Suchergebnisse

From Booklist: "Each volume in the Opposing Viewpoints Series could serve as a model-not only providing access to a wide diversity of opinions, but also stimulating readers to do further research for group discussion and individual interest. Both shrill and moderate, the selections-by experts, policy makers, and concerned citizens-include complete articles and speeches, long book excerpts, and occasional cartoons and boxed quotations-all up to date and fully documented. The editing is intelligent and unobtrusive, organizing the material around substantive issues within the general debate. Brief introductions to each section and to each reading focus the questions raised and offer no slick answers

This article examines the influence of campaign contributions on agricultural subsidies. Empirical results revealed that rent-seeking works, ie, contributions, influence agricultural subsidies in the manner they best serve contributors' economic interests. Eliminating campaign contributions would significantly decrease agricultural subsidies, hurt farm groups, benefit consumers & taxpayers, & increase social welfare by approximately $5.5 billion. Although contributions are not the only determinants of agricultural subsidies, investment returns to farm political action committee contributors are quite high ($1 in contributions brings about $2,000 in policy transfers). In fact, the results are in sharp contrast to the "truthful contributions" assumption of the Grossman-Helpman model. 3 Tables, 1 Appendix, 33 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines the influence of campaign contributions on agricultural subsidies. Empirical results revealed that rent‐seeking works, i.e. contributions, influence agricultural subsidies in the manner they best serve contributors' economic interests. Eliminating campaign contributions would significantly decrease agricultural subsidies, hurt farm groups, benefit consumers and taxpayers, and increase social welfare by approximately $5.5 billion. Although contributions are not the only determinants of agricultural subsidies, investment returns to farm PAC contributors are quite high ($1 in contributions brings about $2,000 in policy transfers). In fact, the results are in sharp contrast to the "truthful contributions" assumption of the Grossman–Helpman model.

AbstractAlthough agricultural subsidies were begun during the New Deal to provide enough income to enable farmers to continue operating, their net effect has been to raise the price of farmland and to squeeze many owner‐operated farms out of existence, leaving mostly large‐scale operations that are often tied to agribusiness. Numerous efforts have been made, with limited success, to mitigate this problem by limiting the subsidy to small or mid‐size farm operations. The 2014 farm bill, adopted by the U.S. Congress, made the situation worse. Rather than imposing stricter limits on subsidies to the largest farms, the legislation removed existing limits, ended direct payments, and increased subsidies for insurance against crop losses and income risk. The new law not only provides a windfall to owners of very large farms, it also encourages plowing of fragile soils, since the risks of crop failure are now borne primarily by taxpayers. The article concludes by offering recommendations about how to correct these problems

AbstractWe examine how agricultural subsidies may induce deforestation and interact with conservation programs by analyzing two large-scale national programs in Mexico that have existed simultaneously for more than a decade: an agricultural subsidy for livestock (PROGAN) and a program of payments for ecosystem services (PES). Looking across the entire Mexican landscape, we exploit the surprises in the timing of enrollment in PROGAN's waves, fluctuations in program payments, and the change in the value of the subsidy induced by inflation and currency fluctuations to identify the impacts of the livestock subsidy on environmental outcomes. We find that PROGAN increased municipal deforestation by 7 per cent. The deforestation effects of PROGAN were smaller in municipalities with higher concentrations of PES recipients. We suggest that livestock subsidies could be better targeted to places with low deforestation risk and high livestock productivity to maximize food production and minimize negative externalities caused by deforestation.

The policy of subsidizing agriculture with profits made by township and village enterprises has played an important role in maintaining stability and accelerating balanced economic growth in the Chinese rural areas. It represents an interesting subject in the literature of development economics for two reasons. First, the policy started at a very early stage of industrialization. Second, the policy has been carried out often voluntarily at the community level rather than at the state level. This paper examines the origin and rationales of such a policy and finds that the policy cannot be understood unless we look into a special institutional arrangement: China's unique communal duality. Study of the subject contributes significantly to an understanding of development economics. (JEL P5, Q0, O2)

Agricultural production is strongly affected by and a major contributor to climate change. Agriculture and land-use change account for a quarter of total global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Agriculture receives around US$600 billion per year worldwide in government support. No rigorous quantification of the impact of this support on GHG emissions has been available. This article helps fill the void. Here, we find that, while over the years the government support has incentivized the development of high-emission farming systems, at present, the support only has a small impact in terms of inducing additional global GHG emissions from agricultural production; partly because support is not systematically biased towards high-emission products, and partly because support generated by trade protection reduces demand for some high-emission products by raising their consumer prices. Substantially reducing GHG emissions from agriculture while safeguarding food security requires a more comprehensive revamping of existing support to agriculture and food consumption. ; PR ; IFPRI3; ISI; IFPRIOA; CRP2; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry ; MTID; PIM ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)