Price Distortions in Agriculture and Their Effects:Arn International Comparison
SWP-359
Wol ld Bank Staff Working Paper No. 359
OctDber 1979
y: Malcolm D. Bale and Ernst LutzJ 2C * * Economic Analysis and Projections Department
HF Development Policy Staff541 6. 5 © 1979
P5 Bank2 . eet, N.W.
n, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.
* ethose of the authorsi ts aff ilIiated
ehalf.
SLCO1 8366
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
The views and interpretations in this document are those of the author andshould not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations,or to any individual acting in their behalf.
WORLD BANK ..
Staff Working Paper No. 359
October 1979 p\gG
PRICE DISTORTIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND THEIR EFFECTS:
AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
The central thesis of this paper is that agricultural pricing policiespursued by developing countries produce effects which are diametricallyopposite to those produced by the pricing policies of many developed coun-tries, and that the policies of both are costly in terms of global welfare.
In general, the agricultural sector in developing countries is heavily taxedwhile that in the developed countries receives substantial price protection.The effects of agricultural price distortions on output, consumption, tradeand rural employment are estimated for nine countries. In addition, theeffects of priee distortidns on the distribution of income between producersand consumers, on goverunment revenue and foreign exchange, and the net social
losses of the policies are calculated. The results indicate that there arelarge income transfers and impacts on migration from the rural to the urbansector in developing countries and from the urban to the rural sector indeveloped economies.
To insure proper interpretation of this paper and its policy implications,attention is drawn to the following caveats: some secondary data is of question-able quality and could be improved; specific methodological questions raisedin the course of this research have been inadequately addressed; the resultsare based on only one year (1976); and some personal judgements were requiredfor determining certain data input. For these reasons the results should be
interpreted with caution. They represent orders of magnitude and should be
considered tentative. The paper is the.first phase of work in progress onthe issue of agricultural price distortions.
Prepared by: Malcolm D. Bale and Ernst LutzEconomic Analysis and Projections DepartmentDevelopment Policy Staff
Copyright 1979The World Bank1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433USA
PRICE DISTORTIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND THEIR EFFECTS:AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
Introduction
Agriculture is the main source of food for the world, and food
is the basic input in the daily sustenance of humans. Yet in many parts
of the world there is insufficient food which in turn implies inadequate
agricultural output. The reasons for inadequate agricultural production
are many and varied, ranging from poor distribution and poor production
techniques to political intervention at various levels in the global agri-
cultural complex. The most important reason for deficient agricultural
output is difficult to ascertain, but T.W. Schultz in the first Elmhurst
Memorial Lecture to the International Association of Agricultural Econo-
mists left no doubt as to his ranking of the causes. He suggested that
the level of agricultural production depends not so much on technical con-
siderations, but in large measure "on what governments do to agriculture." 1/
That governments intervene in the agricultural price setting
mechanism in many different ways and for assorted reasons is so obvious
as to be pedestrian. Export taxes on agricultural products provide govern-
ment revenue and keep domestic prices low, product price supports in developed
countries maintain farm incomes and provide surpluses which in turn find their
way to developing country markets to further depress domestic farm prices,
and agricultural inputs are frequently either taxed or subsidized. Yet the
magnitude of these effects on agricultural output, income distribution
between producers and consumers, efficiency and on rural employment is
often not fully appreciated.
Government alteration of market incentives in agriculture can
be classified in three ways based on the output effects of the interven-
tion (after Schultz, 1978). First, there are economic policies which
are neutral with respect to the opportunity cost of agricultural production.
Second, there are cases where agricultural production is overvalued, and
finally, there are cases where agricultural production is undervalued.
There are few countries that meet the first classification and we do not
attempt to identify them here. Typically high income developed countries
fall into the second category. In this study, we examine Japan, West Germany,
France and Britain, countries where high levies are placed on grain imports,
where sugar, meat and dairy imports are highly restricted by quotas, and
where, in the case of Japan, rice is greatly overpriced. The immediate
consequence of these policies is that there is overproduction and under-
consumption of agricultural output. The third category is typically made
up of low-income developing national. Here, as examples, we examine the
pricing policies of Thailand, Egypt, Argentina and Pakistan, where export
taxes and price controls often undervalue agricultural output resulting
in underproduction. The food situation in many of these nations is such
that they cannot afford to forego such production opportunities. Finally,
we consider the case of Yugoslavia, sometimes classified as a developing
country and sometimes classified as a centrally planned economy.
This paper discusses government intervention in agricultural
price determination, drawing on welfare theory to quantify the economic
impacts on output, income distribution, efficiency and employment. The
general theme is that the agricultural policies pursued by developing
countries produce effects which are diametrically opposite to those pro-
duced by the policies of many developed countries, and that the policies
of both are costly in terms of global welfare. 2/ The paper begins with
a description of the theoretical model on which the analysis is based then
continues by detailing the data sources. The results are presented in
Section 4, followed by some concluding thoughts.
Method and Theoretical Basis
The results of the paper are derived using standard partial equi-
librium analysis in the Marshallian economic surplus framework. The method
is well known for both its usefulness and limitations. Details are not
presented here, but the reader is referred to Currie, et al for an excellent
review of the concept, to Bale and Greenshields for an application of the
method, and to Lutz and Scandizzo for a review of other studies. In this
paper the real and pecuniary effects of agricultural price distortions in
a small country case are analyzed using nominal protection coefficients to
measure the disparity between domestic prices and border prices. Typical causes of
price distortions are producer price supports, tariffs, quotas, export taxes,
input subsidies, etc. In each case, the distortion drives a wedge between
the domestic price and the world or "border" price. Domestic prices are
defined as the prices at farm and consumer levels, and border prices are
the existing "world" price at the same point in the marketing chain. Border
prices are used as the point of reference for the evaluation because they
represent the opportunity cost of the traded commodities. 3/ They are also
conveniently available as they are observed in the international market-
-4 -
place. Nominal protection coefficients (NPCs) prgvide a metric of the
disparity between domestic prices and international prices, and are defined
as:
NPC = 1 + -drPrPw
where Pd = domestic price, P = border price, and r = the official exchange
rate (Balassa). The basic analytic structure of the model is represented
by equations 1 through 7.
