Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:19:08.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental and Economic Impacts of Agricultural Policy Reform: An Interregional Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Kathleen M. Painter  and
Douglas L. Young
Kathleen M. Painter
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6210
Douglas L. Young
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mathematical programming results revealed that moving toward more flexible agricultural policies would generate substantial economic and environmental gains in a North Carolina diversified cropping region. But in a Washington-Idaho dryland grains region, only the use of relatively new and sometimes problematic alternative cropping systems permitted environmental and economic gains under policy reform. In both regions, a recoupling policy, which links government payments to resource-conserving farming practices, was needed to protect environmental quality when market prices for program crops were high.

Keywords

agrichemical leachingagricultural policyalternative agricultureerosionmathematical programming
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 1994 , pp. 451 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1994

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

Alston, J.M. and Hurd, B.M.. “Some Neglected Social Costs of Government Spending in Farm Programs.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 72,1(1990): 149–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbs, T.L. and Becker, D.L.. “Mandatory Supply Controls Versus Flexibility Policy Options for Encouraging Sustainable Farming Systems.” Amer. Alt J. Agr., 7,3(1992): 122–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, M. and Chase, C.. “Impacts of the 1985 Food Security Act on Crop Rotations and Fertilizer Use.” Dept. of Econ., Iowa State Univ., Ames, March 1989.Google Scholar
Faeth, P., Repetto, R., Kroll, K., Dai, Q., and Helmers, G.. Paying the Farm Bill: U.S. Agricultural Policy and the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture. Washington, DC: World Resources Inst., March 1991.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. F APRÌ 1991 U.S. Agricultural Outlook. Staff Rpt. #1-91, Iowa State Univ., Ames, and Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, Jan. 1991.Google Scholar
Foster, T.H. “Farm Level Impacts of Reduced Chemical Use on Southern Agriculture: Discussion.” South. J. Agr. Econ., 23,1(1991):39–41.Google Scholar
Goldstein, W.A. “Alternative Crops, Rotations, and Management Systems for Dryland Farming.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Agronomy, Wash. State Univ., Pullman, 1986.Google Scholar
Halvorson, R.L. “Palouse Agriculture: Farm Characteristics and Farmer Perceptions on Policy Alternatives.” Unpublished M.A. thesis, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Wash. State Univ., Pullman, 1991.Google Scholar
Hertel, T.W. “Gainers and Losers with Supply Control: An Economy-Wide Perspective.” Choices, 3,4(1988):10–13.Google Scholar
Ikerd, J.E. “Applying LISA Concepts on Southern Farms.” South. J. Agr. Econ., 23,1 ( 1991 ):43–52.Google Scholar
Khan, M.A. and Liang, T.. “Mapping Pesticide Contamination Potential.” Environ. Manage., 3,2(1989):233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, J.A., Heady, E.O, and Olson, K.D.. “The Macro Implications of a Complete Transformation of U.S. Agricultural Production to Organic Farming Practices.” Agr., Ecosystems, and Environ., 10(l983):323–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., Klepper, R., and Sweeney, S.. “Field Crop Production on Organic Farms in the Midwest.” J. of Soil and Water Conserv., 33:130–34, 1978.Google Scholar
National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture. Washington, D.C: National Academy of Science, 1989.Google Scholar
Painter, Kathleen. “Farm Level Economic and Environmental Impacts of Farm Policy Proposals: An Interregional Comparison.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Ag. Econ. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, May 1992.Google Scholar
Painter, Kathleen, and Young, Douglas. Market Price Projections for Major U.S. Crops By Farm Policy Scenario. Staff Paper 91-1, Dept. of Agr. Econ., Wash. State Univ., Pullman, 1991.Google Scholar
Perry, G.M., McCarl, B.A., Rister, M.E., and Richardson, J.W.. “Modeling Government Program Participation Decisions at the Farm Level.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 71,4(1989): 1011–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribaudo, M.O.Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program. Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 606, USDA-Economic Res. Service, Washington, DC, 1989.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.S., Smith, E.G., Knutson, R.D., and Outlaw, J.L.. “Farm Level Impacts of Reduced Chemical Use on Southern Agriculture.” South. J. Agr. Econ., 23,1 (1991):27–37.Google Scholar
Smith, E.G., Knutson, R.D., Taylor, C.R., and Penson, J.B.. Impacts of Chemical Use Reduction on Crop Yields and Costs. AFPC, Dept. of Agr. Econ., Texas A&M Univ., in cooperation with the National Fertilizer and Environ. Res. Center of the Tennessee Valley Authority, 1990.Google Scholar
Sun, H., Bergstrom, J.C, and Dorfman, J.H.. “Estimating the Benefits of Groundwater Contamination Control.” South. J. Agr. Econ., 24,2(1992): 15–23.Google Scholar
Taylor, C.R., Penson, J.B. Jr., Smith, E.G., and Knutson, R.D.. “Economic Impacts of Chemical Use Reduction on the South.” South. J. Agr. Econ., 23,1(1991): 15–23.Google Scholar
Tobey, J.A. and Reinert, K.A.. “The Effects of Domestic Agricultural Policy Reform on Environmental Quality.” J. Agr. Econ. Res., 43(2):20–28, 1991.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Green County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1980.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1974a.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1974b.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Washington, DC, 1987.Google Scholar
Walker, D.J. and Young, D.L.. “The Effect of Technical Progress on Erosion Damage and Economic Incentives for Soil Conservation.” Land Econ., 62,1(1986):83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar