P a g e | 1
IMPACT OF TARIFFS ON GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL TRADE
I. INTRODUCTION TO TARIFFS IN AGRICULTURAL TRADE
Tariffs have been used in the past in the agricultural trade and they help nations protect local
producers and generate extra funds, but they affect trade flows and prices. For years, economists
have insisted that free trade leads to an increase in world-wide welfare, but politicians have
nonetheless led their respective nations towards protectionism. Pascual et al. further define that
agricultural tariffs remain high in both the developed and developing countries compared to the
non-agricultural products. For example, the average tariff for agriculture goods in the EU is more
than 15% while it is less than 5% in case of non-agriculture goods. Agricultural tariffs that are
bound as well as those that are applied in China, India, as well as other developing nations are
significantly higher than non-agricultural means.
Agriculture tariffs are generally high because the sector is politically sensitive and raises worry
about food security. Still, they come with their own costs; higher prices for domestic consumers
and limited market access for exporting countries. The potential welfare gains in the global level
which can be expected from agricultural trade liberalization can be as high as over 10 billion per
year. Here we can show how tariffs disrupt price stability in international commodity markets
and supply systems which is a problem for low-income food-deficit countries that import a lot.
Specific duties expressed in terms of weight rather than value and variable import levies create
additional distortions in trade. However, there are some economists who posit that short-term
tariffs may assist in maintaining balance in domestic agricultural prices and earnings. Many
however postulate that only production subsidies and safety nets would least distort the world
markets.
Trade liberalization has greatly reduced agricultural tariffs between some country blocks for
instance under NAFTA or the EU and Mediterranean partners. Nevertheless, through vertical
P a g e | 2
production specialization, trade diversion is still capable of inflicting losses upon excluded
developing countries. The WTO Doha Round of negotiations sought a measure of liberalization
of tariffs in agriculture, and the export to import balance among WTO members. However, these
negotiations broke down after controversy over the magnitude and mutual nature of tradeoffs
between developed and developing countries. However, expansion of regional agreements has
compounded the fragmentation of the global trade regime since then. This leads to the question
of how to maintain agricultural protectionism and, at the same time, help domestic farmers,
which will remain a major contentious issue for the rules-based trading order in the future.
A. Definition and types of tariffs
Tariffs are the charges that any country’s government levies on imported products and services.
They are instrumental in making importation expensive and hence makes imported goods to be
pricier than locally produced ones. When it comes to agricultural trade, tariffs are implemented
with an aim of shielding local farmers and producers of foodstuffs from increased competition
from international players. However, it is stated that tariffs on agricultural imports also increase
the cost of both consumers and food producers.
Three major types of tariffs exist that are often utilized in agricultural trade policy. Specific
tariffs involve assessment of a flat rate that is levied for each physical unit of import, as seen in
the example a charge of $1 per kilogram of imported meat. Ad valorem tariffs set a specific
percentage of the value of the imported good as the tariff, for example, the 20 percent of the
value of imported fruits. In compound tariffs, both specific and percentage rates are included.
Tariff rate quotas are where a country set a certain level up to which a product can be imported at
a low tariff rate but once the quantity crosses that level the import is subjected to a much higher
tariff rate. Seasonal tariffs raise duties on imports of agricultural produce during the time when
P a g e | 3
products of local production are in plenty within the domestic market, in a bid to control
competition. Besides the ordinary import tariff, additional taxes and duties are incurred by
countries on imported agricultural products through other measures like anti-dumping duties,
countervailing duties, and safeguard duties. These are aimed at responding to unfair trade
policies, and import penetrations.
High tariffs offer better protection and encourage domestic farming industries to be more
competitive on the international market. But they also elevate the costs of the downstream food
industries and consumers to absorb in their value chains. The authorities have to maintain a
proper balance between backing up local farmers and keeping prices of food products rather
reasonable. Economists have a divide opinion; moderate tariffs do not cause large disturbances to
the economy and high tariffs are bad for efficiency and social welfare.
B. Historical overview of agricultural tariffs
Agricultural tariffs can be traced back only as far as the developments in trade policy, these two
can be connected. In England such tariffs were established in the 14th century where they were
used by the land owning class to protect domestic cereal production from competition. These
types of protective agricultural policies spread with mercantilism and colonialism as a way to
accumulate precious metals and foodstuffs. British politics of the late 19th century witnessed the
abolition of the Corn laws that which limited imports of grain through high tariffs. However,
agricultural tariffs remained a common policy in most regions of Europe and their colonies. In
the early part of this 20th century the Smoot-Hawley tariff act was passed by the US Congress,
increasing duties on more than 20,000 imported commodities including farm products. This led
to retaliatory protectionism overseas that exacerbated the impact of the Great Depression. The
Great Depression This led to retaliatory protectionism overseas that exacerbated the impact of
P a g e | 4
the Great Depression. In the post-World War II GATT trade negotiations, progress toward
lowering agricultural trade barriers was made. Nonetheless, they kept on applying higher tariffs
in agriculture than in manufacturing consistently. The blame for distorting agricultural trade also
lay with massive subsidies and domestic support programs that the US and the European Union
continued to give their farmers. The globalization of the agricultural sector began When the
World Trade Organization was formed in 1994, agriculture come under one unified multilateral
trade. However, average tariff on agriculture products remains higher than most other products.
Complicated tariff-rate quota mechanics and issues such as the US-EU beef hormone conflicts
prove that the protection of agricultural sectors has inherently political characteristics unlike the
other industries over the centuries-long protection history of the agricultural sectors by utilizing
border protection measures, food security, rural development, and trade competition. In the
context of the growth of globalization and increasing interconnectivity of most food systems, the
function of agricultural tariffs remains dynamic, within the present framework of domestic
political environments and international trade relations.
C. Rationale for imposing tariffs
Tariffs have in past been used by governments as a tool for shielding local industries, as well as a
source of revenue, and also as a way of manipulating trade flows. For example, in the agriculture
sector tariffs have been used for economic as well as political considerations. One potential
justification is to protect local farmers and agricultural producers against foreign competition.
