Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Well, I think there's an approach to agricultural development that looks at the local and the regional (regions may be large). Local development should be firstly about food security in rural localities, while development of regional (smaller sense) markets can offer an outlet for part of the crops grown, against cash. A wider region may organize/stabilize exchanges on a comparative advantage basis (area 1 is better for rice, area 2 for maize, etc).

I think this is above all the reference in that text. They do after all say:

nanne:

We must reassert the need for global co-ordination of economic policy, for the democratization of negotiation processes, and for the respect of collective interests.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Nov 28th, 2009 at 09:56:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What happens when the 'development of regional groupings' is in practical conflict with the 'need for global coordination of economic policy'? You can want both but as a practical matter the first is an existing element of the EU's trade strategy (through EPAs) which exists as a way of restructuring global trade in the absence of a prospect of coming to a global agreement through the Doha round.

As the EPAs seem less harmful than the Doha round this is not a bad thing on account of getting a global arrangement. Better nothing than Doha. But the accompanying construction of regional trading blocs in the service of the EU market is a questionable matter.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Nov 28th, 2009 at 10:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
nanne:
in the service of the EU market

I agree.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Nov 28th, 2009 at 10:35:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series