Net social loss in production, NSL . . . . . . (1)
=1/2 (Qw % Q) (Pw - P ) = 1/2 t n Vw p p s
Net social loss in conumption, NSL .. . . . . (2)
1/2 (C - C) (P -P p) 1/2 t n Ww c w c d
Welfare gain of producers, Gp . . . . . . (3)
= Q (P -P) - NSL
Welfare gain of consumer, G . . . . . . (4)
=C (P -P) -NSLw c c
Change in foreign exchange earnings, dF . . . . .(5)
-w (Qw - Q + C - Cw)
Change in government revenue, dG .. . . . (6)
= (NSL +NSLc) - Gp- Gc = -(1) - (2) - (3) - (4)
Change in rural employment, dL = dQ. L/Q . . . . (7)
where: Qw production at world prices, Q = production at domestic prices,
Pw = border prices, P = price faced by domestic producers, P = price faced
by domestic consumers, t , tp = proportion of tariff in domestic price at
the consumer (t c) or the producer (t p) level, n = elasticity of domestic
supply, nd = elasticity of domestic demand, V = value of production at Pp,
W = value of consumption at P c, C = consumption at world prices, C = con-
sumption at domestic prices and L/Q = labor/output coefficient.
-5-
Data Sources
The FAO Production Yearbook is used as a source of production
levels, and imports and exports are obtained from the FAO Trade Yearbook.
Supply and demand elasticities are from Rojko et. al. with the exception
of those for rubber in Thailand that are from Behrman. Since elasticity
estimates differ widely from researcher to researcher, and because we wish
to demonstrate the sensitivity of the results to changes in elasticities,
the supply and demand elasticities presented in Table 1 are + 0.5 times
the point estimates given by Rojko et. al. and Behrman. Nominal protectior
coefficients for developing countries are based on coefficients from detailed
country case studies by Bertrand (Thailand), Cuddihy (Egypt), Gotsch and
Brown (Pakistan), Reca (Argentina), and ULG Consultants Limited (Yugoslavia).
Since some coefficients had only been estimated to 1975, adjustments were
made to obtain the nominal protection coefficients that were used in this study.
The nominal protection coefficients for developed countries were
calculated from the International Wheat Council, International Sugar
Organization, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979, and the World Bank, 1978a.
Note that despite the Common Agricultural Policy of the EC, NPC's of members
are not identical. This is due to the "Monetary Compensatory Amounts" (MCAs)
and "green" currencies where internal EC exchange rates in agriculture differ
from official exchange rates.
Labor/Output Coefficients are constructed from Bartsch, Palacpac,
International Cotton Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1978a,,b,
U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, European Communities
- 6 -
Commission, and the World Bank, 1978b. In the case of developing countries,
marginal labor/output coefficients are derived from a labor-
intensive technology such as hand-harvesting with a bullock-drawn cart
and hand threshing. Average coefficients are simply the average of coefficients
taken from two or three different production techniques on irrigated and
non-irrigated farms. In developed countries, only average coefficients
are available. Marginal coefficients are arbitrarily calculated as 1.5
average coefficients. The conversion rates of man-hours to full-time
worker equivalents, in hours per year, are: France, 1964; West Germany, 2315;
United Kingdom, 2269; Japan, 2450; Yugoslavia, 2450; and developing countries,
2980.
Results
A. Production, Consumption and Trade Effects
Agricultural pricing policies in developed and developing countries
show significant differences. While agricultural commodity prices in developed
countries generally have positive rates of protection, the agricultural sector
in developing countries is being taxed through price intervention measures.
As a result, the levels of agricultural production in industrialized nations
are higher than without intervention whereas agricultural output in less
developed countries are significantly smaller than what it would be in the
absence of distortions. In the high elasticity case, for example, France
and Germany are producing an increment of 4.3 and 2.8 million tons of wheat
respectively due to the price protection, whereas the production in Argentina
and Pakistan is discouraged with a resulting estimated decrease of 7.0 and
1.3 million tons, respectively (Table 2).
-7-
On the other hand with consumption the picture is reversed;
developing countries consume more and developed'countries less than they
would in the absence of price intervention measures. Thus the pricing
policies clearly have a beneficial effect in providing more food for the
malnourished non-agricultural population in LDCs. If this is one of the
policy objectives of price intervention, it is achieved at the expense of
the agricultural sector.
Trade effects are merely the combination of production and
consumption effects. For the general case we find that through the pricing
policies, exports of developing countries are reduced (for exported
commodities with NPC's smaller than 1) and that for the industrialized
nations their imports are curtailed (for imported commodities with NPC's
larger than 1). In the case of imports of developing countries with NPC's
of less than 1, imports are increased by the sum of the absolute values of
the production and consumption effects. This case implies government sub-
sidies; for example for wheat and maize in Egypt. 4/ On the other hand,
export commodities with NPC's larger than 1 imply that dumping is taking
place with export subsidies necessary to bridge the gap between the internal
price and world market price. All five commodities analyzed for France
are examples of this policy.
On the basis of a small sample of countries, it is difficult to
determine what the aggregate effects of the agricultural policies are at
the world market-level. Even for a standard case where developing countries
are exporters using export taxes and where developed countries are importers
with positive rates of protection, the sign of the price impact on the world
market cannot be determined a priori since both net exports adid net imports
- 8 -
are being reduced simultaneously. Hence, it would be necessary to analyze
the policies of all trading countries of a particular commodity before the
world market price impact could be estimated.
