The following items may useful for your study.

-iftekhar

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/143106/2/final%20paper%20-SAEA.pdf

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6731/2/wp080466.pdf

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/32697/1/wp990044.pdf

https://uncapsa.org/sites/default/files/CG38.pdf

http://cepr.net/documents/publications/trade_2002_06_12.htm

http://apply.jar.punjab.gov.pk/upload/1374660683_81_34__121Paper-No.14.pdf

http://serialsjournals.com/serialjournalmanager/pdf/1327386757.pdf

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JITLP-06-2013-0018

If possible, you might have a look at : "Should Agriculture be liberalized ? Theory, models and reality", by J.M. Boussard, Françoise Gérard & Marie-Gabrielle Piketty, Science publisher, Enfield (N.H.), 2009.  This is an overview of models and empirical data on the question.

Now, speaking of Afganistan, I am afraid the difficulty is with the uncertainties associated with war: Indeed,  war is more efficient than custom barriers in preventing trade ! Of course, the question will arise as soon as peace will come again, so that it is hopefully time to prepare answers...

Dear Najibullah

Studies which examine this question fall into a number of categories. One difference is whether studies focus on episodes of trade liberalisation (i.e. the movement from a protected sector to a less protected one) which may either be past episodes of trade liberalisation or a projected future change in policy, or whether they focus on the longer-run relationships between trade openness and agricultural growth, where the impact on productivity growth is likely to play an important role.

Another difference is whether studies use simulation modelling (such as partial  equilibrium  or computable general equilibrium (CGE) models) which are often used to examine ex ante trade liberalisation policies, or use econometric models which are ex post models and try to examine what happened in the past.

My presumption is that you want to examine the potential impact of a future liberalisation of Afghanistan’s agricultural trade policy, so you will want to use a simulation model. If you have access to a CGE model for Afghanistan, this would be perfect but these models are complex to build. However, you can still make useful inferences using a partial equilibrium model.

For a good synthesis overview with references to recent studies, see this review by McCorriston et al (2015)

http://www.cabi.org/Uploads/CABI/about-us/Scientists%20output/Agri-liberalisation-systematic-review.pdf

The GTAP database doesn't contain input-output table for Afghanistan, which makes it difficult to use CGE model. 

At the outset, I want to just compare the experiences of different countries similar to Afghanistan regarding trade liberalization. Then, draw some lessons for Afghanistan. The country adopted open economic regime in 2004 and joined WTO in 2016. There is no reliable data before 2004, to compare the impact of trade liberalization. 

The war certainly affect trade, as I found during one of my studies. 

If you want to analyse the experiences of a cross-section of countries with trade liberalisation, you might find the approaches used in these FAO volumes of interest. Here the focus is on country case studies of trade liberalisation and food security rather than agricultural production per se.

FAO, The WTO Agreement on Agriculture: The Implementation Experience: Developing Country Case Studies, 2003

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4632e/y4632e00.htm#Contents

FAO, Trade Reforms and Food Security: Conceptualising the Linkages, 2003

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4671e/y4671e00.htm

FAO, Trade Reforms and Food Security: Country Case Studies and Synthesis, 2006

http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0581e/a0581e00.htm

Alan Matthews

Dear Prof. Alan, 

Thanks for sharing the information. In addition to these case studies, the results of empirical studies for other countries may also provide a clue. Thanks again for your participation in the discussion. 

Najibullah Hassanzoy

Dear Najibullah,

The World Bank has compiled a CGE model for Afghanistan some years ago. Please  Contact Dr. Hans Lofgren at the World Bank, Prospects Group.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/research/brief/MAMS

Dear Mr. Kinnuen,

Thanks for the information, I will make a contact.

Here is an article published in spanish 

Los costos del aperturismo a ultranza

Consecuencias comparativas para los productores mexicanos y norteamericanos

Rafael Trueta Santiago†

Juan Heberth Hernández‡

RESUMEN

El propósito del presente estudio es cuantificar, a través de un ejemplo cuantitativo de la vida real, las consecuencias negativas que tiene para los países que, como México, se lanzan a la apertura comercial siguiendo ortodoxamente las reglas propuestas por los países industrializados, a pesar de que estos últimos no las cumplen. Para evidenciar lo anterior se toma un aspecto puntual como lo es el relativo a las diferencias existentes en la manera de calcular los márgenes de discriminación de precios (MDP o margen de "Dumping") entre las Leyes de Comercio Exterior de México y su homóloga de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. La finalidad del cálculo en ambas es la de establecer cuotas compensatorias para evitar o minimizar los daños que provoca a los productores nacionales, la importación de productos del extranjero a precios por debajo de los que corren en el país de origen.

Las diferencias se presentan sobre todo en las formas de recabar la información y en los ajustes que se les realizan tanto al "valor normal" como al "precio de exportación", así pues en el caso de México cuando se calcula el margen de discriminación de precios, este es determinado con el promedio ponderado de todos los márgenes individuales que se encuentran, incluyendo en el cálculo aquellos volúmenes de producto introducidos sin margen de “Dumping” o con “Dumping negativo”, lo cual evidentemente reduce el resultado. La principal diferencia encontrada en el método de cálculo es que, en los Estados Unidos únicamente toman en cuenta las transacciones con márgenes positivos, es decir los que si incurrieron en prácticas desleales y con estos valores positivos realizan el cálculo de los márgenes de dumping, así pues resultan márgenes superiores a los calculados en México. Las transacciones realizadas en condiciones leales, son igualadas a cero y no son tomadas en cuenta para el cálculo. Por otra parte en el caso de los EUA, la redacción de la legislación es confusa y se presta a diferentes interpretaciones, de las cuales en este trabajo se toman dos.

Al considerar los volúmenes importados de la fecha de la resolución (1999) hasta diciembre de 2003, la diferencia en los métodos de cálculo arroja una diferencia cuya consecuencia es que México dejo de percibir por las tres fracciones arancelarias consideradas en la denuncia (carne en canal, deshuesada y sin deshuesar) un monto de $96.4 millones de dólares en una de las interpretaciones o hasta $322.6 millones de dólares en la otra posible interpretación.

MONTO TOTAL PERIODO ’97-’03

(Dólares Americanos)

Producto Caso

1 Caso

2

Carne en

Canal No se demostró Dumping No se demostró Dumping

Carne Deshuesada $93,232,286.32 $293,229,751.63

Carne sin Deshuesar $3,173,128.68 $29,357,264.57

TOTAL $96,405,415.00

$322,587,016.20

Esta diferencia es la que explica que en las denuncias que se han presentado y en las que el fallo ha sido a favor de los productores mexicanos, los márgenes de dumping siempre resultan muy bajos, al grado que resulta mejor opción pactar con los importadores que aplicar el exiguo arancel que determina el gobierno mexicano. Ese fue el caso en la última denuncia de dumping contra importaciones de carne de los EUA.

Si estas diferencias de aranceles se hubiesen cobrado, los precios de importación hubiesen aumentado y a esos precios, el consumo hubiese disminuido, por lo que finalmente las importaciones hubiesen sido menores, con la consiguiente ventaja para los productores nacionales. Los resultados de ese cálculo se presentan en el

siguiente cuadro:

Disminución en los volúmenes importados, calculada según la Elasticidad precio en las Importaciones provenientes de EU, periodo de a 1999 – 2003

(Tons.)

Caso 1 Caso 2

Carne Canal 0 0

Carne Deshuesada 26,163.92 82,289.50

Carne sin Deshuesar 1,059.89 9,805.90

Total 27,223.80 92,095.40

Es decir que se hubiesen dejado de importar entre 27 mil doscientas y 92 mil cien toneladas de carne, que hubiesen podido ser producidas y abastecidas por los productores nacionales.

Esta es solo una de las muchas desventajas comparativas que existen en la legislación mexicana de comercio exterior, existen otras que tienen impactos negativos importantes cuando se les compara con las prácticas adoptadas con otros países con los cuales la apertura comercial nos obliga a competir, tales como: la gran dificultad para demostrar representatividad por los denunciantes, la crónica falta de información del sector, las relativas a la imposibilidad de transmitir

A very important topic and cause for lengthy negotiations at trade agreements / policies. Some literature you might to have a look at:

Rodolfo Cermeño; Sirenia Vázquez

Technological Backwardness in Agriculture: Is it Due to Lack of R&D, Human Capital, and Openness to International Trade?

Wiley Blackwell (Blackwell Publishing)

Review of Development Economics

Year:2009

Month:

Day:

Volume:13

Issue:4

First page:673

Last page:686

Bathla, S.

Trade Policy Reforms and Openness of Indian Agriculture: Analysis at the Commodity Level

Sage Publications

South Asia Economic Journal

Year:2006

Month:03

Day:01

Volume:7

Issue:1

First page:19

Last page:53

Miljkovic, Dragan; Miranda, Silvia H.; Shaik, Saleem

Trade openness and technical efficiency in Brazilian agriculture

Informa UK (Taylor & Francis)

Applied Economics Letters

Year:2013

Month:02

Day:

Volume:20

Issue:2

First page:103

Last page:106

Rafiq, Shuddhasattwa; Salim, Ruhul; Apergis, Nicholas

Agriculture, trade openness and emissions: an empirical analysis and policy options

Wiley Blackwell (Blackwell Publishing)

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Year:2016

Month:07

Day:

Volume:60

Issue:3

First page:348

Last page:365

Mourão, Paulo

The complex relation between Belarusian trade openness and the agricultural sector

Elsevier

Land Use Policy

Year:2015

Month:02

Day:

Volume:43

Issue:

First page:74

Last page:81

Hart, Jarrett; Miljkovic, Dragan; Shaik, Saleem

The impact of trade openness on technical efficiency in the agricultural sector of the European Union

Informa UK (Taylor & Francis)

Applied Economics

Year:2015

Month:03

Day:09

Volume:47

Issue:12

First page:1230

Last page:1247

LAIPRAKOBSUP, THANAPAN

Democracy, Trade Openness, and Agricultural Trade Policy in Southeast Asian Countries

Cambridge University Press

Japanese Journal of Political Science

Year:2014

Month:09

Day:

Volume:15

Issue:03

First page:465

Last page:484

Basudeb Guha-Khasnobis, Shabd S. Acharya, Benjamin Davis

Food Security: Indicators, Measurement, and the Impact of Trade Openness

(WIDER Studies in Development Economics)

Oxford University Press, USA

2008

Julio A. Guzmán

Trade Openness and Well-Being: Do Complementary conditions Matter?

University of Maryland

2008

Dear Najibullah,

This recent article may be of interes for your study:

Does trade openness contribute to food security? A dynamic panel analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.04.008

Dear Maria

Thanks for sharing the article, it seems interesting.

Where in developed countries Agricultural trade is liberalized!???? That developing countries are recommended to liberamize their agricultural sector.?

Generali, trade agremens involve more than the agricultural sector, so you need to envisage a large vision.

You should be very attentive to the characteristics of the country(s) you intent to open to (size, regulations, competitivity, etc), as well as your own competitivity in the products you intend to include in the liberalization.

Dear Mehdi Shafaeddin,

We also want to know why is free trade good for us (developing countries) but not for them (developed countries). We appreciate if you share some papers that are pro or against trade liberalization in agricultural commodities.

Regards,

Najibullah

youu can have a look at my book if it is available in your library. If not you can search under my name in the internet, there is some material.

Best

We may not have your book at Kabul University. I would try to find it and give it a read. Could you please give me the title of your book?

Within a static equilibrium framework, trade is always good for all, as shown by David Ricardo 200 years ago. This is inescapable! The real problem is what happens in a dynamic framework, especially if markets are not perfect, while future is unknown. Then, isolating a country from world markets may be a good strategy, at least for a while. Actually, most presently developed nations - especially the US - developed themselves behind high trade barriers, which were dismantled only when the industrial sector was strong enough to suffer a few bad years without too dramatic damages.

In fact, in general, totally closing border is not a sound strategy, but leaving it completely free is hardly better. The best course of action is to protect a few strategic industries for which the country can develop a real comparative advantage, while leaving border open for tacking advantage of what cannot be produced locally...