بررسی اثر اعمال یارانه سبز بر اشتغال، سرمایه‌گذاری و ارزش‌افزوده بخش کشاورزی ایران با استفاده از مدل CGE

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی به زبان انگلیسی

نویسندگان

ملیحه بکشلو

غلامرضا یاوری

ابوالفضل محمودی

افسانه نیکوکار

فاطمه علیجانی

گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه پیام نور تهران، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead.2021.71051.1052

چکیده

یکی از سیاست‌های مهم اقتصادی در اغلب کشورها حمایت از تولیدکننده یا مصرف‌کننده از طریق پرداخت یارانه است. مقوله یارانه سبز در راستای توسعه کشاورزی مطرح شده که هم راستا با قانون هدفمند‌کردن یارانه‌ها، اما به شکلی واقعی می‌باشد. یارانه سبز ویژه کشاورزان و به منظور رونق کسب و کار و صنعت بخش کشاورزی است. هدف از این تحقیق، بررسی آثار الحاق ایران به سازمان تجارت جهانی، با اعمال سیاست شبیه‌سازی شده یارانه سبز بر روی متغیر‌های اشتغال، سرمایه‌گذاری و ارزش‌افزوده در بخش کشاورزی می‌باشد، که در قالب سناریوهای %20، %50 و %100 طراحی شده است. کالیبراسیون مدل با بکارگیری ماتریس حسابداری اجتماعی سال 1390 و سناریوی پایه (%0 اعمال یارانه سبز) صورت پذیرفت. جهت تجزیه و تحلیل اطلاعات در این تحقیق از نرم‌افزار GAMS استفاده شده است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که در جریان آثار الحاق ایران به سازمان تجارت جهانی و با اعمال سیاست شبیه‌سازی یارانه سبز، اشتغال در بخش کشاورزی در سناریوهای 20، 50 و 100 درصد، افزایش می‌یابد. همچنین با اعمال سیاست یارانه سبز، سرمایه‌گذاری در بخش کشاورزی روند افزایشی دارد، که به دلیل افزایش تولید در این بخش و در نتیجه افزایش استفاده از نهاده‌های واسطه می‌باشد. نتایج بدست آمده از شوک‌های مذکور نشان می‌دهد که ارزش‌افزوده در بخش کشاورزی روندی صعودی دارد، که به دلیل افزایش به‌کارگیری عوامل تولید در این بخش می‌باشد.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

بخش کشاورزی

سازمان تجارت جهانی

مدلCGE

یارانه سبز

20.1001.1.20084722.1400.35.4.4.0

موضوعات

• اقتصاد کشاورزی

---

عنوان مقاله English

Investigating the Effect of Green Subsidies on Employment, Investment and Value added of Iran's Agricultural Sector Using the CGE Model

نویسندگان English

M. Bakeshloo

Gh.R. Yavari

A. Mahmoudi

A. Nikoukar

F. Alijani

Department of Agricultural Economics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده English

One of the most important economic policies in most countries is to support producers or consumers through subsidies. The category of green subsidies has been proposed in the direction of agricultural development, which is in line with the law on targeted subsidies, but in a real way. Green subsidies belong to farmers and are used to boost business and industry in the agricultural sector. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of Iran's accession to the World Trade Organization by applying a simulated green subsidy policy on the variables of employment, investment, and value added in the agricultural sector, which is designed in the form of 20%, 50% and 100% scenarios. The model was calibrated using the social accounting matrix of 2011 and the baseline scenario (0% of green subsidies). GAMS software was used to analyze the data in this research. The results show an increase in employment in the agricultural sector during the effects of Iran's accession to the World Trade Organization and by applying the green subsidy simulation policy, in 20, 50 and 100% scenarios. Also, the implementation of green subsidy policy has led to an increase in investment in the agricultural sector.This is  due to the increased production in this sector and as a result, increase in the use of intermediate inputs. The results obtained from the mentioned shocks show that value added in the agricultural sector has an upward trend, which is due to the increase in the use of factors of production in this sector.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Agriculture section

