Agricultural economics has, until the 1990s, enjoyeda reputation for relevance and usefulness to theagri-food industry and policy-makers. Thatreputation has been jeopardized by a growinginfatuation with models and quantification, and aconcomitant underemphasis placed on many complexproblems and issues of society. An illustrativeexample is explored, using agriculturalactivity-related damage to the natural resourcebase, environment and ecology. Agriculturaleconomists are urged to respond by broadening theirterms of reference and joining forces with otherdisciplines.

Multiple negotiating rounds of the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and World TradeOrganization (WTO) since 1947 have conferred economicbenefits through liberalized international trade. Agrowing body of evidence also points to linkagesbetween liberalized trade and damage to the globalenvironment, ecology, and natural resource base.Ironically, the increased economic well-beingconferred by trade liberalization ultimately providesthe basis for improved environmental protection. It isthe interim environmental damage due to tradeliberalization that is controversial and needingamelioration. The proposition here is to promotefurther trade liberalization, but only (...) as long asenvironmental ethics and sustainability issues aresatisfactorily addressed. Trade liberalization shouldnot be permitted at the expense of adequateenvironmental protection and sustainability. FutureWTO rounds need to address both development benefitsand environmental ethics issues in a net socialwelfare maximization setting. (shrink)