subsidy

(sŭb'sĭ-dē)

1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.
3. Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.

[Middle English subsidie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin subsidium, support : sub-, behind, beneath; see sub- + sedēre, to sit.]

View more Business & Finance videos

For more information on subsidy, visit Britannica.com.

noun

Something, as a gift, granted for a definite purpose: appropriation, grant, subvention. See give/take/reciprocity.

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.

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.

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. Explaining The World Through Macroeconomic Analysis
Learn how governments adjust taxes and government spending to moderate the economy. What Is Fiscal Policy?
This legislation can help families pay college costs and reduce student debt. College Cost Reduction Act Helps Students Meet Payments
Not all student loans are the same. Know what you're getting into before signing on the dotted line. College Loans: Private Vs. Federal
On the surface, being a landlord seems likes like a surefire bet, but it's usually more headache than it's worth. Becoming A Landlord: More Trouble Than It's Worth?
FDI accounted for 30% of industrial output, 55% of trade and 11% of urban jobs in China in 2009. Top 6 Factors That Drive Investment In China
This tutorial teaches the basics of one of the most important economic topics. A must for all investors. Microeconomics

• Acts, Powers, Conditions, and Procedures - subsidy: government funds paid to individual or group to enhance economic position
• Economics and Economic Theory - subsidy: government payment to business or individual to improve economic condition
• Spending, Receiving, and Possessing Wealth - subsidy: grant of money, esp. from government for public benefit
• Business and Science of Agriculture - subsidy: government payment to farmers to support prices, esp. on surplus products

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)

A subsidy is an assistance paid to a business or economic sector. Most subsidies are made by the government to producers or distributed as subventions in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry (e.g., as a result of continuous unprofitable operations) or an increase in the prices of its products or simply to encourage it to hire more labor (as in the case of a wage subsidy). Examples are subsidies to encourage the sale of exports; subsidies on some foods to keep down the cost of living, especially in urban areas; and subsidies to encourage the expansion of farm production and achieve self-reliance in food production.^[1]

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.^[2] 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.

Contents 1 Overview 2 History 3 Types of subsidies 3.1 Indirect subsidies 3.2 Labor subsidies 3.3 Infrastructure subsidies 3.4 Trade protection (import restrictions) 3.5 Export subsidies (trade promotion) 3.6 Procurement subsidies 3.7 Consumption subsidies 4 Subsidies due to the effect of debt guarantees 5 Controversy 6 See also 7 Notes 8 External links

Overview

A subsidy is money given by a government to help support a business or person the market does not support.^[3] In the United States, Congress can tax to provide for the general welfare. It also has the power to coin money and regulate its value.^[4] An example of subsidy is from the Middle Ages. The British Parliament took away their king’s authority to tax and gave him a tax-based subsidy to live on.^[5]

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 the 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 may benefit and the consumer may derive no 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 heyy bubby 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. Also the fuel subsidy that was removed in Nigeria on January 1st 2012 cause a spike in the price of fuel which all Nigerians were not in support of most especially due to the fact that the minimum wage of an average Nigerian is N18000 (111.697 USD). As a result of the removal of the fuel subsidy, the price of fuel went from N65 (0.403351 USD) per liter to N140 (0.869835 USD) per liter.^[6]

History

In the 16th century "subsidy" referred to taxation, for example the tax introduced in England by Thomas Wolsey in 1513 based on the ability to pay.^[7]

Types of subsidies

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 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 bad, 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.

Indirect subsidies

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.

Labor subsidies

A labor subsidy is any form of subsidy where the recipients receive subsidies to pay for labor costs. Examples may include labor subsidies for workers in certain industries, such as the film and/or television industries. (see: Runaway production).

Infrastructure subsidies

In some cases, 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. However, alternative energy sources have also been subsidized by the federal and state governments, though only by a comparatively tiny amount.

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.

Trade protection (import restrictions)

Measures used to limit 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.

Export subsidies (trade promotion)

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.

