Check it out!
Monday, April 10, 2017
My New Book: Grains (Polity Press, 2017)
I have a new book out titled Grains. You can see --and order, if you wish -- Grains at the Polity Press website or on Amazon.com. In Grains, I examine the political economy of food grains and feed grains, focusing particularly on wheat and rice as food and corn and soybeans as feed. I demonstrate how the politics and economics of feed and food grains influences such issues as international trade, world hunger and food security, the implementation of biotechnology, and land tenure.
Check it out!
Check it out!
Friday, January 17, 2014
Works in Progress: Exporting Food Amidst Hunger at Home
I have started working on a couple of new projects. Most immediately, I'm working on a book about the geopolitics of grains. As I'm writing and doing research for this manuscript, I will periodically post some tidbits about some of the ideas and arguments in the book, and especially some of the interesting things that I find along the way.
For example, when I wrote the proposal for this book on grains, I emphasized how the geopolitics of grains is linked, in a variety of ways, to issues such as world hunger and food insecurity.
I gave a few examples of the connection between the political economy (i.e., the market dynamics and national policies) of grains and food insecurity. One example was about how the market economy directs grains toward profitable destinations. This is something of an obvious point because grains are commodities -- just as all foods are commodities. But, the point here is that this can lead to countries exporting grains even while a significant portion of their population suffers from hunger and malnutrition.
One observer commented that this was a ridiculous argument. Countries don't export grains when a portion of their population is starving. In fact, this person observed, during the global food crisis of 2008, rice-exporting countries imposed restrictions on exports.
Well, that's true. In 2008, countries did impose export restrictions. Nonetheless, there are many examples -- in history and today -- of countries exporting significant amounts of grains despite high levels of hunger.
So, here's what I found as I looked at trends in world exports of maize, rice, and wheat. The world's number one exporter of rice from 2011 to 2013 was India. I found this to be very interesting, given malnutrition is a significant problem in India.
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) studies global hunger and food insecurity, and it created the Global Hunger Index (GHI) to measure various aspects of hunger. The IFPRI categorizes India's food security status in 2011 to be "alarming."
The United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimated there to be 217 million people in India suffering from hunger in 2010-2012, which is about 17.5% of the countries population.
In other words, at the same time that hundreds of millions of people in India suffer from hunger, that country is the world's leading exporter of rice. As it turns out, then, sometimes countries do export significant amounts of grains even while hunger is a significant problem.
The reasons for such exports are complex, and I'll save that for another time. For now, I just wanted to offer this clear illustration of this point.
For example, when I wrote the proposal for this book on grains, I emphasized how the geopolitics of grains is linked, in a variety of ways, to issues such as world hunger and food insecurity.
I gave a few examples of the connection between the political economy (i.e., the market dynamics and national policies) of grains and food insecurity. One example was about how the market economy directs grains toward profitable destinations. This is something of an obvious point because grains are commodities -- just as all foods are commodities. But, the point here is that this can lead to countries exporting grains even while a significant portion of their population suffers from hunger and malnutrition.
One observer commented that this was a ridiculous argument. Countries don't export grains when a portion of their population is starving. In fact, this person observed, during the global food crisis of 2008, rice-exporting countries imposed restrictions on exports.
Well, that's true. In 2008, countries did impose export restrictions. Nonetheless, there are many examples -- in history and today -- of countries exporting significant amounts of grains despite high levels of hunger.
So, here's what I found as I looked at trends in world exports of maize, rice, and wheat. The world's number one exporter of rice from 2011 to 2013 was India. I found this to be very interesting, given malnutrition is a significant problem in India.
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) studies global hunger and food insecurity, and it created the Global Hunger Index (GHI) to measure various aspects of hunger. The IFPRI categorizes India's food security status in 2011 to be "alarming."
The United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimated there to be 217 million people in India suffering from hunger in 2010-2012, which is about 17.5% of the countries population.
