I recently discovered the kickAAS blog which is working for the abolition of all agricultural subsidies. Trade issues aren’t all that well represented in the blogosphere and it’s good to see anyone who wants to get in on that act. But as a lengthy comment on this entry argues, a complete abolition of subsidies is not the answer.
From a free-market perspective, agricultural subsidies are entirely wrong. By supporting “inefficient” unprofitable farms, governments are allowing them to continue in their current state rather than finding ways of operating which the market will support.
That free market argument also seems to require us to put no value on rural ways of life and communities. It is often entwined with claims that the principal of Comparative Advantage (where each community or country focusses on the one thing it does best, and supplies that to the others) means that the decline of agriculture in certain countries is not a concern as we can simply import what we need.
For those of us who believe that some communities should be supported and that the environment cannot sustain an approach based entirely on Comparative Advantage, agricultural subsidies quickly become an attractive solution. The problem is that the money is ending up in the wrong places, and that we are demanding other standards of poorer countries.
Could a system of agricultural subsidies not be developed which is tiered to support those smaller farmers who can demonstrate they are doing what they can to not rely on subsidies, while at the same time supporting their local community? Perhaps we should focus on that, and ease off on what we ask of other countries and trading blocs?