| 来源类型 | Article |
| 规范类型 | 评论 |
| GOP candidates at a crossroads in Iowa farm country | |
| Colin A. Carter; K. Aleks Schaefer | |
| 发表日期 | 2015-03-06 |
| 出版年 | 2015 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | On Saturday, 11 potential Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination plan to attend the Iowa Agricultural Summit to establish their credentials as genuine conservative leaders among participants in the Iowa caucuses next January. They will be confronted with a difficult choice: should they remain true to the principle of a market-based economy and small government and support the termination of wasteful agricultural subsidies and ill-advised regulations, even though that stance would likely cost them some support among Iowan corn and soybean farmers? Will they, for example, be willing to disavow the 2014 US farm bill’s generous subsidies, which severely distort markets? What is their position on the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates, which have increased food prices and provided few, if any, environmental benefits? In the US, ethanol is produced almost exclusively from corn, and presently 37 percent of the US corn harvest is required for ethanol production. If there were no RFS mandate, ethanol production would use much less corn. In reducing supply, the RFS mandate has increased not only domestic and world corn prices, but also the cost of producing livestock. And due to the reallocation of farmland to corn production and away from other crops, the RFS has driven up the price of these other crops that compete for farmland with corn. The RFS also has a biodiesel mandate that increases oilseed prices. In 2013, approximately 50 percent of US biodiesel production was produced from soybean oil, using 468 million bushels of US soybeans, 15 percent of that year’s harvest. Given that large-scale commercial ethanol production based on cellulosic material is simply infeasible, the current RFS mandate for future increased ethanol use based on advanced biofuels would almost surely have to rely on soybeans as a fuel source. Many developing countries, non-governmental organizations, and even the United Nations, have urged the United States to repeal its ethanol mandates. Sadly, the US biofuels mandate also contributed to world hunger during the 2007–2008 food crisis. Partially as a result of the RFS mandate for expanding ethanol use, food prices increased at an alarming rate beginning in the first quarter of 2007. In response, 32 countries, including major grain exporters like Argentina, China, and Russia, restricted agricultural exports in an attempt to bolster their domestic food supplies and quell political unrest. These export restrictions drove world prices even higher. Altogether, global prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, and other crops more than doubled between the first quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2008. Not surprisingly, many developing countries, non-governmental organizations, and even the United Nations, have urged the United States to repeal its ethanol mandates, pleas to which the US Congress has consistently turned a deaf ear. Given the widespread global condemnation of the RFS and its unambiguously distortionary effects on international as well as domestic food markets, one important question is why the policy has not been the subject of a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body has never adjudicated biofuels mandates, but the general — but mistaken — consensus is that such policies are probably beyond the organization’s remedial reach. In fact, the WTO may have grounds to oppose the mandates. The most persuasive WTO argument against biofuels mandates stems from the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), which requires that technical regulations, such as blending mandates, are necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective and are the least trade restrictive means by which to achieve the objective. Legitimate objectives include environmental protection and national security requirements. It is now widely recognized that corn ethanol is not a low-carbon fuel and, therefore, not beneficial to the environment. The national security claim, that biofuels mandates reduce US dependence on foreign oil, is increasingly worthy of and subject to serious criticism, especially given the recent expansion of domestic US oil production. Although the RFS clearly discourages trade, it is arguably a gray area as to whether the blending mandates violate WTO requirements that the least trade restrictive means be used to achieve legitimate objectives. For blending mandates to be considered a clear violation of this WTO rule, the Dispute Settlement Body would likely have to expand its definition to explicitly include regulations that operate as de facto export restrictions. So what about the effects of US biofuels policy on food prices? The preamble of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture recognizes each nation’s right to achieve food security. Allowing rich countries to divert corn otherwise destined for export certainly impinges on poor countries’ food security, but the WTO agreement provides no recourse when one country’s actions affect other countries’ food security. It only authorizes countries to take their own actions to ensure their citizens remain food secure. Accordingly, countries like India often respond to rising food prices by restricting food exports. These export restrictions drive world prices for crops like rice, corn, and wheat even higher and make poor countries even less food secure. With the WTO currently deadlocked over any meaningful reductions in government intervention in agriculture, WTO negotiations should be expanded beyond trimming direct subsidies to farmers. They should include curtailing broader policy instruments that affect global food prices, including the US biofuels RFS scheme. That scheme currently removes a substantial portion of US corn and soybean production from the global market for essential crops for food and animal feed. It would be a pleasant surprise if some of the Republican presidential candidates were to say just that when they visit the Iowa Agricultural Summit this weekend. Colin A. Carter is a distinguished professor at the University of California, Davis, where K. Aleks Schaefer is a PhD candidate. |
| 主题 | Economics ; Politics and Public Opinion ; American Boondoggle ; Elections ; Public Economics ; US Economy |
| 标签 | Agriculture policy ; biofuel ; Conventional Energy ; farm bill ; Farm subsidies ; World Trade Organization |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/articles/gop-candidates-crossroads-iowa-farm-country/ |
| 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/258328 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Colin A. Carter,K. Aleks Schaefer. GOP candidates at a crossroads in Iowa farm country. 2015. |
| 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。
