Agricultural Policy Reform in the United States

AbstractNAFTA and GATT will dramatically alter regulations protecting U.S. peanut markets and will allow foreign producers considerable access to domestic market. Traditionally, the political economy surrounding peanut policy has been favorable to domestic producers. Rising peanut butter imports, decreasing domestic demand, and possibly the inadvertent effects of domestic policy, ironically implemented to protect domestic producers, have contributed to significant increases in Treasury costs. These increased Treasury costs have dramatically changed the political climate surrounding the peanut program. In this light, the effects of GATT appear manageable; NAFTA may ultimately require major policy reform. Possible alternatives are presented.

Download Full-text

GATT Agricultural Policy Reform : a United States Perspective

Agricultural Markets - Contributions to Economic Analysis ◽

10.1108/s0573-8555(1996)0000234015 ◽

1996 ◽

pp. 331-371

Author(s):

Gordon Rausser

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Agricultural Policy ◽

Policy Reform ◽

Agricultural Policy Reform

Download Full-text

Agricultural Policy Reform and Its Impact on Farm Households Income Inequality

Journal of Income Distribution ◽

10.25071/1874-6322.16182 ◽

2009 ◽

Author(s):

Ashok K Mishra ◽

Hisham El-Osta ◽

Saleem Shaik

Keyword(s):

Income Inequality ◽

Agricultural Policy ◽

Policy Reform ◽

The United States ◽

Farm Households ◽

Lump Sum ◽

Agricultural Policy Reform ◽

The Impact ◽

Farm Program ◽

Distribution Of Income

In the United States the 1996 agricultural policy reform ushered in market-oriented farm policies and also gave farmers a seven-year lump-sum payment that was not tied to production. Some scholars argue that farm program payments have changed the distribution of income among farm households. Our study uses a national farmlevel survey for 1996-2001 to investigate a) the distribution of income among farm households, b) the sources that contribute to income inequality, and c) the role of farm program payments in equalizing income. Results show a high but declining income inequality between 1996 and 2001. Among the income components that contributed the most to income inequality was an income component labeled Income from farming and all other sources. Findings further show that marginal increases in both off-farm labor income and farm program payments reduce income inequality. The impact of various income components on overall reduction in income inequality therefore depends on a household’s participation in off-farm work and government farm programs.

Download Full-text

Agricultural Policy Reform and the Uruguay Round: Synergistic Linkage in a Two-Level Game?

International Organization ◽

10.1162/002081897550410 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 51 (3) ◽

pp. 413-444 ◽

Cited By ~ 41

Author(s):

Robert Paarlberg

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Agricultural Policy ◽

Arable Land ◽

The United States ◽

The European Union ◽

Agricultural Improvement ◽

Excess Production ◽

The Common ◽

Agricultural Policy Reform ◽

The Eu

Domestic agricultural subsidy policies in the United States and in the European Union (EU) underwent substantial liberal reforms between 1990 and 1996. In the United States in 1990, Congress reduced acreage on which farmers could receive income-support payments (deficiency payments) by 15 percent under a budget reconciliation act. In the EU in 1991–92, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was dramatically modified under a set of reforms (the MacSharry reforms) that reduced internal cereal price guarantees by 29 percent over three years and obliged larger EU farmers to leave 15 percent of their arable land idle as a further check on excess production. Then in 1995–96, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act, a sweeping measure that eliminated for at least seven years all deficiency payments to farmers as well as all annual land-idling programs. U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, asserted that this new law would “change agricultural policy [in the United States] more fundamentally than any law in sixty years.”

Download Full-text