In other words, at the same time that hundreds of millions of people in India suffer from hunger, that country is the world's leading exporter of rice. As it turns out, then, sometimes countries do export significant amounts of grains even while hunger is a significant problem.
The reasons for such exports are complex, and I'll save that for another time. For now, I just wanted to offer this clear illustration of this point.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
US House Passes Farm Bill
The Republicans in the House of Representatives made two curious decisions in passing a farm bill this past week.
First, they split food stamps (SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and the commodity programs (crop insurance, subsidies, etc.). Food stamps and commodity programs have been rolled together since the 1960s in part as a way to gain wide support for passage of farm legislation, as the combination brought together urban and rural supporters. (Although, rural and farm state votes have always been the key to passing farm legislation.)
Second, the House bill removes the permanent legislation from 1949. In past farm bills, the 1949 remained the permanent legislation and would kick in if the more current legislation expired. This was the situation at the beginning of this year, when an amendment was put in the budget bill to avoid milk policy from reverting back to 1949.
These are each significant changes in agricultural policy and the politics of farm bills. So, they're something to keep an eye on.
First, they split food stamps (SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and the commodity programs (crop insurance, subsidies, etc.). Food stamps and commodity programs have been rolled together since the 1960s in part as a way to gain wide support for passage of farm legislation, as the combination brought together urban and rural supporters. (Although, rural and farm state votes have always been the key to passing farm legislation.)
Second, the House bill removes the permanent legislation from 1949. In past farm bills, the 1949 remained the permanent legislation and would kick in if the more current legislation expired. This was the situation at the beginning of this year, when an amendment was put in the budget bill to avoid milk policy from reverting back to 1949.
These are each significant changes in agricultural policy and the politics of farm bills. So, they're something to keep an eye on.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Changes Coming in US Food Aid?
According to this New York Times article from April 4, the Obama Administration is considering changes to the system of US food aid.
Since its creation in 1954, US food aid has worked basically like this: the federal government buys grains or other food stuffs from US farmers, then ships it abroad to help feed poor people in other countries.
This system of food aid was created at a time when there was a large surplus of wheat in the US. Food aid (also known as Public Law 480, or PL 480) was designed to draw down government-owned stocks of grain.
At its best, PL 480 represented an attempt to help those in need. At its worst, food aid "dumped" cheap food on foreign markets with numerous deleterious effects.
Critics of the program have long argued that it undermines agriculture in recipient nations. Grain farmers in recipient nations find it difficult to compete with subsidized grain from the US. The result is often a shift in diets, especially in urban areas, as wheat replaces such as corn or maize, rice, or other domestic/traditional grains.
As with any change in agricultural policy, we will see if the opposing coalition is strong enough to prevent the change.
Since its creation in 1954, US food aid has worked basically like this: the federal government buys grains or other food stuffs from US farmers, then ships it abroad to help feed poor people in other countries.
This system of food aid was created at a time when there was a large surplus of wheat in the US. Food aid (also known as Public Law 480, or PL 480) was designed to draw down government-owned stocks of grain.
At its best, PL 480 represented an attempt to help those in need. At its worst, food aid "dumped" cheap food on foreign markets with numerous deleterious effects.
Critics of the program have long argued that it undermines agriculture in recipient nations. Grain farmers in recipient nations find it difficult to compete with subsidized grain from the US. The result is often a shift in diets, especially in urban areas, as wheat replaces such as corn or maize, rice, or other domestic/traditional grains.
As with any change in agricultural policy, we will see if the opposing coalition is strong enough to prevent the change.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Global Outlook Symposium in Sweden
I just returned from Stockholm, Sweden, where I participated in the Global Outlook Symposium that was part of the celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry.
I was part of the opening panel, which explored agricultural policies in the EU, the US, and New Zealand. I talked about the US, Alan Swinbank discussed the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, and Philipp Aerni talked about New Zealand.
You can see the program and information for the symposium, as well the slides from each presentation, and a video of the symposium. Just go here.
King Carl of Sweden was in attendance for our panel's presentations, and he even spoke with us briefly before the symposium began. You can see a video of that here.
