New Economics Papers
on Agricultural Economics
Issue of 2005‒10‒15
eight papers chosen by

  1. Regional Trading Arrangements and the Multilateral Trading System: Agriculture By OECD
  2. Analysis of Non-Tariff Measures: The Case of Prohibitions and Quotas By Peter Czaga
  3. Analysis of Non-Tariff Barriers of Concern to Developing Countries By OECD
  4. Addressing Market-Access Concerns of Developing Countries arising from Environmental and Health Requirements: Lessons from National Experiences By Dale Andrew; Karim Dahou; Ronald Steenblik
  5. Testing for Separation in Agricultural Household Models and Unobservable Individual Effects: A Note By Jean-Lois Arcand; Béatrice d'Hombres
  6. Local Environmental Groups, the Creation of Social Capital, and Environmental Policy: Evidence from Vermont By Christopher McGrory Klyza; Andrew Savage; Jonathan Isham
  7. Determinants of consumer preferences towards functional foods with seaweed ingredients By Bernhard Buehrlen; Maurizio Canavari; Barbara Breitschopf
  8. Water Pricing Models: a survey By Henrique Monteiro

  1. By: OECD
    Abstract: Following up a 2003 publication by the Trade Committee, this paper examines the treatment of agriculture in regional trading arrangements (RTAs) against the background of treatment under the multilateral trading system (MTS). This paper describes 18 RTAs and its findings may not be generalizeable to the 169 RTAs that have been notified to the WTO. The relationship between the treatment of agriculture in RTAs and that within the MTS is complex. This paper contains illustrates the topography of agricultural treatment within RTAs under four separate headings including: coverage, domestic support, contingency protection and sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. This descriptive analysis is prepared both as a basis for assessing progress on agriculture in RTAs and as frame of reference for considering the treatment of agriculture at the multilateral level.
    Keywords: regionalism, trade and agriculture
    Date: 2005–03–22
  2. By: Peter Czaga
    Abstract: This study, that investigates two specific types of quantitative restrictions, namely import prohibitions and quotas, is part of a broad reflection aimed at learning more about the nature and scope of non-tariff measures. The analysis reviews information on these measures contained in the WTO Trade Policy Reviews, WTO notifications and in various other trade reports. The objective of the report is to contribute to discussions, particularly on market access for non-agricultural goods, at the WTO, or elsewhere. The research revealed that the use of quotas and prohibitions for economic reasons has declined, but most countries use prohibitions as part of their regulatory frameworks for protecting human safety and health or the environment, and this tendency appears to be increasing. Traders would benefit from greater transparency of these measures. Also, there are import bans hampering the international trade in used goods, whose circumstances and appropriateness in terms of regulatory efficiency merit scrutiny.
    Keywords: non-tariff barriers, prohibitions, quantitative restrictions, quotas, used goods
    Date: 2004–09–27
  3. By: OECD
    Abstract: This paper identifies non-tariff barriers (NTBs) faced by developing countries in their trade with developed countries and in South-South trade. The goal is to raise awareness of barriers that interfere with the ability of developing countries to build up trade. Data collected and analysed consist of the academic literature, notifications by developing countries to the Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non- Agricultural Products (NAMA) of the Doha Development Agenda, business surveys, and records relating to trade disputes brought before the World Trade Organization and regional dispute settlement mechanisms. The chapter identifies the categories and types of measures that are most reported and the products affected by the reported measures. Attention is also drawn to developing countries’ forwardlooking export strategies and related potential barriers. Overall, the chapter highlights similarities and differences in barriers reported in the data reviewed and compares barriers reported for trade with developed countries and for trade among developing countries.
    Keywords: market access, non-tariff barriers, developing countries, Doha Development Agenda, NAMA notifications, non-tariff measures, regional integration, south-south trade, surveys, trade disputes
    Date: 2005–06–03
  4. By: Dale Andrew; Karim Dahou; Ronald Steenblik
    Abstract: This report represents the stock-taking of the lessons learned from a series of twenty OECD case studies which examined specific market access problems arising from environmental and health requirements faced by developing country exporters. Together with a series of UNCTAD case studies and the experiences exchanged at an OECD Global Forum on Trade workshop, held in New Delhi in November 2002, the focus is on the approaches that contributed to addressing the market access difficulties. These are divided into two sections: first, those addressing information flows and capacity building needs of developing-country exporters, undertaken both by governments and non-governmental organisations; and then the procedures in developing, implementing and reviewing regulations and standards. While covering a range of natural resource-based exports and manufactures and one traded service in key OECD import markets, no generalisation can be drawn regarding the scale of the market-access problems created by environmental and health requirements.
