TL;DR: In this paper, the implications of supply and demand elasticities for efficiency in redistribution are examined with special attention to the comparison of production control and deficiency payment programs, and the results may be used to aid in the evaluation of commodity programs and as a basis for consideration of the hypothesis that observed policies are efficient, given the political power of interest groups.
Abstract: Efficiency in redistribution is measured in terms of deadweight loss generated per dollar of economic surplus transferred between consumers and producers of a commodity by means of market intervention. The implications of supply and demand elasticities for efficiency in redistribution are examined with special attention to the comparison of production control and deficiency payment programs. The results may be used to aid in the evaluation of commodity programs and as a basis for consideration of the hypothesis that observed policies are efficient, given the political power of interest groups.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an empirical framework for quantifying the extensive margin effects of commodity programs and chemical use taxes on potential groundwater pollution in Wisconsin, emphasizing the role of the joint distribution of crops and site characteristics in determining policy impacts on groundwater contamination.
Abstract: In this paper we present an empirical framework for quantifying the extensive margin effects of commodity programs and chemical‐use taxes on potential groundwater pollution in Wisconsin. The approach emphasizes the role of the joint distribution of crops and site characteristics in determining policy impacts on groundwater contamination. The results indicate that for a given reduction in total polluting acreage an increase in the Acreage Reduction Program rate for corn is well targeted and would reduce high‐polluting acreage more than a chemical‐use tax or a target price policy in the areas where it might be needed most.
TL;DR: Marty Strange as discussed by the authors exposes the biases in American farm policies that irrationally encourage expansion, a bias evident in federal commodity programs, income tax provisions, and subsidized credit services.
Abstract: Americans decry the decline of family farming but stand by helplessly as industrial farming takes over. The prevailing sentiment is that family farms should survive for important social, ethical, and economics reasons. But will they? Possibly not, if current policies are not altered, say Marty Strange. This timely book exposes the biases in American farm policies that irrationally encourage expansion-a bias evident in federal commodity programs, income tax provisions, and subsidized credit services. The farm financial crisis of the 1980s is a result of this trend toward bigness. As family farms are transformed, they become more specialized, more capital-intensive, and less resilient to the inherently unstable conditions in agriculture. Financial risks are therefore greater, and public assistance to expanding farms is more frequent and costly. Family Farming also exposes internal conflicts, particularly the conflict between the private interests of individual farmers and the public interest in family farming as a whole. It challenges the assumption that bigger is better, critiques the technological base of modern agriculture, and calls for farming practices that are ethical, economical, and ecologically sound. The alternative policies discussed in this book could yet save the family farm. And the ways and means of saving it are argued here with special urgency.
TL;DR: In this article, structural change in US agriculture is an important channel to TFP growth and evaluates the relative impact of public research and education policies, private R&D and market forces, and government farm programs on structural change.