Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:39:33.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Game Theoretic Analysis of Turkish Accession to a European Customs Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

P. Lynn Kennedy  and
Cemal Atici
P. Lynn Kennedy
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
Cemal Atici
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
Get access

Abstract

The entrance of additional countries into a European customs union, in this case Turkey, and its impact on agriculture are examined. Results from a trade simulation model are used as components of a Political Preference Function and utilized within a game theoretic framework to identify the optimal strategies for Turkey, the EU, and the U.S. Turkey's best interest, from an agricultural perspective, involves adoption of agreements made in the Uruguay round of GATT as a developing country rather than applying EU protection. Although free trade is not the optimal solution, simulations indicate that the solution does involve the reduction of agricultural protection levels.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , October 1999 , pp. 147 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Bullock, D.S. 1994. “In Search of Rational Government: What Political Preference Function Studies Measure and Assume.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(August): 347–361.Google Scholar
Eurecom: The Monthly Bulletin of European Union Economic and Financial News. 1998. Luxembourg Sets Stage for EU Enlargement. The European Commission, Luxembourg, at http://www.eurunion.org/cgi-bin/frames.cgi?news/eurecom/1998/ecom0998.htm.Google Scholar
Euromonitor. 1995. European Marketing Data and Statistics. London.Google Scholar
European Commission. 1995. The Agricultural Situation in the European Union, 1994 Report. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
FAO. 1995. Production Yearbook 1994. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.Google Scholar
Gardiner, W., Roningen, V., and Liu, K. 1989. Elasticities in the Trade Liberalization Database. USDA ERS Staff Report No. AGES 89-20, Washington.Google Scholar
Gardner, B.L. 1983. “Efficient Redistribution through Commodity Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(May): 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, B.L. 1991. “Redistribution of Income through Commodity and Resource Policies.” In Commodity and Resource Policies in Agricultural Systems, Just, R.E. and Bockstael, N., Eds. 129–142. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 1993. International Trade. Geneva.Google Scholar
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 1994. Trade Policy Review: Republic of Turkey. Geneva.Google Scholar
Hillman, A.L. 1982. “Declining Industries and Political-Support Protectionist Motives.” American Economic Review 72(December): 1180–1187.Google Scholar
International Monetary Fund. 1996. International Financial Statistics. Data on Diskette, Washington.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., Mahé, M., and Roe, T.L. 1993. “Trade Compromises between the European Community and the United States: An Interest Group-Game Theory Approach.” Journal of Policy Modeling 15: 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P.L., von Witzke, H., and Roe, T.L. 1996. “Strategic Agricultural Trade Policy Interdependence and Exchange Rate: A Game Theoretic Analysis.” Public Choice 88: 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magee, S.P., Broch, W.A., and Young, L. 1989. Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahé, L., Tavèra, C., and Trochet, T. 1988. “An Analysis of Interaction Between EC and U.S. Policies with a Simplified World Trade Model: MISS.” Background Paper for the Report to the Commission of the European Communities on Disharmonies in EC and U.S. Agricultural Policies. Rennes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltzman, S. 1976. “Towards a More General Theory of Regulation.” Journal of Law and Economics 19(August): 211–240.Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” Journal of International Organization 42(Summer): 427–460.Google Scholar
Rausser, G.C., and Freebairn, J. 1986. “Estimation of Policy Preference Functions: An Application to U.S. Beef Import Quotas.” Review of Economics and Statistics 56: 437–449.Google Scholar
Republic of Turkey. 1996. The Customs Union Between Turkey and the European Union. The Republic of Turkey, Business and Economy, Ankara, at http://www.turkey.org/cust.htm.Google Scholar
Republic of Turkey. 1994. Ekonomik Rapor 1994. Ankara.Google Scholar
Roe, T. 1995. “Political Economy of Structural Adjustment: A General Equilibrium Interest Group Perspective.” In de Janvry, A., Radwan, S., Sadoulet, E., and Thorebeke, E., eds., State, Market and Civil Organizations, 112–138. London: Macmillan Press LTD.Google Scholar
Stigler, G.J. 1971. “The Theory of Economic Regulation.” Bell Journal of Economics 2(spring): 3–21.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. 1994a. Agricultural Overview of the GATT/Uruguay Round. Washington.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. 1994b. Agricultural Statistics. Washington.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. 1992. Agricultural Statistics, Prices Received Index. Washington.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. 1994c. Estimates of Producer and Consumer Subsidy Equivalents. Government Intervention in Agriculture 1982-1992. Washington.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. 1994d. World Situation and Outlook. Washington.Google Scholar
von Cramon-Taubadel, S. 1992. “A Critical Assessment of the Political Preference Function Approach in Agricultural Economics.” Agricultural Economics 7(3/4): 371–394.Google Scholar