18 (Schonhardt-Bailey 2006). Significant inequality among farmers in England, Germany, and France at the end of the nineteenth century weakened the pro-tariff demands of major grain farmers because they were opposed by small farmers, many of whom were livestock producers. In many countries, small and large farmers are organized in different collectiveaction groups (Swinnen 2009).

Nonetheless, the growth and concentration of agribusinesses and food-processing companies, which are sometimes aligned with farm interests in lobbying for agricultural policies, serve to strengthen pro-farm interests (Anderson 1995; Rausser, Swinnen, and Zusman 2011). Since farm lobbies and agribusiness interests can coalesce and are increasingly well capitalized and concentrated, they have been an important force in orchestrating public policies that benefit their interests. In Europe, the growth of agricultural protection has been associated with the growth of cooperative agribusiness and foodprocessing (and even transport and storage) companies.

Econometric studies by Gawande and Hoekman (2006) and López (2008) show empirically the influence of agribusiness and food companies’ political contributions on US policies. Similar arguments have been advanced by François, Nelson, and Pelkmans-Balaoing (2008), who explicitly integrate vertical relationships in the agri-food system. By integrating factor-market rivalry and input-output linkages in a Grossman-Helpman model, Cadot, de Melo, and Olarreaga (2004) show that protection escalates with the degree of processing. This finding helps explain why rich countries protect agriculture more than they do manufacturing, whereas poor countries do the reverse.

# _3.2.4. Information_

Information plays a crucial role in political markets, organization, and policy design. Downs’s (1957) “rationally ignorant voter” principle means that it is rational for voters to be ignorant about certain policy issues if the costs of information are higher than the (potential) benefit of being informed. This argument immediately implies that policies will be introduced that create concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, since the information costs are relatively large for those who carry the burden of financing transfers and relatively small for those who receive the benefits (Rausser 1992). As a result, forces that change information costs may cause changes in public policies, including agricultural protection. One example is enhanced rural communication infrastructure, which occurs either through public investments (as in many high-income countries earlier in the twentieth century) or through technological innovations and commercial distributions (as in the recent dramatic increase in mobile-phone use in developing countries).

Another influencing factor is the spread of commercial mass media (McCluskey and Swinnen 2010).<sup>25</sup> While television and radio were always commercial in some rich countries (such as the United States), that was not the case in European countries, where, until the 1980s, radio and television were mostly publicly owned (and many newspapers were linked to political parties). Only in the past 20 years has rapid growth of commercial mass media occurred in most countries. Access to mass media empowers people politically, and a more informed and politically active electorate increases the incentives for a government to be responsive (Besley and Burgess 2001; Strömberg 2004a). This influence has been found for various types of government programs, such as unemployment programs and disaster relief (Eisensee and Strömberg 2007; Strömberg 2004b; Francken, Minten, and Swinnen 2012),

> 25 Mass media can also affect policymaking by creating a bias in the provision of information (Baron 2006; Gentzkow and Shapiro 2006; Groseclose and Milyo 2005; Sutter 2001). Media bias can take various forms, and there is no generally accepted definition. Media bias can result from preferences of owners, editors, or journalists. It can also result from falsehoods or from information hidden or distorted by sources or journalists eager for a scoop or under pressure to attract attention, or it can result from consumers’ preferences.