Grant, Wyn (2006) Why it won't be like this all the time: the shift from duopoly to oligopoly in agricultural trade. Working Paper. University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, Coventry.

Preview

PDF WRAP_Grant_wp19106.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (90Kb)

Abstract

Agricultural trade remains highly politicised and securing agreement on further change is one of the most critical and difficult tasks in the Doha Round. There has been a shift from a EU-US power duopoly in the Uruguay Round to an oligopolistic form of decision-making that incorporates the G-20 representing emerging countries. Market access has been the most difficult issue to resolve and internal opposition to a settlement is growing in the US and EU. Nevertheless, a settlement is still achievable, but not at Hong Kong.

Item Type:	Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)
Subjects:	S Agriculture > S Agriculture (General) H Social Sciences > HF Commerce H Social Sciences > HD Industries. Land use. Labor
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Politics and International Studies Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	World Trade Organization, Group of Twenty, Doha Development Agenda (2001- ), Agriculture -- Economic aspects, International trade
Series Name:	Working papers (University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation)
Publisher:	University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
Place of Publication:	Coventry
Date:	January 2006
Number:	No.191
Number of Pages:	40
Status:	Not Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
References:	Coleman, W., Grant, W. and Josling T. (2004) Agriculture in the New Global Economy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar). Grant, W. (2004) ‘Is a more multilateral trade policy possible?’, Review of International Studies, 30, 537-44. Henning, S. (2005) ‘Geographical Indications (GIs): Squaring the Doha Round circle’, Agra Europe, No. 2180, 28 October 2005, A1-A2. Josling, T. (2005) ‘Geographical Indications: Protection for Producers or Consumer Information?’ paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Coffs Harbour, 7-11 February 2005. Narlikar, A. (2003) International Trade and Developing Countries: Bargaining coalitions in the GATT and WTO (London: Routldege). Oxfam (2005) ‘A round for free: How rich countries are getting a free ride on agricultural subsidies at the WTO’, http://www.oxfam.org/eng/pdfs/bn050615_dumping_roundforfree Phillips, N. (2005) ‘Globalization Studies in International Political Economy’ in N. Phillips (ed.) Globalizing International Political Economy (Basingstoke: Palgrave) Rogan, J. (2005) Van Morrison: No Surrender (London: Secker and Warburg). Rude, J. (2001) ‘Under the green box. The WTO and farm subsidies’, Journal of World Trade, 35 (5), 1015-1033. Swinbank, A. and Tranter, R. (eds) (2004) A Bond Scheme for Common Agricultural Policy Reform (Wallingford: CABI Publishing). Swinbank, A. and Tranter, R. (2005) ‘Decoupling EU Farm Support: Does the New Single Payment Scheme Fit within the Green Box?’, Estey Centre Journal of International Trade and Policy, 6 (1), 47-61. Williamson, J. (1977) The Failure of World Monetary Reform, 1971-74 (Sunbury-on-Thames: Thomas Nelson). Wilson, G. (2005) ‘Farmers, Interests and the American State’ in D. Halpin (ed.) Surviving Global Change: Agricultural Interest Groups in Comparative Perspective (Aldershot: Ashgate), 167-87.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/1912

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item