Introduction
Since the Doha negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at Qatar in 1999, there has been a deadlock between developed and developing countries over agricultural trade subsidies. One of the major developing nations that have been leading the opposition against high trade subsidies on agricultural products in developing nations is the Republic of India. This situation has resulted in negotiations stalemates among members of the WTO up to date. Today, India is also opposed to the Bali accord of 2013 on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA). The bottom line is that WTO agreements through TFA are likely to compromise food security in developing and underdeveloped countries. Since India is one of the developing countries whose farmers engage in subsistence agribusiness, the country is opposed to the elimination of trade subsidies on agriculture. On the other hand, the United States of America is opposed to subsidies on agriculture and farm inputs in WTO member countries. The driving force behind the United States is that when a developing country such as India, which has a big population, subsidizes prices for agricultural produce and farming inputs, for instance, agrochemicals and electricity, there will be an overproduction of agricultural products. The excess production will block the market for exporter countries such as the US. Therefore, developed nations in the European Union and the US are opposed to India’s move against a TFA clause that opposes more than 10% subsidization on the total value of any agricultural produce by a member country. However, India continues to carry out subsidies on agricultural products and inputs against the TFA and the 10% subsidization clause. It is in this light that this paper seeks to explore the issue of India and WTO and their impact on the US international agribusiness.
Engagement between India and the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA)
The WTO is an international organization that is responsible for smooth, predictable, and free trade between nations. The Republic of India has been a member of the WTO since its inception as General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in1948. India is considered a great contributor to the world economy, owing to its being the second highest producer of agricultural products behind the United States. According to Baldwin and Bonarriva, India is also considered an important market for agricultural products from developing nations, especially the US and the EU, owing to its large population of 1.25 billion people majority of who are poor farmers (35). According to Sitharaman et al., based on the realization that food insecurity and exploitation of India’s farmers by the developing countries, which export seeds and agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and agrochemicals at high prices, India decided to subsidize agricultural inputs and products (34). However, this move has been the point of contention by developed countries such as the US. It has resulted in stalemates in WTO discussions on trade facilitation.
The TFA is at the heart of WTO, which aims at facilitating free trade among members. However, Einhorn and Srivastava affirm that due to the TFA clause that objects subsidization of more than 10% on the value of the agricultural product, India opposed it (5). According to Nedumpara, the TFA clause on agricultural subsidies is based on the baseline year of 1986-1988, which the republic of India says will have a negative effect on its food security since food prices were then very low compared to the current market prices (178). The republic of India also claims that this baseline year is also insistent with the current currency exchange prices and inflation in the world markets. Such factors should be considered before the ratification of the TFA. Contravention of the TFA cap that opposes subsidization of over 10% of agricultural products is punishable under the WTO Act (Sitharaman et al. 34). For example, if India ratifies this agreement and then continues to contravene it by subsidizing agricultural inputs to its farmers in a bid to ensure food security, the WTO can impose trade sanctions against it. This possibility forms the basis why India and the support of economic powers such as China have proposed amendments on the 10% subsidies clause and its baseline year.
According to Einhorn and Srivastava, following the breakdown of the WTO talks on several occasions, including that of 2013, the republic of India has requested the WTO to amend the TFA act on agri-business subsidization (5). This move will allow it to continue buying agricultural products, especially grains from farmers at the lowest-hold-up subsidized prices so that it can sell them at subsidized prices to the poor people. Amendments of this norm will therefore ensure that no penalties are imposed on the poor and developing countries for ensuring food security to their citizens. Currently, an average farm in India is approximately 2.5 hectares, contrary to farms in developing countries such as the US where an average farm is approximately 250 hectares. Owing to its large population, land subdivision in India has resulted in small-sized lands that the economy depends on in ensuring food security. According to Sitharaman et al., since farmers in India have to work under very inconsistent environments, the government ensures a minimum return for farmers in a bid to guarantee that they continue producing towards the achievement of domestic food security (34). This move has resulted in the current stalemates between India and developed nations such as the US in the WTO.
Nedumpara observes a contrast between the TFA and the food security Act of India (178). According to this Act, the Indian government has a responsibility to provide food under subsidized prices to vulnerable populations in the country. The law also bids the government provide subsidies to all subsistence producers of food grains. This law has therefore obligated the government of India to guarantee food security to its citizens by buying food grains from farmers at low prices and selling it to the marginalized population at lower prices. The Indian government also subsidizes prices for agricultural inputs such as electricity, agrochemicals, and fertilizers. Nedumpara further affirms that TFA is also opposed to grain-food stockpiling, which the government of India is obligated to do by the food security Act (179). In addition, stockpiling of protein-heavy grains such as lentils and beans will also be impossible with the 10% TFA cap. However, India is determined to stand its ground on the food security issue to persuade the WTO members to back its efforts.
