David Trinh

Let’s face it, agriculture subsidies are a totally unsexy issue.  And, unfortunately because agriculture subsidies are pretty dull, they don’t receive a tremendous amount of public scrutiny.  Consequently, these handouts have a tendency to get hijacked by special interests and eventually distort the free market in all sorts of perverse ways.  According to the Times, things have gotten so out of control in the EU that agriculture subsidies are now supporting gummy bear manufactures and European royalty.

However, not only do agriculture subsidies end up lining the pockets of the wrong sorts of farmers but they also have some pretty destructive effects in the wider world:

European officials and some economists believe that much of the cash from those subsidies ultimately trickles down to local farmers, since without them companies might buy cheaper food elsewhere. But the rebates have a powerful effect on global trade by depressing world prices and undercutting poor farmers outside Europe, whose incomes are damaged.  (Bold mine-DT)

Here we can see one hand of the industrialized world trying to help developing nations build up their economies, while the other hand of that same industrial titan strangles those same nations with agriculture subsidies that make it impossible for poor farmers to compete with big agribusiness.

If you focus on the surface of agriculture subsides they are pretty boring—not many people are interested in the going rate for a bushel of corn—but if you concentrate on the pernicious effects they have in the developing world they can actually be interesting and important!   Sure, focusing on glamorous project to build school, hospitals and cure malaria is very exciting business but there’s certainly a good deal we could do about our own boring domestic policies which could make just as much difference in the lives of the people we all would like to help.  Just a thought.