Transcript Ch. 11: Govt. Intervention in Agriculture

Government
Intervention in
Agriculture
Chapter 11
Topics of Discussion
Defining the “Farm Problem”
Government intervention
Consumer issues
Price and income support
Domestic demand expansion
Importance of export demand
Price and Income Support
A Historical Perspective
Loan rate mechanism
Set-aside mechanism
Target price mechanism
Conservation reserve mechanism
Commodities covered by
government programs
The “Farm Problem”
Inelastic demand and bumper crop
Lack of market power
Interest sensitivity
Trade sensitivity
Asset fixity and excess capacity
An increase in
supply causes price
to fall sharply.
Page 240
If the demand curve
is more elastic (D2),
the price will only fall
to price P2 rather
than P3 for a given
increase in supply.
Page 199
Recent Approaches
to Supporting
Farm Prices and Income
Market Level Effects of Loan Rates
Free market equilibrium
occurs at point E. Let’s
assume that PF is below
a politically acceptable
price, and that the price
desired by policymakers
is PG.
Page 205
Market Level Effects of Loan Rates
The Commodity Credit
Corporation of the USDA
began in the Thirties to
acquire excess supply at the
desired price its through nonrecourse loan provisions.
The goal was to shift demand
from D to D+CCCACQ, pulling
up the price from PF to PG.
Note that consumer demand
actually fell from QF to QD.
Page 205
Market Level Effects of Loan Rates
The CCC often stored the
surplus QD-QG in metal bins at
great expense to taxpayers.
This approach has the unwanted effects of increasing
supply from (QF to QG) in a
sector already plagued by
over production.
Page 205
Market Level Effects of Loan Rates
Consumer surplus would
decline from area 3+4+6 to
just area 6. Thus, they are
economically worse-off as a
result of this approach.
Producer surplus would
increase from area 1+2 to
area 1+2+3+4+5, a gain
of area 3+4+5.
Page 205
Firm Level Effects of Loan Rates
The individual firm under
free market conditions will
produce quantity qF if it
expected the free market
price PF, and earn profit
Equal to area 1.
Page 206
22
Firm Level Effects of Loan Rates
The increase in CCC
acquired stocks pulling
the price up to PG will
cause participating
farmers to increase its
production from quantity
qF to qG, increasing its
profits by area 2.
Page 206
Market Level Effects of Set-Aside Requirements
Free market equilibrium
occurs at point E1. Let’s
assume that PF is below
a politically acceptable
price, and that the price
desired by policymakers
again is PG.
Page 207
Market Level Effects of Set-Aside Requirements
Shifting the market supply
curve from SMKT to SMKT*
through set-aside requirements reduces production
from QF to QG. The market
equilibrium moves from E1
to E2.
Page 207
Market Level Effects of Set-Aside Requirements
Consumer surplus would
fall from area 4+5+6+7 to
just area 7. Thus, consumers
are worse-off economically.
Producer surplus would
increase from area 1+2+3 to
area 1+6. As long as area 6
is greater that area 2+3,
producers are better-off.
Page 207
Market Level Effects of Set-Aside Requirements
Importantly, the set-aside
approach does not encourage
production of quantity QS as
the CCC loan rate approach
did.
Page 207
Firm Level Effects of Set-Aside Requirements
The individual producer
under this approach would
supply qG rather than qF
or qS.
Profit would increase
over free market levels as
long as area 4 was greater
than area 2+3.
Page 208
Deficiency Payment Mechanism
The deficiency payment was equal to quantity QM
multiplied by the difference between the announced
target price and either the loan rate or market price
(blue shaded area above), which ever was higher.
Page 209
Deficiency Payment Mechanism
To receive this payment, the farmer had to
participant in the Acreage Reduction
Program (ARP) which implemented the setaside requirements. The Findley
amendment reduced this payment by 15%.
Page 209
Current Farm Policy
Crop
Loan Rates
Target Prices
Wheat
$2.94 ($/bu)
$4.17 ($/bu)
Corn
$1.95 ($/bu)
$2.63 ($/bu)
Rice
$6.50 ($/cwt)
$10.50 ($/cwt)
Sorghum
$1.95 ($/bu)
$2.63 ($/bu)
Barley
$1.95 ($/bu)
$2.63 ($/bu)
Oats
$1.39 ($/bu)
$1.79 ($/bu)
Cotton
$0.52 ($/lb)
$0.7125 ($/lb)
Soybeans
$5.00 ($/bu)
$6.00 ($/bu)
See www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmpolicy/malp.htm
Page 212
1996 Farm Bill
Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act
(FAIR Act) represented a transition to a market-driven
agriculture. The FAIR Act replaced target prices and
deficiency payment with annual fixed transition on
flexibility contract payments. The FAIR Act was
termed “Freedom to Farm” because farmers were no
longer restrained in their planting decisions. They
now had the flexibility to plant virtually whatever they
wanted on their base acreage (referred to now as
contract acres). The concept of a safety net was
added back under the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bill.
New Legislation Since the 1996 FAIR Act
 2002 Farm Security Act
 2008 Farm Bill
 Policymakers searching for a “countercyclical”
approach that retains many of the “freedom”
features of the 1996 FAIR Act
 Added back the concept of a safety net
 Added back target prices
38
Demand Side Options
Importance of Export Demand
•
•
•
•
•
•
Movement Toward Free Trade
General Agreement on Tariff and Trade or GATT
NAFTA – U.S., Canada, and Mexico
Successor to GATT = WTO (World Trade Organization)
Adequacy of World Food Supply
Thomas Malthus (late 1700s) argued that the world
would eventually suffer food shortages because
population growth would exceed growth in the food
supply.
• “Food supply grows at an arithmetic rate while population
grows at a geometric rate” –Malthus quote
45
Consumer Issues
• Adequate and cheap food supply, food access
• Food Subsidies
– Food stamp program
– National school lunch program
– WIC
• Food Safety
• Nutrition and Health
– Obesity issue
– Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA)
U.S. Nutrition Labeling and Education Act
of 1990: A Model for the Rest of the World
•
•
•
•
update list of nutrient, ingredients
standardize serving sizes
define nutrient content claims
define health claims
Aims of NLEA
• promote consumer nutritional education
• enable consumers to make more healthful
food choices
• provide incentive to food industry to create
innovative and healthier new products for
consumers