|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
|
|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
 Kimberly Ann Elliott is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. Full BioShowing posts on the Views from the Center blog. View author posts on: Interested in Global Food Security? Two New Acronyms You Should KnowMarch 29, 2012By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Food & Agriculture Tags: Food and Agriculture, Food Security
As we approach the May G8 summit in Chicago, the June G20 meeting in Los Cabos, and Rio+20 in June, agriculture and food security promise to be high on the international agenda; and once again, we will be awash in jargon that is rife with acronyms indecipherable to the uninitiated. Some acronyms are impossible for anyone to remember or pronounce – like GAFSP (Global Agriculture and Food Security Program)— which is so incomprehensible that Connie Veillette tried, unsuccessfully, to rename it REAP (Resources for Enhanced Agricultural Productivity) and ONE recently launched an effort to rename it before the G8. Comment »Prevention of Odious Obligations: A New Tool to Help Stem the Violence in SyriaMarch 9, 2012By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Fragile States, Trade Tags: Odious Debt, Syria, Trade
Last week President Obama responded to the rising carnage in Syria by saying that he is looking for “every tool available to prevent the slaughter of innocents in Syria,” government-instigated violence that has already claimed thousands of lives. What new tools are available? The economic sanctions imposed are having an impact, but they are weakened by the willingness of the Russians, Chinese and others to continue doing business with the Assad regime. There is rising talk of military action, with former U.S. presidential candidate John McCain calling for airstrikes. But the risks are huge, there is no certainty of success, and there is little appetite in the United States or elsewhere for such action. It’s time to try something new: preemptive contract sanctions. This idea is so new and compelling that we at CGD have tried something new to explain it: a white board video, in which I lay out the basics in just a little over four minutes. Please watch it! 8 Comments »The Farm Bill Saga Begins (Again): Will Development Be on the Stage, in the Wings, or out of Luck?February 13, 2012By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Agriculture, Trade Tags: On the Hill
Many in the development research and advocacy communities engaged heavily in the mid-2000s debate over what became the 2008 farm bill and were sorely disappointed with the outcome. At that time, the push for farm bill reform was part of a broader campaign to push the Doha Development Agenda round of international trade negotiations to a successful conclusion, including by sharply reducing the levels of trade-distorting support that rich countries provide to their farmers. Those policies boost the incomes of farmers in rich countries at the expense of farmers in developing countries, who face suppressed global prices and have to compete without the benefit of subsidies. Within weeks of the subsidy-laden farm bill passing, the Doha Round collapsed and it is now effectively, if not officially, dead. 1 Comment »Apple in China: CSR as a Marketing Tool?February 1, 2012By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Globalization Tags: China, Labor
Having analyzed the debate over globalization and labor standards for some years now, I was not in the least surprised by the recent revelations about dangerous and unfair labor practices at Apple’s supplier factories in China. Like many other brand-name companies, Apple has a code of conduct for its suppliers and it responded to the allegations of abuses by stepping up audits of factories in its supply chain. But does this really do anything to fundamentally change the conditions in the factories? Comment »Ethanol Subsidy Win for Taxpayers-What About Developing Countries?January 17, 2012By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Environment, Global Development Tags: Ethanol
American taxpayers can celebrate the expiration at the end of 2011 of more than $6 billion in subsidies for ethanol and other biofuels, but other absurdities and distortions remain. For example, as Matthew Wald recently reported in the New York Times, fuel producers will pay penalties to the U.S. Treasury of $7 million and up in 2011 and 2012 for not using mandated levels of advanced biofuels that do not exist. That’s just crazy. But the point is that, despite many years of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies beyond the tax credit for blending ethanol in gasoline, advanced biofuels that are not food-based are still not available. Comment »No Surprises and No Momentum out of WTO MeetingDecember 20, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Trade Tags: Doha Round, WTO
“Many Ministers expressed deep regret at the impasse currently facing the Doha Round. They nevertheless reaffirmed their commitment to delivering on the Doha mandate.” Closing statement of the WTO ministerial conference chair, December 17, 2011 So the zombie that began as the Doha Development Agenda in 2001 continues to loom over the international trade system: neither dead nor alive and with no one willing to drive a stake through its heart. Two-thirds of those who took our little poll last week thought that ministers should bury Doha and move on. Indeed, the ministerial generated so little attention and such low expectations that two-thirds were not even aware that it was happening. An even larger majority—almost 90 percent—did not see the Trans-Pacific Partnership regional negotiations as a good alternative, and I agree. What was on the table when the Doha Round stalled would have locked in reductions in agricultural subsidies in rich countries and tariffs on industrial goods in developing countries. It would not have done much on services or in some other crucial areas, but it would have been a positive step forward. The process, however, is clearly broken, the agenda is increasingly outmoded, and a fresh start is needed. Here’s hoping for that in 2012! Comment »To Be or Not To Be? That Is the Question for the Doha Round NowDecember 12, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in China, Global Development, Trade Tags: China, Doha Round, Trade
How many readers were even aware that a meeting of trade minsters is happening in Geneva later this week? How many care? Two years ago, I wrote a blog post about the 2009 ministerial meeting headlined “to blog or not to blog…” because nothing was expected to happen, and nothing did. This year, I’m reverting to the original expression because it is (past) time for a decision on what to do with the Doha Round—finish it or bury it and move on. Institutional issues at the World Trade Organization, which are supposed to be the focus of the regular biennial meetings of ministers, are being neglected; the US Trade Representative uses the Doha Round as an excuse not to move on duty-free, quota-free market access for poor countries (see my forthcoming CGD note on this); and a variety of changes in the global economy—increased regionalism, the rise of China, the spread of fragmented manufacturing—mean that the negotiating agenda is behind the times. Comment »A Bit of Context on the Fair Trade KerfuffleDecember 6, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Trade Tags: Trade
There has been a flurry of media attention to the pending break-up between the main US certifier of fair trade coffee, Fair Trade USA, and the international umbrella organization, the Fairtrade Labeling Organization (FLO). The two organizations issued a joint press release in September, announcing that Fair Trade USA would go its own way as of the end of the year. 6 Comments »Budget Supercommittee: Secret Savior for Farm Subsidies?November 17, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Agriculture, Trade Tags: Agriculture, Trade
I think few of us involved in the 2008 farm bill process would have thought the new farm bill could be even worse, but the agricultural committees seem to have found a way to hijack the supercommittee process to their own ends. If this article is correct, the ag committees are trying to slip one by the American taxpayer and, contrary to what I called for here, impose even more of the costs of adjustment from commodity market volatility onto developing country producers. Committee leaders are apparently proposing to eliminate the direct payments to farmers, saving $50 billion over 10 years, but plow more than half of that back into new trade-distorting subsidies.The real kicker is that they want to attach the package to the supercommittee bill (if there is one) which will be passed without amendment and with limited debate, much less the months of hearings that usually accompany a farm bill. Comment »U.S. Super Committee: Billions in Subsidy Savings for Equity, Efficiency, and DevelopmentNovember 14, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Aid Effectiveness, Global Development Tags: Aid Effectiveness, global development
There is no way of avoiding short-run pain in the process of fixing the US budget situation. But there are opportunities to leverage budget pressure to eliminate or reform policies that have outlived their usefulness or simply don’t work, especially subsidies that undercut US efforts in other areas, such as development. The core elements of the US foreign assistance budget total around $20 billion and are facing disproportionately large cuts in the current budget debate. Here for the super committee’s consideration are ideas to cut inefficient and inequitable subsidies instead – also totaling roughly $20 billion – which in whole or in part would cushion the blow to foreign assistance and support development policy. Comment »Pass the Trade Agreements Already! (And Then Do Something Better!)October 7, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Trade Tags: bilateral trade, trade agreements
After years of delay, three U.S. trade agreements are finally down to the wire. President Obama has sent Congress legislation to implement long-delayed free trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, and Panama. Congress is expected to vote on all three agreements, and an extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for workers displaced due to trade, on or about October 12, on the eve of a visit to the United States by South Korean President Lee Myung Bak. Comment »The Sudan Sanctions Tangle after Southern IndependenceOctober 4, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Fragile States, Global Development Tags: Fragile States, Sudan
After decades of violent conflict, South Sudan is the world’s newest nation. Some of the credit for that outcome goes to pressure from the United States, including economic sanctions. How to approach the sanctions now is a tricky question. The new nation of South Sudan is one of the world’s poorest and most fragile states. Continued or revived conflicts along the new border and in Darfur threaten people in those regions and could destabilize the new state in the south. U.S. policy faces a balancing act—trying to ensure that sanctions do not interfere with support for development in the new nation, while also using them to prod the regime in Khartoum to respect human rights, move towards democracy, and peacefully resolve the conflicts in Darfur and along the new border. 1 Comment »Famine and Food Prices: What Is the G-20 Waiting For?August 19, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Climate Change, Food Crisis Tags: Climate Change, Food Crisis, Horn of Africa Famine
The latest edition of the World Bank’s Food Price Watch arrived in my inbox the other day and it was a helpful reminder that, while the world’s attention is focused on the Horn of Africa, there are still millions of people in other parts of the world who are at risk of going hungry or sinking back in to poverty because of high food prices. Providing emergency food aid in the face of famine and extreme drought is relatively easy (unless there are rebels with guns in the way, admittedly). But what about the hard steps that could reduce the probability of the next emergency happening, or at least mitigate its consequences? 2 Comments »Time for New Leverage in Syria: DIRT SanctionsAugust 15, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Trade Tags: DIRT, Odious Debt, Syria, Trade
At the United Nations last week, a representative of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon gave the Security Council what was described as a “chilling and horrifying” briefing on the situation in Syria. The United States is ratcheting up the pressure on the Assad regime where it can and Secretary of State Clinton called on other countries to join it in boycotting Syria’s oil exports, so far unsuccessfully. 6 Comments »Ensuring the End to Ethanol Subsidies Isn’t a New BeginningJuly 22, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Trade Tags: Ethanol, Trade
