A summary of the results at the global level is provided in Table 9 and impacts at the national level are detailed in Tables 10 to 15.
TABLE 9
Summary of results (scenarios ordered by degree
of market opening)
| |
FREE TRADE |
FREE TRADE |
FREE TRADE |
| |
|
concessionary SSP/SPP |
no concessionary SSP/SPP |
| |
(i) |
(ii) |
(iii) |
| |
<--------US$ million (change)-----> |
||
|
Producer Surplus |
159 |
33 |
8 |
|
Consumer Surplus |
3708 |
1422 |
25 |
|
Tariff Revenue |
-3073 |
-846 |
-146 |
|
Subsidy Payments |
50 |
9 |
26 |
|
Net Welfare Effect |
842 |
618 |
-86 |
| |
<--------------% (change)-------------> |
||
|
Import Prices |
-10.86 |
-3.51 |
-0.82 |
|
Export Prices |
2.78 |
0.38 |
0.15 |
|
Output |
-0.95 |
-0.46 |
0.11 |
|
Trade |
11.82 |
3.87 |
-0.27 |
| |
HARBINSON |
HARBINSON |
HARBINSON |
| |
|
concessionary SSP/SPP |
no concessionary SSP/SPP |
| |
(iv) |
(v) |
(vi) |
| |
<---------US$ million (change)------> |
||
|
Producer Surplus |
37 |
17 |
5 |
|
Consumer Surplus |
1524 |
763 |
-36 |
|
Tariff Revenue |
-881 |
-390 |
-51 |
|
Subsidy Payments |
7 |
16 |
27 |
|
Net Welfare Effect |
687 |
405 |
-56 |
| |
<--------% (change)-------> |
||
|
Import Prices |
-3.05 |
-1.43 |
-0.03 |
|
Export Prices |
0.37 |
0.23 |
0.10 |
|
Output |
-0.48 |
-0.25 |
0.08 |
|
Trade |
3.94 |
1.80 |
-0.53 |
As expected, the largest impacts are observed under the free trade scenario, where trade expands markedly and global consumers on average benefit from a near 11 percent fall in import prices. The increase in trade would be filled mostly by traditional rice exporting countries, but their export prices would rise only marginally. The fall in import prices boosts consumer surplus, more than compensating for the decline in tariff revenue and leading to an accumulated global welfare gain of US$842 million. On the other hand, 20 out of the 40 countries/regions included in the analysis lose in terms of welfare under free trade, mainly reflecting losses in consumer surplus arising from higher prices. Examples of countries facing large losses include India and China, even if they face marginal price increases, as the price effects are magnified by the large consumption in those countries. Consumers in those countries in which initial protection was the highest, e.g. Japan, Taiwan Province of China, the EU(25) and Nigeria are the major beneficiaries of trade liberalization and are responsible for fuelling much of the trade expansion.
Moving along the reform spectrum, the pure Harbinson scenario yields smaller gains. Consumer prices fall more moderately and exporting nations have only marginal benefits to reap. In all scenarios, producers are little affected by reform. Despite minor changes in output, which are mostly negative, producer prices rise slightly, leading to very small gains in producer surpluses.
The impact of SSP/SPP on global trade liberalisation is noteworthy. If the set of countries in Table 8 were indeed to designate rice for differentiated treatment, it is evident that the benefits of trade reform would be severely undermined. Under the free trade or Harbinson scenarios, changes in the global market are insignificant even if these countries were to make concessions to improve market access on SSP/SPP. At the extreme, if such countries were permitted to exclude rice from any trade reform, i.e. no concessions, simulations reveal that net global welfare would actually decline.
TABLE 10
Summary of Effects: Free Trade Scenario with no
SSP/SPP or LDC Exemptions
| |
WELFARE ($US million) |
OTHER |
||||||||
|
Producer surplus |
Consumer surplus |
Tariff revenue |
Change in subsidy payments |
Net welfare effect |
Change in Overall Consumer Prices |
Change in Overall Export Prices |
Change in Output |
Change in Imports |
Change in Exports |
|
| |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E=A+B+C+D |
percent |
percent |
percent |
percent |
percent |
|
Bangladesh |
0 |
102 |
-11 |
0 |
91 |
-2% |
-2% |
0% |
19% |
|
|
Cambodia |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-28% |
-24% |
|
China |
1 |
-208 |
0 |
0 |
-206 |
1% |
0% |
0% |
-23% |
32% |
|
Taiwan Prov. of China |
-15 |
801 |
-286 |
0 |
500 |
-94% |
-102% |
-25% |
179% |
-121% |
|
India |
18 |
-481 |
0 |
0 |
-463 |
2% |
2% |
1% |
|
31% |
|
Indonesia |
0 |
100 |
-9 |
0 |
92 |
-1% |
-1% |
0% |
28% |
|
|
Iran, Islamic Rep. of |
0 |
-19 |
0 |
0 |
-19 |
3% |
3% |
2% |
-6% |
|
|
Japan |
-4 |
1248 |
-1016 |
0 |
228 |
-30% |
-6% |
-2% |
39% |
-24% |
|
Korea Rep. of |
5 |
508 |
-570 |
0 |
-56 |
-21% |
5% |
-1% |
35% |
-76% |
|
Malaysia |
0 |
-11 |
0 |
0 |
-11 |
2% |
2% |
1% |
-3% |
|
|
Myanmar |
0 |
-27 |
0 |
0 |
-27 |
1% |
1% |
0% |
|
33% |
|
Pakistan |
15 |
-36 |
0 |
0 |
-21 |
3% |
1% |
1% |
|
11% |
|
Philippines |
0 |
181 |
-31 |
0 |
150 |
-7% |
-7% |
-2% |
11% |
|
|
Saudi Arabia |
0 |
-6 |
0 |
0 |
-6 |
3% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
|
Thailand |
65 |
-120 |
0 |
0 |
-55 |
3% |
0% |
1% |
|
8% |
|
Viet Nam |
1 |
-6 |
0 |
0 |
-5 |
0% |
-1% |
0% |
|
0% |
|
Other Asia |
0 |
151 |
-49 |
0 |
102 |
-4% |
-5% |
-1% |
-13% |
|
|
Egypt |
-8 |
42 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
-3% |
-4% |
-1% |
|
-14% |
|
Other N. Africa |
0 |
61 |
-53 |
0 |
8 |
-52% |
-90% |
-30% |
9% |
|
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
0 |
43 |
-39 |
0 |
4 |
-11 % |
-14% |
-1% |
9% |
|
|
Nigeria |
0 |
747 |
-521 |
0 |
226 |
-48% |
-56% |
-7% |
78% |
|
|
Senegal |
0 |
20 |
-23 |
0 |
-2 |
-9% |
-14% |
-2% |
7% |
|
|
South Africa |
0 |
-6 |
0 |
0 |
-6 |
3% |
5% |
2% |
2% |
|
|
Other Sub-Saharan. Africa |
0 |
193 |
-193 |
0 |
-1 |
-8% |
-10% |
-1% |
8% |
|
|
Mexico |
0 |
-15 |
-1 |
0 |
-16 |
8% |
11% |
7% |
1% |
|
|
Cuba |
0 |
42 |
-37 |
0 |
5 |
-13% |
-18% |
-3% |
7% |
|
|
Argentina |
1 |
-8 |
0 |
0 |
-6 |
3% |
-1% |
1% |
-19% |
-19% |
|
Brazil |
0 |
-20 |
-8 |
0 |
-28 |
1% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
83% |
|
Colombia |
0 |
5 |
-1 |
0 |
4 |
-1% |
-1% |
-1% |
-7% |
|
|
Guyana |
-4 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
-8% |
-8% |
-4% |
|
-19% |
|
Uruguay |
13 |
-8 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
4% |
1% |
1% |
|
7% |
|
Other Lat. Amer. & Caribb. |
-1 |
169 |
-76 |
0 |
92 |
-11 % |
-11% |
-4% |
44% |
102% |
|
United States |
75 |
-164 |
-5 |
7 |
-87 |
7% |
-1% |
7% |
17% |
46% |
|
Other N. America |
0 |
-5 |
0 |
0 |
-5 |
7% |
0% |
0% |
5% |
|
|
EU(25) |
-23 |
409 |
-103 |
43 |
325 |
-34% |
-32% |
-21% |
69% |
-36% |
|
Other Europe |
0 |
8 |
-12 |
0 |
-4 |
-7% |
-12% |
1% |
-1% |
|
|
Australia |
2 |
-11 |
0 |
0 |
-9 |
9% |
-7% |
5% |
9% |
69% |
|
Other Oceania |
16 |
-2 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
3% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
5% |
|
Russian Federation |
0 |
9 |
-4 |
0 |
4 |
-3% |
-3% |
-2% |
2% |
|
|
Other CIS |
0 |
12 |
-23 |
0 |
-11 |
-4% |
-4% |
1% |
-10% |
|
|
Global |
159 |
3708 |
-3073 |
50 |
842.5 |
-10.86% |
2.78% |
-0.95% |
11.82% |
11.82% |
TABLE 11
Summary of Effects: Free Trade Scenario with
SSP/SPP and LDC Exemptions
| |
WELFARE ($US million) |
OTHER |
||||||||
|
Producer surplus |
Consumer surplus |
Tariff revenue |
Change in subsidy payments |
Net welfare effect |
Change in Overall Consumer Prices |
Change in Overall Export Prices |
Change in Output |
Change in Imports |
Change in Exports |
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E=A+B+C+D |
percent |
percent |
percent |
percent |
percent |
|
|
Bangladesh |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Cambodia |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-2% |
0% |
|
China |
0 |
-49 |
0 |
0 |
-49 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-2% |
10% |
|
Taiwan Prov. of China |
0 |
-4 |
-2 |
0 |
-5 |
0% |
1% |
0% |
-1% |
-4% |
|
India |
0 |
-4 |
0 |
0 |
-4 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
0% |
|
Indonesia |
0 |
-6 |
0 |
0 |
-7 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-2% |
|
|
Iran, Islamic Rep. of |
0 |
-2 |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Japan |
0 |
-6 |
0 |
0 |
-5 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
Korea Rep. of |
0 |
-3 |
2 |
0 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
Malaysia |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Myanmar |
0 |
-3 |
0 |
0 |
-3 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
4% |
|
Pakistan |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
0% |
|
Philippines |
0 |
-8 |
-1 |
0 |
-9 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-1% |
|
|
Saudi Arabia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Thailand |
7 |
-14 |
0 |
0 |
-6 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
1% |
|
Viet Nam |
1 |
-8 |
0 |
0 |
-6 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
1% |
|
Other Asia |
0 |
-7 |
0 |
0 |
-6 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Egypt |
-2 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
-1% |
-1% |
0% |
|
-4% |
|
Other N. Africa |
0 |
60 |
-53 |
0 |
7 |
-51% |
-88% |
-29% |
16% |
|
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
0 |
52 |
-39 |
0 |
13 |
-13% |
-17% |
-2% |
8% |
|
|
Nigeria |
0 |
-3 |
1 |
0 |
-3 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Senegal |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
South Africa |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Other Sub-Saharan. Africa |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Mexico |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
1% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Cuba |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Argentina |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
Brazil |
0 |
-2 |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
Colombia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-1% |
|
|
Guyana |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-1% |
-1% |
0% |
|
-1% |
|
Uruguay |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
0% |
|
Other Lat. Amer. & Caribb. |
0 |
-4 |
0 |
0 |
-4 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-1% |
-1% |
|
United States |
2 |
-10 |
0 |
7 |
-1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
Other N. America |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
EU(25) |
-2 |
27 |
-14 |
19 |
29 |
-2% |
-1% |
-2% |
-13% |
-94% |
|
Other Europe |
0 |
4 |
-12 |
0 |
-8 |
-3% |
-6% |
2% |
-3% |
|
|
Australia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-1% |
0% |
|
Other Oceania |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Russian Federation |
0 |
9 |
-4 |
0 |
4 |
-4% |
-4% |
-2% |
1% |
|
|
Other CIS |
0 |
4 |
-23 |
0 |
-19 |
-1% |
-6% |
1% |
-4% |
|
|
Global |
8 |
25 |
-146 |
26 |
-86.1 |
0.82% |
-0.15% |
-0.11% |
-0.27% |
-0.27% |
TABLE 12
Summary of Effects: Free Trade Scenario with
LDC exempted and concessions on SSP/SPP
| |
WELFARE ($US million) |
OTHER |
||||||||
|
Producer surplus |
Consumer surplus |
Tariff revenue |
Change in subsidy payments |
