Dictionary:
sub·si·dy (sŭb'sĭ-dē)  |
[Middle English subsidie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin subsidium, support : sub-, behind, beneath; see sub– + sedēre, to sit.]
| 5min Related Video: subsidy |
| Investment Dictionary: Subsidy |
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
Politics play an important part in subsidization. In general, the left is more in favor of having subsidized industries, while the right feels that industry should stand on its own without public funds.
Investopedia Says:
There are many forms of subsidies given out by the government, including welfare payments, housing loans, student loans and farm subsidies. For example, if a domestic industry, like farming, is struggling to survive in a highly competitive international industry with low prices, a government may give cash subsidies to farms so that they can sell at the low market price but still achieve financial gain.
If a subsidy is given out, the government is said to subsidize that group/industry.
Related Links:
From unemployment and inflation to government policy, learn what macroeconomics measures and how it affects everyone. Macroeconomic Analysis
Learn how governments adjust taxes and government spending to moderate the economy. What Is Fiscal Policy?
| Business Dictionary: Subsidy |
Payment or other favorable economic stimulus (such as remission of taxation) given by government to certain individuals or groups of economic entities, usually to encourage their continued existence, growth, development, and profitability. In the United States, subsidies are given to the agricultural industry, the very poor, and many other groups.
| Real Estate Dictionary: Subsidy |
A transfer of wealth intended to encourage specific behavior considered to be beneficial to the public welfare.
Example: The federal government provides a rent subsidy to allow low income people to obtain decent housing, a subsidy to local governments to encourage them to build mass transit systems, and a tax subsidy to those with mortgages to encourage homeownership.
| Thesaurus: subsidy |
noun
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: subsidy |
For more information on subsidy, visit Britannica.com.
| US History Encyclopedia: Subsidies |
The United States has been exceedingly liberal in granting subsidies to various commercial enterprises, despite frequent doubts concerning the constitutionality of such action. The debate over government subsidies had its roots in the conflict between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian visions of American development. As George Washington's Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton enthusiastically advocated federal aid to manufacturers, believing such aid was crucial to placing the nation on a firm economic foundation. Hamilton's support for subsidies also reflected his belief that anything not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution was a legal and proper power of the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson held the opposite view. According to Jefferson, the federal government should not exercise any power not explicitly granted to it by the Constitution. Federal subsidies flew in the face of a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, and thus received Jefferson's ire. Jefferson also had regional and partisan motivations for opposing federal subsidies. As a southern planter, he deeply distrusted Hamilton's effort to establish a large manufacturing base in the United States. Jefferson believed that such policies would undermine agriculture and transform the nation from an agrarian democracy into an urban, industrial empire.
Jefferson's protégé and presidential successor, James Madison, represented a middle position between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian extremes. Although a southern planter like Jefferson, Madison shared Hamilton's belief that federal transportation subsidies were necessary for American economic development. However, Madison also shared Jefferson's narrow interpretation of federal power under the Constitution. Consequently, as president, Madison vetoed a bill that would have allocated federal funds to the construction of highways and canals. At the same time, however, Madison encouraged the bill's supporters to propose an amendment to the Constitution that would explicitly provide for federal subsidies to internal improvements. Madison's ambiguous position on the subsidy issue personified a debate that would continue in the United States for more than half a century.
Despite the fractious debate over the constitutionality of subsidies, throughout U.S. national history state and privately owned transportation improvements have been freely subsidized. Between 1825 and 1829, Congress voted to subscribe $235,000 to the Louisville and Portland Canal, $1 million to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, $225,000 to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and $80,000 to the Dismal Swamp Canal. At about the same time, land grants were made to aid in the construction of three canals to connect the Great Lakes with the Ohio and Mississippi rivers; one of these waterways, the Illinois and Michigan Canal, was still receiving assistance from the state of Illinois in the mid-1970s. The Sault Sainte Marie Canal also received a large land donation from Congress. Railroad promoters also sought federal subsidies, and between 1850 and 1871, more than 131 million acres of public lands were given to them. The first transcontinental railroads, the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, received twenty million acres of public lands and a loan of $53 million.
