The integration of energy and agricultural markets

This article addresses the evolving links between energy and agricultural markets. Prior to 2005, there was little correlation between energy and agricultural commodity prices. In 2006–2008, with the ethanol boom in the United States, there emerged a strong link between crude oil, gasoline, and corn prices. There was little link between ethanol and corn. However, in late 2008 and 2009, the markets changed as ethanol production came under severe economic pressure and 2 billion out of 12 billion gallons of capacity shut down. During this period ethanol became priced more on corn, as the breakeven corn price helped drive the ethanol market. This article explores the drivers in these markets as well as other major issues facing the corn ethanol industry in the United States such as the blend wall. The article concludes with a review of prospects of a future cellulosic biofuels industry.     

Economies of scale and market structure in international grain trade

A large body of literature has examined international grain trade in imperfectly competitive models. The article develops a two-stage duopoly model that considers a private trader and a State Trading Enterprise (STE) competing on a foreign market. The key difference between the private trader and the STE is their international organization; while the STE makes use of external agents to export, the private firm may choose to internalize international transactions. The game is solved for different modes of competition and under both assumptions of homogeneous and differentiated products, in order to assess how these assumptions affect the outcome of the game. The results of the game are examined by using numerical examples. The analysis shows that external shocks on export markets may result in a change of market structure and, consequently, of market shares. These effects depend on the initial market structure. Furthermore, the degree of product differentiation and the assumed mode of competition significantly affect the relative values of transaction and fixed costs at which the market structure changes.     

Why do global long‐term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison

Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long‐term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of “real world commodity prices” differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between ?0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro‐economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross‐fertilize analyses at different scales.     

The War on Terroir: Geographical Indications as a Transatlantic Trade Conflict

Terroir, the concept of an essential link between location of production and a specific quality attribute, is emerging as a contentious issue in trade negotiations and disputes. This issue is manifest through disputes and disagreements about appropriate protection of ‘geographical indications’ (GIs). This paper explores the differences in approach taken by the EU and the US towards GI protection, and illustrates the nature of the legal and economic arguments. The transatlantic dispute is spreading to other countries through the inclusion of GI protection in regional and bilateral trade pacts. It also has implications for the eventual conclusion of the WTO Doha Round negotiations, as the terroir issue arises in both the agricultural and the Trade‐Related Intellectual Property (TRIPS) agendas, once again pitting the US and EU as protagonists. But there are signs of change in these positions as the GI system in the EU comes under review and producers in the US reconsider the possible advantages of location‐based identifiers. These issues are important in a number of food sectors, and are likely to be persistent. They deserve more attention from practising applied economists than they have yet received.