IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/motpip/29170.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effects Of The 1996 Farm Bill On Food And Feed Grains

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, Vincent H.
  • Glauber, Joseph W.

Abstract

The 1996 Farm Bill, now known as the FAIR (Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform) Act of 1996, has been portrayed as reforming U.S. agricultural policy. Gone are set aside and base acreage controls over farm planting decisions. Gone, too, are deficiency payment programs that provided protection against downward price movements for producers of program commodities. According to conventional wisdom, the FAIR Act provides an environment in which farmers enjoy greater production flexibility, but face much more risk. In fact, careful examination of the FAIR Act innovations leads to the conclusion that no radical changes have been made in food and feed grain agricultural policies, and that it is unlikely that the FAIR Act will cause large changes in crop acreages. The framework for the agricultural price and income support programs of the 1980s and 1990s was established by the 1973 Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act. The key elements for wheat, barley, and rice were target prices and deficiency payments and price supports for each crop through nonrecourse loan programs. In contrast, the FAIR Act creates a much simpler system of transfer payments for food grain and feed grain producers. Nonrecourse loan programs remain, but variable deficiency payments are replaced by fixed market transition payments for the period 1996 to 2002. For each program crop, producers receive payments of 85 percent of their 1996 crop acreage base multiplied by their 1995 program crop yields. Producers can plant any crops (other than fruits and vegetables) on their land (unless it is CRP land). This paper discusses the following aspects of the farm program: Decoupling: Most links at the farm level between current production decisions and current or future deficiency payments were severed by the provisions of the 1985 Act which froze program yields at 1985 levels. The FAIR Act can therefore be viewed as simply completing a decoupling process between deficiency payments and production decisions, by ending the system that actually required farmers to plant program crops on base acres to receive government transfer payments. Elimination of acreage reduction programs: By the 1990s the role of ARPs in controlling supplies had diminished for wheat and feed grains, partly because of the 1988 and 1989 droughts which reduced inventories, and partly because of higher prices associated with the advent of the CRP and land retirement through the 0-92 program. Their abolition in 1996 has therefore had little effect on the farm decision making environment. Production Flexibility: The rules governing base acreage calculations under the 1981 and 1985 farm bills made it costly for producers to switch to nonprogram crops like soybeans. However, these problems were mitigated in the 1990 Act which allowed program crop producers to reallocate up to twenty-five percent of their base acres to other crops. In fact, the planting flexibility provided by the 1990 Act has never been fully utilized by producers. The planting flexibility of the 1996 Act therefore seems unlikely to have significant effects on farmers' planting decisions. Federal Spending: Whether the FAIR Act involves a cut in support for feed and food grain producers is also unclear. Under the Act, wheat and feed grain producers will receive $29.2 billion in market transition payments over the next seven years. Based on current estimates, these payments are likely to be higher than those that would have been made under the 1990 Act provisions because wheat and feed grain prices are forecast to be relatively high over the period 1996- 1997. Farm Income Variability: Much has also been made of the effects of the FAIR ACT on "the farm safety net." Yet, in fact, price-based deficiency payments provided little income stability to producers with low yields when prices were high, since in that case deficiency payments were small. In fact,increased planting flexibility may actually provide some degree of income stability to producers by allowing them to respond to shifts in relative prices for different crops. In addition, the 1996 Act provides minimum guarantees for revenue streams through the market transition payment system. As these payments decline over the duration of the Act, they will become less important as a source of income stability. By 2002, Congress will have to readdress farm programs, including food and feed grain policies. Whether the 1996 Act represents the end of large scale farm subsidies therefore remains an open question. One interpretation of the 1996 legislation is that it is providing aid to the farm sector as it moves towards a "new subsidy" environment rather than a "no subsidy" environment. In the interim, although the FAIR Act involves substantive changes in the structure of U.S. agricultural policy, its actual effects on agricultural production seem likely to be small.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, Vincent H. & Glauber, Joseph W., 1997. "The Effects Of The 1996 Farm Bill On Food And Feed Grains," Policy Issues Papers 29170, Montana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Trade Research Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:motpip:29170
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.29170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/29170/files/pip03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.29170?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nelson, Frederick J. & Schertz, Lyle P., 1996. "Provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996," Agricultural Information Bulletins 262104, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Westcott, Paul C., 1993. "Market-Oriented Agriculture: The Declining Role of Government Commodity Programs in Agricultural Production Decisions," Agricultural Economic Reports 262026, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohanty, Samarendu & Beghin, John C. & Kaus, Phillip J., 2001. "Impacts Of Federal Support Programs For Sugar And Peanuts Compared To Corn And Wheat On U.S. And World Markets," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20610, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lohano, Heman Das, 2002. "A Stochastic Dynamic Programming Analysis of Farmland Investment and Financial Management," Faculty and Alumni Dissertations 309035, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Zulauf, Carl R. & Orden, David, 2009. "ACRE in the U.S. Farm Bill and the WTO," Working Papers 51821, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Padgitt, Merritt & Newton, Doris & Penn, Renata & Sandretto, Carmen, 2000. "Production Practices for Major Crops in U.S. Agriculture, 1990-97," Statistical Bulletin 262287, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Smith, Rachel K. & Duffy, Patricia A. & Novak, James L. & Wilson, Norbert L.W., 2009. "Supply Response of Crops in the Southeast," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46756, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Carl R. Zulauf & Scott H. Irwin, 1998. "Market Efficiency and Marketing to Enhance Income of Crop Producers," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(2), pages 308-331.
    6. Vincent H. Smith & Joseph W. Glauber, 1998. "The Effects Of 1996 Farm Legislation On Feed And Food Grains," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(1), pages 69-76, January.
    7. Kennedy, P. Lynn & Brink, Lars & Dyck, John H. & MacLaren, Donald, 2001. "Domestic Support: Issues And Options In The Agricultural Negotiations," Commissioned Papers 14622, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    8. Dustin L Pendell & Thomas L Marsh & Keith H Coble & Jayson L Lusk & Sara C Szmania, 2015. "Economic Assessment of FMDv Releases from the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:motpip:29170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damtsus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damtsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.