你的比我的大!像PSE这样的指数能帮助我们理解产业补贴的比较发生率吗?

Robert Wolfe
{"title":"你的比我的大!像PSE这样的指数能帮助我们理解产业补贴的比较发生率吗?","authors":"Robert Wolfe","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3683731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"State support remains a leading cause of tension in international commercial relations. Governments can see trade distortions that look like they were caused by industrial subsidies, but they lack the data to illuminate that state support. In the 1980s at the height of the farm wars the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed an index that helped countries to see the overall incidence of agricultural subsidies, initially called the Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) and the Consumer Subsidy Equivalent (CSE). Are there lessons for today in the PSE approach? In this paper I try to answer that question from the standpoint of economics: how did the PSE evolve, what is it, is the concept relevant to industrial subsidies? And of politics: how was OECD able to create the tool, and do present conditions permit something similar? The brief answer is that the PSE was a response to a shared perception of crisis, but it was pushed by finance, not trade or agriculture ministers. It drew on well-established concepts in the agricultural economics and trade literatures. And it works best in a context where market power is sufficiently diffuse that a price gap between domestic and world prices can be calculated. Only some of those conditions can be met when applying the approach to concentrated industries dominated by large firms that operate in multi-country supply chains.","PeriodicalId":14394,"journal":{"name":"International Political Economy: Trade Policy eJournal","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Yours is Bigger than Mine! Could an Index Like the PSE Help in Understanding the Comparative Incidence of Industrial Subsidies?\",\"authors\":\"Robert Wolfe\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3683731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"State support remains a leading cause of tension in international commercial relations. Governments can see trade distortions that look like they were caused by industrial subsidies, but they lack the data to illuminate that state support. In the 1980s at the height of the farm wars the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed an index that helped countries to see the overall incidence of agricultural subsidies, initially called the Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) and the Consumer Subsidy Equivalent (CSE). Are there lessons for today in the PSE approach? In this paper I try to answer that question from the standpoint of economics: how did the PSE evolve, what is it, is the concept relevant to industrial subsidies? And of politics: how was OECD able to create the tool, and do present conditions permit something similar? The brief answer is that the PSE was a response to a shared perception of crisis, but it was pushed by finance, not trade or agriculture ministers. It drew on well-established concepts in the agricultural economics and trade literatures. And it works best in a context where market power is sufficiently diffuse that a price gap between domestic and world prices can be calculated. Only some of those conditions can be met when applying the approach to concentrated industries dominated by large firms that operate in multi-country supply chains.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Political Economy: Trade Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Political Economy: Trade Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3683731\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Economy: Trade Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3683731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

国家支持仍然是造成国际商业关系紧张的主要原因。政府可以看到,贸易扭曲似乎是由工业补贴造成的,但他们缺乏数据来说明政府的支持。在20世纪80年代农业战争最激烈的时候,经济合作与发展组织(OECD)开发了一个指数,帮助各国了解农业补贴的总体发生率,最初称为生产者补贴当量(PSE)和消费者补贴当量(CSE)。今天在PSE方法中有什么教训吗?在本文中,我试图从经济学的角度回答这个问题:PSE是如何演变的,它是什么,这个概念与工业补贴有关吗?政治方面:经济合作与发展组织是如何创造出这种工具的,目前的条件允许类似的事情发生吗?简单的回答是,PSE是对危机的共同看法的回应,但它是由财政部长推动的,而不是贸易或农业部长。它借鉴了农业经济和贸易文献中成熟的概念。而且,在市场力量足够分散、可以计算出国内与国际价格差距的情况下,这种做法效果最好。当将这种方法应用于在多国供应链中运营的大公司主导的集中行业时,只能满足其中的一些条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Yours is Bigger than Mine! Could an Index Like the PSE Help in Understanding the Comparative Incidence of Industrial Subsidies?
State support remains a leading cause of tension in international commercial relations. Governments can see trade distortions that look like they were caused by industrial subsidies, but they lack the data to illuminate that state support. In the 1980s at the height of the farm wars the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed an index that helped countries to see the overall incidence of agricultural subsidies, initially called the Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) and the Consumer Subsidy Equivalent (CSE). Are there lessons for today in the PSE approach? In this paper I try to answer that question from the standpoint of economics: how did the PSE evolve, what is it, is the concept relevant to industrial subsidies? And of politics: how was OECD able to create the tool, and do present conditions permit something similar? The brief answer is that the PSE was a response to a shared perception of crisis, but it was pushed by finance, not trade or agriculture ministers. It drew on well-established concepts in the agricultural economics and trade literatures. And it works best in a context where market power is sufficiently diffuse that a price gap between domestic and world prices can be calculated. Only some of those conditions can be met when applying the approach to concentrated industries dominated by large firms that operate in multi-country supply chains.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Trade Openness and Growth: A Network-Based Approach Rome and the Road to the Distant East El cambio estructural y las exportaciones en la economía colombiana (2005-2015) (Structural Change and Exports in the Colombian Economy (2005-2015)) Foreign Direct Investment, Global Value Chains, and Labor Rights: No Race-to-the-Bottom? The Impact of Global Value Chain on the Performance on SMEs Special Reference on East Asian Countries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1