commissioned Paper 28. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M., and Sykes, A. O.. 2011. ‘Optimal’ retaliation in the WTO – a commentary on the Upland Cotton arbitration. World Trade Review 10(1): 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulati, A., and Narayanan, S.. 2003. The Subsidy Syndrome in Indian Agriculture. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gulati, A., Kapur, D. and Bouton, M.. 2019. Reforming Indian agriculture. CASI Working Paper. Center for the Advanced Study of India (CASI) and Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), New Delhi.Google Scholar
Häberli, C. 2021. Sustainable agriculture and trade. In Trade and Environmental Law. Volume XI, Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law, ed. Delimatsis, P. and Reins, L.. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. 692–703.Google Scholar
Hassapoyannes, K., and Blandford, D.. 2019. Agriculture and climate change: National and international policy response. In Global Challenges for Future Food and Agricultural Policies, ed. Blandford, D. and Hassapoyannes, K.. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 217–248.Google Scholar
Hasund, K., and Johansson, M.. 2016. Paying for environmental results is WTO compliant. EuroChoices 15(3): 33–38.Google Scholar
Hedley, D. D. 2017. Governance in Canadian agriculture. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(4): 523–541.Google Scholar
Henderson, B., Lankoski, J., Flynn, E., Sykes, A., Payen, F. and MacLeod, M.. 2022. Soil carbon sequestration by agriculture: Policy options. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 174. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Henderson, B., and Lankoski, J.. 2019. Evaluating the environmental impact of agricultural policies. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 130. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Hendricks, N., and Sumner, D.. 2014. The effects of policy expectations on crop supply, with an application to base updating. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96(3): 903–923.Google Scholar
HLG (High Level Group). 2019. Report of the High-Level Group on Sugar. Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
Hoda, A. 2017. Public stockholdings issue in the WTO – The way forward for India. ICRIER Policy Series No. 17. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Hoda, A., and Gulati, A.. 2013. India’s agricultural trade policy and sustainable development. Issue Paper No. 49, ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B., and Howse, R.. 2008. EC – Sugar. World Trade Review 7(1): 149–178.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. M., and Kostecki, M. M.. 2009. The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, H. 2013. Agricultural domestic support. In Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 8 Data Base, ed. Walmsley, B. N. G., Aguiar, A. and McDougall, R.. West Lafayette, IN: Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, chapter 10.A:1–3.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, G. C. 2021. Will industrial and agricultural subsidies ever be reformed? Policy Brief 21-5. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development). 2016. Public stockholding for food security purposes: Options for a permanent solution. Issue Paper. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2021. Exchange Rates, Domestic Currency per U.S. Dollar, Period Average, Rate. International Financial Statistics.Google Scholar
Irwin, D. 2017. Clashing over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. A., Maggi, F., Piermartini, R. and Rubínová, S.. 2020. The value of the Committee on Agriculture: Mapping Q&As to trade flows. Staff Working Paper ERSD-2020-15. Economic Research and Statistics Division, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
Janow, M. E., and Staiger, R. W.. 2004. Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Dairy Products and the Exportation of Milk. World Trade Review 3(2): 277–315.Google Scholar
Josling, T. 2015. Rethinking the rules for agricultural subsidies. Think Piece. The E15 Initiative: Strengthening the Global Trade and Investment System for Sustainable Development. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and World Economic Forum, Geneva.Google Scholar
Josling, T., and Mittenzwei, K.. 2013. Transparency and timeliness: The monitoring of agricultural policies in the WTO using OECD data. World Trade Review 12(3): 533–547.Google Scholar
Josling, T., Roberts, D. and Orden, D.. 2004. Food Regulation and Trade: Toward a Safe and Open Global System. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Josling, T. E., Tangermann, S. and Warley, T. K.. 1996. Agriculture in the GATT. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, M. B. 2020. Transparency in the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements: The Real Jewel in the Crown. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knudsen, A.-C. L. 2009. Farmers on Welfare: The Making of Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Konandreas, P. 2020. WTO negotiations on agriculture: An out-of-the boxes approach to reform trade-distorting domestic support. CUTS International, Geneva.Google Scholar
Konandreas, P., and Mermigkas, G.. 2014. WTO domestic support disciplines: Options for alleviating constraints to stockholding in developing countries in the follow-up to Bali. FAO Commodity and Trade Policy Research Working Paper No. 45. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Kwa, A., and Lunenborg, P.. 2019. Notification and transparency issues in the WTO and the US November 2018 communication. Research Paper 92. South Centre, Geneva.Google Scholar
Lau, C., Schropp, S. and Sumner, D. A.. 2015. The 2014 US farm bill and its effects on the world market for cotton. Issue Report No. 58. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. 15 April 1994. LT/UR/A/2. https://docs.wto.org.Google Scholar
