Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
1-31
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions
on Domestic Food Availability Amid
Rising International Prices:
A Systematic Review
1
O Efeito das Restrições às Exportações
de Alimentos sobre a Disponibilidade
Interna de Alimentos em Meio
à Alta dos Preços Internacionais:
Uma Revisão Sistemática
El Efecto de las Restricciones a las
Exportaciones de Alimentos
sobre la Disponibilidad Interna de
Alimentos en Medio del Aumento
de los Precios Internacionales:
Una Revisión Sistemática
DOI: 10.21530/ci.v20n2.2025.1587
Atos Dias
2
Abstract
This article analyzes the effects of food export restrictions on
domestic production and supply during the global food price
spikes of the 21st century. Through a systematic reviewof the
literature, it assesses the effectiveness of these policies across
1 This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de
Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
2 Doctorate in Political Science from the Federal University of Pernambuco
(UFPE). Substitute Professor in the Department of International Relations
at the Federal University of Paraíba (UFPB). (atosrabi@gmail.com).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9690-5696.
Artigo submetido em 04/06/2025 e aprovado em 05/11/2025.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE
RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS
Copyright:
• This is an open-access
article distributed under
the terms of a Creative
Commons Attribution
License, which permits
unrestricted use,
distribution, and
reproduction in any
medium, provided that
the original author and
source are credited.
• Este é um artigo
publicado em acesso aberto
e distribuído sob os termos
da Licença de Atribuição
Creative Commons,
que permite uso irrestrito,
distribuição e reprodução
em qualquer meio, desde
que o autor e a fonte
originais sejam creditados.
ISSN 2526-9038
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
2-31
different country contexts. The results indicate that while export restrictions may enhance
domestic supply in major exporting countries, their impact on production is often limited
or negative, particularly in smaller exporters. These findings underscore the importance
of considering a country’s structural position in the international market when evaluating
the effectiveness of such measures.
Keywords: Global food price crisis, Food export restrictions, Systematic review.
Resumo
Este artigo analisa os efeitos das restrições às exportações de alimentos sobre a produção
e a oferta doméstica durante os picos dos preços globais dos alimentos no século XXI. Por
meio de uma revisão sistemática da literatura, avalia a eficácia dessas políticas em diferentes
contextos nacionais. Os resultados indicam que, embora as restrições às exportações possam
aumentar a oferta interna em grandes países exportadores, seu impacto na produção é
frequentemente limitado ou negativo, especialmente em exportadores menores. Esses
achados destacam a importância de considerar a posição estrutural do país no mercado
internacional ao avaliar a eficácia dessas medidas.
Palavras-chave: Crise global dos preços dos alimentos, Restrições às exportações de
alimentos, Revisão sistemática.
Resumen
Este artículo analiza los efectos de las restricciones a las exportaciones de alimentos sobre
la producción y oferta interna durante los picos de precios globales en el siglo XXI. A través
de uma revisión sistemática, evalúa estas políticas en distintos contextos nacionales. Los
resultados indican que, si bien las restricciones a las exportaciones pueden aumentar
la oferta interna en grandes países exportadores, su impacto en la producción suele ser
limitado o negativo, especialmente en exportadores pequeños. Estos hallazgos subrayan
la importancia de considerar la posición estructural del país en el mercado internacional
al evaluar la efectividad de tales medidas.
Palabras clave: Crisis global de los precios de los alimentos, Restricciones a la exportación
de alimentos, Revisión sistemática.
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
3-31
Introduction
Since the early 2000s, global food prices have experienced significant and
sustained increases, with sharp spikes occurring in 2008, 2011, and 2022 (Dias et
al. 2021; Lima and Dias 2022). These price surges were driven by a combination
of structural and cyclical factors affecting both supply and demand. The resulting
crisis marked a turning point in the dynamics of the international food market,
exposing the vulnerability of global supply systems to market volatility. The
consequences have been especially severe for countries heavily reliant on food
imports, where access to and availability of food have been most affected.
In this context, the debate around the effectiveness of food export restriction
policies as a tool to mitigate the impact of the 21st-century global food crisis has
gained prominence. In response to rising food prices, several exporting countries
implemented export restrictions to stabilize domestic prices and safeguard local
food supplies. These measures are permitted under World Trade Organization
(WTO) rules in cases of critical food scarcity (WTO 1947), with the primary aim
of curbing food inflation and enhancing food security. While such policies may
yield short-term benefits by redirecting supply to domestic markets, the literature
also highlights their potential downsides. Export restrictions can further tighten
global supply, push international prices even higher, reduce the incomes of local
producers who lose access to more lucrative export markets, and increase the
vulnerability of importing countries by raising prices and heightening the risk
of shortages (Dias et al. 2021).
Although the negative effects of export restrictions are well known, their real
effectiveness, especially in improving domestic food supply, remains uncertain
(Akter 2022). This article contributes to the debate by examining how such
measures, adopted during the 2000s global food price crises, affected food
production and supply in exporting countries. The central question is: how do
export restrictions during global food crises influence domestic food production
and supply? The study hypothesizes that impacts vary by export capacity. Large
exporters, able to influence international prices, tend to better stabilize domestic
markets, while small exporters usually cannot offset global shocks. In both cases,
restrictions may discourage production. Using a systematic literature review, the
study synthesizes empirical findings through transparent selection criteria and
descriptive statistics to identify common trends. While results provide consistent
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
4-31
answers, further qualitative research is needed to clarify causal mechanisms.
The article is organized as follows: section 2 analyzes the 21st-century food price
crises and expected policy effects; section 3 presents the methodology; section
4 reports results; and section 5 concludes with key insights and implications.
The Global Rise in Food Prices and the Adoption of Export
Restrictions
Following the 2007–2008 crisis, global prices of agricultural commodities
surged dramatically – a phenomenon often referred to as “agflation” – mirroring
the price shocks of the 1970s. This spike was particularly striking given that it
followed three decades of declining prices for staple foods, which had fallen to
historic lows (Headey and Fan 2008).
Although the long-term trend had been one of declining prices, largely due
to productivity gains (Gilbert 2015), food commodity prices began a steady
upward climb in the early 2000s. By 2008, global food prices had risen by 83%
compared to the average of the previous three years, with particularly sharp
increases in key crops: corn rose by 31%, soybeans by 87%, rice by 74%,
and wheat by an astonishing 130%. At the time, analysts from the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) forecasted a prolonged period of elevated prices – a
prediction that ultimately proved accurate (Gallas 2008).
Since that initial spike, two further major price surges have occurred: in 2011
and again in 2022. The 2011 spike was primarily triggered by extreme weather
events that disrupted agricultural production in several major regions. Droughts
in Russia and Eastern Europe, floods in Pakistan and Canada, frosts in Mexico,
and intense rainfall in Australia all contributed to a tightening of global supply
(Krugman 2011; McMahon 2013; Soffiantini 2020).
This escalation in food prices coincided with the Arab Spring, a wave of
uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa, where high food costs played
a key role in fueling public discontent. As Krugman (2011) noted, surging food
prices were among the main catalysts for the social unrest that swept through
the region.
The most recent spike, in 2022, was driven by a combination of pandemic-
related disruptions and geopolitical conflict. The COVID-19 pandemic severely
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
5-31
impacted global supply chains, and the subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine
further destabilized the market (Dias et al. 2021; Lima and Dias 2022). Both
Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of grains and sunflower oil, and the
war also affected global fertilizer supplies, especially from Russia and Belarus
(Schmidhuber 2020; Lima and Dias 2022; UN 2022). As a result, the FAO’s Global
Food Price Index reached its highest level since the beginning of the series in
1961, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Increases in the FAO Global Food Price Index (in real terms) (1961-2022)
Source: Own elaboration based on Lima and Dias (2022), FAO (2023), and UN (2022).
Figure 1 also illustrates that, even during the periods of decline following the
price peaks of the 2000s, global food prices have remained significantly above
historical averages. This persistent upward trend mirrors patterns observed during
the 1960s and 1970s. In contrast, after the 1974 crisis, the index declined relative
to the average, and this downward trajectory continued until the onset of the
2008 crisis. Between 2005 and 2008 alone, food commodity prices more than
doubled in most categories, with sugar being a notable exception (Gilbert 2010).
While the initial moment of the crisis is relatively easy to identify, its
underlying causes and broader consequences extend well beyond the first spike
in prices. Rather, they reflect deeper structural dynamics inherent to global
capitalism. The crisis that began in 2007-2008 stemmed from both supply- and
demand-side disruptions (McMahon 2013; Gilbert 2015). Although there is debate
over which factors were most influential, scholars generally identify at least five
key drivers, though they differ in the relative importance assigned to each.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
6-31
On the demand side, four main factors are commonly cited in the literature
as contributing to the sharp rise in food prices during the early 2000s: the
financialization of food, which led to increased speculative investment in
agricultural futures markets; the depreciation of the U.S. dollar; rising food
demand, particularly in rapidly developing economies; and the growing production
of and demand for biofuels.
On the supply side, price volatility was primarily driven by climatic shocks,
including extreme weather events that disrupted agricultural output. These supply
and demand shocks interacted with broader global financial and energy crises
– particularly the surge in oil prices – creating a “perfect storm” that resulted
in record highs for food commodity prices (McMahon 2013).
Of these factors, financialization has had perhaps the most far-reaching
effects on global food systems. In recent decades, financial actors, markets, and
motives have become increasingly dominant in agriculture and food provisioning,
reshaping the sector. This shift has opened new avenues for capital accumulation,
driven agribusiness strategies toward shareholder value, and altered how food
is produced, distributed, and consumed. These transformations raise concerns
about the long-term social and ecological sustainability of food systems and
their ability to ensure food security and support rural livelihoods (Clapp and
Isakson 2018).
The roots of this transformation can be traced back to the volatility of the
1970s. During that period, the weakening U.S. dollar, surging commodity prices,
and major harvest failures – particularly in the Soviet Union – contributed to
increased global food demand and soaring fertilizer costs. This environment
facilitated the entry of financial actors into the food industry, which began to
operate more directly in agricultural markets. As a result, food prices became
increasingly subject to speculative manipulation, and market uncertainty was
reframed as a source of profit. Within this speculative logic, food was effectively
transformed into a financial asset (De Paula, Santos, and Pereira 2015).
Since the late 1990s, food commodity prices have shown heightened global
volatility, leading to persistent inflationary pressure – especially in developing
countries heavily reliant on food imports. Beyond traditional supply and demand
dynamics, the integration of financial markets into the food commodity sector
has turned food into both a global public good and a speculative asset. This
financialization process led to a dramatic rise in speculative trading activity
from 2004 onward, peaking in 2008. Even after this peak, the volume and value
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
7-31
of contracts in food markets remained approximately three times higher than
pre-2004 levels (Gilbert 2015).
In tracing the roots of recent food price crises, Gilbert (2010) emphasizes
that the broad increase in energy and metal prices stimulated investor interest
in commodity futures contracts, significantly amplifying food price volatility.
McMahon (2013) notes that between 2000 and 2010, the number of open futures
and options contracts on global commodity exchanges increased tenfold. Clapp
and Isakson (2018) add that investor interest in agricultural land surged during
the same period: in 2010, investment in farmland ranged between $10 and $25
billion, rising to between $30 and $40 billion by 2012.
Another major contributor was the depreciation of the U.S. dollar – the
currency in which most agricultural commodities are priced – which led to
compensatory price increases (Díaz-Bonilla 2017; McMahon 2013). By 2008,
the dollar had lost roughly one-third of its value, prompting investors to view
commodities as a hedge against inflation. This trend echoed the dynamics of the
1970s, when the collapse of the Bretton Woods system similarly spurred demand
for commodity-based assets (Prates 2007; McMahon 2013; Díaz-Bonilla 2017).
Demand growth also played a central role, particularly in two key groups
of countries. The first group comprises populous emerging economies – such
as China, India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh – that have achieved relative food
self-sufficiency but are now experiencing a shift in dietary preferences driven
by rising incomes. This has led to greater consumption of high-value foods,
especially animal proteins, fruits, and vegetables (McMahon 2013). In China, for
example, rapid urbanization and poverty reduction have driven increased meat
consumption, which in turn has boosted demand for feed grains, particularly
soybeans (McMahon 2013). China’s accession to the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 2001 further liberalized its agricultural trade, significantly increasing
its food imports (Prates 2007).
India, having overcome dependence on food aid through the Green Revolution,
has become a major grain producer. However, it continues to face agricultural
challenges related to climate variability and still relies on imports for certain
products (McMahon 2013). Between 1980 and 2020, China’s food imports surged
– rising 282% by 2000 and 1,767% thereafter – while India, Indonesia, and
Bangladesh also saw notable increases (Nascimento 2024). Despite the rapid
growth in imports, these countries have simultaneously expanded domestic food
production, a trend driven by economic development and demographic pressures.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
8-31
Collectively, they now account for approximately 75% of global agricultural
output (Díaz-Bonilla 2017; McMahon 2013).
Another contributing factor to price volatility was the significant decline in
global food stocks between 2000 and 2008, largely due to consumption outpacing
production – particularly in China (McMahon 2013; Headey and Fan 2008). While
falling stock levels intensified the 2007-2008 crisis, they subsequently recovered
and remained high during the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning that stock shortages
have not been a major factor in more recent price spikes (Schmidhuber 2020).
The second group of demand-driving countries includes wealthy food-importing
nations such as Japan, members of the European Union, Saudi Arabia, and the
United Arab Emirates. These countries face land and resource constraints that
limit their agricultural capacity, but their high income levels allow them to rely
heavily on international markets (McMahon 2013). Japan, for instance, maintains
a degree of self-sufficiency in rice but imports a substantial share of other food
commodities.
Additionally, speculative investment driven by anticipated future demand –
especially from China and the broader Asian region – has contributed to rising
food prices (Gilbert 2010).
The growth of biofuel production since the early 2000s has also played a
significant role in reshaping food commodity markets. Motivated by rising fossil
fuel prices, energy security concerns, and climate change mitigation efforts, many
countries expanded the production of first-generation biofuels, which rely on
food crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, sugarcane, and vegetable oils. This
shift created new competition for agricultural land and resources, pushing food
prices higher (Baffes 2013; Mitchell 2008).
Rising oil prices not only made biofuels more economically viable but also
increased input costs for agriculture – such as fertilizers and transportation –
exacerbating the overall pressure on food prices (Baffes 2013; Headey and Fan
2008). Moreover, certain commodities like corn and palm oil have come to behave
as “petro-commodities,” with their prices closely tied to fluctuations in global
oil markets (Baffes 2013; Gilbert 2010).
The United States and Brazil are the world’s two largest biofuel producers,
together accounting for 82% of global ethanol output in 2021 (USA 2023a). In the
U.S., approximately 40% of the corn harvest is allocated to ethanol production,
and ethanol prices increased tenfold between 2002 and 2019 (Gewin 2022; Baffes
and Haniotis 2010). From 2006 to 2013, U.S. corn exports declined as more of the
crop was diverted to domestic biofuel production (McMahon 2013). This shift
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
9-31
was largely driven by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, introduced
in 2005, which mandated increasing the share of biofuels in the national energy
mix (USA 2023b).
On the supply side, climate-related shocks are widely recognized as key
drivers of rising global food prices (Krugman 2011). Since 2008, nearly every year
has witnessed extreme weather events that have disrupted the global food supply
chain (McMahon 2013). For example, a prolonged drought in Australia between
2003 and 2008 led to a 4% reduction in global wheat supply (Mitchell 2008;
Gilbert 2010; McMahon 2013). Similarly, poor harvests in Europe in 2007, along
with a cascade of climate events between 2010 and 2011 – including devastating
floods in Pakistan, heavy rains in Thailand, and widespread droughts across the
Americas – further diminished global crop yields. These disruptions not only
contributed to food price volatility but also intensified social unrest, playing a
role in sparking uprisings during the Arab Spring (Krugman 2011; McMahon
2013). More recently, in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic combined with extreme
weather to exacerbate food insecurity in African countries already facing droughts
and floods (Schmidhuber 2020).
In addition to short-term weather shocks, structural limitations in global
agricultural systems also contribute to supply-side vulnerabilities. McMahon (2013)
warns of natural constraints on productivity growth: many high-yield crop varieties
are nearing their biological performance ceilings, while resistance to pesticides
among pests and diseases is rising. Agricultural expansion is also limited in several
regions due to urbanization and land degradation. In parts of Asia and Western
Europe, arable land is shrinking significantly – Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea
have each lost about one-third of their farmland since World War II, and China
saw a 6% reduction in arable land between 2003 and 2013 (McMahon 2013).
In the face of escalating global food prices, states are confronted with the urgent
challenge of maintaining domestic food supply stability. This raises a crucial policy
question: how have countries responded to mitigate the effects of rising prices on
domestic availability and, by extension, on the food security of their populations.
One of the most common short-term policy responses has been the imposition
of food export restrictions. Governments often adopt such measures as emergency
interventions to shield domestic consumers from the negative effects of global
price shocks and to prevent social unrest linked to food insecurity.
Export restrictions can take three main forms: export taxes; export bans
(embargoes); and export quotas. Each of these instruments functions differently
in controlling the outflow of food products.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
10-31
Export taxes are typically used to make exports less attractive and include
three basic models: ad valorem taxes, which are calculated as a percentage of the
product’s export value; fixed fees, which apply a set amount per unit exported;
progressive taxes, which vary in response to international price changes, increasing
when prices rise and decreasing when they fall (Piermartini 2004; Mitra and
Josling 2009; Sharma 2011).
Export bans, by contrast, prohibit the export of certain products altogether,
aiming to ensure their availability within the domestic market – particularly
during crises affecting national food security. Export quotas function by limiting
the volume of goods that can be exported. These are generally managed through
a licensing system, in which export licenses are issued only up to the quota’s
established ceiling (Piermartini 2004; Mitra and Josling 2009; Sharma 2011).
Beginning in the mid-2000s, as food commodity prices began to climb sharply
on international markets, there was a noticeable surge in the adoption of export
restrictions by national governments. Figure 2 illustrates the annual trend in
the number of agricultural and food export restrictions implemented globally,
reflecting the intensification of this policy approach during periods of heightened
price volatility.
Figure 2. Total number of agricultural/food export restriction measures
adopted by countries per year (2006–2023)
3
Source: Own elaboration based on data from FAPDA (2024).
In 2008, a sharp uptick in all three types of export restrictions became clearly
visible, with export bans showing the most pronounced increase. This trend
3 The data panel in Figure 2 consists of 199 countries.
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
11-31
suggests that such measures were a direct policy response to the global food price
surge. When examining the trajectory of combined restrictions – represented by
the blue bars – it becomes evident that their use declined in subsequent years.
Between 2013 and 2019, the number of implemented restrictions remained
relatively low, coinciding with a period of price stabilization albeit at levels
higher than historical averages (as shown in Figure 1).
However, beginning in 2020, the number of export restrictions began to rise
once again, particularly in the form of export bans. By 2020, these restrictions had
reached levels comparable to those observed in 2009. This increase was closely
linked to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which impaired
global food supply chains (Dias et al. 2021). In 2022, the upward trend intensified
even further due to the war in Ukraine, which created additional uncertainty in
global agricultural markets (Lima and Dias 2022). The data show that the total
number of restrictions implemented in 2022 surpassed the 2008 peak, marking
a new record in the time series.
These patterns suggest that export restrictions are a common government
response to rising global food prices. Such policies are often intended to prevent
domestic shortages and shield internal markets from the volatility of international
prices. However, their effectiveness and impact vary significantly depending on
the characteristics of the country implementing them.
The economic literature highlights that the effects of food export restrictions
differ between large and small exporters, and also between exporters and importers,
particularly in relation to domestic production and market supply.
For large exporting countries, export restrictions can yield short-term benefits
by diverting supply from international markets to the domestic economy, thereby
increasing local food availability and helping to stabilize domestic prices (Bouet
and Debucquet 2010; Baltzer 2015). Additionally, by limiting global supply, these
countries may inadvertently raise international prices, thereby improving their
terms of trade and securing higher revenues per unit exported (Piermartini 2004).
Through this mechanism, a portion of the exporters’ profits can be effectively
redistributed to domestic consumers, as producers are compelled to sell at lower
domestic prices instead of benefiting from higher international rates (Mitra and
Josling 2009). However, over the medium and long term, such policies may
discourage production, as they reduce incentives for producers who lose access
to more profitable export markets (Abbott 2011; Sharma 2011).
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
12-31
In contrast, small exporters typically lack the market influence required to
affect global prices. Consequently, even when they impose export restrictions, they
are generally unable to alter their terms of trade or global food prices meaningfully
(Piermartini 2004). As a result, they often incur revenue losses from reduced
exports without achieving significant improvements in domestic availability or
price stability. Moreover, restricting exports may reduce the motivation for local
producers to maintain or expand output, negatively impacting future production
capacity (Bouet and Debucquet 2010).
Importing countries are directly and often severely affected by export
restrictions imposed by their trading partners. For large importers that are deeply
integrated into global food markets, such restrictions can lead to substantial
domestic price increases, undermining both food security and social stability
(Baltzer 2015; Bouet and Debucquet 2012). If domestic production is insufficient
or inefficient, these countries may struggle to replace lost imports, resulting in
shortages and inflationary pressures. Small importers, particularly low-income
countries with high dependence on external food sources, face similar challenges.
These nations often experience deteriorating terms of trade, as rising food import
costs are not offset by export gains (Headey 2011; Piermartini 2004).
At the international level, the widespread use of export restrictions often sets
off a domino effect, in which affected countries respond by implementing their
own trade barriers. This reactive cycle reduces global cooperation, exacerbates
price volatility, and diminishes the overall efficiency of food trade (Headey 2011).
As a result, the fragmentation of international markets undermines the role of
trade as a stabilizing mechanism for global food supply (Díaz-Bonilla 2017).
Based on this analysis, the present article advances the central hypothesis
that the effects of export restrictions on domestic production and supply vary
significantly according to a country’s export capacity, which is directly related
to its position in international trade and its ability to influence global markets.
Consumers in large exporting countries may benefit from such measures, as
these countries, due to their power to influence international prices, are able to
protect domestic supply and stabilize internal prices through export restrictions.
In contrast, these restrictions tend to be ineffective – and even detrimental – for
small exporters, which lack the capacity to influence global prices and, therefore,
cannot shield domestic consumption from rising international prices. In both
cases, however, the adoption of restrictive measures tends to discourage and
undermine domestic production.
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
13-31
Method and Data
As outlined in the previous section, the effects of export restriction policies
on domestic food availability are varied and context-dependent. The outcomes
differ based on the type of restriction implemented and the economic profile of
the country in question – whether it is a major or minor food exporter or importer.
Preliminary literature reviews and empirical studies reveal conflicting findings,
with evidence pointing to both beneficial and detrimental impacts (Akter 2022).
Given this lack of consensus, I conducted a review to systematically and
reliably synthesize the current state of knowledge on this issue. The goal of
the systematic reviewis to compare key findings across studies and provide an
integrated, quantitative overview of the empirical research addressing the effects
of food export restrictions on domestic food production and supply.
The systematic literature review (SLR) is a research method aimed at mapping,
organizing, and critically analyzing the body of knowledge produced on a given
topic through the application of rigorous and transparent protocols for the search,
selection, and analysis of scientific publications. Unlike traditional or narrative
reviews, the SLR adopts predefined criteria to ensure the representativeness,
reproducibility, and reliability of the results, minimizing analytical bias and
enabling the replication of the study by other researchers (Alves et al. 2022).
Following this approach, the present study uses descriptive statistical
techniques to examine data drawn from a set of empirical studies, with the goal
of generating an integrated synthesis of their findings. In doing so, the study
contributes to resolving the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of export
restrictions in ensuring domestic food availability. Conducting a systematic review
is especially relevant in this context due to the limited number of systematic
evaluations currently available. Most of the literature in this field remains scattered
and underdeveloped. For example, one of the few review efforts – Akter (2022) –
was not conducted systematically and lacked sufficient methodological transparency,
raising concerns about reproducibility, potential selection bias, and the reliability
of its conclusions (Alves et al. 2022).
To ensure methodological transparency and replicability, Table 1 provides a
detailed summary of the procedures used to collect the sample of studies included
in the systematic review. Data were sourced from SCOPUS, a multidisciplinary
database with extensive coverage of peer-reviewed scientific literature. The search
strategy involved applying ten specific criteria, which are outlined in Table 1.The
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
14-31
choice of SCOPUS over other databases, such as Web of Science (WoS), is justified
by its broader coverage of journals, particularly in the fields of social sciences,
economics, and public policy studies, which are highly relevant to the topic
of this review. Furthermore, SCOPUS offers a more comprehensive geographic
representation, including studies originating from developing countries. These
characteristics make SCOPUS especially suitable for capturing a more diverse
and representative body of literature.
Table 1. Procedures for Collecting the Systematic ReviewSample
Information Criteria Search Results
Descriptors – terms
in title, abstract, or
keywords
“food export restriction” 6
“food” AND “exportrestriction” 66
“food” AND “exportban” 34
“food” AND “exporttax” 19
“food” AND “export quota” 10
“grainexportrestriction” 3
“grain” AND “exportrestriction” 20
“grain” AND “exportban” 13
“grain” AND “exporttax” 12
“grain” AND “export quota” 1
Search platform SCOPUS
Search date 07/23/2024
Language English
Parameters
Inclusion of articles addressing causality related to the research question
Inclusion of articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals
Inclusion of articles published between 2007 and 2024
Exclusion of literature reviews and/or articles not related to the research
question and/or duplicates and/or articles not available in full text
Source: Author’s elaboration based on Alves et al. (2022).
As illustrated in Table 1, the selected descriptors were those directly related
to the topic of this study – namely, the effects of food export restrictions on
domestic production and supply in exporting countries during periods of price
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
15-31
spikes. Although the price increases affected most food commodities, grains
were chosen as one of the main keywords (as opposed to others such as meat,
for example), since, as demonstrated in the arguments presented in Section
2, grains – particularly wheat, maize, soybeans, and rice – were the group of
commodities most affected by the price surge. Moreover, these staple foods form
the foundation of the diet for the majority of the global population, which raises
greater concern regarding the adoption of national policies aimed at ensuring
domestic supply by exporting countries.
Given that the research problem addressed in this article is explanatory in
nature and establishes a causal relationship between variables, the article sample
was selected with a focus on publications that specifically examine this central
relationship, thereby ensuring greater thematic relevance. Given that the temporal
scope of the analysis is linked to the global rise in food prices, which began with
the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the year 2007 was chosen as the starting point for
the collection of publications. This decision aimed to concentrate the review on
studies that directly explored the central research question.
After removing duplicate records, the initial search produced 144 documents,
of which 72 addressed export restrictions as a central theme. Applying the selection
criteria outlined in Table 1, I arrived at a final sample of 17 peer-reviewed articles.
To validate the robustness of this sample, I compared it to that of Akter
(2022), which is the only known literature review specifically focused on the
effects of export restrictions. Akter’s sample comprises 13 documents, of which
69.2% are also present in the current study’s sample. It is worth noting that
Akter’s dataset includes several sources that do not meet the inclusion criteria
of this research – specifically, three institutional reports and one unreferenced
document that are not peer-reviewed academic articles. These were excluded
from the present analysis to ensure methodological rigor and consistency.
Among the remaining nine documents from Akter’s review that meet this
study’s inclusion standards, all are incorporated into the final sample, indicating
a 100% convergence between the two reviews for this subset. This overlap
underscores the comprehensiveness and validity of the sample assembled for
this systematic review.
The final sample of 17 studies was then examined using the variables and
coding criteria described in Table 2.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
16-31
Table 2. Variables for Article Sample Analysis
Variable Code Explanation Categorization
Sample amost What is the comparison strategy?
1 – Single Case Study
2 – Large N
3 – Small N
Methodology met Whatmethodologyisused?
1 – Quantitative
2 – Qualitative
3 – Mixed
Influence inf
What is the article’s influence?
(The ratio between the number of
citations (cit) and the age of the
article (temp))
Continous
Type of
exportrestriction tip_res What type of export restriction is
analyzed in the study?
1 – Tax
2 – Quota
3 – Ban
4 – Tax and Quota
5 – Tax and Ban
6 – Quota and Ban
7 – All
Type of effect on
domestic supply tip_ef_cons What is the effect found on
domestic market supply?
1 – Significant and Positive
2 – Significant and Negative
3 – Not Significant
4 – Mixed
5 – N/A
Type of effect on
domestic production tip_ef_prod What is the effect found on
domestic production?
1 – Significant and Positive
2 – Significant and Negative
3 – Not Significant
4 – Mixed
5 – N/A
Typeof country tip_pais
Does the sample include large or
small exporters/importers of the
restricted commodity?
1 – Large Exporter(s)
2 – Small Exporter(s)
3 – Large Importer(s)
4 – Small Importer(s)
5 – Mixed
Source: Author’s elaboration.
The variable amostrefers to the comparison strategy adopted in each study,
classified as either a single case study, small-N (samples ranging from 2 to 29
countries), or large-N (samples comprising 30 countries or more). The variable
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
17-31
met refers to the methodological approach employed, categorized as quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed.
I also analyzed the influence of each article through the variable inf, defined
as the ratio between the number of citations (cit) and the age of the article
(temp). Influence is a continuous variable with values greater than or equal to
zero. Citation counts were obtained directly from the SCOPUS database, and
article age was used to normalize the values in order to avoid temporal bias,
since older publications tend to accumulate more citations.
Given the theoretical relationship of interest – the influence of export
restrictions on domestic food availability – the analysis also included the types
of export restrictions adopted (tip_res), the type of effect on domestic supply
(tip_ef_cons) and production (tip_ef_prod), and the type of country (tip_pais)
that implemented the restriction.
Specifically, tip_res refers to one or more of the three main types of export
restrictions examined in the literature: export taxes, export quotas, or outright
export bans – including both single and combined forms. The variable tip_ef_cons
indicates the effect of export restrictions on domestic food supply, with four
possible values: significant and positive, significant and negative, not significant,
or mixed. Similarly, tip_ef_prod reflects the impact of restrictions on domestic
production, using the same classification. If a study does not analyze the effect
of export restrictions on either domestic supply or production, the corresponding
variable is coded as Not Applicable (N/A).
Finally, the tip_pais variable indicates whether the country adopting the
export restriction is a large or small exporter or importer of the commodity in
question. As discussed in Section 2, the theoretical effects of export restrictions
on internal supply and production vary significantly depending on the country’s
trade profile.
All data processing was performed using R software (version 4.4.2). To
ensure transparency and reproducibility, both the dataset and the R scripts used
for the analysis are available on the Open Science Framework4platform.
4 The dataset and the code used in the analysis can be accessed via the following link: https://osf.io/b9w8e/?view_on
ly=37f0805202a04fed86540727183686d9
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
18-31
Results
As detailed in the previous section, the final sample comprised 17 scholarly
articles, reflecting a relatively small body of research focused specifically on
this topic.This limitation becomes even more apparent when the sample is
compared to the total number of studies that address export restrictions as an
explanatory variable. The initial search identified 72 documents that, in some
capacity, analyzed export restriction policies – whether descriptively, causally,
or through literature reviews. Thus, the final sample represents approximately
23.61% of these studies.
This finding supports Akter’s (2022) observation about the scarcity of research
examining the effects of export restrictions during the food price spikes of the
2000s on the domestic economies of exporting countries. The majority of the
72 studies focus primarily on the impacts of export restrictions on international
markets and broader issues of global food security.
Regarding the analyzed sample, Table 3 presents the distribution of articles
by journal.
Table 3. Frequency of Articles in the Sample by Journal
Journal N %
China Agricultural Economic Review 1 5,88
Development Policy Review 1 5,88
Food Policy 5 29,41
Food Security 3 17,65
Frontiers of Sustainable Food Systems 1 5,88
JournalofAgriculturalEconomics 2 11,76
Outlook onAgriculture 1 5,88
Review of World Economics 1 5,88
World Development 1 5,88
World Trade Review 1 5,88
Source: Author’selaboration.
The sample is distributed across 10 journals, with a notable concentration
of articles in Food Policy, which accounts for 29.41% of the sample. Following
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
19-31
this, Food Security and the Journal of Agricultural Economics host 17.65% and
11.76% of the articles, respectively. The remaining journals each contain only
one article. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of the number of articles in the
sample over the years.
Figure 3. Number of articles published in the sample by year (2011–2020)
Source: Author’s elaboration.
The data show that the oldest article in the sample was published in 2011,
four years after the onset of the global food price spike. The sample displays
a peak in 2016, with four articles published that year, followed by a decline in
2017 and 2018, and then an increase in 2019 and 2020, coinciding with the onset
of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although the earliest publication in the sample dates from 2011, there are
records of broader publications on food export restriction policies from earlier
years, as illustrated in Figure 4.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
20-31
Figure 4. Publication of Articles on Food Export Restrictions by Year (1998–2024)
Source: Author’s elaboration.
It is evident that prior to the rise in global food prices during the 2000s,
only a single article on the subject was published – in 1998. From 2009 onward,
there is a clear increase in publications addressing food export restrictions, with
notable peaks in 2016 and 2022, each year featuring 10 publications. These trends
suggest that the surge in global food prices and the subsequent implementation
of export restrictions stimulated scholarly interest in analyzing these policies
within the context of the crisis.
However, studies specifically examining the effects of food export restrictions
on domestic food security remain scarce and tend to appear later in the timeline,
as illustrated in Figure 3. This indicates a gap in the literature, highlighting an
open research agenda and presenting opportunities for further investigation.
Regarding the comparative strategies employed in the articles within the
sample, Figure 5 reveals a predominance of single case studies, totaling 12
articles. These are followed by small-N studies, comprising 5 articles. Notably,
no studies in the sample utilized a large-N comparative approach.
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
21-31
Figure 5. Comparative Strategies Employed in the Sampled Articles
Source: Author’s elaboration.
The absence of large-N and the limited number of small-N studies, contrasted
with the predominance of single-case analyses, may reflect the difficulty of
generalizing the effects of food export restriction policies on domestic food
availability across adopting countries. Consequently, the findings derived from
this sample cannot be extrapolated beyond the specific cases examined, given the
inherent limitations of case studies in producing broad generalizations (Figueiredo
Filho et al. 2014). This outcome underscores the challenge of developing generalized
conclusions about the population of countries concerning the impact of export
restrictions on domestic food availability, while simultaneously highlighting
the value of case studies in uncovering internal factors or country-specific
characteristics that may shape policy outcomes.
Regarding the influence of articles in the sample, measured by the ratio
of citations to publication age, Figure 6 displays the values for the six most
influential ones.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
22-31
Figure 6. Influence Scores of the Most Cited Articles in the Sample
Source: Author’s elaboration.
The article by Götz, Glauben, and Brümmer (2013) holds the highest influence
score within the sample. This study examines the impact of wheat export controls
imposed by Russia and Ukraine during the 2007–2008 price spike on their
domestic markets. Its primary objective was to assess whether these restrictions
effectively mitigated the influence of global prices on domestic wheat prices.
The remaining articles investigate the potential effects of export restrictions on
various food products across different countries.
Regarding the types of food export restrictions analyzed in the sample,
Figure 7 illustrates that export bans are the most frequently studied, compared
to export tariffs and quotas. Notably, quotas are not analyzed in isolation in any
of the reviewed articles.
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
23-31
Figure 7.Distribution of Types of Export Restrictions Examined
in the Sampled Articles
Source: Author’s elaboration.
It is important to note that export bans were the most widely adopted
measure during the global food price surge, as demonstrated in Figure 2. This
prevalence partially explains the greater number of analyses focusing on this
type of restriction within the sample.
Among studies examining combined restrictions, tariffs appear most frequently
across all combinations, followed by bans and quotas.
With respect to the country profiles analyzed – categorized as large or small
exporters or importers – Figure 8 presents the distribution of these categories
within the sample articles.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
24-31
Figure 8. Types of Countries Analyzed in the Sampled Articles
Source: Author’s elaboration.
It is observed that analyses focusing on large exporters predominate, followed
by those examining small exporters. None of the studies in the sample address
large or small importers. The category “mixed” refers to two articles: Yu and
Jensen (2014) and Hansen, Tuan, and Somwaru (2011). Both investigate export
restriction measures adopted by China across various food crops, treating the
country as both a large exporter and a large importer.
Figure 9 presents the percentage of articles in the sample that report different
types of effects of the independent variable – food export restrictions – on the
dependent variables: domestic supply (tip_ef_cons) and domestic production of
the restricted food crop (tip_ef_prod).
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
25-31
Figure 9. Types of Effects of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic
Supply and Production
Source: Author’s elaboration.
It is observed that, regarding domestic supply, 65% of the articles identify a
significant and positive effect. In contrast, 65% of the articles do not analyze the
dependent variable tip_ef_prod, indicating a notable gap in the literature concerning
the impact of food export restrictions on domestic production, particularly in
the context of the global food price surge. Among the studies that do consider
tip_ef_prod, 29% report significant and negative effects, suggesting that export
restrictions tend to reduce domestic production of the embargoed crop. The
remaining 6% of the articles find mixed results.
To provide a more nuanced understanding of these effects, the sample was
divided into two groups: articles focusing on large exporters and those examining
small exporters. The detailed results for each group are presented in Figures 10
and 11.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
26-31
Figure 10. Types of Effects of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic
Supply and Production in Large Exporters
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Figure 11.Types of Effects of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic
Supply and Production in Small Exporters
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
27-31
A clear distinction emerges between the two groups analyzed. Regarding
the variable tip_ef_cons, 70% of the articles focusing on large exporters report
a significant and positive effect, whereas only 40% of the studies on small
exporters identify the same. Among large exporters, there is a marked difference
between significant positive effects (70%) and significant negative effects (10%).
In contrast, for small exporters, no single effect predominates, reflecting less
consistent findings.
These findings support the theoretical argument presented in the second
section: for large exporters, who have the ability to influence international
price formation, export restrictions can indeed increase domestic food supply.
In contrast, for small exporters, who are price takers, such measures tend to
be ineffective in improving domestic welfare, particularly when it comes to
expanding internal supply in the face of rising international prices. As previously
discussed, small exporters exert little to no influence over global prices. Therefore,
by imposing export restrictions, they incur losses in export revenues without
achieving meaningful gains in price stability or domestic availability, rendering
the policy both costly and ineffective (Piermartini, 2004).
Regarding the variable tip_ef_prod, it is notable that 80% of the studies on
large exporters do not analyze the effects on production. In contrast, among
small exporters, a significant and negative effect predominates, aligning with
theoretical expectations.
In summary, approximately 65% of the articles in the sample identify a
significant and positive effect of export restrictions on the domestic supply of
affected crops. This effect is more pronounced for large exporters, whereas for
small exporters the significant positive and negative effects occur with comparable
frequency. Furthermore, there is a pronounced gap in the literature regarding
the impact of export restrictions on domestic production. Among the studies
that do investigate this issue, the significant negative effect predominates, with
no evidence of meaningful positive effects.
Conclusions
As discussed in Section 2, countries facing food security challenges amid
rising global food prices, particularly since the 2007-2008 crisis, have often adopted
export restrictions as emergency measures. The sharp increase in international
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
28-31
prices pressured domestic markets, prompting such policies to protect consumers
and ensure national food security. Their main goal has been to increase domestic
food availability and insulate prices from global volatility. However, effectiveness
varies: large exporters, able to influence international prices, tend to benefit more,
while small exporters generally face higher costs and limited gains (Piermartini
2004; Bouet and Debucquet 2010; Abbott 2011).
The systematic review confirms this asymmetry. Most studies on large exporters
report positive effects on domestic supply, whereas for small exporters results
are mixed, aligning with theoretical expectations. These findings underscore the
uneven impacts of export restrictions during the food price surges of the 21st
century – large exporters could better protect consumers, while small exporters
suffered revenue losses and limited policy effectiveness.
From a theoretical standpoint, export restrictions may also reduce production
incentives in both groups by discouraging efficient producers (Piermartini 2004;
Bouet and Debucquet 2010). The review revealed a scarcity of studies on production
effects: evidence is inconclusive for large exporters and predominantly negative
for small ones. Thus, while such policies may temporarily increase domestic
availability, they often distort markets and weaken long-term resilience, particularly
in less adaptive economies.
Although dominated by single case studies, the literature suggests that
export restrictions can buffer short-term shocks but undermine production and
stability over time. Future comparative and qualitative research should further
investigate causal mechanisms and explore ways to enhance policy effectiveness
amid global price volatility.
References
Abbott, Philip C. 2011. “Export Restrictions as Stabilization Responses to Food Crisis.”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94, no. 2: 428–34.
Akter, Sonia. 2022. “The Effects of Food Export Restrictions on the Domestic Economy
of Exporting Countries: A Review.” Global Food Security 35: 100657.
Alves, Elia Elisa Cia, Dalson Britto Figueiredo Filho, Helena Fernandes Santos, Agnes
Maria Freitas Amaral, and Jade Freitas. 2022. “Como Fazer uma Revisão Sistemática
da Literatura? Um Guia Prático em Governança Marinha.” In Desafios Metodológicos
das Políticas Públicas Baseadas em Evidências, editedby Ivan Felipe Fernandes,
119–58. Boa Vista: Editora IOLE.
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
29-31
Baffes, John. 2013. “A Framework for Analyzing the Interplay among Food, Fuels, and
Biofuels.” Global Food Security 2: 110–16.
Baffes, John, and Tassos Haniotis. 2010. “Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom
into Perspective.” Policy Research Working Paper 5371. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Baltzer, Kenneth. 2015. “International to Domestic Price Transmission in Fourteen
Developing Countries during the 2007-08 Food Crisis.” In Food Price Policy in an
Era of Market Instability, edited by Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 21–50. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bouet, Antoine, and David Laborde Debucquet. 2012. “Food Crisis and Export Taxation:
The Cost of Non-Cooperative Trade Policies.” Review of World Economics 148: 209–33.
Bouet, Antoine, and David Laborde Debucquet. 2010. Economics of Export Taxation
in a Context of Food Crisis: A Theoretical and CGE Approach Contribution. IFPRI
Discussion Paper 00994. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/
getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/2291/filename/2292.pdf.
Clapp, Jennifer, and Ryan S. Isakson. 2018. “Risky Returns: The Implications of
Financialization in the Food System.” Development and Change 49, no. 2: 437–60.
De Paula, Nilson Maciel, Valéria Faria Santos, and Wellington Silva Pereira. 2015. “A
Financeirização das Commodities Agrícolas e o Sistema Agroalimentar.” Estudos
Sociedade e Cultura 23, no. 2: 294–314.
Dias, Atos, Lucas Silva Amorim, Igor Palma Barbosa, and Thiago Lima. 2021. “COVID-19
e (In)Segurança Alimentar: Os Efeitos da Pandemia na Cadeia Mundial de Suprimento
de Alimentos.” Carta Internacional 16, no. 2: e1151.
Díaz-Bonilla, Eugenio. 2017. “Food Security Stocks: Economic and Operational Issues.”
In Agriculture, Development, and the Global Trading System: 2000-2015, edited by
Antoine Bouet and David Laborde, 233–84. Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2023. FAO Food
Price Index. Rome: FAO, 2023. Accessed August 22, 2023. https://www.fao.org/
worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/
FAPDA (Food and Agriculture Policy Decision Analysis Tool). 2024. Food and Agriculture
Policy Decision Analysis Tool. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. Accessed July 9, 2024. https://fapda.apps.fao.org/fapda/#main.html.
Figueiredo Filho, Dalson Britto, Rafael Paranhos, José Alexandre Da Silva Júnior,
Enivaldo Carvalho Da Rocha, and Dáfni Priscila Alves. 2014. “O Que É, Para Que
Serve e Como Se Faz uma Meta-Análise?” Teoria e Pesquisa 3, no. 2: 205–28.
Gallas, Daniel. 2008. “Saiba Mais sobre a Crise Mundial de Alimentos.” BBC Brasil,
June 3. Accessed August 31, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/reporterbbc/
story/2008/06/080602_alimentos_qa_dg.
The Effect of Food Export Restrictions on Domestic Food Availability Amid Rising [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
30-31
Gewin, Virgínia. 2022. “How Corn Ethanol for Biofuel Fed Climate Change.” Civil Eats,
February 14. Accessed February 16, 2025. https://civileats.com/2022/02/14/how-
corn-ethanol-for-biofuel-fueled-climate-change/.
Gilbert, Christopher L. 2010. “How to Understand High Food Prices.” Journal of Agricultural
Economics 61, no. 2: 398–425.
Gilbert, Christopher L. 2015. “Food Prices, Food Price Volatility and the Financialization
of Agricultural Futures Markets.” Ferdi Policy Brief B144, December. Accessed May
6, 2025. https://ferdi.fr/en/publications/food-prices-food-price-volatility-and-the-
financialization-of-agricultural-futures-markets.
Götz, Linde, Thomas Glauben, and Bernhard Brümmer. 2013. “Wheat Export Restrictions
and Domestic Market Effects in Russia and Ukraine during the Food Crisis.” Food
Policy 38: 214–26.
Hansen, Jim, Francis Tuan, and Agapi Somwaru. 2011. “Do China’s Agricultural Policies
Matter for World Commodity Markets?” China Agricultural Economic Review 3,
no. 1: 6–25.
Headey, Derek, and Shenggen Fan. 2008. “Anatomy of a Crisis: The Causes and
Consequences of Surging Food Prices.” Agricultural Economics 39: 375–91.
Headey, Derek. 2011. “Rethinking the Global Food Crisis: The Role of Trade Shocks.”
Food Policy 36, no. 2: 136–46.
Krugman, Paul. 2011. “Droughts, Floods and Food.” The New York Times, February 6.
Accessed May 18, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07krugman.html.
Lima, Thiago, and Atos Dias. 2022. “A Guerra da Ucrânia e a Crise Mundial de Insegurança
Alimentar.” In Linha Vermelha: a Guerra da Ucrânia e as Relações Internacionais
do Século XXI, editedby Felipe Loureiro, 219–39. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.
McMahon, Paul. 2013. Feeding Frenzy: The New Politics of Food. London: Profile Books.
Mitchell, Donald. 2008. “A Note on Rising Food Prices.” Policy Research Working Paper
4682. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Mitra, Siddhartha, and Tim Josling. 2009. Agricultural Export Restrictions: Welfare
Implications and Trade Disciplines. Washington, DC: International Food and
Agricultural Trade Policy.
Nascimento, Atos Rabi Dias. 2024. A Economia-Mundo da Fome no Século XXI: O Efeito
da Alta dos Preços das Commodities Alimentares na Segurança Alimentar dos Países.
PhD diss., Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.
Piermartini, Roberta. 2004. The Role of Export Taxes in the Field of Primary Commodities.
Geneva: WTO. Accessed July 22, 2024. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/
discussion_papers4_e.pdf.
Prates, Daniela Magalhães. 2007. “A Alta Recente dos Preços das Commodities.” Revista
de Economia Política 23, no. 3: 323–44.
Atos Dias
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 2, e1587, 2025
31-31
Schmidhuber, Josef. 2020. “COVID-19: From a Global Health Crisis to a Global Food
Crisis?” In Food Outlook – Biannual Report on Global Food Markets, edited by FAO
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 63–71. Rome: FAO.
Sharma, Ramesh. 2011. “Food Export Restrictions: Review of the 2007-2010 Experience
and Considerations for Disciplining Restrictive Measures.” FAO Commodity and Trade
Policy Research Working Paper 32. Accessed May 15, 2025. https://www.fao.org/
fileadmin/templates/est/PUBLICATIONS/Comm_Working_Papers/EST-WP32.pdf.
Soffiantini, Giulia. 2020. “Food Insecurity and Political Instability during the Arab
Spring.” Global Food Security 26.
UN (United Nations). 2022. “Global Impact of War in Ukraine on Food, Energy and
Finance Systems.” United Nations Brief no. 1, April 13. Accessed May 18, 2025.
https://news.un.org/pages/global-crisis-response-group/.
USA (United States of America). 2023a. “Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data.”
U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed February 16, 2025. https://afdc.energy.gov/
data.
USA (United States of America). 2023b. “Alternative Fuels Data Center: Renewable
Fuels Standard.” U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed March 2, 2025. https://
afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1947. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT 1947). Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/
gatt47_01_e.htm#articleXI.
Yu, Wusheng, and Hans G. Jensen. 2014. “Trade Policy Responses to Food Price Crisis
and Implications for Existing Domestic Support Measures: The Case of China in
2008.” World Trade Review 13, no. 4: 651–83.
