Global Economic Prospects Realizing the Development Promise of the Doha Agenda phần 5 ppsx

GLOBAL ECONOMIC PROSPECTS 2004 100 _____. 2000. “The Tyranny of Concepts: CUDIE (Cu- mulated, Depreciated Investment Effort) Is Not Capital.” Journal of Economic Growth 5: 361–84. ______. 2001. “Where Has All the Education Gone?” World Bank Economic Review 15 (3): 367–91. Redding, Stephen, and Anthony Venables. 2001. “Eco- nomic Geography and International Inequality.” CEP Working Paper 495. London School of Eco- nomics, London. Schott, P. 2001. “Do Rich and Poor Countries Special- ize in a Different Mix of Goods? Evidence from Product-Level U.S. Trade Data.” Working Paper 8492. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass. _____. 2002. “Across-Product Versions Within-Product Specialization in International Trade.” Mimeo. Yale School of Management, New Haven, Conn. _____. 2003. “One Size Fits All? Heckscher-Ohlin Spe- cialization in Global Production.” American Eco- nomic Review 93(3): 686–708. Stawowy, Wojciech. 2001. “Calculation of Ad Valorem Equivalents of Non-Ad Valorem Tariffs.” Mimeo, UNCTAD, October. Todaro, M. 1994. Economic Development. New York: Longman. World Bank. 2000. Global Economic Prospects 2001. Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2002. Global Economic Prospects 2003. Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2003. World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C. WTO. 2001. “Ministerial Declaration.” Document WT/ MIN(01)/DEC/1, November 20. WTO. 2003a. “Draft Elements of Modalities for Ne- gotiations on Non-Agricultural Products.” World Trade Organization, Negotiating Group on Mar- ket Access, TN/MA/W/35, Geneva. WTO. 2003b. Formula Approaches to Tariff Nego- tiations: Note by the Secretariat.” Document TN/ MA/S/Rev 2, April 11. WTO. 2003c. “Negotiations on Agriculture: First Draft of Modalities for the Further Comments.” Document TN/AG/W/1/Rev. 1, March 18. Yang, Y., W. Martin, and K. Yanagishima. 1997. “Evaluating the Benefits of Abolishing the MFA in the Uruguay Round Package.” In T. Herteb, ed., Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Appli- cations. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. [...]... European Union Japan United States Korea, Rep of Brazil Costa Rica Indonesia Malawi Morocco Togo Uganda Maximum tariff Standard deviation Percentage of lines covered 3.8 19.0 10.3 9 .5 42.2 12.4 13.2 8 .5 15. 3 63.9 14.7 12.9 238.0 50 6.3 50 .0 350 .0 917.0 55 .0 154 .0 170.0 25. 0 376 .5 20.0 15. 0 12.9 27.3 10.0 26.2 119.2 5. 9 17.4 24.1 9.1 68.2 6 .5 3.7 76.0 85. 9 85. 5 99.3 98.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9... Zealand Other countries Other industrial b Other developing c Direct subsidiesa Total producer support (estimate)a 1986–88 19 95 97 1999–2001 1986–88 19 95 97 1999–2001 1986–88 19 95 97 1999–2001 48.2 65. 3 1 45. 4 16.0 45. 2 28.2 28.3 131.7 7 .5 8.7 31.3 34.3 138.1 10.8 10.4 14.3 10 .5 16.8 18.3 18.3 13.3 20.4 13.0 7.4 4.8 17.2 21.7 14.7 18.8 7 .5 62 .5 75. 8 162.1 34.3 63.6 41 .5 48.8 144.7 14.9 13 .5 48 .5 56.0 152 .9... 18.8 0 .5 9.7 30.6 0.0 0.2 15. 3 5. 0 5. 0 12.3 0.0 7.0 21.7 18.9 30.4 36.4 2.0 13.8 20.1 a 19.3 50 .0 25. 5 11.6b a 9.2 13.3 22 .5 4.6 5. 5 10.2 49.6 30.0 41.9 8.7 13.2 16.7 9.9 18 .5 18.0 4.4 4.4 6 .5 1 35. 4 52 .2 34.1 5. 0 10.6 11.6 11 .5 5.1 16.2 0.6 3.2 3 .5 15. 6 5. 8 20.0 4.9 4.3 9.1 a All lines are specific b 56 percent of lines are specific Source: WTO Integrated Database diversification into value-added and... Labeling Other Total Total number Latin America and the Caribbean 1996–97 Asia 1996–97 India 2001 1.4 20.6 10.7 11.9 6.2 5. 2 31.4 3.6 5. 0 1.7 100.0 3,9 85 7.4 0.4 1 .5 0.8 15. 5 11 .5 35. 2 14.3 10.8 2.6 100.0 5, 784 7.4 1.9 0.6 0.4 15. 3 0.3 26.4 4.1 15. 7 27.8 100.0 2,148 Source: USFDA Even for more complex food safety issues, developing countries have room to maneuver An array of strategies exists to help them... decades The steady decline in the developing countries’ share of agricultural exports to industrial countries over the period was counterbalanced by an increase in their share of exports to other developing countries In other words, the significant deceleration of nominal import growth in in- 110 dustrial countries, from 5. 4 percent annually during the 1980s to 1.9 percent in the 1990s, was offset by the. .. equivalents of specific and other duties, where available, are much higher than the ad valorem rates, and assuming that the same tariff structure applies to Canada and Japan, which use non–ad valorem (NAV) rates on 25 percent and 15 percent of their tariff lines, the average tariffs for the two countries are seriously underestimated, lowering the Quad average To show the degree of bias, the third column... and rice were 58 , 67, and 77 percent of their costs of production (Watkins 2003) Decoupling subsidies from production would reduce such distortions To fully decouple subsidy payments, the definition of decoupling must make it clear that the payments are independent of production decisions (box 3 .5) 126 The development tale of five commodities: sugar, wheat, cotton, peanuts, and rice The development consequences... protection of sugar and wheat has increased domestic production and reduced net imports a Production and net imports of sugar in the European Union, Japan, and the United States b Production and net imports of wheat in the European Union Millions of tons Millions of tons 35 120 100 Production 80 ᮡ 25 ᮡ 30 Production 60 20 40 15 Net imports Net imports 20 ᮡ ᮡ 10 5 0 19 61 19 65 19 69 19 73 19 77 19 81 19 85. .. countries, the changes in protection in developing countries were significant in the 1990s (figure 3.4) The average agricultural tariff declined from almost 30 percent in 1990 to about 18 percent in 2000, a decline of 35 percent (The rates shown in the figure are simple averages of the average tariffs of about 50 developing countries.) Those reductions were complemented by the elimination of most ex-... attributed to the price declines observed in the late 1990s? The existing price series for agricultural commodities have certain limitations Most of the standard series are based on raw commodities that constitute a much smaller percentage of the global trade flows In most cases they exclude seafood, fruits, and vegetables—now the largest trade items For the purposes of this chapter the authors tried . 50 6.3 27.3 85. 9 Japan 10.3 50 .0 10.0 85. 5 United States 9 .5 350 .0 26.2 99.3 Korea, Rep. of 42.2 917.0 119.2 98.0 Brazil 12.4 55 .0 5. 9 100.0 Costa Rica 13.2 154 .0 17.4 100.0 Indonesia 8 .5 170.0 24.1. receive most of the benefits of sup- port systems. In the United States, the largest 25 percent of farms have average gross farm re- ceipts of more than $2 75, 000 and average farm net worth of more. rates on 25 percent and 15 percent of their tariff lines, the average tariffs for the two countries are seriously underestimated, lower- ing the Quad average. To show the degree of bias, the third