B. Employment/Migration Effects
The process of economic development is typically associated
with internal migration from the primary sector in rural areas, to industrial
and service sectors in urban centers (Kuznets, p. 48). Economic theories
of internal human migration conceive the process as a response to differences
in employment opportunities between regions where potential migrants evaluate
costs and benefits associated with relocation and make their decision
accordingly. A primary determinant in such a decision is the relative income
opportunities in rural versus urban locations (Sjaastad, Falario). In spite
of (or because of) 5/ massive development efforts over the last decade, rural
poverty persists in many parts of the world and recent work has demonstrated
that low real income levels of farm households have in some cases declined
(Rajaraman), while various price-support measures to maintain farm incomes
are prevelant in other parts of the world. A common explanation for
rural poverty is that agricultural productivity is low because of tenancy
arrangements and limited access to modern inputs such as controlled irrigation,
chemical fertilizers, pesticides, mechanization, new varieties, credit,
extension services, etc. (Mellor). Yet such explanations avoid the issue of
the effect that product prices have on agricultural productivity and therefore
on employment and migration. Here we attempt to quantify the extent to which
product prices that are undervalued contribute to a sub-optimal rural pop-
ulation and the extent to which product prices that are overvalued contribute
to a larger-than-optimal rural population.
- 9 -
We present four estimates of the agricultural employment impacts
of price distortions in Table 2. Two are based on average labor/output
coefficients using production changes calculated from high and low supply
elasticity estimates. The other two employment changes are calculated using
marginal labor/output coefficients where production changes are based on
high and low supply elasticities. There are three reasons for presenting
the results in this manner. First, we wish to demonstrate the sensitivity
of the employment effects to changes in assumptions. Second, labor coefficients
tend to be rather gross estimates from numerous secondary sources using
different assumptions and typically vary by more than 100 percent within
developing countries for different production techniques of the same crop.
Our results may be regarded as capturing the upper and lower bounds of employ-
ment changes. Third, it can be argued that under a regime of distorted prices,
the marginal operators will be displaced or expanded in response to price
changes. Thus, marginal labor/output coefficients are more appropriate in
estimating agricultural employment impacts.
Referring to the developed countries in Table 2, we see that
existing agricultural pricing policies retain significant numbers of workers
in agriculture. Japanese rice pricing policies are particularly significant,
retaining from between one half of a million workers (low supply elasticity,
average coefficient) to 2 million workers (high supply elasticity, marginal
coefficient). As a proportion of farm population, these numbers are large
(2.1 to 9.6%), and even expressed as a proportion of total population (0.4 to
1.9%) the numbers are significant. In the European countries presented here,
workers retained in agriculture are somewhat smaller both absolutely and relatively.
For example, in France, if free market prices prevailed for the five
- 10 -
commodities, between 52,987 and 241,200 workers in an agricultural labor
force of 8.6 million would be displaced. 6/ In terms of absorption into
the total work force, the numbers amount to 0.16 to 0.75%. While this may seem
to be a rather small percentage it is, nonetheless, significant. In a period
of high general unemployment even one or two points change in the unemployment
rate can involve heavy social and political costs.
In developing countries, agricultural price distortions have
the effect of reducing farm employment from that which would exist under
free market prices. In general, the absolute value of the employment effects
are larger for developing countries than for developed countries, partly
because of the labor-intensive production methods used in developing countries.
The numbers suggest the extent to which price distortions create unemployment
and stimulate migration. Using the high supply elasticity and marginal labor
coefficients in Egypt, for example, the total reduction in agricultural employment
for the four commodities is 1.15 million workers or around five percent of
the rural population. Employment in rice production accounts for a large por-
tion of this. No doubt the numbers would be considerably larger if secondary
(multiplier) effects were considered and if all commodities were covered.
Unemployment and rates of rural to urban migration that exceed
rates of urban job creation are serious problems in developing countries.
While overt unemployment is pronounced in urban centers, disguised
unemployment is prevalent in rural areas (Todaro, Wonnacott). Thus,
any policies that contribute to the problem, such as agricultural product
pricing policies, need to be carefully examined. The conventional lay
wisdom that if farm product prices were to increase in developing countries
poor people would be hurt needs to be scrutinized. Many of the poor are
rural poor or former-rural residents who have migrated to urban areas in
search of better employment opportunities. Higher agricultural prices
could only assist them as farmers, landless laborers, or farm-related
workers. Viewed in a longer run dynamic context, as farmers and farm
laborers realize higher incomes their demand for urban-produced goods
and services will increase, so stimulating employment in urban areas. 7/
C. Welfare Effects
Our results indicate that the economies of the countries analyzed
incur large annual welfare losses due to a misallocation of resources
resulting from the existing agricultural pricing policies (Table 3). The
losses depend linearly on the assumed elasticities and quadratically on
the size of the price distortion as measured by a proportional tariff rate.
Total net social losses are the sum of net social losses in production and
in consumption. They range from $26 million (US) for the United Kingdom
(the low elasticity assumption) to $4,119 million for Japan (the high elasticity
case). Even though the sample of commodities used in this analysis is
small, it is interesting to compare the estimated welfare losses to the GNP
of the countries. The results show that compared to economic output,
distortions are generally more costly in developing countries than in
industrialized nations (Table 4). 8/ Further, the results are obtained from
a partial equilibrium model. Using a general equilibrium analysis that
takes long-run consequences of the price distortions into account, the
estimated social costs would typically be considerably larger.
As our results in Table 5 indicate, the most sizeable effects
of the different agricultural policies are the welfare transfers between
- 12 -
consumers and producers. While the farm sector of the developing countries
studied was taxed from about $700 million to about $2 billion annually,
the producers in developed countries receive large transfers due to
protection. In Japan, where the average rate of protection is the highest,
farmers gain between $2.6 and $5.1 billion for the total of the five major
commodities analyzed. 9/ Consumers in the developed countries incur
large welfare losses due to price protection whereas the consumers in
developing countries generally gain from this type of price intervention.