The interest of India in the WTO is clear since it was party to the enactment of TFA based on conditions that some protective procedures on food security will be endorsed to protect developing countries on matters of food security after the agreement. However, since then, there has been no move to ensure the protection of developing nations against food insecurity. This situation has driven India to remain opposed to the TFA on agricultural subsidization and distribution of subsidized grain food to poor populations. Food security is a duty that India is obligated to fulfill under its law. Fortunately, 33 members of the WTO have supported India’s move in ensuring food security for its citizens. Therefore, India bases its efforts on the peace clause that expires in 2017, despite its grain food stockpiling efforts to ensure food security.
Why the Republic of India Defend its Agriculture Industry?
The agriculture sector in India produces 30% of the country’s GDP. It is also estimated that 650 million Indians depend on agriculture. This reason makes India defend the subsidization of agriculture to realize the 10% GDP growth of its economy. In India, agricultural products are majorly aimed at ensuring food security as opposed to food trade (Einhorn and Srivastava 5). This view has been held by most of the developing countries in the WTO. However, the tug of war between India and WTO has been on subsidization of agricultural products. India and other developing countries cite that allowing free trade on subsidized agricultural products that are imported from developed countries will cripple their agricultural sectors. Therefore, enacting WTO laws that bar developing countries from subsidizing agriculture is unrealistic since developed nations such as the US and the EU subsidized their agriculture back in 1955 before the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. The impact of this subsidization on agriculture in developed nations has put them at an advantaged position in international agribusiness. In fact, this step is a major foundation of the opposition of TFA by developing nations. Developed and developing nations countries cannot trade as equals, especially on agricultural products.
India has also upheld the claim that agricultural produce is more of livelihood products than trade goods. In fact, most of the developing nations are for the idea that agricultural products should not be a subject of discussion in the WTO. However, developed nations such as the US assert that it is only under WTO that trade on agricultural products can be negotiated. For example, the WTO blames subsidization on agriculture that has crippled agriculture-dependent trade on international trade and production. On its part, India has stood firm on its stance on subsidizing agriculture, claiming that WTO’s move will have dire consequences on developing nations that are highly dependent on it.
Agribusiness in the WTO
The issue of agribusiness in the WTO is discussed under market access, export competition, and domestic support.
Domestic Support
Subsidization of agricultural production has an impact on agribusiness. Developed countries such as the US have heavily subsidized their agricultural production process. Agricultural subsidization by developed countries is a major barrier to a level of trade ground between them and the developing nations. Agricultural products from countries such as India face price restrictive markets in the developed world. Einhorn and Srivastava observe that the exportation of such subsidized products from the developed nations to the developing nations attracts unfavorable competition in terms of prices of domestic agricultural produce (5). Therefore, the US and the EU are persistently following the path of restricting subsidization of agricultural production in developing nations to secure the Indian market, especially in countries that have a big population and purchasing power such as India.
Domestic support is classified under trade-distorting support and non-trade distorting support in the WTO. The non-trade distorting support has no minimum effect on production and trade. The WTO allows the US and the EU to offer trade-distorting support to the tune of 100 billion dollars and 48.22 billion (Nedumpara 180). This figure is below the ceiling that the US promised to reduce by 53%. However, the US wants to trade this reduction on paper with a reduction of subsidies in agriculture by developing nations. This plan has been met with resistance by India and other developed nations in the WTO.
