U.S. Farm Policy and the Volatility of Commodity Prices and Farm Revenues

A dynamic three-commodity rational-expectations storage model is used to compare the impact of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 with a free-market policy, and with pre-FAIR policies. Results suggest that FAIR did not lead to significant increases in long-run price volatility or revenue volatility. The main impact of pre-FAIR, relative to the free-market regime, was to substitute government storage for private storage in a way that did little to support prices or to stabilize farm incomes. Results also indicate that U.S. grain market volatility in 1995–2000 was due to fundamental market forces and not to FAIR.     

FAIR Act Implications for Land Values in the Corn Belt

In 1996 the federal government enacted the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act, which represented a sweeping change in public policy toward agriculture. This paper examines the impact of the FAIR legislation on farmland values across the U.S. Corn Belt. A representative farm framework is used to determine the impact of FAIR on farmland values. The analysis suggests that marginal production environments are likely to suffer most severely under FAIR, and that a prolonged period of weak commodity prices could engender sharp declines in farmland values.     

What Future for Agricultural Safety Net Programs?

The early 1990s held the promise of decoupled farm programs in Canada and the U.S.; however, the potential benefits of decoupling have been eroded by ad hoc disaster programs. This paper assesses the benefits and difficulties of disaster programs relative to traditional farm programs, and proposes gross margin insurance as an approach to safety nets that captures the benefits of both. Gross margin insurance is applied to hogs in Ontario and Minnesota as case studies, with the cost and level of income protection compared. We show that based on simple estimates of actuarially fair premium costs, gross margin insurance compares favorably with programs that have been used to support hog farm incomes in both regions.     

WHITHER GOEST U.S. AGRICULTURAL POLICY: AN EXERCISE IN NAIVE PROPHESY1

The forces leading to change in U.S. agricultural policy are discussed in this paper, and the likely outcome of the debate on U.S. farm policy is documented. New programs are a strong possibility for a variety of commodities including wheat, feed grains, and soybeans. These programs will likely lead to lower prices, increased production and more aggressive competition in international markets. The forces in the evolution of U.S. farm policy are also drawn out, allowing readers a view of the process of policy-making, and providing background and documentation for readers to develop independent and perhaps alternative views of the future direction of U.S. farm policy.
ON EN VA LA POLITIQUE AGRICOLE AMERICAINE: UN EXERCISE DE CLAIR VOYANCE - Les forces conduisant au changement de la politique agricole des Etats-Unis sont discutées dans la présente étude, et les résultats probables des débats sur la politique agricole américaine sont documentés. II est fort possible que de nouveaux programmes soient elaborés àľégard ďune variété de denrée, y. compris le blé, les grains de provende et le soya. Ces programmes amèneront vraisemblablement desprix moins élevés, une production accrue et une concurrence plus agressive sur les marchés internationaux. Les forces dans ľévolution de la politique agricole américaine sont aussi illustrées, cequi permet aux lecteurs de voir comment on établit les programmes, et foumit aux lecteurs une base et une documentation qui lew permettront de développer des opinions indépendantes et peut-être alternatives sur la direction future de la politique agricultural américaine.     

Agricultural Export Subsidies as a Tool of Trade Strategy: Before and After the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

If the main justification for agricultural export subsidies is that they reduce government costs of deficiency payments, then the 1996 farm legislation would make U.S. export subsidies largely unnecessary. An additional argument advanced in favor of export subsidies is that their aggressive use by one country will cause competing countries to reduce or discontinue their own subsidies. This argument is explored by means of a Nash equilibrium in which countries choose both a base subsidy level and a response to competitors, and by a consistent conjectures equilibrium. Little support is found for the argument.     

Relationships between U.S. and Canadian Wheat Prices: Cointegration and Error Correction Approach

