IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/05-bp48.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Much "Safety" Is Available under the U.S. Proposal to the WTO?

Author

Abstract

Critics of the U.S. proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) made in October 2005 are correct when they argue that adoption of the proposal would significantly reduce available support under the current farm program structure. Using historical prices and yields from 1980 to 2004, we estimate that loan rates would have to drop by 9 percent and target prices would have to drop by 10 percent in order to meet the proposed aggregate Amber Box and Blue Box limits. While this finding should cheer those who think that reform of U.S. farm programs is long overdue, it alarms those who want to maintain a strong safety net for U.S. agriculture. The dilemma of needing to reform farm programs while maintaining a strong safety net could be resolved by redesigning programs so that they target revenue rather than price. Building on a base of 70 percent Green Box income insurance, a program that provides a crop-specific revenue guarantee equal to 98 percent of the product of the current effective target price and expected county yield would fit into the proposed aggregate Amber and Blue Box limits. Payments would be triggered whenever the product of the season-average price and county average yield fell below this 98 percent revenue guarantee. Adding the proposed crop-specific constraints lowers the coverage level to 95 percent. Moving from programs that target price to ones that target revenue would eliminate the rationale for ad hoc disaster payments. Program payments would automatically arrive whenever significant crop losses or economic losses caused by low prices occurred. Also, much of the need for the complicated mechanism (the Standard Reinsurance Agreement) that transfers most risk of the U.S. crop insurance to the federal government would be eliminated because the federal government would directly assume the risk through farm programs. Changing the focus of federal farm programs from price targeting to revenue targeting would not be easy. Farmers have long relied on price supports and the knowledge that crop losses are often adequately covered by heavily subsidized crop insurance or by ad hoc disaster payments. Farmers and their leaders would only be willing to support a change to revenue targeting if they see that the current system is untenable in an era of tight federal budgets and WTO limits.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce A. Babcock & Chad E. Hart, 2005. "How Much "Safety" Is Available under the U.S. Proposal to the WTO?," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-bp48, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:05-bp48
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/05bp48.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=877
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Coble, Keith H. & Thomas, Sarah E. & Miller, J. Corey, 2007. "The Effect of Changing Government Subsidy Programs: An Analysis of Revenue at the Farm level," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34931, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Brink, Lars, 2005. "WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: Assessing the October 2005 Proposals," Working Papers 14601, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Arathi Bhaskar & John C. Beghin, 2010. "Decoupled Farm Payments and the Role of Base Acreage and Yield Updating Under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(3), pages 849-858.
    4. Coble, Keith H., 2006. "The Devil's in the Details: Why a Revenue-based Farm Program is No Panacea," Staff Reports 15806, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Coble, Keith H. & Barnett, Barry J., 2008. "Implications of Integrated Commodity Programs and Crop Insurance," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(02), August.
    6. Paulson, Nicholas D. & Babcock, Bruce A., 2008. "Get a Grip: Should Area Revenue Coverage Be Offered Through the Farm Bill or as a Crop Insurance Program?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), August.
    7. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2008. "Decoupled farm payments and the Role of Base Updating under uncertainty," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6339, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Brink, Lars, 2006. "WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: The October 2005 Proposals," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(1).
    9. Cooper, Joseph C., 2009. "Economic Aspects of Revenue-Based Commodity Support," Economic Research Report 55838, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    farm safety net; revenue targeting; U.S. farm programs; WTO.;

    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:ias:cpaper:05-bp48. 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: http://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.