Rice tariffs burden Japanese consumers and the economy

July 31, 2012

Free Market Foundation

Japan now uses a quota system to import less than 10 percent of all rice consumed, tariff-free; the rest runs up against a whopping 500 percent wall. As a result, Japanese consumers pay three to four times more for food than people do elsewhere.

According to economist Keijiro Otsuka:

If the tariffs were abolished or significantly reduced, Japan would find itself importing more than half the rice it consumes.

An open Japanese market would probably create a trickle-down effect for other rice-producing nations.

Farmers in California, Australia and China where producer prices are one-tenth those in Japan would be the biggest beneficiaries; they produce the short-grain, stickier Japonica rice that Japanese consumers prefer.

Poorer tropical countries unable to produce such rice would, probably sell more of their own rice to China, which would most likely shift some of its production over to Japonica for export.

The country’s farm policies have stymied many potential free-trade deals with exporting countries. The farmers’ aversion to regional and bilateral trade agreements has also hurt Japanese manufacturers in dealing with countries where competing nations enjoy duty-free privileges. Over the long run, it could affect Japan’s critical relationship with China, which is eager to sell Japan cheap rice.

Japanese farmers equate that kind of change with the end of Japanese agriculture, but Otsuka and other Japanese economists don’t agree. They say a restructuring of the farming sector might mean that farms of tomorrow would be larger and more efficient.

Source: Andres Martinez, Who Said Anything About Rice? Free Trade Is About Cars and PlayStations, New York Times, August 10, 2003.

For text http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/opinion/10SUN3.html
For more on Tariffs and Trade Barriers http://www.ncpa.org/iss/int/

A review of recent U.S. recessions shows that there has been a change in the behaviour of productivity. Historically, a sharp drop in productivity preceded recessions, as employers kept workers on even as output fell.

Productivity rose after the recession mainly because employers were reluctant to hire as output increased, says Bruce Bartlett:

Thus, in the 6 quarters preceding the trough of the 1973-75 recession there was zero increase in productivity during that whole period.

In the 6 quarters before the 1981-82 recession, the total increase in productivity was just 0.8 percent.

In the 6 quarters after the trough, productivity rose by 5.9 percent in both cases.

This started to change with the 1990-91 recession.

Productivity rose by 1.2 percent going into the recession and 4.5 percent coming out.

The higher productivity going in meant that fewer workers were needed coming out of the recession.

Now, in the current recession, which ended in the 4th quarter of 2001, we have seen even higher productivity on either side. The latest data show an increase in productivity of 4 percent in the 6 quarters before and 6.5 percent in the 6 quarters after. That is why employment growth and hiring levels remain weak. Employers are raising output without adding much new labour, explains Bartlett.

It is important to remember that this is a short-run phenomenon. In the long-run, higher productivity increases employment, a fact documented in 2 new studies from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. But in the meantime, employment growth may still be slow for a couple more months.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, New Economy Productivity, National Center for Policy Analysis, August 11, 2003.

For text http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2003/bb081103.html
For more on Economic Growth http://www.ncpa.org/iss/eco/

Last week, Mario Monti, Europe’s competition czar, announced that he was prepared to levy fines and force further changes to Microsoft’s computer operating system.

In essence, Monti wants to force Microsoft to turn over its own intellectual property to its global competitors. A press conference was called mainly to let the world know Microsoft was being given one last chance to repent and surrender, says the Wall Street Journal.

The European Unions regulations increasingly seek to tie down not just European companies but also those from any part of the world that trades with the EU:

Microsoft has already modified Windows to let computer makers configure their machines to give more prominence to media players made by Microsoft’s competitors, such as Real Networks’ Real Player.

Computer makers are even free to hide the media player that Microsoft includes (free) in every copy of Windows.

Why isn’t this enough?

According to the Journal, Monti’s investigators sent out questionnaires to businesses that distribute audio and video files. At the press conference, the commission then triumphantly declared that the answers showed that most content providers are inclined to make their video and audio clips compatible with Media Player, because it comes already installed on new Windows machines.

In other words, the commission’s evidence consists not of anything Microsoft itself has done, but the fact that potential users like what it has done.

All this makes the commission’s proposed remedies either sell a crippled version of Windows that can’t play content, or else make sure Windows machines all have both Microsoft’s media player and a competitor’s particularly perverse.

Somehow the U.S. government has to draw a line in the sand here, says the Journal. Intellectual property and services are the growth engine of the modern economy, of which Microsoft is a crown jewel, it explains.

Source: Editorial, Montis Wrecking Crew, Wall Street Journal, August 7, 2003.

For text (WSJ subscription required)
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106021398070464800,00.html
For more on more on Anti-Trust http://www.ncpa.org/iss/leg/

For many countries, the 1990s were years of despair, the recently released Human Development Report 2003 of the United Nations Development Program concludes.

The latest report emphasises goals established by the United Nations in its Millennium Declaration of 2000, which ideally are to be met by 2015. They include halving poverty and hunger rates and reducing child mortality by two-thirds.

So how has the world done since 1990?

Fifty-four countries are poorer, as measured by per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Sub-Saharan Africa is worst off, with per-capita GDP falling in 20 nations.

It fell in 17 nations in Eastern Europe, six in Latin America, and six in East Asia and the Pacific.

The rate of hunger has increased in 21 nations.

The proportion of children who die under the age of 5 has risen in 14 nations.

Still, some countries, even poor ones, have done well by many measures. China and India stand out, of course. Ghana reduced its hunger rates greatly in the 1990s, and conditions in Vietnam improved significantly.

And some take solace in the fact that only 23 percent of the global population lives on less than $1 a day, compared with 30 percent in 1990. But most of this improvement has to do with the stunning economic progress in China. In absolute numbers, more people are now extremely poor than in 1990 if China is excluded.

The bottom line is that at this rate, some crucial goals set for 2015 will not be met by many regions for several decades, and in some cases not until the next century.

Source: Jeff Madrick, Grim Facts on Global Poverty, New York Times, August 7, 2003.

For text http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/07/business/07SCEN.html
For report text http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/
For more on International (Comparisons) http://www.ncpa.org/iss/int/

FMF Policy Bulletin\12 August 2003