customwritingtips.com

English French German Portuguese Russian Spanish
You are here Home
Thursday, 15 May 2014 05:58

Economy Protection Featured

WRITTEN_BY  Administrator
Rate this item
(0 votes)
 
Economy Protection
 
Introduction
  The protection of infant industries, prevention of dumping, protection of domestic employment and the need for self-sufficiency offers the need for market or economy protection. The comparative advantage is a system that puts into accounts the different productivity levels and scarce resources, (Alvin, 2010). The scarce resources include the capital, labor and land.  The provision of the DOHA agreement and Uruguay round assure the definition of the different tasks and quality requirements, (Garcia, 2010). The countries can easily trade their production with the respective products. The countries can easily benefit through the utilization of the scarce resources. 
 Purpose of paper
The editorial offers insight on the probable ways for the administration of states economy or comparative advantage.  The assessment of the Uruguay Round or the Doha Development Agenda offers insight on different types of changes. 
Overview of paper
The research will be based on the assessment of the Uruguay Round or the Doha Development Agenda. The assessment will assess their impact on agricultural subsidies. The assessment of the agricultural subsidies findings will be assessed
Thesis
DOHA agreement and Uruguay round have enabled states competitive advantage.
Discussion
Case Summary
 The case identifies the different forms of conflict and ways applied to control the conflicts. The agricultural subsidy case analysis acknowledges the conflict that was within the USA and Japan over Apples production. The other conflict is with USA and EU over the production of the Bananas. The DOHA Development agenda has focused on the control of the conflict. DOHA has provided rules on the placement of the tariffs and Quotas, (Garcia, 2010). This has enabled the control of the market access for the different countries. DOHA has engaged in the placement of the export subsidies, (Alvin, 2010). This has been based on the encouragement of specific countries to produce a product. The production or direct subsidies have been considered harmful for the markets. The direct subsidies increase the chances of over production. The over-production of products increases dumping opportunities for the different countries. 
The article supports the provision of the indirect support for the production of products for the markets. The indirect support for the development and research deals with the construction and recognition of the permissible and desirable requirements, (Brewer, 2010).  The DOHA development agenda has increased the limitation of the country’s agriculture through the pushing of the limits for the government practices that bock their access to the markets and high income countries.  DOHA has been able to Block countries access to the high income countries. 
 Uruguay Round and the Doha Development
 The significance of Uruguay Round and the Doha Development has been on domestic support, market access and export subsidies changes, (Brewer, 2010). The agricultural subsidies are the most effective mechanisms for the acceleration of the growth in the agricultural sectors.  The agricultural subsidies have been considered the tools that allow the development of the countries in maintaining the supremacy, (Jeremiah, 2010).  The controversies of the subsidies have been based on the unfair advantage that has been offered to the farmers in the development of the countries that sell the goods at the low prices. The countries in the South have had enough resources for the subsidizing of the farmers in the similar fashion. The USA has proposed the ban on the different types of subsidies. The US and EU have offered large supports to the international markets. The DOHA development has been based on offering the blueprint for the cutting of tariffs, reduction of the agricultural subsidies and the increase of flexibilities in the market analysis and impact assessment, (Alvin, 2010).   The agendas have allowed the market access for the different countries. The tariffs for the organization have been cut in accordance to the set formula of steep cuts on the high tariffs. The Uruguay round allowed the changes in the agricultural subsidies through the assessment of the domestic support, market access and export subsidies changes. 
The agenda and Uruguay have offered the stipulation for the limit of the current tariffs in agriculture. This has been based on providing rules on market access.  The Uruguay round impacted the access by exempting the least developed countries from the tariffs.  The high tariffs offer high cuts. This means that the volumes range from 50% to 73 %. The management is subject to the minimum average for the development of the countries. 33.3% to 48 % of the students engage in the development of the tasks for the organization.   The market access focuses on the assessment of the sensitive products, flexibilities and contingencies.  
