| 来源类型 | Book |
| 规范类型 | 其他 |
| The 2007 Farm Bill & Beyond: Summary for Policymakers | |
| Bruce Gardner; Daniel A. Sumner | |
| 发表日期 | 2007 |
| 出版者 | AEI Press |
| 出版年 | 2007 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | Read the full PDF. Key Findings and Policy Recommendations Title 1 Commodity Subsidies Elimination of farm subsidies for corn, wheat, and soybeans would have little effect on farm production or commodity prices. These Title 1 subsidies are in effect “money for nothings.” (Babcock, p. 41) Farm households earn an average of 20 percent more than the average American household; the average income of commercial-scale farms (which receive the largest share of subsidies) is more than three times that of the average household; and the median net worth of farm households in 2005 was close to five times greater than average. (Gardner and Sumner, p. 7; Gardner, p. 24) Elimination of farm subsidies would not harm vulnerable farm families. Only 3 percent of all farm households have both low-income and low-net worth and these receive few payments. (Gardner, p. 26) Eliminating subsidies would negatively affect owners of cropland, but the losses in land value would be less than the annual value of cropland price appreciation in recent years. (Gardner and Sumner, p. 10) Loan deficiency, direct, and countercyclical payments may be in conflict with current WTO limits and these programs thwart progress in opening global markets. (Josling p. 87; Sumner, p. 95) Agriculture has continued to flourish in countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, which have made significant, market-friendly reforms to their agricultural policies. (Alston, p. 83) Payment limits on recipients of subsidies have been evaded because they were based on individual payments, rather than farm payments. The result has been needless restructuring of the ownership profile of farms. (Kirwan, p. 71) Crop Insurance Taxpayers currently pay $3 billion a year to subsidize crop insurance, in addition to $2 billion for ad hoc disaster payments. In some cases farmers collect twice on the same loss. (Glauber, p. 79) Farmers receive between $2.06 and $2.73 for every $1 they paid in crop insurance premiums. But it’s a remarkably inefficient program: the government pays $1 for every 60 cents farmers receive. (Glauber, p. 77) Sugar, Dairy, and Livestock The sugar program costs consumers hundreds of millions of dollars each year by keeping U.S. sugar prices at about double the world level. (Behin, p. 49) Current dairy policy also transfers millions of dollars from consumers to dairy farmers; the cost to consumers and taxpayers far exceed the benefits to dairy farmers. (Balagtas, p. 56) The livestock industry is seriously disadvantaged by biofuel policies, which drive up the price of many feed grains. (Brester and Smith, p. 63) International Food Assistance S. food aid programs are hugely wasteful. Logistical costs eat up 60 percent of the U.S. food aid budget; in contrast, Canada only spends 32 percent on logistics. These high costs are a result of requirements that food be purchased and transported from the United States, and shipping, bagging, and processing be undertaken by approved contractors. (Barrett, p. 99) Such mandates can produce absurd inefficiencies. For example, the 1986 Farm Bill stipulates that Great Lakes ports should retain their 1984 shares of food aid cargoes. But because no ships legally permitted to transport food currently serve Great Lakes ports, the stipulated share of aid must be moved by truck or rail through the Great Lakes region before it is then transported by land to another U.S. port for overseas shipment. (Barrett, p. 100) Key Policy Recommendations Title I Subsidies Eliminate Title I subsidies. American agriculture is financially healthy; farmers do not need subsidies to prosper; current subsidy programs are vulnerable to successful challenge before the WTO; and these programs serve no useful public purpose. (Gardner, p. 26; Sumner, p. 32 and p. 93; Antle, p. 111) Well-designed payments to farmers for ecosystem services could replace traditional subsidies and be WTO compliant. (Antle, p. 112) As an alternative to a complete end to subsidies, Title I subsidy programs, disaster assistance, and crop insurance programs could be integrated into a more cost effective, nonduplicative, and transparent safety net for farmers. (Babcock, p. 42) Proposed subsidy payment limitations must clearly define a “farmer” and more closely scrutinize farm reorganizations to avoid wasteful farm reorganizations. (Kirwan, p. 71) Use of explicit and powerful transparency institutions, and temporary and limited adjustment assistance measures, may facilitate significant policy change. (Alston, pp. 84–85) Crop Insurance It makes little sense to have both recurring disaster programs and an expensive crop insurance program. Either eliminate the crop insurance program, or reform it to shrink program costs and reduce the need for ad hoc disaster payments. (Glauber, p. 78) Sugar, Dairy, Livestock, and Specialty Crops Dairy: Current dairy programs—the price supports, milk marketing orders, and the MILC program—should be repealed. Or, at the very least, subsidy programs should be replaced with direct payments that do not distort market prices or production. (Balagtas, p. 55) Sugar: The sugar program should be eliminated. If politically necessary, sugar producers could be compensated for their losses, which would also make transparent the huge magnitude of the current transfer from consumers to a handful of large producers. (Beghin, p. 51) Livestock: Be wary of increasing subsidies for biofuels; set a high standard of proof in unfair competition claims, and impose stringent sunset provisions on retaliatory actions where countervailing measures are justified; and explore whether a mandatory or voluntary animal identification program satisfies concerns about animal health (e.g., “mad cow disease”). (Brester and Smith, pp. 63–67) Specialty Crops: Support the shift of funds in the general direction suggested by these industries, but closely examine new requests for assistance from the specialty crop industry to ensure they pass a public interest test. Increased funds for research and development, protection from invasive species, and programs that promote specialty crop consumption are most likely to pass such a test. (Paggi, p. 58) Food Aid Programs End requirements that food purchased with U.S. dollars be domestically produced, packed, and processed, and that only U.S.-flagged carriers ship food aid; permit the use of cash for local and regional food purchases. (Barrett, p. 101) Conservation, Bioenergy and the Environment Conservation: Redesign land retirement programs to achieve environmental goals in addition to wildlife habitat protection, and to permit nonintensive agricultural uses while protecting environmentally sensitive land. (Heimlich, p. 109) Bioenergy: Tax fossil fuels and institute a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions instead of expanding ethanol subsidies. Reconsider current ethanol mandates and tariffs that bias fuel choices and drive up food and livestock feed costs. Alternatively, adopt subsidies, alternative fuel mandates, and research and development programs that do not favor ethanol, permitting the market to identify the most cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels. (Miranowski, p. 125) Environment: Solve budget limits on farm environmental programs by taxing those management practices that negatively impact the environment rather than paying farmers to reduce polluting practices. Alternatively, if payments continue, link payments to measurable environmental outcomes and require farm subsidy recipients to document their environmental management practices. (Kuminoff, p. 117) Rural Development: Federal investment in water treatment projects appears difficult to justify, but federal investments in broadband deployments could be justified if they have positive net social benefits. (Renkow, p. 137) Federal policymakers could also move rural development funds through the rural commercial banking system, find ways to promote rural liquidity as subsidy-inflated returns to farm land are reduced in future years, and stop providing outright grants and require rural communities to match federal funds for infrastructure. (Kilkenny and Johnson, p. 132) These papers show that current agricultural policy is wasteful and often counter to national welfare. American consumers and taxpayers would benefit from a more market-friendly and cost-effective agricultural policy. Read the full PDF. Read the press release. |
| 主题 | Economics |
| 标签 | AEI Archive ; AEI Press ; Agriculture policy ; farm bill ; Farm subsidies |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/research-products/book/the-2007-farm-bill-beyond-summary-for-policymakers/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/208755 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Bruce Gardner,Daniel A. Sumner. The 2007 Farm Bill & Beyond: Summary for Policymakers. 2007. |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