Debate over subsidies constituted one of the major partisan divides of the nineteenth century. The Whig party advocated federal transportation subsidies, which they usually referred to as "internal improvements," as a vital step in the creation of a national transportation infrastructure. In keeping with the spirit of the Hamiltonian tradition, Whigs such as Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky contended that without government aid, the nation's transportation system would develop in an inefficient, haphazard manner. This inefficiency, they feared, would slow western expansion and undermine economic development west of the Appalachian Mountains. According to the Whigs, all Americans would suffer as a result.
The Democratic Party took a more ambiguous position on the issue of subsidies. On the whole, Democrats generally supported transportation subsidies at the state level, and some also supported federal subsidies for the construction of a transcontinental railroad. Most southern Democrats, however, adamantly opposed transportation subsidies at the federal level. According to southern Democrats such as Sen. John Calhoun of South Carolina, federal transportation subsidies represented an unconstitutional expansion of government power, just as Jefferson and Madison had argued a generation earlier. The southern Democrats' concern had a deeply pragmatic motivation. They feared that federal expansion into the realm of private economic development would eventually and perhaps inevitably pave the way toward federal intervention in state affairs, particularly in regards to the explosive issue of slavery. With the North's population rapidly surpassing that of the South, southern Democrats feared that a powerful federal government would one day be capable of removing slavery where it already existed in the southern states. In addition, southern Democrats believed that subsidies unfairly benefited northern industry while providing nothing in return for southern farmers.
The Civil War largely resolved the debate over federal subsidies. The defeat of the Confederacy and the rise of the Republican Party as a national force in American politics ensured that federal subsidies would remain a permanent feature of the political landscape. In the decades following the Civil War, Republicans aggressively promoted federal subsidies for producers and manufacturers in virtually every sector of American industry. The proliferation in federal subsidies reflected the close relation-ship between the Republican Party and corporate America. By the late nineteenth century, Great Britain stood as the only economic rival comparable in size to the American economy. Republicans justified subsidies in part on the grounds that they gave American industry a boost in its competition with British manufacturers.
Mail subsidies to the merchant marine were generously granted during the years 1845–1858, 1864–1877, 1891, and after World War I, but in each case they failed to establish a shipping industry comparable to that of Great Britain. The subsidies given to aviation have been more successful. Between 1926 and 1933, $87 million in mail subsidies were given to various air transport companies, and although excessive in amount and accompanied by corruption, they were largely responsible for the present far-flung air service. Airplane manufacturers not only profited from this boon to commercial flying, they also received many lucrative contracts for the sale of their planes to the War and Navy departments.
Newspapers have also enjoyed government subsidies. In the nineteenth century, many newspapers were largely financed by government advertising, and a change in administration meant a goodly number of the old party organs would be forced to suspend because of the loss of patronage. Cheap postage rates on fourth-class matter have also served as a subsidy to newspapers and periodicals.
Under the Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902, the U.S. government has spent billions of dollars on reclamation projects. Farmers benefiting from government supplied water were expected to pay reasonable charges, but poor planning raised costs so high that farmers could not meet the charges and substantial parts of both interest and principal have been written off. Irrigation projects necessitate the construction of dams and reservoirs, many of which provide electric power. This power has been sold at low rates to distributing companies, which have thus been saved from undertaking expensive construction work. Electric power companies further benefited by the government land policy, which, until Theodore Roosevelt's administration, permitted them to preempt power sites at little cost.
The establishment in 1932 of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and in 1933 of the Public Works Administration with their "pump priming" programs marked a new era in government subsidies to business and local governments. Not only were loans made to banks, railroads, and industrial corporations at low rates, but outright grants were offered to state and local governments for permanent improvements such as sewage-disposal plants, waterworks, parks, public schools, municipal buildings, and settlement houses. Federal subsidies and grants-in-aid have assisted agricultural colleges, vocational training schools, state road construction, state forests, and parks.
