Agricultural Import Demand in Low-Income, Middle-Income, and Centrally Planned Economies

This report provides summaries of the papers and discussions at the third Consortium on Trade Research held in Washington, D.C., June 23-24, 1981. The cochairmen of the consortium were T. Kelley White, Economic Research Service (ERS), George E. Rossmiller, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), and Vernon Sorenson, Michigan State University. The Consortium focused on world demand for agricultural imports and the policies and conditions in low-income, middle-income, and centrally planned countries that influence import demand. An overview paper by Dewain Rahe and Cheryl Christensen assessed future global prospects for agricultural trade. Peter Timmer's paper investigated conceptual and empirical problems in analyzing import demand. Three of the papers discussed the demand for food and agricultural products in the Soviet Union and China. Three additional papers focused on factors affecting import demand in low- and middle-income countries. A final set of papers examined the role of bilateral agreements and stockholding policies in agricultural trade.Trade, import demand, projections, state trading, food reserves, stockholding, bilateral agreements, low-income countries, middle-income countries, centrally planned countries, International Relations/Trade,

Ag econ angst crisis revisited

The present paper was inspired by and is a response to the Rola-Rubzen, Hardaker and Dillon paper ‘Agricultural economists and world poverty: progress and prospects’ (Rola-Rubzen et al. 2001). It is agreed that the position of agricultural economists in foreign aid and poverty programs has declined over recent decades. Such a feeling of guilt and remorse expressed by the above authors does indeed create considerable ‘angst’. A major reason for this state of affairs lies in ‘the flavour of the month’ approach of the development agencies. These include women in development, gender-based farming systems research, household nutrition and food security, people participation, and targeting the poorest of the poor. These fads have driven disciplinary considerations to the wall and the more widely-defined objectives have reduced the drive for economic efficiency. We argue there is still a place for better designed and delivered assistance programs within the wider framework of assistance that has become fashionable. Greater application of institutional principles in both the political processes associated with assistance and the implementation agencies would improve the outcomes of many projects. Particular attention would need to be given to the interface between the development agencies and recipient governments. The present paper picks up on the market failure aspects of agriculture’s rather poor contribution to development, and develops a wider perspective in terms of the new institutional economics and a continuing role for the agricultural economist.Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

SEEKING AGRICULTURAL COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH TRADE NEGOTIATIONS: WANTING DOESN'T MAKE IT SO

International Relations/Trade,

TRADE WAR OR NEGOTIATIONS: WHERE ARE WE HEADING?

International Relations/Trade,

Trade Policy, Commercial Market Relationships, and Effects on World Price Stability: The United States

International Relations/Trade,

Report of ESCOP Subcommittee on Domestic and International Markets and Policy

International Relations/Trade,

Bringing Agriculture into the GATT: Negotiating a Framework for Action

International Relations/Trade,

SIX PROBLEMS That Affect Ag Policy

Myths-notions based more on tradition or convenience than on facts and resplendent with inaccuracies-are pervasive in discussions about agricultural policy. Because of these myths and the multiplicity of purposes of agricultural programs there is great confusion about the intent or impact of any single program. This confusion also stems from six problems that are associated with the agricultural policy process. Recognizing these problems helps explain why some programs fail to accomplish what they were presumably designed to do

Agricultural Proposals in the GATT

Several proposals have been made in the GAlT for agricultural trade negotiations in the Uruguay Round. This article provides an outline of the major features of these proposals

Ag econ angst crisis revisited

The present paper was inspired by and is a response to the Rola-Rubzen, Hardaker and Dillon paper ‘Agricultural economists and world poverty: progress and prospects’ (Rola-Rubzen et al. 2001). It is agreed that the position of agricultural economists in foreign aid and poverty programs has declined over recent decades. Such a feeling of guilt and remorse expressed by the above authors does indeed create considerable ‘angst’. A major reason for this state of affairs lies in ‘the flavour of the month’ approach of the development agencies. These include women in development, gender-based farming systems research, household nutrition and food security, people participation, and targeting the poorest of the poor. These fads have driven disciplinary considerations to the wall and the more widely-defined objectives have reduced the drive for economic efficiency. We argue there is still a place for better designed and delivered assistance programs within the wider framework of assistance that has become fashionable. Greater application of institutional principles in both the political processes associated with assistance and the implementation agencies would improve the outcomes of many projects. Particular attention would need to be given to the interface between the development agencies and recipient governments. The present paper picks up on the market failure aspects of agriculture’s rather poor contribution to development, and develops a wider perspective in terms of the new institutional economics and a continuing role for the agricultural economist