The European Union’s common agricultural policy and developing countries: the struggle for coherence

Journal of European Integration

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 381-399

  Matthews, Alan ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

agricultural trade; Common Agricultural Policy; developing countries; Policy coherence

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044912710     PISSN: 07036337     EISSN: 14772280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07036330802141998     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Anderson, K., and Martin, W., 2006. Agricultural trade reform and the Doha development agenda, New York: World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE). 2007. The European Union’s agricultural policy: a stocktake of reforms, Canberra: ABARE (Research Report 07.13).
3. Bouët, A., 2006. What can the poor expect from trade liberalization? Opening the “black box” of trade modelling, Washington D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute. (MTID Discussion Paper 93)
4. Bureau, J.C., Jean, S., and Matthews, A., 2006. The consequences of agricultural trade liberalization for developing countries: distinguishing between genuine benefits and false hopes. World Trade Review, 5(2): 225–249.
5. Carbone, M., 2008. Mission impossible: the European Union and policy coherence for development. Journal of European Integration, 30(3): 323–342.
6. Chaplin, H., and Matthews, A., 2005. Coping with the fallout for preference receiving countries from eu sugar reform. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 7(1): 15–31.
7. Commission of the European Communities. 13 February 2003 2003. Facts and figures on EU trade in agricultural products: open to trade, open to developing countries, 13 February 2003, Brussels: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Memo/03.
8. Commission of the European Communities. 2005a. Policy coherence for development: accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals, Brussels: COM (2005) 134.
9. Commission of the European Communities. 2005b. Action plan on accompanying measures for sugar protocol countries affected by the reform of the EU sugar regime, Brussels: Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2005)61.
10. Commission of the European Communities. 2007a. EU report on policy coherence for development, Brussels: Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2007)1202.
11. Commission of the European Communities. 2007b. Preparing for the “health check” of the CAP reform, Brussels: COM (2007) 722.
12. CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU). 2007. Rice Executive Brief Available at: http://agritrade.cta.int/en/commodities/rice_sector/executive_brief. [accessed 23 August 2007]
13. Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture. 2003. Memorandum on coherence between agricultural and development policy, The Hague.
14. European Centre for Development Policy Management and others. 2007. Evaluation of the EU institutions & member states’ mechanisms for promoting policy coherence for development, Brussels: Evaluation Services of the European Union.
15. Gillson, I., Hewitt, A., and Page, S., 2006. Forthcoming changes in the EU banana/sugar markets: a menu of options for an effective EU transitional package, London: Overseas Development Institute.
16. Goodison, P., 2007. The ACP experience of preference erosion in the banana and sugar sectors and possible policy responses to assist in adjusting to trade changes, Geneva: International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development.
17. Matthews, A., 2007. The development interest in reform of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, Washington D.C.: The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
18. Milner, C., and Morgan, W., 2004. EU farm subsidies and the interests of developing countries, London: Commonwealth Secretariat (Commonwealth Trade Hot Topics Issue 32.
19. OECD. 2007. Agricultural policies in OECD countries: Monitoring and evaluation 2007, Paris: OECD.
20. Oxfam. 2002. Stop the dumping: how EU agricultural policies are damaging livelihoods in the developing world, London: Oxfam. (Briefing Paper 31)
21. Panagariya, A., 2005. Agricultural liberalisation and the least developed countries: six fallacies. World Economy, 28(9): 1277–1299.