Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 283–292 | Cite as

Weight Perception and Efficiency Loss in Bilateral Trading: The Case of US and EU Agricultural Policies

  • Cemal AticiEmail author


This study determines the perceived weights of various producer groups by policy makers in selected sectors (wheat, corn, sugar, beef and veal, and milk), for both the US and the EU, from 1980 to 2000, in five-year intervals. Results show that the US’s weights deviate less than the EU’s, compared with the external protections, indicating that the lobbying efforts of interest groups in the US are reflected more closely in external policy design, and are therefore more efficient than those in the EU. Game simulation suggests that it is in the best interest of both blocs to choose the status quo action among various trade liberalization scenarios with the latest calculated weights.

Key words

weight efficiency lobbying political preferences bilateral agricultural trade 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abler, D., Sukhatme, V. 1998“The Determinants of Wheat and Rice Policies: A Political Economy Model for India”Journal of Economic Development23195215Google Scholar
  2. Bullock, D. S. 1994“In Search of A Rational Government: What Political Preference Function Studies Measure and Assume”American Journal of Agricultural Economics76347361Google Scholar
  3. European Commission. (1999). Agenda 2000, Strengthening the Union and Preparing Enlargement: Scholar
  4. European Commission. (2001). The Agricultural Situation in the European Union 1999 Report, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  5. FAO. (2003). Scholar
  6. Gardner, B. L. 1990The USSanderson, F. H. eds. Agricultural Protectionism in the Industrialized WorldResources for the FutureWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Ingersent, K. A.Rayner, A. J.Hine, R. C. eds. 1998The Reform of the Common Agricultural PolicyMacmillan PressSuffolkGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, M., Mahe, L., Roe, T. L. 1993“Trade Compromises between the European Community and the United States: An Interest Group-Game Theory Approach”Journal of Policy Modeling15199222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kennedy, P. L. 1995Game Theory in Multilateral Trade Negotiations: An Application to Uruguay RoundWisssenschaftsverlag Vaul Kiel KGKielGoogle Scholar
  10. Kennedy, P. L., Witzke, H., Roe, T. L. 1996“Strategic Agricultural Trade Policy Interdependence and Exchange Rate: A Game Theoretic Analysis”Public Choice884356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy, P. L., Atici, C. 1999“A Game Theoretic Analysis of Turkish Accession into a European Customs Union”Agricultural and Resource Economics Review28147157Google Scholar
  12. Koester, U., Tangermann, S. 1990The European CommunitySanderson, F. H. eds. Agricultural Protectionism in the Industrialized WorldResources for the FutureWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Ndayisenga, F. and J. Kinsey. (1995). Transfers to Agriculture: Links to Lobbying. Working Paper WP95-1. Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  14. OECD1999Producer and Consumer Subsidy Equivalents, on CDOECDParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Oehmke, J. F., Yao, X. 1990“A Policy Preference Function for Government Intervention in US Wheat Market”American Journal of Agricultural Economics72631640Google Scholar
  16. Rausser, G. C., Freebairn, J. W. 1974“Estimation of Policy Preference Functions: An Application to US Beef Import Quotas”The Review of Economics and Statistics56437449Google Scholar
  17. Tweeten, L. 1998Overview of US Agricultural PolicyCouncil of AgricultureTaiwanPaper presented to Cross-Country Policy Symposium: An International ComparisonGoogle Scholar
  18. USDA. (2003a)., 2003. Average Food Prices.Google Scholar
  19. USDA. (2003b)., 2003. PSE and CSE data.Google Scholar
  20. USDA. (1989). Elasticities in the Trade Liberalization Database. Microf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsAdnan Menderes UniversityAydinTurkey

Personalised recommendations