I was part of the opening panel, which explored agricultural policies in the EU, the US, and New Zealand. I talked about the US, Alan Swinbank discussed the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, and Philipp Aerni talked about New Zealand.
You can see the program and information for the symposium, as well the slides from each presentation, and a video of the symposium. Just go here.
King Carl of Sweden was in attendance for our panel's presentations, and he even spoke with us briefly before the symposium began. You can see a video of that here.
Monday, September 3, 2012
A Labor Day 'Shout Out' to Food Workers
Since today is Labor Day and this is a blog about the politics of food, I feel that I should say a little bit about the workers who help to make our food. It's worth taking a moment to reflect on how these workers fit into the labor movement and labor history.
First, there are farmworkers. While the United Farm Workers (UFW) union sometimes rises up and wins benefits for farmworkers, these workers are generally quite vulnerable. Not only are farmworkers frequently immigrant labor, but the federal government does not acknowledge or protect the right of farmworkers to organize.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 acknowledged and gave the the government the responsibility to protect workers' right to organize, but it explicitly excludes workers in agriculture. This was, in part, because of the influence of southern Democrats -- and the southern planters, who were among there most influential constituents. Southern Democrats, planters, and others did not want tenant farmers and sharecroppers organizing. The Southern Farmers Tenant Union (STFU) faced violence and repression in the 1930s -- and the federal government, for the most part, looked the other way.
Still today, farmworkers do not have federal protection for organizing. Some states, like California, have recognized the right of farmworkers to form unions and bargain collectively with employers. In 1975, California passed the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act (CALRA). This law grants the same rights to farmworkers as the NLRA grants to most other workers. In other states, such as Florida and Georgia, farmworkers lack such protections.
Second, I want to mention meatpacking workers. Unlike farmworkers, meatpacking workers are not excluded from the NLRA. In fact, in the middle of the 1900s, meatpacking workers had quite formidable unions in Illinois, Iowa, and elsewhere. During the 1950s and 1960s, unions helped to gain increased pay, health benefits, better working conditions, workplace representation, and other benefits for workers in the meatpacking industry.
Iowa Beef Processing (IBP) helped to pioneer methods and strategies to cuts costs, especially labor costs. As they did, unions were weakened and the number of immigrants in the meatpacking industry increased. Today, the meatpacking industry has high turnover and high rates of accidents. And, of course, union representation has decreased significantly in the industry since the 1970s.
So, as we celebrate Labor Day with a variety of foods, we should consider for a moment the ongoing struggles and inequities faced by these workers, in particular.
First, there are farmworkers. While the United Farm Workers (UFW) union sometimes rises up and wins benefits for farmworkers, these workers are generally quite vulnerable. Not only are farmworkers frequently immigrant labor, but the federal government does not acknowledge or protect the right of farmworkers to organize.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 acknowledged and gave the the government the responsibility to protect workers' right to organize, but it explicitly excludes workers in agriculture. This was, in part, because of the influence of southern Democrats -- and the southern planters, who were among there most influential constituents. Southern Democrats, planters, and others did not want tenant farmers and sharecroppers organizing. The Southern Farmers Tenant Union (STFU) faced violence and repression in the 1930s -- and the federal government, for the most part, looked the other way.
Still today, farmworkers do not have federal protection for organizing. Some states, like California, have recognized the right of farmworkers to form unions and bargain collectively with employers. In 1975, California passed the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act (CALRA). This law grants the same rights to farmworkers as the NLRA grants to most other workers. In other states, such as Florida and Georgia, farmworkers lack such protections.
Second, I want to mention meatpacking workers. Unlike farmworkers, meatpacking workers are not excluded from the NLRA. In fact, in the middle of the 1900s, meatpacking workers had quite formidable unions in Illinois, Iowa, and elsewhere. During the 1950s and 1960s, unions helped to gain increased pay, health benefits, better working conditions, workplace representation, and other benefits for workers in the meatpacking industry.
