Influencing GVCs through Agro-Food Policy and Reform

Greenville, Jared; Kawasaki, Kentaro; Flaig, Dorothee; Carrico, Caitlyn

doi:10.1787/9ce888e0-en

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Trade can positively and negatively affect all four pillars of FSN (availability, access, utilization, stability). Evidence suggests that globalization and international trade may help to extend the value chain and generate opportunities to create wealth and equitable livelihoods among countries (OECD 2020b; Greenville et al 2019a;Greenville et al 2019b) International trade and financial flows are also associated with changes in production and consumption patterns that require taking into account the way livelihood is affected, in particular, through employment access, incomes and wealth distribution. Measures are needed to avoid unwanted outcomes, including increases in income inequality (Feenstra and Hanson 1996;Feenstra and Hanson 2008).…”

Section: Economic and Political Driversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advance Equitable Livelihoods

Neufeld¹,

Huang

Badiane

et al. 2023

Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food system transformation provides the opportunity to shift current trends in all forms of malnutrition, prioritizing the availability and affordability of nutritious food for all – from shifting priorities in agricultural production, to improved food systems that favor nutrition and sustainability. The task of Action Track 4 is to explore approaches to doing so that will advance equitable livelihoods for producers, businesses, workers across the food system and consumers, with a particular emphasis on addressing inequalities and power imbalances. As the Science Group for AT 4, we explore the nature of these issues, using the drivers of food systems as articulated by the High Level Panel of Experts of the UN Committee on World Food Security (HLPE 2020) as framing. Small and medium-sized producers and people who rely on food systems in rural and urban areas for livelihoods are disproportionately affected by all biophysical and environmental drivers, including soil and water resources and climate change. Unequal opportunity in access to all types of resources reduces overall production, resilience and rural transformation. Advances in innovation, technology and infrastructure have had important impacts on food production and sustainability, transportation and processing along food value chains, marketing, and, ultimately, diets, including the consumption of both nutritious and unhealthy foods. However, achievement of equitable livelihoods in food systems will require that issues of access to contextually suitable innovation and technology, inclusive of indigenous knowledge, be substantially enhanced. Many economic and political factors can be essential causes of inequality and power imbalances at the household, community, national and global levels, which may constrain the ability of food system transformation to deliver poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods. Finally, vast evidence illustrates that several socio-cultural and demographic drivers underpin inequalities among and within societies and constrain the potential for some to benefit from actions to improve their livelihoods, particularly women, youths, the disabled, the elderly and indigenous peoples. These issues have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic is having a significant impact on global commodity markets and trading systems, economic growth, incomes, and poverty levels, with a likely disproportionate burden falling on vulnerable communities in both urban and rural areas. This is likely to worsen inequalities and set back progress against poverty and hunger goals. To address these issues, we must transform not only food systems, but the structures and systems that continue to enable and exacerbate inequities. Drivers of food system inequities are highly interconnected, and progress in addressing one will likely require change across several. For example, globalization and trade interact with other powerful drivers, especially technology resource mobilization and demographic trends, which shape food production, distribution, and consumption. Hence, in the final section, we reflect on several factors that should be part of effective solutions for combating inequalities in food systems, including rights-based approaches. We then share a series of recommendations aimed at enhancing inclusive decision-making, protecting the livelihoods of those living in situations of vulnerability while creating opportunities, adapting institutions and policies to favor equitable food system livelihoods, and increasing investment so as to realize the potential of improved institutional and policy actions. We invite governments, businesses, and organizations to hold themselves and others to account in advancing equitable livelihoods, and open avenues towards realizing the potential of science, innovation, technology, and evidence to favor equitable livelihoods.

show abstract

Section: Economic and Political Driversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advance Equitable Livelihoods

Neufeld¹,

Huang

Badiane

et al. 2023

Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dewbre and Short (2002) identify the impact of policy interventions on trade performance and the competitiveness of agrarian ists. Greenville et al (2019), Punthakey (2020) devote labor to drivers in agri-food global value chains. Meuwissen, Assefa, Van Asseldonk (2013), Matthews (2018) see the basis of agrarian policy to overcome agrarian income instability and in their writings offer tools to effectively address this problem.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

State tools for the development of entrepreneurial activity in the agrarian sphere

Nesterchuk

Bechko

Мудрак

et al. 2021

Laplage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the work is to establish effective state instruments of development of entrepreneurial activity in the agrarian sector of Ukraine. For the realization of the purpose was used a number of economic-mathematical methods of analysis by panel data of EU and OECD countries for the period 1986-2020: regression modeling of relationships between the total value of agrarian production and total support, rendered to agrarian sector, types and structural volumes of such support; regression dependence statistics, methods of comparative analysis and graphics analysis. The results allowed us to establish that the change in the total production value of the agrarian sector by 96,79% is determined by the types and structural volumes of state support provided to the agrarian sector. For the development of entrepreneurial activity in the agrarian sector of Ukraine it is advisable to activate state support of knowledge and innovation system, infrastructure of agrarian sphere and optimize measures of inspection and control, significantly prevail among the tools of domestic regulation of the agrarian sphere.

show abstract

“…Athukorala et al (2018) incorporated the aspects of the fragmented production process differentiating various states of production, economies of scale, and decision-making with global rather than national perspectives in a prototype model. METRO has been used to assess the future of GVCs considering various future scenarios based on various non-VA indicators (de Backer & Flaig, 2017) and to explore changes in GVC participation resulting from changes in agricultural policies -both trade and domestic support policies (Greenville et al, 2019a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade Liberalization in APEC and Global Value Chain Participation: What Can Value Added Indicators Tell?

Flaig

Greenville

2021

Journal of Economic Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The manner in which trade is occurring has been evolving. A most notable development is the international fragmentation of countries as countries and industries are increasingly contributing elements to a final product rather than completing the production activity solely within domestic boundaries. Underpinning these changes have been advances in technology and logistics performance facilitating the breakup of economic activity (Baldwin, 2012(Baldwin, , 2016. International production networks, commonly described as global value chains (GVCs), thus extend beyond the bilateral trading relationships that may be observed between two countries and that are often the focus of policymakers and commentators (see, e.g., OECD, 2013; de Backer and Mirodout, 2013;

show abstract

Influencing GVCs through Agro-Food Policy and Reform

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Advance Equitable Livelihoods

Advance Equitable Livelihoods

State tools for the development of entrepreneurial activity in the agrarian sphere

Trade Liberalization in APEC and Global Value Chain Participation: What Can Value Added Indicators Tell?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About