This report discusses the relationship between the AOA and the broader processes of agricultural liberalization. Many of the countries mentioned in this report already meet the requirements of the AOAs in order to be open to imports and to avoid large imports. This is often due to the structural adjustment programmes of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank implemented in the 1980s and 1990s, but also to a number of other bilateral and multilateral agreements. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an example of one of many multilateral trade agreements that have had a significant impact on consumers. It is difficult to isolate the effects of AOA from trade liberalization in general because of the diversity and sometimes the overlapping of agreements. In South Korea, for example, trade in more than 80% of raw materials had been liberalized prior to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round agricultural agreement, although the main raw materials have since been liberalized. With regard to these specific AoA-related measures, clear links can be established between consumers and the position of consumers. In the 1980s, public payments to agricultural producers in industrialized countries generated large crop surpluses, which were unloaded by export subsidies on the world market, causing food prices to fall. Tax pressure on safeguards has increased, due to both lower import duty revenues and increased domestic spending. Meanwhile, the global economy has entered a cycle of recession and the perception that market opening could improve economic conditions has led to calls for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations.
 The cycle would open up markets for high-tech services and goods and ultimately generate much-needed efficiency gains. To engage developing countries, many of which were new international disciplines, agriculture, textiles and clothing were added to the big deal.  It represents the interest of consumers in regional and global decision-making forums.