Iowa Beef Processing (IBP) helped to pioneer methods and strategies to cuts costs, especially labor costs. As they did, unions were weakened and the number of immigrants in the meatpacking industry increased. Today, the meatpacking industry has high turnover and high rates of accidents. And, of course, union representation has decreased significantly in the industry since the 1970s.
So, as we celebrate Labor Day with a variety of foods, we should consider for a moment the ongoing struggles and inequities faced by these workers, in particular.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Agricultural Commodities, Regionalism, and National Policy
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently reported on discussions and debates around the new farm bill. The article could be directly out of my book.
The article outlines how cotton and peanut growers in the South have policy preferences that differ from farmers in the Corn and Wheat Belts.
Since the article is in a Georgia newspaper, the primary focus is on Georgia politicians, such as Saxby Chambliss (US senator) and Gary Black (state ag commissioner). Notably, the southern Republican politicians are fighting to retain government protections from market instability for southern farmers.
Of course, it's also interesting that some of the same politicians are fighting to eliminate or reduce protections from market instability for the poor in the form of food stamps. (Note that the cost of food stamps has risen in recent years as more and more families had to rely on such government support as the economy collapsed and unemployment increased 4 years ago.)
Anyway, the point is that this process -- divisions and shifting coalitions in agriculture leading to changes in agricultural policy -- has been going on for almost 100 years (if not longer).
Read all about it in my book!
The article outlines how cotton and peanut growers in the South have policy preferences that differ from farmers in the Corn and Wheat Belts.
Since the article is in a Georgia newspaper, the primary focus is on Georgia politicians, such as Saxby Chambliss (US senator) and Gary Black (state ag commissioner). Notably, the southern Republican politicians are fighting to retain government protections from market instability for southern farmers.
Of course, it's also interesting that some of the same politicians are fighting to eliminate or reduce protections from market instability for the poor in the form of food stamps. (Note that the cost of food stamps has risen in recent years as more and more families had to rely on such government support as the economy collapsed and unemployment increased 4 years ago.)
Anyway, the point is that this process -- divisions and shifting coalitions in agriculture leading to changes in agricultural policy -- has been going on for almost 100 years (if not longer).
Read all about it in my book!
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Appearing on Wisconsin Public Radio
On Monday, April 30, at 11am EST, I will be a guest on the KATHLEEN DUNN SHOW with John Munson guest-hosting. This is on Wisconsin Public Radio.
I'll be on with Elizabeth Ransom, who is an associate professor of sociology at University Richmond. Elizabeth is a friend of mine who studies the global red meat trade, especially in Africa. (Check out her research if you have the chance!)
John Munson, Elizabeth, and I will discuss the current food system. It should be interesting, so listen in if you have the chance.
I'll be on with Elizabeth Ransom, who is an associate professor of sociology at University Richmond. Elizabeth is a friend of mine who studies the global red meat trade, especially in Africa. (Check out her research if you have the chance!)
John Munson, Elizabeth, and I will discuss the current food system. It should be interesting, so listen in if you have the chance.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Chickens & Eggs; Capital & the State
I've had tried to make a common point in a number of posts: government regulation does not always mean socialism. Regulations do not always represent a fight between business and government.
Instead, companies often push for government regulations. In a number of other posts, I have offered examples of this: the restaurant trade association favoring nutrition regulations, some corporations favoring health care legislation, some conservative farm organizations supporting extensive economic regulations in agriculture, and so on.
This morning, I heard another classic example of this phenomenon on NPR in a story about egg-producing chickens. As the story indicates, the "United Egg Producers, which represents companies that produce about 95 percent of the country's eggs" is supporting federal regulation to improve conditions under which egg-laying chickens are kept.
For many years, egg-laying chickens have been kept in confined spaces with their environments -- temperature, lighting, etc. -- closely controlled to maximize their egg production. Under the proposed legislation, cages would be provide more space, room to perch, and a "nest box."
