{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["economic measurement"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'economic measurement' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=economic+measurement","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"iisd-002497","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/iisd-002497","title":"Agricultural Bias in Focus","publisher":{"name":"International Institute for Sustainable Development","organization":"international-institute-for-sustainable-development"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2019-09","source_url":"https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/agricultural-bias-in-focus.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The document defines anti-agricultural bias as a condition where policies and market failures disadvantage farmers relative to other economic sectors. It details four primary economic indicators for measuring this bias: the Nominal Rate of Protection, the Nominal Rate of Assistance, the Relative Rate of Assistance, and the Effective Rate of Protection. The report argues that while historical bias was driven by explicit taxes on agriculture and subsidies for industry, contemporary bias in non-transformed economies often stems from market failures, such as poor infrastructure and unbalanced market power. Through case studies of 12 countries, the report demonstrates that bias is often heterogeneous across different crops; for example, rice often benefits from protection via regional tariffs, while cash crops like tea or cashew nuts are frequently taxed. Specific country analyses reveal that in nations like Ethiopia and Zambia, high anti-agricultural bias is driven by low output prices and export bans, despite the presence of agricultural import tariffs.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-002497#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Anti-agricultural bias is quantified using four main indicators: the Nominal Rate of Protection (comparing farm gate prices to reference prices), the Nominal Rate of Assistance (including subsidies and taxes), the Relative Rate of Assistance (comparing agriculture to the rest of the economy), and the Effective Rate of Protection (tracking net effects on farm value added).","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-002497#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The drivers of agricultural bias have shifted over time; historically, developing economies taxed agriculture while advanced economies subsidized it, but current bias in non-transformed sectors is primarily caused by market failures and a lack of efficient market regulations.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-002497#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Agricultural bias is often inconsistent across different products within a single country; rice frequently benefits from positive protection due to regional Common External Tariffs, whereas cash crops like tea, groundnuts, and cashew nuts are often taxed.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-002497#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"In Ethiopia, a strong anti-agricultural bias is driven by very low output prices for teff and maize, where farm gate prices are on average 70% lower than world prices, exacerbated by intermittent export bans on maize.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-002497#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"India exhibits a moderate anti-agricultural bias where domestic prices for commodities like rice, groundnuts, and cotton are kept below export parity prices through export restrictions to protect domestic consumers.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-002497#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"In Zambia, high anti-agricultural bias is largely attributed to maize prices being 68% below world prices, driven by the monopsonistic nature of markets and an overvalued exchange rate.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-002497#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Rwanda and Tanzania are identified as having no current anti-agricultural bias, with agriculture in both countries being more protected than other sectors via tariffs.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-002497#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["trade policy"],"geography_discussed":["Brazil","United States","Ghana"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy analysis","economic measurement","case study"]},{"id":"iisd-001365","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/iisd-001365","title":"Harga Sebuah Kebijakan Bahan Bakar Fosil: Subsidi Pemerintah Indonesia di Sektor Hulu Minyak & Gas Bumi","publisher":{"name":"International Institute for Sustainable Development","organization":"international-institute-for-sustainable-development"},"document_type":"executive summary","language":"id","date_published":"2010-10","source_url":"https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/ffs_awc_indonesia_execbahasa.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report examines subsidies in Indonesia's upstream oil and gas sector, identifying 17 potential subsidy activities categorized by WTO standards. It estimates total subsidies at US$ 1.799 billion for 2008, primarily driven by Domestic Market Obligation (DMO) oil subsidies. While some incentives successfully encouraged exploration and investment, the report notes a lack of evidence regarding their efficiency compared to alternative policy methods.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-001365#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The study identified three categories of subsidies: those with estimated values, those requiring further research to confirm, and those where no subsidies exist. For 2008, the estimated total for confirmed subsidies was US$ 1.799 billion, consisting of US$ 1.554 billion for the Domestic Market Obligation (DMO) oil subsidy (from industry to Pertamina refineries), US$ 130 million in tax incentives for imports of goods and services, and US$ 115 million in investment via credit loans.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-001365#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The research highlights that subsidies exist in the downstream oil and gas industry, which are typically difficult to identify. Specifically, domestic gas users benefit from gas prices significantly below international market rates (DMO gas), and Pertamina refineries benefit from crude oil purchased through the oil DMO system at substantial price reductions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-001365#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Tax incentives for importing goods and services and investment through credit loans positively contributed to the Indonesian government's goals of increasing exploration and encouraging investment in finding new oil and gas fields. However, the study did not determine the efficiency of these subsidies or whether the goals could have been achieved through alternative means.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"iisd-001365#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["fossil fuel subsidy","tax incentive"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy assessment","economic measurement"]}]}