REGULATION OF THE MARKET OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN THE USA, EU COUNTRIES AND RUSSIAN

The agricultural sector of the economy, as a strategic important industry, is protected by a wide range of government support measures, two thirds of which are currently measures distorting the principles of free trade. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture is considered the most controversial in the regulation of international trade and agricultural production. It creates certain restrictions for subsidizing the countries of its agriculture, on the other hand, allows the use of support in amounts substantially larger than the established limits on obligations. A significant problem is the creation of barriers to access to the markets for agricultural products produced in developing countries and from the outset significantly larger amounts of subsidies that developed countries have to their agricultural producers. The purpose of this article is a comparative analysis of the use of measures of state support for agriculture in Russia, the developed countries of Europe and the USA. The study revealed that in Russia the amount of support for domestic farmers in absolute terms is catastrophically low compared with developed countries, where it is higher by an order of magnitude. Also significantly lower than developed countries in Russia is the level of investment in knowledge, innovation and the development of agricultural infrastructure. It is noted that traditionally protectionism is widely used in the structure of support measures. The situation is aggravated by the inefficiency of state direct support. On this basis, it was concluded that it is necessary to adjust the state policy in the field of supporting the agro-industrial complex and agriculture.

agriculture, trade agreements, regulation of the agricultural sector, WTO, world trade, agribusiness, protectionism, free trade, barriers to market access, food security.

Chernova V. Yu. Regulation of the market of agricultural products in the USA, EU countries and Russian // Business. Education. Law. 2019. No. 1 (46). Pp. 293–299. DOI: 10.25683/VOLBI.2019.46.107.