Now, there are several key points to this story. First, as already seen, a significant part of the egg industry is in favor of this legislation. Why? A couple of reasons. One reason is pressure from the Humane Society. This is important because it shows the role that pressure from a social movement organization can have.
Another reason for the industry favoring this legislation is that the United Egg Producers is seeking to smooth out potentially unfair competition and uneven state-level legislation. California already has a law regulating the conditions of chickens in the egg industry, and other states are likely to follow. (I might also add here that other countries, especially in Europe, already have such laws.) This creates the potential that producers in different states or selling to different places may be subject to different standards and regulations, thereby leading to different costs of production (and differing abilities to compete in the market).
Federal legislation would reduce this kind of competition by holding all companies to the same standards and regulations.
The second key point in this story is that the egg industry did not simply decide to support this legislation on ethical or moral grounds, or because the industry felt it was the right thing to do. Rather, the Humane Society -- an organization advocating for the welfare of animals -- created pressure and contributed to legislative successes that prompted the egg industry to move in this direction. In my view, then, this story helps to illuminate one way that social movements can be successful: by helping to forge a context in which the interests of a powerful group begins to coincide with policies pushed by the movement.
Finally, this story contains one more key point: the primary opponents of the legislation includes "some influential farm organizations" such as "Beef producers, hog farmers, dairy farmers and the American Farm Bureau have all lined up against it." The other segments of the meat industry are concerned about a federal law that would regulate the conditions of animals.
Note, that the conditions that animals -- chickens, hogs, cows, etc. -- are kept in is the result of the imperatives of profit and efficiency. What's the most cost efficient (i.e., lowest cost) way to keep chickens, etc.? A government regulation, such as the one supported by egg producers, can eliminate the competition that comes at the expense of the living conditions of animals.
Here again is the embodiment of the analysis found in The Politics of Food Supply: different segments of agriculture develop competing economic interests and form (sometimes surprising) coalitions to try to influence national policy.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Paperback Edition of The Politics of Food Supply is now available!
You can now get The Politics of Food Supply in paperback for just $22. Check it out from Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or the Yale University Press webpage.
The paperback edition includes a new preface that I wrote.
In the new preface, I briefly discuss how the book's analysis of changes in US agricultural policy relates to the 2008 food crisis, in which the number of people suffering from hunger in the world is estimated to have surpassed 1 billion for the first time and which led to food riots in more than 30 countries.
Check it out!
Friday, November 18, 2011
Stopping School Lunch Reform
In case you didn't hear, the food lobby (or lobbies) successfully resisted the proposed changes to make school lunches more healthy by, in part, cutting back on french fries and pizza.
The food lobby argued that pizza and french fries should be counted as vegetables.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Paperback Edition of The Politics of Food Supply!
It's official: Yale University Press is publishing a paperback edition of The Politics of Food Supply!
For the paperback edition, I wrote a new preface that discusses the world crisis of 2007-2008. This new preface explains the connection between that food crisis -- which centered on sharply increased food prices -- and the analysis of US agricultural policy in the book.
In addition, the paperback edition is much cheaper than the hardcover, at only $22. It will be available in February 2012.
Yale University Press lists the paperback edition on its website. And, you can pre-order the paperback edition on the Barnes and Nobles website for just $18.
Amazon.com just put it up as well -- $22 per-order.
Check it out!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
French Fries as Vegetables
I was listening to National Public Radio a couple weeks ago, and I heard a story about how the USDA is trying to change school menus to reduce the amount of french fries the kids are served. The point was to try to fight childhood obesity.
The story on NPR pointed out that Senator Susan Collins and others were fighting the proposed regulations. Here is the story.
One of the things that surprised me was the discussion about french fries (potatoes) versus "other vegetables." I get that potatoes are tubers and vegetables, but it's just odd to hear that someone might choose between french fries and broccoli as a vegetable for dinner.
So, in the 1980s, were french fries and ketchup counted as two servings of vegetables?
