Mexico Policy
Related Reports
- Oil Crops Outlook: March 2013
- Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade
- Resources, Policies, and Agricultural Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa
- Oil Crops Outlook: February 2013
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2022
- Rising Grain Exports by the Former Soviet Union Region
- Rice Outlook: January 2013
- Cotton and Hydropower in Central Asia: How Resource Competition Affects Trade
- Southeast Asia’s Rice Surplus
- Vegetables and Pulses Outlook; December 2012
- Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade: November 2012
- Rice Outlook: November 2012
- Economic Policy and Cotton in Uzbekistan
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: October 2012
- Rice Outlook: October 2012
- Vegetables and Pulses Outlook: September 2012
- Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: September 2012
- Wheat Outlook: September 2012
- Rice Outlook: September 2012
- Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade: August 2012
- Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: August 2012
- Wheat Outlook: August 2012
- Rice Outlook: August 2012
- Reciprocal Trade Agreements: Impacts on U.S. and Foreign Suppliers in Commodity and Manufactured Food Markets
- China’s Market for Distillers Dried Grains and the Key Influences on Its Longer Run Potential
- Dynamic PEATSim Model Documenting Its Use in Analyzing Global Commodity Markets
- Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: July 2012
- Rice Outlook: July 2012
- International Food Security Assessment, 2012-22
- Policy, Technology, and Efficiency of Brazilian Agriculture
- Vegetables and Pulses Outlook: June 2012
- Indonesia’s Modern Food Retail Sector: Interaction With Changing Food Consumption and Trade Patterns
- Estimating the Range of Food-Insecure Households in India
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: May 2012
- Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: May 2012
- U.S. Net Textile and Apparel Imports Decline in 2011
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2021
- China’s Volatile Pork Industry
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: January 2012
- Long-Term Growth Prospects for Wheat Production in Afghanistan
- Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: December 2011
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: October 2011
- Trade, the Expanding Mexican Beef Industry, and Feedlot and Stocker Cattle Production in Mexico
- Wheat Flour Price Shocks and Household Food Security in Afghanistan
- The Expansion of Modern Grocery Retailing and Trade in Developing Countries
- Brazil’s Ethanol Industry: Looking Forward
- Brazil’s Cotton Industry: Economic Reform and Development
- Reciprocal Trade Agreements: Impacts on Bilateral Trade Expansion and Contraction in the World Agricultural Marketplace
- International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns: An Update Using 2005 International Comparison Program Data
- Peru: An Emerging Exporter of Fruits and Vegetables
- The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors
- Japan’s Beef Market
- Food Security Assessment, 2010-20
- Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook: April 2010
- Growth and Equity Effects of Agricultural Marketing Efficiency Gains in India
- Feed Outlook: December 2009
- The Economics of Agricultural and Wildlife Smuggling
- U.S. Cotton Prices and the World Cotton Market: Forecasting and Structural Change
- What the 2008/2009 World Economic Crisis Means for Global Agricultural Trade
- Trade and Development When Exports Lack Diversification: A Case Study from Malawi
- Imports From China and Food Safety Issues
- Food Security Assessment, 2008-09
- Russia’s Growing Agricultural Imports: Causes and Outlook
- China's Ongoing Agricultural Modernization: Challenges Remain After 30 Years of Reform
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2018
- Declining Orange Consumption in Japan: Generational Changes or Something Else?
- Colombia: A New Ethanol Producer on the Rise?