The export subsidies impact has been on the assessment of the sensitive state of the product in the markets.  The developed countries were mandated to reduce the export subsidies to 36%, in value, or 21%, in volume, (Brewer, 2010). This allows the determination of the cuts for the tariffs for the organization. The sensitive products are offered the cut of 1/3 or ½ or 2/3 from the normal cut. The quantity that is allowed for the product is at the lower quota.  The assessment focuses on the assessment of the applied tariffs that are lower than the bound tariffs. The cuts are required to be made legal with the bound rates. The tariffs have been charged lower than what was anticipated for the legal bound rates. The bound tariffs will be based on the assessment of the 100%. The other impact is where the tariffs, safeguards and tariffs quotas are assessed about the country’s status.  The least developed countries could have no cuts on the agricultural products. This has made the developing countries make small cuts and low flexibilities for the vulnerable, small and developed economies. 
DOHA and Uruguay Round have allowed the support of the farmer and the agriculture. The support for the prices and earnings allow the accordance for the product to be eliminated. The agendas have impacted the export competition, (Brewer, 2010).   For example, the US was asked by the EU and other developing countries to offer generous reduction to the tariffs that distort the trade in the domestic support culture, (Garcia, 2010).  The import sensitive products would be based on the assessment of the exemption of cuts. The export subsidies have been eliminated about the long development of the countries. The revision of the provisions for the insurance, guarantees and export credits have allowed the offering of revised provisions.
Analysis
Agricultural Subsidies for 2007
                                                                (US$)                 As a Percent of Farm Receipts                                                                                                
European Union                    134318000000                                         26
Japan                                                35230000000                                         45
United States                                   32663000000                                         10
Canada                                                 7001000000                                                     18
Australia                                   1827000000                                                          6
 The table indicates that the European Union has the highest absolute advantage as compared to the other states.  The state of Japan has a higher comparative advantage than the EU, but little revenue as compared to EU.  The United States had sales of 32663 million while its farm receipts were only ten percent. The state of Canada had sales of 7001 million with 18 percent as the farm receipts, (Alvin, 2010).  Canada had a higher percentage of farm receipts than the USA.  The state of Australia had the lowest sales for the agricultural products. Australia recorded the sales for 1827 million with six percent of the farm receipts. 
The comparative advantage is considered the ability of the country or the state to produce a good or the service that is at a low opportunity coast as compared to the firms or individuals. The comparative advantage allows the provision of the company to sell the services and goods at the low prices that the competitors, (Garcia, 2010). This allows the realization of the string sales margin for the country. The absolute advantage for the countries is based on the proficiency of the services and goods to be produced at a low cost per unit.  The absolute advantage offers the country the ability to produce a lot of goods as compared to another country. This is within the same timeframe. 
Conclusion
In conclusion, DOHA agreement and Uruguay round have enabled states competitive advantage.  The research was based on the assessment of the latest round for the trade negotiations that are among the WTO membership. The   DOHA agreement and Uruguay round allowed the reforms for the international trading systems. The round was based on the improvement of the trading prospects for the developed countries.   The research offered the following insight.  The protection of infant industries, prevention of dumping, protection of domestic employment and the need for self-sufficiency are the main causes for the protection of states economies. 
 
Reference
Alvin, E. (2010). Market Access through spring Tariffs: Scottish Journal on Political financial system, 57, 3, 272-289 
Brewer, T. (2010). Trade Policies and temperature Change Policies: A Rapidly increase for Joint Agenda. Journal on World Economy, 33, 6, 799-809 
Garcia, R. (2010). How effectual are WTO Disciplines for household Support and marketplace admission for Agriculture: Journal on World Economy, 33, 11, 214- 230 
Jeremiah, L. (2010). Government-Led Export endorsement in glow of Distributional equality in the Global trade System: Journal on Economic Issues, 44, 4, 877-894 
 
Last modified on Thursday, 15 May 2014 06:05
Trusted Site Seal SSL Certificate Provider SSL