X hits on this document

216 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

57 / 81

78

40

57

35

80

41

136

54.9

166

54

64

16

979

137

1,306

170

1,350

162

1,005

134

1,372

187

1,309

182

1,057

176

1,363

205

1.431

202

1,140

189

1,538

242

1,372

198

18

13

46

8

43

12

24

10

46

13

31

5

8

3

11

5

8

3

11

4

5

2

6

3

26

16

56

13

50

15

35

14

52

15

37

8

1,360

375

1,753

324

1,820

300

1,503

286

2,481

394

1,765

290

78

99

116

100

99

111

77

97

90

93

80

77

1998

Volume

Value

1999

Volume

Value

2002

Volume

Value

2003

Volume

Value

2000

Volume

Value

2001

Volume

Value

United States

On a crop-by-crop basis, corn is the largest recipient of US government subsidies, averaging $3.7 billion annually during 1994–2003.149 This should not be surprising, since corn is also the leading US crop in terms of area cultivated (about 76 million acres in 2001) and value of production ($21 billion in 2002).150 Indirectly, large agribusinesses, such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (which market about 70 percent of US corn ex- ports), benefit from corn subsidies because they can sell a larger crop at lower prices. 151

149. US corn subsidies, which rise when the price falls, were very high in 2000, totaling $10.1 billion. They dropped to $1.7 billion in 2003. The Commodity Credit Corporation figures in- clude direct government payments, countercyclical payments, and market loan payments. Based on USDA Table 35, CCC Net Outlays by Commodity and Function, www.fsa.usda. gov/dam/bud/bud1.htm (accessed in July 2005).

150. See Foreman (2001) and USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) statis- tical database, January 2004.

151. The Mexican government indirectly subsidizes both companies. Cargill, for example, re- ceives support from the Mexican government for the sale and transport of grain. Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, Co. also hold stakes in the largest Mexican tortilla and flour pro- cessing firms (Maesca and Minsa), which historically have benefited from public subsidies.

AGRICULTURE

339

Institute for International Economics | www.iie.com

Document info
Document views216
Page views216
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 13:29:02 UTC 2016
Pages81
Paragraphs3212
Words35520

Comments