1997•Agricultural EconomicsRequires access

Food aid, food policy and the Uruguay round: implications for Bangladesh

Peter G. WARR, Helal Ahammad

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Abstract The relationship between the effects of food aid and those of the completion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT are studied in this paper, focusing upon the food aid recipient countries, and taking Bangladesh as an illustrative example. It is argued that, among other factors, the magnitudes of these effects depend crucially on the policy environment within the food aid recipient country itself, particularly the government's policy with respect to commercial food imports. It is shown that when the quantity of Bangladesh's commercial food imports is controlled by the government, the benefits derived from food aid are smaller than when these imports are liberalised. Likewise, the negative effects that the Uruguay Round may be expected to have on Bangladesh will also he larger if commercial food imports are subject to quantitative controls than if they are liberalised. The effects the Uruguay Round will have on Bangladesh will also depend on the way food aid donors respond to the Round. If donors reduce the volumes of food aid, either because of reduced food surpluses resulting from lower agricultural subsidies, or in response to increased international food prices resulting from the Round, the losses incurred by Bangladesh will be magnified. But these effects will also depend heavily on whether Bangladesh itself participates in the liberalisations that are central to the Round itself. If it were to participate fully, the negative effects that the Uruguay Round would otherwise have on Bangladesh may be entirely offset by the gains Bangladesh would derive from its own liberalisation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract The relationship between the effects of food aid and those of the completion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT are studied in this paper, focusing upon the food aid recipient countries, and taking Bangladesh as an illustrative example. It is argued that, among other factors, the magnitudes of these effects depend crucially on the policy environment within the food aid recipient country itself, particularly the government's policy with respect to commercial food imports. It is shown that when the quantity of Bangladesh's commercial food imports is controlled by the government, the benefits derived from food aid are smaller than when these imports are liberalised. Likewise, the negative effects that the Uruguay Round may be expected to have on Bangladesh will also he larger if commercial food imports are subject to quantitative controls than if they are liberalised. The effects the Uruguay Round will have on Bangladesh will also depend on the way food aid donors respond to the Round. If donors reduce the volumes of food aid, either because of reduced food surpluses resulting from lower agricultural subsidies, or in response to increased international food prices resulting from the Round, the losses incurred by Bangladesh will be magnified. But these effects will also depend heavily on whether Bangladesh itself participates in the liberalisations that are central to the Round itself. If it were to participate fully, the negative effects that the Uruguay Round would otherwise have on Bangladesh may be entirely offset by the gains Bangladesh would derive from its own liberalisation.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract The relationship between the effects of food aid and those of the completion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT are studied in this paper, focusing upon the food aid recipient countries, and taking Bangladesh as an illustrative example. It is argued that, among other factors, the magnitudes of these effects depend crucially on the policy environment within the food aid recipient country itself, particularly the government's policy with respect to commercial food imports. It is shown that when the quantity of Bangladesh's commercial food imports is controlled by the government, the benefits derived from food aid are smaller than when these imports are liberalised. Likewise, the negative effects that the Uruguay Round may be expected to have on Bangladesh will also he larger if commercial food imports are subject to quantitative controls than if they are liberalised. The effects the Uruguay Round will have on Bangladesh will also depend on the way food aid donors respond to the Round. If donors reduce the volumes of food aid, either because of reduced food surpluses resulting from lower agricultural subsidies, or in response to increased international food prices resulting from the Round, the losses incurred by Bangladesh will be magnified. But these effects will also depend heavily on whether Bangladesh itself participates in the liberalisations that are central to the Round itself. If it were to participate fully, the negative effects that the Uruguay Round would otherwise have on Bangladesh may be entirely offset by the gains Bangladesh would derive from its own liberalisation.

Key concepts: Food aid, Subsidy, Liberalization, Economics, International economics, Agriculture, Food policy, Developing country

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Food aid, food policy and the Uruguay round: implications for Bangladesh — Research Paper | ScholarLens