Market Access for Agricultural Products
There exists conflict on tariffs between developing nations such as India and developed nations. The cause of disagreement is the push by the developed nations to make the developing nations eliminate trade tariffs, especially in agricultural products. Nedumpara asserts that the removal of trade tariffs for agricultural produce by a country such as India might result in negative trade consequences with developed nations (180). For example, there might be an influx of low-priced agricultural products such as grains from developed countries like the US. Consequently, there might be an increase in unemployment and poverty since agricultural products from developed nations are highly subsidized and/or might outdo market prices in such a developed country. In this light, the Hong Kong Declaration of 2005 allowed developing countries to designate certain agricultural foodstuffs as special products. Under this agreement, all special products will be subjected to exceptional and dynamic tariff reduction. Moreover, such agricultural products will be selected based on their dependability as livelihood foods, state food security, and contribution to national development. In this light, most of the developing nations have ridden on this declaration in secluding their agricultural products from unfair competition from the west. However, the US has been opposed to this agreement. In fact, it has been pushing for a limitation on the number of special products in developing countries to five. This plan will increase the access of developing countries’ markets by agricultural export products from the US. Consequently, the move will result in unfair competition for agricultural products, hence exposing farmers in developing nations to unfair market prices since exports from developed nations are subsidized (Nedumpara 180). The overall effect will result in suicide for farmers as it was witnessed in India in 1991 because of failure in agricultural production, which is its major livelihood. Such consequences have made most of the developing nations, such as India, oppose the amendment of the agreements to position them at a disadvantaged position in conducting agribusiness.
Competition in Export
According to Nedumpara, during the WTO Hong Kong ministerial meeting, states representatives in this highest decision-making organ agreed to remove all subsidies to export agricultural products by 2013 (181). Nevertheless, this move by WTO did not achieve the intended impact since most of the developing nations were opposed to it. For example, India continues to subsidize farming inputs to its farmers by providing subsidized fertilizers, electricity, and agrochemicals. Most of the developed nations, especially in the G33, have also opposed this move citing food security issues and unfair competition intention by the developed nations.
India has one of the highest rates of agricultural tariffs. For example, customs duty for some products such as olive oil is put to the ceiling at 45%. Some of the agricultural products that India is very sensitive to include cereals, dairy products, spices, oilseeds, ginger, cane sugar, and edible oils. This situation is attributed to the value of these products in generating income and livelihood for a huge section of the population. Therefore, India has been defensive in protecting these agricultural products against heavy tariff cuts.
India is both a member of G20 and G33. Being a member of G33 makes India part of a group of nations that seek Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSM) (Einhorn and Srivastava 5). The SSM mechanisms allow developing nations to apply extra tariffs in case of an increase in cheap imports. However, the US has pushed for tight strict rules to allow countries to invoke SSM. Over the years, India has played a defensive role in its agricultural sector. It has been pushing for a reduction in agricultural subsidies by developed nations while resisting tariff reduction in agricultural products. The fight against subsidization of agricultural products in India and other developing nations by the US is hypocritical since it (the US) enjoys the highest levels of subsidization of such products against the WTO in the world.
Table 1.1: Rates Subsidization of Agribusiness Products by Members of WTO
The implication of India and WTO on U.S international agribusiness
According to Kamdar, trade disputes concerning India and WTO will have an impact on the US international agribusiness (60). The stalemate concerns agribusiness between the developed and developing nations on farm subsidies and food security. This situation will directly have a negative impact on the US international agribusiness since India is one of the largest markets for its agricultural exports. For example, in 2013, the US exported agricultural produce worth 863 million dollars to India. This export accounted for a considerable income to the government of the US. The leading agricultural products that the US exports to India include tree nuts, cotton, pulses, and fruits. Other agricultural products that the US exports to India include wheat, rice, soybeans, oilseeds, corn, sorghum, animal feeds, meat and dairy products, fish, cotton, fertilizers, and agrochemicals. The implication of the current stance of India on WTO will affect the US international agribusiness in the following ways:
Losses in the Agribusiness Sector
According to Qiang, Reed, and Saghaian, the continued stalemate on talks over farm subsidies between India and WTO will result in high prices of agricultural products in world markets (202). Kamdar asserts that as India continues to subsidize farm inputs for its farmers under the premise of ensuring food security, there will be reduced imports of agricultural products from the US (61). The impact of subsidies of farm inputs like fertilizers, electricity, and seeds will result in surplus production by farmers in India. This case will mean that the country will be self-sufficient in food provision and that the need for food import will be below. As a result, the US, which is dependent on the Indian market, will lose this market. Kamdar affirms that the Indian market is important to the US since India is the home to a sixth of the world population (62). The US will be forced to look for a market for its agricultural products elsewhere. Agricultural production in the US has doubled in recent years following heavy subsidization by the government. This observation implies an increased demand for markets for its agricultural products such as cotton, fruits, and grain food. The US government and farmers who are producing agricultural products for export are likely to experience heavy losses if the Indian market is closed. As a result, most of the farmers may decide to quit agribusiness because of losses as it happened to Mexican farmers. Despite subsidization of farm inputs by the government, farmers fund the larger part of the production in agribusiness.