With the exception of France , all countries acquire increased
government revenues from their interventionist policies. Thus, the fact
that most governments gain from price distortions confirms that government
revenue generation is an objective of price intervention.
The effects on foreign exchange earnings are again clearly
divided along different levels of development. While industrialized nations
gain foreign exchange through protectionist policies, developing countries
lose foreign exchange earnings. This is particularly serious in that foreign
exchange availabilities represent a major bottleneck for developing countries
in their efforts to increase growth and alleviate poverty.
Conclusions
What emerges from this paper is the vital role that farm product
prices play in achieving optimum output and productivity growth. Because
"incorrect" price signals are being given to farmers, allocative, production,
and consumption potentials are not being realized. In many cases, the estimated
changes in production greatly alter trade patterns, in some cases causing
importing countries to become self-sufficient, and in other cases causing
- 13 -
"would-be exporters" to become importers. The magnitude of income transfers
and efficiency losses (net social losses) is also impressive, both as an
absolute number and as a proportion of national income. The rural employment
effects of price distortions, while perhaps less impressive than the welfare
losses, are nonetheless serious, given the high unemployment rates in
developing countries and the political sensitivity of agricultural
employment in developed countries.
The ultimate question about agricultural pricing policies is their
dynamic effects. Here we have seen the size of the static effects but our
model (and the state of technology of our profession) does not allow us to
estimate accurately price distorting effects on income and industrial growth,
adoption of technology, investment in agriculture, social consequences, etc.
While decision-making at the public level is not by agricultural economists,
but by politicians, our profession plays a vital role in defining and
quantifying the issues involved, and in extending these findings to appropriate
officials. Our hope is that this paper is in that tradition.
- 14 -
Footnotes
1/ Schultz has long been the most ardent and eloquent spokesman of this
position. See, for example, Schultz 1964, 1976 and 1978.
2/ A recent study which addresses the developing country side of this
question in a somewhat different manner is Peterson.
3/ We recognize that the general equilibrium effects of removing price
distortions on a global basis would alter border prices and therefore
alter the magnitude of the distorting effects. However, it is extremely
difficult to estimate "shadow free market prices" in a first-best
world, and we do not suppose that we will ever be operating in a
first- or even second-best environment.
4/ Parts of the imports may not be subsidized directly by the government
of Egypt but may be the result of shipments at concessionary terms.
5/ ".... the most promising attack on employment problems in developing
countries is in efforts to redress the present urban bias in development:
strategies" (Edwards).
6/ We do not wish to render the labor estimates useless by presenting
numbers which have such a large variance, but we do want to present
realistic upper and lower bounds. We invite the interested reader to
select his "most-likely" elasticity and labor/output estimates and
thereby generate a deterministic labor number.
7/ We are indebted to Willis Peterson for suggesting this point.
8/ The distortions may or may not be a larger proportion of the agricultural
sector in developing countries than in developed countries. Figures on
gross agricultural product could not be obtained.
9/ c.f. Bale, who estimates the producer gain to farmers for these products,
except sugar, as $5.29 billion in 1975/76.
- 15 -
'able 1: BASIC DATA USED FOR T11E ANiAlrSIS, 1976
Country Border Range of Supply Range of DemandPrice NPC la Elasticities Elasticities Production Consumption Exports Labor Caefficieats
Commwdity US$/mt low high low high Average Marginal
------- '000 metric tons-- -- (man-hours per ton)FRANCE
Wh4eat 143 1.26 .42 1.28 .10 .30 16,150 7,785 8,365 25 37.5Maize 152 1.31 .17 .52 .20 .60 5,603 4,486 1,117 37 55.5Barley 137 1.39 .42 1.28 .10 .30 8,530 5,637 2,893 25 37.5Sugar 289 1.35 .81 2.44 .12 .36 2,974 1,957 1,017 52 78.0Beef 2,365 1.27 .20 .60 .35 1.05 1,821 1,706 115 40 60.0
GERMWNYWheat 143 1.49 .42 1.28 .10 .30 6,702 7,252 -550 25 37.5Maize 150. 1.57 .17 .53 .20 .60 480 3,776 -3,296 37 55.5Barley 137 1.51 .42 1.28 .10 .30 6,487 7,973 -1,486 25 37.5Sugar 289 1.77 .43 1.30 .08 .24 2,733 2,584 149 52 78.0Beef 1,970 1.42 .20 .60 .35 1.05 1,365 1,435 -70 40 60.0
UNITED KINGDOMWhEat 156 1.15 .47 1.42 .10 .30 4,740 8,419 -3,679 25 37.5Maize 131 1.28 .45 1.35 .20 .60 2 3,720 -3,718 37 55.5Balley 132 1.01 .47 1.42 .10 .30 7,648 8,096 -448 25 37.5SuEar 283 1.39 .22 .66 .10 .30 746 2,558 -1,812 52 78.0Beef 1,542 1.17 .20 .60 .35 1.05 1,064 1,177 -113 40 60.0
JAPAt'WhEat fb 189 2.81 .BO 2.41 .08 .24 222 6,043 -5,821 54 81.0Baleyl7b 160 3.14 .80 2.41 .08 .24 210 1,971 -1,761 54 81.0Suj,ar 306 1.36 .21 .64 .11 .33 560 2,986 -2,426 110 165.0Beef 2,252 1.30 .33 .99 .40 1.20 298 390 -92 58 87.0Ric'e 380 2.03 .08 .24 .06 .18 15,292 .15,314 -22 185 277.5
YUGOSLAVIAWhc at 177 .54 .28 .75 .12 .37 5,979 5,118 861 25 37.5Ma: ze 185 .71 .24 .72 .17 .52 9,106 8,647 459 37 55.5Beitf 1,832 1.08 .20 .60 .40 1.20 326 266 60 40 60.0
ARGEnITINAWh4!at 136 .54 .25 .75 .05 .15 11,000 7,736 3,264 25 50.0Rice 194 .81 .27 .82 .10 .30 309 222 87 78 156.0MaFze 118 .49 .22 .67 .11 .33 5,855 2,775 3,080 55 110.0Be!f 927 .72 .25 .75 .20 .60 2,811 2,410 401 18 36.0
EGYP CWh,!at 166 .48 .12 .37 .17 .52 1,960 4,878 -2,918 220 508.0Rice 375 .35 .25 .75 .12 .37 2,300 2,089 211 360 520.6MaLze 171 .52 .16 .18 .12 .37 3,047 3,506 -459 240 480.0Co:t0n 2,397 .34 .05 .15 .10 .30 396 231 165 8,440 10,000.0
PAKI 3TANWh at 152 .78 .17 .53 .20 .60 8,691 9,877 -1,186 247 533.0
Ri2e 320 .57 .15 .45 .15 .45 4,106 3,324 782 290 350.0MaLze 171 .94 .10 .30 .17 .52 764 764 0 300 480.0Co:ton 876 .58 .82 2.47 .10 .30 418 305 113 2,240 3,950.0
,HAI .ANDRi:e 218 .74 .07 .22 .03 .07 15,068 13,143 1,925 400 580.0
Maize 115 1.02 .10 .30 .05 .15 2,675 287 2,388 240 480.0Su;ar 298 1.65 .08 .24 .15 .45 1,757 633 1,124 338 507.0Ru3ber 695 .49 .09 .28 .00 .02 400 27 373 54 81.0
/a Nominal Protection Coefficient.