- Food Safety and Imports: An Analysis of FDA Import Refusal Reports
- The EU Sugar Policy Regime and Implications of Reform
- The Environment for Agricultural and Agribusiness Investment in India
- Food Security Assessment, 2007
- Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook: March 2008
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017
- China’s Cotton Supply and Demand: Issues and Impact on the World Market
- How Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1) Has Affected World Poultry-Meat Trade
- Beef Production, Markets, and Trade in Argentina and Uruguay: An Overview
- Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook: September 2007
- Global Growth, Macroeconomic Change, and U.S. Agricultural Trade
- China Currency Appreciation Could Boost U.S. Agricultural Exports
- Indian Wheat and Rice Sector Policies and the Implications of Reform
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2016
- Demand for Food Quantity and Quality in China
- Food Security Assessment 2005, GFA 17
- The Role of Policy and Industry Structure in India's Oilseed Markets
- Trade Liberalization in International Dairy Markets: Estimated Impacts
- China's Rising Fruit and Vegetable Exports Challenge U.S. Industries
- Prospects for India's Emerging Apple Market
- Resolution of the U.S.- Japan Apple Dispute: New Opportunities for Trade
- Growth Prospects for India's Cotton and Textile Industries
- Agricultural Trade Preferences and the Developing Countries
- Food Security Assessment, GFA 16
- New Directions in Global Food Markets
- China's Soybean Imports Expected To Grow Despite Short-Term Disruptions
- Global Trade Patterns in Fruits and Vegetables
- Food Security Assessment, GFA-15
- India's Poultry Sector: Development and Prospects
- International Trade and Food Safety: Economic Theory and Case Studies
- International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns
- Food Security Assessment GFA14
- Structural Change and Agricultural Protection: Costs of Korean Agricultural Policy, 1975 and 1990
- China's Food and Agriculture: Issues for the 21st Century
- Food Security Assessment GFA13
- Livestock Sectors in the Economies of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: Transition from Plan to Market and the Road Ahead
- Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina: Developments and Prospects for Major Field Crops
- Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade
- Agricultural Policy Reform in the WTO--The Road Ahead
- Issues in Food Security
- Food Security Assessment GFA12
- U.S. Farm Exports to APEC Forum Members Up 23 Percent in FY1995, to Record High
Related Amber Waves Articles
Mexico Policy
SAGARPA
Agricultural Finance
OECD Support Estimates
Mexico's agricultural programs reflect the heterogeneity of the
country's agricultural sector. Producers range from large
commercial operations to small, subsistence-oriented farms.
Accordingly, some Mexican farm programs are geared more for
advanced commercial operations, others are designed to advance less
developed operations, and still others are available to virtually
all producers. In many instances, Mexico's agricultural programs
are designed to address perceived gaps and bottlenecks in the
agricultural economy. This is particularly true in agricultural
finance, where the participation of commercial banks is small
compared with the United States.
SAGARPA
The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development,
Fishing, and Food (SAGARPA-Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería,
Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación) is Mexico's counterpart to
USDA. Among SAGARPA's stated objectives are to implement a support
policy that permits greater production, to make better use of the
sector's comparative advantages, to integrate rural activities
within the rest of the economy, and to foster collaboration between
producers and governmental programs and projects. For 2011, SAGARPA
has an authorized budget of 73.8 billion pesos, or about US$6.2
billion.
Roughly 80 percent of SAGARPA's budget is devoted to five programs
or budget categories.

The Program of Support for Agricultural Income accounts for
about 24 percent of SAGARPA's budget for 2011. The program's
largest and most important subprogram is the Program of Direct
Support for the Countryside (PROCAMPO-Programa de Apoyos Directos
para el Campo). Launched in 1994, PROCAMPO was originally designed
to provide transitional assistance to Mexican producers during the
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
and to eliminate guaranteed prices for basic staples. Currently,
any producer who cultivates a legal crop on eligible land or uses
that land for livestock or forestry production or some ecological
project can receive PROCAMPO payments, which are made on a per
hectare basis. Eligible land is defined as having been cultivated
with corn, sorghum, beans, wheat, barley, cotton, safflower,
soybeans, or rice in any of the three agricultural cycles prior to
August 1993. According to operational rules published April 23,
2010, the standard PROCAMPO payment rate is 963 pesos (about US$81)
per hectare for both the fall-winter and spring-summer agricultural
cycles. For the spring-summer agricultural cycle, however, rainfed
producers with 5 hectares or less of eligible land receive a
payment rate of 1,300 pesos (US$109). The maximum amount of support
that an individual beneficiary can receive is 100,000 pesos
(US$8,410) per agricultural cycle. About 80 percent of the Program
of Support for Agricultural Income's 2011 budget is devoted to
PROCAMPO.
