Has Agricultural Trade Liberalization Improved Welfare In The Least Developed Countries Yes

Most of the gains from multilateral liberalization come from the countries' own liberalization efforts. Least-developed countries that failed to liberalize their trade policy lost the opportunity for gains that the Uruguay Round made possible.Ingco evaluates the progress in agricultural liberalization - and the welfare effects for least-developed and net food-importing countries - as a result of agricultural price shocks resulting from the Uruguay Round. She finds that:- The changes in welfare are significantly affected by the structure of trade and distortions in the domestic economy.- Although many economies are hurt by increases in world prices, losses in terms of trade are small relative to total GDP. Only in a few countries does the estimated welfare change constitute more than 1 percent of GDP. - In several countries, the distortion effects are significantly larger than the terms-of-trade effects. In some cases, the distortion effects work in opposition to the terms-of-trade effects and are large enough to reverse the sign of the net welfare change.In short, removing policy distortions could convert the small loss in terms of trade to potential gains. But many least-developed, net food-importing countries did not use the Round to support domestic efforts at trade reform. As most studies show, most gains from multilateral liberalization come from the countries' own liberalization efforts, so countries that failed to liberalize their trade policy lost the opportunity for gains.This paper - a product of the International Trade Division, International Economics Department - is part of a larger effort in the department to evaluate the effects of trade liberalization with special focus on least-developed and net-food importing developing countries.

Most of the gains from multilateral liberalization come from the countries' own liberalization efforts. Least-developed countries that failed to liberalize their trade policy lost the opportunity for gains that the Uruguay Round made possible. Ingco evaluates the progress in agricultural liberalization - and the welfare effects for least-developed and net food-importing countries - as a result of agricultural price shocks resulting from the Uruguay Round. She finds that: * The changes in welfare are significantly affected by the structure of trade and distortions in the domestic economy. * Although many economies are hurt by increases in world prices, losses in terms of trade are small relative to total GDP. Only in a few countries does the estimated welfare change constitute more than 1 percent of GDP. * In several countries, the distortion effects are significantly larger than the terms-of-trade effects. In some cases, the distortion effects work in opposition to the terms-of-trade effects and are large enough to reverse the sign of the net welfare change. In short, removing policy distortions could convert the small loss in terms of trade to potential gains. But many least-developed, net food-importing countries did not use the Round to support domestic efforts at trade reform. As most studies show, most gains from multilateral liberalization come from the countries' own liberalization efforts, so countries that failed to liberalize their trade policy lost the opportunity for gains. This paper - a product of the International Trade Division, International Economics Department - is part of a larger effort in the department to evaluate the effects of trade liberalization with special focus on least-developed and net-food importing developing countries.

Global trade liberalization-- reducing both negative and positive protection in line with the Dunkel proposal-- would gain developing countries an estimated $60 billion a year.

Developing countries as a group stand to gain very substantially from trade reform in agricultural commodities. Agricultural Trade Liberalization and the Least Developed Countries is the first book to address important questions relating to this subject. The authors are world renowned experts on international trade and development and they address a very important and timely issue.

Developing countries as a group stand to gain very substantially from trade reform in agricultural commodities. Agricultural Trade Liberalization and the Least Developed Countries is the first book to address important questions relating to this subject. The authors are world renowned experts on international trade and development and they address a very important and timely issue.

Findings from aggregate economy-wide models suggest that removing tariffs on agricultural imports is detrimental to rural welfare in less developed countries. This paper explores the rural welfare effects of agricultural trade liberalization called for under the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), using a disaggregated rural economy-wide model nesting a series of agricultural household models. Lower tariffs reduce nominal incomes for nearly all rural household groups in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. However, they also lower consumption costs substantially. The net effect on rural households' welfare is positive in most cases, implying that pre-CAFTA agricultural protection policies are disadvantageous for most rural household groups.

Computable general equilibrium (CGE) analysis has been widely used to study the economic effects of trade liberalisation initiatives. The paper reports on the possibility of extending the use of this methodology to explore the link between trade and development. It focuses on the impact of trade liberalisation measures on income distribution. The paper reviews studies of agricultural trade liberalisation within the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) region, but it is suggested that the approach may have a wider application.

Citing a paucity of empirical evidence on the poverty and distributional impacts of trade policy reform in Ghana as the main motivation for this volume, the editors (both of the Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research at the U. of Ghana) present eleven papers that combine theory and econometric analysis in an effort to assess linkages between globalization, trade, and poverty (including gendered aspects). Specific topics examined include manufacturing employment and wage effects of trade liberalization; the influence of education on trade liberalization impacts on household welfare; trade liberalization and manufacturing firm productivity; the impact of elimination of trade taxes on poverty and income distribution; food prices, tax reforms, and consumer welfare under trade liberalization; impacts on tariff revenues; and impacts on cash cropping, gender, and household welfare; Distributed in the US by Stylus. Annotation ©2012 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com).