Procurement subsidies

Governments everywhere are relatively small consumers of various goods and services.^{[clarification needed]} Subsidies may occur in this process by choice of the products produced, the producer, the nature of the product itself, and by other means, including payment of higher-than-market prices for goods purchased.

Consumption subsidies

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. However, these are investments rather than subsidies; both increase the economic value of the state and affect all as opposed to single groups. In other cases, governments literally purchase or produce a good (such as bread, wheat, gasoline, or electricity) at a higher cost than the sales price 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.^{[citation needed]}

In other cases, consumption subsidies may be targeted at a specific group of users, such as large utilities, residential home-owners, and others.

Subsidies due to the effect of debt guarantees

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.

Controversy

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 competition from farmers in undeveloped and poor countries, especially in Africa. For example, in the past EU spent €3.30 in subsidies to export sugar worth €1.^[8] 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).^[9] These subsidies have remained in place even though many international accords have reduced other forms of subsidies or tariffs.

The Commitment to Development Index, published by the Center for Global Development, measures the effect that subsidies and trade barriers actually have on the undeveloped world. It uses trade along with six other components such as aid or investment to rank and evaluate developed countries on policies that affect the undeveloped world. It finds that the richest countries spend $106 billion per year subsidizing their own farmers - almost exactly as much as they spend on foreign aid.^[10]

Sometimes people believe profitable companies to be 'bullying' governments for subsidies and rescue packages, an example of rent-seeking behaviour. For example, 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.^[11]

It has been suggested that American government subsidies are contributing to the country's obesity levels. So-called junk foods are made cheaper due to the subsidy programs, thus increasing consumption of such foods.^[12]

Subsidies can be less effective than projected at meeting stated economic or support goals, because some of the subsidised activity (e.g. creation of jobs) might have happened anyway, had the subsidy not been in place. Moreover, some potential recipients might not receive a subsidy, due to factors such as poor advertising, a difficult, expensive or time-consuming process to claim the subsidy, or corruption. In the worst case scenario, a subsidy could have no effect whatsoever, other than making the recipients of the subsidy financially better off than they would otherwise have been.

See also

• Agricultural policy
• Antidumping
• Copenhagen Consensus
• Cross subsidy
• Cultural subsidy
• Constitutional economics
• Act of Entrustment
• Political economy
• Rule according to higher law

• Direct Subsidy Scheme
• Dirty subsidy
• Capital subsidy
• Information subsidy
• Mixed economy
• Party subsidies
• Pigouvian subsidies
• Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

Notes

1. ^ Todaro, Michael P.; Smith, Stephen C. (2009). Economic Development (10th ed.). Addison Wesley. p. 839. ISBN 978-0-321-48573-1. 
2. ^ "Economics A-Z – Economist.com". The Economist. http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/searchActionTerms.cfm?query=subsidy. 
3. ^ Gove, P.B. & others. 1961. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company
4. ^ p. 158, Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Volume 7. Phillips, R. S. & others. 1983 USA: Funk & Wagnalls.
5. ^ Ansley, C.F. & others. 1940. The Columbia Encyclopedia in One Volume. Morningside Heights, NY: Columbia University Press.
6. ^ http://www.itrealms.com.ng/
7. ^ p30 - "The English Reformation: crown power and religious change, 1485-1558", Colin Pendrill, Heinemann, 2000. ISBN 0435327127
8. ^ Oxfam International. Oxford, UK (2004). "A Sweeter Future? The potential for EU sugar reform to contribute to poverty reduction in southern Africa." Oxfam Briefing Paper No. 70. November 2004. pp. 39-40.
9. ^ Financial Management in the European Union
10. ^ Roodman Trade Component 2009
11. ^ Pacific National Announces Plans to Dump Tasmanian Intermodal Services
12. ^ Why are Americans so fat? - 7 Reasons

External links

• Google - public data: GDP and Personal Income of the U.S. (annual): Subsidies
• Subsidies and (tax) facilities
• World Bank report on Water Utility subsidies

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

Dansk (Danish)
n. - statstilskud, pengestøtte

Nederlands (Dutch)
subsidie

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.