CGE model

Green Subsidy

World Trade Organization

©2021 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

مراجع

1. . Ahangari, A., H. Farazmand, A. Montazer Hojjat, and R. Haft Lang. 2018. Effects of Green Tax on Economic Growth and Welfare in Economy of Iran: a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Approach (DSGE). Quantitative Economics Quarterly, 15(1): 27-61. (In Persian)
2. Ahearn, M.C., H. El-Osta and J. Dewbre. 2006. The Impact of Coupled and Decoupled Government Subsidies on Off-Farm Labor Participation of U.S. Farm Operators. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88: 393-408.
3. Banga, R. 2014. Impact of Green Box Subsidies on Agricultural Productivity. Production and International Trade. BACKGROUND PAPER. NO. RVC-11.
4. Banooei, A., A. Elizadeh, N. Sadeghi, M. Mostali Parsa, and H. Mousavi Nick. 2016. Updating the data-output table, social accounting matrix and designing the CGE model and their applications in socio-economic policy. Tehran Islamic Parliament Research Center (IPRC). (In Persian)
5. Barton, A. 2011. Why governments should use the government finance statistics accounting system. Abacus, 47(4): 411- 445.
6. Bellmann, Ch. 2019. Subsidies and Sustainable Agriculture: Mapping the Policy Landscape. Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy. Chatham House.
7. Berfisher, M. 2014. Introduction to computable general equilibrium models. Translated by Bazazan, F. and Soleimani, M. Tehran: Ney Publishing, First Edition. (In Persian)
8. Bellmann, Ch. 2019. Subsidies and Sustainable Agriculture: Mapping the Policy Landscape. Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy, Chatham House.
9. Brady, M., S. Hoggard, E. Kaspersson, and E. Rabinowicz. 2009. The CAP and Future Challenges. SIEPS: European Policy Analysis (11).
10. Can, W. 2011. Scheme of Constructing CGE Model of China. Direct Grain Subsidy Policy. Asian Agricultural Research Journal 3(7).
11. Cardente, M., F. Sancho, and A. Isabel Gray. 2016. General functional balance. Translated by Morteza Mazaheri Marbari and Behnam Amin Rostamkali, Tehran: Amara Publishing. First Edition. (In Persian)
12. Charnovitz, S. 2016. Green Subsidies and the WTO. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2014/93.
13. Chavas, J.P. and M.T. Holt. 1990. Acreage Decision Under Risk: The Case of Corn and Soybeans. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72: 529-538.
14. Cling, J. 2009. The Distributive Impact of Vietnam’s Accession to the WTO. Economie Internationale 43-71.
15. Dewbre, J., J. Antòn, and W. Thompson. 2001. The Transfer Efficiency and Trade Effects of Direct Payments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(5): 1204-1214.
16. El-Osta, H., A.K. Mishra, and M.C. Ahearn. 2004. Labor Supply by Farm Operators Under "Decoupled" Farm Program Payments. Review of Economics of the Household, 2: 367-385.
17. Gohin, A. 2006. Assessing CAP Reform: Sensitivity of Modeling Decoupled Policies. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(3): 415-440.
18. Goodwin, B.K., A.K. Mishra, and F.N. Ortalo-Magne. 2003. What’s Wrong with Our Models of Agricultural Land Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(3): 744-752.
19. Hendricks, N.P., J.P. Janzen, and K.C. Dhuyvetter. 2012. Subsidy Incidence and Inertia in Farmland Rental Markets: Estimates from a Dynamic Panel. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 37(3): 361-378.
20. Hennessy, D.A. 1998. The production effects of agricultural income support polices under uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80: 46-57.
21. Hosoe, N. 2004. Computable general equilibrium modeling with GAMS. [online].
22. Islamic Consultative Assembly. 2011. Estimation of social accounting matrix. Parliamentary Research Center. (In Persian)
23. Jackson, L.A., F. Maggi, R. Piermartini, and S. Rubínová. 2020. The value of the Committee on Agriculture: Mapping Q&AS to trade flows. Staff Working Paper ERSD.
