Agricultural Policy Distortions

Which sector in the economy accounts for 70% of the global cost of trade distortions but only 3% of global GDP?  Agriculture.    

Kym Anderson, Gordon Rausser, and Jo Swinnen have an excellent review article in the newest issue of the Journal of Economic Literature on agricultural policy worldwide.  They reveal that agricultural markets are among the most distorted in the world, recent price spikes have been amplified by agricultural policies, and some of the poorest people in the world are hurt by agricultural policies in developing and developed countries alike.  

A few of quotes: 

For advanced economies, the most commonly articulated reason to restrict food  trade has been to protect domestic producers from import competition as they come under competitive pressure to shed labor. However, such measures harm not only domestic consumers and exporters of other products but also foreign producers and traders of food products. Accordingly, these measures also diminish national and global economic welfare

and

policies in developing countries have not been motivated by a desire to alleviate poverty in their rural areas (where most of the world’s poor reside) any more than have been the policies of developed countries.

and

In developed countries, agricultural policy remains disproportionately important compared to the relatively small shares of the upstream agriculture component in GDP and employment. For example, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) continues to absorb 40 percent of the entire EU budget

The paper is chock full of fascinating figures on trade distortions in agriculture, such as this one on international comparisons of relative rates of assistance (RRA), which measure the policy-induced price distortions in agriculture relative to a country's non-agricultural policy-induced price distortions.  A positive number means a country's policies are pushing up agricultural prices relative to the world price (and relative to non-agricultural sectors); a negative number implies the opposite.  The larger the number in absolute value, the bigger the distortion and thus the larger the misallocation of resources.

What Do Regular People Want Out of the Farm Bill?

One of the things I vividly remember learning in my first class on agricultural policy was that the farm bill is a result of a political compromise.  As the story goes, including food stamps in the farm bill encourages support from urban legislators while the farm support provisions bring in the more rural legislators (farmers benefit from food stamps too by poorer consumers having more money to spend on food).  The farm bill is a grand compromise of sorts - a comprise funded by the taxpayers.

After a long run, it appears this compromise might be breaking down.  Much has been written in the past couple weeks about the defeat of the farm bill in the House.  Here is one decent description at Forbes.com of the politics at play.  In short, Democrats were unhappy with the cuts to food assistance and the introduction of work requirements to get food stamps.  Some deficit-watching Republicans didn't think the cuts went far enough.  It is true that the cuts to food assistance were large in dollar terms (see the graphics in this Washington Post article) but if you place them in terms of a percentage reduction relative to the overall size of the farm-bill budget, they are actually smaller than cuts to some other areas.  The reasons is that food stamps and nutrition programs make up almost 80% of the farm bill budget.  

I've shared my general thoughts on farm programs in chapter 7 of the Food Police but here are a few more.  Although I realize it is probably politically infeasible (although perhaps less so given recent developments), it would seem to make some sense to me to separate the components of the farm bill and see if they can stand on their own.  Those advocating for food-stamp spending should make their case and put the money over in the Department of Health and Human Services.  Those advocating for farm supports should make arguments with merits that stand on their own grounds.  

Right now I'm not going to get into the merits and demerits of the current farm bill.  However, what I don't see reported much is what regular folk think.  A couple years ago, we conducted a survey on exactly this topic and the results are discussed in Choices Magazine, a publication of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.  In the survey, we posed the following questions to respondents: "Suppose the USDA gave you $100 to divide among its six budget categories. How much money would you give to each budget category? (If you would not give money to a certain category, please place a zero (0) in its box."  In essence, we asked people to make their own farm-bill budget.  For one group, we gave them information on the spending allocation by the USDA in 2008, for another group we didn't give them any information.  

Although people prefer a lot of support for food assistance (28% or 20% of the budget depending on information) , this is much lower than current farm bill proposed allocation (almost 80%).  Moreover, here are the results from another question, where we simply asked people to indicate which category they thought was most important. 

Far and away, food safety and inspection was seen as most important. 

Now, I'm not saying we should set policy based on these kinds of survey responses (e.g., did people understand the FDA not the USDA handles a lot of the food safety and inspection issues in the country?; We didn't ask if they wanted the size of the pie to be larger or smaller, etc).  But I find them interesting nonetheless.  

Why don't people shop like they vote?

The fact that people are often willing to vote to ban items that they willingly buy in the supermarket is something of a paradox.  In the case of eggs from caged hens, about 63% of Californians voted to ban eggs from cages, but the market share of caged eggs is only about 5-10%.  I talked about this in my co-authored book on animal welfare with Bailey Norwood and I've written about it in published research in other contexts with Kate Brooks.

I've heard Glynn Tonsor at K-State refer to the effects of this sort of situation as an unfunded mandate, and I think that is an apt description.  Voters mandate that farmers adopt a practice that they subsequently are unwilling to fund with their shopping behavior.  

Yesterday, Modern Farmer ran a story on precisely this quandary.  They interviewed Norwood about the issue and here is what he had to say: 

“It is a real part of them, just like it’s real when you say you want to lose weight,” hypothesizes Norwood. “But then when you actually have to go to the gym or eat the smaller meals, you’re less likely to do it. We always fall short of our ideal self.”

Also, he says, humans are social animals, and in different settings, people act differently. At the store you’re thinking about getting what you need, saving money, acting as an individual. “In the voting booth, you’ve got your ethical hat on, thinking as a citizen,” says Norwood.

Bailey is describing what many have referred to as the citizen vs. consumer hypothesis.  I definitely think that is part of what is going on.  