Tariffs, although not strictly speaking subsidies, have the effect of subsidies, because they artificially increase the income of producers of protected goods. The very first tariff gave some protection to American manufactures, and that protection was progressively increased until 1833, when the free-trade elements succeeded in forcing a compromise that brought rates down to a lower level. But at no time has the policy of indirectly subsidizing business by tariff protection been abandoned. The farmers who have been more hurt than helped by tariffs obtained their subsidy in 1933 in the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which provided for benefit payments to farmers who cooperated with the government in the adjustment program. Payments to "farmers" to reduce their output of basic crops kept on increasing until in 1970 nine individuals or corporations each received more than a million dollars; the largest payment was $4.4 million. Between $3 billion and $4 billion annually was being paid to larger farmers, to a considerable degree to corporate—conglomerate agribusiness—farmers. These government subsidies tended to eliminate the small farmer and share-cropper and to concentrate the production of basic crops in the hands of the more efficient larger owners.
Most industries, businesses, and major population groups have received generous subsidies, directly or indirectly, since 1933. Mining industries, especially the oil companies, benefited enormously from the generous depletion allowance that reduced their taxes on income. The cattle and sheep industries in the eleven far western states benefit through the privilege of grazing their livestock within Bureau of Land Management districts and national forests at less than commercial rates. Cane and beet sugar producers have profited from a series of protectionist rates alternating with outright subsidies. Middle-and low-income families and the construction industry and the building trades have been subsidized by public housing programs. Federal regulations have at times required government agencies to use only certain American-made or -raised goods.
The extraordinary growth in the number of federal subsidies was no accident. Politicians both at the federal and state levels aggressively used subsidies as a means to appease constituents and to solicit campaign contributions from private industry. Subsidies made it possible for members of Congress to direct federal money to their own congressional districts, which thus allowed the members to present the subsidies as evidence of their commitment to constituent service. Members of Congress, therefore, naturally came to see federal subsidies as a critical feature of their reelection campaigns.
These subsidies, commonly derided as "pork barrel" projects, became an unavoidable feature of the annual federal budget in the twentieth century, and they included every conceivable industry. Indeed, by the end of the twentieth century, federal subsidies included a staggering range of pork barrel projects, ranging from the timber industry to the beekeeping industry, and from Navy base expansions to state highway projects.
By the last quarter of the twentieth century, advocates of government reform focused their attention on "pork barrel" federal subsidies. Common Cause and other good government non-profit organizations began to publish lists of pork barrel projects, which soon received growing coverage in the print and television media. In the view of many observers, Congress's willingness to spend public money on unnecessary subsidies seemed to provide striking evidence that it placed provincial concerns over national interest.
The passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 marked, at least on paper, a watershed in the history of federal subsidies. On an unprecedented scale, the United States government agreed to abandon key subsidies in agriculture and industry in return for concomitant reductions in Canadian and Mexican subsidies. Since NAFTA's passage, however, disputes have arisen because each of the signatory nations has taken advantage of loopholes in the treaty to continue subsidies.
As the federal budget deficit soared to record heights in the 1980s, advocates of a balanced budget joined in the attack on federal subsidies. The Concord Coalition, the Reform Party, and other political organizations identified pork barrel projects as a major obstacle to a federal balanced budget, and called for their elimination. However, the entrenched nature of congressional support for pork barrel subsidies made reform extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
The most important congressional opposition to wasteful subsidies emerged in 1991 with the inception of the congressional Porkbusters Coalition, a bipartisan organization of House members. The Porkbusters Coalition identifies particularly unnecessary congressional spending and organizes legislative opposition to pork barrel spending. Predictably unpopular with the rest of Congress, the membership of the Porkbusters Coalition membership remains quite small, including only a small fraction of members of Congress.
Bibliography
Drews, Roberta. Federal Subsidies for Public Housing: Issues and Options. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, 1983.
Ferris, Sally A. Federal Subsidies to Rail Passenger Service: An Assessment of Amtrak. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, 1982.
Fitzgerald, Randall, and Gerald Lipson. Porkbarrel: The Unexpurgated Grace Commission Story of Congressional Profligacy. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1984.
Hufbauer, Gary C., and Joanna Shelton Erb. Subsidies in International Trade. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1984.
Roodman, David Malin. Paying the Piper: Subsidies, Politics, and the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 1996.