This paper examines relationships between U.S. and Canadian wheat prices using the cointegration and error correction approach. The use of the error correction model is appropriate because U.S. and Canadian wheat prices are first-differenced stationary and cointegrated. The results suggest that both U.S. durum and hard spring wheat prices respond to restore equilibrium relationships with the corresponding Canadian price, while the Canadian prices do not. That is, the structure of the respective policies is such that the Canadian markets are largely insulated from influences flowing directly from the U.S., while U.S. markets are not insulated from Canadian influences. These results could be interpreted to support the contention that Canadian production subsidies and the implicit export subsidies would tend to undermine the U.S. price support program. The results also support the price leadership role for Canada in the durum and hard spring wheat markets. The implication is that with respect to durum and spring wheats, U.S. policies to artificially support domestic prices are not effective over the long run. Les rapports entre les prix de blé canadiens et américains sont étudiés á partir des analyses basées sur la cointégration et la méthode de correction des erreurs. L'emploi de la méthode de correction des erreurs est approprié car les prix de blé canadiens et américains sont cointegres et stationnaires quand Us sont exprimes en changements (first differences). Les résultats montrent que les prix du blé dur (durum) et du blé panifiable du printemps (hard spring) aux États- Unis reagissent à l'évolution des prix canadiens pour retablir le rapport d'équilibre tandis que ceux du Canada ne sont pas influencés par les désequilibres. Ce résultat est explique par les differences entre les structures des politiques agri-coles quifont que les marches canadiens sont largement isoles des influences en provenance des États-Unis, ce qui n'estpas le cas pour les marches américains. Ces résultats pourraient vouloir dire que des subventions canadiennes à la production et à l'exportation ont mine les programmes américains de sou-tien des prix. Us sont également compatible avec l'idée que le Canada établit les prix sur ces marchés.     

The Impact of Lower Grains and Oilseeds Prices on Canada's Grains Sector: A Regional Programming Approach

With the enactment of the 1985 U.S. Food Security Act, world grains and oilseeds prices for the 1986–87 crop year fell significantly. It is expected that future world prices will continue to be low as long as the current world excess supply situation prevails and export subsidies are used by the U.S. and EC. Adjustments that Prairie grain producers and others are expected to make in response to lower long-term grain prices are analyzed in this paper. A multi-commodity and multi-sector regional mathematical programming model of Canadian agriculture is used. Changes in regional production and summerfallow patterns, regional income impacts and changing land rents are also noted. These all have implications for current and future policies, in particular, those related to soil conservation and farm finance policies. Avec la promulgation en 1985 de la U.S. Food Security Act, les prix mondiaux des céréales et des oléagineux ont baissé de façon appréciable pour la campagne agricole 1986–1987. On s'attend à ce qu'à ?avenir les prix mondiaux demeurent faibles tant que ?offre restera excédentaire comme elle ?est actuellement et que les États-Unis et la CEE continueront à subventionner leurs exportations. Les auteurs du présent document font une analyse des modifications que les producteurs de céréales des Prairies et autres devront apporter à leurs activités pour s'adapter aux prix à long terme des grains. Les auteurs utilisent un modèle de programmation mathématique de ?agriculture canadienne, fondé sur la région, des produits primaires multiples et des secteurs multiples. Ils notent également les changements dans les modes de production et de jachère régionaux, les effets sur les revenus régionaux et les changements dans les loyers de la terre. Tous ces facteurs influent sur les politiques actuelles et futures, en particulier celles qui touchent à la conservation des sols et au financement agricole.     

The 2002 U.S. Farm Bill: What's In It For CAP and WTO Reform?