Martin, W., and Mattoo, A. (eds.). 2011. Unfinished Business? The WTO’s Doha Agenda. Washington, DC: World Bank and Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
Martini, R. 2011. Long term trends in agricultural policy impacts. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 45. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Matthews, A. 2015. Food security, developing countries and multilateral trade rules. Background Paper for The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2015–16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Matthews, A. 2014. Food security and WTO domestic support disciplines post-Bali. Issue Paper 53. ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development., International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
Matthews, A., Salvatici, L. and Scoppola, M.. 2017. Trade impacts of agricultural support in the EU. Commissioned Paper 19. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.Google Scholar
Mazza de Andrade, L., and Flores Schmidt, L. F.. 2019. The cotton case: Litigation, retaliation, negotiation. In The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: A Developing Country Perspective, ed. Amaral Júnior, A., Oliveira Sá Pires, L. M. and Carneiro, C. L.. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, pp. 269–287.Google Scholar
McCarl, B. A., Thayer, A. W. and Jones, J. P. H.. 2016. The challenge of climate change adaptation for agriculture: An economically oriented review. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 48(4): 321–344.Google Scholar
McMahon, J. A. 2006. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meléndez-Ortiz, R., Bellmann, C. and Hepburn, J. (eds.). 2009. Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mercier, S. A., and Halbrook, S.. 2020. Agricultural Policy of the United States: Historic Foundations and 21st Century Issues. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Montemayor, R. 2014. Public stockholding for food security purposes: Scenarios and options for a permanent solution. Issue Paper No. 51. ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
Moro, D., and Sckokai, P.. 2013. The impact of decoupled payments on farm choices: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Food Policy 41: 28–38.Google Scholar
Moyer, H. W., and Josling, T. E.. 2002. Agricultural Policy Reform: Politics and Process in the EU and US in the 1990s. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Musselli, I. 2016. Farm support and trade rules: Toward a new paradigm under the 2030 Agenda. Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Research Study Series No. 74. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission). 2020. Notice on announcement of 2020 minimum purchase prices for rice. 2 February. (unofficial translation).Google Scholar
NDRC. 2019. Notice on improvement of policies related to minimum price purchases of wheat. 12 October. (unofficial translation).Google Scholar
Nedumpara, J. J., Janardhan, S. and Bhattacharya, A.. 2022. Agriculture subsidies: Unravelling the linkages between the amber box and the blue box support. World Trade Review 21(2): 207–223.Google Scholar
O’Donoghue, E., and Whitaker, J.. 2010. Do Direct Payments distort producers’ decisions? An examination of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(1): 170–193.Google Scholar
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2021a. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2021: Addressing the Challenges Facing Food Systems. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2021b. Agricultural policy monitoring and evaluation. Country data. www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/.Google Scholar
OECD. 2021c. Agriculture Statistics. Reference tables. OECDiLibrary. www.oecd-ilibrary.org.Google Scholar
OECD. 2018. The Economic Effects of Public Stockholding Policies for Rice in Asia. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2001. Market Effects of Crop Support Measures. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 1987. National Policies and Agricultural Trade. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Orden, D. 2021. Multilateral rules for food and agricultural trade. In Current Issues in Global Agricultural and Trade Policy: Essays in Honour of Timothy E. Josling, ed. Blandford, D. and Tangermann, S.. London: World Scientific, pp. 135–158.Google Scholar
Orden, D., Blandford, D. and Josling, T. (eds.). 2011. WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support: Seeking a Fair Basis for Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orden, D., Paarlberg, R. and Roe, T.. 1999. Policy Reform in American Agriculture: Analysis and Prognosis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pannell, D., and Claassen, R.. 2020. The roles of adoption and behavior change in agricultural policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1): 31–41.Google Scholar
Permanent Mission of India to the WTO. 2018. India’s market price support to sugarcane: Counter notification by Australia. Statement by India in the WTO Committee on Agriculture meeting held on 26–27 November 2018. www.pmindiaun.gov.in/pages/MTU0MA.Google Scholar
Ringler, C., Perez, N. and Xie, H.. 2021. The role of water in supporting food security: Where we are and where we need to go. In Agricultural Development: New Perspectives in a Changing World, ed. Otsuka, K. and Fan, S.. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, pp. 661–680.Google Scholar
Roningen, V., and Dixit, P.. 1989. Economic implications of agricultural policy reforms in industrialized market economies. Staff Report No. AGES 89-36. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Rosegrant, M. W. 2019. From scarcity to security: Managing water for a nutritious food future. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rude, J. 2008. Production effects of the European Union’s Single Farm Payment. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(4): 457–471.Google Scholar