Tuckman, Howard P, and Edward Whalen, eds. Subsidies to Higher Education: The Issues. New York: Praeger, 1980.
| Columbia Encyclopedia: subsidy |
| Economics Dictionary: subsidy |
A grant made by a government to some individual or business in order to maintain an acceptable standard of living or to stimulate economic growth.
| Wikipedia: Subsidy |
In economics, a subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. When a loan is subsidized it means the borrower does not pay interest when repaying the loan. Instead, the interest is usually paid by another party. A subsidy can be used to support businesses that might otherwise fail, or to encourage activities that would otherwise not take place.
Subsidies can be regarded as a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. Subsidies may distort markets, and can impose large economic costs.[1] Financial assistance in the form of a subsidy may come from one's government, but the term subsidy may also refer to assistance granted by others, such as individuals or non-governmental institutions, although these would be more commonly described as charity.
Contents |
In standard supply and demand curve diagrams, a subsidy will shift either the demand curve up or the supply curve down. A subsidy that increases production will tend to result in a lower price, while a subsidy that increases demand will tend to result in an increase in price. Both cases result in a new economic equilibrium. Therefore it is essential to consider elasticity when estimating the total costs of a planned subsidy: it equals the subsidy per unit (difference between market price and subsidized price) times the new equilibrium quantity. One category of goods suffers less from this effect: Public goods are—once created—in ample supply and the total costs of subsidies remain constant regardless of the number of consumers; depending on the form of the subsidy, however, the number of producers on demanding their share of benefits may still rise and drive costs up.
The recipient of the subsidy may need to be distinguished from the beneficiary of the subsidy, and this analysis will depend on elasticity of supply and demand as well as other factors. For example, a subsidy for consumption of milk by consumers may appear to benefit consumers (or some subset of consumers, such as low-income households); but if supply of milk is constrained and results in higher demand and higher prices, the milk producer may benefit and the consumer may derive no net gain, as the higher prices for milk offset the subsidy. The net effect and identification of winners and losers is rarely straightforward, but subsidies generally result in a transfer of wealth from one group to another (or transfer between sub-groups).
Subsidy may also be used to refer to government actions which limit competition or raise the prices at which producers could sell their products, for example, by means of tariff protection. Although economics generally holds that subsidies may distort the market and produce inefficiencies, there are a number of recognized cases where subsidies may be the most efficient solution.[citation needed]
In many instances, economics may (somewhat counter-intuitively) suggest that direct subsidies are preferable to other forms of support, such as hidden subsidies or trade barriers; although subsidies may be inefficient, they are often less inefficient than other policy tools used to benefit certain groups. Direct subsidies may also be more transparent, which may allow the political process more opportunity to eliminate wasteful hidden subsidies. This problem—that hidden subsidies are more inefficient, but often favored precisely because they are non-transparent—is central to the political-economy of subsidies.
Examples of industries or sectors where subsidies are often found include utilities, gasoline in the United States, welfare, farm subsidies, and (in some countries) certain aspects of student loans.
There are many different ways to classify subsidies, such as the reason behind them, the recipients of the subsidy, the source of the funds (government, consumer, general tax revenues, etc). In economics, one of the primary ways to classify subsidies is the means of distributing the subsidy.
In economics, the term subsidy may or may not have a negative connotation: that is, the use of the term may not be prescriptive but descriptive. In economics, a subsidy may nonetheless be characterized as inefficient relative to no subsidies; inefficient relative to other means of producing the same results; "second-best", implying an inefficient but feasible solution (contrasted with an efficient but not feasible ideal), among other possible terminology. In other cases, a subsidy may be an efficient means of correcting a market failure.
For example, economic analysis may suggest that direct subsidies (cash benefits) would be more efficient than indirect subsidies (such as trade barriers); this does not necessarily imply that direct subsidies are good, but that they may be more efficient or effective than other mechanisms to achieve the same (or better) results.
Insofar as they are inefficient, however, subsidies would generally be considered by economists to be bad, as economics is the study of efficient use of limited resources. Ultimately, however, the choice to enact a subsidy is a political choice. Note that subsidies are linked to the concept of economic transfers from one group to another.
Economics has also explicitly identified a number of areas where subsidies are entirely justified by economics, particularly in the area of provision of public goods.