/b rhese coefficients represent distortions in production only; the corresponding NPCs in consumption are 1.18 for wheat and .90
for barley.
- 16 -
Table 2: REAL EFFECTS OF PRICE DISTORTIONS, 1976
Country Estimated Change Estimated Change Estimated Change Estimated Change in Agricultural Employmentin Production in Consumption in Exports (average coefficients) (marginal coefficients)
Commodity low high low' high low high low high low high
… _ 000-------------- n oo metric tons--------------------- ------------- full time workers---------------FRAN(E
Wheat 1,400 4,266 -161 -482 1,560 4,748 17,821 54,302 26,731 81,454Maize 225 689 -212 -637 438 1,326 4,239 12,980 6,358 19,470Baiiley 1,005 3,063 -158 -474 1,163 3,538 12,793 38,989 19,189 58,484Suj.ar 625 1,881 -61 -183 685 2,064 16,548 49,802 24,822 74,704Becf 77 232 -127 -381 204 613 1,568 4,725 2,352 7,088
GERMJNY, F.R.Wliat 926 2,821 -238 -715 1,164 3,537 10,000 30,464 15,000 45,697Maize 30 92 -274 -823 304 915 479 1,470 719 2,206Bailey 920 2,804 -269 -808 1,189 3,612 9,935 30,281 14,903 45,421Sul,ar 511 1,546 -90 -270 601 1,815 11,478 34,727 17,217 52,090Belf 81 242 -149 -446 229 688 1,400 4,181 2,099 6,772
UNITID KINGDOMIWhvat 291 878 -110 -329 400 1,207 3,206 9,674 4,809 14,511Ma:.ze 0 1 -163 -488 163 489 0 16 0 24Ba::ley 36 108 -8 -24 44 132 397 1,190 595 1,785Su8ar 46 138 -72 -215 118 353 1.054 3,163 1,581 4,744Be,-f 31 93 -60 -180 91 272 546 1,639 820 2,459
JAP AlWha~at 114 345 -74 -221 188 566 2,513 7,604 3,769 11,406Barley 114 345 18 53 96 292 2,513 7,604 3,769 11,406Su,ar 31 95 -87 -261 118 356 1,392 4,265 2,088 6,396Beaf 23 68 -36 -108 59 17.6 544 1,610 817 2,415Ri e 6,207 18,622 -466 -1,399 7,606 20,020 468,692 1,406,151 703,038 2,109,227
YUGO3LAVIAWheat -1,273 -3,820 523 1,613 -1,796 -5,433 -12,990 -38,980 -19,485 -58,469Maize -893 -2,678 600 1,837 -1,493 -4,515 -13,486 -40,443 -20,229 -60,665Beef 5 14 -8 -24 13 38 82 229 122 343
ARGE iTINAWheat -2,343 -7,028 329 988 -2,672 -8,016 -19,525 -58,567 -39,050 -117,133Rice -20 -59 5 16 -25 -75 -520 -1,534 -1,040 -3,068
Maize -1,341 -4,083 318 953 -1,658 -5,036 -24,585 -74,855 -49,170 149,710Beef -273 -820 187 562 -461 -1,382 -1,638 -4,920 -3,276 -9,840
EGYPTWheat -255 -786 898 2,748 -1,153 -3,534 -18,700 -133,096 -43,180 -13:3,096Rice -1,068 -3,204 466 1,435 -1,533 -4,639 -128,160 -384,480 -185,120 -555,360MEize -450 -506 388 1,197 -838 -1,704 -36,000 -40,480 -72,000 -80,960Cctton -38 -115 45 135 -83 -250 -106,907 -323,533 -126,667 -383,333
PAKISTANWteat -417 -1,299 557 1,671 -974 -2,971 -34,333 -106,951 -74,087 -230,789Rice -465 -1,394 376 1,128 -841 -2,522 -44,950 -134,753 -54,250 -162,633MH.ize -5 -15 8 25 -1.3 -40 -500 -1,500 -800 -2,400Cotton -246 -748 22 66 -270 -814 -185,173 -558,507 -326,533 -984,867
THALLANDR:.ce -371 -1,165 139 323 -509 -1,488 -49,467 -155,333 -71,727 -225,233Mulize 5 16 0 -1 6 17 400 1,280 800 2,560Suigar 55 166 -37 -112 93 278 6,197 18,703 9,295 28,054Rutbber -37 -117 0 1 -37 -117 -666 -2,106 -999 -3,159
- 17 -
Table 3: NET SOCIAL LOSSES OF PRICE DISTORTIONS 1976
(in '000 US dollars)
Country Net Social LosE Net Social Loss Totalin Production in Consumption Net Social Loss
Conmodity low high low high low high
FRANCEWheat 26,020 79,298 2,986 8,959 29,006 88,258Maize 5,310 16,244 5,002 15,006 10,313 31,250
Barley 26,854 81,840 4,225 12,676 31,079 94,515Sugar 31,586 95,148 3,079 9,238 34,665 104,386
Beef 24,721 74,163 40,530 121,589 65,251 195,752TOTAL 113,491 346,693 55,822 167,468 160,314 514,161
GERMANY, F.R.Wheat 32,341 98,839 8,355 25,066 40,696 123,905
Maize 1,266 3,948 11,721 35,164 12,988 39,112
Barley 32,147 97,973 9,408 28,223 41,555 126,196
Sugar 56,883 171,973 10,006 30.018 66,889 201,990
Beef 33.405 100,214 61,456 184,369 94,861 284,583
TOTAL 156,042 472,947 100,946 302,840 256,989 775,786
