The distributional structure of US green box subsidies

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511674587.011

10 - The distributional structure of US green box subsidies

from PART II - The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2010

Harry De Gorter

Edited by

Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz ,

Christophe Bellmann and

Jonathan Hepburn

Show author details

Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz: Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Christophe Bellmann: Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Jonathan Hepburn: Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

The objective of this chapter is to provide information on the distributional structure of US green box subsidies. The extent to which payments are made to farms of different sizes is provided as well as the importance of subsidy payments as a share of both farm and off-farm income. We will analyze the distributional structure of payments under different types of green box programs. The implications of this structure for the achievement of economic, social and environmental public policy goals are derived. Because payments tend to go to the largest farms, sustainable development objectives such as preserving the family farm and providing environmental services may be undermined. The chapter examines the extent to which the structure of green box subsidies distorts production and international trade. Finally, the chapter offers some suggestions for options to reform green box criteria that might support sustainable development goals in developed as well as developing countries.

Distributional structure of US green box payments

The evolution of overall US green box subsidies and its relation to the other “boxes” is given in Antón (this volume, chapter 7) and Matthews (2006). Our analysis focuses only on payments that can potentially be captured directly by producers. Hence, we exclude domestic food aid to consumers, the largest share of US green box expenditures. Table 10.1 summarizes the remaining categories of expenditures for the base period and for each year of the implementation period through 2005 (the last year for which the US notified the WTO of its domestic support).

Type: Chapter
Information: Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box
Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals
, pp. 304 - 326

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511674587.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abler, David and David, Blandford (2005), “A Review of Empirical Studies of the Acreage and Production Response to US Production Flexibility Contract Payments under the FAIR Act and Related Payments under Supplementary Legislation”, AGR/CA/APM(2004)21/FINAL, 30 March, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar

Alston, J. M. (2007), “Benefits and Beneficiaries from US Farm Subsidies”, AEI Agricultural Policy Series: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar

Babcock, Bruce A. (2007), “Money for Nothing: Acreage and Price Impacts of US Commodity Policy for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Cotton, and Rice”, AEI Agricultural Policy Series: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar

Burfisher, Mary E. and Hopkins, Jeffrey (eds.) (2003), “Decoupled Payments: Household Income Transfers in Contemporary US Agriculture”, AER-822, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gorter, H. and Chau, N. (2005), “Disentangling the Consequences of Direct Payments in Agriculture on Fixed Costs, Exit Decisions and Output”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (No. 5, December): 1174–1181.Google Scholar

Gorter, H. and Cook, D. (2006), “Domestic Support in Agriculture: The Struggle for Meaningful Disciplines”, chapter 7 in Newfarmer, R. (ed.), Trade, Doha and Development: A Window into the Issues, Washington, DC, World Bank.Google Scholar

Gorter, H., Just, D. R. and Kropp, J. D. (2008), “Cross-subsidization Due to Infra Marginal Support in Agriculture: A General Theory and Empirical Evidence”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 (No. 1, January).Google Scholar

,GAO (US General Accounting Office) (2004), “Farm Program Payments: USDA Needs to Strengthen Regulations and Oversight to Better Ensure Recipients Do Not Circumvent Payment Limitations”, Publication No. GAO-04–407, Washington, DC, April.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Barry K. and Mishra, Ashok K. (2006), “Are ‘Decoupled’ Farm Program Payments Really Decoupled? An Empirical Evaluation”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (No. 1, February): 73–89.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kirwan, Barrett E. (2005), “The Incidence of US Agricultural Subsidies on Farmland Rental Rates”, Working Paper 05–04, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Kirwan, Barrett E. (2007), “The Distribution of US Agricultural Subsidies”, AEI Agricultural Policy Series: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, American Enterprise Institute.CrossRef Google Scholar

Matthews, Alan (2006), “Decoupling and the Green Box: International Dimensions of the Reinstrumentation of Agricultural Support”, Paper presented to the 93rd EAAE seminar Impacts of Decoupling and Cross Compliance on Agriculture in the Enlarged EU, 22–23 September.Google Scholar

MacDonald, James, Hoppe, Robert and Banker, David (2006), “Growing Farm Size and the Distribution of Farm Payments”, Economic Brief No. 6, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

McDonald, D., Nair, R., Podbury, T. et al. (2006), “US Agriculture without Farm Support”, ABARE Research Report 06.10, September, Canberra.Google Scholar

,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005), “Decoupling: Illustrating Some Open Questions on the Production Impact of Different Policy Instruments”, AGR/CA/APM(2005)11/FINAL, 3 May, Paris.Google Scholar

Sckokai, Paolo and Moro, Daniele (2006), “Modeling the Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy for Arable Crops under Uncertainty”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (No. 1, February): 43–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sumner, D. (2005), “Boxed In: Conflicts between US Farm Policies and WTO Obligations”, Cato Institute Trade Policy Analysis 32, December.Google Scholar

,United States Department of Agriculture (2007), Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook, Economic Research Service, Research Report AIS-85, December.Google Scholar

,World Trade Organisation (2002), Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products. Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, December.Google Scholar

,World Trade Organisation (2004), “European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar”, Report of the Panel WT/DS265/R, WT/DS266/R, WT/DS283/R, October.Google Scholar