IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt21913950.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Predatory versus productive government: the case of U.S. agricultural policies

Author

Listed:
  • Rausser, Gordon C.

Abstract

This essay will argue that agricultural policy in the United States has led to both the enhancement of efficiency through "productive policies" and the transfer of wealth and income to special interests through redistributive or "predatory policies." These two activities can be labeled as PESTs and PERTs. PEST policies, or political-economic-seeking transfers, are meant to redistribute wealth from one social group to another and are not explicitly concerned with efficiency. In contrast, PERTs, or political-economic resource transactions, are intended to correct market failures or to provide public goods; these policies have neutral distributional effects, at least in design. A review of the history of public policy in agriculture reveals not only tension between the PERT and PEST roles of the public sector, but also some coordination between these two types of activities. As different interest groups pressure the political process, the government trades off PESTs and PERTs in its attempts to acquire, balance, and secure political power. At times this has led to combinations of programs that appear incoherent. In such a world, the challenge for economists is to design and advocate policies that are both economically productive and politically sustainable.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from anothe
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Rausser, Gordon C., 1991. "Predatory versus productive government: the case of U.S. agricultural policies," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt21913950, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt21913950
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/21913950.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roningen, Vernon O. & Dixit, Praveen M., 1989. "Economic Implications Of Agricultural Policy Reforms In Industrial Market Economies," Staff Reports 278843, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Bhagwati, Jagdish N, 1982. "Directly Unproductive, Profit-seeking (DUP) Activities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(5), pages 988-1002, October.
    3. Gordon C. Rausser, 1982. "Political Economic Markets: PERTs and PESTs in Food and Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(5), pages 821-833.
    4. Gardner, Bruce L, 1987. "Causes of U.S. Farm Commodity Programs," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(2), pages 290-310, April.
    5. Gordon Rausser & Richard Howitt, 1975. "Stochastic Control of Environmental Externalities," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 4, number 2, pages 271-292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Hochman, Eithan & Zilberman, David, 1978. "Examination of Environmental Policies Using Production and Pollution Microparameter Distributions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 739-760, July.
    7. Becker, Gary S., 1985. "Public policies, pressure groups, and dead weight costs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 329-347, December.
    8. Krueger, Anne O, 1974. "The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(3), pages 291-303, June.
    9. Love, H. Alan & Foster, William E., 1990. "Commodity Program Slippage Rates For Corn And Wheat," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Gary S. Becker, 1983. "A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(3), pages 371-400.
    11. Gordon C. Rausser & James A. Chalfant & H. Alan Love & Kostas G. Stamoulis, 1986. "Macroeconomic Linkages, Taxes, and Subsidies in the U.S. Agricultural Sector," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 399-412.
    12. Rausser, Gordon C, 1974. "Technological Change, Production, and Investment in Natural Resource Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 1049-1059, December.
    13. Norton, Nancy Anders, 1986. "The Effect Of Acreage Reduction Programs On The Production Of Corn, Wheat, And Cotton: A Profit Function Approach," 1986 Annual Meeting, July 27-30, Reno, Nevada 278421, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Zusman, Pinhas, 1976. "The Incorporation and Measurement of Social Power in Economic Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 17(2), pages 447-462, June.
    15. Reichelderfer, Katherine H., 1985. "Do USDA Farm Program Participants Contribute to Soil Erosion?," Agricultural Economic Reports 307990, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    16. Rausser, Gordon C. & Lapan, Harvey E., 1979. "Natural resources, goods, bads and alternative institutional frameworks," Resources and Energy, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 293-324, December.
    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. El-Osta, Hisham S. & Mishra, Ashok K., 2005. "Dimensions of Wealth Dispersion Among Farm Operator Households: An Assessment of the Impact of Farm Subsidies," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 187-208, April.
    2. Lee S. Friedman, 1999. "Presidential address: Peanuts envy?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 211-225.
    3. Rausser, Gordon C. & Foster, William E., 1990. "Public goods and wealth transfer tradeoffs," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7f97x962, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    4. de Gorter, Harry & Nielson, David J. & Rausser, Gordon C., 1990. "The political economy of productive and predatory policies: a case study from agriculture," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0q9495xv, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    5. Apedaile, Leonard Peter & Barnard, Charles H. & Bollman, Ray D. & Calkins, Blaine, 1995. "Positioning for Trade Liberalization: Structure of Earnings, Comparative and Competitive Advantage of Agricultural Households in the United States and Canada," Project Report Series 24066, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.

    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. Richard Ball, 1995. "Interest Groups, Influence And Welfare," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 119-146, July.
    2. D. MacLaren, 1991. "Agricultural Trade Policy Analysis And International Trade Theory: A Review Of Recent Developments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 250-297, September.
    3. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370, July.
    4. Wenshou Yan & Kaixing Huang, 2022. "Geographic politics, loss aversion and trade policy: The case of cotton in China," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(9), pages 2854-2881, September.
    5. Daowei Zhang & David Laband, 2005. "From Senators to the President: Solve the lumber problem or else," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 393-410, June.
    6. Fertő, Imre, 1998. "Az agrárpolitika politikai gazdaságtana I. A kormányzati politikák modellezése a mezőgazdaságban [The political economy of agrarian politics. Part I. Modeling of governmental policies in agricultur," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 223-246.
    7. Cairns, Robert D., 1992. "La recherche de rentes en situation d’incertitude avec ou sans opposition," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 68(3), pages 477-498, septembre.
    8. Foster, Walter E. & Rausser, Gordon C., 1990. "Coalition Breaking and Policy Reform," Staff General Research Papers Archive 745, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. John C. Beghin & William E. Foster & Mylene Kherallah, 1996. "Institutions And Market Distortions: International Evidence For Tobacco," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 355-365, January.
    10. Rausser, Gordon C. & de Gorter, Harry, 1988. "Endogenizing Policy In Models Of Agricultural Markets," 1988 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Knoxville, Tennessee 270460, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Yogesh Uppal, 2011. "Does legislative turnover adversely affect state expenditure policy? Evidence from Indian state elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 189-207, April.
    12. Arye L. Hillman & Heinrich W. Ursprung, 2016. "Where are the rent seekers?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 124-141, June.
    13. Mehrdad Vahabi, 2011. "Appropriation, violent enforcement, and transaction costs: a critical survey," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 227-253, April.
    14. Marchant, Mary A. & Neff, Steven A. & Xiao, Mei, 1997. "Political Economy of United States and European Union Dairy Policy Choice," 1997 Occasional Paper Series No. 7 198045, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Garrett, Thomas A. & Marsh, Thomas L. & Marshall, Maria I., 2006. "Political allocation of US agriculture disaster payments in the 1990s," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 143-161, June.
    16. Cassing, James H. & Long, Ngo Van, 2021. "Trade in trash: A political economy approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    17. Arye L. Hillman & Ngo Van Long, 2017. "Rent Seeking: The Social Cost of Contestable Benefits," CESifo Working Paper Series 6462, CESifo.
    18. Aidt, Toke Skovsgaard, 2003. "Redistribution and deadweight cost: the role of political competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 205-226, June.
    19. Bullock, David S., 2008. "Simulating the Effects of Supply and Demand Elasticities on Political-Economic Equilibrium," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48636, World Bank.
    20. Arye Hillman & Dov Samet, 1987. "Dissipation of contestable rents by small numbers of contenders," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 63-82, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    the case of U.S. agricultural policies; Social and Behavioral Sciences;

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:cdl:agrebk:qt21913950. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.