UNITED KINGDOMWheat 3,400 10,272 1,285 3,854 4,685 14,126Maize 4 11 2,985 8,955 2,988 8,965
Barley 23 71 5 16 29 87
Sugar 2,541 7,623 3,961 11,882 6,502 19,506
Beef 4,053 12,158 7,845 23,536 11,898 35,694
TOTAL 10,021 30,135 16,081 48,243 26,102 78,378
JAPANWheat 19,567 58,946 1,254 3,763 20,821 62,709Barley 19,602 59,051 140 420 19,742 59,471Sugar 1,715 5,225 4,789 14,367 6,504 19,592
Beef 7,666 22,998 12,161 36,482 19,827 59,480
Rice 2,035,883 3,644,244 91,237 273,712 2,127,120 3,917,956
TOTAL 2,084,433 3,790,464 109,581 328,744 2,194,014 4,119,208
YUGOSLAVIAWheat 51,836 155,509 21,298 65,670 73,135 221,179Maize 23,945 71,836 16,106 49,266 40,051 121,102
Beef 354 1,062 578 1,733 931 2,794
TOTAL 76,135 228,407 37,982 116,669 114,117 345,075
ARGENTINAWheat 73,276 219,829 10,307 30,920 83,583 250,749
Rice 361 1,095 96 288 457 1,383
Maize 40,341 122,856 9,560 28,680 49,901 151,536Beef 35,468 106,403 24,327 72,980 59,794 179,383
TOTAL 149,446 450,183 44,290 132,868 193,735 583,051
EGYPTWheat 10,997 33,908 38,773 118,601 49,771 152,509
Rice 130,145 390,435 56,739 174,944 186,884 565,380
Maize 18,469 20,777 15,938 49,143 34,407 69,920
Cotton 30,403 91,208 35,470 106,409 65,873 197,618
TOTAL 190,014 536,328 146,920 449,097 336,935 985,427
PAKISTANWheat 6,968 21,723 9,316 27,947 16,283 49,670
Rice 31,966 95,899 25,878 77,635 57,845 173,534Maize 25 75 43 130 68 205
Cotton 45,660 137,536 4,063 12,189 49,723 149,725
TOTAL 84,619 255,233 39,300 117,901 123,919 373,134
THAILANDRice 10,503 33,008 3,926 9,161 14,429 42,169Maize 6 18 0 1 6 19Sugar 5,363 16,088 3,623 10,868 8,985 26,956
Rubber 6,641 20,659 0 100 6,641 20,759
TOTAL 22,513 69,773 7,549 20,130 30,061 89,903
- 18 -
Table 4: ESTIMATED TOTAL NET SOCIAL LOSSES AS A PERCENT
OF GNP FOR SELECTED COMMODITIES
Social Losses in % of GNPLow High
France 0.05 0.16
Germany 0.06 0.19
United Kingdom 0.01 0.04
Japan 0.43 0.80
Yugoslavia 0.34 1.03
Argentina 0.48 1.46
Egypt 3.62 10.58
Pakistan 1.01 3.04
Thailand 0.21 0.62
- 19 -
Table 5: MONETARY EFFECTS OF PRICE DISTORTIONS 1976
(in '000 US dollars)
Country Welfare Gain of Welfare Gain of. Change in Change in Foreigr.Producers /a Consumers la Government Exchange Earnings /a
Commodity low high low high Revenue low high
FRANCEWheat 574,437 521,159 - 292,433 - 298,405 - 311,011 223,124 678,904Maize 258,703 247,769 - 216,382 - 226,387 - 52,633 66,533 201,615Barley 428,904 373,918 - 305,410 - 313,861 - 154,573 159,379 484,695Sugar 269,234 205,672 - 201,030 - 207,188 - 102,870 198,088 596,491Beef 1,138,079 1,088,637 -1,129,896 -1,210,955 - 73,433 483,337 1,450,011TOTAL 2,669,357 2,437,155 -2,145,151 -2,256,796 - 694,520 1,130,461 3,411,716
GERMANYWheat 437,178 370,771 - 516,503 - 533,214 38,539 166,477 505,734Maize 39,774 37,092 - 334,569 - 358,012 281,808 45,571 137,236Barley 421,099 355,273 - 566,481 - 585,296 103,827 162,961 494,886Sugar 551,291 436,202 - 585,023 - 605,035 - 33,157 173,738 524,650Beef 1,095,996 1,029,187 -1,248,775 -1,371,688 57,918 451,720 1,355,159TOTAL 2,545,338 2,228,525 -3,251,351 -3,453,245 448,935 1,000,467 3,017,665
UNITED KINGDOMWhleat 107,516 100,644 - 198,289 - 200,859 86,089 62,462 188,350Maize 70 63 - 139,434 - 145,404 136,376 21,346 64,038Barley 10,072 10,024 - 10,692 - 10,703 591 5,756 17,368Sugar 79,795 74,713 - 286,287 - 294,209 199,990 33,343 100,029Beef 274,864 266,759 316,384 - 332,075 29,622 139,976 419,928TOTAL 472,317 452,203 - 951,086 - 983,250 452,668 262,883 789,713
JAPANWheat 56,377 16,998 - 206,837 - 209,346 129,639 35,532 106,974Barley 52,302 12,853 31,396 31,116 - 103,440 15,360 46,720Sugar 59,975 56,464 - 333,727 - 343,305 267,248 36,131 108,846Beef 193,663 178,331 - 275,645 - 299,966 62,155 132,179 396,536Rice 4,770,541 2,341,044 -6,085,137 -6,267,611 8,611 2,535,894 7,607,682TOTAL 5,132,858 2,605,690 -6,869,950 -7,089,112 364,213 2,755,096 8,266,758
