Modelling the EU sugar supply to assess sectoral policy reforms

European Review of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 223-247

  Gohin, Alexandre ^a,b   Bureau, Jean Christophe ^b,c  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b CEPII   (France)

^c AGROPARISTECH   (France)

Author keywords

Common agricultural policy; Export subsidies; General equilibrium model; Sugar; WTO

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745612049     PISSN: 01651587     EISSN: 14643618     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/erae/jbl006     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Adenäuer, M., Louhichi, K., Henry de Frahan, B. and Witzke, H. P. (2004). Impact of the 'Everything but Arms' initiative on the EU sugar sub-sector. International Conference on Policy Modelling (EcoMod2004), Paris, 30 June-2 July, 2004.
2. Ball, V. E., Bureau, J. C., Butault, J. P. and Witzke, H. P. (1993). The stock of capital in European Community agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics 14: 12-23.
3. Bouët, A., Bureau, J. C., Decreux, D. and Jean, S. (2005). Multilateral agricultural trade liberalization: the contrasting fortunes of developing countries in the Doha Round. The World Economy 28: 1329-1354.
4. Bureau, J. C., Guyomard, H., Morin, L. and Réquillart, V. (1997). Quota mobility in the European sugar regime. European Review of Agricultural Economics 24: 1 -30.
5. Chau, N. and de Gorter, H. (2005). Disentangling the consequences of direct payments schemes in agriculture on fixed costs, exit decisions and output. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1174-1181.
6. Cernat, L., Laird, S., Monge-Roffarello, L. and Turrini, A. (2003). The EU's Everything But Arms initiative and the least-developed countries, June 2003. WIDER Discussion Paper No. 2003/47, World Institute for Development Economic Research.
7. El-Obeid, A. and Beghin, J. (2005). Multilateral Trade and Agricultural Policy Reforms in Sugar Markets. Working Paper 04-WP 356, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University.
8. EU Commission (2005). Reforming the EU sugar policy. Update of impact assessment SEC (203 10022). Commission Staff Working Document COM(2005)263 final. Brussels 22.06.225.
9. Eurocare (2003). Study to assess the impact of future options for the future reform of the sugar common market organisation. Bonn: EuroCARE Gmbh.
10. Frandsen, S., Jensen, H., Yu, W. and Walter-Jorgensen, A. (2003). Reform of the EU sugar policy: price cuts versus quota reductions. European Review of Agricultural Economics 30: 1 -26.
11. Garside, B., Hills, T., Marques, J. C., Seeger, C. and Thiel, C. (2004). Who gains from sugar quotas? Report, London School of Economics and Overseas Development Institute, DESTIN DV406 Research Project.
12. Gohin, A. and Moschini, G. (2006). Evaluating the market and welfare impacts of agricultural policies in developed countries: comparison of partial and general equilibrium measures. Review of Agricultural Economics 28: 67-81.
13. Gohin, A. and Latruffe, L. (2006). The Luxembourg Common Agricultural Policy reform and the European food industries: what's at stake? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54: 173-192.
14. Golan, A., Moretti, E. and Perloff, J. (1999). An information-based sample-selection estimation model of agricultural workers' choice between piece-rate and hourly work. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 735-741.
15. Golan, A., Perloff, J. M. and Shen, E. Z. (2001). Estimating a demand system with nonnegativity constraints: Mexican meat demand. Review of Economics and Statistics 83:541-550.
16. Hertel, T. W. (2002). Applied general equilibrium analysis of agricultural and resource policies. In: B. L. Gardner and G. C. Rausser (eds), Handbook of Agricultural Economics. North Holland.
17. House of Lords (2006). Too much or too little? Changes to the EU sugar regime. 18th Report of Session 2005-06, European Union Committee. Volume I (report) and Vol II (evidence). House of Lords, London, UK.
18. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P. and Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. Journal of Econometrics 54: 159-178.
19. Kopp, J. and de Gorter, H. (2005). The economics of cross-subsidization: Implications of the WTO panels on EU sugar and Canadian dairy. Paper presented at the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium symposium 'Pressures for Agricultural Policy Reform', Seville, Spain, June 21-25.
20. LMC (2004). Addressing the impact of preference erosion in sugar on developing countries. Study prepared for DFID, Landell Mills Corporation International and Oxford Policy Management, London.
21. Mahler, P. (1994). Efficiency losses as a result of insufficient structural adjustments due to the EC sugar regime: the case of Germany. European Review of Agricultural Economics 21: 199-218.
22. Mitchell, D. (2005). Sugar policies: opportunity for change. In: A. Aksoy and J. C. Beghin (eds), Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries, The World Bank.
23. OECD (2005). An Analysis of Sugar Policy Reform And Trade Liberalisation. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
24. Poonyth, D., Westhoff, P., Womack, A. and Adams, G. (2000). Impacts of WTO restrictions on subsidized EU sugar exports. Agricultural Economics 22: 233-245.
25. Rozakis, S. and Sourie, J. C. (2005). Micro-economic modelling of biofuel system in France to determine tax exemption policy under uncertainty. Energy Policy 33: 171-182.
26. Sourie, J. C., Treguer, D. and Rozakis, S. (2005). L'ambivalence des filières biocarburants. INRA Sciences Sociales 2: 1-8.
27. Revoredo, C., Renwick, A. and Reader, M. (2005). UK sugar beet farm productivity under different reform scenarios: a farm level analysis. Paper presented at the 11 th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economics, Copenhagen, August 2005.
28. Roumasset, J. A. (1977). Risk aversion, indirect utility functions, and market failure. In: J. A. Roumasset, J. M. Boussard and I. Singh (eds), Risk, Uncertainty and Agricultural Development, Agricultural Development Council, 93-113.
29. Swedish Competition Authority (2002). Sweet Fifteen: The Competition on the EU Sugar Markets. Report 2002:7.
30. Talks, P. (2005). EU Agrees Sugar Reform. Global Agriculture Information Network Report E35225, US Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C., November 30.
31. van der Mensbrugghe, D., Beghin, J. and Mitchell, D. (2003). Modeling tariff rate quotas in a global context: the case of sugar markets in OECD Countries. Working Paper 03-WP 343, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University.
32. van der Linde, M., Minne, V., Wooning, A. and van der Zee, F. (2000). Evaluation of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector. Evaluation Report for EC, DG Agri. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm.
33. Witzke, H. P. and Kuhn, A. (2003). Assessing reform options for the sugar common market organisation. Quantitative analyses with interlinked models. Paper presented at Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues, October 2003, Stuttgart-Hohenheim.
34. Wohlgenant, M. K. (1999). Effects of trade liberalization on the world sugar market. Report prepared for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
35. WTO (2004). Doha Work Programme. Draft General Council Decision of 31 July 2004. WT/GC/W/535 and corrigendum, General Council, World Trade Organization.
36. WTO (2005a). Doha Work Programme, Ministerial Declaration adopted on 18 December 2005. WT/MIN(05)DEC, 22 December 2005.
37. WTO (2005b). European Communities-Export Subsidies on Sugar-AB-2005-2-Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS265/AB/R. World Trade Organization, Geneva.