    Keywords: environment, regulations, market access, standards, developing countries, capacity building
    Date: 2004–09–24
  5. By: Jean-Lois Arcand; Béatrice d'Hombres
    Abstract: When market structure is complete, factor demands by households will be independent of their characteristics, and households will take their production decisions as if they were profit-maximizing firms. This observation constitutes the basis for one of the most popular empirical tests for complete markets, commonly known as the 'separation' hypothesis. In this paper, we show that all existing tests for separation using panel data are potentially biased towards rejecting the null-hypothesis of complete markets, because of the failure to adequately control for unobservable individual effects. Since the variable on which the test for separation is based cannot be identified in most panel datasets following the usual covariance transformations, and is likely to be correlated with the individual effect, neither the within nor the variance-components procedures are able to solve the problem. We show that the Hausman-Taylor (1981) estimator, in which the impact of covariates that are invariant along one dimension of a panel can be identified through the use of covariance transformations of other included variables that are orthogonal to the individual effects as instruments, provides a simple solution. We furnish an empirical illustration in which separation —and thus the null of complete markets— is strongly rejected using the standard approach, but is not rejected once correlated unobservable individual effects are controlled for using the Hausman-Taylor instrument set.
    Keywords: Panel data, individual effects, household models, testing for incomplete markets, development microeconomics, Tunisia
    JEL: D1 D2 D3 D4
    Date: 2005–10–11
  6. By: Christopher McGrory Klyza; Andrew Savage; Jonathan Isham
    Abstract: Scholars who have studied local environmental groups and their effects in the United States have tended to agree about three related, stylized facts: that such groups are widespread, that they are pursuing a diverse set of activities, and, at least implicitly, that they are creating social capital that significantly affects environmental policy and outcomes. However, a healthy skepticism of these claims among academics and within the policy community exists due to a lack of significant data to verify them. In this article, (1) we collect and interpret data to demonstrate, in two counties of central Vermont, that local environmental groups are indeed pursuing a diverse set of activities, developing a typology of these groups based on their main focus; (2) we show the groups are developing and maintaining social capital; and (3) we illustrate how these methodologies can enhance the literature on local environmental groups by testing claims about the extent and influence of these groups.
    Keywords: local environmental groups, social capital, local organizations, Vermont
  7. By: Bernhard Buehrlen (Fraunhofer-Institute Systems & Innovation Research ISI); Maurizio Canavari (Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria agrarie DEIAgra , Alma Mater Studiorum-Università di Bologna); Barbara Breitschopf (Institute for Economic Policy Research, Section System Dynamics & Innovation, University of Karlsruhe)
    JEL: P Q Z
    Date: 2005–10–08
  8. By: Henrique Monteiro (Department of Economics & Dinâmia – ISCTE)
    Abstract: This paper surveys water pricing models, highlighting some important results. Efficiency rquires marginal cost pricing. Intra-annual price changes or customer differentiation to reflect differences in marginal costs can enhance efficiency. A marginal cost pricing mechanism may signal the value that consumers attribute to further capacity expansions as the water supply system approaches its capacity limit and marginal cost rises. However, pure marginal cost pricing may not be feasible while respecting a revenue requirement because marginal costs may be higher or lower than average costs. The most common ways of combining efficiency and revenue requirements are through the use of two-part tariffs, adjusting the fixed charge to meet the revenue requirement, or through second-best pricing like Ramsey pricing. It is not evident whether the best scheme is a two-part tariff or some other pricing mechanism. The role of block rate pricing, increasingly more frequent in actual pricing practices, is yet to be fully investigated.
    Keywords: water pricing models; capacity constraints; scarcity; revenue requirements; second-best pricing; block rate pricing
    JEL: L95 Q25
    Date: 2005–10–13

General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.