YUGOSLAVIAWheat - 538,646 - 642,319 395,409 351,038 70,103 - 317,977 - 961,647Maize - 512,482 - 560,372 447,805 414,645 24,625 - 276,217 - 835,184Beef 47,425 46,717 - 39,563 - 40,718 - 8,794 23,287 69,860TOTAL -1,003,703 -1,155,974 803,651 724,965 85,934 - 570,907 -1,726,971
ARGENTINAWheat - 761,436 - 907,989 473,658 453,044 204,196 - 363,404 -1,090,212Rice - 11,750 - 12,845 8,087 7,895 3,207 - 4,807 - 14,561Maize - 392,695 - 475,210 157,440 138,320 185,354 - 195,689 - 594,259Beef - 765,091 - 836,027 601,213 552,560 104,084 - 427,102 -1,281,307TOTAL -1,930,972 -2,232,071 1,240,398 1,151,819 496,841 - 991,002 -2,980,339
EGYPTWheat - 180,184 - 203,095 382,296 302,468 - 251,882 - 191,425 - 586,573Rice - 690,770 - 951,060 452,455 334,249 51,431 - 575,027 -1,739,630Maize - 268,567 - 270,875 271,834 238,630 - 37,675 - 143,362 - 291,333Cotton - 656,883 - 717,688 329,977 259,037 261,033 - 199,614 - 598,841TOTAL -1,796,404 -2,142,718 1,436,562 1,134,384 22,907 1,109,428 -3,216,377
PAKISTANWheat - 297,595 - 312,350 320,971 302,340 -39,660 - 148,031 - 451,544Rice - 596,952 - 660,884 431,504 379,748 107,603 - 269,044 - 807,133Maize - 7,864 - 7,914 7,796 7,709 0 - 2,252 - 6,838Cotton - 199,450 - 291,327 108,153 100,027 41,575 - 236,776 - 712,978TOTAL -1,101,861 -1,272,475 868,424 789,824 109,518 - 895,665 -1,978,493
THAILANDRice - 864,557 - 887,062 741,019 735,784 109,109 - 110,989 - 324,376Maize 6,146 6,134 - 660 - 661 5,492 636 1,907Sugar 334,968 324,243 - 126,235 - 133,480 - 217,719 27,647 82,942Rubber - 148,421 - 162,439 9,570 9,471 132,210 - 26,041 - 81,408TOTAL - 671,864 - 719,124 623,694 611,114 18,108 - 108,747 - 320,935
/a The "low and "high" refer to the low and high elasticity assumption and do not necessarilycorrespond to the lows or highs of the respective monetary effects.
- 20 -
References
Balassa, Bela, The Structure of Protection in Developing Countries, Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971.
Bale, M.D., and B.L. Greenshields, "Japanese Agricultural Distortions and
their Welfare Value," Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 60(1978): 59-64.
, "Distributional Aspects of Price Intervention," Amer. J. Agr.
Econ. 61(1979): 348-50.
Bartsch, W.H., Employment and Technology Choice in Asian Agriculture, N.Y.:
Praeger, 1977.
Bertrand, T.J., "The Rural Sector in Thailand--A Preliminary Report,"
Economics and Policy Division, Agriculture and Rural Development
Department, World Bank, 1977, (unpublished).
Cuddihy, B., "Egypt--Farm Prices, Taxes and Subsidies," Economics and Policy
Division, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank,
1977, (unpublished).
Currie, J.M., J.A. Martin, and A. Schmitz, "The Concept of Economic Surplus
and its Use in Economic Analysis," Econ. J. 81(1971): 741-99.
Edwards, E.0. (ed.), Employment In Developing Nations, N.Y., Ford Foundation,
1974.
European Communities Commission, "Earnings in Agriculture," Brussels,
1976.
Falaris, E.M., "The Determinants of Internal Migration in Peru: An Economic
Analysis," Econ. Devel. and Cult. Change, 27(1979): 327-41.
Gotsch, C.H. and G.T. Brown, "Pakistan Agricultural Prices Study," Economics
and Policy Division, Agriculture and Rural Development Department,
World Bank, 1977, (unpublished).
- 21 -
International Cotton Advisory Committee, Survey of Cost of Production of
Raw Cotton, London: 1975 and 1976.
International Sugar Organization, Sugar Yearbook, London: 1977.
International Wheat Council, World Wheat Statistics, London: 1978.
Kuznets, Simon, Six Lectures on Economic Growth, N.Y.: Free Press, 1959.
Lutz, E., and P.L. Scandizzo, "Price. Distortions in Developing Countries:
A Bias Against Agriculture," Europ. Rev. Agr. Econ. (forthcoming).
Mellor, J.W., The New Economics of Growth, Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1976.
Mundlak, Y., "Occupational Migration Out of Agriculture - A Cross Country
Analysis," Rev. Econ. and Stat. 60(1978): 392-8.
Palacpac, A.C., World Rice Statistics, Los Banos, Philippines, International
Rice Research Institute, 1978.
Peterson, W.L., "International Farm Prices and the Social Cost of Cheap
Food Policies," Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 61(1979): 12-21.
Rajaraman, I., "Poverty, Inequality and Economic Growth: Rural Punjab,"
J. Devel. Stud. 11(1975): 278-90.
Reca, L.G., "Argentina: Country Case Study of Agricultural Prices and Subsidies,"
Economics and Policy Division, Agriculture and Rural Development
Department, World Bank, 1977 (unpublished).
Rojko, A. et. al., Alternative Futures for World Food in 1985, ESCS, USDA
Foreign Agricultural Economics Report No. 146, 1978.
- 22 -
Schultz, T.W., Transforming Traditional Agriculture, New Haven, Yale University
Press, 1964.
-_ , "On Economics, Agriculture and the Political Ec-aomy," First
Elmhirst Lecture, in Decision-Making and Agriculture, T. Dams and
K.E. Hunt (eds.), Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1977.
, "Constraints on Agricultural Production," in Distortions of
Agricultural Incentives, T.W. Schultz, (ed.), Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1978.
Shaw, R. D'A., Jobs and Agricultural Development, N.Y.: Overseas
Development Council, Monograph 3, 1970.
Sjaastad, L.A., "The Costs and Returns of Human Migration," J. Polit. Econ.
70(1962): 80-93.
Todaro, M.P., Internal Migration in Developing Countries: A Review of
Theory and Evidence, Geneva: International Labor Organization, 1976.
UK Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Standard Man-Day Require-
ments for Livestock, London, 1973.
ULG Consultants Limited, in association with Economic Consultants Limited,
"Yugoslavia: Agricultural Prices and Subsidies Case Study," Economics
and Policy Division, Agriculture and Rural Development Department,
World Bank, 1977 (unpublished).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979, Feed Situation, ESCS, Washington,
May 1979.
, 1978a, Sugar and Sweetener Report, ESCS,
Washington, September 1978.
, 1978b, Costs of Producing Selected Crops in the
United States, 1976-78, ESCS, Washington, 1978.
- 23 -
Wonnacott, P., "Disguised and Overt Unemployment in Underdeveloped Economies,"
Quart. J. Econ., 24(May 1962): 279-88.
World Bank, 1978a, "Price Prospects for Major Primary Commodities," Report
No. 814/78, 1978.
, 1978b, "SAPH Rubber Project," Appraisal Report, 1978.
I M= PAPERS IN THIS SERIES
110. TITLE OF PAPER AUTHOR
325 Costs and Scale of Bus Services A.A. Walters
326 Social and Cultural Dimensions of R. NoronhaTourism (consultant)
327 Investment in Indian Education: S. HeynemanUneconomic ?
.328 Nutrition and Food Needs in Developing 0. KnudsenCountries P.L. Scandizzo
329 The Changing International Division of B. BalassaLabor in Manufactured Goods
330 Application of Shadow Pricing to Country L. SquireEconomic Analysis with an Illustration I.M.D. Littlefrom Pakistan M. Durdag
331 A Survey of the Fertilizer Sector in B. Bumb (consultant)India
332 Monitoring and Evaluation in the PIDER M. CerneaRural Development Project - Mexico
333 Determinants of Private Industrial A. Pinell-SilesInvestment in India
334 The "Graduation" Issue in Trade Policy I. FrankToward LDCs .(consultant)
335 Balancing Trickle Down and Basic M. SelowskyNeeds Strategies: Income DistributionIssues in Large Middle-Income Countrieswith Special Reference to Latin America
336 Labor Force, Employment and Labor L. SquireMarkets in the Course of EconomicDevelopment
337 The Population of Thailand: Its Growth S. Cochraneand Welfare
338 Capital Market Imperfections and V.V. Bhatt,Economic Development A.A. Roe
339 Behaviour of Foodgrain Production J. Sarmaand Consumption in India, 1960-77 S. Roy
340 Electric Power Pricing Policy M. Munasinghe
No. TITLE OF PAPER AUTHOR
341 State Intervention in the Industrializatior, A. Choksiof Developing Countries: Selected Issues
342 Policies for Efficient and Equitable J. LinnGrowth of Cities in Developin.g Countries
343 The Capital Goods Sector in LDCs: A Case J. Datta Mitrafor State Intervention?
344 International Technology Transfer: Issues F. Stewartand Policy Options
345 Family Planning Programs: An Evaluation R. Cucaof Experience
346 Prospects for Traditional and Non- D. liughartConventional Energy Sources in DevelopingCountries
347 National Urbanization Policies in B. RenaudDeveloping Countries
348 Private Direct Foreign Investment in K. B3illerbeckDeveloping Countries Y. Yasugi
349 Adjustment Policies and ProbXems in M. WolfDeveloped Countries
350 Energy Options and Policy Issues in D. Fallen-EBaileyDeveloping Countries T. IByer
351 Growth and Equity in Semi-Industrialized J. BergsmanCountries
352 Capital Flows and Developing Country De:bt J. KXatz
353 Trade Policy for Developing Countries D. Keesing
354 Development Problems of Mineral-Exporting G. Na.nkaaniCountries
355 The Global Framework R. CheethamS. (Gu ptaA. Schwartz
356 The Distribution of Income in Brazil G. Pfeffermian,R. Webb
357 Estimating Shadow Prices for Colombia in W. Schohlan Input-Output Table Framework
358 Inter-Country Comparison of "Real" (PPP) P. IsemnanIncomes: 'Revised Estimates and UnresolvedQuestions