Talk:Agricultural policy

message: I started a big re-work of the article. I added a wiki-standard article, and tried to make other sections more closely conform to wiki style. Feco 22:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the structure of the article is a lot better now... it has room for expansion in ag policy areas. There is still a lot of need for cleanup... some of the sections are long and rambling... I consolidated a lot of content w/out writing transitions or removing duplicated info... a cleanup with those goals in mind would be great. Feco 20:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5/19 BIG edits 

message: I think developing countries should take advantage of farm subsidies instead of opposing them. In fact, cheaper farm imports and resources freed that were previously employed in farming can combine to produce powerful advantage. The savings from the above two factors can be good enough to move away from farm jobs. See my blog entry for more details.
:haven't gone to your blog, but.... a developing country is usually the definition of poor, especially the central government. How would it pay farm subsidies to its own farmers? Feco 04:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorer Countries should take advantage of Farm Sub 

message: Agricultural policy goes beyond subsidies, mabye this page should be moved to Agricultural subsidy or the scope of the article needs to be widened.--nixie 11:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of Article

message: whats this about a US rice farmer getting 1000000 over 5 years? 200,000 a year. each? I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. Also gdp of spain is 800 billion dollars according to world bank and EU budge agricultural subsidy is 40 billion euro.  I dont know how much canadian cows are subsidised or how much milk cartons cost. All these were added by 217.128.218.169 5 feb 2004 Sandpiper 13:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: incorrect facts

message: There is a huge section titled subsidy and tiny ones headed  price control and import barriers. Maybe no one knows much about these last two, but at least some of the polemic under subsidies ought to be spread about.Sandpiper 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance of content 

message: I have a problem with suggested section headings  arguments for.. and arguments against. While I am reasonably happy that the 'arguments against' are in fact what it says, I am not happy at describing the section 'arguments for' as such. 
A number of things listed are aims and objectives which governments seek to carry out. To say that a certain aim is sought, is not to say that this aim is good. Saying that these are 'arguments for' implies that things in this section explain why agricultural policy is good. Economists might (and do) argue that self-sufficiency in food is an illusive aim and in practice does not confer a benefit. Well, the 'against' section makes this point about whether the policy really works. But the 'for' section is not exactly constructed to say why policies are good. Rather it goes through a list of the sorts of things which make up agricultural policy, good and bad. It does suggest that certain governments consider these aims desireable, but a neutral observer might not. Some of the policies indeed are contradictory...protected markets are likely to lead to expensive food. So inherently, what one government thinks is good, another thinks is bad.
So conceptually I see the sections as first one listing policies and reasoning for them, second containing criticisms. It may be that this scheme leaves an opening for a third section, but I don't see there is enough material to put in it. Rather there should be a rounded discussion in both sections so that all points are covered.Sandpiper 01:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against... 

message: Agricultural policy has a very long history.  A lot of subsidies continue because lobbying groups have developed to maintain a subsidy that was implemented a long time ago to address a problem that no longer exists.  This makes it kind of difficult to write an "argument for" section...  We can speculate, I suppose, that subsidies to rice, cotton, and sugar originated after the civil war to buy political support from the southern states where these crops are grown.  Is "bribing southern states not to secede" a legitimate "argument for"?
Don't give short shrift to the "food self sufficiency" argument.  World war II wasn't all that long ago and long before there were weapons of mass destruction, cutting off a country's food supply was considered an extremely efficient means of killing off large amounts of your opponent's population.  Millions of people in Russia starved to death.  
Another self sufficiency argument:  Look at North Korea, and how food aid is being used as a political tool to put external pressure on the North Korean regime.  If you become reliant on food imports you make yourself vulnerable to foreign government manipulation of your food supply for political reasons.  The United States tried this on the USSR in the seventies with the grain embargo, although it failed miserably (USSR just imported wheat from other sources).
I wouldn't be surprised if basically all countries that use "self sufficiency" as an argument have been invaded in the last century.
===Developing Countries Actually Gain from US Ag Subsidies===
An important, but almost universally overlooked, result of US subsidies is that most developing countries actually benefit, on aggregate.  As section 3.1 points out, developing countries are importing cheap food from developed coutries.  Consequently, most of the population is consuming cheaper food than if there were no US subsidies.  Of course there are still distributional issues.  If you care more about the rural poor than the urban poor, the argument against subsidies stands.  But on aggregate, for a vast majority of developing coutries, the gains from cheap food outweigh the loss to displaced farmers.  In other words, the beneficiaries (presumably urban households) could theoretically compensate the losers (presumably rural households, but not necessarily) and still come out a head.  There has been serious research on this subject.  I can point out the working papers by various economists (NBER, UMD) if necessary.
----->In the short run countries may benefit from cheaper food prices but in the long run the drawbacks begin to catch up. The more foreign food brought into the country will lower the price further.  Lower prices will force more local farmers out of business until the country is completely reliant upon foreign food to sustain the country. At which point importers gain leverage. At any point foreign food could be pulled ie war, new WTO negotiations, natural resource prices like oil, etc. Any number of things would leave the country completely helpless but to pay higher prices than before. Less Supply --> Higher prices in the long run. It's been suggested the United States to stop producing food completely. Explaining "the US producing food is like a doctor working at a walmart cashier, it's highly inefficient. It doesn't matter, because we'd never trust another country with all our food production.
-will h.
Interesting point: The 2007-2011 period of high food prices was predicted to lead to sharp increased world wide malnutrition, also in regions with normal rain, based on an economic model that supposed low elastic response of small rural farmers. (as USDA and World Bank always suppose in their economic models.)  In the real world, malnutrition went DOWN, because small farmers quickly reacted to lower food imports resulting from high world prices, by increasing their output and earning much more money on local and regional markets as they had done in decades. I saw it happening with my own eyes in this period in Ethiopia, Somalia and Congo.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for... 

