Who Gains from Agricultural Protection?

  • D. Gale Johnson
Part of the Trade Policy Research Centre book series


A previous chapter emphasized the particular problems that confront agriculture when economic growth occurs. Agriculture is a declining industry; when economic growth occurs it provides a declining percentage of total national employment opportunities for mobile resources, especially labour. Since it is necessary under these circumstances to transfer labour continuously out of agriculture to other occupations, the return to farm labour will be less than the return to labour of similar education, skills and capacities engaged in other activities. At least this will be true in any economy in which decisions concerning choice of jobs is left to the individual; individuals do not voluntarily change jobs unless they anticipate a gain from doing so.


Wage Rate Farm Income Output Price Land Rent Farm Labour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 2.
    Colin Clark, The Conditions of Economic Progress second edition (London: Macmillan, 1951), p. 531. Data are given for five periods between 1860 and 1944. In the latter year land rent was 15 per cent of net product.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Kazushi Ohkawa, Bruce F. Johnston and Hiromitsu Kaneda (eds), Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japan’s Experience (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  3. 15.
    Micha Gisser, ‘The Pure Theory of Government Aid to Agriculture’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, December 1969, p. 1513.Google Scholar
  4. 18.
    Gisser, ‘Schooling and the Farm Problem’, Econometrica, London, July 1965, p. 591.Google Scholar
  5. 19.
    John E. Floyd, ‘The Effects of Farm Price Supports on the Returns to Land and Labor in Agriculture’, Journal of Political Economy, Chicago, April 1965, p. 156.Google Scholar
  6. 21.
    J.L. Hedrick, ‘Factor Returns Under the Tobacco Program’, in George S. Tolley (ed.). Study of US Agricultural Adjustments (Raleigh: State University of North Carolina, 1970).Google Scholar
  7. 26.
    Earl O. Heady and Leo V. Mayer, ‘Opportunities and Alternatives in Program Modifications’, in Farm Program Choices (Ames: Iowa State Center for Agricultural and Economic Development, 1970), p. 99.Google Scholar
  8. 27.
    Richard R. Barichello, The Economics of Canadian Dairy Industry Regulation, Technical Report No. E/l2 (Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1981), p. 45.Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    Peter L. Arcus, Broilers and Eggs, Technical Report No. E/13 (Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1981), p. 49.Google Scholar
  10. 32.
    Barichello, ‘Recent Canadian Agricultural Policy and its Relevance for the United States’, a paper prepared for the Agricultural Trade Project of the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, April 1986, p. 42.Google Scholar
  11. 33.
    Daniel A. Sumner and Julian M. Alston, Consequences of Elimination of the Tobacco Program, Bulletin No. 469 (Raleigh, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University, 1984), p. 12.Google Scholar
  12. 34.
    John Rosine and Peter Helmberger, ‘A Neo-classical Analysis of the US Farm Sector, 1948–1970’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, November 1974, pp. 717–29.Google Scholar
  13. 36.
    Andrew Barkley, ‘The Determinants of Off-Farm Migration and Agricultural Investment in the United States: 1940–1985’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, 1988, pp. 90–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Gale Johnson 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Gale Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations