Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

A way forward for Japanese agriculture

dc.contributor.authorHomna, Masayoshien_US
dc.contributor.authorTrewin, Rayen_US
dc.contributor.authorAmyx, Jennifer Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorRae, Allanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2004-03-29en_US
dc.date.accessioned2004-05-19T09:03:39Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-05T08:25:27Z
dc.date.available2004-05-19T09:03:39Zen_US
dc.date.available2011-01-05T08:25:27Z
dc.date.created2000en_US
dc.date.issued2000en_US
dc.description.abstractUnder the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) that came into effect on 1 January 1995, Japan pledged to convert non-tariff barriers into tariff equivalents for 28 commodities. The implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture triggered domestic policy reform. In July 1999 the Japanese Diet passed the Basic Law on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas, which replaced the Agricultural Basic Law of 1961. The new law outlines the direction and principles of Japanese agricultural policy for the 21st century and is more consistent with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) regime. However, these measures represent only the start of agricultural reform. Where is Japanese agriculture headed and do these changes represent a significant movement toward real reform? Agricultural policymaking in Japan reflects political power struggles. Agriculture is a highly protected sector, and as in many other industrialised countries, protection has increased as agriculture’s contribution to the economy has shrunk. Consumers – a larger and less politically organised group – tolerate agricultural protection as long as their incomes are rising, while agricultural producers are far smaller in number and lobby strongly as they have far more to lose. Pressure from foreign producers is a strong countervailing force against domestic interests that support agricultural protection, and explains why agriculture was one of the most important areas in the Uruguay Round negotiations.en_US
dc.format.extent318312 bytesen_US
dc.format.extent352 bytesen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/octet-streamen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/40455en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/40455
dc.language.isoen_AUen_US
dc.subjectURAAen_US
dc.subjectUruguay Round Agreement on Agricultureen_US
dc.subjecttrade policy reformen_US
dc.subjectJapanese Dieten_US
dc.subjectprotectionen_US
dc.subjecttariffsen_US
dc.subjectimportsen_US
dc.subjectBasic Lawen_US
dc.titleA way forward for Japanese agricultureen_US
dc.typeWorking/Technical Paperen_US
local.citationPacific Economic Papers No.300en_US
local.contributor.affiliationANUen_US
local.contributor.affiliationAPSEGen_US
local.description.refereedyesen_US
local.identifier.citationmonthfeben_US
local.identifier.citationyear2000en_US
local.identifier.eprintid2450en_US
local.rights.ispublishednoen_US

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
pep-300.pdf
Size:
310.85 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format