Tariffs help in the attainment of this by levying charges on importation of agricultural
commodities, thus making the imported products expensive and less competitive to locally
produced commodities. This can assist various domestic firms that may be facing operational
inefficiencies or higher costs than producers from abroad. Also, the money that is collected in
P a g e | 5
form of tariff maybe utilized to support local industries. This in a way encourages the production
of goods and services locally and supports farmer’s income. Other reasons for applying tariffs
include political as a means of protesting the policies of certain nations or to gain concessions
from trade partners in negotiations. Another use of agricultural tariffs can also be used as a re-
action to the trade barriers of another country. In synopsis, the combination of the selective
ability to adjust tariffs on specific products allows policymaker to achieve multiple national and
global goals at the same time. Despite this, free trade theory proposes that when all the barriers
to trade are removed, the global efficiency of the trade is enhanced, however, in practice, these
constraints lead governments to use tariffs to ensure that the actual and perceived interests of
economic sectors, groups, and nations are balanced. Decisions on what tariff rates should be are
not straightforward since they involve balancing a multitude of factors such as the income of
farmers, prices of consumer goods, government revenue, diplomatic relations, etc.
D. Stakeholders affected by agricultural tariffs
Farmers and producers involved in the agricultural industry supply chain, both domestically and
abroad are affected by trade tariffs. Growers of commodities that are targeted with retaliatory
tariffs experience farm gate prices and export volume declines. For instance, the trading partners
placed restrictions on the export of American soybeans in 2018 and this led to a situation where
the prices of the beans reduced by around 20%, a situation that affected the earnings of soybean
farmers. Tariffs also affect the processors and exporters of agricultural products by incurring
extra cost, reduced competitiveness and lower sales. Manufacturers of food and beverages who
source some of their inputs from other countries will likely see increased costs here as these costs
are rarely completely passed to the consumers.
P a g e | 6
From the consumer perspective, tariffs translate to a rise in retail prices thus the overall
purchasing capacity is affected and the consumption level is likely to shift. This is because food
is one of the necessities that low-income households devote a considerable fraction of their
income. Governments also have impacts through the revenues generated from tariffs but such
money does not mitigate the effects of trade wars. If big agricultural exporters begin to impose
trade barriers, numerous developing countries reliant on import of agricultural products to meet
their food requirements end up with short supply and high prices resulting in increased levels of
hunger.
On the global level, high agricultural tariffs distort trade by interrupting the flow of goods from
one country to another, proving inefficient in terms of resource allocation, and hampering
productivity due to minimized competition. This form of agricultural protectionism reduces the
general economic growth and welfare of consumers through the gains from trade and division of
labor. The projections further suggest that global GDP could be 0.4 percentage points lower in
the event of enhanced agricultural trade restrictions, hence one might say that individual
domestic industries that may be protected by these tariffs gain, but overall, most studies reveal
net economic losses from the use of agricultural tariffs. Coordinating these multiple trade-offs
between different winners and losers remains a constant strategic test for policy makers as they
try to reconcile various political and economic interest groups.
II. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF TARIFF ANALYSIS
A. Partial Equilibrium Analysis
Partial equilibrium analysis involves having a snapshot view of the complete economy when
conducting a study about a particular industry, market or policy; this separates the effects of
change in markets and policies in one part of the economy from the effects of changes in other
P a g e | 7
parts of the economy. More specifically, in the context of theoretical underpinnings of tariff
analysis and the broader effects of tariffs and tariff policy on world agricultural trade, partial
equilibrium analysis refines the analysis to the effect that changing the tariffs or the tariff policy
will have on the specific market or product that has been tariffed and related or substitutable
markets, with the assumption that other structural and economic conditions remain constant.
Known as partial equilibrium tariff analysis, it entails creating theoretical supply and demand
curves in the market of the importing country to establish the consequences of putting in place a
tariff on a specific agricultural commodity in the importing country, as well as on the price and
quantity of the imported product, other products in the market of the importing country that are
substitutable to the imported product. Such analyses presuppose that everything else which
determines supply and demand, such as production costs, consumer income, preference for the
good, prices of complements, the exchange rate, and all other prices in the economy where the
tariff is imposed remain constant in order to contain the effects or the change agent, which in this
case is the tariff variable, to the latter only. Partial equilibrium models are useful instruments for
approximating the preliminary effects of adjusting tariffs or other policy parameters or the import
or export industries of specific products so long as one appreciates that such a model does not
incorporate secondary repercussions or transactions in the rest of the economy of a country in
question.
B. General Equilibrium Analysis
Tariffs and trade policies are other aspects of international trade where general equilibrium
approach offers a relevant theoretical framework for describing and analyzing the economy-wide
impacts of a specific policy change. Perfectly competitive general equilibrium models suggest
that supply and demand act across different markets to co-decide on prices and quantities. This
P a g e | 8
allows not only direct effects of a tariff on the protected import-competing sector to be analyzed,
but also an impact on other non-trade sectors through changes in incomes, returns to factors of
production, prices of traded and non-traded goods and services, and so on. One new discovery
being that, for instance, while tariffs appear to be a mere redistributive policy, they in fact
generate net social costs and distortions in the economy.
Protective import tariff that seeks to protect producers of locally produced agricultural products
will lead to an increase in local production and employment in the agriculture sector, but this
results in a decline in output in sectors producing goods that are exported because foreign buyers
retaliate. In this case, factors such as land, labor and capital will be relocated from industries
exporting products into import-competing sectors that are protected through tariffs. Those who
directly relate to some of the specific factors intensively provided to protected industries will
rise; this changes factor prices for all sectors and impacts the inputs and production technologies
used by all industries. The impact of tariff interventions is to cause changes in prices of
commodities and factor returns which in turn affect both the production matrix of domestic
sectors and the overall demand pattern. In sum, resources are shifted from the sectors in which
the country has a relative advantage and towards sectors that are sheltered but less productive,
thus the total welfare is lower compared to the level arising from free trade even though some
sectors or owners of factors of production benefit from protectionism. Such phenomena as
supply chain and institutional effects are shown by general equilibrium, as the efficiency and
distributional effects of tariffs are not immediate and direct.