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Book Award
Yesterday, my book received the Book Award given by the Political Economy of the World-System (PEWS) section of the American Sociological Association (ASA).
There were eleven books nominated for the 2011 PEWS Book Award.
I am very excited and pleased that my book won this award, which emphasizes the contributions made to understanding the relationship between national policies and processes and the world economy.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Book on Sale
I just saw that Amazon.com has my book on sale for about $38, which is about a 30% discount. Yes, still expensive, but it's a much better price that usual.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Fast Food, Healthy Children's Menus?
I saw this article the other day in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, about chain restaurants (few of which are fast food) that are trying to make children's menus that are more healthy.
On the one hand, of course, we should applaud such a move by restaurants, especially of the fast food variety. (Check out the book Fat Land to see how such unhealthy diets infiltrated schools and affected children's health.) Any step is positive.
On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that even a move such as this will have much of an effect on children's health or diets.
Plus, it's worth noting that McDonald's, KFC, and many other fast food restaurants are not signing up to be part of this program, according to the article.
Resiliency of Farm Subsidies
Even amidst the debt ceiling talks, farm subsidies continue to be protected. This New York Times article discusses attempts by Presidents G. W. Bush and Obama to make cut particular programs, but each one failed.
I wouldn't be surprised if farm subsidies saw a few cuts, but I don't expect them to be very significant. Support for farm subsidies cuts across political party and region. In addition, farm subsidies actually represent a fairly small portion of the overall federal budget.
Monday, June 13, 2011
New USDA Food Plate
Check out this great article about the USDA's new Food Plate that replaced the Food Pyramid. The author's key point, for me, is that trying to educate people on what to eat is a rather ineffective way of changing their eating behavior.
Certainly, it is good that the USDA has changed its recommendations to emphasize fruits and vegetables, and it emphasizes (or at least, discusses at length) beans and other meat alternatives as sources of protein -- that don't have cholesterol, a major contributor to heart disease and heart attack.
Nonetheless, if we look at government subsidies, the organization of grocery stores, mass marketing and advertisements -- in short, if we look at the organization of our food system -- then we have to acknowledge that our food system promotes, indeed relies on, people eating unhealthy diets. To a great degree, that's because unhealthy diets are often the most profitable; those foods have a lot of added-value.
Trying to educate consumers is fine and nice, but ultimately it won't change eating behaviors. To do that, we have to make serious reforms to the system that produces the food we eat. Until we do that, the average American diet will be less than ideal, less than healthy.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Farm Subsidies to be Cut?
There has been some talk recently of cutting farm subsidies among the many other programs to see reductions in spending. For example, see this New York Times article.
Before anyone gets too excited about this, let me point out a couple of things: (1) it's not a surprise the farm subsidies might be reduced, (2) the proposed cuts are not necessarily that deep, and (3) what really matters is the long-term. Let me discuss each of these in turn.
I. First, it's not really much of a surprise the farm subsidies might be cut, for two reasons. One obvious reason is the current budget-cutting rhetoric that seems pervasive in Washington (and much of the rest of the US) right now. When recipients of subsidies are portrayed as "corporate farms" as they are in this article, then public support for farm subsidies decreases dramatically.
(By contrast, when subsidy recipients are portrayed as "family farmers," then public support actually quite high for subsidies. Which characterization of farm subsidies is correct? To some extent, both are. Certainly, many "family farmers" receive subsidies. But, in 2007, the richest 3% of farms/farmers received 32% of all direct payments, and the richest 9% of farms/farmers received 54% of all direct payments that year. Yet, some of the largest farms and biggest recipients of subsidies are indeed "family farms" -- that is, farms owned by families as opposed to corporations.)
The other reason that farm subsidies may be cut is because farm prices are high. Corn prices in the US reached over $6/bushel in April 2011. From 2000 to 2007, the price of corn in April averaged about $2.32/bushel. Wheat prices in the US reached $8.18/bushel. From 2000 to 2007, the price of wheat in April averaged about $3.45/bushel.
