Economists and the 2002 Farm Bill: What Is the Value-Added of Policy Analysis?

By Gardner, Bruce | Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, October 2002 | Go to article overview

Economists and the 2002 Farm Bill: What Is the Value-Added of Policy Analysis?


Gardner, Bruce, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review


The 2002 Farm Act is used as a case study of three problematic considerations related to economists' role in policy issues: priority on economic efficiency versus income distribution, the role of benefitcost analysis, and appropriate policies given market power of agribusiness. The results of the 2002 Act relevant to each of these issues have been widely criticized, raising questions about the effectiveness of economists' involvement. However, given the uncertainties about many key program effects, criticisms of the Act are themselves in question. In this context, the role of economists is seen analytically as generating information for Bayesian decision makers, and practically as gaining attention for that information in the political process.

Key Words: benefit-cost analysis, farm bill, policy analysis

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002-the Farm Bill-is popular politically. It passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 280 to 141, and in the Senate by 64 to 35, and was signed by President Bush in May 2002 without a discouraging word. Yet, after passage, the Act has received little but criticism from economists, the national media, and commentators of all stripes.1

This situation raises questions that are highly relevant to the topic of the public-service role of economists. Are the critics correct? To what extent did economists influence the Act? How were economic issues integrated with the politics of the Act?

I will focus on three topics in the huge set of legislative provisions where the outcome has been particularly contentious: (1) the level of spending, (2) the allocation of spending between commodity program payments and conservation/environmental programs, and (3) restrictions on meatpacker ownership of livestock. After addressing these issues, the paper turns to a discussion of how economists' contributions may be evaluated.

Issues in the Farm Act

Level of Spending

The main budget news about the 2002 Act is the projection that new provisions of the Act will cost $80 billion over the 10 fiscal years 2002-2011 (Congressional Budget Office, 2002). Of this amount, $45 billion are for fixed direct payments and the new "countercyclical payments" (basically a reinstitution of pre-1996 deficiency payments but without setaside requirements). These amounts are in addition to the direct payments of about $4 billion per year which were already in the baseline budget.2 The result is total commodity program spending of about $20 billion per year over the next five years. This is a lot, but as figure 1 shows, it is about $4 billion per year less than the federal government has been spending over the last three years. The reason for the decline is that the market loss assistance and disaster assistance outlays of those years, which ran to $8.5 billion per year, are not in the baseline and are not completely replaced by the new countercyclical payments.

So the new 2002 farm bill is not quite the unprecedented bonanza for farmers it has been portrayed as being. But it is shockingly high-cost compared to the $10 to $12 billion average annual cost of 1988-- 1997, or the baseline for 2002-2005 which was on the books before the 2002 bill was enacted (shown in figure 1). Economists have good arguments to show the gains from these payments accrue almost entirely to landowners. Moreover, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) data (and from the Farm Subsidy database on the Environmental Working Group's website), we know that the payments go predominantly to wealthy people with large farms and, despite payment limitations, a lot of these payments are well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

Commodity Payments vs. Conservation Programs

Proposals were on the table, primarily in the Senate, which would have moved substantial sums of money away from direct payments and toward conservation, risk management, and rural development programs. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Economists and the 2002 Farm Bill: What Is the Value-Added of Policy Analysis?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.