When I present this "paradox" to academic audiences (or when I've heard others present it), it is very common for someone to conjecture that people vote this way to constrain their future selves.  The argument is that consumers really want to buy cage free eggs but when they get in the store, they just can't commit to doing so.  This sort of answer is conceptually plausible and it is partially (though not fully) consistent with Bailey's explanation.  But, I don't find it likely.  Here's why.  People could constrain themselves in other ways but they don't.  For example, they could shop only at grocery stores (like Whole Foods) that only carry cage free eggs.  It is simply hard for me to imagine that paying an extra $1 to $2 for a dozen eggs is a result of a lack of willpower.

I seriously doubt that there is a single explanation for the "paradox."  My favorite (unproven) hypothesis is simply that price is more salient in the store than the voting booth.  People are more likely to vote for a ban because, unlike the grocery store, the costs aren't transparent, immediate, and direct.  

Of course, there are many other competing hypotheses and I'm working now with Norwood and Tonsor and Brooks to try to understand the issue more fully.  It's problems like this that make research fun!

Country of Origin Labeling for Meat

About a decade ago, the US Congress passed mandatory country of origin labeling for a variety of food products including beef and pork.  At the time, we did some research on the costs of the law and the demand responses that would be required to offset those costs.  

In the intervening years, the law was implemented, the US was taken to court by Canada and Mexico, and the US labeling law was deemed to be an illegal trade barrier by the World Trade Organization (WTO).  However, rather than dropping the law altogether, lawmakers have doubled down and made them even more onerous and costly in an attempt to comply with the WTO ruling (you can read the current regs here).    ​

There is a key disconnect that is driving much of this debate.  When you ask people on surveys if they want to know the origin of their meat products, almost all say "yes."   But, when you look at the data on whether people read origin labels or whether demand for meat has been affected by the origin laws, a much different story emerges.   ​

Given that backdrop, I found the recent editorial by the president of the National Cattlemans Beef Association interesting (the Kansas Study to which he refers is here, and as you can see, I was a co-author on that publication)​.  Here is an excerpt:

It seems as if the first thing that is said whenever COOL is brought up is, “I am proud of the cattle my family raises,” and that is absolutely correct. I too am very proud of my family’s operation and all the work my wife and I, with our children and grandchildren, do to produce great beef. But a mandatory labeling program run by the federal government is not the way I want to showcase my product and add value. Labeling programs can work - just look at Certified Angus Beef or Safeway’s “Rancher’s Reserve.” These are marketing programs that are run by individuals with a specific interest and that is to promote and sell more beef to put on dinner tables across America. That is why these programs are successful. Additionally there is a tremendous amount of time and effort that goes into marketing these programs to the consumer.. But slapping on a label that says where this product was born, raised and slaughtered does not achieve the same result. In fact, a study by Kansas State University conducted in November of 2012 titled Mandatory County of Origin Labeling: Consumer Demand Impact made some key findings on this subject. The study found that mere country-of-origin information has not impacted consumer demand for beef or other covered products, and in fact, that many consumers are unaware labeling information exists. This is the issue with allowing the federal government to mandate a marketing program - it is not in their wheelhouse. Marketing at its very core relies on the distinction of one product from another. Neither USDA, nor any other government agency, can make that distinction based on origin labeling.

Food Fear Mongering

A colleague forwarded me this story from NBC news.​  It's really hard to know where to start in on all the misleading claims and innuendos.  There first couple paragraphs will give you a sense of the tone:

American eaters, let’s talk about the birds and the bees: The U.S. food supply – from chickens injected with arsenic to dying bee colonies – is under unprecedented siege from a blitz of man-made hazards, meaning some of your favorite treats someday may vanish from your plate, experts say.

Warmer and moister air ringing much of the planet – punctuated by droughts in other locales – is threatening the prime ingredients in many daily meals, including the maple syrup on your morning pancakes and the salmon on your evening grill as well as the wine in your glass and the chocolate on your dessert tray, according to four recent studies.

At the same time, an unappetizing bacterial outbreak in Florida citrus droves, largely affecting orange trees, is causing fruit to turn bitter. Elsewhere, unappealing fungi strains are curtailing certain coffee yields and devastating some banana plantations, researchers report.

​Strictly speaking, each of the above examples does indeed correspond to a real challenge faced in each of the above industries.  But, does it represent a "food supply under assault" as the title of the article suggests?  Are each of these the cause of global warming?  The author later blames problems on "mono-culture" agriculture but that doesn't fit well any of the commodities described above. 

Much of the paranoia seems to stem from an interview with one professor of public health at Johns Hopkins who is quoted as saying things like:​

We need to regard all of these (examples) as a very powerful motivator to try to work on the carbon emissions, to start pushing that parts per million of carbon dioxide back down

​and

“Maybe seeing this impact all this has on our ability to raise the food we depend on will get us to the tipping point of real policy change and real action,” Lawrence said. “I hope so.”

Another professor of environmental science is quoted as saying:

We’re in a situation where the food supply is more vulnerable than it has ever been

​Providing a few anecdotal stories does not constitute scientific evidence.  If we are indeed so vulnerable, why is it that crop prices in the US have come down off their highs a year or so ago.  If late corn planting were really a sign of disaster (as this article suggests), it would be reflected in high corn prices but that's not what we're seeing.    

Moreover, why didn't the author actually go to the data and look at per-capita food availability (which can be found here)​, which doesn't reveal any general lack of scarcity. Or, why didn't they turn to the research on the projected impacts of climate change on agricultural production, which suggests it may be beneficial for agriculture (for some counter evidence, see here).  Either way, yes climate change will likely hurt some regions and some commodities, but it will also help other regions and commodities.  Growing corn and melons in Canada will become much easier (and less costly) if it gets warmer there.  

Its this sort of fear mongering based on anecdotal evidence, rejection of modern technology, ​followed up by ill-advised (and under-researched) policy recommendations that largely motivated me to write the Food Police.