Direct subsidies are the most simple, and arguably the least frequently used[citation needed]. They involve a direct cash transfer to the recipient, for example an unemployed person or an agricultural corporation.
Indirect subsidy is a term sufficiently broad that it may cover most other forms of subsidy[citation needed]. The term would cover any form of subsidy that does not involve a direct transfer.
A labor subsidy is any form of subsidy where the recipients receive subsidies to pay for labor costs. Examples may include labor subsidies and tax deductions for workers in industries, such as the film and/or television industries. (see: Runaway production).
The term "perverse" can be applied to a subsidy by its opponents if they believe that it encourages undesirable actions with social costs. Possible examples, suggested by environmentalist Norman Myers, are German subsidies on coal mining and American gasoline subsidies.[2]
In certain cases (to encourage the development of a particular industry, for example), governments may provide direct production subsidies—cash payments for production of a given good or service. Frequently, production subsidies are easily identifiable, such as minimum price policies. Indirect production subsidies may be less easy to identify, such as infrastructure subsidies.
Policy may directly or indirectly favour one industry, company, product, or class of producer over another by means of regulations. For example, a requirement that full-time government inspectors (at company expense) be present to inspect meat may favor large producers; conversely, if small producers were not required to undergo meat inspections at all, this may constitute a subsidy to that class of producer. It may not be evident or clear that there is a subsidy in many cases.
Infrastructure subsidies may be used to refer to a form of indirect production subsidy, whereby the provision of infrastructure (at public expense) may effectively be useful for only a limited group of potential users, such as construction of roads at government expense for a single logging company. The implication is that those users or industries benefit disproportionately from the provision of that infrastructure, at the expense of taxpayers.
In some cases, the "subsidy" may refer to favoring one type of production or consumption over another, effectively reducing the competitiveness or retarding the development of potential substitutes. For example, it has been argued that the use of petroleum, and particularly gasoline, has been "subsidized" or favored by U.S. defense policy, reducing the use of alternative energy sources and delaying their commercial development.
In other cases, the government may need to improve the public transport to ensure pareto improvement is attanied and sustained.This can therefore be done by subsidising those transit agencies that provide the public services so that the services can be affordable for everyone.This is the best way of helping different groups of disabled and low income families in the society.
Measures used to limit imports from other countries may constitute another form of hidden subsidy. The economic argument is that consumers of a given product are forced to pay higher prices for a given good than they would pay without the trade barrier; the protected industry has effectively received a subsidy. Such measures include import quotas, import tariffs, import bans, and others.
Various tax or other measures may be used to promote exports that constitute subsidies to the industries favored. In other cases, tax measures may be used to ensure that exports are treated "fairly" under the tax system. The determination of what constitutes a subsidy (or the size of that subsidy) may be complex. In many cases, export subsidies are justified as a means of compensating for the subsidies or protections provided by a foreign state to its own producers.
Governments everywhere are relatively large consumers of various goods and services. Subsidies may occur in this process by choice of the products consumed, the producer, the nature of the product itself, and by other means, including payment of higher-than-market prices for goods purchased.
Governments everywhere provide consumption subsidies in a number of ways: by actually giving away a good or service, providing use of government assets, property, or services at lower than the cost of provision, or by providing economic incentives (cash subsidies) to purchase or use such goods. In most countries, consumption of education, health care, and infrastructure (such as roads) are heavily subsidized, and in many cases provided free of charge. In other cases, governments literally purchase or produce a good (such as bread, wheat, gasoline, or electricity) at higher prices than the cost of sale to the public (which may require rationing to control the cost).
The provision of true public goods through consumption subsidies is an example of a type of subsidy that economics may recognize as efficient. In other cases, such subsidies may be reasonable second-best solutions; for example, while it may be theoretically efficient to charge for all use of public roads, in practice, the cost of implementing a system to charge for such use may be unworkable or unjustified.
In other cases, consumption subsidies may be targeted at a specific group of users, such as large utilities, residential home-owners, and others.
One way that the government subsidizes industry is by failing to regulate externalities. For example, when a company pollutes, it generates savings for itself at public expense, in the form of environmental degradation and public health costs. Thus a cost of production is absorbed by the public. Some individuals argue that this is a form of subsidy of producers (since producers are not paying the full social cost of production). Even where such externalities exist, it is unclear what the most effective way of compensating for the problem is: traditional economic theory suggests that "internalizing" the costs (to the extent possible) is most efficient. It is unclear, however, whether not compensating for externalities (by internalizing costs, regulations, Pigouvian taxes or other means) amounts to a subsidy or not.
While many people include tax breaks under the rubric of "corporate welfare", progressives and other left-wing actvists argue that a tax break can be a form of subsidy. This rests on the idea that the failure to confiscate property can constitute a subsidy. Corporate Welfare is a term that is generally used as a blanket term for all forms of subsidies. For example, larger companies who are planning to open a new factory shop around for a location which will provide them with the biggest tax breaks in a process called a race to the bottom.
Another form of subsidy is due to the practice of a government guaranteeing a lender payment if a particular borrower defaults. This occurs in the United States, for example, in certain airline industry loans, in most student loans, in small business administration loans, in Ginnie Mae mortgage backed bonds, and is alleged to occur in the mortgage backed bonds issued through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A government guarantee of payment lowers the risk of the loan for a lender, and since interest rates are primarily based on risk, the interest rate for the borrower lowers as well.
One of the most controversial classes of subsidies, especially according to publications such as The Economist, are subsidies benefiting farmers in first-world countries. Human-rights based non-governmental organizations like Oxfam describe such subsidies as dumping millions of surplus commodities (like sugar) on world markets, destroying opportunities for farmers in developing and poor countries, especially in Africa. For example, the EU is currently spending €3.30 in subsidies to export sugar worth €1.[3] Another example of trade distorting subsidies is the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. It represents 48% of the entire EU's budget, €49.8 billion in 2006 (up from €48.5 billion in 2005).[4] These subsidies have remained in place even though many international accords have reduced other forms of subsidies or tariffs.
A view, held by the Austrian School and other free-marketers, is that subsidies do, in general, more harm than good by distorting economic signals.
Sometimes people believe profitable companies to be 'bullying' governments for subsidies and rescue packages, an example of rent-seeking behaviour. For example,[citation needed] in the case with Australian rail operator Pacific National, the company threatened the Tasmanian Government with a pull-out of rail services unless a subsidization was made.
In the 1500s the subsidy was a tax invented in England by Thomas Wolsey in 1513 that taxed based on the ability to pay. It was created in order that Henry VIII could pay for war with France while maintaining his lifestyle.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| Translations: Subsidy |
Dansk (Danish)
n. - statstilskud, pengestøtte
Français (French)
n. - subvention
Deutsch (German)
n. - Subvention
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - επιδότηση, επιχορήγηση, χορηγία
Italiano (Italian)
sovvenzione, sussidio
Português (Portuguese)
n. - subsídio (m)
Русский (Russian)
субсидия, денежное пособие
Español (Spanish)
n. - subvención, ayuda, subsidio
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - subvention, bidrag, anslag, understöd
中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
补助金, 津贴
中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 補助金, 津貼
한국어 (Korean)
n. - 보조금 , 장려금, 보수금
日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 補給金, 助成金, 補助金, 交付金
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) اعانه ماليه
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - סובסידיה, סעד כספי, תרומה כספית, תמיכה כספית כדי לגרום להורדת מחירים, תשלום בין מדינות על סיוע צבאי
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.
To select your translation preferences click here.
 | Citrus Industry |
| Dairy Industry |
| Electric Power and Light Industry |
Copyrights:
 |
 | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Investment Dictionary. Copyright ©2000, Investopedia.com - Owned and Operated by Investopedia Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Business Dictionary. Dictionary of Business Terms. Copyright © 2000 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| Real Estate Dictionary. Dictionary of Real Estate Terms. Copyright © 2004 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Thesaurus. Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editors of the American Heritage® Dictionary Copyright © 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more |
 |
| Economics Dictionary. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Subsidy". Read more |
 |
| Translations. Copyright © 2007, WizCom Technologies Ltd. All rights reserved. Read more |
Mentioned in
|
