Content deleted Content added
ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m Reverting possible vandalism by 167.217.31.106 to version by Serols. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (3657490) (Bot) |
|||
Line 19:
Anderson et al. (1999) estimate annual [[welfare]] losses of $19.8 billion for developing countries from agricultural tariffs – even after [[Uruguay Round]] reforms. This is three times the loss from [[OECD]] import restrictions on textiles and clothing. A combination of better market access, and domestic reforms and foreign aid to enhance the ability of developing countries to take advantage of it, could have a significant impact on poverty reduction, and help to meet the [[Millennium Development Goals]].
The largest beneficiaries of agricultural [[economic liberalization|liberalization]] would be OECD countries themselves: welfare losses of $62.9bn a year are estimated as resulting from the distortionary policies (Binswanger and Ernst 1999:5). Nor is the traditional objective of OECD agricultural subsidy (supporting small farmers) achieved by this system in a manner that could be characterised as efficient: most of the producer support incomes goes to better-off farmers, with the poorest 40% receiving just 8% of the support spent
==Market access==
| |||