With prices reaching historic highs, government payments are less central to the income of farmers. Consequently, farmers and farm organizations may see government payments as less important and may expend fewer political resources protecting subsidies. Farm subsidies, then, are politically vulnerable. Importantly, though, this political vulnerability is a result of the particular political and economic context, which can and will change in the future.
II. Second, I would like to point out that the proposed cuts mentioned in the article may sound like large cuts -- $30 billion -- but this needs to be clarified and put into context.
Note, first of all, that the article states that this cut is over ten years, which means that the average annual cut would be $3 billion. While that is a sizable cut, it's still useful to know that between 2000 and 2007, government payments to farmers averaged about $17.5 billion per year and totaled about $140 billion.
In 2007, government payments to farmers totaled about $11.9 billion, according to the Economic Research Service of the USDA. A reduction of $3 billion would amount to a cut of about 25%, which is significant. But, at times I get the impression that people think farm subsidies will be cut altogether. My point is that subsidies will not likely disappear even under proposals such as Ryan's discussed in the NYT article.
III. Third, and finally, I want to point out that cutting farm subsidies in the near future does not necessarily mean that farm subsidies will permanently disappear.
This situation reminds me of the context in which the 1996 FAIR Act passed: prices were high, Republicans controlled the House and Senate, and cutting the budget became a central political focus.
And indeed, government payments to farmers were slashed in the 1996 farm bill. (See my book for a detailed discussion of the FAIR Act.) Within a few years, however, prices began to fall. By 2000, government payments to farmers increased significantly. Thus, the cuts in subsidies were temporary.
By contrast, the FAIR Act made one change that demonstrated much greater longevity: eliminating production controls, which put restrictions on what farmers could grow in terms of crops and acreage.
What was the difference between these two policies (income supports vs. production controls)? A significant political coalition in agriculture emerged to support eliminating production controls. For example, many organizations representing the interests of corn farmers pushed for this change. With such support, production controls have not returned -- regardless of price fluctuations.
The elimination of subsidies did not have the same support in agriculture. So, when prices fell in the late 1990s, there was a significant push to increase farm subsidies.
Will subsidies be cut? Perhaps. Will those cuts be permanent? Probably not.
Before anyone gets too excited about this, let me point out a couple of things: (1) it's not a surprise the farm subsidies might be reduced, (2) the proposed cuts are not necessarily that deep, and (3) what really matters is the long-term. Let me discuss each of these in turn.
I. First, it's not really much of a surprise the farm subsidies might be cut, for two reasons. One obvious reason is the current budget-cutting rhetoric that seems pervasive in Washington (and much of the rest of the US) right now. When recipients of subsidies are portrayed as "corporate farms" as they are in this article, then public support for farm subsidies decreases dramatically.
(By contrast, when subsidy recipients are portrayed as "family farmers," then public support actually quite high for subsidies. Which characterization of farm subsidies is correct? To some extent, both are. Certainly, many "family farmers" receive subsidies. But, in 2007, the richest 3% of farms/farmers received 32% of all direct payments, and the richest 9% of farms/farmers received 54% of all direct payments that year. Yet, some of the largest farms and biggest recipients of subsidies are indeed "family farms" -- that is, farms owned by families as opposed to corporations.)
The other reason that farm subsidies may be cut is because farm prices are high. Corn prices in the US reached over $6/bushel in April 2011. From 2000 to 2007, the price of corn in April averaged about $2.32/bushel. Wheat prices in the US reached $8.18/bushel. From 2000 to 2007, the price of wheat in April averaged about $3.45/bushel.
With prices reaching historic highs, government payments are less central to the income of farmers. Consequently, farmers and farm organizations may see government payments as less important and may expend fewer political resources protecting subsidies. Farm subsidies, then, are politically vulnerable. Importantly, though, this political vulnerability is a result of the particular political and economic context, which can and will change in the future.
II. Second, I would like to point out that the proposed cuts mentioned in the article may sound like large cuts -- $30 billion -- but this needs to be clarified and put into context.
