Public Opinion and Farm Subsidies
By Matthew Yglesias
Tom Laskaway revisits a little discussion we had a while back (me, him, me) about public opinion and agricultural subsidies, with help from a more detailed survey from World Public Opinion. Turns out that Americans have communitarian ideas about this that aren’t well reflected in current policy. Voters say subsidies for large agribusiness firms (basically the only kind we give out) should go:
But they strongly support the idea of subsidies for small farmers:
For what it’s worth, in my role as someone who likes tasty food I’m certainly not averse to heading down to the farmer’s market to buy some tasty items from a local small-scale farm. But when it comes to the public policy issues, I’m pretty dubious that all the different virtues come together so tightly. If we’re talking about redirecting farm subsidies, I think it’s much more important to focus on what activities we’re subsidizing than on what scale of enterprises we’re subsidizing. The important thing would be to try to make subsidies promote public health and environmental goals. But if someone finds a business model that involves doing that on a very large scale, I don’t see a compelling reason to discourage him.
20 Responses to “Public Opinion and Farm Subsidies”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 24th, 2009 at 11:32 am
One thing that I think is interesting is that despite being very unpopular in general agricultural subsidies seem much more strongly entrenched in the system. They might just be the least popular program that is here and isn’t going anywhere.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Americans have some of the “cheapest” food in the world because of these subsidies. Of course, a lot of things can be made cheap if you just print more money and pass the tab to your children.
I see any program of this sort as a massive waste of money. It started out as a feel good program that was quickly corrupted and now corporations benefit. We are going to see a lot of this with the stimulus bill.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
In regard to focusing on what activities we are subsidizing, if I recall correctly mohair was originally subsidized in WW II – or perhaps WW I – because of the large numbers of army blankets that were needed. It is no longer used for blankets. There was, I think, an attempt to get rid of the subsidy a few years ago, but nothing came of it.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I can assure you that the farmers at your local farmer’s market don’t receive subsidies. Subsidies are given out for commodity food crops like feed corn and soybeans, mainly to feed livestock or used in processed food. The US gives virtually no subsidies to farmers who grow actual “food” that people eat directly.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Probably the best subsidy that we could give our (few remaining) small farmers would be free health care.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Scotts nails it.
Producers are real food are generally not subsidized. And small scale food producers not at all, except for dairy.
In addition to farm subsidies there are also trade policies that benefit big agribusiness to the detriment of the American consumer and taxpayer. But are not generally categorized as farm subsidies. Import tariffs on cane sugar is the most egregious example. Sugar tariffs cost Americans billions of dollars/year and result in candy manufacturers moving across the border to Canada to find cheaper sugar. All to support the massive sugar growers in Florida. Yet this isn’t technically a farm subsidy. The whole USDA international food aid program is also a giant fiasco that serves as an additional massive subsidy for American agribusiness to the detriment of American taxpayers and foreign consumers/farmers.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Robert Mac nails it, too.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
In regards to what SCOTTS said about where subsidies go in comment # 4, i would defintly agree . I think more people should be aware of this ,since the big ag lobby tend to use the small farmers hardships to justify the huge subsidies that they , the big companies, get.
This is slightly off topic , but i was having breakfast at a bar in Baltimore a couple of days ago and met a guy named Anthony Geraci. He is in charge of Baltimore City schools lunch program.
He was extremly interesting to talk with. He basicly explained how he is starting to use local farms to supply the food for the kids. Not only is the food fresher, buy also cheaper.
I am not good at linking , but if you google his name you can find out about what he is trying to do in Baltimore.He seemed very idealistic without being naive.
It would be great if Mr. Yglesias did an article about him and what he is trying to do.
It would seem to me that this could help small farmers ,who ,not only do not get subsidies , but probably do not even want to.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Does the fact that you signed this post, “By Matt Ygliesas,” and you don’t sign any of your other posts mean anything?
April 24th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
You include environmental and health concerns as reasons to change our subsidy policy, claiming the focus on scale is secondary. If you add the vitality and health of rural communities to your list of concerns, you have a strong argument to encourage subsidies for small to mid scale farms.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Does the fact that you signed this post, “By Matt Ygliesas [sic],” and you don’t sign any of your other posts mean anything?
Could be an example of the exception proving the rule. Matt, do you have interns writing your other posts?
April 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Nate @10,
Subsudies for automakers would improve the vitality and health of Dearborn and Flint, MI; subsudies for McMansion construction would improve the vitality and health greater Las Vegas. Why should a list of concerns prioritize the vitality and health of rural communities over the vitality and health of cities or exurbs?
April 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Deciding farm subsidies on the basis of farmed acreage is foolish. If the land is irrigated 500 acres will produce a sizable income. If the land is not irrigated, 500 acres could produce anywhere from a good income to a pittance, depending on its location. A farm should be judged on its gross income, not its area.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Actually, no. If you believe Michael Pollan, it’s practically a given that the larger the scale of the enterprise, the worse it is for the environment and our health. Because of the introduction of economies of scale, we basically live in a world where the food we end up with is supply-driven rather than demand-driven. Agribusiness is basically the business of finding creative ways to get more (subsidized) corn and soy into our diet.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I think the polling numbers represent nothing more than a combination of the public’s hazy knowledge about agribusiness and a popular romanticized view of the “family farm” and farmers. People know next to nothing about the food they eat, how it is grown, or how it makes it to market.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Matt, your views on subsidies and farming seem to have moderated, and I think that’s commendable.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
The fact that you don’t think “scale” impacts this question shows you haven’t studied subsidies or modern farming and really should refrain from commenting on things you don’t seem to know much about.
ALL farmers receive subsidies unless you’re talking someone with a small acreage. The scandal is that large corporate farmers get large subsidies that should go to small family farmers only, but if you ended subsidies all together, you’d only have corporate farmers left within a decade thanks to European farm subsidies and Third World wages.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Old Macdonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O
And he had subsidies on this farm, E-I-E-I-O
With a dollar here and a dollar there
Here a dollar there a dollar
Everywhere a do-olar
Old Macdonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O
My pet peeve is that subsidies do not lead to particularly beneficial social outcomes.
Example 1: I read that the conditions for workers in dairy farming are so wretched that there is no way that we could base dairy farming on legal workforce, at least in many states.
Example 2: produce is actually pretty expensive in USA compared with what I recall from Germany, not to mention Poland. It is really hard to have good diet with a variety of vegetables and fruit on modest budget. Basically, cheap meat is cheaper than vegetables by a large factor, and there is a variety of very cheap starchy foods. And sweeteners.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
mr. pjotr
you say that American vegetables are more expensive than in Poland and Germany.I would not doubt it.But I am curious as to why.Also am curious about how much more expensive our produce is.
I do know that almost all vegetables in my grocery store are more expensive by the pound than pork chops .
April 26th, 2009 at 11:59 am
“But if someone finds a business model that involves doing that on a very large scale, I don’t see a compelling reason to discourage him.”
The poster child for this proposition could be buffalo ranching. But on the whole, the kind of agriculture we want to move away from – monocultures dependent on risky chemical pest control, low-welfare indoor livestock factories, and neglect of visual, wildlife, and other externalities – is pretty strongly correlated with business size and the structure of corporate capitalism.