The Incidence of US Farm Programs

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Productivity and Efficiency book series (SIPE, volume 7)

Abstract

Many economists have argued that all farm subsidies are ultimately capitalized in land values. This chapter shows, both theoretically and empirically, that this is not so, although there is much room for disagreement as to the precise shares that accrue to landowners, farmers, and consumers. A review of econometric models in the literature, multimarket simulations, and the application of a sector model of US agriculture yields a range of results about the share of subsidy payments going to land. The truth probably lies in between the results from the static theoretical models with full adjustment and the general run of the econometric evidence. A significant share of even the so-called decoupled transfers goes to farmers rather than landowners, and both landowners and farm operators receive a significant share of the net benefits from subsidies. In an in-between case, based on 2005 market and policy conditions, for every dollar of government spending on farm subsidies, farmers receive about 50 cents, landlords receive about 25 cents, domestic and foreign consumers receive about 20 cents, and 5 cents is wasted. Additional amounts are wasted collecting the taxes to finance the spending and in administering the policies – perhaps another 20 cents.

Keywords

Sugar Corn Income Marketing Kirwan 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter is drawn from work undertaken in the context of the American Enterprise Institute project, led by Bruce Gardner and Daniel Sumner, The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond (http://aic.ucdavis.edu/research/farmbill07/aeibriefs/20070515_alstonSubsidiesfinal.pdf), as reported in my AEI paper (Alston, 2007), on which I was assisted by Matt Andersen, Henrich Brunke, Antoine Champetier de Ribes, Conner Mullally, and Sebastien Pouliot.

References

  1. Alston, J.M. (2007), Benefits and Beneficiaries from U.S. Farm Subsidies. AEI Agricultural Policy Series: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond. American Enterprise Institute. Accessed May 2010. Available at http://aic.ucdavis.edu/research/farmbill07/aeibriefs/20070515_alstonSubsidiesfinal.pdf.
  2. Alston, J.M., James, J.S. (2002), The incidence of agricultural policy, Chapter 33, In B.L. Gardner, G.C. Rausser (eds.), The Handbook on Agricultural Economics, Vol. II(a), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1869–1929.Google Scholar
  3. Cassels, J.M. (1933), The nature of statistical supply curves, Journal of Farm Economics 15: 378–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Floyd, J.E. (1965), The effects of farm price supports on the returns to land and labor in agriculture, Journal of Political Economy 73: 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gardner, B.L. (2003), U.S. commodity policies and land values,  Chapter 5, p. 81, In C.B. Moss, A. Schmitz (eds.), Government Policy and Farmland Markets: The Maintenance of Farmer Wealth, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  6. Gardner, B.L. (1987), The Economics of Agricultural Policies, Macmillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  7. Gisser, M. (1993), Price support, acreage controls, and efficient redistribution, Journal of Political Economy 101: 584–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodwin, B.K., Ortalo-Magné, F.N. (1992), The capitalization of wheat subsidies into agricultural land values, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 40: 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodwin, B.K., Mishra, A.K., Ortalo-Magné, F.N. (2003a), Explaining regional differences in the capitalization of policy benefits into agricultural land values,  Chapter 6, p. 97, In C.B. Moss, A. Schmitz (eds.), Government Policy and Farmland Markets: The Maintenance of Farmer Wealth, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  10. Goodwin, B.K., Mishra, A.K., Ortalo-Magné, F.N. (2003b), What’s wrong with our models of agricultural land values, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 745–752.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, B., Prosch, A., Raymond, A. (2007), The Art of Leasing Negotiation in a Frenzied Environment, Cornhusker Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Extension. Accessed January http://www.agecon.unl.edu/Cornhuskereconomics/12-20-06.pdf.
  12. Key, N., Lubowski, R.N., Roberts, M.J. (2005), Farm-level production effects from participation in government commodity programs: Did the 1996 federal agricultural improvement and reform act make a difference? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1211–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirwan, B.E. (2005), The Incidence of U.S. Agricultural Subsidies on Farmland Rental Rates, Working Paper 05-04, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Kirwan, B.E. (2007), The Distribution of U.S. Agricultural Subsidies. AEI Agricultural Policy Series: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond. American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC. Accessed May 2010. Available at http://www.arec.umd.edu/people/faculty/Kirwan_Barrett/KirwanSubsidyDistribution5-07.pdf.
  15. Lence, S.H., Mishra, A.K. (2003), The impacts of different farm programs on cash rents, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 753–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mcdonald, D., Nair, R., Podbury, T., Sheldrick, B., Gunasakera, D., Fisher, B.S. (2006), U.S. Agriculture Without Farm Support. Research Report 06.10. ABARE (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics), Canberra (September).Google Scholar
  17. Roberts, M.J., Kirwan, B., Hopkins, J. (2003), The incidence of government program payments on agricultural land rents: The challenges of identification, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 762–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosine, J., Helmberger, P.G. (1974), A neoclassical analysis of the U.S. farm sector, 1948–1970, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 717–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaik, S., Helmers, G.A., Atwood, J.A. (2005), The evolution of farm programs and their contribution to agricultural land values, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1190–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sherrick, B.J., Barry, P.J. (2003), Farmland markets: Historical perspectives and contemporary issues,  Chapter 3, p. 27, In C.B. Moss, A. Schmitz (eds.), Government Policy and Farmland Markets: The Maintenance of Farmer Wealth, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  21. Sumner, D.A. (2003), Implications of the USA farm bill of 2002 for agricultural trade and trade negotiations, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47: 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sumner, D.A. (2005a), Boxed in: Conflicts between U.S. farm policies and WTO obligations, Cato Institute Trade Policy Analysis 32(December). Accessed May 2010. Available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/tpa/tpa-032.pdf.
  23. Sumner, D.A. (2005b), Production and trade effects of farm subsidies: Discussion, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1229–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uchtman, D.L. (2006), Is Your Lease Compatible with Your Division of USDA Farm Program Payments Between Landlord and Tenant? Agricultural Law and Taxation Briefs, Vol. 6(1, May 30). Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. Accessed January 2007 http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/legal/articles/ALTBs/ALTB_06-01/ALTB_06-01.pdf.
  25. USDA, ERS (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). Various Years. U.S. and State Farm Income Data Farm Cash Receipts, 1924–2004. Accessed January 2007. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/finfidmu.htm.
  26. Weersink, A., Clark, S., Turvey, C., Sarkar, R. (1999), The effect of agricultural policy on farmland values, Land Economics 75(3): 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of California at DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations