Agricultural subsidy: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

Agriculture subsidies are government programs providing benefits to farmers for the purpose of stabilizing food prices, ensuring plentiful food production, and guaranteeing farmers' basic incomes.

The premises behind agriculture subsidies are that the nation's food supply is too critical to the nation's well-being to be governed by uncontrolled market forces and that to keep a steady food supply, farmers' incomes must be somewhat stable, or many farms would go out of business during difficult economic times. These premises are not accepted by all lawmakers and are the subject of continual debate. Critics argue that the subsidies are exceedingly expensive and do not achieve the desired market stability.

The U.S. government first initiated efforts to control the agriculture economy during the Great Depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s. During this period, farm prices collapsed, and farmers became increasingly desperate in attempts to salvage their livelihood, sometimes staging violent protests. President Herbert Hoover made several failed attempts to shore up prices and stabilize the market, including the disastrous Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930, 6 U.S.C.A. § 1, 19 U.S.C.A. § 6 et seq., which created a limited tariff to protect farmers from competition from foreign products. The tariff set in motion a worldwide wave of protective tariffs, greatly exacerbating the global economic panic and resulting in drastically decreased export markets for U.S. commodities.

After the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930, tariffs were not a widely supported method of subsidizing most agricultural products. The model for post-Hawley-Smoot farm subsidies is the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA), 7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq., passed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal Congress. The AAA implemented some ideas that became staples of agriculture subsidy programs to the present day, including provisions allowing the government to control production by paying farmers to reduce the number of acres in cultivation; purchase surplus products; regulate the marketing of certain crops; guarantee minimum payments to farmers for some products; and make loans to farmers using only their unharvested crops as collateral.

The government also has attempted to stabilize agricultural markets by subsidizing the export of U.S. agricultural products and by signing international agreements designed to promote agricultural exports. In the 1950s and 1960s, the government took major steps to increase exports, including the adoption of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1427 et seq., and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Such measures resulted in widened markets for U.S. agricultural products.

The GATT, a multination agreement intended to reduce international trade impediments and decrease the potential for tariff-based trade wars, has undergone several revisions during its history. Agriculture subsidies and tariffs have often been a source of great debate in these revisions. During the Uruguay round of modifications, GATT members could not agree on this issue. The stalemate nearly resulted in a renewed tariff war and the abandonment of the agreement during the 1980s and 1990s. At one point, farmers in France staged violent demonstrations when that country agreed to lower its subsidies and open its markets to imports.

Some export-based policies have had drawbacks. In 1972, the Nixon administration announced a monumental agreement with the Soviet Union whereby the Soviet Union would purchase virtually all surplus grain produced in the United States. U.S. grain and food prices escalated rapidly owing to this new demand, causing great public skepticism about the deal, except in the rural United States, where farm values and incomes escalated.

Another method used by the government to subsidize agricultural products is the combination of target prices, deficiency payments, and mandatory acreage reduction. This approach is used primarily for corn and wheat, the main U.S. grain crops. Under this method, the government sets an ideal price, or target price, for a commodity. If the market price falls below that target price, the government pays the farmer the difference — that is, makes a deficiency payment to the farmer. This prevents the farmer from being forced to sell the product at a price deemed unfairly low by the government, and supports the farmer's income during difficult economic periods. Programs using this method are not mandatory, so the farmer must enlist in one to be involved. In return for a guaranteed minimum income and price stability, the farmer normally is required to take a specified portion of land out of production — that is, make a mandatory acreage reduction — at least for program commodities.

In any given year, it is impossible to predict how expensive the deficiency payment programs will be, because weather conditions and uncontrolled market forces often greatly affect prices. These types of agriculture subsidies often have been quite expensive, especially during years when market prices are low owing to high production and low exports. To reduce the government's cash payments to farmers during one particularly disastrous market swing, the Reagan administration implemented the Payment in Kind (PIK) Program in 1983. Under the PIK Program, instead of paying farmers with cash, the government paid them with certificates good for federal surplus grain. Farmers could then exchange the certificates for actual grain or trade them like stock certificates. PIK, combined with a drought in 1983, succeeded in reducing the cash cost of the deficiency payment programs and the excessive grain surplus.

In the dairy industry, the government subsidizes milk production by agreeing to purchase milk from processors at a predetermined price. Dairy farmers receive no direct deficiency payments; rather, they receive from their processor a milk check that includes the federal money.

The international community often attacks the U.S. dairy subsidy programs as predatory, although similar and even greater subsidies are given to many dairy farmers in European communities. U.S. dairy producers claim that until the other producing nations drop their subsidies, it would be economic suicide for the United States to lower subsidies.

The government also subsidizes agriculture through nonrecourse loans. With this type of subsidy, the government loans money to farmers using the farmers' future harvest as collateral. The government sets a per-bushel loan rate at which farmers can borrow money prior to harvest, so that they can hold their crops for later sale when the market price rises. The government determines how much a farmer can borrow by multiplying the loan rate (which is usually equal to the government target price for the crop) by the farmer's base acreage (which is determined by calculating the number of acres the farmer planted of a target crop over several years, and multiplying that total by the farmer's average yield). The crop is the collateral for the loan, and the farmer can either repay the loan in cash and sell the crop, or default and forfeit the crop to the government. If the market price is lower than the loan rate or target price, or if the farmer's actual production rate is below the farmer's base acreage rate, the government's only recourse for recouping part of its loan is to take the collateral crop. This subsidy is used primarily for corn and wheat, with a modified form of the program applying to soybeans, rice, and cotton.

The government still enforces restrictive tariffs to subsidize certain domestic crops, especially sugar, for which the U.S. tariff virtually eliminates all foreign imports. The tariff protects U.S. sugar producers and costs the government little, but opponents argue that the cost of this domestic monopoly is passed on to consumers, who are forced to pay sugar prices almost four times higher than the world market rates, to the benefit of a few large sugar manufacturers.

For peanuts and tobacco, the government allows legal monopolies for a few government-licensed growers, and imposes large tariffs on imports of these products. Also, cigarette companies are allowed to help determine the price of tobacco and the volume of foreign imports, creating a dual-monopoly relationship between tobacco growers and the cigarette industry.

Supporters of subsidies attribute the relatively low cost of food and the stability of food production to the assistance of the federal government. They say that if agriculture subsidies did not exist, food prices would vary wildly from year to year, and that many farmers would be unable to support themselves through market lows and weather catastrophes. Supporters often state that government support for family farms keeps farm monopolies from dominating production and raising prices. Supporters cite the great advances in per capita production since the New Deal revisions in farm policy as evidence of the success of agriculture subsidies.

Supporters also point out that the government has encouraged soil conservation through subsidies. They point to laws such as the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C.A. § 608-1 et seq., 16 U.S.C.A. § 590 et seq., which required that farmers who received income subsidies plant soil-conserving crops like legumes rather than soil-depleting crops such as corn, and that farmers use contour crop-stripping methods to hinder soil erosion resulting from water runoff.

Opponents of agriculture subsidies say the farm economy is overly dependent on government, and that market forces would be a more efficient and inexpensive method of regulating production and market price. They contend that in the 1970s and 1980s, up to 30 percent of farmers' incomes were made up of government payments, primarily during years when guaranteed deficiency payments ballooned, and that farm programs have become the third largest federal program expense, behind Social Security and Medicare.

Another primary criticism of farm commodity programs, especially corn and wheat programs, is that they encourage farmers to expand their operation in order to acquire more base acres and higher guaranteed government payments. Opponents believe that this leads to a concentration of production in the hands of fewer and fewer farm corporations, and actually undermines the concept of family farms. Opponents also state that although a primary goal of agriculture subsidies always has been to control production, most programs have had little success in doing so because farmers who are paid to keep part of their land out of production tend to remove the least productive acres.

The Republican Congress of 1994-95 proposed large cuts in farm subsidies as a means to reduce the federal deficit. In March 1996 Congress passed the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, which provides for agriculture subsidies to be phased out by 2003.

Many environmentalists opposed farm subsidies for different reasons. Corn and wheat programs came under attack by environmental groups. These groups claimed that the base acreage and deficiency payment system encouraged farmers to produce soil-depleting and erosion-prone crops such as corn year after year, even if the market offered a better price for a different crop. Soil depletion and the need to increase average yields led to heavy use of chemical fertilizers, which in turn added to soil and water pollution.

Over the past few decades, agriculture subsidies were a significant and controversial part of the federal budget. Often, the subsidy programs had disparate and contradictory goals. On one hand, the federal government wanted to ensure an adequate, inexpensive food supply. On the other, it wanted to provide farmers with a degree of market certainty and a decent price for their goods. Overriding these goals were mounting pressures to keep the federal budget in check and to promote the export of U.S. products in an ever more intertwined world economy. This delicate balancing act caused much debate and discussion, as well as intensive lobbying efforts by various interest groups.

See: Agricultural Law; Agriculture Department.

An agricultural subsidy is a governmental subsidy paid to farmers and agribusinesses to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities. Examples of such commodities include wheat, feed grains (grain used as fodder, such as maize, sorghum, barley, and oats), cotton, milk, rice, peanuts, sugar, tobacco, and oilseeds such as soybeans.

Types

Some subsidies are positive - that is money is paid for increased production, while other subsidies are negative where tax revenues are given to farmers in exchange for not growing a particular commodity. Tobacco farmers in the U.S. state of North Carolina, for example, have recently been awarded tax-funds in exchange for not growing tobacco.^{[citation needed]}

Agricultural subsidies by region

European Union

Main article: Common Agricultural Policy

Africa

Increases in food and fertilizer prices have underlined the vulnerability of poor urban and rural households in many developing countries, especially in Africa, renewing policymakers' focus on the need to increase staple food crop productivity. The aim of introducing or re-introducing subsidies in several countries,^[which?] is to shore up food security in the short term, while also implementing longer-term investments to raise productivity and stimulate growth and rural development in the long-run.^{[citation needed]}

A study by the Overseas Development Institute evaluates the benefits of the Malawi Government Agricultural Inputs Subsidy Programme, which was implemented in 2006/2007 to promote access to and use of fertilizers in both maize and tobacco production to increase agricultural productivity and food security. The subsidy was implemented by means of a coupon system which could be redeemed by the recipients for fertilizer types at approximately one-third of the normal cash price.^{[citation needed]}

According to policy conclusions of the Overseas Development Institute the voucher for coupon system can be an effective way of rationing and targeting subsidy access to maximize production and economic and social gains. Many practical and political challenges remain in the program design and implementation required to increase efficiency, control costs, and limit patronage and fraud.^[4]

Japan

Main article: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Japan

Japan is best known for having agricultural subsidies for rice and wine, for cultural reasons.^{[citation needed]}

New Zealand

Until the neo-liberal reforms started in 1984 by the Fourth Labour Government, New Zealand farmers enjoyed a high level of subsidies and protectionism. After these reforms, New Zealand had the most open agricultural markets in the world.^[5]

United States

2004 U.S. Crop Subsidies^[6]
Commodity	Millions of US$	Share
Feed grains, mostly corn	2,841	35.4%
Upland cotton and ELS cotton	1,420	17.7%
Wheat	1,173	14.6%
Rice	1,130	14.1%
Soybeans and products	610	7.6%
Dairy	295	3.7%
Peanuts	259	3.2%
Sugar	61	0.8%
Minor oilseeds	29	0.4%
Tobacco	18	0.2%
Wool and mohair	12	0.1%
Vegetable oil products	11	0.1%
Honey	3	0.0%
Other crops	160	2.0%
Total	8,022	100%

The U.S. Agricultural Department is required by law (various U.S. farm bills which are passed every few years) to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by various U.S. farm bills dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation (created in 1933), among others.^{[citation needed]}

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms.

The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.^[7] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).

Arguments for and against

Farm subsidies have the direct effect of transferring income from the general tax payers to farm owners. The justification for this transfer and its effects are complex and often controversial.

Stability

Some proponents of agricultural subsidies argue^{[citation needed]} they are necessary because domestic crop yield can fluctuate considerably depending on the local weather. International crop supply and prices also vary depending on weather (e.g., drought in Australia), politics (e.g., farm seizures in Zimbabwe), war, and other factors that affect crop yields in foreign countries. As a result of these fluctuations in production levels and prices, there could be very large variations in farm revenues and food available for purchase on the global market. Price support and income guarantees can help to maintain a strong domestic farm sector and domestic food supply, by smoothing farmers' income over time and better ensure that farmers are not required to maintain a hefty float from year to year to maintain consistent income.

Opponents^{[citation needed]} point out that other areas of economy experience equivalent risks, where insurance and futures markets are used to mitigate risks to producers.

Protect domestic production

It is argued^{[citation needed]} that in some countries that without support from government, domestic farmers would not be able to compete with foreign imports. Removing subsidies would therefore drive domestic farmers out of business, leaving the country with a much smaller (or possibly non existent) agriculture industry. A country that is unable to produce domestically enough food to feed its people is at the mercy of the world market, and is more vulnerable to trade pressure and global food shortages and price shocks.

Opponents^{[citation needed]} argue the security of food could also be guaranteed by diversifying supplier relations.

Global food prices and international trade

Classical economic theory predicts that subsidizing a commodity would tend to increase production and depress the price.^{[citation needed]}

Lower global food prices are considered beneficial to poor consumers, especially since they spend a high proportion of their income on food. For example, in the 1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson made food surpluses a weapon in the war on poverty. Since then, food has been donated to poor urban areas in the United States.^{[citation needed]} Both critics and proponents of the WTO have noted that export subsidies, by driving down the price of commodities, can provide cheap food for consumers in developing countries.^[8]^[9]

But low prices are also considered harmful to farmers not receiving the subsidy. Because it is usually wealthy countries that can afford domestic subsidies, critics argue that they promote poverty in developing countries by artificially driving down world crop prices.^[10] Agriculture is one of the few areas where developing countries have a comparative advantage, but low crop prices encourage developing countries to be dependent buyers of food from wealthy countries. So local farmers, instead of improving the agricultural and economic self-sufficiency of their home country, are instead forced out of the market and perhaps even off their land. Agricultural subsidies often are a common stumbling block in trade negotiations. In 2006, talks at the Doha round of WTO trade negotiations stalled because the US refused to cut subsidies to a level where other countries' non-subsidized exports would have been competitive.^[11]

Mark Malloch Brown, former head of the United Nations Development Program, estimated that farm subsidies cost poor countries about USD$50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports:

"It is the extraordinary distortion of global trade, where the West spends $360 billion a year on protecting its agriculture with a network of subsidies and tariffs that costs developing countries about US$50 billion in potential lost agricultural exports. Fifty billion dollars is the equivalent of today's level of development assistance." ^[12]^[13]

In some cases, poor farmers who have high cost of production (perhaps due to small plots or lack mechanization) may have a cost of production higher than that of the subsidized market price, which means they cannot make any money.

Others argue that a world market with farm subsidies and other market distortions (as happens today) results in higher food prices, rather than lower food prices, as compared to a free market. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, has argued that farm subsidies have a long term effect of raising global food prices, which in fact harms the poor and increases malnutrition.^{[citation needed]} Countries such as India, Brazil or Argentina have comparative advantage in producing agricultural commodities due to their favorable weather conditions. Shifting production to inefficient countries through subsidies could be one mechanism which raises prices.

Overproduction

Subsidies in general are strongly criticized by free markets economists as distorting price signals. Prices are the mechanism by which farmers determine which crops they should produce, and in what quantity. Profit maximization rewards work which produces the greatest benefit to consumers at the least cost. Subsidized profits can reward bad decisions such as planting crops not really needed by consumers, or not mitigate crop failure risk.^{[citation needed]}

Economists^{[citation needed]} discount the benefits of reduced retail prices derived from subsidizing over-production. If the government were to subsidize car manufacturers to produce more cars then this would indeed lower the showroom price but it would be the consumer's own money collected through tax that would be used to fund the over-production. Subsidies are thus a deadweight loss to the welfare in the aggregate economy due to the misallocation of production spending caused by the price distortion in agricultural products. Also, in the hypothetical case that lower retail costs would outweigh the additional production costs, the manufacturers would simply lower their prices themselves until they are at a point of maximum profitability.

Over-production of specific commodities can also impact land use and crop rotation practices.^{[citation needed]}

Market distortions have replaced grasses for grazing cattle with cheaper cattle corn.^[14]

Impact on nutrition

Some critics argue that the artificially low prices resulting from subsidies coincidentally create unhealthy incentives for consumers. For example, cane sugar has been replaced with cheap corn syrup, making high-sugar food less expensive.^[15]

Corporate farms

Some proponents view farm subsidies as appropriate for "family" or small farmers, but inappropriate for "corporate" or large farms. Many subsidy programs have limits on the size of the farm that can receive subsidies.

Critics also argue that agricultural subsidies go mostly to the biggest farms who need subsidization the least. Research from Brian M. Riedl at the Heritage Foundation showed that nearly three quarters of subsidy money goes to the top 10% of recipients.^[16] Thus, the large farms, which are the most profitable because they have economies of scale, receive the most money. Since 1990, payments to large farms have nearly tripled, while payments to small farms have remained constant.^[17] Brian M. Riedl argues that the subsidy money is helping large farms buy out small farms. "Specifically, large farms are using their massive federal subsidies to purchase small farms and consolidate the agriculture industry. As they buy up smaller farms, not only are these large farms able to capitalize further on economies of scale and become more profitable, but they also become eligible for even more federal subsidies—which they can use to buy even more small farms."^[16] Critics also note that, in America, over 90% of money goes to staple crops of corn, wheat, soybeans and rice while growers of other crops get shut out completely. In Europe, for instance the Common Agricultural Policy has provisions that encourage local varieties and pays out subsidies based upon total area and not production. Although, in fairness, research has shown that small farms receive more payments in relation to value of their crops than big farms.^[18]

Non-farming companies

Subsidies are also given to companies and individuals with little or no connection to traditional farming. It has been reported that the largest part of the sum given to these companies flow to multinational companies like food conglomerates, sugar manufacturers and liquor distillers. For example in France, the single largest beneficiary was the chicken processor Groupe Doux, at €62.8m, and was followed by about a dozen sugar manufacturers which together reaped more than €103m.

Other issues

Some subsidies aim to preserve local agricultural traditions and food customs, protect green space, encourage the production of biofuels, promote tourism, and reduce domestic unemployment. Opponents argue biofuel suppliers can be successful without subsidies, and free market advocates argue that it is natural for jobs on inefficient farms to be replaced by jobs on more efficient farms, with those workers displaced out of agriculture entirely representing an opportunity to grow the labor force in new industries.^{[citation needed]}

Subsidies are often given in conjunction with strict regulation, reducing their benefit to farmers. For example, UK farmers have difficulty competing with Argentinian farmers, not only with higher labor costs, but with enforced meat traceability overheads from the UK government.^{[citation needed]}

References

^ http://ec.europa.eu/budget/budget_glance/what_for_en.htm
^ 48 billion (or 48x10⁹)/14,91 trillion (or 14.91x10¹²)*100=0,321)
^ Subsidies given to side companies
^ "Towards 'smart' subsidies in agriculture? Lessons from recent experience in Malawi". Overseas Development Institute. September 2008. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/specialist/natural-resource-perspectives/116-smart-subsidies-agriculture.pdf.
^ "Save the Farms -- End the Subsidies". Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411. Retrieved 2008-10-22. "In 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies, which then consisted of 30 separate production payments and export incentives. This was a truly striking policy action, because New Zealand's economy is roughly five times more dependent on farming than is the U.S. economy, measured by either output or employment. Subsidies in New Zealand accounted for more than 30 percent of the value of production before reform, somewhat higher than U.S. subsidies today. And New Zealand farming was marred by the same problems caused by U.S. subsidies, including overproduction, environmental degradation and inflated land prices."
^ USDA 2006 Fiscal Year Budget. "USDA Budget Summary 2006. Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services". http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2006/06.FFAS.htm.
^ "The 2002 Farm Bill: Title 1 Commodity Programs". USDA. 2002-05-22. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/farmbill/titles/titleIcommodities.htm. Retrieved 2006-12-06.
^ Panagariya, Arvind (2005–12). "Liberalizing Agriculture". Foreign Affairs. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051201faessay84706/arvind-panagariya/liberalizing-agriculture.html. Retrieved 2006-12-26.
^ Center for Economic and policy research (2005-11-22). "World Bank's Claims on WTO Doha Round Clarified". Press release. http://www.cepr.net/pressreleases/2005_11_22.htm.
^ Andrew Cassel (2002-05-06). "Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World". Philadelphia Inquirer. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
^ "US blamed as Trade Talks end in acrimony". Financial Times. 2006-07-24. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfa460d0-1afd-11db-b164-0000779e2340.html. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
^ [1] Address by Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, 12 November 2002
^ [2] "Farm Subsidies That Kill", July 5, 2002, By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, New York Times
^ Kummer, Corby. "Back To Grass". The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/kummer. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
^ Pollan, Michael (2003-10-12). "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 10-12-03; The (Agri)Cultural Contradictions Of Obesity". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2D61E3CF931A25753C1A9659C8B63&sec=health. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
^ ^a ^b Riedl, Brian M. (2002-04-30). "Still at the Federal Trough: Farm subsidies for the rich and famous shattered records in 2002". Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1542.cfm. Retrieved 2006-12-27.
^ "Farm Programs: Information on Recipients of Federal Payments" (PDF). US General Accounting Office. 2001–06. pp. 14. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01606.pdf. Retrieved 2006-12-27.
^ "Farm Programs: Information on Recipients of Federal Payments" (PDF). US General Accounting Office. 2001–06. pp. 15. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01606.pdf. Retrieved 2006-12-27.

External links

Rethinking the Export-Import Bank by Aaron Lukas and Ian Vásquez
Steel Trap: How Subsidies and Protectionism Weaken the U.S. Steel Industry
Why Congress Should Repeal Sugar Subsidy
Ten Reasons to Cut Farm Subsidies by Chris Edwards
Should the United States Cut Its Farm Subsidies? - Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, and Bob Young, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau, debate whether the United States should be subsidizing its farmers
Farm Security: The mohair of the dog that bites you - Comedy writer Dave Barry on farm subsidies
You Are What You Grow - Article on farm subsidies from The New York Times.
Kick All Agricultural Subsidies (kickAAS) - a campaign run by The Guardian newspaper in the UK
Ripe for Reform: Six Good Reasons to Reduce U.S. Farm Subsidies and Trade Barriers by Daniel Griswold, Stephen Slivinski, and Christopher Preble (September 5, 2005).
Still at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for the Rich and Famous Shattered Records in 2001- a paper presented by the Heritage Foundation arguing that farm subsidies are corporate welfare and do not benefit small family farms.
Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Donate to Wikimedia

Agricultural subsidy

Contents