Dumping the US Agricultural Goods in other Developing Nations
An increase in subsidized agricultural production in India will also result in the dumping of surplus agricultural products in the world markets. Kamdar observes that a loss of the Indian market by the US will mean an overflow of agricultural products in the world market (63). Since the absorption of these products was high in the Indian market, getting a replacement market is a hard task. As a result, the US will reduce the prices of its agricultural products in the world market. The implication of dumping these agricultural products will affect the prices of agricultural products in the receiving country. Since the WTO allows free trade, the heavily subsidized US products will disadvantage the receiving country. Since the US is a developed country that can subsidize farm inputs at a higher rate than any developing country, its products can compete at a better price in the free market.
Dumping will cripple the internal agriculture sectors in most third-world countries. Developing countries are likely to be affected negatively by the stalemate between WTO and India. Baldwin and Bonarriva say that through TFA, the US is free to export its agricultural products to any member country (36). Since most of the developing nations are not able to subsidize farm inputs for farmers, the cost of production for most of the agricultural products is very high. As a result, domestic agricultural products cannot compete at equal levels with imports from the US. The inception of cheap products will draw consumers to prefer buying foreign produce instead of their locally produced ones. This move will mean that local products will lose market and that farmers will suffer a loss due to unfair competition.
Loss of Market for the US Fertilizer Companies
Qiang, Reed, and Saghaian assert that subsidization of farming fertilizers by the republic of India will also affect the US international agribusiness (210). India provides one of the highest markets for agro-fertilizers from the US. Subsidization of this input against the WTO agreement will result in surplus production of agricultural produce in India. Kamdar asserts that surplus agricultural products will in turn block the way for the US exports to the Indian market (63). Fertilizer manufacturing industries in the US have employed thousands of the country’s citizens. Loss of the Indian market will mean that the companies will have to tone down their production rates. This situation will also result in a loss of jobs by people who have been employed by fertilizer manufacturing companies. Qiang, Reed, and Saghaian further assert that the US may also be forced to dump its fertilizers in other developing nations at a low price (212). This move will result in losses since such countries may not have the purchasing power to buy the fertilizers at optimal prices. Dumping of fertilizer products in developing countries may have a double effect on the US economy since production of agricultural products in these countries may increase, thus resulting in low absorption of its exports.
The US has invested heavily in seed companies in India. The United States of America-owned companies such as Monsanto, Dupont, and Dow supply patented seed to Indian farmers. Subsidization of seeds by the government of India will result in unleveled competition between the companies and the government (Kamdar 63). Baldwin and Bonarriva assert that the provision of subsidized seeds to the farmers in India will result in the closure of the US multinational corporations that sell seeds in India (38). This move will have a negative impact on the US agribusiness and economy at large. In India, most seed sales come from the United States. This observation means that there is a huge market for US seeds in India. Subsidization of seeds by the government to ensure food security will therefore imply a loss of billions of money by the US agricultural sector.
The US sells patented seeds that are loaded with terminator genes. Hence, farmers cannot replant seeds from the first crop. A seed is only viable once. Its products are not viable for germination. This plan guarantees a consistent market for the US manufactured seeds. Therefore, farmers are forced to buy seeds in every planting season. Agricultural produce, especially grains, cannot be replanted for a second season. In efforts to ensure sustainable food production for its citizens, India has undertaken a plan to provide traditional seeds to its farmers. Hence, farmers can access seeds that can be replanted for several seasons. Farmers will cut down on the cost of production, especially for grain food. On the other hand, Qiang, Reed, and Saghaian observe that India’s multinational corporations that are owned by the US will have to withstand stiff competition from the government-subsidized fertilizers and seeds (214). These seed companies may also be forced to close down due to stiff competition, which will result in the loss of income for the US agribusiness.
Market Access Problem
The WTO ensures that all member countries can enjoy free trade across the globe. The WTO upholds the removal of trade tariffs, embargoes, heavy taxation on imports, and not more than 10% subsidization of the total cost of agricultural produce. However, according to Kamdar, the fact that India stands opposed to the Organizations Trade Facilitation Agreement implementation, access to its market by the US may be difficult (63). Although several bilateral trade agreements have been signed between India and the US outside the confines of the WTO, it is important to note the strained relationship between the two in matters of agriculture subsidization. Einhorn and Srivastava observe that India claims that the US is not realistic in its opposition to third-world countries’ subsidization of inputs on agricultural produce since the US also engages in heavy subsidization of the same in its homeland (5). This hypocrisy has resulted in making developing nations poorer since they cannot trade at the same level. Besides, their agricultural products cannot compete in the market.