Rude, J. 2001. Under the green box: WTO and farm subsidies. Journal of World Trade 35(5): 1015–1033.Google Scholar
Sapir, A, and Trachtman, J. P.. 2008. Subsidization, price suppression, and expertise: Causation and precision in Upland Cotton. World Trade Review 7(1): 183–209.Google Scholar
Schnepf, R. 2021. EU agricultural domestic support: Overview and comparison with the United States. CRS Report R46811. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Schnepf, R. 2020. US farm support: Outlook for compliance with WTO commitments, 2018 to 2020. CRS Report R46577. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Schnepf, R. 2018. Seed cotton as a farm program crop: In brief. CRS Report R45143. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. K., Das, A., Neogi, S., Lahiri, T. and Mathur, P.. 2021. Agricultural domestic support negotiations at the 12th WTO Ministerial conference: Diluting the development agenda. Working Paper CWS/WP/200/65. Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Staff of IMF, OECD, World Bank and WTO. 2022. Subsidies, trade and international cooperation. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Steenblik, R., and Tsai, C.. 2009. The environmental impact of green box subsidies: Exploring the linkages. In Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box – Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals, ed. Meléndez-Ortiz, R., Bellmann, C. and Hepburn, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 427–467.Google Scholar
Steinberg, R. H., and Josling, T. E.. 2003. When the peace clause ends: The vulnerability of EC and US agricultural subsidies to WTO legal challenge. Journal of International Economic Law 6(2): 396–417.Google Scholar
Sumner, D. A. 2021. A half century of US agricultural policy and trade. In Current Issues in Global Agricultural and Trade Policy: Essays in Honour of Timothy E. Josling, ed. Blandford, D. and Tangermann, S.. London: World Scientific, pp. 87–110.Google Scholar
Sumrada, T., Japelj, A., Verbič, M. and Erjavec, E.. 2022. Farmers’ preferences for result-based schemes for grassland conservation in Slovenia. Journal for Nature Conservation 66: 126143.Google Scholar
Swinbank, A. 2021. Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy. In Current Issues in Global Agricultural and Trade Policy: Essays in Honour of Timothy E. Josling, ed. Blandford, D. and Tangermann, S.. London: World Scientific, pp. 63–86.Google Scholar
Swinbank, A. 2009. The reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. In Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals, ed. Meléndez-Ortiz, R., Bellmann, C. and Hepburn, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–85.Google Scholar
Swinbank, A., and Tranter, R.. 2005. Decoupling EU farm support: Does the new Single Payment Scheme fit within the green box? The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 6(1): 47–61.Google Scholar
Thamo, T. and Pannell, D. J.. 2016. Challenges in developing effective policy for soil carbon sequestration: Perspectives on additionality, leakage, and permanence. Climate Policy 16(8): 973–992.Google Scholar
Tong, L., Pham, C. and Ulubaşoğlu, M.. 2019. The effects of farm subsidies on farm exports in the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101(4): 1277–1304.Google Scholar
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. 15 April 1994. LT/UR/A-2/DS/U/1. https://docs.wto.org.Google Scholar
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1987. Government intervention in agriculture: Measurement, evaluation and implications for trade negotiations. Foreign Agricultural Economic Report No. 229. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
USTR (United States Trade Representative). 2020. Economic and trade agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of the People’s Republic of China. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wagener, A., and Zenker, J.. 2021. Decoupled but not neutral: The effects of counter-cyclical cash transfers on investment and incomes in rural Thailand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 103(5): 1637–1660.Google Scholar
Water Global Practice. 2022. Irrigation & Drainage (I&D). Learning Note. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wuepper, D., and Huber, R.. 2022. Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action- and results-based agri-environmental payments in Switzerland. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 104(5): 1585–1604.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization) documents with a document symbol are available at WTO Documents Online https://docs.wto.org.Google Scholar
WTO. 2022a. Procedures to enhance transparency and strengthen notification requirements under WTO agreements. Communication from Albania; Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; the European Union; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Republic of Korea; Liechtenstein; Mexico; Republic of Moldova; Montenegro; New Zealand; North Macedonia; Norway; Paraguay; Peru; the Philippines; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Thailand; United Kingdom; the United States and Uruguay. General Council, Council for Trade in Goods. JOB/GC/204/Rev.11. 14 July.Google Scholar
WTO. 2022b. Ministerial decision on World Food Programme food purchases exemption from export prohibitions or restrictions. WT/MIN(22)/29; WT/L/1140. 22 June.Google Scholar
WTO. 2022c. Ministerial declaration on the emergency response to food insecurity. WT/MIN(22)/28; WT/L/1139. 22 June.Google Scholar