I wrote here three years ago, during the last food price crisis, that corn-based ethanol subsidies were economically inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and inequitable. So I listened with great interest yesterday to an NPR story on the likelihood that the ethanol subsidy will be eliminated as part of a budget deal. But as I wrote in another recent post on farm subsidies generally, what is cut, and how, matters from the perspective of developing countries, as well as American consumers and taxpayers. Comment »Why It’s Fair for the Agricultural Sector to Bear a “Disproportionate” Share of Budget CutsJuly 5, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Agriculture, Global Development
With many farm commodity prices at near-record highs, agricultural subsidies are emerging as a key target in the budget debate. Direct payments of roughly $5 billion per year are coming in for particular scrutiny because they are distributed without regard to market prices. Agriculture industry groups, however, complain that targeting farm subsidies is unfair: “Some 130 local and national agriculture industry groups wrote to negotiators in mid-June to voice “strong opposition” to any package that would “disproportionately impact” farmers and ranchers.” Comment »Trade Week: What I’m Hoping to SeeJune 17, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Trade Tags: Doha Round, duty-free quota-free, LDCs, OECD, TAA, Trade, USTR, World Trade Organization
Next week could be a big week for trade policy, or, more likely, yet another disappointment. The World Trade Organization’s Trade Negotiating Committee is scheduled to meet on Wednesday to see whether there is support for an “early harvest” package that, in reality, will likely be all that a decade of negotiations under the Doha Round can achieve, if that. Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX), chair of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, also said that he wants to start work on implementing legislation for the three pending bilateral free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama next week. In Geneva last week Bangladesh, Kenya, and Mauritius proposed a package for an early harvest (subscription required for link) focusing on the least-developed countries (LDCs)that would include: duty-free, quota-free (DFQF) market access on 97 percent of tariff lines, rules of origin reforms to ensure market access is not undermined, a standstill on U.S. cotton subsidies until the 2012 farm bill, and a waiver from normal trade rules allowing countries to provide preferential access for services exports from LDCs. The proposal reportedly was endorsed by the European Union, Brazil, China, and India, but that is easy for them since it would require little or nothing of them in practice. Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Michael Punke responded that the United States would only consider the proposal if other countries also contribute to a positive outcome. Comment »Can Food Aid Help Feed the Future?June 13, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Agriculture, Food & Agriculture, Food Aid, Food Crisis, Global Development Tags: development, Feed the Future, Food Aid, food price volatility, Kimberly Ann Elliott
The Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa held an event on Capitol Hill on Friday to launch an excellent report by Stephanie Mercier, a former Senate Ag Committee staffer. I had the pleasure of serving as a discussant. Though the report title focuses on food aid and the next farm bill, the report also covers the evolution of U.S. food aid and the modest but important improvements that were made in the 2008 farm bill. One important change: increased flexibility to pre-position food stocks in Africa and other crisis-prone areas, reducing the time needed to get food to the hungry from as much as six months to as little as two weeks. John Brooks from the Food for Peace Office at USAID was also on the panel and discussed the new Emergency Food Security Program, which uses funds appropriated for international disaster assistance to buy food locally or regionally, or to provide cash or vouchers to the poor, in situations where high prices, not food availability, are the problem. That’s an important innovation, given the risk that extreme weather events due to climate change are already increasing the volatility of food prices. 2 Comments »U.S. Refuses to Open Market to LDCs at UN ConferenceMay 19, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Trade Tags: LDC, Trade, U.S. International Trade Commission, United Nations
Here’s the commitment: “[A]id alone is not development. Development is helping nations to actually develop—moving from poverty to prosperity. And we need more than just aid to unleash that change. We need to harness all the tools at our disposal-from our diplomacy to our trade and investment policies.” —President Barack Obama at the United Nations, September 22, 2010 Here are the numbers on U.S. trade with the poorest and most vulnerable countries in the world (from the U.S. International Trade Commission database), designated by the United Nations as least developed: Read More… 1 Comment »Budget Pressures and Farm Subsidy ReformMay 9, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Global Development Tags: Trade
“The most controversial of these [farm subsidy] programs are the $5 billion in annual so-called direct payments to farmers of corn, soybeans and other crops, awarded simply for owning tillable farm land, even if they do not plant on it.” New York Times, May 6, 2011 No one expects farm subsidies to escape the budget axe in the current environment, but it matters a lot for developing countries where the cuts come. As noted in last week’s New York Times, “direct payments” to farmers seem to be an obvious target. These payments, created in the 1996 farm bill, were originally intended to be a bridge to a more market-oriented and less trade-distorting farm policy that involved phasing out traditional subsidies. The idea was to eventually replace payments linked to prices and production of particular crops with direct payments designed to support farm incomes and be less market-distorting. Read More… 2 Comments » |
|
|
CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Third Floor
Washington DC 20036
Tel 202.416.4000 | Fax 202.416.4050
|
|
|
Print
Share