Therefore, the government of India stands opposed to TFA’s proposal of free flow of trade among member countries. Opposition to the subsidization of farm inputs at rates that have been calculated using the baseline year of 1985-1986 by developed nations in the WTO is not realistic. India continues to enforce trade tariffs on some agricultural products that are exempted under the Special Products (SP) category. Since the WTO has not put a limit on the number of special products that a country can protect from unfair competition, India can protect most of its subsidized grain food by enacting trade tariffs that bar imports of grains. This move by the Republic of India will benefit farmers in India. However, the move will have a detrimental effect on the US international agribusiness. Nedumpara observes that the US exports wheat, rice, corn, beans, and another grain foodstuff to India (177). This observation means that if no solution is availed by the WTO summit after 20 years of discussion, trade between developed nations such as the US and India will be negatively affected. The push by the US to limit the number of special products that a developing country can protect through tariffs to ensure livelihood and food security has not seen the light of the day. It faces great opposition from developing nations (Qiang, Reed, and Saghaian 215). Loss of the Indian market for the US grain food will also have a negative economic effect on its economy. The increased grain food products in the US will be faced with low markets. Hence, the slow movement of such goods may result in wastage and losses. Trade tariffs will bar US products from competing favorably with domestic products in foreign markets. As a result, there will be a slow movement of agricultural products in third-world countries. Over-production of subsidized agribusiness products results in subsidies that demand export markets.
Table 1.2: The United States Subsidization on Domestic Agribusiness
Increased Competition between the US Agricultural Products and Products from India
The stalemate in WTO over the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement is centered on competition in the market for agricultural products. Over two decades now developed countries have opposed India’s push for special considerations of food security issues in developing nations before the implementation of TFA. Kamdar observes that the US has been on the front line in opposing a move that will allow subsidization above the clause that has put agricultural input subsidies at 10% on the total cost of production with a baseline of 1985-1986 (63). The major reason behind this stalemate is that developed nations want to secure markets for their agricultural products in developed countries. Therefore, efforts to make developed nations self-sufficient in food production and provision to their citizens are faced with opposition. For example, the US realizes that if India continues to subsidize farm inputs for its farmers whilst buying their farm produce at the minimum market prices, there will be an increase in the production of agricultural products. This outcome will mean a threat to the US agricultural products that it has heavily subsidized in disguise. In addition, the fact that the US is opposed to the initiative by the government of India to buy food products from farmers at the least market prices and sell them to the marginalized populations at the lowest market prices is also pegged on the fight for markets (Nedumpara 178). If India succeeds in convincing the WTO and other members to back its effort to subsidize agricultural inputs, the US agribusiness will suffer a great loss of market. It is important to note the relevance of India’s 2.5 billion people as a market that comprises able buyers due to poverty and subsistence farming. The fact that India holds a third of the world’s poorest people is a great factor for the US to fight for this market. Therefore, the US will oppose any effort to deny it this market for its agricultural products.
In addition, if India can subsidize all its farm inputs, there will be an increase of not only the domestic supply of food but also the surplus agricultural produce for export. The standpoint by the US that subsidization of farm inputs by the Indian government will put her at an advantage in selling her surplus products is based on this realization. Subsidization of agricultural input will result in surplus agricultural produce in India that will compete with the US agricultural produce in the international markets (Einhorn and Srivastava 5). Competition for similar markets, for example, for wheat, rice, and beans will result in the lowering of the product market prices (Kamdar 63). Lowering commodity prices in the international market will mean low returns on the US agribusiness.
Increased Domestic Market for the US Agribusiness in incase India is Sanctioned by WTO
Qiang, Reed, and Saghaian affirm that India is among the top ten exporters of agricultural produce to the US (215). This situation implies the importance of the US market for India’s products. Contravention of the TFA clause on not more than 10% subsidies on the total cost of agricultural production will result in the imposition of trade sanctions on India. If India is sanctioned from engaging in business with other WTO members, the US agribusiness will benefit from its markets. Therefore, the US domestic market for its subsidized agricultural products will be left with little competition. Lack of competition at home and in other countries that depend on India’s exports will enable the US to dominate the market and control the market prices of certain agricultural products that will be rare in the market. Trade sanctions will also benefit multinational corporations that are owned by the US in India since the country will not be allowed to trade from other external countries. The companies will therefore dominate the market with less or no competition from outside the borders of India.