24. Jalali, H. 2010. The role of subsidy targeting in the agricultural sector. Monthly specialized agricultural-analytical agriculture of farmers. (In Persian)
25. Just, D.R. 2011. Calibrating the Wealth Effects of Decoupled Payments: Does Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion Matter. Journal of Econometrics, 162(1): 25-34.
26. Khorshid, M. 2009. An Energy Economy Interaction Model for Egypt. International Conference on Policy Modeling, Canada.
27. Kirwan, B.E. 2009. The Incidence of U.S. Agricultural Subsidies on Farmland Rental Rates. Journal of Political Economy, 117(1): 138-164.
28. Lofgren, H., R.L. Harris, and S.H. Robinson. 2002. A Standard Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model in GAMS. Washington D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute.
29. Lambi, C. 2017. Assessing the Impacts of a Major Tax Reform: a CGE-microsimulation analysis for Uruguay. International Journal of Microsimulation, 9(1): 134- 166.
30. Lapka, M., J. Eva Cudlinova, S. Rikoon, M. Pelucha, and V. Kveton. 2011. The rural development contex of agricultural Green subsidies: Czech farmers’ responses. Agric. Econ – Czech, 57 (6): 259–271.
31. Lim, J.S. and G.K. Kim. 2012. Combining carbon tax and R&D subsidy for climate change mitigation. Energy Economics, 34: 496-502.
32. Naderan, E. and M. Fooladi. 2005. Provide a general equilibrium model to examine the effects of government spending on output, employment, and household income. Economic Research Journal, 5: 8-45. (In Persian)
33. Miller, R.E. and P.D. Blair. 2009. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Cambridge University Press, New York.
34. Morely, S. and Pinerio, V. 2004. The Effect of WTO and FTAA on Agriculture and the Rural Sector in Latin America. Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute.
35. Moro, D. and P. Sckokai. 1998. Modeling the CAP reform: degree of decoupling and future scenarios. Working Paper Universita Cattolica de Milano.
36. Muller, M. and E. Ferrari. 2011. Deriving CGE Baselines from Macro-economic Projection. Center for Development Research (ZEF). 53113. Germany.
37. Piri, S. 2016. World Trade Organization and Third World Countries: A Case Study of the Accession Process of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the WTO. Third International Conference on New Approaches in the Humanities.
38. Roberts, M.J., B. Kirwan, and J. Hopkins. 2003. The Incidence of Government Program Payments on Agricultural Land Rents: The Challenges of Identification. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85: 762-769.
39. Robinson, S., M. Kilkenny, and K. Hanson. 1990. The USDA/ERS Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model of the United States. Tech. rep USDA/ERS.
40. Roe, T., A. Somwaru, and X. Diao. 2003. Do Direct Payments Have Intertemporal Effects on US Agriculture? In: Moss C. B., Schmitz A., editors. Government Policy and Farmland Markets. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press 115-139.
41. Rude, J. 2000. An Examination of Nearly Green Programs: Case Study for Canada. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82 (3): 755-761.
42. Tayybi, K. and S.H. Mesri Nejad. 2006. Methodology of general equilibrium model that can be calculated, theory and application. Quarterly Journal of Economic Studies, 3: 132-103. (In Persian)
43. World Trade Organization. 2007. World Trade Report 2006; exploring The Links between Subsidies, trade and The WTO. Geneva: W.T.O publication.
44. World Trade Organization Website. 2015. Available at WWW.WTO.ORG.
45. Young, E. and P. Westcott. 2000. How decoupled is U.S. decoupled support for major crops. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82.
46. Zare, M. 2009. Legal requirements for Iran's accession to the World Trade Organization in the field of subsidies. Special Letter W.T.O 11(27). (In Persian)
47. Zoghipour, A. and M. Zibaei. 2009. Investigating the effects of trade liberalization on key variables in Iran's agricultural sector: A computable general equilibrium model. Agricultural Economics Quarterly, 3(4): 67-9. (In Persian)