C. Trade Models and Tariff Impacts
There are different trade models that have been erected by economists to capture the effects of
tariffs in the pattern and welfare of global agricultural commerce. Ricardian models of
P a g e | 9
comparative advantage are perfect for presenting a model of the world with 2 countries and 2
goods where there is only one factor of production that proves that even in this world of 2
countries and 2 goods countries can benefit from specialization and trade based on comparative
advantage. But they do not contain more complex real scenarios like tariffs. It also improves on
the Ricardian theory as it takes into account two factors of production. In this model, they reveal
how countries will export products that utilize factors of production in such a way that is
intensive of the resources that the country has in abundance. In the Heckscher-Ohlin model, even
if it is true that a country has a comparative advantage in producing a certain good, this does not
necessarily mean that everybody in that country will gain from trade, specifically protectionism
such as tariffs can actually enhance the profit of one factor and at the same time work negatively
for another. For instance, while the land owners may benefit from agricultural tariffs, industrial
workers may lose out from reduced export possibilities. To extend the models to many goods and
countries, Kemp and Wan include transport costs, tariffs and inter-sector flow of processed
goods, they demonstrate how tariff policies play out to misallocate resources between sectors and
how countries are unable to achieve optimal gains from trade. Another strategy makes use of the
concepts such as increasing returns to scale and imperfect competition instead of performing
assumptions like perfect competition and constant returns that characterize the neo-classical
models. The monopolistic competition and scale economy are used by Krugman in the
construction of trade theory models to explain how trade liberalization can bring welfare gains
through scale expansion and specialization across varieties of similar products originating from
different countries. Despite the fact that such abstract theoretical models do not reflect real
economic relationships as complete as they seem to be, they offer an understanding of the
economic patterns that regulate how tariffs affect the patterns of international division of labor,
P a g e | 10
changes in relative export/import costs, income distribution consequences, and efficiency, it can
be used to predict and test empirical analysis of real world agricultural tariffs using trade and
production data for different countries and commodities.
D. Empirical Methods for Tariff Analysis
The empirical analysis of tariffs is based on the theoretical frameworks and econometric
techniques to measure the impact of the tariffs on the volume and values of trade, production and
welfare. It is important to note that this model has a theoretical underpinning that sees tariffs as a
tax which splits the domestic and world prices. The first wave of empirical work was concerned
with quantifying these price distortions, for instance, estimating the changes in commodity prices
associated with shifts in the tariff policy regime in a pre-specified period. Nevertheless, these
papers did not extend their analyses to a larger set of countries and used simple partial
equilibrium models. Then more complex models of the computable general equilibrium models
(CGE) and the gravity models were evoked to offer more elaborate multi-market representations
of the trade flows. For instance, the most popular model, the GTAP model, which was applied
recently, has estimated the impacts of decrease in general and specific tariffs on the trade, prices,
and welfare indicators, using such simulations as the decrease of average tariffs and specific
tariffs applied to agricultural products such as rice, sugar, and milk. These approaches employ
cross-sectional data on trade balances, input-output configurations, and household expenditure
data to estimate the models. Other empirical approaches in tariff analysis are econometric
estimation of export supply and import demand elasticity that represents market’s sensitivity to
change as a result of change in tariffs. The tariff effects on both the price and quantity have also
been deconstructed by means of the trade flows’ structural econometric modeling. Latest
research has endeavored to integrate power theory with gravity equations in order to decompose
P a g e | 11
the effects of tariffs on trade flows as between the substitution and income effects. As data
quality and model sophistication improve, empirical tariff analysis will continue the progression
in quantifying the complex effects of tariffs for analysis and negotiations in the policy-making
process.
III. IMPACT OF TARIFFS ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TRADE FLOWS
Trade policies have impacted the export taxes and barriers to market access in the agricultural
production and trading systems over the past decades. When one country places tariffs on
agricultural products imported from another country, this therefore means that the price of the
imported product will rise to the importing country and this makes the imported goods more
expensive than the domestically produced goods. It leads to reduced imports and increased local
production since local producers are inclined to price their products expensively given the
reduced level of import competition. For instance, in 2018, China responded to additional tariffs
on goods from the US by putting tariffs on American farm produce such as soybeans and pork.
This led to Beijing cutting down on the importation of American agricultural produce while at
the same time promoting domestic production of soybeans and pork. On the same note, the US
farmers were forced to deal with an excess of unsold produce that was destined for the Chinese
markets and the prices of their produce that had significantly dropped.
They also have an impact on the overall agricultural trade flows and production strategies, apart
from country level impacts. The core assertion of some economists is that high protective tariffs
on agricultural products in developed countries including US, EU and Japan have kept down the
world crop prices in the long run through confining imports from more efficient developing
country competitors. This unfavorable position makes it difficult for farmers in developing
P a g e | 12
countries to exploit the available export markets. Domestic support programs and subsidies in
developed countries that have led to over production have also been said to have distorted the
agricultural trade flows by shifting dependence towards more of the developed country
surpluses. Their elimination could increase efficiency in the use of resources in the agricultural
sector and in the international markets, yet, the liberalization of agricultural trade still faces
domestic political challenges in most nations mainly because the farm sector is considered vital.
There are also concerns of transitioning for farmers that are affected by lower tariffs.
A. Effects on Domestic Production and Consumption
Tariffs can also have a practical impact on the production and consumption of agricultural
products within a given country. When a country places import tariffs on agricultural goods then
it will affect the competitiveness of exporters in that niche market by raising their prices. This
may lead to a decrease in the importation of affected commodities as seen with the United States
and China trade war. On the same note, local producers are protected from international
competition since the tariffs applied to the imported goods compel them to increase production in
order to meet the local demand.
The availability of local foods is usually evident whenever there is protectionism where domestic
outputs are increased to respond to the demand in the market. It can also exert a downward on
prices if high production volume takes place when growth in demand is low. Preliminary food
costs are cheaper for consumers in the short run. However, if the price of these commodities
drops to levels that are unprofitable for longer periods of time, then farmers locally may reduce
production. The contraction of import tariffs to higher levels becomes possible if domestic
production capacity in food production does not expand commensurate to population growth
rates and increasing per capita consumption.
P a g e | 13
There are also potential drawbacks that the high domestic prices which are uncompetitive due to
the lack of imports might lead to a decrease in consumer access and food security. Tariffs affect
consumers by raising the price of goods; thus, the households in the low-income category spend
a higher proportion of their disposable income on food items, and they would be most affected
by any price hike originating from an increase in tariffs. This demonstrates common folly of
protectionism trade policies since they tend to have negative impact on low income individuals
or groups. The stability of our society requires that measures be put in place to prevent sharp
movements in food prices.
Self-sufficiency achieved through import tariffs may prove to be advantageous in protecting
some domestic farmers from increased competition, this policy has inherent negative effects such
as the manipulation of natural trade patterns and the imposition of hidden costs, which are borne
by consumers and downstream industries. When using tariffs, policymakers face the challenge of
balancing both supporting the local farmers while at the same time maintaining low prices for
food items.
B. Effects on International Trade Patterns
Tariffs, when applied, have the potential to alter the global trade of agriculture products, when a
country places tariffs on imported agricultural products, that leads to an increase in the local
price for the product, and this reduces the accessibility of the imported products for the local
consumers., high prices make it possible for domestic industries to produce more goods to
replace imported goods. Thus, consignments of affected agricultural products reduce while local
production increases. This trade diversion effect leads to a reallocation in the global flow of trade
as firms switch from purchasing goods from foreign firms who face new tariffs to domestic
producers.
P a g e | 14
When in 2018 the USA used tariffs of 25% of steel, countries such as China and India saw their
competitiveness in exporting steel to the USA drop. Thus, their steel exports had to be given to
other markets such as South East Asia and Europe which saw no new tariffs imposed. Likewise,
the imposition of Chinese tariffs on American agricultural products such as soybeans and pork
changed the conventional supply of goods and services as exporters looked for new markets in
the world where tariffs had not been implemented, such as Mexico and Canada. Since tariffs
affected global trade relations, there were changes in international market systems to look for
new ways of trading.
They pointed out that information cost can also deter domestic consumption of food which in
turns lowers food importation due to high costs of imported food stuffs, domestic agricultural
policies generally contribute to adding to the effects of tariffs on trade. Producer subsidies, direct
payments and other benefits extended to the farmers can result in increased production to capture
high prices, which are protected by tariffs from foreign competition. As such, tariff policies
create shifts in the pattern of trade and volumes of agricultural produce traded internationally due
to changes in the protected trade environment. Tariffs always have their pros and cons, as they
help the domestic producers to gain from the imports of their products while imposing losses on
the foreign exporters and the domestic consumers. Coordinating these tradeoffs is a never-ending
problem with the policymakers and industrialists of each country that involves in tariffs.
C. Impact on Comparative Advantage and Specialization
This means that export and import can be affected or regulated through tariffs with a view of
determining comparative advantage and the extent of specialization in agricultural production
amongst nations. It implies that the level of efficiency of a country is highest in as far as the
production of a certain product is concerned when compared with the rest of the world. When
P a g e | 15
there are no trade restrictions, the country’s export products that they can produce efficiently and
those which the other countries can offer efficiently too. But when tariffs are specific to
agricultural imports then it brings about changes in incentives and in effect changes in the
structure of production of the countries that are involved in the trade of agriculture commodities.
For instance, when an importing country sets a policy of high tariffs on certain imported fruits
and vegetables, it becomes costly to import them and makes the local production cheaper.
Therefore, domestic farmers increase production of the protected produce in an attempt to get
more money in terms of returns at the expense of production of other products even when they
could produce the protected produce in a more efficient manner as illustrated by the transfer of
scarce factors like land and labor from the other produce. It consequently realigns resources and
production for goods that enjoys tariff protection to the detriment of products that the economy
was once efficient in producing. Sustaining this, however, weakens the natural Comparative
advantage that a country would have in the international market. Likewise, countries which
specialize in the production and export of goods that are subjected to tariffs in important markets
may end up losing their competitive advantage. Still, the low level of demand due to tariffs in
other countries and the low export prices, exporting countries will invest in the import
substitution and providing their domestic or regional markets with goods and services instead of
carrying out similar beneficial export activities. Thus, tariffs adversely affect efficient food
production, supply distribution or specialization patterns that would exist in the absence of trade
barriers and which are dependent on inherent cost and productivity differences between the
trading nations. While countries focus on commodities for factor content congruent with their
endowments and capabilities, they adjust to the new incentives by tariffs that determine the
pattern of trade and agricultural structuring.
P a g e | 16
D. Case Studies of Tariff Effects on Specific Commodities
The latter, for instance, can impact production and trade in particular agricultural commodities,
for instance, when the United States enacted tariffs up to 25% on steel imports under Section 232
of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 in 2018, it elicited trade retaliations such as tariffs on US
agricultural produce from key partners like China. Canadian retaliated by placing tariffs on
selected goods from the United States such as dairy products, pork, apples, wine, maple syrups
among others. Mexico focused on setting duties on dairy products particularly cheese, pork legs
and shoulders, apples and potatoes imported from the U. S. Consequently, exports of agricultural
products from the USA to China, Mexico, Canada, and Turkey diminished by more than billion
over the first half of 2018. The effects were also seen in the form of a fall in prices and
production of the affected commodities. Another study showed that the retaliatory tariffs led to a
decline in the price of apples by 11% and 34% decrease in exportation in 2018.
The sugar market has also been characterized by distortions arising from high tariffs placed on
imported products to protect their own industries as seen in the U. S and E. U. According to done
estimates, eliminating market distortions in the sugar would increase global prices by 13% and
encourage production in efficient exporting countries, such as Brazil, Thailand and Australia.
When South Korea under FTA agreed to open import restrictions for rice in 2007, itself a product
of history of ‘public distribution’, the U. S rice exports were virtually nil and rose to more than 0
million by 2014. From these examples ranging from dairy, meat, fruits and sweeteners, it can
therefore be inferred that import tariffs are potent instruments capable of profoundly influencing
global production systems and flows and prices of specific agricultural produce depending on the
specific market structure and policy considerations of importing countries. It is argued here that
P a g e | 17
the removal of such tariff barriers could have a positive impact on the efficiency of agricultural
commodity markets.
IV. ECONOMIC WELFARE EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL TARIFFS
Agricultural tariffs have multifaceted impacts on the economic welfare since food systems are
complex webs. Usually, the direct effect is to raise domestic producer prices and profits, as well
as raise costs on domestic consumers and downstream businesses. In the medium run, tariffs
limit competitive importation giving space to domestic producers. Nonetheless, this production
increase is criticized as being ineffective compared to the costs of the restricted imports. Another
argument against tariffs is that they cause a decrease in consumer choice as well as economic
welfare losses.
Agricultural tariffs that are implemented across the globe are known to distort the trade between
two countries. This is a negative effect on efficient division of labor in the agricultural
production between countries. This means that resources do not go to areas that have
comparative advantage. Thus, actual production levels are below what they would have been
under the hypothetical lines. Thus, the lower output is accompanied by smaller competition from
imported food products, which leads to the growth of costs and food prices in the long term in
countries that have set agricultural tariffs. This impacts downstream domestic industries and all
consumers as it leads to higher food prices, thereby decreasing domestic economic output. It also
affects comparative disadvantage domestic farmers in exporting countries who are locked out of
the foreign markets.
While some levels of protection may allow short-term benefits for the protected domestic
farmers, this results in welfare loss in the long-run to domestic consumers and industries. People
P a g e | 18
welfare all over the globe is also affected by reduced agricultural trade and inefficient domestic
and world resource allocation. Therefore, negotiations for agricultural tariffs involve trying to
turn these conflicting effects and mixed impact for domestic and international groups at different
periods into a delicate balance. An optimal balance, however, still cannot be achieved since
political economy considerations require safeguarding domestic farmers. Optimal trade
liberalization means that all agricultural tariffs should be scrapped because efficiency gains from
trade increase when there are no tariffs, but the outcome is not supported by protected sectors.
A. Consumer and Producer Surplus Analysis
The welfare gains or losses resulting from agricultural tariffs are easier to understand using the
tools of microeconomic analysis such as consumer and producer surpluses. A tariff raises the
price of an imported agricultural product to a level higher than that prevailing in the international
market. This leads to a lower demand for imported goods and an increased demand for goods
produced within the domestic market. The net welfare change also known as the net social
benefit is given by the change in consumer and producer surplus.
Consumer surplus is lost due to higher prices and the resulting decrease in demand. Consumer
surplus on the other hand is the quantity of anything, usually a good, that consumers are willing
to purchase at a certain price but are available at a lower price in the market. However, when
firms set a higher market price for their products, the consumer surplus decreases. This increase
in producer surplus is coming from domestic farmers enjoying a higher price for their produce.
The total amount that producers are willing to provide at different quantities as compared to the
price which they are able to obtain in the market is known as producer surplus. When the price is
set in the international market increases with the tariff then the producer’s surplus also
increases.
P a g e | 19
Net economic welfare impacts on a given market depend on the difference between the amount
of consumer surplus that is lost and the amount of producer surplus that is gained. It means if the
loss to consumers is more than the benefit going to producers, then the tariff leads to a
deadweight loss for society. However, the tariff may be welfare improving if the gain in benefits
to domestic producers is more than the loss incurred by domestic consumers. The net effect also
depends on any tariffs that have been collected by the government as a result of import.
However, the standard trade theory contends that free trade leads to the highest economic welfare
compared to the welfare achieved through restricted trade through tariffs or quotas. While the
changes in agricultural tariffs are various, the empirical analysis of particular Specific Tariff
Rates can reveal the changes in the consumer and producer surplus and, therefore, the net impact
on the welfare.
B. Tariff Revenue and Deadweight Losses
The use of tariff to protect the agricultural goods of a country generates tariff revenues to the
government of the country that is importing the agricultural produce but leads to welfare loss and
efficiency loss of the economy. If a tariff is imposed in a certain good, this makes the local price
of such good to go up because foreign producers need to incur the tariff cost in order to access
the domestic market. A subset is substitutions because domestic consumers shift some demand
towards cheaper domestic substitutes. However, having increased the price, there is excess
demand at this price regime which translates to unmet demand. This unsatisfied demand is the
deadweight loss attributable to the tariff.
Government revenues also increase from the tariff in the sense that importers are required to pay
the extra amount to impose foreign product. However, regardless of which country levies the
tariff, the gain in tariff revenue for the home government is typically less than the loss in
P a g e | 20
consumer and producer surplus from the reduction in total home consumption and world
production due to the higher price. The losses in economic efficiency in this case outweigh the
additional government revenues obtained here. Moreover, different tariffs also create an extra
revenue in the form of tariffs which can be viewed as an opportunity cost because the money can
be left in the hands of consumers and producers to spend as they wish.
The sizes of tariff revenue compared to deadweight loss are proportional to the ratio of the
proportion of total demand that is satisfied by imports to the proportion that is satisfied by
domestic production. Larger the import share of consumption, more is the possible tariff revenue.
Nevertheless, even if the tariff revenue exceeds the calculated level of the consumers/producer
surplus loss, there may be other sources of the economic efficiency loss due to trade restrictions
that hinder individuals’ ability to buy and sell from the market at free prices. Economic analysis
at the individual level is crucial when assessing the overall cost in relation to the revenue gains.
C. Distributional Effects Across Sectors and Households
Agricultural tariffs can have various proportionate impacts in different sectors as well as in
households. Though some industries such as import-competing industries gain from trade
protectionism, other export reliant industries suffer reduced export sales and profits due to trade
retaliation. Even within the agricultural sector, large-scale farms that are growing subsidized
crops tend to benefit more than the small-scale farms for subsistence farming for the
unsubsidized crops. It is comprehensively conspicuous in rural and urban households on equal
basis. Stronger agricultural prices at home thanks to import taxes will help the net selling rural
households especially the bigger commercial farmers. But high food prices are disadvantageous
to net buyer poor rural households that expend significant share of their income on food. Urban
households also pay more for food, which increases their overall living expenses. Low-income
P a g e | 21
urban households are the major victims of these inflationary tendencies. Apart from these direct
influences by agricultural tariffs on the price level, tariffs can further affect employment and
wages across the general economy. Through the prohibitive tariffs on imports, policy makers
compel local manufacturers to adopt technology capital, which reduces employment
opportunities in the tradable industries and by using retaliation to tax export sectors, FTAs also
have negative effects on domestic employment and wage opportunities. This illustrates the
overall regressive effects of agricultural trade barriers were to some extent, all households are
negatively affected with poorer households in both rural and urban areas bearing the brunt
through increased living costs and a weakened employment environment. While some specific
segments of the commercial agricultural interests within the nation may gain, the overall nation’s
production losses in terms of deadweight, declines in real income through distorted trade and
consumption effects, and loss of efficiency are likely to be detrimental to overall economy. A lot
of attention and consideration is needed to evaluate these disparate distributional effects and
weigh the relative claims of different stakeholders in the agricultural trade interventions.