Loss of Developed Countries Markets by the US if India’s Subsidies are allowed by the WTO
If the WTO allows India to subsidize farm inputs, other developing nations will also push for subsidization, thus making developed nations such as the US lose market for its agribusiness products. The TFA Act on subsidies binds all developing nations. Hence, they are unable to produce enough to feed their populations. It is for this reason that most of the developing nations depend on the developed nations for food aid and imports. The clause of export-agricultural-produce subsidization is silently overlooked by the developed nations. Some developing nations strictly adhere to it either due to a lack of funds to subsidize their farming or on matters of international discipline.
However, according to Nedumpara, if a country such as India, which has opposed the clause over the years, manages to garner support from member countries, is allowed to subsidize farm inputs, or to carry out food holding, other developing nations will mount pressure on the WTO to be enjoined in the immunity (179). Developing nations in other parts of the world will defy the clause in an effort to be enjoined as nations that are suffering from food insecurity. If all developing nations are allowed to subsidize farming inputs to ensure food security, the US international agribusiness will experience heavy losses of markets. Developing nations will be able to produce enough food for their citizens. Reliance on imports will be reduced. This situation will compromise the whole idea of subsidization since the developed country will also demonstrate a lack of a common ground for free trade in the world. However, Sitharaman et al. observe that since the clause provides some privilege to members of the developing nations until 2017, the impact of input subsidizing by the republic of India is likely to continue being felt until the WTO talks come up with a binding agreement (34).
Imposition of Trade Barriers on the US Cheap Agribusiness Imports by Members of G33
India can apply the special safeguard mechanism as a member of the G33. According to Einhorn and Srivastava, SSM will allow it to impose tariffs on some agricultural products from the US in case of increased cheap imports (5). The US can produce high quantities of food products due to its focus on export markets and subsidization by the government. As a result, it can export large quantities of agricultural products such as fresh fruits, corn, and wheat to developing countries. If the WTO stalemate on the state of food insecurity in developing nations is not taken care of, G33 members, including India might impose a special safeguard mechanism against their agricultural products. This move will result in high prices of the US agricultural export products in the importing countries, thus placing them at a point where they cannot compete favorably with local products. Kamdar affirms that high tariff changes will mean that the products will not be bought and/or will move slowly in the markets, thus affecting the whole process of production, distribution, and marketing (63). It can even lead to losses if the products are not purchased.
Conclusion
The WTO has been in existence since 1995 after replacing the GATT. This organization fosters free trade among member nations. However, India has been opposed to the TFA clause that prohibits members from subsidizing farm inputs with over 10% of the cost of production based on the 1985-986 baseline year. India has also been opposed to the lack of protection mechanisms for developing nations on food security within the TFA. This stance has been faced with opposition from developed nations such as the US. The impact of the engagement of India and WTO on the US international agribusiness has been majorly negative. The US has experienced losses, competition for markets, dumping of agricultural products in developed nations, and imposition of trade barriers for an oversupply of cheap exports in some countries. This discussion has realized that it is important for the current stalemate between India and WTO concerning TFA, farming input subsidies, and food security to be resolved for the coherency of member states.
Works Cited
Baldwin, Katherine, and Joanna Bonarriva. “Feeding the Dragon and the Elephant: How Agricultural Policies and Trading Regimes Influence Consumption in China and India.” Journal of International Commerce & Economics 5.1(2013): 33-48. Print.
Einhorn, Bruce, and Mehul Srivastava. “WTO: Why India and China Said No to U.S.” Business Week Online 12 Jan. 2008: 5. Print.
Kamdar, Mira. “The Real Prize in India-U.S. Relations.” World Policy Journal 23.4(2006): 60-63. Print.
Koo, Won, and Lynn Kennedy. “The Impact of Agricultural Subsidies on Global Welfare.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88.5(2006): 1219-1226. Print.
Nedumpara, James. “India’s Food Security Concerns and the WTO Bali Ministerial Decision.” Air & Space Law 39.2(2014): 177-181. Print.
Qiang, Zhang, Michael Reed, and Sayed Saghaian. “The impact of multiple volatilities on import demand for U.S. commodities: the case of soybeans.” Agribusiness 26.2(2010): 202-219. Print.
Sitharaman, Nirmala, Michael Punke, Biswajit Dhar, and Pradeep Mehta. “India blocks WTO deal on trade facilitation.” Business Today 2014: 34. Print.