One Perspective on U.S. Policy and Agricultural Progress in World Trade Organization Negotiations

The first step in this chapter is to clarify my topic by defining terms and objectives. Progress is like beauty. Most economists behold open agricultural markets as beautiful as well as conducive of human well-being in the broadest sense, but such a view is not universal. To the eye of this beholder, “progress” in trade negotiations is defined as movement toward more open markets with fewer barriers and with trade conducted primarily on a commercial basis without government trade taxes or subsidies. This oldfashioned view ( Johnson, 1950 ) is standard for economists and for much of the educated public (although we must be careful not to define the term “educated” so as to be circular in defining progress). This view of progress is also imbedded within the very definition or at least the mission statement of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO Web site states. The WTO is the only international body dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, the legal ground-rules for international commerce and for trade policy. The agreements have three main objectives: to help trade flow as freely as possible, to achieve further liberalization gradually through negotiation, and to set up an impartial means of settling disputes. (WTO, < https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatise.htm >)