WTO. 2022d. Sanitary and phytosanitary declaration for the twelfth WTO Ministerial conference: Responding to modern SPS challenges. Ministerial Declaration. WT/MIN(22)/27; WT/L/1138. 22 June.Google Scholar
WTO. 2022e. Draft Ministerial decision on agriculture. WT/MIN(22)/W/19. 10 June.Google Scholar
WTO. 2022f. Public stockholding for food security purposes. Proposal by the African Group, the ACP, and G33. JOB/AG/229. 31 May.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021a. Agriculture Information Management System (Ag-IMS). https://agims.wto.org/.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021b. India – Measures Concerning Sugar and Sugarcane. Reports of the Panels. WT/DS579R; WT/DS580R; WT/DS581R. 14 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021c. Report by the Chairperson, H.E. Ms Gloria Abraham Peralta, to the Trade Negotiations Committee. Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. TN/AG/50. 23 November.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021d. Director-general’s consultative framework mechanism on cotton. Evolving table – 32nd version. Sub-Committee on Cotton. WT/CFMC/6/Rev.31. 27 October.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021e. Cotton. Background paper by the Secretariat. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session, Sub-Committee on Cotton. TN/AG/GEN/34/Rev.15; TN/AG/SCC/GEN/13/Rev.15. 22 October.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021f. Update to Canada’s analytical tool on domestic support. Submission by Canada. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. JOB/AG/219. 23 September.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021g. Agriculture negotiations at the WTO. Communication by the co-sponsors of the sectoral initiative on cotton. TN/AG/GEN/52; TN/AG/SCC/GEN/23. 8 September.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021h. Proposal for a Ministerial decision on transparency improvements in agriculture. Communication from Canada, the European Union, Japan and the United States. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. JOB/AG/213. 26 July.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021i. Public food stockholding for developing country members. Communication from the African Group. JOB/AG/204. 12 July.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021j. Compliance with notification obligations. Note by the Secretariat. G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.42. 4 June.Google Scholar
WTO. 2021k. Transparency issues in domestic support notifications. Submission by Canada. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. JOB/AG/197. 18 May.Google Scholar
WTO. 2020. Notification of select domestic support variables in the WTO. Submission by the United States. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. JOB/AG/181. 19 February.Google Scholar
WTO. 2019a. Higher and higher – Growth in domestic support entitlements since 2001. Submission from Australia and New Zealand. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. JOB/AG/171. 22 November.Google Scholar
WTO. 2019b. China – Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products. Report of the Panel. WT/DS517/R. 18 April.Google Scholar
WTO. 2019c. China – Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers. Report of the Panel. WT/DS511/R. 28 February.Google Scholar
WTO. 2019d. Certain measures of India providing market price support to pulses, including chickpeas, pigeon peas, black matpe, mung beans and lentils. Communication from Australia, Canada and the United States of America Pursuant to Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Committee on Agriculture. G/AG/W/193 (and correction). 12 February (and 5 March 2019).Google Scholar
WTO. 2018a. Notification. China’s notifications of domestic support for 2011 to 2016. Committee on Agriculture. G/AG/N/CHN/42–48 (various dates).Google Scholar
WTO. 2018b. India’s measures to provide market price support for sugarcane. Communication from Australia Pursuant to Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Committee on Agriculture. G/AG/W/189. 16 November.Google Scholar
WTO. 2018c. Certain measures of India providing market price support to cotton. Communication from the United States of America Pursuant to Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Committee on Agriculture. G/AG/W/188. 9 November.Google Scholar
WTO. 2018d. Revisiting G/AG/2 – Time for review after twenty-three years. Submission by Norway, Committee on Agriculture. G/AG/W/185. 17 September.Google Scholar
WTO. 2018e. Certain measures of India providing market price support to rice and wheat. Communication from the United States of America Pursuant to Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Committee on Agriculture. G/AG/W/174. 9 May.Google Scholar
WTO. 2016a. China – Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products. Request for Consultations by the United States. WT/DS517/1; G/L/1171. 15 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2016b. China – Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers. Request for Consultations by the United States. WT/DS511/1; G/AG/GEN/135; G/L/1150. 20 September.Google Scholar
WTO 2015a. Export competition. Ministerial Decision of 19 December 2015. Ministerial Conference: Tenth Session. WT/MIN(15)/45; WT/L/980. 21 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2015b. Public stockholding for food security purposes. Ministerial Decision of 19 December 2015. Ministerial Conference: Tenth Session. WT/MIN(15)/46; WT/L/979. 21 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2014. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton: Notification of a mutually agreed solution. WT/DS267/46. 23 October.Google Scholar
