Food security though public stockholdings and trade distortions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The issue of subsidized acquisition of food stocks for food security purposes has become a contentious issue at the World Trade Organization (WTO) due to their potential impact on international trade. The purpose of this paper is to provide estimates of the effects on trade of stockholding programs designed specifically to meet a food security objective. Design/methodology/approach A spatial-temporal trade model is developed and then the effects of stockholding policies which satisfy food security goals are simulated and compared to the case where stockholdings are not allowed. Findings The results suggest that if stockholding policies that satisfy food security goals are allowed in the case of all importing countries and all G-33 developing countries trade will increase significantly during the stock acquisition phase but will have a negative impact on trade during stock disposal. If stockholding policies are restricted to small high food security risk countries, however, the impacts on trade would not be large enough to be of international concern. Originality/value The results suggests that a permanent solution at the WTO might lie in exemptions for small high food security risk countries rather than a one size fits all rule applied to all developing countries. Trade policy makers have been charged with finding a permanent solution to the issue of subsidized public stockholdings for food security purposes but have been hampered, in part, by a dearth of empirical estimates of the effect of such stockholdings on trade. This paper informs the negotiations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".