El Banco Mundial ha publicado recientemente dos Policy Research Working Papers de Kym Anderson y colaboradores donde se analizan las relaciones entre subsidios agrícolas, comercio y deesarrollo. Los resultados se basan en análisis y modelos econométricos de paneles de datos globales desagregados por países. Sus principales conclusiones muestran un efecto negativo neto y nítido de los subsidios y, especialmente, los aranceles agrícolas sobre el desarrollo de los países pobres. Por tanto, globalmente, el aumento de la libertad de mercado entre países provocaría un aumento neto de los beneficios de los agricultores de países en desarrollo. Pero, en ciertos países pobres, que o bien son importadores netos de alimentos o bien gozan en la actualidad de condiciones de exportación preferentes con países ricos, un aumento de la libertad de mercado supondría efectos negativos. Además, se demuestra estadísticamente que la contribución al bienestar económico global de la eliminación de los subsidios agrícolas es sólo menos de una décima parte de lo que supondría la eliminación de los aranceles agrícolas. [En los enlaces puede obtenerse el artículo completo en versión pdf].
1. Kym Anderson & Ernesto Valenzuela. Do global trade distortions still harm developing country farmers? (WPS3901).
ABSTRACT. The authors estimate the impact of global merchandise trade distortions and services regulations on agricultural value added in various countries. Using the latest versions of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) database and the GTAP-AGR model of the global economy, their results suggest real net farm incomes would rise in developing countries with a move to free trade, thereby alleviating rural poverty. This occurs despite a terms of trade deterioration for developing countries that are net food importers or that enjoy preferential access to agricultural markets of high-income countries. The authors also show, for several large developing countries, the contribution of their own versus other countries' trade policies.
2. Kym Anderson, Ernesto Valenzuela & Will Martin. The relative importance of global agricultural subsidies and market access (WPS3900).
ABSTRACT. The claim by global trade modelers that the potential contribution to global economic welfare of removing agricultural subsidies is less than one-tenth of that from removing agricultural tariffs puzzles many observers. To help explain that result, the authors first compare the OECD and model-based estimates of the extent of the producer distortions (leaving aside consumer distortions), and show that 75 percent of total support is provided by market access barriers when account is taken of all forms of support to farmers and to agricultural processors globally, and only 19 percent to domestic farm subsidies. Then the authors provide a back-of-the-envelope (BOTE) calculation of the welfare cost of those distortions. Assuming unitary supply and demand elasticities, that BOTE analysis suggests 86 percent of the welfare cost is due to tariffs and only 6 percent to domestic farm subsidies. When the higher costs associated with the greater variability of trade measures relative to domestic support are accounted for, the BOTE estimate of the latter's share falls to 4 percent. This is close to the 5 percent generated by the most commonly used global model (GTAP) and reported in the paper's final section.
