neo-classical economic theory which emphasized the need to shift resources in line with comparative advantages at national level, and restore price incentives to generate income at local level. Assessment of the impact of marketoriented policies has demonstrated the need for complementary and supportive public policies to cope with some of the unsustainable impacts of globalization and to reinforce the need for greater sustainability of development and growth (Stiglitz, 2002).

Development microeconomics and agricultural economics of international markets have called for sui generis policies.

Two approaches have been taken to development economics research and policy. Firstly, there has been a shift of focus from macro issues to micro problems; e.g., from markets to households, from products to people (Sadoulet et al., 2001; Banerjee and Duflo, 2005). In this approach, research on the impacts of risk and imperfect information at the household level provided insights on the cost of market failure for households and countries (Rothschild and Stiglitz, 1976; Newberry and Stiglitz, 1979; Binswanger, 1981; Stiglitz, 1987; Boussard et al., 2006). For example, local market and institutional conditions were found to determine the success or failure of public policy. In China and other emerging economies sui generis macro policies have outperformed the so-called "Washington consensus" policies (Santiso, 2006). This is increasing interest in sui generis development and trade policies (Stiglitz and Greenwald, 2006; Rodrik, 2007). In the second approach, agricultural economics research continues to explore the value and power distribution along international commodity market chains (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz, 1994; Daviron and Ponte, 2005; Gibbons and Ponte, 2005), to determine how new patterns of labor organization throughout the chain have impact upon its overall function-and notably how they affect farmer income.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has greatly expanded the scope of trade and commodity agreements as set out in the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

Agricultural economic research on the causes and consequences of market instability on people and national economies (e.g., Schultz, 1949) shaped the postwar development of developing countries policies prior to Independence. These policies led to new institutional schemes to address development issues, e.g., the creation of UNCTAD and the formulation of special arrangements under GATT in the 1970s, such as the definition of rules with regard to setting trade quotas and tariffs (Ribier and Tubianz, 1996). Other matters have remained under the purview of national governments. Although not without flaws, this system has provided tools such as trade barriers which allow countries to protect their domestic markets. The Uruguay Round of negotiations, which led to the creation of the WTO, greatly

expanded the power of international arenas over agriculture, limiting the authority of national governments to fixed policies governing their own farmers, consumers, and natural resources (Voituriez, 2005). The impacts of these WTO policies on the agricultural sector have been controversial. Ex post analysis indicates negative impacts on the lives of poor food producers and indigenous peoples, while ex ante analysis on current Doha Scenarios point to possible welfare losses in the short term for some poor countries and poor households (Hertel and Winters, 2005; Polaski, 2006). Some of the losers from trade liberalization are also among the poorest (Chabe-Ferret et al., 2006). Similarly, traditional small scale farming and fishing communities worldwide have suffered from globalization, which has systematically removed restrictions and support mechanisms protecting them from the competition of highly productive or subsidized producers. To redress these negative impacts, current AKST initiatives include the examination of (1) broader special and differential treatment for developing countries, allowing them to experiment with ad hoc policy within a wider policy space and (2) the resort to special "rights"- e.g., the Right to food or "Food Sovereignty" under UN auspices (Ziegler, 2003).

Regional Trade Agreements have had major impacts on food exports and agriculture systems in some countries.

The implementation of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had major social and economic impacts on agriculture and the trading of food. For example, while beneficial to USA, corn production in Mexico collapsed with an associated decline in the real rural wage (Hufbauer and Schott, 2005). This situation arose because as a condition for joining NAFTA, Mexico had to change its Constitution and revoke the traditional "ejido" laws of communal land and resource ownership, and dismantle its system of maintaining a guaranteed floor price for corn, which sustained more than 3 million corn producers. Within a year, production of Mexican corn and other basic grains fell by half and millions of peasant farmers lost their income and livelihoods. Many of these farmers are part of the recordhigh number of immigrants crossing U.S. borders.

One of the side effects of the increased food trade has been worldwide increase in the number of food and food-borne diseases.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified that the increased trade of food has contributed to increased levels of human illness worldwide. In part this may simply be due to the increased volume of food imports. The WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) has set criteria for member nations to follow regarding their domestic trade. These policies affect food safety risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins, veterinary drug and pesticide residues or other disease-causing organisms. The primary goal of the SPS is to facilitate trade by eliminating differences