The 2002 U.S. Farm Bill: What's In It For CAP and WTO Reform? The 2002 U.S. Farm Bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act or FSRIA) provides considerably more government subsidies for U.S. agriculture than Congress envisaged when it passed the preceding 1996–2002 FAIR Act. We review the FAIR record, showing how government subsidies increased greatly beyond those originally scheduled. For FSRIA, we outline key commodity, trade, and conservation and environmental provisions. We expect that the commodity programmes will: (a) encourage production when the market calls for less; (b) significantly increase subsidies over FAIR baseline subsidies; (c) press against current WTO and possible Doha Round support limits; and (d) aggravate trading partners. Finally, we suggest two lessons from the U.S. policy experience that might benefit those working on CAP and WTO reform. First, past research shows that farm programmes have little to do with the economic health of rural communities. Second, programme transparency, and especially public disclosure of the level of payments going to individual farmers, by name, influences the farm policy debate. Personalized data show what economists have long maintained—that the bulk of programme benefits go to a relatively few, large, producers—but do so in a way that captures the public and policy‐makers' attention. La loi d'orientation agricole américaine de 2002: que peut on en tirer pour réformer la PAC et l'OMC? La loi d'orientation agricole américaine de 2002 (loi sur la securité et l'investissement rural, ou FSRIA) autorise beaucoup plus de subventions a l'agriculture des Etats Unis qu'il n'avait été envisagé par le congrès quand fut votée la loi d'orientation précédente, le “Fair Act” en vigueur de 1996 à 2002. L'examen du Fair Act réalisé ici montre que les subventions durant cette période avaient déjà augmenté beaucoup plus qu'il n‘était initialement prévu. Dans le cas du FSRIA, des provisions importantes sont prévues pour les produits clé, le commerce, la conservation des sols, et l'environnement. Il faut s'attendre à ce que les programmes par produit: (a): encouragent la production alors même que le marché en demanderait la réduction, (b) accroissent significativement les subventions par rapport au niveau de base du Fair Act (c) exercent une pression à la hausse sur les limites imposées aux soutiens, tant dans la réglementation actuelle de l'OMC que dans celle qui pourrait être adopté dans les négociation de Doha (d) lèsent gravement les partenaires commerciaux des Etats Unis. Pour finir, deux enseignements de la politique américaine pourraient être utiles à ceux qui, en Europe, songent à réformer l'OMC et la PAC: d'abord, l'histoire montre que les subventions n'ont pas grand chose à voir avec la santééconomique des communautés rurales. Ensuite, la transparence des programmes en question, et tout spécialement, l'affichage nominatif des bénéficiaires de subventions, est de nature à influer sur le débar de politique agricole. Les données personnalisées montrent ce que les économistes out toujours dit: les subventions bénéficient pour l'essentiel à un petit nombre de producteurs relativement riches, mais d'une façon telle qu'ils arrivent à mobiliser l'opinion et les décideurs politiques en leur faveur. Das US‐Landwirtschaftsgesetz von 2002: Wie wirkt es sich auf GAP und WTO‐Reform aus? Das US‐Landwirtschaftsgesetz von 2002 (FSRIA, Gesetz zur Absicherung von landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben und zur Förderung von Investitionen in ländlichen Räumen) sieht wesentlich höhere staatliche Subventionen für die Landwirtschaft der USA vor als es der Kongress bei tier Verabschiedung des FAIR‐Gesetzes (1996–2002) beabsichtigte. Die Subventionen haben während der Laufzeit des Gesetzes die vorgesehene Höhe weit überschritten. Für das FSRIA werden die Bestimmungen für die Hauptagrarprodukte, den Handel und den Umweltschutz kurz dargestellt. Es ist zu erwarten, dass die Programme (a) die landwirtschaftliche Produktion in Perioden anregen, in denen die Weltmarktpreise niedrig sind; (b) die Subventionen weit über den im FAIR‐Gesetz vorgesehenen Betrag hinaus erhöhen; (c) gegen das in der WTO festgeschriebene und zukünftig in der Doha‐Runde wahrscheinliche gekürzte Stützungsniveau verstoßon können und (d) die Missbilligung der Handelspartner hervorrufen werden. Aus der Erfahrung mit der US‐Politik greifen wir zum Schluss zwei Erkenntnisse heraus, die für diejenigen hilfreich sein können, die sich mit der GAP und der WTO‐Reform beschäftigen. Erstens zeigt die bisherige Forschung, dass die Programme zur Förderung von landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben nur wenig zum wirtschaftlichen Wohlergehen ländlicher Räume beitragen. Zweitens beeinflusst die Transparenz der Programme die politische Debatte in Bezug auf landwirtschaftliche Betriebe – insbesondere durch die öffentliche Nennung der Höhe der Zahlungssummen und der Namen der Empfänger. Diese personalisierten Daten zeigen, was Wirtschaftswissenschaftler bereits seit langem behaupten – dass relativ wenige Großerzeuger am meisten von den Programmen profitieren und dabei die Aufmerksamkeit der Öffentlichkeit und die der politischen Entscheidungsträger auf sich ziehen.     

Commodity futures markets: a survey

This review article describes the main contributions in the literature on commodity futures markets. It is argued that modern studies have focused primarily on technical questions, with insufficient economic content. More research needs to be directed towards understanding fundamental economic issues such as why so few farmers hedge, the impacts of government farm programs on commodity futures, and the market impacts of commodity pools. The literature has failed to explain the prevalence of inverted markets in grains and oilseeds, and there is unexplainable price volatility in markets such as hogs and orange juice.     

Determinants of economic well-being among U.S. farm operator households

Participation in government programs has a mild impact on the economic well‐being of U.S. farm households. Major factors that determine farm household prosperity are the primary operator's education level and ethnicity, education level of the spouse, and other characteristics such as forward purchasing of inputs, use of contract shipping of products, having a succession plan, farm ownership, and location in a metro area. This article uses the 2001 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) as well as relative and an absolute measure to assess U.S. farm households' economic well‐being. The relative measure compares the income and wealth position of farm households relative to median income and median wealth of the general population. The absolute measure adds annualized wealth to a farm household's income.     

