Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

USA / Bus. Week. Farm Subsidies: A Blight on the Economy

Expand Messages
  • Pamela Rice
    Business Week SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY By Paul Magnusson Commentary: Farm Subsidies: A Blight on the Economy The trouble started just
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Business Week

      SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

      NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY

      By Paul Magnusson

      Commentary: Farm Subsidies: A Blight on the Economy

      The trouble started just three months after President George W. Bush
      signed the 10-year, $182 billion farm bill. On Aug. 8, Mexican
      President Vicente Fox went tit for tat by promising to "armor plate"
      Mexico's farm sector against a flood of cheap U.S. imports next
      January when, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, duties
      on most food trade will be eliminated. To fight back, Fox will use
      hefty taxpayer subsidies to boost production and add high
      "anti-dumping" tariffs to keep out subsidized imports. Mexico's first
      target for retaliatory tariffs: American apples.

      Don't blame Mexico, though, when American farmers suddenly face
      stiffer barriers abroad. The big crop production subsidies in the
      U.S. farm bill will certainly invite similar retaliation from trading
      partners. Even worse, Washington's payouts to politically powerful
      farmers and big agribusiness threaten to derail the Administration's
      ambitious plans to extend NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere and
      to craft bilateral free trade deals around the globe.

      That should come as no surprise. After all, creating a free-trade
      zone of the Americas depends on convincing fragile,
      agriculture-dependent economies such as Brazil, Argentina, and
      Uruguay that they won't be overwhelmed by U.S. farm exports
      artificially priced low. In addition, Administration plans to cut
      free-trade deals directly with nations such as Chile, Morocco,
      Honduras, and South Africa rely on promises of fair treatment.

      The ag-subsidy dispute isn't just about food trade. Unless the
      agriculture-based economies of the world can market their food to the
      industrialized world, they'll never be able to afford U.S.-made
      goods. "When we make it harder for a Zambian farmer to sell his
      peanuts in the U.S., we also make it harder for Caterpillar to export
      the excavators our people build in Aurora, Ill.," says Cat Chairman
      and CEO Glen Barton.

      The U.S. is not alone in coddling farmers and food processors. Rich
      countries spend more than $311 billion a year in ag subsidies, twice
      the amount of total farm exports from developing nations, according
      to a study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation &
      Development. U.S. farmers, on average, receive a fifth of their
      income from Washington. European and Japanese farm sectors are even
      more pampered. Their subsidies run to 31% and 59% of farm income,
      respectively. That results in overproduction, which artificially cuts
      prices around the globe.

      Poorer nations' only defense is high import duties. Their average
      farm tariff, 17%, is more than twice the average among industrialized
      nations, 6.4%, according to the World Bank. To a small Third World
      farmer, a free-trade deal with the U.S. could mean being forced off
      the land. "The whole system is unbelievably irrational and unjust,"
      insists Martin Kohr, a Malaysian economist.

      True, but there's little chance of it ending. The Bush Administration
      has proposed to the 144-member World Trade Organization a formula
      that would greatly reduce farm subsidies worldwide. Proponents of the
      plan liken it to the Cold War strategy of boosting military spending
      while pushing for arms-control talks. But America lacks credibility
      on the issue in the wake of Bush's decision last March to levy
      tariffs of up to 30% on steel imports. The argument in that
      case--that foreign subsidies to steelmakers were creating a glut,
      driving down prices and requiring the U.S. to hike its own
      tariffs--sounds a lot like the spiel of farm protectionists.

      U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick likes to point out that
      one in three U.S. acres of farmland is planted for export and that
      U.S. farmers are 2.5 times more dependent on exports than the rest of
      the economy. If so, that's all the more reason Washington should
      abandon its counterproductive farm subsidy program before the rest of
      the world starts "armor plating" its own farm economies.

      Magnusson covers international trade and economics from Washington.

      Copyright 2000-2002, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.