Back Matter
Author:
Ms. Naheed Kirmani
Search for other papers by Ms. Naheed Kirmani in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Mr. Lorenzo L. Pérez
Search for other papers by Mr. Lorenzo L. Pérez in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Mr. Shailendra J. Anjaria
Search for other papers by Mr. Shailendra J. Anjaria in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
, and
Mr. Zubair Iqbal
Search for other papers by Mr. Zubair Iqbal in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close

Abstract

This paper contains further work by the Fund staff on trade issues and developments following the pattern of the surveys prepared in 1978 and 1981, mainly focusing on commercial policies of the major trading nations. It also includes a discussion of agricultural protection and issues relating to international trade in agricultural products.

Selected References

  • Australia, Government of, Industries Assistance Commission: Annual Report, 1980–81 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Australia, Government of, Japanese Agricultural Policies: Their Origins, Nature and Effects on Production and Trade, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Policy Monograph No. 1 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Australia, Government of, Passenger Motor Vehicles and Components—Post-1984 Assistance Arrangements, Industries Assistance Commission Report No. 267 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, June 24, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bale, Malcolm D., and Bruce L. Greenshields, “Japanese Agricultural Distortions and Their Welfare Value,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 60, No. 1 (February 1978), pp. 5964.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barichello, Richard R., The Economics of Canadian Dairy Industry Regulation, Economic Council of Canada, Technical Report No. E/12 (Ottawa, March 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Canada, Government of, Summary of Canada’s Bilateral Restraint ArrangementsTextiles and Clothing, External Affairs of Canada (Ottawa, February 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), The Agricultural Situation in the Community: 1981 Report (Brussels, 1982). Also, past annual reports.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Fifteenth General Report on the Activities of the European Communities in 1981 (Brussels, 1982). Also, past annual reports.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Bulletin of the European Communities, various issues (Brussels, 1981 and 1982).

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), “The European Automobile Industry: Commission Statement,” Supplement to the Bulletin of the European Communities, Supp. 2/81 (Brussels, June 16, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Positive Adjustment Policies in the EEC Dairy Sector, Directorate-General for Agriculture (Brussels, June 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Commission Communication to the Council on the Situation and Prospects of the Textile and Clothing Industries in the Community, COM(81) 388 final (Brussels, July 27, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Guidelines for European Agriculture, Memorandum to Complement the Commission’s Report on the Mandate of 30 May 1980, COM(81) 608 final (Brussels, October 23, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Commission Proposals on the Fixing of Prices for Certain Agricultural Products and on Certain Related Measures (1982/83), COM(82) 10 final, Vols. I and II (Brussels, January 27 and February 5, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Eleventh Report on Competition Policy (Brussels, 1982).

  • Denton, Geoffrey, and Seamus O’Cleireacain, Subsidy Issues in International Commerce, Trade Policy Research Center, Thames Essay No. 5 (London, 1972).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fishlow, Albert, Jean Carriere, and Sueo Sekiguchi, Trade in Manufactured Products with Developing Countries: Reinforcing North-South Partnership, The Trilateral Commission, The Triangle Papers, No. 21 (New York, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAO Commodity Review and Outlook: 1981–82 (Rome, 1982). Also, past annual reports.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The State of Food and Agriculture 1981, Director-General’s Report to the Twenty-First Session of the Conference on the State of Food and Agriculture 1981, Rome, 7–26 November 1981, Doc. No. C 81/2 (Rome, August 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Franko, Lawrence G., “Adjusting to Export Thrusts of Newly Industrialising Countries: An Advanced Country Perspective,” Economic Journal (Cambridge, England) Vol. 91 (June 1981), pp. 486506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gardner, Bruce L., The Governing of Agriculture (Lawrence, Kansas: The Regent Press of Kansas, 1981).

  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Basic Instruments and Selected Documents, various supplements (Geneva, 1962, 1963, and 1979–81).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), International Trade, 1980/81 (Geneva, 1981). Also, past annual reports.

  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Report by the Director-General of GATT (Geneva, April 1979); and Vol. II, Supplementary Report (Geneva, January 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Working Party on Structural Adjustment and Trade Policy: Report to the Council, L/5120 (Geneva, March 16, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), “Extension of Multifibre Arrangement Agreed,” Press Release 1304 (Geneva, December 22, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), “Address by Mr. Arthur Dunkel, Director-General, GATT, at ‘Ostasiatisches Liebesmahl’, Hamburg, 5 March 1982,” Press Release 1312 (Geneva, March 5, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Greenaway, David, and Christopher Milner, Protectionism Again…?Causes and Consequences of a Retreat from Freer Trade to Economic Nationalism (London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1979).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harris, Stuart, “Agricultural Trade and Its International Trade Policy Context,” Center for Resource and Environmental Studies Working Paper R/WP37 (Canberra: Australian National University, 1979), mimeographed.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Helleiner, G.K., and others, Protectionism or Industrial Adjustment? The Atlantic Institute for International Affairs, The Atlantic Papers, No. 39 (Paris, April 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houck, James P., “Agricultural Trade: Protectionism, Policy, and the Tokyo/Geneva Negotiating Round,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, No. 5 (December 1979), pp. 86073.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund, IMF Occasional Paper No. 9 (Washington, April 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jackson, John H., World Trade and the Law of GATT: A Legal Analysis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnson, James D., and others, Provisions of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 483 (Washington: Government Printing Office, March 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lutz, Ernst, and Malcolm D. Bale, “Agricultural Protectionism in Industrialized Countries and Its Global Effects: A Survey of Issues,” Aussenwirtschaft (The Swiss Review of International Economic Relations) (Zurich), Vol. 35, No. 4 (December 1980), pp. 33154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lydall, H.F., Trade and Employment: A Study of the Effects of Trade Expansion on Employment in Developing and Developed Countries, A World Employment Programme Study (Geneva: International Labor Office, 1975).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Manger, Jon, “A Review of the Literature on Causes, Effects and Other Aspects of Export Instability,” A Report of Wharton EFA, Inc. for the AID Project on Primary Commodity Stabilization and Economic Development (unpublished, Philadelphia, May 1979).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marsh, John S., and Pamela J. Swanney, Agriculture and the European Community, University Association for Contemporary European Studies (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • New Zealand Dairy Board, A Survey of the New Zealand Dairy Industry, 4th ed. (Wellington, March 1980).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Activities of OECD in 1978: Report by the Secretary-General (Paris, 1979). Also, this report for 1980.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Positive Adjustment Policies, Final Report: Summary and Conclusions, Special Group of the Economic Policy Committee on Positive Adjustment Policies, CPE/PAP (82)2 (Paris, April 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Problems of Agricultural Trade (Paris, 1982).

  • Page, S.A.B., “The Revival of Protectionism and Its Consequences for Europe,” Journal of Common Market Studies (London), Vol. 20, No. 1 (September 1981), pp. 1740.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sampson, Gary P., and Richard H. Snape, “Effects of the EEC’s Variable Import Levies,” Journal of Political Economy (Chicago), Vol. 88, No. 5 (October 1980), pp. 102640.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sampson, Gary P., and Alexander J. Yeats, “An Evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy as a Barrier Facing Agricultural Exports to the European Economic Community,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 59, No. 1 (February 1977), pp. 99106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saxon, Eric, and Kym Anderson, “Japanese Agricultural Protection in Historical Perspective,” Australia-Japan Research Center and Department of Economics, Research School of Pacific Studies (unpublished, Australian National University, December 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thomson, K.J., and D.R. Harvey, “The Efficiency of the Common Agricultural Policy,” European Review of Agricultural Economics (The Hague), Vol. 8, No. 1 (1981), pp. 5783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Protectionism and Structural Adjustment in the World Economy Report by the UNCTAD Secretariat, Trade and Development Board, Twenty-Fourth Session, TD/B/888 (Geneva, January 15, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Protectionism and Structural Adjustment in the Agricultural and Other Commodity Sectors, Progress Report by the UNCTAD Secretariat, Trade and Development Board, Twenty-Fourth Session, TD/B/885 (Geneva, February 18, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States, Government of, Report of the Japan-United States Economic Relations Group, Prepared for the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Japan (January 1981); and Supplemental Report (October 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC), The Multifiber Arrangement, 1973 to 1980, USITC Publication 1131, Vols. 1 and 2 (Washington, March 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Certain Steel Products from Belgium, Brazil, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom, and West Germany, USITC Publication 1221, Vols. I and II; and USITC Publication 1226 (Washington, February 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC), The Effectiveness of Escape Clause Relief in Promoting Adjustment to Import Competition, USITC Publication 1229 (Washington, March 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Summary of Statutory Provisions Related to Import Relief, USITC Publication 1231 (Washington, March 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Valdés, Alberto, and Joachim Zietz, Agricultural Protection in OECD Countries: Its Cost to Less-Developed Countries, International Food Policy Research Institute, Research Report 21 (Washington, December 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Warnecke, Steven J., “The European Community and National Subsidy Policies,” in his International Trade and Industrial Policies: Government Intervention and Open World Economy (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1978), pp. 14174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yeats, Alexander J., “Agricultural Protectionism: An Analysis of Its International Economic Effects and Options for Institutional Reform,” Trade and Development: An UNCTAD Review (Geneva), No. 3 (Winter 1981), pp. 130.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Appendix I International Framework for the Conduct of Agricultural Trade

The multilateral rules governing world trade recognize certain differences between trade in primary products and other products. These differences are to be found, to some extent, in the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and, to a larger extent, in the manner in which these rules have been interpreted and applied.

Main Provisions of the GATT

Articles I and II of the General Agreement, which are central to the contractual obligations of GATT members, do not distinguish between agriculture and other sectors. Article I requires contracting parties to apply most-favored-nation treatment with respect to each other in the customs duties and charges levied and in the customs valuation procedures and other formalities applied to trade. Article II obliges contracting parties to levy import duties at rates not in excess of those specified in each country’s schedule of concessions. In successive trade negotiations, these “bound” rates have been lowered, and the proportion of tariff lines included in the schedules of concessions has been increased. In agriculture, however, trade liberalization has lagged behind other sectors. Consequently, the proportion of tariff lines that are GATT-bound is smaller for the agricultural sector than for other sectors. For example, according to preliminary estimates of the GATT Secretariat, post-MTN (Multilateral Trade Negotiations) tariffs for ten major trading nations combined showed that some 66 per cent of tariff lines, representing 81 per cent of most-favored-nation imports, were bound in the agricultural sector, compared with 92 per cent of tariff lines and 96 per cent of imports in industry (excluding petroleum).

In some other GATT provisions, the text of the General Agreement makes specific reference to agriculture. The practical significance of the “exceptions” for agriculture is difficult to assess, because it is not always known to what extent countries base their agricultural trade policy or practice on these GATT provisions. Even so, the differences are illustrative of the consideration given to agricultural trade issues by the framers of the GATT.

One instance of an explicit difference in rules for agriculture is found in GATT Article XI, which places a general ban on quantitative import restrictions and prohibitions. However, there are three specific exceptions that may relate to agriculture: (1) temporary export restrictions applied to prevent or relieve food shortages; (2) import or export restrictions necessary to apply standards for the classification, grading, or marketing of commodities; and (3) import restrictions on an agricultural or fisheries product aimed at removing temporary surpluses or restricting the production or marketing of a like domestic product. Among the major trading nations, Canada applies import restrictions on several agricultural products (dairy products, chicken, and eggs) under the latter provision.

Article XVI of the General Agreement, which regulates domestic and export subsidies, also contains a special rule for agriculture, whose effect is to dilute international discipline in the use of export subsidies in the agricultural sector. Under Article XVI:4, export subsidies on products other than primary products are prohibited. Article XVI:3 governs the use of export subsidies for primary products. Governments are only obliged to “seek to avoid” export subsidies on agriculture; and if they apply them, they should avoid doing so in a manner that would give them “more than an equitable share of world export trade” in the product concerned. Under the Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties formulated during the MTN, this provision is reaffirmed, and “more than an equitable share of world export trade” is defined somewhat more precisely.

Article XVI also attempts to regulate the use of domestic or production subsidies. Although these are not prohibited, either for agricultural or industrial products, a contracting party is required to notify the GATT of any subsidy and to consult with other contracting parties when so requested. The Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties spells out the provisions on subsidies, and in particular suggests that code signatories should weigh their “possible adverse effects on trade.” It is debatable, however, whether the code provisions involve a significant strengthening of international discipline on subsidies other than export subsidies.

Finally, Article XX of the General Agreement contains some “general exceptions” to all other GATT provisions. Included in the exceptions are measures taken or restrictions applied as a result of “obligations under any intergovernmental commodity agreement” that conforms to criteria accepted by the GATT. Article XX is nonetheless subject to the most-favored-nation rule.

Agricultural Trade Policies and Problems

Perhaps of greater significance than the specific provisions of the GATT and the MTN codes and their applicability to agriculture has been the lack of progress toward significant reforms in the protectionist policies of major trading nations. This has had the effect of establishing precedents that perpetuate restrictive trade policies in the agricultural sector and allow countries to formulate domestic agricultural policies without giving sufficient weight to their possible adverse international repercussions.

Historically, a major development that seriously affected perceptions about rights and obligations of GATT members in agriculture was the approval, in 1955, of a waiver for the United States, authorizing it to apply trade restrictions to a wide range of agricultural products. Most current U.S. restrictions in agriculture discussed in Section IV of this paper, except meat, are covered by the 1955 waiver. The request for the waiver arose from the inclusion, in 1951, of language in U.S. legislation that in effect established the precedence of U.S. law over GATT obligations.77 When it became clear that the U.S. Executive would be obliged to carry out the intent of this legislation regardless of whether the waiver was granted, the only way open to safeguard the legal principles of the GATT was for the other contracting parties to agree to the waiver, which has been in application ever since.78 The U.S. waiver has come under continual criticism during the course of the annual reviews conducted in the GATT over the past 27 years.

Another unresolved issue has been the extensive use of the variable import levy as an instrument of agricultural protection. Although the variable import levy operates as a tax on imports, it differs from the tariff in that its height always adjusts to ensure that lower-cost imports cannot compete with domestic production. The GATT permits a contracting party to impose tariff duties of any level on products not included in the list of items “bound” in its schedule of concessions. Accordingly, a foreign supplier of a product subject to a variable import levy can never be confident of maintaining or increasing his share of that market by underselling domestic producers. Moreover, since the levy is not fixed, it is difficult to negotiate its reduction or elimination.

Another critical problem in the agricultural sector concerns “residual” import restrictions, which usually take the form of quantitative restrictions. These are restrictions that do not have any justification under GATT rules.79 They tend to be used more extensively in the agricultural sector than in other sectors. GATT negotiations typically involve the exchange of “concessions” among contracting parties. As long as the trade liberalization actions being requested by a country of its trading partners involve the lowering of a tariff or the raising or elimination of an import quota from a known and multilaterally accepted level, the mutuality of the concessions exchanged between countries can be assessed at least approximately. However, because residual restrictions are by definition illegal under the GATT, in the negotiating context a country is generally unwilling to “pay” for securing removal of a trading partner’s illegal quota or practice by lowering its own legitimate trade restriction. As a result, the reduction of residual restrictions has been impeded by the issue of whether compensation should be sought or granted for reduction or elimination of an unjustified action.80 Attempts in the GATT to prepare inventories of residual restrictions date from at least 1960 and have met with only limited success.81 For similar reasons, past proposals to introduce multilateral formulas to phase out quantitative import restrictions, whether legal or illegal, have not received the general support of GATT members. The increased frequency with which “voluntary” export restraints have been used in recent years suggests that liberalization of these bilateral arrangements may well face some of the same difficulties as those encountered by trade negotiators with residual import restrictions.

Notwithstanding the difficulties of dealing meaningfully with trade restrictions in the agricultural sector, efforts to study agricultural trade problems and develop workable methods of attenuating the specific adverse effects of national policies on world agricultural markets have been continuing since the 1950s. In 1961, Committee II of the GATT adopted a report on agricultural protectionism, identifying the main instruments used to protect domestic agricultural sectors and the effects of the nontariff measures employed on world trade. It concluded that (1) “non-tariff devices have seriously affected international trade” in the agricultural products examined; (2) “the level of protection and resultant increased production in the traditional importing countries . . . place a heavy burden of adjustment on exporting countries;” and (3) “to the extent that income or price support has resulted in an expansion of relatively less efficient production and in a limitation of consumption, this has contributed to impairment of trade and to inefficiency in resource utilization. . . .”82 The Committee also concluded that “a moderation of agricultural protection in both importing and exporting countries is desirable.” It considered that “a moderation of agricultural protection, through its effects on production and consumption, would have a substantial percentage effect on the volume of international trade; by imposing some restraint on protected production in countries where national resources tied in agriculture can be more effectively re-allocated, it would improve resource utilization throughout the world.”

Recent Developments

In the two decades that have elapsed since this Committee II report was published, there have been numerous changes in the regimes governing agricultural trade. However, despite repeated attempts, progress toward liberalization has been slow. Agricultural issues resurfaced strongly during the Kennedy Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in 1964–67. The European Community originally offered to identify and bind for three years the existing level of overall support for farm products. For grains, the total level of support was to include unified prices at a level approximately halfway between the higher German prices and the lower French prices. In addition to binding the level of domestic support, the Community proposed to establish a set of international reference prices for basic farm commodities; the difference between the domestic and reference prices would be used to determine the level of import levies and, where appropriate, export subsidies. The offers were rejected by the other negotiating countries partly because the proposals contained no commitment on access to the Community market and allowed the variable import levy to continue to operate unimpeded.83 The Kennedy Round resulted in some tariff cuts in agricultural products subject to fixed tariff protection.

The 1973 GATT ministerial declaration that launched the Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations included in its objectives:

as regards agriculture, an approach to negotiations which, while in line with the general objectives of the negotiations, should take account of the special characteristics and problems in this sector.84

However, the lack of precision in the language of the Tokyo Declaration reflected fundamental differences in approach between the United States and the European Community. The United States wanted the negotiations to lead to the liberalization of agricultural trade and increased access to foreign markets for products of which they were efficient producers, while the Community sought the stabilization of agricultural trade through commodity arrangements, a sufficiently high income level for its farmers, and the preservation of an effective Common Agricultural Policy.85 As a result, there were significant divergences of approach between them on the handling of agricultural trade issues. As already noted, the MTN led to international arrangements on dairy products and bovine meat. Although these arrangements have generally been seen as having contributed to a degree of stability in the international markets for the two products, it is evident that they are aimed primarily at stabilizing the markets in the context of existing domestic agricultural support policies and programs, rather than at bringing about a liberalization of agricultural trade per se.

At the ministerial meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in May 1982, Ministers considered an OECD paper entitled Problems of Agricultural Trade, and unanimously endorsed its conclusions. A main finding of the OECD study is that the degree of protection afforded to agriculture is often greater than is necessary to achieve the desired objectives; accordingly, reduced protection may entail smaller modifications to the agriculture of the countries concerned than is often supposed. The study notes that “the implementation of the desirable marginal adjustments in domestic policies can best take place if such moves are planned and coordinated within a concerted multilateral approach aimed at achieving a balanced reduction in protectionism and a liberalization of trade.” It concludes that “whatever approaches are applied, the aim should be to integrate agricultural trade more fully with the open multilateral trading system to which all OECD countries subscribe.”86

Agricultural trade issues have also been examined recently in the GATT Consultative Group of Eighteen. While a decision on the specific work program to be pursued in the GATT following the November 1982 GATT ministerial meeting has not been reached, it is likely that agricultural trade issues will be included on the agenda of that meeting. When the objective of agricultural trade liberalization is agreed, specific decisions in certain key areas will determine the pace and method of possible future negotiations. Apart from decisions concerning notification and examination of national agricultural policies and improvement of conditions of market access, a key area of discussion may be distortions to competition in agricultural trade—that is, direct and indirect export subsidization.

77
In 1951, the U.S. Congress amended Section 22 of the U.S. Agricultural Adjustment Act to include the following provision:

“No trade agreement or other international agreement heretofore or hereafter entered into by the United States shall be applied in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this section.”

78

John H. Jackson, World Trade and the Law of GATT: A Legal Analysis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969), pp. 733–37.

79

Ibid., pp. 313 and 710.

80

GATT, The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Geneva, April 1979), p. 49.

81

The interim and final reports of a GATT panel on the adequacy of the notifications of residual restrictions are reproduced in GATT, Basic Instruments and Selected Documents: Eleventh Supplement (Geneva, March 1963), pp. 206–13.

82

GATT, Basic Instruments and Selected Documents: Tenth Supplement (Geneva, March 1962), pp. 135–14.

83

See Commission of the European Communities, The Agricultural Situation in the Community: 1981 Report (Brussels, 1982), p. 52; and Ernest H. Preeg, Traders and Diplomats: An Analysis of the Kennedy Round of Negotiations Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1970), pp. 146–50.

84

GATT, GATT Activities in 1973 (Geneva, 1974), p. 7.

85

GATT, The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Geneva, April 1979).

86

OECD, Problems of Agricultural Trade (Paris, 1982), p. 132.

Appendix II GATT Classifications

Classification of Countries and Regions

Following the definitions used in the GATT publication, International Trade, 1980/81, the trading world is divided into:

  1. Industrial countries

    United States, Canada, Japan, European Community member countries, EFTA member countries, Gibraltar, Greece, Malta, Spain, Turkey, and Yugoslavia;

  2. Oil exporting developing countries 87

    Algeria, Ecuador, Gabon, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela;

  3. Non-oil exporting developing countries 88

    All developing countries except oil exporting developing countries;

  4. Eastern trading countries

    Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, U.S.S.R., China, Mongolia, North Korea, and Viet Nam;

  5. Nonindustrial countries

    Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

For certain commodities, such as shipbuilding and steel, industrial countries are defined to include all members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

For the discussion on agricultural trade, the definitions in the Food and Agriculture Organization publication, FAO Commodity Review and Outlook: 1981–82 are used, and the trading world is divided into:

  1. Developed countries

    Industrial and nonindustrial countries under the GATT definition, Eastern Europe, and the U.S.S.R.;

  2. Developing countries

    Oil exporting and non-oil exporting developing countries under the GATT definition, and Asian centrally planned economies;

  3. State trading countries 89

    U.S.S.R. and Eastern European countries.

Classification of Commodities

  1. Semimanufactures

    Chemicals and other semimanufactures;

  2. Engineering goods

    Machinery for specialized industries, office and telecommunications equipment, road motor vehicles, other machinery and transport equipment, and household appliances;

  3. Agricultural commodities

    Food, beverages, agricultural material, and other agricultural products, excluding fishery and forestry products;

  4. Tropical zone agricultural products

    Agricultural products produced mostly in tropical zone countries;

  5. Temperate zone agricultural products

    Agricultural products produced mostly in temperate zone countries;

  6. Competing zone agricultural products

    Agricultural products produced both in tropical and temperate zone countries;

  7. Total trade

    Includes the categories “not included elsewhere” and “not classified according to kind.”

Intra-Community Trade

Unless otherwise specified, trade data include intra-Community trade.

Import Penetration

Import penetration is defined as the ratio of imports to apparent consumption (i.e., production plus imports minus exports). Import penetration by developing countries’ markets of manufactures is defined in nominal terms; otherwise it is calculated in volume terms.

The following symbols have been used throughout this paper:

  • … to indicate that data are not available;

  • — to indicate that the figure is zero or less than half the final digit shown, or that the item does not exist;

  • – between years or months (e.g., 1979–81 or January–June) to indicate the years or months covered, including the beginning and ending years or months;

  • / between years (e.g., 1980/81) to indicate a crop or fiscal (financial) year.

  • “Billion” means a thousand million.

  • Minor discrepancies between constituent figures and totals are due to rounding.

87

Also referred to in GATT terminology and in this paper as “traditional” oil exporting developing countries.

88

Includes the “new” oil exporting developing countries: Bahamas, Bahrain, Brunei, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands Antilles, Oman, the Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Virgin Islands.

89

If not identified separately, they are included in the category of developed countries.

Appendix III Statistical Tables

Table 1.

Production, Commodity, and Regional Composition of World Trade, 1963 and 1973–81

(In billions of U.S. dollars and per cent)

article image
Sources: GATT, International Trade, 1969, 1977/78, and 1980/81; and GATT, Press Release, March 23, 1982.

Estimates.

For regional classifications, see Appendix II.

Table 2.

Regional Composition of World Trade in Manufactures, 1973 and 1976–80

(In per cent)

article image
Source: GATT, International Trade, 1977/78, 1978/79, 1979/80, and 1980/81.

Includes Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

article image
Table 3.

Non-Oil Exporting Developing Countries: Composition of Trade and Share in World Trade, 1973–80

(In per cent and billions of U.S. dollars)

article image
Source: GATT, International Trade, 1977/78, 1978/79, 1979/80, and 1980/81.

Provisional figures.

Table 4.

Industrial Countries: Share of Imports in the Apparent Consumption of Manufactured Goods, 1970–801

(In per cent)

article image
Source: Data provided by the World Bank.

Excludes jewelry.

Preliminary data subject to revision.

Average annual rate of growth estimated by an ordinary-least-square regression.

Includes oil exporting developing countries.

Table 5.

India: Trade Measures Affecting Exports1

article image
Source: Data supplied by Indian authorities.

As of January 1, 1982.

Table 6.

Korea: Trade Measures Affecting Exports1

article image
article image
Source: Data supplied by the Korean authorities.

As of January 1, 1982.

Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

Table 7.

Malaysia: Trade Measures Affecting Exports1

article image
Source: Data supplied by the Malaysian authorities.

As of December 31, 1981.

Table 8.

Philippines: Trade Measures Affecting Exports1

article image
article image
article image
Source: Data supplied by the Philippine authorities.

As of December 31, 1981.

Not otherwise provided for.

Table 9.

Pakistan: Trade Measures Affecting Exports1

article image
article image
article image
Source: Data provided by the Pakistan authorities.

As of December 31, 1981.

Table 10.

New Zealand: Trade Measures Affecting Exports1

article image
Source: Data supplied by the New Zealand authorities.

As of May 1982.

In addition to restrictions imposed by the European Community.

Table 11.

Commodity Composition of World Trade in Manufactures, 1973–80

(In billions of U.S. dollars)

article image
Source: GATT, International Trade, 1977/78, 1978/79, 1979/80, and 1980/81.
Table 12.

Motor Vehicles: World Trade by Major Trading Regions, 1973–80

(In billions of U.S. dollars)

article image
Source: GATT, International Trade, 1979/80 and 1980/81.

These figures are included in “Western Europe.”

Including Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the centrally planned countries not shown separately.

Includes intra-Community trade.

Table 13.

Motor Vehicles:1 Production, Apparent Consumption, and Share of Imports in Apparent Consumption in Industrial Countries, 1973–80

(In thousands of units and per cent)

article image
Source: GATT, International Trade, 1979/80 and 1980/81.

Including passenger cars, trucks, and buses.

Production includes assembly.

Apparent consumption = production—exports + imports.

Including intra-Community trade.

Table 14.

Motor Vehicles: Regional Distribution of World Production, 1973–801

(In per cent)

article image
Sources: GATT, International Trade, 1979/80; and data supplied by the OECD.

Measured in units.

Table 15.

Japan: Regional Breakdown of Passenger Car Exports, 1970 and 1979–80

(In thousands of units and per cent)

article image
Source: Commission of the European Communities, “The European Automobile Industry,” Bulletin of the European Communities, Supp. 2/81 (June 16, 1981).

Excluding Greece.

Less than 0.1 per cent of total.

Table 16.

Steel: Production, Apparent Consumption, and Employment, 1974 and 1978–81

article image
Sources: OECD, The Steel Market in 1981 and Outlook for 1982 (May 1982) and Press Release, “OECD Steel Committee Reviews Market Situation” (November 19, 1981).

Estimates.

Includes Greece from 1980 on.

Excludes Greece from 1980 on.

Includes oil exporting developing countries.

Includes Eastern Europe, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, South Africa, and the U.S.S.R.

Apparent consumption = production + net imports.

Table 17.

Steel: Share of Imports in Apparent Consumption and Capacity Utilization, 1978–81

(In per cent)

article image
Sources: OECD, The Steel Market in 1981 and Outlook for 1982 (May 1982); and OECD, Press Release, “OECD Steel Committee Reviews Market Situation” (October 30, 1980).

Data for 1978–80 refer to nine members of the European Community (excluding Greece).

Table 18.

Steel: Imports, Exports, and Net Trade Balance, 1978–81

(In millions of ingot tons equivalent)

article image
Sources: OECD, The Steel Market in 1981 and Outlook for 1982 (May 1982); and OECD, Press Release, “OECD Steel Committee Reviews Market Situation” (October 30, 1980).