The Program of Risk Prevention and Management encompasses a wide
variety of support for the agricultural and fishing sectors. The
program contains an important subprogram called Support to Target
Income and Commercialization that provides countercyclical
assistance in a fashion similar to the U.S. marketing loan program. The Target Income
and Commercialization Subprogram guarantees participating producers
of selected crops (see table) that their income from the market
will not fall below a certain level. In recent years, commodity
prices have been sufficiently high that target income payments have
been made for only a few crops. Another subprogram, Direct Supports
for Hedging Prices of Eligible Commodities, reduces the risk
exposure of producers, marketers, and consumers to commodity price
fluctuations through the use of options in future markets. The cost
of these instruments is partially or totally borne by SAGARPA's
Support and Services for Agricultural Commercialization (ASERCA).
Other activities in the area of commercialization include support
to ease the costs of storing and transporting crops, price
insurance, and the provision of collateral. When all of these
activities are taken into account, the program is responsible for
about 23 percent of SAGARPA's 2011 budget, with about 62 percent of
the program's budget allocated to the Target Income and
Commercialization Subprogram.
Crops supported By Mexico's Target Income Subprogram
|
Crop
|
Target income
|
Crop |
Target income
|
pesos per metric ton
|
pesos per metric ton
|
Canota
|
4,690
|
Sorghum
|
2,000
|
Corn
|
2,200
|
Soybeans
|
4,690
|
Cotton lint
|
19,800
|
Sunflower
|
4,690
|
Rice
|
3,300
|
Wheat, bread
|
3,040
|
Safflower
|
4,690
|
Wheat, crystalline
|
2,860
|
Source: SAGARPA,Diario Oficial, December 31, 2010.
|
The Program of Support for Investment in Equipment and
Infrastructure accounts for about 20 percent of SAGARPA's 2011
budget. Formerly known as Alianza para el Campo (Alliance for the
Countryside), the program encompasses a broad range of
capacity-building and extension-like activities. Examples
include:
- providing grants and technical assistance to producer groups
and organizations for improvements to farm and ranch operations and
cooperative ventures in production, storage, and marketing;
- supporting agricultural mechanization and technical
improvements to irrigation;
- helping marginal producers to switch to more productive
activities;
- financing research, development, and technology transfers to
improve the supply chains of specific commodities; and
- promoting food safety and the achievement of sanitary and
phytosanitary standards.
The Program of Sustainability of Natural Resources accounts for
about 11 percent of SAGARPA's 2011 budget. This program encourages
producers to utilize sustainable practices that minimize or reverse
environmental damage caused by the agricultural, livestock, and
fishing sectors. Examples of practices fostered by the program
include sustainable use of land and water, conservation of native
plant genetic resources, promotion of biodiversity, efficient and
productive use of natural resources, sustainable use of fishing and
aquacultural resources, encouragement of alternative energy
sources, and management of environmental disruptions. An important
component of this program is the Program of Sustainable Livestock
Production, Cattle Regulation, and Apiculture (PROGAN-Programa de
Producción Pecuaria Sustentable y Ordenamiento Ganadero y Apícola).
PROGAN seeks to enhance productivity and technological adoption
among livestock and apicultural producers to help reduce their
environmental impact. It provides direct payments, which vary based
on scale of production, on a per-head basis for eligible livestock
production practices (see table). Other PROGAN benefits include:
producer insurance against exotic disease, increased mortality
levels, attacks by predators, loss of hives, and damage to
infrastructure and equipment; technical assistance and capacity
building; direct support for animal identification tags and hive
plaques; and Brucellosis vaccines for female livestock offspring.
About 55 percent of the Program of Sustainability of Natural
Resource's 2011 budget is devoted to PROGAN.
