Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:01:36.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade and the Political Economy of Agricultural Policy: The Case of the United States Peanut Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.  and
Robert B. Borges
Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.
Affiliation:
Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

NAFTA and GATT will dramatically alter regulations protecting U.S. peanut markets and will allow foreign producers considerable access to domestic market. Traditionally, the political economy surrounding peanut policy has been favorable to domestic producers. Rising peanut butter imports, decreasing domestic demand, and possibly the inadvertent effects of domestic policy, ironically implemented to protect domestic producers, have contributed to significant increases in Treasury costs. These increased Treasury costs have dramatically changed the political climate surrounding the peanut program. In this light, the effects of GATT appear manageable; NAFTA may ultimately require major policy reform. Possible alternatives are presented.

Keywords

agricultural policyGATTNAFTApeanutstrade
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , December 1995 , pp. 595 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1995

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.)

References

Carley, Dale H. and Fletcher, Stanley M.. “International Trade Liberalization Impact on the U.S. Peanut Industry.” J. Agribusiness, 11(Spring 1993):51–65.Google Scholar
Foster, William E. and Babcock, Bruce A.. “Commodity Policy, Price Incentives, and the Growth in Per-Acre Yields.” J. Agr. and Applied Econ., 25(July 1993):253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Accounting Office. “Peanut Program: Changes Are Needed to Make the Program Responsive to Market Forces.” GAO/RCED-93-18, February 1993.Google Scholar
Rucker, R. R. and Thurman, W.N.. “The Economic Effects of Supply Controls: The Simple Analytics of the U.S. Peanut Program.” J. Law & Econ., 33(October 1990):483–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucker, Randal R., Thurman, Walter N., and Borges, Robert B.. “The Effects of the Uruguay Round GATT on U.S. Peanut Markets,” CARD GATT Research Paper Series, #92-GATT 23, Iowa State University, July 1994.Google Scholar
Schaub, James D., and Wendland, Bruce. “Peanuts: Background for 1990 Farm Legislation.” USDA ERS publication AGES 89-61, November 1989.Google Scholar
Southeast Farm Press. “Ag Secretary ‘Supports’ Peanut Growers.” November 1993, p. 14.Google Scholar
Southeast Farm Press. “Field Hearings Offer Chance to Be Heard.” December 1, 1993, p. 2.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. Agricultural Act of 1949, Public Law 81-439, 81st Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 31, 1949.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, 73rd Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1933.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. Food and Agricultural Act of 1977, Public Law 95 113, 95th Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1977.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC: USDA, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Effects of the Uruguay Round Agreement on U.S. Agricultural Commodities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1994.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Oil Crops: Situation and Outlook Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Fats and Oils Situation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Peanut Stocks and Processing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. “Formulation of the 1990 Farm Bill (Peanut Program).” Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Tobacco and Peanuts of the Committee on Agriculture, 101 st Congress, Serial No. 101-30. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. “Peanut Price Support Program.” Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources of the Committee on Agriculture, 103rd Congress, Serial 103-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.Google Scholar
U.S. Tariff Commission. Report to the President. TC1.2:D14. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1, 1953.Google Scholar