D. Dynamic Effects on Economic Growth and Development
V. POLITICAL ECONOMY OF AGRICULTURAL TARIFFS
Tariffs in agriculture have been a contentious matter in trade negotiations as well as being a
subject of trade disputes around the world. Hence, import tariffs and export subsidies are put in
place for political and economic objectives on agricultural produce by countries. These policy
tools are intended to shield domestic farmers and food production from foreign competition,
guarantee food security within the country, restore and maintain stable and fair prices and
incomes among the farmers in the country in the fluctuating market, and gain political support
P a g e | 22
from the agriculture sector. It is necessary to highlight that agricultural tariffs have consequences
for international trade and equity in the distribution of global income. The US and EU, for
instance, apply high tariffs and offer massive export incentives, and this distorts world prices for
corn, wheat, rice, cotton, sugar and dairy. This places efficient developing country producers in a
completely unfair position, being locked out of high-value markets and thus keeping farmer’s
income low. Also, low world prices caused by subsidized overproduction in the developed
countries act as a disincentive to funding of agriculture in the developing nations. In the long run,
the economies that are agriculture based get locked into that cycle and cannot invest enough to
grow industry. Finally, the pro-Farmer policies in developed countries reduced the global welfare
by approximately 0 billion per year due to restricted agricultural and industrial production. This
they achieve by supporting the rich developed world against the struggling developing nations or
the third world. I concur with these findings since, as the evidence indicates, 50 percent
reduction in agricultural tariffs in the affluent nations can reduce poverty by 128 million
individuals in the developing world, while increasing welfare in the developed countries by over
billion. Therefore, change in the politics of inequality in the world agricultural is important.
Reducing the tariff walls and export subsidies in the developed food exporting countries would
increase growth, incomes, decrease the poverty head counts and inject over 165 billion dollars
every year into the global economy by enhancing the developing countries access and enhancing
the world prices. In light of the socio-economic impacts of the current state of affairs, there is
need to graduate change in the policy on agricultural trade for the betterment of the global
society.
P a g e | 23
A. Lobbying and Interest Group Dynamics
Lobbying groups of large-scale agricultural producers and industries have effectively influenced
many nations to employ tariffs and trade barriers in the agricultural production. These groups
push for protectionism, which in effect favors domestic industries regardless of the harm that it
might cause to consumers and trading partners. A crucial lobbying concern is in the regime of
sugar production and exportation. Powerful sugar lobby that comprises farmers growing beet
sugar and sugarcane, and refiners have managed to get favorable policies such as import quotas,
minimum price intervention, and subsidies in the EU and US. These friendly policy effects afford
domestic sugar producers a cover from competition from other countries. The special interests,
owing to their highly consolidated nature and financial might, have enormous political power
which derives from the fact that the concentrated interests are located in politically sensitive
farming areas. On the other hand, costs of protection are borne by a larger and less cohesive
group of consumers who are not able to collectively mobilize against the policies. It is the same
thing with the U. S dairy industry where milk producer associations have influence protectionist
policies with trade barriers that shield dairy products from New Zealand and Canada. Domestic
agriculture interest groups may actually be able to trump larger industrial ones. For instance,
restrictions on importation of ethanol in the United States to support the corn farmers were a
major driver in increasing input costs on the domestic auto and oil refining industries relying on
the corn-based ethanol blends to meet the renewable fuel standards. A result of strong producer
concentration is that these groups tend to gain special trade protections that would be detrimental
to other groups, including consumers as well as users of agricultural commodities, these
influences from the agricultural interests shape the political processes and trends of trade and
production within a sector that is so important to food security and development in many
countries.
P a g e | 24
B. Tariffs as Trade Negotiation Tools
Tariffs have historically been employed as threats or bargaining tools in trade negotiation
processes with the aim of putting pressure, changing the policies among other things with the
primary aim of protecting agricultural industries in a particular country. While bound tariffs
exceed applied rates, this system helps countries retain policy space for trade talks. Bound rates
are the maximum tariffs permitted under a given trade liberalization agreements while the
applied rates are the ones prevailing in the market. The differential generates a tariff leverage and
an overhang that can be useful during negotiations, for instance, unlike the average bound
agricultural tariff rate of nearly 150 percent, the EU’s applied rate is almost 100 percent. This
enables Brussels to cut obligation during discussions, however retain key sectors like dairy and
meat production out of the talks, such tactics force trade partners to provide more liberalized
access to markets or cut on subsidies. Likewise, governments apply tariffs selectively to generate
conditions that cause serious and tangible discomfort in the trade process to demand trade
concessions. In 2018, Mexico aimed specific products such as apples, pork, and cheese for trade
retaliation up to 20% because of the increase in tariffs on steel. While still having a favorable
balance of trade, retaliatory tariffs offered bargaining chip to address the metals trade friction. As
with sanctions, it made supplies to achieve policy changes difficult. For the same reason,
countries also employ TRQs with time limit in a situation of certain trade irritants. For instance,
the US has applied TRQs with Mexico for sugar imports whenever the price or quantity of
imports fluctuates. Through taxing the amount of sugar exported beyond the quota limit,
Washington is in a position to sustain reasonable domestic prices for sugar but at the same time
does not escalate to a full trade war, such flexibilities enable the successful management of
agricultural trade, most tariffs are set under political economies that address internal interest
groups and voters. This means that governments are faced with the dilemma of protecting
P a g e | 25
producers on one hand, while at the same time ensuring that they are able to access export
markets in the other. Therefore, variable tariffs allow achieving the necessary policy space for
the realization of the trade-offs. In this case, tariff bargaining either in the multilateral, regional
or bilateral level plays an important role in handling conflicts by dealing with political economic
factors within agricultural trade.
C. Protectionism vs. Free Trade Debates
The rivalry between protectionism and free trade has long been at the center of discussions:
agricultural tariffs and their influence. The protectionists further claim that import tariffs are
essential since they help to protect farmers and farming industries from competition from other
countries. They argue that without tariffs, a large number of inexpensive products could enter the
market and significantly reduce crop prices, thus forcing local farmers out of the markets and
reducing food security for domestic markets, as well as threatening rural economic stability. On
the other side, liberalisation advocates hold the opinion that the opening of borders for the
agricultural trade brings efficiency gains, provides the countries opportunity to export crops that
are most suitable to their comparative advantages, and consumers have access to a variety of
products. They refer to economic classics and practical experience which prove that free trade
leads to the growth of the world’s well-being.
These issues are usually presented in terms of domestic agriculture interest groups against the
consumers in the political systems. Organized farming entities such as national farm bureau’s
compel governments to introduce agricultural tariffs and subsidies to stabilize farming income.
However, such tariffs affect the lower income consumers and the countries that rely on imported
food that is accessible to their markets at a cheaper price. The liberalization of trade thus
suggests that any measure that raises food prices through protective tariffs has adverse effects on
P a g e | 26
consumer surplus and global food security. However, domestic farm lobbies in key exporting
countries such as the United States of America and the European union have pressured the
governments to heavily subsidize farms and implement high tariff barriers on crops like sugar,
diary and grains. This protectionism is especially felt in the developing countries that would like
to tap into larger markets for agricultural exports.
To address these debates, the welfare of the producer together with that of the consumer must be
considered in different nations. Based on such economic analysis, it might be more equitable for
the public to provide production subsidies for the development of smallholder farms and rural
communities rather than employing general tariffs or supports on price. Nevertheless, in the
sphere of politics, controversies regarding the agricultural tariffs are intertwined in rather general
dispute on the states and market’s capacities to coordinate the balance of the disadvantages and
advantages in the context of the general societal profit. It therefore becomes impossible to
achieve a resolution of the conflict as national interests continue to take center stage.
D. Case Studies of Tariff Negotiations and Disputes
Tariff policies especially as applied to agriculture have a well-recorded history that has been a
subject of controversy locally and globally. The Uruguay round of trade negotiations in the
nineties became problematic over agriculture, whereby the developed countries of the EU and
US and Japan put up high tariffs and subsidies to protect their influential farming industries.
Exporting countries of agrifoods criticized it saying it limited their exportation of agricultural
products. Following heated discussions it was possible to establish the direction of the gradual
reduction of subsidies and import taxes though there were a lot of loopholes which remained, for
example the EU recategorizing subsidies as ‘non-action distorting’. However, the most recent
trade war has been between the US and China where both nations have been increasing tariffs on
P a g e | 27
each other in different sectors from 2018 with the US putting tariffs on Chinese soybeans. There
are political factors on each side – China wanted to contribute to the growth of its domestic soy
production, thus cutting on the import of soy from the USA, while the USA wanted to decrease
the trade deficit and gain the trust of the President’s voters, the farmers. Exporting countries
especially the developing countries can be affected by such disputes between the superpowers for
example when depending on the exportation of agricultural commodities. In the same way the
political influences marked the long struggle between the US and Mexico over Mexican sugar, as
both the US sugar growers and corn syrup manufacturers demanded through the Congress, the
high tariffs on imported Mexican sugar. This sort of analysis emphasizes how we cannot
understand agricultural tariffs in isolation from the political environment that determines
countries’ bargaining power and tendencies towards protectionist trade measures. Negotiating
agriculture trade liberalization is very challenging given these domestic political economy
realities, conflict between national agendas in the sector and multilateral obligations, and
functional diversification of agriculture including food security implications. It is crucial to take
these shades into account to identify the efficiency of the reforms.
Prior knowledge presented in case studies concerning the political economy characteristics of
agricultural tariffs and the role of the internal political and external conflicts in determining
strategies, it includes key reference points like, Uruguay Round negotiations, the present trade
tensions between US and China that affected agriculture or the long-standing sugar controversy
between the US and Mexico. The discussion considers the possibility of various reasons for the
negotiating positions of the countries taking into account political impacts and lobbying, it
further highlights how those developing countries dependent on agricultural export revenues are
usually the ones affected negatively. It becomes challenging to explain how one could remove
P a g e | 28
agricultural trade barriers given these political economy features at the domestic and
international politics levels.
VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND FUTURE TRENDS
The case of tariffs implicated significant and broad effects on agricultural trade policy and future
prospects. Trade policies that use tariffs as a measure can possibly lead to countermeasures and a
decrease in cooperative international trade. The former is a challenge that arises from domestic
pressure to protect local industries, especially agriculture, while the latter is a challenge that
arises from the formulation of policies that are likely to provoke trade tensions, thus affecting
exports. In the long run, long haul liberalization trends suggest the need for free trade-enabling
agreements while short-term gains may call for adjusting measures to safeguard sensitive
agriculture industries.
Instead of imposing cross-haul tariffs on important export sectors to key import partners in
agriculture production, policymakers could implement and use temporary tariff systems and
subsidies to support sectors in agriculture production that are in crisis without distorting supply
chains significantly. However, measures taken in the form of subsidies should be properly
coordinated so that it does not lead to overwhelming of the foreign markets with goods that are
sold at exorbitantly low prices. Also, further training programs and encouragement should help
labor forces move from protected sub-optimal agricultural industries to better world practicing
ones. Even though political trends in some of the leading countries involve nationalist policies,
free trade encouraging accords are still essential in the final stage of globalization and economic
growth.
P a g e | 29
Despite the best of intentions and desire to achieve certain political or military goals, temporary,
or at best, limited compromises are sometimes unavoidable, given the unstoppable processes of
globalization, which entail a gradual expansion of economic cooperation and liberalization. To
achieve this new mindset, there will be no escape from political daring and pragmatic diplomacy
that does not instantly retreat into the self-destructive triumphalism of protectionism. The
progress of the agricultural sectors from simple policies of protectionism towards open trade
with guided support for specific industries and the welfare of workers is a policy model that can
help address the demands of populists to protect their industries while at the same time balancing
the need of national economies that rely on exportation and trade from international markets and
value chains. International organizations involved in governance of the global economy and
developing countries which are emerging as key consumers of food will determine the rules of
engagement in future agricultural trade through bargaining that takes into account the
commercial realities of liberalized agriculture trade while at the same time undergoing domestic
political dynamics.
A. Multilateral and bilateral trade agreements
It is expected that multilateral and bilateral agreements in the reduction of tariffs and other
barriers will lead to the growth in agricultural trade across the world. Under the WTO, there are
major multilateral trade deals like the Agreement on Agriculture which have over the years,
progressively dismantled agricultural tariffs and subsidies to exports. The Doha round of WTO
negotiations which is currently on standstill is expected to lead to further liberalization. In the
same regard, FTAs between major trading partners are achieving additional market access
amounts through bilateral and regional mechanisms. The CPTPP, the USMCA, EU-Canada
CETA, and EU-Japan EPA are only but a few examples. These dynamics are reducing the costs
P a g e | 30
and encouraging a higher volume of international trade encompassing agricultural produce,
processed foods and beverages and other value-added products. In this sense, middle classes with
higher disposable income are expected to expand in the world, and in the next years, import of
food should increase significantly.