message: An important, but almost universally overlooked, result of US subsidies is that most developing countries actually benefit, on aggregate.  As section 3.1 points out, developing countries are importing cheap food from developed coutries.  Consequently, most of the population is consuming cheaper food than if there were no US subsidies.  Of course there are still distributional issues.  If you care more about the rural poor than the urban poor, the argument against subsidies stands.  But on aggregate, for a vast majority of developing coutries, the gains from cheap food outweigh the loss to displaced farmers.  In other words, the beneficiaries (presumably urban households) could theoretically compensate the losers (presumably rural households, but not necessarily) and still come out a head.  There has been serious research on this subject.  I can point out the working papers by various economists (NBER, UMD) if necessary.
----->In the short run countries may benefit from cheaper food prices but in the long run the drawbacks begin to catch up. The more foreign food brought into the country will lower the price further.  Lower prices will force more local farmers out of business until the country is completely reliant upon foreign food to sustain the country. At which point importers gain leverage. At any point foreign food could be pulled ie war, new WTO negotiations, natural resource prices like oil, etc. Any number of things would leave the country completely helpless but to pay higher prices than before. Less Supply --> Higher prices in the long run. It's been suggested the United States to stop producing food completely. Explaining "the US producing food is like a doctor working at a walmart cashier, it's highly inefficient. It doesn't matter, because we'd never trust another country with all our food production.
-will h.
Interesting point: The 2007-2011 period of high food prices was predicted to lead to sharp increased world wide malnutrition, also in regions with normal rain, based on an economic model that supposed low elastic response of small rural farmers. (as USDA and World Bank always suppose in their economic models.)  In the real world, malnutrition went DOWN, because small farmers quickly reacted to lower food imports resulting from high world prices, by increasing their output and earning much more money on local and regional markets as they had done in decades. I saw it happening with my own eyes in this period in Ethiopia, Somalia and Congo.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Developing Countries Actually Gain from US Ag Subsidies

message: 66.167.136.246 12:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agricultural subsidy now separate 

message: Bio-security is about the potential risk to humans of animal diseases. This should have nothing to do with agricultural policy, unless one wants to abuse the argument to keep out competition. The prominence and wording of the Bio-security argument in this wiki-article shows how intensely the argument is abused to reduce competition from non-western countries. The reason is that most other policies in meat markets are not allowed by WTO, or they are very expensive.
If one compares what the medical handbooks (Manson's Tropical Diseases, Gordon Cook) have to say about this subject, with what the departments of agriculture of EU and US say, one realizes that much of agricultural 'knowledge' on this subject is little more scare mongering. The rules were designed in the 1960, when there were no rapid tests nor awareness, nor fast means of communication in poor countries with such diseases. Since it has been proven that outbreaks in the rich world are 90 % the result of farmers, transporters and industry in the rich world, dodging the rules, sometimes deliberately to generate government assistance.
Still today, there is a total meat import ban for 3/4 of African countries' meat, not based on realistic assessments about health risks from a well controlled export quarantine system, but purely based on 1960's rules being kept up only to protect farmers in the rich world. The rules were always set by an independent body (OIE) but since they judged meat import rules should be relaxed, EU and US-DA put up their own rules. There are at least one, probably more animal diseases on the A-list that have become totally extinct in Africa. All other diseases are locally or regional, and well recognized, and quickly communicated by the community of cattle rangers. But nobody can prove that up to the standards demanded by EU-US. 
Each earoplane landing from an import ban country, imports about 50 kg of meat from that country in the luggage, meals and pockets of its passengers. Billions of animals each year fly, or hitch-hike with ships from such countries to the rich world. Any disease that is dangerous to humans, can also be imported in live human bodies. If there is a need for a total meat ban on all these countries, then there should also be a need for any person or ship or airplane moving from such a country to the rich world.
The dangers from a well organized frozen meat trade with such countries, are microscopic, compared to these risks of live birds and humans flying up and down in their billions.
If anyone wants prove about the ability of Africa exporting safe meat: 12 years ago, Somalia exported a deadly disease with live camels to Saudi-Arabia. This export line uses thousands of small vessels with live animals, so this is by far the most dangerous animal export line in the world. Since then the Saudi's and Somali's took a handful of simple measures, export resumed, and never again any desease was transmitted through this export line.
If Somalia can today safely export live animals over a short distance in dirty ships, then surely Africa can safely export all their meat through industrial quarantine, slaughter and freeze plants.
I seriously propose the Bio-hazard chapter is discussed under the header of The use of propaganda in agricultural policy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit (talk • contribs) 09:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bio-security does not belong in this article.. 

message: I would like to add a section on agricultural policy pertaining to food security, taking into account issues of climate change and sustainable development. Does that sound like something that would be relevant to this article? New editor, comments appreciated. Thanks. C.peterson32 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and added it - does it seem ok? Thanks! C.peterson32 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food Security 

message: I have noticed that there are some sections of this article which could use expansion, such as the sections under objectives of market intervention.  Particularly  environmental protection and land management. One good place to start may be looking at Farmland protection in rapidly developing urban settings such as the King County Farmland Preservation Program, which protects farmland around the Seattle metro area. The protection of this land helps to preserve much of king county’s wildlife habitats, farmers lively hoods, some very fertile soil, and helps prevent food desertification.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearsomecritters (talk • contribs) 04:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article expansion  

message: Dr. Mabiso has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Mabiso has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Diao, Xinshen & Kennedy, Adam & Badiane, Ousmane & Cossar, Frances & Dorosh, Paul & Ecker, Olivier & Hagos, Hosaena Ghebru & Headey, Derek & Mabiso, Athur & Makombe, Tsitsi & Malek, Mehrab & Schmidt, , 2013. "Evidence on key policies for African agricultural growth:," IFPRI discussion papers 1242, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Mabiso's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Agricultural policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721234746/http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/vcjdworld.htm to http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/vcjdworld.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928075440/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume1/execsum4.htm to http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume1/execsum4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318160614/http://www.oecd.org/statsportal/0,3352,en_2825_293564_1_1_1_1_1,00.html to http://www.oecd.org/statsportal/0,3352,en_2825_293564_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225932/http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=48532 to http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=48532
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Agricultural policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010203064300/http://bseinquiry.gov.uk/ to http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oecd.org/statsportal/0%2C3352%2Cen_2825_293564_1_1_1_1_1%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ty b.com 2409:4042:2D85:5DFF:0:0:A789:A909 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agricultural price policy in marathi information 

message: Hi Wikipedians. This article is a good start, but it is lacking a lot of potential content on specific policies, has some distracting unrelated content, and has sparse citations.
While many sections would benefit from expansion, the section on "Environmental Protection and Management" has a lot of potential. There are a large number of environmental protection related agricultural policies. 
As others have mentioned in this talk section, the "Biosecurity" section is a bit extraneous. While the content is interesting, the level of detail on specific aspects of the disease distract from the policy focus of this article. I feel that this section would make more sense to include in the Biosecurity article rather than this article on agricultural policy. 
As mentioned, the citations in this article are lacking. For instance, in the section "Objectives of market intervention" there is only 1 source cited. Without support, this article is left weak. In the section "Arguments against market intervention," there are also very few citations and the ones that are there are not linked. 
Thank you for all of your hard work Wikipedians --Skezmoh (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and Content Attention Needed  

message: — Assignment last updated by Jun3038 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

message: This article is a good start, however, there is still potential for more extensive research on how agricultural policies can impact poverty reduction. 
Within this segment, I will suggest changes to the opening sentence to provide a reliable frame of reference, taking into account that the statistic may have changed over time and that the provided citation does not appear to contain the relevant information. Additionally, I aim to offer additional information supported by trustworthy academic and credible sources. Emmahazelton (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty reduction