Note, first of all, that the article states that this cut is over ten years, which means that the average annual cut would be $3 billion. While that is a sizable cut, it's still useful to know that between 2000 and 2007, government payments to farmers averaged about $17.5 billion per year and totaled about $140 billion.
In 2007, government payments to farmers totaled about $11.9 billion, according to the Economic Research Service of the USDA. A reduction of $3 billion would amount to a cut of about 25%, which is significant. But, at times I get the impression that people think farm subsidies will be cut altogether. My point is that subsidies will not likely disappear even under proposals such as Ryan's discussed in the NYT article.
III. Third, and finally, I want to point out that cutting farm subsidies in the near future does not necessarily mean that farm subsidies will permanently disappear.
This situation reminds me of the context in which the 1996 FAIR Act passed: prices were high, Republicans controlled the House and Senate, and cutting the budget became a central political focus.
And indeed, government payments to farmers were slashed in the 1996 farm bill. (See my book for a detailed discussion of the FAIR Act.) Within a few years, however, prices began to fall. By 2000, government payments to farmers increased significantly. Thus, the cuts in subsidies were temporary.
By contrast, the FAIR Act made one change that demonstrated much greater longevity: eliminating production controls, which put restrictions on what farmers could grow in terms of crops and acreage.
What was the difference between these two policies (income supports vs. production controls)? A significant political coalition in agriculture emerged to support eliminating production controls. For example, many organizations representing the interests of corn farmers pushed for this change. With such support, production controls have not returned -- regardless of price fluctuations.
The elimination of subsidies did not have the same support in agriculture. So, when prices fell in the late 1990s, there was a significant push to increase farm subsidies.
Will subsidies be cut? Perhaps. Will those cuts be permanent? Probably not.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Bernstein & Byres Award
The editors of the Journal of Agrarian Change recently announced the winner of the Bernstein & Byres Award: Me! (Go to the link and scroll down the page, then you'll see the announcement.)
This award goes to the best JAC article of the year. (This year, the prize goes to the best article in 2009.)
"The articles are judged on: (a) their quality as works of political economy; (b) their analytical
power; (c) their originality; and (d) the quality of evidence presented and its deployment."
Here is the cite and link for my article: "TheVanishing Free Market:The Formation and Spread of the British and US Food Regimes," Journal of Agrarian Change, 9(3): 315–44. (Just go to the link and scroll down a bit, then look at the PDF link.)
To see the editors' comments about the prize and my paper, look here. (Again, just scroll down and look at the PDF link.)
Aside from the self-promotion (but isn't this whole blog about self-promotion?), noting the recognition of this article is appropriate here and now as I begin to turn my attention to food crises in the world economy.
This article on food regimes discusses some of the fundamental processes that underlie the creation of the international food regime -- that is, the rules and institutions that govern the production, distribution, and price of food in the world economy.
Anyway, take a look if you have a moment. You can also download the article and brief comment for free -- that's what winning an award does for you. . .
This award goes to the best JAC article of the year. (This year, the prize goes to the best article in 2009.)
"The articles are judged on: (a) their quality as works of political economy; (b) their analytical
power; (c) their originality; and (d) the quality of evidence presented and its deployment."
Here is the cite and link for my article: "TheVanishing Free Market:The Formation and Spread of the British and US Food Regimes," Journal of Agrarian Change, 9(3): 315–44. (Just go to the link and scroll down a bit, then look at the PDF link.)
To see the editors' comments about the prize and my paper, look here. (Again, just scroll down and look at the PDF link.)
Aside from the self-promotion (but isn't this whole blog about self-promotion?), noting the recognition of this article is appropriate here and now as I begin to turn my attention to food crises in the world economy.
This article on food regimes discusses some of the fundamental processes that underlie the creation of the international food regime -- that is, the rules and institutions that govern the production, distribution, and price of food in the world economy.
Anyway, take a look if you have a moment. You can also download the article and brief comment for free -- that's what winning an award does for you. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)