For agricultural exporters to reap from these trends for economic growth, they need to focus on
productivity enhancement and competitiveness in the global market. Policies to support the
sector include, Research and development funding which can be in the form of grants to
producers to finance their research and development projects Transportation and storage
infrastructure development: Government can support producers by putting in place better means
of transporting and storing the produce Export promotion: Government can encourage producers
to export their produce by financing export promotion programs International quality and food
safety compliance: Government can support producers to conform to the international quality
and food safety standards. WTO and OIE and other multilateral organizations will have to
coordinate their stances on regulation of agricultural biotechnology and gene editing to avoid any
unjustifiable disturbances in trade. Solving these problems helps to avoid degrading ‘standards
wars’ between key partners in trade relations. Overall, liberalization progressively and
continuously broadened global trade has positive impacts, although policymakers must consider
adverse consequences on domestic agricultural industries and rural areas – where the necessity of
providing adjustment assistance. In total, pursuing constructive science-based policies as well as
trade liberalization, including international agreements on reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers
in future, will bring extensive benefits from trade in the future global agriculture.
P a g e | 31
B. Tariff reduction and liberalization strategies
Since international trade liberalization and regionalization has become a trend, and indeed a
reality, where tariffs for agricultural products in particularly reduce through multilateral and
bilateral trade liberalization and unilateral liberalization measures, governments and policy
makers need to reflect on how to reduce and gradually eliminate barriers and how to avoid or at
least limit the negative impacts. Some of the economists have for example noted that developing
countries get more opportunities regarding flexibility of time for implementation and choice of
products by adopting unilateral liberalization as opposed to multilateral or regional liberalization.
Policy-makers can determine Which commodities are currently subjected to the highest tariffs,
and create a series of step-by-step plans for gradual reduction of rates within 5-10 years. The
more straightforward inputs such as fertilizers and machinery could be increased to enhance
farmer productivity before challenging consumers’ products are addressed. It is hereby submitted
that tariffs on intermediate goods such as animal feed should be a priority. Where approaches that
involve the establishment of tariff- rate quotas, which involves permitting a certain level of
imports to enter duty-free before the normal rates are applied over a quota can help ease
transitions, this should be done hand in hand with technical and financial support for domestic
industries.
The focus of the policymaker as more comprehensive liberalization across sectors is achieved
should be directed towards support policies to boost the competitive edge and international
market access of domestic exporters. These are expenditure on physical capital in agriculture,
research and development in the sector, water control in farming, farmer enlightenment
programs, and credit facilities. Export promotion agencies can offer some assistance in a form of
market information, education, legal advice, and assistance in complying with the standards set
P a g e | 32
by the foreign markets. These circumstances suggest that the way to trade openness should be
one that maintains strategic protection and support for vuln vulnerable sectors within society.
Policies such as the social safety net tend to become important to rural sectors after experiencing
competition from imports. Governments should employ the exemptions under trade’s rules on
the temporary recourse to import restrictions or domestic support during the transition periods. If
only the governments in developing countries are to implement carefully planned evidenced-
based policy changes and efficient transition programs, Global integration can be used to
improve agricultural development without experiencing adverse effects.
C. Non-tariff barriers and their implications
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical trade barriers, and export subsidies have emerged
as frequent and common-used weapons for shielding local agricultural producers and limiting
imports. High standards of food safety, animal health, and plant health can also be used as
barriers that prevent imports from countries within the developing world that lack the capacity
and resources needed to ensure compliance with the standards. Likewise, high standards of
product quality, labeling, or the production methodologies benefit only large-scale agribusiness
that can afford certifications. Agrifood support measures even if delivered domestically as policy
instruments to support agriculture production decrease export opportunities in the global markets
for other countries if they are trade distorting with effect on price suppression.
These are non-tariff barriers, whereby the policymakers get to preserve domestic industries of
strategic importance, although retaining the legal facade of complied with the terms of the trade
agreements in question. Nevertheless, they also have several negative potential consequences.
Lack of market access means that developing countries cannot capitalize on their strengths in
agriculture as they are limited from accessing these markets. It slows down their export-oriented
P a g e | 33
development model and problems the poverty reduction for smallholder farmers in rural areas.
Further, some NTMs have insufficient scientific basis while others place a disproportionately
large burden on the external producers. This random differentiation has led to such accusations
as protectionism and disagreements with other international standard setters, over-reliance in
non-tariff measures risks can actually erode confidence in the multilateral trading system.
The future reforms should address the issues of transparency, accountability and building the
capacity of the institutions. Governments must be transparent and present their reasons and
justification for the restrictions that are put in place. In order to somewhat curb abuse,
notification and committee review procedural measures can be effective. Aid also ought to help
developing countries in increasing efficiency, putting in place controls, and fulfilling import
obligations so that they are constrained less. But political stagnation and the interests of
sovereign states are significant challenges. Therefore, as previously noted, while non-tariff
barriers provide flexibility, their implications for liberalization need to be managed prudently to
maintain the sanctity of agricultural trade commitments.
D. Future challenges and opportunities in agricultural trade policy
Increase in agricultural trade liberalization poses some challenges to policymakers in efforts to
balance the producer’s self-interests with the consumer’s self-interest in better consumption. One
of the problems will be increasing demand for protectionism measures as producers are exposed
to more competition. But trade policies that overly protect local industries can lead to high prices
for consumers as well as create tensions with other countries that may reciprocate. Policymakers
could potentially invest in targeted programs for such affected communities alongside trade
adjustment assistance programs as a means to offset the costs of domestic adjustment.
P a g e | 34
As for the future prospects, there are potential for making further cuts in trade distorting
subsidies and tariffs by means of new multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements. However,
they progress through negotiations due to intricate domestic politics, which takes time, any
advancement, no matter how small, has the potential to yield significant results. For example,
attempts to work towards greater access to each other’s processed foods and shift from a
confrontational tone regarding regulation should lead to new opportunities for value added
products. It will also be necessary to sharpen the structural transformation worldwide and
especially in developing countries, which will provide export opportunities for those countries
that can respond to the increasing level of income and changes in the consumption of
population. Capturing some of these opportunities though may entail developing more transport
networks, refrigeration facilities, product development, and promotions.
Generally, the future of agricultural trade policy will depend on how it will handle non-tariff
concerns such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures at the border or labeling requirements
which may function as technical barriers. Strategies such as regulatory cooperation, mutual
recognition, and public-private partnerships are some of the approaches that can be useful in the
process, moving to the next level will pose creativity issues to the policy makers. Thus, countries
that have opted for liberal trade systems and subsidy provisions rather than an overall
protectionist approach will gain quite a lot in terms of welfare.
