Files
Abstract
The substantial investment in models of global food markets immediately prior to and
during the Uruguay Round of international trade negotiations has been a mixed blessing so far as the
prospects for reform are concerned. At worst, results from these models have misled the negotiations, first
because they have served the losers from reform better than the gainers and second because they have
tended not to address a primary concern lending domestic political support to food market interventions,
namely the avoidance of risks borne of dependence on international markets. The paper reviews some
errors that have stemmed from the application of "standard" but inappropriate models and examines the
implications of extending the standard methodology to include the combination of explicit food price risk
with dynamic behaviour and market-insulating policies.