IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dae/daepap/05-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

05-07 "Identifying the Real Winners from U.S. Agricultural Policies"

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy A. Wise

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that advocates for new U.S. agricultural trade policies should consider refocusing their campaigns on the corporate livestock sector rather than farmers. There is little evidence that farmers as a group are reaping significant gains from current U.S. agricultural subsidy programs, even though they are the direct recipients. Low prices and high costs have left farmers with stagnant or declining net farm incomes. Furthermore, there is little conclusive evidence that the removal of U.S. subsidy payments would significantly reduce production or raise prices, though there is significant disagreement on this point. There is wider agreement that U.S. farm policies contribute significantly to depressed prices for agricultural commodities. Among the beneficiaries of those low prices are the consumers of U.S. grains and oilseeds, notably the concentrated animal feeding operations that now dominate the U.S. livestock industry. These industrial operations get feed that is generally sold at below farmers’ costs of production. We raise two questions for future research, and provide tentative answers. First, would U.S. policies that ensure higher feed prices reduce the incentives toward concentrated feeding operations and tip the economic balance back toward diversified family farmers? Initial research suggests that the economic benefits of current policies to corporate livestock operators are significant and that their reform could contribute to structural change in the farm sector in favor of family farmers. Second, since subsidies to feed are not now treated as highly disciplined input subsidies for livestock operations under World Trade Organization rules, would a more accurate accounting bring U.S. subsidies above the maximum levels allowed in the prevailing Agreement on Agriculture? We present initial calculations that suggest such an accounting change would put the United States over is limit for 2000 and nearly over for 2001.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy A. Wise, "undated". "05-07 "Identifying the Real Winners from U.S. Agricultural Policies"," GDAE Working Papers 05-07, GDAE, Tufts University.
  • Handle: RePEc:dae:daepap:05-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/05-07RealWinnersUSAg.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adams, Gary M. & Young, Linda M., 1998. "Structural Developments In The U.S. Grains Subsector," Economic Harmonization in the Canadian\U.S.\Mexican Grain-Livestock Subsector; Proceedings of the 4th Agricultural and Food Policy Systems... 1998 16768, Farm Foundation, Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshops.
    2. Skaggs, Rhonda K. & Falk, Constance L., 1998. "Market And Welfare Effects Of Livestock Feed Subsidies In Southeastern New Mexico," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(02), December.
    3. Timothy A. Wise, "undated". "04-02 "The Paradox of Agricultural Subsidies: Measurement Issues, Agricultural Dumping, and Policy Reform"," GDAE Working Papers 04-02, GDAE, Tufts University.
    4. McBride, William D. & Key, Nigel D., 2003. "Economic And Structural Relationships In U.S. Hog Production," Agricultural Economics Reports 33971, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Marion Desquilbet & Hervé Guyomard, 2002. "Taxes and Subsidies in Vertically Related Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1033-1041.
    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. Elanor Starmer, Aimee Witteman and Timothy A. Wise, "undated". "06-03 "Feeding the Factory Farm: Implicit Subsidies to the Broiler Chicken Industry"," GDAE Working Papers 06-03, GDAE, Tufts University.
    2. Molly Anderson, 2008. "Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(4), pages 593-608, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:dae:daepap:05-07. 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: (Erin Coutts) or (Alfredo Pereira). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/gdtufus.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 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.

    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.