Groundnut trade liberalization: Could the South help the south?

Abstract

We use a new partial-equilibrium, multi-market international model to analyze trade and agricultural policies affecting markets for peanut/groundnut products. The model covers four goods in thirteen countries/regions, including a large set of developing countries. Welfare is evaluated by looking at consumers' equivalent variation, quasiprofits in farming, quasi-profits in crushing, and taxpayers' revenues and outlays implied by distortions. We calibrate the model on recent historical data and current policy information. We analyze several groundnut trade liberalization scenarios in deviation from the recent historical baseline. Trade liberalization in groundnut markets has a strong South-South dimension, opposing India and, to a lesser extent, China to smaller developing countries mainly located in Africa. In the former, current policies, exacerbated by their market size, depress the world prices of groundnut products. Under free trade, African exporters present in these world markets would gain because they are net sellers of groundnut products. In India, consumers would be better off, with lower consumer prices resulting from the removal of prohibitive tariffs and large imports of groundnut products. The cost of the adjustment would fall on Indian farmers and crushers. In China, crush margins would improve because of the large terms-of-trade effects in the oil market relative to the seed market. China's groundnut product exports would expand dramatically. Net buyers of groundnut products in OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) countries would be worse off. We draw implications for Doha negotiations. AbstractWe

On the trade effects of bilateral SPS measures in developed and developing countries

“…This analysis has important implications for the debate on the political economy of trade regulations: countries intensification of food safety regulations may be pushed by the need of meeting public interests, although such a policy may be suboptimal at the global level (Josling et al, 2010;Martin, 2018). The feasibility of globally superior policy options depends on the ability of governments to identify trade-offs and politically feasible packages that allow them to efficiently achieve a global equilibrium (Beghin et al, 2006). Thus, a better understanding of the global gains would help the coordination of international policies (Bagwell & Staiger, 2011), and analyses such as the present one may provide valuable insights into the policymakers involved in debates on international cooperation.…”

Yerfıstığında Karlılık, Rekabet Edebilirlik Ve Politika Etkileri: Politika Analiz Matrisi

“…Yerfıstığı gel şm ş ve gel şmekte olan ülkelerde yaygın b r şek lde üret len, prote n, l p d, karbonh drad ve m neral çeren, dünyadak temel yağlı tohumlardan b r tanes d r. Türk ye'de se üret len yerfıstığının bell b r m ktarı hraç ed ld kten ve tohumluk olarak ayrıldıktan sonra, kalan kısmının neredeyse heps çerez olarak tüket lmekted r. Çerezl k olanla karşılaştırıldığında, çok az b r m ktarının gıda sanay nde pasta, ç kolata, vb. yapımında kullanıldığı görülmekted r (Üçeçam ve Hayl , 2004;Begh n et al, 2006;Gürsoy ve B ç c , 2006;Owusu-Adje et al, 2017;Husse n et al, 2019). Yerfıstığı beslenmen n ötes nde, gel şmekte olan ve az gel şm ş ülkelerdek küçük ve fak r üret c lere geç m ve gel r kaynağı olmaktadır.…”

“…Yerfıstığı beslenmen n ötes nde, gel şmekte olan ve az gel şm ş ülkelerdek küçük ve fak r üret c lere geç m ve gel r kaynağı olmaktadır. Dolayısıyla ekonom k açıdan yerfıstığının önem her geçen gün dünyada olduğu g b Türk ye'de de hızla artmaktadır (Begh n et al, 2006;Gürsoy ve B ç c , 2006;Owusu-Adje et al, 2017;Husse n et al, 2019;FAO, 2020a;TUİK, 2020a;). 1998-2017 yılları arasında dünyada yerfıstığı ek m alanları % 20, ver m %16, üret m % 39 artarken, Türk ye'de se ek m alanları % 27, ver m % 53, üret m % 93 oranında artmıştır.…”