Unit Three<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Case Analysis Read the <\/span>CASE ANALYSIS: Agricultural Subsidies (page 144). <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Write a 5 page paper (1500 or morewords) <\/span>in APA format<\/strong> <\/em>in response to these questions at least siting four peer reviewed journals articles<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n a. Provide an overview of this case analysis; summarize the key points<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n b.Discuss how the Uraguay Round and the Doha Development Agenda impact <\/span>agricultural subsidies. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n c.Discuss the findings in Table 7.3 (page 145). How would you address the findings in a presentation? <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Below is a recommended outline.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4. Cover page (See APA Sample paper)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.Introduction <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n a.A thesis statement<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n b.Purpose of paper<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n c.Overview of paper<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6. Body (Cite sources using in \u2013 text citations.)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n a. Provide an overview of this case analysis; summarize the key points<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n b. Discuss how the Uraguay Round and the Doha Development Agenda impact agricultural <\/span>subsidies. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n c. Discuss the findings in Table 7.3 (page 145). How would you address the findings in a <\/span>presentation?<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Conclusion <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2013Summary of main points<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n a. Lessons Learned and Recommendations<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3. References <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2013 List the references you cited in the text of your paper according to APA format. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n (Note: Do not include references that are not cited in the text of your paper)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Pg144<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Logic of Collective Action<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Given that the costs to consumers are so high for each job saved,why do people tol-<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n erate tariffs and quotas? Ignorance is certainly the case for some goods,but for some<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n tariffs and quotas,the costs have been relatively well publicized.For example,many<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n people are aware that quotas on sugar imports cost each man,woman,and child in<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n the United States between $5 and $10 per year.The costs are in the form of higher<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n prices on candy bars,soft drinks,and other products containing sugar.Few of us work<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n in the sugar industry,so the argument that our jobs depend on it is weak at best.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In a surprising way, however, we probably permit our tariffs and quotas<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n because of a version of the jobs argument.The economist Mancur Olson studied<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n this problem and similar ones and noticed two important points about tariffs and<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n quotas.First,the costs of the policy are spread over a great many people.Second,<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n the benefits are concentrated.For example,we all pay a little more for candy bars<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n and soft drinks,but a few sugar producers reap large benefits from our restrictions<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n on sugar imports.Olson found that in cases such as this,there is an asymmetry in<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n the incentives to support and to oppose the policy.With trade protection,the ben-<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n efits are concentrated in a single industry and,consequently,it pays for the indus-<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n try to commit resources to obtaining or maintaining its protection.The industry<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n will hire lobbyists and perhaps participate directly in the political process through<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n running candidates or supporting friendly candidates. If people in the industry<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n think their entire livelihood depends on their ability to limit foreign competition,<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n they have a very large incentive to become involved in setting policy.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The costs of protection are nowhere near as concentrated as the benefits<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n because they are spread over all consumers of a product.The $5 to $10 per year<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n that sugar quotas cost each of us is hardly worth hiring a lobbyist or protesting inWashington. Thus, one side pushes hard to obtain or keep protection, and the<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n other side is silent on the matter. Given this imbalance, an interesting question<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n asks why there are not more trade barriers.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n C A S E <\/span>S T U D Y<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Agricultural Subsidies<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Agricultural issues have long sparked conflict among the members of the WTO.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Some cases have pitted high-income countries against each other, among them<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n disputes between the United States and Japan over apples and EU-U.S.disputes<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n over bananas. More recently, the WTO\u2019s Doha Development Agenda has tried<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n to address agricultural issues that are central to relations between developing<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n and industrial countries. In particular, three issues are on the table: tariffs and<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n quotas (market access), export subsidies given by countries to encourage farm<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n exports,and production subsidies granted directly to farmers.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Direct subsidies are viewed as harmful because they lead to overproduction,<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n squeeze out imports,and in some cases result in the dumping of the surplus product<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Chapter 7 Commercial Policy 145<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n TABLE 7.3 Agricultural Subsidies, 2007<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span> <\/span> <\/span>Agricultural Subsidies<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span>(Millions of US$) <\/span> <\/span>As a Percent of <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span>Farm Receipts<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Australia <\/span> <\/span> <\/span>1,827 <\/span>6<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Canada <\/span>7,001 <\/span>18<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n European Union <\/span>134,318 <\/span>26<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Japan <\/span>35,230 <\/span>45<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n United States <\/span>32,663 <\/span>10<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n