Talk:Agricultural policy

5/19 BIG edits

I started a big re-work of the article. I added a wiki-standard article, and tried to make other sections more closely conform to wiki style. Feco 22:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the structure of the article is a lot better now... it has room for expansion in ag policy areas. There is still a lot of need for cleanup... some of the sections are long and rambling... I consolidated a lot of content w/out writing transitions or removing duplicated info... a cleanup with those goals in mind would be great. Feco 20:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV & First-Person

The opposition section reads like a political pamphlet, even employing the first person. While I am no expert in this particular field of economics, I would be happy to give that section a more dispassionate voice. Any objections? For the sake of transparency, I should note that my personal bias is against farm subsidies, but I came to this page looking for a strong argument in their favor.

-Jarrett

Follow-up: Thank you, Orzetto. Your edit is definitely an improvement. I'm curious if anyone can add more to the pro section. I've heard the argument that subsidies can help avert crises along the lines of the '29 crash. I don't know how widely such theories are supported in academia, but since they seem to be floating around, I'd like to see someone treat them in the article. I'll try to do some research on the topic elsewhere. If I can find anything substantial, I might write something up.

-Jarrett

Good edit. However, I don't know of any green economists who argue that local production of organic produce by families should be taxed or regulated at all, so the phrase "Some green economists" should probably read "Most green economists". Maybe these qualifications should probably just be spelled out...

Good point about agribusiness being the beneficiary of lax import / free trade rules. Link to family farm may be in order. Rules for rural land ownership typically affect both agricultral policy and family farms, perhaps that should be in an article on land reform, which some economists (e.g. de Soto, Joseph Stiglitz) see as essential.

Also, immigration policy in some developed nations has exceptions specifically to enable agricultural policy, e.g. migrant farm workers in Canada and the US. That should probably be mentioned.

Removed this. The United States has almost ended farm subsidies several times. It's back in, but it's far from clear that they will continue for the forseenable future. Also, the "since" clause is NPOV. Opponents to agricultural policy would argue that it will continue as long as there are rural voters.

Since agricultural produce is mostly traded and entirely priced on commodity markets, but presents special biosafety and biosecurity risks, not to mention being produced typically by the poorest segments of the population in developing nations, some such policy measures favoring local production and higher consumer prices to subsidize these larger goals will remain in place for the forseeable future.

You seem to be confusing 'agricultural policy' as a concept with the specific agricultural policy concept in place inthe US. If the US has a policy of zoning land for agricultural use or supporting loans to family farmers, then it has an agricultural policy, although it may not support that with outright cash subsidy.

The United States doesn't have any national policy of zoning agricultural land nor any national policy of supporting loans to family farmers. There are some cities which do have agricultural zoning ordinances, but given that they are local regulations which are neither coordinated nor universal, it's hard to term those "policy."

Also, the 'since' clause, if you read this, implies only that 'since' (a) food is traded on commodity markets (b) food presents special biosafety and biosecurity concerns (c) it is raised by poor people in developing nations, 'then' (z) it is hopelessly political and subsidies will continue. I don't see that as controversial, but if you do, then changing "will" to "will probably" or "subsidize" to "reflect" will NPOV the statement very nicely. Or else, you could add (d) rural voters have much power in democracies

The problem with this is that even the *probably* is subject to question within the United States. There are major consitutencies for agricultural subsdies but there are also major constituetncies against it.

European politics might be different.

If your position is that the NPOV is that (a), (b), (c) are disputable or don't matter politically, or that (d) is the deciding issue necessarily, I don't agree. Accordingly I can't see why you'd say the 'since' is not NPOV.

"Since" implies that a) b) c) are true. If you want to change them to "assuming that", that is a bit better.

A more substantive edit now includes all of the above points by both sides. Disputed claims were eliminated or put in context that makes them clearer. There is a lot to say on this issue. It probably won't be right on one pass. Thanks for helping.

Poorer Countries should take advantage of Farm Sub

I think developing countries should take advantage of farm subsidies instead of opposing them. In fact, cheaper farm imports and resources freed that were previously employed in farming can combine to produce powerful advantage. The savings from the above two factors can be good enough to move away from farm jobs. See my blog entry for more details.

haven't gone to your blog, but.... a developing country is usually the definition of poor, especially the central government. How would it pay farm subsidies to its own farmers? Feco 04:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Address a point to the article or take it elsewhere. Rd232 06:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scope of Article

Agricultural policy goes beyond subsidies, mabye this page should be moved to Agricultural subsidy or the scope of the article needs to be widened.--nixie 11:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

incorrect facts

whats this about a US rice farmer getting 1000000 over 5 years? 200,000 a year. each? I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. Also gdp of spain is 800 billion dollars according to world bank and EU budge agricultural subsidy is 40 billion euro. I dont know how much canadian cows are subsidised or how much milk cartons cost. All these were added by 217.128.218.169 5 feb 2004 Sandpiper 13:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, another part of agricultural policy is Phytosanitary regulations, these can greatly restrict the import of developing world produce to developed markets. Similarly, there should be more differentiation between the different types of trade barrier, for example quotas that link output to level of subsidy. Furthermore, more elabloration needs to occur on how subsides hurt the environment because the link production with funding. The price of land is pushed artifically high and many farmers/farm conglomerates use nonarable land to grow their crops.

Balance of content

There is a huge section titled subsidy and tiny ones headed price control and import barriers. Maybe no one knows much about these last two, but at least some of the polemic under subsidies ought to be spread about.Sandpiper 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rearranged sections. Look much more balanced now, at least on word count.Sandpiper 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Split up with sections for objectives (good), arguments against (bad things), examples of schemes (technical description of how they work). Anyone know better how US subsidy sytem works, is there a page somewhere? Or Japan? Or any other country with a subsidy system?Sandpiper 22:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remove the POV tag?

It seems that most of the original POV complaints have been addressed. Although the article still lacks detail on facts, it looks more balanced. Any objections to removing the NPOV tag? Feco 19:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

since nothing showed up here, I'll go ahead and remove the POV tag. Let's see what happens. Feco 8 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Arguments against...

I have a problem with suggested section headings arguments for.. and arguments against. While I am reasonably happy that the 'arguments against' are in fact what it says, I am not happy at describing the section 'arguments for' as such.

A number of things listed are aims and objectives which governments seek to carry out. To say that a certain aim is sought, is not to say that this aim is good. Saying that these are 'arguments for' implies that things in this section explain why agricultural policy is good. Economists might (and do) argue that self-sufficiency in food is an illusive aim and in practice does not confer a benefit. Well, the 'against' section makes this point about whether the policy really works. But the 'for' section is not exactly constructed to say why policies are good. Rather it goes through a list of the sorts of things which make up agricultural policy, good and bad. It does suggest that certain governments consider these aims desireable, but a neutral observer might not. Some of the policies indeed are contradictory...protected markets are likely to lead to expensive food. So inherently, what one government thinks is good, another thinks is bad.

So conceptually I see the sections as first one listing policies and reasoning for them, second containing criticisms. It may be that this scheme leaves an opening for a third section, but I don't see there is enough material to put in it. Rather there should be a rounded discussion in both sections so that all points are covered.Sandpiper 01:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for...

Agricultural policy has a very long history. A lot of subsidies continue because lobbying groups have developed to maintain a subsidy that was implemented a long time ago to address a problem that no longer exists. This makes it kind of difficult to write an "argument for" section... We can speculate, I suppose, that subsidies to rice, cotton, and sugar originated after the civil war to buy political support from the southern states where these crops are grown. Is "bribing southern states not to secede" a legitimate "argument for"?

Don't give short shrift to the "food self sufficiency" argument. World war II wasn't all that long ago and long before there were weapons of mass destruction, cutting off a country's food supply was considered an extremely efficient means of killing off large amounts of your opponent's population. Millions of people in Russia starved to death.

Another self sufficiency argument: Look at North Korea, and how food aid is being used as a political tool to put external pressure on the North Korean regime. If you become reliant on food imports you make yourself vulnerable to foreign government manipulation of your food supply for political reasons. The United States tried this on the USSR in the seventies with the grain embargo, although it failed miserably (USSR just imported wheat from other sources).

I wouldn't be surprised if basically all countries that use "self sufficiency" as an argument have been invaded in the last century.

Developing Countries Actually Gain from US Ag Subsidies

An important, but almost universally overlooked, result of US subsidies is that most developing countries actually benefit, on aggregate. As section 3.1 points out, developing countries are importing cheap food fhjohhjkhkjbhvhbjhk,jhkmajority of developing coutries, the gains from cheap food outweigh the loss to displaced farmers. In other words, the beneficiaries (presumably urban households) could theoretically compensate the losers (presumably rural households, but not necessarily) and still come out a head. There has been serious research on this subject. I can point out the working papers by various economists (NBER, UMD) if necessary. ughjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj'Bold text''''Bold text

That was me...

Sorry, first time...

Agricultural subsidy now separate

66.167.136.246 12:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC): FYI, Agricultural subsidy is now a separate article, allowing this article to focus on the broader topic. A minimal version exists, with the only country-specific section so far being for the U.S., so contributions are encouraged.[reply]