WTO. 2013a. General services. Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013. Ministerial Conference: Ninth Session. WT/MIN(13)/37; WT/L/912. 11 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2013b. Public stockholding for food security purposes. Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013. Ministerial Conference: Ninth Session. WT/MIN(13)/38; WT/L/913. 11 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2013c. G-33 non paper. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. JOB/AG/25. 3 October.Google Scholar
WTO. 2012. United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint). Report by the Appellate Body. WT/DS353/AB/R. 12 March.Google Scholar
WTO. 2009. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton. Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement. Decision by the Arbitrator. WT/DS267/ARB/1. 31 August.Google Scholar
WTO. 2008a. Revised draft modalities for agriculture. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4. 6 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2008b. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil. Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS267/AB/RW. 2 June.Google Scholar
WTO. 2007. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil. Report of the Panel. WT/DS267/RW. 18 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2005a. European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar. Award of the Arbitrator. WT/DS265/33; WT/DS266/33; WT/DS283/14. 28 October.Google Scholar
WTO. 2005b. European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar. Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS265/AB/R; WT/DS266/AB/R; WT/DS283/AB/R. 28 April.Google Scholar
WTO. 2005c DS267 AB Report. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton. Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS267/AB/R. 3 March.Google Scholar
WTO. 2004a. European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar. Complaint by Australia. Report of the Panel. WT/DS265/R. Identical separate panel reports for DS266 (Brazil) and DS283 (Thailand). 15 October.Google Scholar
WTO. 2004b. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton. Report of the Panel. WT/DS267/R. 8 September.Google Scholar
WTO. 2003. European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar. Request for Consultations by Thailand. WT/DS283/1. 14 March.Google Scholar
WTO. 2002a. Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (Second Recourse to Article 21.5). Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS103/AB/RW2; WT/DS113/AB/RW2. 20 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2002b. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton. Request for Consultations by Brazil. WT/DS267/1. 3 October.Google Scholar
WTO. 2002c. European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar. Request for Consultations by Australia. WT/DS265/1. 27 September.Google Scholar
WTO. 2002d. European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar. Request for Consultations by Brazil. WT/DS266/1. 27 September.Google Scholar
WTO. 2002e. Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (Second Recourse to Article 21.5). Report of the Panel. WT/DS103/RW2; WT/DS113/RW2. 26 June.Google Scholar
WTO. 2001a. Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States. Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS103/AB/RW; WT/DS113/AB/RW. 3 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2001b. Ministerial Declaration Adopted on 14 November 2001. Ministerial Conference: Fourth Session. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1. 20 November.Google Scholar
WTO. 2001c. Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States. Report of the Panel. WT/DS103/RW; WT/DS113/RW. 11 July.Google Scholar
WTO. 2000a. Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef. Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS161/AB/R; WT/DS169/AB/R. 11 December.Google Scholar
WTO. 2000b. Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef. Report of the Panel. WT/DS161/R; WT/DS169/R. 31 July.Google Scholar
WTO. 1999a. Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products. Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS103/AB/R; WT/DS113/AB/R. 13 October.Google Scholar
WTO. 1999b. Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products. Report of the Panel. WT/DS103/R; WT/DS113/R. 17 May.Google Scholar
WTO. 1999c. Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef. Request for Consultations by Australia. WT/DS169/1; G/L/307; G/AG/GEN/37; G/LIC/D/29. 19 April.Google Scholar
WTO. 1999d. Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef. Request for Consultations by the United States. WT/DS161/1; G/L/292; G/AG/GEN/32; G/LIC/D/28. 4 February.Google Scholar
WTO. 1995a. Notification requirements and formats. Committee on Agriculture. G/AG/2. 30 June.Google Scholar
WTO. 1995b. Organization of work and working procedures of the Committee on Agriculture adopted by the Committee at its meeting on 28 March 1995. G/AG/1. 30 March.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Lars Brink, Agriculture, Trade and Policy Advisor, David Orden, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  • Book: Agricultural Domestic Support Under the WTO
  • Online publication: 09 February 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009082440.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Lars Brink, Agriculture, Trade and Policy Advisor, David Orden, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  • Book: Agricultural Domestic Support Under the WTO
  • Online publication: 09 February 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009082440.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Lars Brink, Agriculture, Trade and Policy Advisor, David Orden, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  • Book: Agricultural Domestic Support Under the WTO
  • Online publication: 09 February 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009082440.012
Available formats
×