Net welfare effect |
Change in Overall Consumer Prices |
Change in Overall Export Prices |
Change in Output |
Change in Imports |
Change in Exports |
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E=A+B+C+D |
percent |
percent |
percent |
percent |
percent |
|
|
Bangladesh |
0 |
-20 |
0 |
0 |
-20 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-3% |
|
|
Cambodia |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-9% |
-9% |
|
China |
1 |
-84 |
0 |
0 |
-83 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-6% |
15% |
|
Taiwan Prov. of China |
-5 |
226 |
6 |
0 |
227 |
-29% |
-32% |
-8% |
53% |
178% |
|
India |
4 |
-97 |
0 |
0 |
-93 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
6% |
|
Indonesia |
0 |
-10 |
0 |
0 |
-11 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-2% |
|
|
Iran, Islamic Rep. of |
0 |
-4 |
0 |
0 |
-4 |
1% |
1% |
0% |
-1% |
|
|
Japan |
-2 |
588 |
-357 |
0 |
229 |
-15% |
-3% |
-1% |
18% |
-11 % |
|
Korea Rep. of |
0 |
188 |
-188 |
0 |
-1 |
-8% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-8% |
|
Malaysia |
0 |
-2 |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-1% |
|
|
Myanmar |
0 |
-10 |
0 |
0 |
-10 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
12% |
|
Pakistan |
2 |
-6 |
0 |
0 |
-3 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
2% |
|
Philippines |
0 |
59 |
6 |
0 |
65 |
-2% |
-2% |
-1% |
3% |
|
|
Saudi Arabia |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Thailand |
18 |
-33 |
0 |
0 |
-15 |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
2% |
|
Viet Nam |
-2 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
-1% |
|
Other Asia |
0 |
67 |
-6 |
0 |
62 |
-2% |
-2% |
0% |
-1% |
|
|
Egypt |
-5 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
-2% |
-2% |
-1% |
|
-8% |
|
Other N. Africa |
0 |
61 |
-53 |
0 |
7 |
-51% |
-89% |
-30% |
14% |
|
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
0 |
50 |
-39 |
0 |
12 |
-13% |
-17% |
-1% |
9% |
|
|
Nigeria |
0 |
232 |
-156 |
0 |
75 |
-16% |
-19% |
-2% |
25% |
|
|
Senegal |
0 |
-2 |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
1% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
|
|
South Africa |
0 |
-2 |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
1% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Other Sub-Saharan. Africa |
0 |
4 |
-2 |
0 |
3 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-1% |
|
|
Mexico |
0 |
-6 |
0 |
0 |
-6 |
3% |
5% |
3% |
0% |
|
|
Cuba |
0 |
-2 |
-4 |
0 |
-6 |
1% |
0% |
2% |
-1% |
|
|
Argentina |
0 |
-3 |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
1% |
0% |
0% |
-6% |
-6% |
|
Brazil |
0 |
-18 |
0 |
0 |
-18 |
1% |
1% |
0% |
-5% |
23% |
|
Colombia |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
-2% |
|
|
Guyana |
-1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-2% |
-3% |
-1% |
|
-6% |
|
Uruguay |
4 |
-3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
2% |
|
Other Lat. Amer. & Caribb. |
0 |
52 |
-20 |
0 |
31 |
-3% |
-3% |
-1% |
13% |
34% |
|
United States |
24 |
-56 |
-2 |
7 |
-27 |
2% |
-1% |
2% |
7% |
16% |
|
Other N. America |
0 |
-2 |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
2% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
|
EU(25) |
-12 |
198 |
9 |
2 |
197 |
-17% |
-16% |
-11% |
35% |
-12% |
|
Other Europe |
0 |
7 |
-12 |
0 |
-6 |
-5% |
-9% |
2% |
3% |
|
|
Australia |
1 |
-4 |
0 |
0 |
-4 |
4% |
-4% |
2% |
7% |
31% |
|
Other Oceania |
5 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
1% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
|
Russian Federation |
0 |
9 |
-4 |
0 |
5 |
-4% |
-4% |
-2% |
1% |
|
|
Other CIS |
0 |
9 |
-23 |
0 |
-14 |
-3% |
-6% |
1% |
-4% |
|
|
Global |
33 |
1422 |
-846 |
9 |
617.6 |
-3.51% |
0.38% |
-0.46% |
3.87% |
3.87% |
