MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WTO Constraints on Domestic Support in Agriculture: Past and Future

2009· article· en· W2031526979 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lars Brink

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureNegotiationWelfare economicsPolitical scienceInternational tradeEconomicsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The domestic support provisions in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture originate in the 1958 Haberler Report. Economic analysis often overlooks the agreement's legally important distinctions. Few domestic support issues lead to dispute settlement proceedings. The Doha negotiations would result in more constraints on domestic support than the sole commitment on Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) in the present agreement: ceilings on overall trade‐distorting support and blue box payments, and also product‐specific caps. Some 18 members would reduce their Total AMS commitments, and 25 would reduce the de minimis percentages. Most members would not reduce their constraints at all or only little. If today's developing countries continue to grow as they did in recent decades, their capacity to support agriculture increases significantly. If they then choose to support agriculture as today's developed countries did at the same stage of economic development, the future WTO constraints on trade‐distorting domestic support would allow them to provide considerably more such support than developed countries. Les règles sur le soutien interne de l'Accord sur l'agriculture de l'OMC tirent son origine du rapport ≪Haberler≫ de 1958. L'analyse économique oublie souvent les distinctions d'importance juridique de l'accord. Peu de questions en soutien interne entraînent des procédures de règlement des différends. Les négociations de Doha se solderaient par plus de contraintes sur le soutien que le seul engagement de l'accord actuel, celui sur la mesure globale de soutien (MGS) totale. Ces contraintes comprennent des plafonds sur le soutien interne global ayant des effets de distorsion des échanges et sur les paiements dans la boîte bleue, ainsi que des plafonds par produit. Environ 18 membres réduiraient leurs engagements sur la MGS totale, et 25 membres réduiraient les pourcentages de minimis. La plupart des membres ne réduiraient pas leurs engagements ou les réduiraient seulement un peu. Si la croissance économique des pays, qui aujourd'hui sont en voie de développement, continue au même taux que dans les décennies récentes, leur capacité de soutenir leur agriculture augmente. S'ils choisissaient dans l'avenir de soutenir leur agriculture, comme l'ont fait les pays qui sont aujourd'hui les pays développés lorsqu'ils se trouvaient au même stage de développement, les contraintes futures de l'OMC sur le soutien interne faussant les échanges permettraient aux pays en voie de développement d'accorder de tel soutien dans des montants considérablement plus importants que ceux des pays développés.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207