Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:27:08.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. TRQs for Peanuts, Sugar, and Tobacco: Historical Allocation and Nondiscrimination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

David Skully
David Skully*
Affiliation:
USDA's Economic Research Service
Get access

Abstract

U.S. peanut, sugar, and tobacco tariff rate quotas (TRQs) are allocated to suppliers on an historical market share basis. Once allocated they become difficult to redistribute to accommodate changes in comparative advantage among suppliers. The distribution of trade departs increasingly from the tariff-equivalent distribution advocated by the WTO principle of nondiscrimination. Article ΧIII of the GATT regarding the rules for historical allocation is examined and applied to four cases of historical allocation: domestic tobacco quota and TRQs for peanuts, sugar and tobacco. The difference between the law enforcement objective of the WTO and the Pareto optimization objective assumed by economists is stressed throughout.

Type
Issues in the Administration of Tariff-Rate Import Quotas in the Agreement on Agriculture in the WTO
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , April 2000 , pp. 81 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Becker, Gary S. 1982. “A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 98(3): 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capehart, Tom. 1997. “The Tobacco Progam: a Summary and Update.” In, Tobacco: Situation and Outlook Report, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, April (TBS-238):31-34.Google Scholar
Capehart, Tom. 1999. “Tobacco Products.” In, Tobacco: Situation and Outlook Report, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September (TBS-244):4-9.Google Scholar
Daniel, Pete. 1985. Breaking the Land: The Transformation of Cotton, Tobacco, and Rice Culture Since 1880. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hudec, Robert E. 1997. “Tiger, Tiger in the House: a Critical Appraisal of the Case Against Discriminatory Trade Measures.” In, Implementing the Uruguay Round, Jackson, John H. and Sykes, Alan O., Eds. 167–212. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, John H. 1969. World Trade and the Law of the GATT. Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Nourse, Edwin G., Davis, Joseph S., and Black, John D. 1937. Three Years of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Rucker, Randal R., Thurman, Walter N., and Sumner, Daniel A. 1995. Restricting the Market for Quota: an Analysis of Tobacco Production Rights with Corroboration from Congressional Testimony. Journal of Political Economy 103(1): 142–175.Google Scholar
Skully, D. 1998. “Auctioning the Tariff Quota for U.S Sugar Imports.” In, Sugar and Sweetener: Situation and Outlook Report. Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May (SSS-223):17-22.Google Scholar
Skully, D. 1999a. “The Economics of TRQ Administration.” International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium Working Paper 99-6, May.Google Scholar
Skully, D. 1999b. “U.S. Tariff Rate Quotas for Peanuts.” In, Oil Crops Yearbook. Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, October (OCS-1999):45-53Google Scholar
Trela, Irene and Whalley, John. 1995. Internal Quota Allocation Schemes and the Costs of the MFA. Review of International Economics 3(3): 284–306.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division. 1999. “Sugar Program: Changing the Method for Setting Import Quotas Could Reduce Cost to Users.” GAO/RCED-99-209.Google Scholar