PROGAN payment rates
|
System
|
Number of head or hives
|
Payment per head or hive
|
| |
Pesos
|
Bovine, meat and dual purpose
|
5-35
|
412.50
|
|
30-300
|
330
|
Sheep
|
25-175
|
82.50
|
|
176-1,500
|
66
|
Goats
|
30-210
|
68.75
|
|
211-1,800
|
55
|
Bovine, dairy
|
5-35
|
412.50
|
Beekeeping
|
10-175
|
82.50
|
|
176-1,500
|
66
|
Source: SAGARPA, Diario Oficial, December 31, 2010
|
The Program of Capacity Building, Techological Innovation, and
Rural Extension accounts for about 7 percent of SAGARPA's 2011
budget. This program encompasses a variety of activities in the
area of capacity building and technical assistance, including an
extensive effort to provide improved seed and fertilizer, technical
advice, and other support to the nation's corn and dry bean
growers.
Top of page
Agricultural
Finance
In the area of agricultural finance, Mexico counts upon several
government financial institutions to augment the activities of the
commercial banking sector. FIRA (Funds Instituted in Relation with
Agriculture-Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relación con la
Agricultura) was created in 1954 by the Mexican government to offer
credits, guarantees, training, technical assistance, and support of
technology transfer to Mexico's agricultural, forestry, fishery,
and rural sectors. This second-tier, government-owned fund is
managed by Banco de México, Mexico's central bank.
Since 1999, FIRA has pursued a new business model that considers
the financial needs of the entire food system, including some
non-agricultural activities in rural areas. To accomplish this
task, FIRA has developed new products, such as structured financial
instruments and inventory financing. It has also fostered a wider
distribution network for its funds that includes various non-bank
lending institutions, including Limited-Purpose Financial Societies
(SOFOLES-Sociedades Financieras de Objeto Limitado), Multi-Purpose
Financial Societies (SOFOMES-Sociedades Financieras de Objeto
Múltiple), financial leasing companies, warehouse companies, and
credit unions. Additionally, FIRA provides agribusiness consulting
and sector-specialized information and analysis.
For 2007-12, FIRA has developed a strategic plan whose main
objective is to assist in building and sustaining a globally
competitive agricultural sector. One focal point of the plan is
small producers, who account for 95 percent of all producers in
Mexico. By enhancing their access to credit and providing training
and technical assistance, the plan seeks to integrate small
producers into value chains.
In 2010, FIRA lent 102.9 billion pesos (US$8.0 billion) for
agricultural and rural financing. Of this amount, 88.6 billion
pesos (US$6.9 billion) was devoted to discounts, benefiting about
1.7 million producers, while 14.3 billion pesos (US$1.1 billion)
corresponded to guarantees without discounts.About 79 percent of
these funds were channeled through commercial banks. That same
year, FIRA also guaranteed about 59.4 billion pesos (US$4.6
billion) in credits, supporting the efforts of over 1 million
borrowers.
Another important government institution in agricultural finance
is Financiera Rural. This entity replaced Banco Nacional de Crédito
Rural (BANRURAL), which was dissolved in 2003. Financiera Rural's
primary mission is to make loans to agricultural producers and
rural financial intermediaries, to facilitate capacity building
among producers, and to foster the development of rural financial
intermediaries, especially those without access to other sources of
financing.
Unlike BANRURAL, Financiera Rural is not a bank and does not
offer savings accounts. Rather than disperse funds through its own
network of offices, Financiera Rural does so through branches of
affiliated banks. It also operates programs to distribute credit
through other entities and to facilitate contract agriculture.
In 2009, Financiera Rural provided 25.04 billion pesos (US$1.9
billion) in financing to Mexico's agricultural, livestock, and
rural sectors, benefiting over 121,000 producers and entrepreneurs.
Over 50 percent was funded through direct credits. The rest was
channeled indirectly through second-tier rural financial
intermediaries (29 percent) and various indirect credit programs
(19 percent). In line with Financiera Rural's focus on producers
with very limited access to financial capital, 47 percent of the
total amount financed was provided to low-income producers. At the
close of 2010, Financiera Rural's assets equaled about 25.4 billion
pesos (US$2.1 billion).
OECD Support
Estimates
Agricultural support estimates calculated by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) provide a common framework for evaluating
the size of government support to agriculture by the OECD
countries. The total support estimate (TSE) measures "the annual
monetary value of all gross transfers from taxpayers and consumers
arising from policy measures that support agriculture, net of the
associated budgetary receipts, regardless of their objectives and
impacts on farm production and income, or consumption of farm
products." In 2009, Mexico's TSE equaled nearly 94 billion pesos
(US$7.2 billion). This estimate includes some agriculture-related
activities that take place outside of SAGARPA, and it does not
cover some activities of SAGARPA that the OECD does not count as
government support to agriculture.
The TSE has three components: (1) the producer support estimate
(PSE), (2) the general services support estimate (GSSE), and (3)
transfers to consumers from taxpayers (TCT). The PSE indicates "the
annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and
taxpayers to support agricultural producers, measured at farm gate
level," while the GSSE indicates "the annual monetary value of
gross transfers to general services provided to agricultural
producers collectively (such as research, development, training,
inspection, marketing and promotion)." Of Mexico's TSE in 2009, the
PSE accounted for 84 percent, the GSSE accounted for 11 percent,
and TCT accounted for 5 percent.

The leading forms of producer support in Mexico are: (1)
payments based on input use (43 percent in 2009) and (2) market
price support (MPS, 34 percent in 2009). Among payments based on
input use, those payments based on non-constrained input use or
involving fixed capital formation (reductions in on-farm investment
costs of buildings and equipment usually only accessible to large
producers) are considered by the OECD to be market distorting. In
Mexico, payments of these types have increased significantly over
the last decade. Although the OECD has not yet published its TSE
numbers for 2011, many activities corresponding with the category
of payments based on input use are likely to correspond with
SAGARPA's Program of Support for Investment in Equipment and
Infrastructure.
MPS is calculated "by adding together the price transfers to
producers from consumers and taxpayers, minus the contribution that
producers make to these transfers." For an individual commodity,
these price transfers are estimated by multiplying the market price
differential (MPD) by the quantity of domestic supply, where the
MPD is the difference between the domestic market price and the
border price of the commodity, measured at the farm gate level. In
2009, milk accounted for 31 percent of Mexico's MPS, followed by
poultry meat (27 percent) and raw sugar (5 percent). Tariffs on
imports from various non-NAFTA countries are the main policy that
corresponds to Mexico's MPS.
In contrast to payments based on commodity output and
non-constrained input use, payments based on non-current area or
animal numbers are not considered to be market distorting. In
Mexico, such payments are provided mainly through PROCAMPO and
PROGAN. Payments based on non-current area or animal numbers
accounted for 22 percent of Mexico's PSE in 2009.
When compared with the value of agricultural production,
Mexico's level of producer support has held fairly steady at
relatively low levels, at about half of the OECD country average
for 2006-08. The percentage PSE, which equals the amount of
producer support divided by the sum of transfers from taxpayers to
producers plus the value of agricultural production, illustrates
this point. During 2007-09, Mexico's PSE was in the range of 12-13
percent, about 4 percentage points above that of the United
States.
TCT, the third component of the TSE, indicates the "annual
monetary value of gross transfers to consumers of agricultural
commodities, measured at the farm gate level, arising from policy
measures that support agriculture, regardless of their nature,
objectives or impacts on consumption of farm products." Measuring
TCT as a percentage of TSE, Mexico's levels of 4, 7, and 8 percent
for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008 respectively are comparable to
the OECD averages of 8 during each of those years.
MEXICO: Total Agricultural Support Estimate
|
| |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
Millions of pesos
|
I. total value of production (at farm gate)
|
336,552.70 |
377,469.76 |
380,767.79 |
417,638.04 |
470,260.21 |
528,994.66 |
576,709.98 |
| |
II. Producer Support Estimate (PSE)
|
71,321.61 |
48,053.55 |
54,523.53 |
60,753.03 |
66,869.74 |
70,486.85 |
78,606.37 |
| |
A. Support based on commodity outputs
|
39,298.86 |
17,553.47 |
20,579.31 |
23,686.21 |
21,909.76 |
16,289.56 |
27,758.53 |
Market Price Support (MPS)
|
35,774.52 |
14,631.69 |
15,916.82 |
19,195.72 |
20,034.05 |
13,785.79 |
26,875.33 |
Raw sugar
|
7,122.57 |
6,376.21 |
7,207.90 |
2,686.57 |
6,606.10 |
3,528.52 |
1,262.21 |
Milk
|
6,834.47 |
2,065.71 |
894.63 |
3,650.59 |
-6.02 |
0.00 |
8,368.66 |
Pork
|
1,419.65 |
-87.68 |
0.00 |
399.20 |
-6.88 |
1,327.50 |
964.92 |
Poultry meat
|
5,591.29 |
781.72 |
1,746.99 |
3,569.92 |
6,675.25 |
4,345.34 |
7,264.25 |
Dry beans
|
2,549.89 |
519.30 |
907.60 |
2,354.72 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Other commodities
|
11,973.57 |
4,483.81 |
5,159.69 |
6,408.52 |
6,771.45 |
4,584.42 |
9,015.29 |
| |
B. Payments based on input use
|
15,623.41 |
14,610.42 |
18,990.12 |
22,085.83 |
28,160.78 |
37,082.99 |
33,750.74 |
B1. Variable input use
|
6,570.42 |
6,515.43 |
7,726.36 |
9,291.00 |
11,325.11 |
16,342.70 |
14,586.45 |
B2. Fixed capital formation
|
5,390.34 |
4,650.48 |
7,589.24 |
8,826.09 |
10,883.55 |
15,419.00 |
14,450.30 |
B3. On-farm services
|
3,662.64 |
3,444.51 |
3,674.52 |
3,968.74 |
5,952.12 |
5,312.29 |
4,713.99 |
| |
C. Payments based on current area, animal numbers, revenue, or
income, production required
|
1,378.64 |
1,121.06 |
483.80 |
462.90 |
431.60 |
1,143.40 |
886.40 |
D. Payments based on non-current area, animal numbers, revenue,
or income, production required
|
1,500.00 |
1,424.90 |
2,004.40 |
2,070.00 |
4,058.50 |
3,660.80 |
3,899.60 |
E. Payments based on non-current area, animal numbers, revenue,
or income, production required
|
13,060.70 |
13,115.80 |
12,465.90 |
12,308.10 |
12,309.10 |
12,310.10 |
12,311.10 |
| |
III. Percentage PSE (PSE/(I+B+C+D+E))
|
19.17 |
11.69 |
13.00 |
13.23 |
12.93 |
12.03 |
12.51 |
| |
IV. General Services Support Estimate (GSSE)
|
9,478.11 |
9,288.10 |
8,873.20 |
8,449.16 |
10,726.86 |
10,417.65 |
10,305.20 |
Research and development
|
1,585.12 |
1,565.22 |
1,608.95 |
1,687.86 |
1,889.71 |
1,346.09 |
1,554.10 |
Agricultural schools
|
1,944.21 |
2,063.79 |
2,077.40 |
2,457.01 |
2,867.88 |
3,097.55 |
3,239.00 |
Inspection services
|
1,378.47 |
1,827.85 |
2,160.04 |
2,186.12 |
2,758.07 |
2,297.85 |
1,251.60 |
Infrastructure
|
1,269.29 |
1,328.14 |
1,820.31 |
750.54 |
1,362.62 |
2,380.20 |
3,356.90 |
Marketing and promotion
|
3,211.86 |
2,394.42 |
1,153.00 |
1,316.30 |
1,800.07 |
1,246.96 |
851.60 |
| |
V. Transfers to consumers from taxpayers (TCT)
|
1,152.93 |
2,029.53 |
2,049.77 |
2,735.06 |
5,901.96 |
6,611.48 |
5,018.54 |
| |
VI. Total Support Estimate (TSE=PSE=GSSE+TCT)
|
81,952.66 |
59,371.18 |
65,446.50 |
71,937.25 |
83,498.56 |
87,515.99 |
93,930.12 |
| |
Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Producer and Consumer Support Estimates Database.
|