U.S. Farm Safety Nets and the 2000 Agricultural Risk Protection Act

Although crop insurance programs have been an important part of U.S. agricultural policy since the 1930s, the "safety net" matra has taken on new relevance and importance in recent policy deliberations and rhetoric. This paper contains a non technical review of issues underlying the safety net concept in U.S. agricultural policy. We outline recent changes in U.S. crop insurance programs and review provisions of the 2000 Agricultural Risk Protection Act (ARPA), which had a significant impact on U.S. risk management programs by expanding crop and revenue insurance subsidies and stimulating new product development. A simple empirical analysis of how these changes may have affected program participation is considered. We then outline points relevant to 2002 Farm Bill deliberations. As is pointed out, the safety net concept seems pervasive to all policy discussions. Countercylical payments, even when provided on an ad hoc basis, may distort production and trade conditions.     

The North American Free Trade Agreement and the Canadian Agri-Food Sector

In the past five years, Canada has negotiated and ratified three trade agreements: the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the multilateral free trade agreement now administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO). This paper focuses on the implications for agri-food trade of the NAFTA and its interface with the other two agreements. The provisions of the NAFTA are described and evaluated as they relate to market access, domestic support, export assistance, technical regulations and dispute settlement. Observations are presented on the NAFTA's potential effects on trade in red meats, grains and oilseeds, supply-managed commodities and horticulture. In addition, some of the shortcomings of the NAFTA are highlighted.     

Fat taxes and thin subsidies: Prices, diet, and health outcomes

“Fat taxes” have been proposed as a way of addressing food-related health concerns. In this paper, we investigate the possible effects of “thin subsidies”, consumption subsidies for healthier foods. Empirical simulations, based on data from the Continuing Study of Food Intake by Individuals, are used to calculate the potential health benefits of subsidies on certain classes of fruits and vegetables in the United States. Estimates of the cost per statistical life saved through such subsidies compare favorably with existing U.S. government programs.     

Farmers and the U.S. Congress: rethinking basic institutional assumptions about agricultural policy

An assumption shared by most agricultural economists is that, as farm numbers decline in a democratic government, farm policy attention from rule-makers will decline as well. This assumption – despite important work to the contrary in institutional economics – is often voiced in federated governing units, especially the U.S., where constituents are locally organized and the commitment of rule-makers to nationwide policy is limited. While significant theoretical literature challenges that majoritarian view from the perspective of interest-group theory, this is the first empirical test and explanation of the behavior of rule-makers. The findings of this analysis indicate that classic majoritarian expectations are not met in the U.S. Congress. Instead, unexpectedly large numbers of legislators seek favorable policy action for farmers as distinct minorities within their districts. However, these same legislators balance their attention to farmers by also taking policy action in agriculture on behalf of other types of constituents. Legislators explain these actions as the result of their own electoral needs to satisfy vocal minorities from their political districts plus the ease with which they can marginally adjust a large base of U.S. farm programs. Thus, a kind of neo-majoritarianism emerges. These results are especially important given the growing attention to federated governance in the European Union, East Europe, in North America through free trade agreements, and with the GATT. They indicate that farmers will continue, despite shrinking numbers, to be influential in those governing structures that have historically strong farm programs and the capacity to diversify from that policy base.     

Off‐farm work and technical efficiency on U.S. dairies

In this study, we investigate the impact of an increase in farm households’ off‐farm work on technical efficiency (TE) of U.S. dairies. We present a theoretical framework that implies that an increase in farm household off‐farm work decreases TE. We use two nationally‐representative samples of U.S. dairies (2010 and 2005 Agricultural Resource Management Surveys) and a parametric approach (stochastic frontier analysis) to empirically test the hypothesis. Results are generally consistent with the hypothesis and show that an increase in off‐farm work by the farm household is associated with a significant decrease in TE. In addition, results show that there is a statistically significant difference in TE between small, medium, and large farms. Small farms are associated with significantly higher off‐farm work and have lower TE than large farms, which implies that less off‐farm work by households with larger farms is at least partially responsible for the evidence of economies of scale in the U.S. dairy industry.     

Does the Exchange Rate Matter to Agricultural Bilateral Trade between Canada and the U.S.?

This study examines the effects of the Canada–U.S. exchange rate on bilateral trade of agricultural goods between the two countries and on U.S. farm income. Special attention is given to agricultural trade between the two countries under the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSTA). This study utilizes two time series models: the vector error correction model (VECM) and the vector moving average model (VMA) with quarterly time series data from 1983 to 2000. It is found that the exchange rate has a significant impact on U.S. agricultural trade with Canada, but the impact on U.S. agricultural price and income is insignificant. The exchange rate between the two currencies is found to be weakly exogenous in the U.S. agricultural sector, which answers a fundamental question about the role of the exchange rate in Canada–U.S. bilateral trade for agricultural products. In addition, the results point to a significant, though minimal, effect on bilateral trade due to CUSTA.     

Implications of biofuels mandates for the global livestock industry: a computable general equilibrium analysis

The rapid growth of biofuels production, particularly in the United States, the EU, and Brazil, has had important implications for the global livestock industry—both by raising the cost of feed grains and oilseeds and by forcing onto the market a large supply of biofuel by‐products, most of which end up in livestock feed rations. This article investigates the impact of an expanding biofuels industry on the mix and location of global livestock production. Surprisingly, we find that growth in the U.S. and EU biofuels industries results in larger absolute reductions in livestock production overseas than in those regions, due to the international transmission of grains prices which is offset locally by the lower cost of by‐products. We also find that nonruminant production is cut more than ruminant livestock, because it is less able to use biofuel by‐products in its feed rations. Implementing biofuel mandates increases cropland area, a large portion of which is estimated to come from reduced grazing lands. The biofuel producing regions are expected to reduce their coarse grains exports and increase imports of oilseeds and vegetable oils, while they increase their exports of processed feed materials. In sum, biofuel mandates have important consequences for livestock as well as crops, with net effects influenced by the important role of by‐products in substituting for feedstuffs.     

Do U.S. citizens support government intervention in agriculture? Implications for the political economy of agricultural protection

The persistence of agricultural protectionism throughout the world is intriguing given the widely recognized benefits of free trade. The political economy literature over the last decades has considered groups’ interest, politicians’ preferences, and their interactions within domestic politics as the primary forces driving agricultural protection. Yet, a growing body of studies suggests that it would be judicious to weigh in consumers’ or taxpayers’ perspectives in deciphering the nature of agricultural protection. This study examines U.S. citizens’ preferences about government intervention in agriculture and trade. Results show that they are in strong support of agricultural protection and their perceptions of national food security, family farms, environmental sustainability, and multifunctionality of agriculture play a significant role in shaping their support/opposition toward government intervention. The conventional political economy literature theorizes that consumers or taxpayers would oppose public policies that increase their tax burden; however, in the case of the farm sector, they have little incentive to voice their objections given the costs of farm programs are spread across a large number of consumers and taxpayers. U.S. citizens’ support for government involvement in agriculture as reported in this and other prior studies does not lend support for such political economy explanation.     

Implications of the US Farm Bill of 2002 for agricultural trade and trade negotiations

The US Farm Bill of 2002 is the latest in a 7-decade history of farm subsidy laws that transfer funds to farmers and regulate and subsidize production of selected commodities. Fruit, tree nut, ornamental and vegetable crops, hay and meats remain outside scope of main subsidy programs. The new law continues many innovations of the 1996 Act, such as removal of authority for annual land idling and crop price floors accompanied by government stockholding. Government payments remain the primary focus of commodity programs. The total amount of these payments are likely to remain similar to the amount paid in the period 1999–2001, but with some changes in the form of the programs. For example, allowing owners to update acreage and yield payment bases creates additional incentives for farmers to link current planting decisions to anticipated farm subsidies. Similarly, the new program that ties "counter-cyclical" payments to the price of a specific crop also has production stimulus. A new program, estimated to add about 5–10 per cent to marginal milk revenue for smaller farms, makes 'deficiency' payments to dairy farms when milk prices are low. Despite the new programs with added links to stimulating production, new USA programs stimulate production only marginally more than the subsidies of the 1999–2001 period, which were replaced. Furthermore, the USA has flexibility to avoid explicitly violating its WTO commitments. Nonetheless, this US Farm Bill of 2002 has curtailed the previous trends toward lower farm subsidies and smaller production stimuli, and the negative publicity surrounding it has made negotiating reductions of farm trade distortions more difficult.     

Regional Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development Activities: The North American Waterfowl Management Plan Introduction

A framework for economic impact analysis of sustainable development activities is used to assess the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Significant employment and income impacts are generated in rural Manitoba communities and Canada. In addition, positive annual net farm income changes have been generated. In Manitoba, the government share of total revenue required is 15%. U.S. sources provide 64%; non-government sources provide 8.4%; and the Government of Canada provides 12.6%.