@article{Konjing:8446,
      recid = {8446},
      author = {Konjing, Chaiwat},
      title = {Thailand's Maize Export Agreement Policy: An Economic  Analysis},
      address = {1976},
      number = {1690-2016-137335},
      series = {Economic Report 76-8},
      pages = {207},
      year = {1976},
      abstract = {This study is an evaluation of Thailand's maize export  agreement policy through economic analyses of prices and  markets for Thai maize. Maize export agreements between  Thailand and Japan since 1966 and recently Taiwan has  played an important role to the overall development of Thai  maize. These agreements feature two important policy  elements, (a) an export quota and (b) a fixed export price.  Some disagreements now exist, however, as to whether these  export agreements are more or less desirable for Thailand  than free trade.
Statistical analyses of the  wholesale-export price linkages of maize in Bangkok, using  monthly contract data during 1970-1974 crops years, showed  that the Bangkok wholesale maize prices were heavily  influenced by fixed formula export prices and the export  quotas under the agreement contracts. The former has its  direct impact on local maize prices and maize stocks. The  latter, on the other hand, influence maize stocks which  later help to determine maize prices. Since the formula  export prices and export quotas are known at least 30 to 60  days before shipments of maize, the local market tends to  react to these coming export conditions one to two months  earlier. In addition, the local supply conditions and the  weather also play a part in the pricing process of Thai  maize in Bangkok.
The estimated relations between wholesale  maize prices and maize stocks revealed that maize stocks in  a given month were largely determined by wholesale maize  prices in the past one to two months. Also, the price  responsiveness of maize stocks was very high when wholesale  prices were low relative to export prices and vice  versa.
The analysis of structural changes in maize  exporting firms also showed that the number of very small  exporting firms increased substantially while the number of  large firms was small and stable. Most large exporters  exhibited average apparent size close to maximum size  barrier (5 percent) of the quota system. Many small  exporters, on the other hand, held, on average, less than 1  percent export share. The apparent export concentration of  the firms was between 52 to 64 percent and did not  substantially change between 1969 and 1974 crop  years.
Because of the limited quotas, large firms tended to  secure additional export quotas sold by small exporters.  The actual changes in size and number of exporting firms  were then accentuated by these quota transfers.
Moreover,  an analysis of export markets for Thai maize showed that  Thailand can be viewed as a price taker in either the world  or regional maize market. Despite being a price taker,  Thailand's maize exports deteriorated in a relative sense  through a weakening competition position in the  international maize trade. In addition, there is little  evidence that the maize export agreements help to offset  this relative trade deterioration. The agreements probably  prevented widespread market disruption, but at the same  time small and inefficient exporting firms are protected by  the ensured market demand under agreements. This protection  reduces incentives for small firms to be innovative and  aggressive and also stifles growth and expansion by larger  firms.
Finally, the study argues that Thailand's maize  export agreement policy should be abandoned in the long run  and an adjustment toward free trade should be encouraged.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/8446},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.8446},
}