Data exclude intra-Community trade; data for 1978–80 refer to nine members of the European Community (excluding Greece).

Table 19.

Textiles and Clothing: Production by Regions, 1963–80

(Change in volume in per cent)

article image
Sources: United Nations, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, 1980; OECD, Indicators of Industrial Activity, 1980; and national statistics as reported in GATT, International Trade, 1980/81.

Includes oil exporting as well as non-oil exporting developing countries.

Includes leather and footwear.

Table 20.

Imports of Textiles and Clothing of Selected Industrial Countries, 1973–76 and 1978–80

(Change in value in per cent per annum)

article image
Sources: GATT, International Trade, 1980/81; and data provided by the Japanese authorities.

Excluding Portugal.

Table 21.

Textiles and Clothing: Bilateral Agreements to Restrict Trade Under Article 4 of the Multifiber Arrangement Maintained in 19811

article image
Sources: GATT, Report of the Textiles Surveillance Body to the Textiles Committee for the Major Review of the Operation of the Arrangement, 1980, COM.TEX/SB/610 (October 14, 1980), and Activities of the Textiles Surveillance Body (21 September 1980–31 October 1981), Report to the Textiles Committee by the Textiles Surveillance Body. COM.TEX/SB/742 (November 9, 1981).

Agreements notified to the Textiles Surveillance Body between January 1, 1978 and October 31, 1981. In addition, five bilateral agreements were signed under Article 3:4, including three by Austria with Brazil, Hong Kong, and Korea, one by Canada with Brazil, and one by Finland with Sri Lanka.

Not including agreements with countries granted preferential status.

Table 22.

Shipbuilding: World Production and Shares of Major Producers, 1975–81

(In thousands of gross tons1 and per cent)

article image
Sources: OECD, Annual Statistics (various issues) and various OECD Press Releases.

Although compensated gross tons provide a better measure of production and capacity utilization, this table was prepared in gross tons since no data for the “rest of the world” were available in compensated gross tons.

Table 23.

Shipbuilding: Total New Orders, 1976–81

(In thousands of gross tons)

article image
Sources: OECD, Annual Statistics (various issues); various OECD Press Releases; and Lloyd’s Register of Shipbuilding, “Annual Summary of Merchant Ships Completed in the World” (1975–80).

Members of the Association of West European Shipbuilders, which includes the European Community member countries, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.

Table 24.

Footwear: European Community Production, Trade, Apparent Consumption, and Employment, 1975–80

article image
Source: Data supplied by the Commission of the European Communities.

Apparent consumption = production + imports—exports.

Table 25.

Footwear: U.S. Production, Imports, and Apparent Consumption of Nonrubber Footwear, 1978–81

article image
Sources: U.S. International Trade Commission, Nonrubber Footwear: U.S. Production, Imports for Consumption, Apparent U.S. Consumption, Employment, Wholesale Price Index, and Consumer Price Index (Third Calendar Quarter, 1980); and Fund staff estimates.

Includes exports, which totaled 6.9 million pairs in 1978, 9.3 million in 1979, 11.2 million in 1980, and 11.4 million in 1981.

Table 26.

Commodity and Regional Composition of World Trade in Agricultural Products, Prices, and Terms of Trade, 1973–801

article image
Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review and Outlook, 1973/74—1981/82, and The State of Food and Agriculture 1981, FAO Document No. C81/2, Supp. 1 (November 1981).

For classification of commodities and countries for agricultural trade, see Appendix II.

Estimates.

Excluding fishery and forestry products.

Including cocoa, coffee, and tea.

Fund staff estimates.

Net barter terms of trade of all agricultural exports for manufactured goods and crude petroleum.

Table 27.

Butter: Production, Trade, Stocks, and Price Developments, 1972–811

article image
Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review and Outlook, 1975/76–1981/82; and IMF, International Financial Statistics.

For classification of countries and regions, see Appendix II.

Average.

Provisional figures.

Includes intra-Community trade.

New Zealand butter quoted in London.

Table 28.

Cheese: Production, Trade, Stocks, and Price Developments, 1972–811

article image
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review and Outlook, 1975/76–1981/82.

For classification of countries and regions, see Appendix II.

Average.

Provisional figures.

Includes intra-Community trade.

Wholesale prices.

Table 29.

Bovine Meat: Production, Trade, and Price Developments, 1972–811

article image
Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review and Outlook, 1976/77–1981/82; and IMF, International Financial Statistics.

For classification of countries and regions, see Appendix II.

Average.

Provisional figures.

Including European state trading countries.

All origins in U.S. ports.

Table 30.

Wheat: Production, Trade, Stocks, and Price Developments, 1972–74 and 1975–811

article image
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review and Outlook, 1976/77–1981/82.

For classification of countries and regions, see Appendix II.

Average.

Provisional figures.

Including Asian state trading countries.

Excluding Asian state trading countries.

At end of national crop years.

U.S. hard red winter wheat, No. 2, at North Sea ports (c.i.f.).

Table 31.

Fats and Oils: Production, Trade, and Price Developments, 1972–811

article image
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review and Outlook, 1975/76–1981/82.

For classification of countries and regions, see Appendix II.

Average.

Provisional figures.

All fats and oils, excluding butter.

Table 32.

Sugar: Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Developments, 1972–811

article image
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review and Outlook, 1974/75—1981/82.

For classification of countries and regions, see Appendix II.

Average.

Provisional figures.

International Sugar Agreement daily prices for raw sugar.

Table 33.

Agricultural Trade by Principal Commodities and Countries, 1972–81

article image
article image
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review and Outlook, 1974/75—1981/82.

Average.

Provisional figures.

Fresh, chilled, and frozen.

Including intra-Community trade.

Trade year ending in the middle of the year indicated by the column heading.

Including intra-Community trade.

Including Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Table 34.

Structure of Agricultural Trade of Principal Commodities, 1975–801

(In billions of U.S. dollars and per cent)

article image
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, Commodity Review Outlook, 1974/75—1981/82.

Includes only registered agricultural trade.

Fresh, chilled, and frozen.

Including intra-Community trade.

Trade year ending in the middle of the year indicated by the column heading.

Table 35.

European Community: Target Prices for Selected Commodities, 1972/73 and 1979/80–1981/821

article image
Source: Commission of the European Communities, The Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1981 Report (Brussels, 1982).

Beginning of marketing year.

Sheep meat and goat meat were not covered by the Common Agricultural Policy prior to 1980/81.

Table 36.

European Community: Regional Distribution of Imports of Principal Agricultural Products, 1962 and 1979

article image
Sources: Based on UNCTAD, Protectionism and Structural Adjustment in the World Economy, TD/B/888 (January 15, 1982); and United Nations, Yearbook of International Trade Statistics, 1962 and 1980.

Numbers in parentheses refer to Standard International Trade Classification (SITC).

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.

Imports of SITC categories 0, 1, 2 (excluding subcategories 27 and 28), and 4.

Table 37.

European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund: Guarantee Section, Expenditures by Sector, 1975–82

(In per cent of total)

article image
Sources: Commission of the European Communities, The Agricultural Situation in the Community and General Report on the Activities of the European Communities (Brussels, various annual reports).

Projected figures.

Table 38.

Australia: Exports,1 Nominal Protection, and Effective Protection for Selected Agricultural Commodities, 1970/71–1979/80

article image
Source: Government of Australia, Industries Assistance Commission: Annual Report, 1980–81 (Canberra, 1981).

Data on trade are for calendar years.

Table 39.

European Community: Nominal Protection Coefficients, 1975–80

(Price in terms of ECUs and per 100 kilograms, excluding value-added tax)

article image
article image
Sources: IMF, International Financial Statistics; and Statistical Office of the European Communities, EUROSTAT (1981). For prices, see footnote 2.

For maize and wheat, the marketing stage is from the first buyer, wholesaler, or importer to the trader; for sugar beets, the marketing stage is from producer to industry; for beef and lamb, the marketing stage is from wholesaler (or slaughterhouse) to retailer.

Based on average prices (daily for lamb and sugar, weekly for maize and wheat, and monthly for beef). The sources of these prices are as follows: for maize, U.S. No. 2 yellow, f.o.b. Gulf ports, export price base (USDA Grain Market News); for wheat, U.S. No. 2 hard red winter wheat, f.o.b. Gulf ports, export price base (USDA Grain Market News); for rice, Thailand white milled, 5 per cent broken, f.o.b. Bangkok, export price (USDA Rice Market News); for sugar, International Sugar Agreement prices calculated in accordance with Economic Rule 611.3 (Journal of Commerce and Financial Times); for beef, U.S. imported frozen boneless, 85 per cent visible lean cow meat, import price, f.o.b. port of entry (U.S. Department of Agriculture); for lamb, New Zealand Pl’s Smithfield Market, London (Financial Times). The prices in U.S. dollars were converted to European Currency Units (ECUs) at exchange rates given in EUROSTAT.

Using 1979 gross national product at market prices.

Standard quality.

Price per 100 kilograms (carcass weight).

Table 40.

United States: Nominal Protection Coefficients, 1975–80

(Price in terms of U.S. dollars)

article image
Sources: IMF, International Financial Statistics; and U.S. Department of Agriculture. For prices, see footnotes.

Maize prices are in terms of U.S. dollars per 56 pounds. Domestic maize prices are wholesale prices for Corn No. 2 yellow—Chicago, and world prices are for U.S. No. 2 yellow, f.o.b. Gulf ports, export price base.

Wheat prices are in terms of U.S. dollars per 60 pounds. Domestic wheat prices are for Kansas City, No. 1 hard red winter wheat minus 2 U.S. cents. World wheat prices are for U.S. No. 2 hard red winter wheat, f.o.b. Gulf ports, export price base.

Rice prices are in terms of U.S. dollars per 100 pounds. Domestic rice prices are for Houston No. 2 f.o.b. mill price and world prices are for Thailand white milled, 5 per cent broken, f.o.b., Bangkok export price.

Beef prices are in terms of U.S. dollars per 100 pounds. Domestic beef prices are wholesale prices of U.S. Central Markets for steer beef choice, 600–700 pounds. World beef prices are for U.S. imported frozen boneless, 85 per cent visible lean cow meat import price, f.o.b. port of entry.

Lamb meat prices are in terms of U.S. dollars per 100 pounds. Domestic lamb meat prices are wholesale prices in Eastern markets for prime choice meat, 55–65 pounds. World lamb meat prices are New Zealand Pi’s Smithfield Market, London.

Table 41.

Japan: Nominal Protection Coefficients, 1975–81

(Price in terms of Japanese yen)

article image
Sources: Data provided by the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; and Eric Saxon and Kym Anderson, “Japanese Agricultural Protection in Historical Perspective,” Australia-Japan Research Center and Department of Economics (unpublished, Australian National University, December 1981).

Data provided by the Japanese authorities.

Data provided by the Australia-Japan Research Center, Australian National University. The domestic price for beef is the weighted average of the principal categories of beef at major wholesale markets (yen per kilogram of boneless beef), and the world price is the comparable import price. For grains, the domestic price is the price paid to producers per kilogram, and the world price is the unit c.i.f. value of Japanese imports per kilogram.

Table 42.

United States: Domestic Support Program for Dairy Products

article image
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dairy Program Fact Sheet.

Support prices are established for milk with 3.5 per cent fat content. These support prices are for milk with slightly higher fat content.

For years when the annual average price was higher than the support price, some support purchases might have still taken place because market prices might have been below support prices during certain months of the year.

Gross outlays minus receipts of the Commodity Credit Corporation on a fiscal-year basis.

Data refer to the complete manufacturing year.

Table 43.

U.S. Wheat Domestic Support Program

article image
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commodity Fact Sheet, Wheat Program (May 1981).

A bushel of wheat is equal to 27.2 kilograms.

Prior to 1974, the target prices shown were the support prices for wheat used for domestic food.

The marketing certificate payment rate was the difference between the price received by farmers in the first five months (July–November) of the marketing year and 100 per cent of wheat parity on July 1.

Diversion and certificate payments.

Deficiency payment.

Table 44.

Internal Terms of Trade of Industrial Countries, 1974–81

(In per cent)

article image
Sources: OECD, Main Economic Indicators; and IMF, International Financial Statistics.
Table 45.

European Community: Average Degree of Self-Supply in Selected Agricultural Products, 1956/60, 1968/69, and 1978/791

(In per cent)

article image
Sources: Commission of the European Communities, The Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1975, 1980, and 1981 Reports.

Includes nine members of the Community (excluding Greece).

Includes only the six original members of the Community. Average of the years 1956 through 1960.

Average of crop years 1967/68, 1968/69, and 1969/70.

Average of crop years 1977/78, 1978/79, and 1979/80.

Average of crop years 1976/77, 1977/78, and 1978/79.

Table 46.

Japan: Self-Supply Levels of Agricultural Commodities, 1960, 1970, and 1975–78

(In per cent of total demand)

article image
Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics of Australia, Japanese Agricultural Policies: Their Origins, Nature, and Effects on Production and Trade (Canberra, 1981), p. 16.
Table 47.

Budget Expenditures on Agriculture, 1974–811

article image
Sources: Commission of the European Communities, The Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1981 Report and Guidelines for European Agriculture, COM(81) 608 final (October 23, 1981); U.S. Office of Management and Budget; and U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Fiscal-year basis.

European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund.

Estimate.

Table 48.

Indicators of Market Instability in Agricultural and World Trade, 1972–811

(In per cent)

article image
Sources: Fund staff estimates, based on data in GATT, International Trade (various issues); and Tables 2730 and 32.

The formula used is as follows:

I = Σ t = 3 n - 2 | X t - A t | A t 100 n - 4

where At=Xt-2+Xt-1+Xt+Xt+1+Xt+25

and

article image

Covering the period 1972–80.

World commodity output.

Table 49.

Tariff Reductions Agreed by Industrial Countries Under the Multilateral Trade Negotiations

(In per cent)

article image
Source: GATT, The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Vol. II. Supplementary Report by the Director-General of GATT (January 1980).
Table 50.

Sectoral Tariff Reduction Under the Multilateral Trade Negotiations1

(In per cent)

article image
Source: GATT, The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Vol. II, Supplementary Report by the Director-General of GATT (January 1980).

Tariff cuts for broad categories are averages of cuts agreed by Austria, Canada, the European Community, Finland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

Table 51.

United States: Antidumping, Countervailing Duties, and Escape Clause Actions During 1978–8111

article image
Source: U.S. Office of the Special Trade Representative, Trade Action Monitoring System (various issues).

Includes antidumping duties denoted by A, countervailing duties denoted by C, and escape clause actions denoted by E. Escape clause investigations exclude orderly marketing agreements and voluntary export restraints. Figures in parentheses indicate the number of actions involved when more than one was taken. Many of the actions listed do not apply to all exporting countries.

Table 52.

United States: Other Trade Actions During 1979–811

article image
Source: U.S. Office of the Special Trade Representative, Trade Action Monitoring System (various issues).

Actions to retaliate against unfair trading practices (restrictive actions of foreign countries) denoted by U, and actions to retaliate against unfair import practices (mostly patent infringement) denoted by UI.

Table 53.

European Community: Trade Actions Under Safeguard and Antidumping Provisions, 1971–821

article image
article image
Sources: Commission of the European Communities, Official Journal of the European Communities (various issues); and data provided by the Commission of the European Communities.

In this table, references to “Taiwan” are to the Taiwan Province of China.

Does not include safeguard actions taken under bilateral agreements implementing the Multifiber Arrangement. Also does not include measures of import surveillance.

This column lists actions actually taken during a particular year, including actions taken on investigations launched in previous years.

P = price undertaking by foreign supplier; D = definitive antidumping/antisubsidy duties; Dp = provisional antidumping/antisubsidy duties; Q = quotas under safeguard actions; Q* = renewal of quotas.

Includes two antiexports-subsidy investigations.

Up to April 14, 1982.

Table 54.

European Community: Trade Actions Under Import Surveillance Provisions, 1971–81

article image
Source: Data provided by the Commission of the European Communities.

In this table, references to “Taiwan” are to the Taiwan Province of China.

Export of hides and skins from the Community was put under retrospective surveillance in 1979 in order to avoid domestic shortages.

Table 55.

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Actions in Selected Countries, 1980 and 1981

(In number of cases)

article image
Source: Data provided by the GATT Secretariat.
Table 56.

Incidence of Major Nontariff Barriers in Selected Industrial Countries in 19801

(Percentage of imports covered by nontariff barriers)

article image
Source: Data provided by the UNCTAD Secretariat.

The shares of imports covered by individual nontariff barriers are not additive because a given commodity may be subject to more than one type of nontariff barrier. For Community members, only the nontariff measures applied by the individual member countries are included.

Does not include voluntary export restraint arrangements negotiated under the auspices of the Multifiber Arrangement.

Table 57.

Incidence of Nontariff Barriers in Highly Protected Sectors in Selected Industrial Countries1

(Percentage of imports covered by nontariff barriers)

article image
Source: Data provided by the UNCTAD Secretariat.

The shares of imports covered by individual nontariff barriers are not additive because the same import commodity might be restricted by more than one barrier. For European Community members only the nontariff measures applied by individual member countries are included.

Table 58.

MTN Agreements: Status of Acceptances1

article image
article image
Source: GATT, Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Status of Acceptances of Protocols, Agreements and Arrangements, Document L/4914/Rev. 5/Add.8 (April 30, 1982).

As of April 28, 1982.

The United Kingdom accepts in respect of some of its territories.

Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties.

Customs Valuation Code.

Amendments to the Antidumping Code.

Table 59.

GATT Consultations on Balance of Payments Restrictions, 1978–June 1982

article image
Source: GATT.

Some countries consulted more than once in a calendar year.

Table 60.

GATT Panels Established Since 1978

article image
Source: GATT.
Table 61.

Invocation of GATT Article XIX, 1978–82

article image
Source: GATT.

Replaced by export restraint arrangement.

Table 62.

Illustrative Summary of Impediments to Trade in Services

article image
Source: Information provided by the U.S. authorities.
Table 63.

Illustrative Summary of Performance Requirements for Foreign Direct Investment

article image
Source: Based on the U.S. Labor-Industry Coalition for International Trade, Performance Requirements: A Study of the Incidence and Impact of Trade-Related Performance Requirements, and an Analysis of International Law (March 1981), pp. 5–7.

Occasional Papers of the International Monetary Fund

1. International Capital Markets: Recent Developments and Short-Term Prospects, by a Staff Team Headed by R.C. Williams, Exchange and Trade Relations Department. 1980.

2. Economic Stabilization and Growth in Portugal, by Hans O. Schmitt. 1981.

3. External Indebtedness of Developing Countries, by a Staff Team Headed by Bahram Nowzad and Richard C. Williams. 1981.

4. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1981.

5. Trade Policy Developments in Industrial Countries, by S.J. Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, L.L. Perez, and W.S. Tseng. 1981.

6. The Multilateral System of Payments: Keynes, Convertibility, and the International Monetary Fund’s Articles of Agreement, by Joseph Gold. 1981.

7. International Capital Markets: Recent Developments and Short-Term Prospects, 1981, by a Staff Team Headed by Richard C. Williams, with G.G. Johnson. 1981.

8. Taxation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Part I: Tax Policy and Administration in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Carlos A. Aguirre, Peter S. Griffith, and M. Zuhtu Yucelik. Part II: A Statistical Evaluation of Taxation in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Vito Tanzi. 1981.

9. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1982.

10. International Comparisons of Government Expenditure, by Alan A. Tait and Peter S. Heller. 1982.

11. Payments Arrangements and the Expansion of Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa, by Shailendra J. Anjaria, Sena Eken, and John F. Laker. 1982.

12. Effects of Slowdown in Industrial Countries on Growth in Non-Oil Developing Countries, by Morris Goldstein and Mohsin S. Khan. 1982.

13. Currency Convertibility in the Economic Community of West African States, by John B. McLenaghan, Saleh M. Nsouli, and Klaus-Walter Riechel. 1982.

14. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1982, by a Staff Team Headed by Richard C. Williams, with G.G. Johnson. 1982.

15. Hungary: An Economic Survey, by a Staff Team Headed by Patrick de Fontenay. 1982.

16. Developments in International Trade Policy, by S.J. Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, N. Kirmani, and L.L. Perez. 1982.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • Australia, Government of, Industries Assistance Commission: Annual Report, 1980–81 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Australia, Government of, Japanese Agricultural Policies: Their Origins, Nature and Effects on Production and Trade, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Policy Monograph No. 1 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Australia, Government of, Passenger Motor Vehicles and Components—Post-1984 Assistance Arrangements, Industries Assistance Commission Report No. 267 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, June 24, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bale, Malcolm D., and Bruce L. Greenshields, “Japanese Agricultural Distortions and Their Welfare Value,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 60, No. 1 (February 1978), pp. 5964.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barichello, Richard R., The Economics of Canadian Dairy Industry Regulation, Economic Council of Canada, Technical Report No. E/12 (Ottawa, March 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Canada, Government of, Summary of Canada’s Bilateral Restraint ArrangementsTextiles and Clothing, External Affairs of Canada (Ottawa, February 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), The Agricultural Situation in the Community: 1981 Report (Brussels, 1982). Also, past annual reports.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Fifteenth General Report on the Activities of the European Communities in 1981 (Brussels, 1982). Also, past annual reports.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Bulletin of the European Communities, various issues (Brussels, 1981 and 1982).

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), “The European Automobile Industry: Commission Statement,” Supplement to the Bulletin of the European Communities, Supp. 2/81 (Brussels, June 16, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Positive Adjustment Policies in the EEC Dairy Sector, Directorate-General for Agriculture (Brussels, June 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Commission Communication to the Council on the Situation and Prospects of the Textile and Clothing Industries in the Community, COM(81) 388 final (Brussels, July 27, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Guidelines for European Agriculture, Memorandum to Complement the Commission’s Report on the Mandate of 30 May 1980, COM(81) 608 final (Brussels, October 23, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Commission Proposals on the Fixing of Prices for Certain Agricultural Products and on Certain Related Measures (1982/83), COM(82) 10 final, Vols. I and II (Brussels, January 27 and February 5, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Eleventh Report on Competition Policy (Brussels, 1982).

  • Denton, Geoffrey, and Seamus O’Cleireacain, Subsidy Issues in International Commerce, Trade Policy Research Center, Thames Essay No. 5 (London, 1972).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fishlow, Albert, Jean Carriere, and Sueo Sekiguchi, Trade in Manufactured Products with Developing Countries: Reinforcing North-South Partnership, The Trilateral Commission, The Triangle Papers, No. 21 (New York, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAO Commodity Review and Outlook: 1981–82 (Rome, 1982). Also, past annual reports.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The State of Food and Agriculture 1981, Director-General’s Report to the Twenty-First Session of the Conference on the State of Food and Agriculture 1981, Rome, 7–26 November 1981, Doc. No. C 81/2 (Rome, August 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Franko, Lawrence G., “Adjusting to Export Thrusts of Newly Industrialising Countries: An Advanced Country Perspective,” Economic Journal (Cambridge, England) Vol. 91 (June 1981), pp. 486506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gardner, Bruce L., The Governing of Agriculture (Lawrence, Kansas: The Regent Press of Kansas, 1981).

  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Basic Instruments and Selected Documents, various supplements (Geneva, 1962, 1963, and 1979–81).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), International Trade, 1980/81 (Geneva, 1981). Also, past annual reports.

  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Report by the Director-General of GATT (Geneva, April 1979); and Vol. II, Supplementary Report (Geneva, January 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Working Party on Structural Adjustment and Trade Policy: Report to the Council, L/5120 (Geneva, March 16, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), “Extension of Multifibre Arrangement Agreed,” Press Release 1304 (Geneva, December 22, 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), “Address by Mr. Arthur Dunkel, Director-General, GATT, at ‘Ostasiatisches Liebesmahl’, Hamburg, 5 March 1982,” Press Release 1312 (Geneva, March 5, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Greenaway, David, and Christopher Milner, Protectionism Again…?Causes and Consequences of a Retreat from Freer Trade to Economic Nationalism (London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1979).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harris, Stuart, “Agricultural Trade and Its International Trade Policy Context,” Center for Resource and Environmental Studies Working Paper R/WP37 (Canberra: Australian National University, 1979), mimeographed.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Helleiner, G.K., and others, Protectionism or Industrial Adjustment? The Atlantic Institute for International Affairs, The Atlantic Papers, No. 39 (Paris, April 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houck, James P., “Agricultural Trade: Protectionism, Policy, and the Tokyo/Geneva Negotiating Round,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, No. 5 (December 1979), pp. 86073.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund, IMF Occasional Paper No. 9 (Washington, April 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jackson, John H., World Trade and the Law of GATT: A Legal Analysis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnson, James D., and others, Provisions of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 483 (Washington: Government Printing Office, March 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lutz, Ernst, and Malcolm D. Bale, “Agricultural Protectionism in Industrialized Countries and Its Global Effects: A Survey of Issues,” Aussenwirtschaft (The Swiss Review of International Economic Relations) (Zurich), Vol. 35, No. 4 (December 1980), pp. 33154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lydall, H.F., Trade and Employment: A Study of the Effects of Trade Expansion on Employment in Developing and Developed Countries, A World Employment Programme Study (Geneva: International Labor Office, 1975).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Manger, Jon, “A Review of the Literature on Causes, Effects and Other Aspects of Export Instability,” A Report of Wharton EFA, Inc. for the AID Project on Primary Commodity Stabilization and Economic Development (unpublished, Philadelphia, May 1979).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marsh, John S., and Pamela J. Swanney, Agriculture and the European Community, University Association for Contemporary European Studies (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • New Zealand Dairy Board, A Survey of the New Zealand Dairy Industry, 4th ed. (Wellington, March 1980).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Activities of OECD in 1978: Report by the Secretary-General (Paris, 1979). Also, this report for 1980.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Positive Adjustment Policies, Final Report: Summary and Conclusions, Special Group of the Economic Policy Committee on Positive Adjustment Policies, CPE/PAP (82)2 (Paris, April 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Problems of Agricultural Trade (Paris, 1982).

  • Page, S.A.B., “The Revival of Protectionism and Its Consequences for Europe,” Journal of Common Market Studies (London), Vol. 20, No. 1 (September 1981), pp. 1740.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sampson, Gary P., and Richard H. Snape, “Effects of the EEC’s Variable Import Levies,” Journal of Political Economy (Chicago), Vol. 88, No. 5 (October 1980), pp. 102640.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sampson, Gary P., and Alexander J. Yeats, “An Evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy as a Barrier Facing Agricultural Exports to the European Economic Community,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 59, No. 1 (February 1977), pp. 99106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saxon, Eric, and Kym Anderson, “Japanese Agricultural Protection in Historical Perspective,” Australia-Japan Research Center and Department of Economics, Research School of Pacific Studies (unpublished, Australian National University, December 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thomson, K.J., and D.R. Harvey, “The Efficiency of the Common Agricultural Policy,” European Review of Agricultural Economics (The Hague), Vol. 8, No. 1 (1981), pp. 5783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Protectionism and Structural Adjustment in the World Economy Report by the UNCTAD Secretariat, Trade and Development Board, Twenty-Fourth Session, TD/B/888 (Geneva, January 15, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Protectionism and Structural Adjustment in the Agricultural and Other Commodity Sectors, Progress Report by the UNCTAD Secretariat, Trade and Development Board, Twenty-Fourth Session, TD/B/885 (Geneva, February 18, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States, Government of, Report of the Japan-United States Economic Relations Group, Prepared for the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Japan (January 1981); and Supplemental Report (October 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC), The Multifiber Arrangement, 1973 to 1980, USITC Publication 1131, Vols. 1 and 2 (Washington, March 1981).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Certain Steel Products from Belgium, Brazil, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom, and West Germany, USITC Publication 1221, Vols. I and II; and USITC Publication 1226 (Washington, February 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC), The Effectiveness of Escape Clause Relief in Promoting Adjustment to Import Competition, USITC Publication 1229 (Washington, March 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Summary of Statutory Provisions Related to Import Relief, USITC Publication 1231 (Washington, March 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Valdés, Alberto, and Joachim Zietz, Agricultural Protection in OECD Countries: Its Cost to Less-Developed Countries, International Food Policy Research Institute, Research Report 21 (Washington, December 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Warnecke, Steven J., “The European Community and National Subsidy Policies,” in his International Trade and Industrial Policies: Government Intervention and Open World Economy (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1978), pp. 14174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yeats, Alexander J., “Agricultural Protectionism: An Analysis of Its International Economic Effects and Options for Institutional Reform,” Trade and Development: An UNCTAD Review (Geneva), No. 3 (Winter 1981), pp. 130.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation