Advertisement

US and EU Agricultural Policy: Divergence or Convergence?

  • Andrew Schmitz
  • Troy G. Schmitz
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Productivity and Efficiency book series (SIPE, volume 7)

Abstract

The 2008 US Farm Bill has many similar features to the 2002 US Farm Bill where key provisions such as the target price and loan rate remain. On the other hand, the European Union is following a path of more decoupled payments, especially given the reforms in 2003 and afterward. However, many of the elements of either farm program may no longer be of significance if high commodity prices remain, many of which are above US target prices. High prices have caused many countries to lower tariff and nontariff barriers. In the context of high prices, the welfare costs of both the US and EU policies have been greatly reduced. However, especially for the European Union, there remains a large income transfer from the treasury to farmers since, under decoupling, farmers are given annual payments at least through 2013. Given the single farm payment scheme of the European Union, farmers are allowed to respond to high prices and, in addition, collect a subsidy from the treasury under the rubric of decoupling. Producers have collected double rents: from the market and the government.

Keywords

European Union Common Agricultural Policy Welfare Cost Conservation Reserve Program Loan Rate 
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.

References

  1. Ackrill, R., Kay, A., Morgan, W. (2008), The CAP and the GATT/WTO: A story of mutual influence and antipathy, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(4): 393–412.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D.P., Outlaw, J.L., Bryand, H.L., Richardson, J.W., Ernstes, D.P., Raulson, J.M., Welch, J.M., Knapek, G.M., Herbst, B.K., Allison, M.S. (2008), The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed, Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas (April).Google Scholar
  3. Arfini, F., Kleinhanss, W., Kuepker, B., Jayet, P. (2007), Insights from GENEDEC, DG AGRI Dissemination Meeting, http://www.grignon.inra.fr/economie-publique/genedec/publi/insights.pdf. Accessed on June 2007.
  4. Benjamin, M., Drajem, M. (2008), Global import barriers fall as food prices trump Doha (Update), Bloomberg.com (April 15), http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=admKeNIaN5pw.
  5. Binfield, J., Donnellan, T., Hanranhan, K., Hart, C., Westhoff, P. (2004), CAP reform and the WTO: Potential impacts on EU agriculture, Proceedings of the AAEA Conference, Denver, CO, http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2004/FAPRI_UMC_Report_08_04.pdf. Accessed on June 2007.
  6. Carter, C.A., Schmitz, A. (1979), Import tariffs and price formation in the world wheat market, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(3): 517–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Gorter, H., Cranfield, J. (2005), The Impacts of U.S. Crop Subsidies on Livestock Production, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Dillen, K., Demont, M., Tollens, E. (2007), European sugar policy reform and agricultural innovation, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(4): 533–544.Google Scholar
  9. Dohlman, E., Livezey, J. (2005), Peanut Backgrounder, Outlook Report OCS-05i-01, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (October).Google Scholar
  10. Elam, T. (2008), Biofuel Support Policy Costs to the U.S. Economy, Report for the Coalition for Balanced Food and Fuel Policy, FarmEcon LLC, Carmel, IN (March).Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2003), Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: A Long-Term Perspective for Sustainability Agriculture, Report of Directorate-General for Agriculture, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, B. (2000), Pre- and Post-FAIR Act Comparisons, Paper Presented at the Conference in Honor of Luther Tweeten, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, B. (2002a), North American Agricultural Policies and Effects on Western Hemisphere Markets Since 1995, with a Focus on Grains and Oilseeds, Working Paper WP-02–12, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  14. Gardner, B. (2002b), U.S. Agricultural Policies Since 1995, with a Focus on Market Effects in Grains and Oilseeds, Working Paper 02-17, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland (December).Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, B. (2007), Fuel ethanol subsidies and farm price supports, Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 5(2): 1–22.Google Scholar
  16. Gohin, A., Latuffe, L. (2006), The Luxembourg common agricultural policy and the European food industries: What’s at stake?, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 24(1): 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Just, R., Calvin, L., Quiggin, J. (1999), Adverse selection in crop insurance, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(4): 834–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD. (2004), Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France.Google Scholar
  19. Orden, D. (2002), Alternative sugar policies for the United States, In A. Schmitz, T.H. Spreen, W.A. Messina, C.B. Moss (eds.), Sugar and Related Sweetener Markets International Perspectives, CABI Publishing, New York, NY, 315–328.Google Scholar
  20. Powell, S., Schmitz, A. (2005), The cotton and sugar subsidies decisions: WTO’s dispute settlement system rebalances the agreement on agriculture, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 10(2): 287–330.Google Scholar
  21. Price, J.M. (2004), Effects of U.S. Dairy Policies on Markets for Milk and Dairy Products, USDA-ERS Technical Bulletin No. 1910, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC (March).Google Scholar
  22. Rausser, G. (1982), Political economic markets: PERTs and PESTs in food and agriculture, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(5): 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rossi, F., Schmitz, A., Schmitz, T.G. (2005), The multiplicative effect of water subsidies and price support payments: The case of U.S. cotton, Journal of International Agricultural Trade Development 1(1): 55–70.Google Scholar
  24. Rude, J. (2008), Production effects of the European Union’s single farm payment, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(4): 457–472.Google Scholar
  25. Schmitz, A. (2002), The European Union’s high-priced sugar-support regime,  Chapter 15, In A. Schmitz, T.H. Spreen, W.A. Messina, C.B. Moss (eds.), Sugar and Related Sweetener Markets: International Perspectives, CABPI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 193–213.Google Scholar
  26. Schmitz, A., Furtan, H. (2000), The Canadian Wheat Board: Marketing in the New Millennium, Canadian Plains Research Center, Regina, Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  27. Schmitz, A., Gray, R. (2001), The divergence in Canada-U.S. grain and oilseed policies, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 49: 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmitz, A., Furtan, H., Baylis, K., eds. (2002), Agricultural Policy, Agribusiness, and Rent-Seeking Behaviour, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  29. Schmitz, T.G., Giese, C.R., Shultz, II, C.J. (2008), Welfare implications of EU enlargement under the CAP, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(4): 555–562.Google Scholar
  30. Schmitz, A., Moss, C.B., Schmitz, T.G. (2007), Ethanol: No free lunch, Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 5(2): Article 3, http://www.bepress.com/jafio/vol5/iss2/art3. Accessed on July 2007.
  31. Schmitz, A., Rossi, F., Schmitz, T.G. (2007a), Agricultural subsidies under decoupling, Research in Law and Economics: A Journal of Policy 23: 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmitz, A., Rossi, F., Schmitz, T.G. (2007b), U.S. cotton subsidies: Drawing a fine line on the degree of decoupling, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39(1): 135–149.Google Scholar
  33. Schmitz, T., Schmitz, A., Dumas, C. (1997), Gains from trade, inefficiency of government programs and the net economic effects of trading, Journal of Political Economy 105(3): 637–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmitz, A., Schmitz, T.G., Rossi, F. (2006), Agricultural subsidies in developed countries: Impact on global welfare, Review of Agricultural Economics 28(3): 416–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmitz, T.G., Giese, C.R., Shultz, II, C.J. (2008), Welfare implications of EU enlargement under the CAP, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(4): 555–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitz, A., Schmitz, T.G., Schure P. (2008), High Commodity Prices and the EU’s Single Payment Scheme: Some Consequences of Double Dipping, Candian Journal of Agricultural Economiec 56(4): 523–532.Google Scholar
  37. Sullivan, P., Hellerstein, D., Hansen, L., Johansson, R., Koenig, S., Lubowsky, R., Mcbride, W., Mcgranahan, D., Roberts, M., Vogel, S., Bucholtz, S. (2004), The Conservation Reserve Program: Economic Implications for Rural America, Agricultural Economic Report No. AER834, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  38. Sumner, D.A. (2007), U.S. Farm Policy and the White Commodities: Cotton, Rice, Sugar and Milk, IPC Policy Focus (Farm Bill Series No. 5, June), http://www.agritrade.org/Publications/PolicyFocus/Farm_Bill_5_white_commodities.pdf.
  39. Sumner, D.A., Wolf, C.A. (1996), Quotas without supply control: Effects of dairy quota policy in California, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 354–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swinbank, A. (2008), Potential WTO challenges to the reformed CAP, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(4): 445–456.Google Scholar
  41. Swinbank, A., Daugbjerg, C. (2006), The 2003 CAP reform: Accommodating WTO pressures, Comparative European Politics 4(1): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swinbank, A., Tanner, C. (1996), Farm Policy and Trade Conflict: The Uruguay Round and CAP Reform, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  43. USDA. (2004), Economic Effects of U.S. Dairy Policy and Alternative Approaches to Milk Pricing, Report to Congress, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (July).Google Scholar
  44. Westcott, P.C., Price, J.M. (2001), Analysis of the U.S. Commodity Loan Program with Marketing Loan Provisions, AER 801, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of Florida-GainesvilleGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.W.P. Carey School of Business, Morrison School of Management and AgribusinessUniversity of ArizonaMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations