Notably, to support a large population with food sustainability such as the U.S. needs a lot of agriculture strategies. Agriculture in the United States has long attracted government support. Farm subsidies did not start with the rise in the world economy in the U.S. but rather started a long time ago in the 18th century. However, the first agricultural subsidies aimed at other factors other than giving farmers direct funding. Notably, Morrill Act of 1862 was the first agriculture subsidy in the U.S., then Hatch acts in 1887 which funded agriculture research. Later, Smith-Lever act in 1914, supported agriculture education. The farm subsidies were still small supporting only a certain area of agriculture until 1920 when United States department of agriculture USDA concentrated on responding to statistics on agricultural problems such as plants infections and finding agricultural research. In agricultural marketing, Act created federal farm board that started giving direct subsidies to farmers in 1929 (Bovard, 2005). The board was however abolished when they started raising commodity prices by stockpiling produce creating farm boondoggle. In the 1930s, many programs were started to support agriculture beginning with agriculture act of 1933 which supported commodity prices, control of production, import barriers, controlled market orders and gave crop insurance. Although in recent past farm programs have changed, their central planning philosophy has not changed. All the main agendas of the programs have remained intact. While in the current economy farmers hold a small population in the U.S., their lobby is still very strong with congress even trying to expand the USDA budget. For instance, agricultural subsidies for seven years period 1996 Act which was targeted at $47 ended up to $121 (Batabyal, 2001). This shows that, even if farmers are the minority in the population, they still have an impact on the economy and that's the reason the government focuses on them. The government gives farmers subsidies in many forms including insurance, agriculture risk coverage, price loss coverage, conservation program, marketing loans among other subsidies levied to farmers. On the other hand, these subsidies assist the economy a lot and have many great advantages. Arguably, subsidies given by the government of U.S. have vast importance though they face many critiques from the rest of the world.
Notably, agricultural subsidies have assisted in assuring farmers a steady income. Many people support farm subsidies in the U.S. because they cover farmers in case of unfavorable conditions such as drought. Without subsidies, farming could be very difficult when the unpredictable changes in weather strike. Farmers who are part of economy growers would suffer because of variation in prices hiking and dropping due to this changes in weather which also lead to changes in production. However, subsidies have assisted in controlling the market and covering farmers with the subsidies insurance policies to assure them a steady income. Weather conditions such as drought and floods which also hurts agriculture production and income severely are also covered. Many farms in the U.S., therefore, cannot survive without subsidies as Katlyn confirms. She argues that even if some critics discourage subsidies saying that they damage the environment, farming will not be possible without subsidies in the U.S. Remarkably, there will be shortage of food in the united states which are not the best idea for a donor country like the U.S. Notably, the government of united states aims at providing enough cheap food for its citizens and on the other hand help other countries suffering hunger in the third world. In essence, it is the goal of every developed economy to have food security for its citizens. Therefore, the government of U.S. assures its citizens enough food while at the same time assuring farmers a steady income to encourage them to continue working.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Together with providing steady income to farmers, the government is also aimed at reducing food prices. According to Carter 2010, people in some other countries in the world consume sixty to eighty percent of their income on food. However, the U.S. government have assured its citizens reduced food prices to a point of citizens spending only ten percent of their income on food. He argues that without farm subsidies, farmers will be enabled to produce enough and hence there will be a shortage of food leading to higher costs that citizens cannot even afford. This research is also supported by another research by Alston, Sumner, and Vosti, (2008) which argues that reduced food prices in the U.S. have led to an increase in obesity cases among citizens in the U.S. However, this is one of the many critiques that face farm subsidiaries to discourage them. However, the government of U.S. is aiming at producing enough food for all its citizens regardless of critiques. It is better for citizens to suffer obesity because of abundant food rather than to suffer hunger. Low prices of food in the U.S. have also suffered other critiques that they are affecting the global food market by exporting food staffs at a very cheap price affecting farmers in the importing country, mostly the third world country. However, the government strategy when giving out subsidies is to assist its farmers to produce enough for local use. Though, when the production is good and there are countries suffering hunger, it is always important to export to them.
In essence, subsidies have helped the country to reduce agricultural import by helping their farmers to produce enough. Agricultural imports affects the country economy significantly because fund intended for other purposes are used in purchasing food staffs. The U.S. government therefore offers subsidies to farmers to reduce the possibility of the country importing while on the other hand promoting enough farm production and promote exports. Subsidies therefore allowed U.S. citizens to produce such that the country does not import. For example, when Mexico and U.S. signed an agreement of free trade among them, U.S. farmers were able to produce a lot of agricultural produce which they exported to Mexico. Although it was not a brilliant idea because Mexico farmers had their produce without subsidies and therefore they could not sell at the low price U.S. was selling at, U.S. government had increased its export when reducing imports of farm produce (Robinson, et al, 1993). The effect created by the subsidiary reaches even countries in the third world which are supposed to be farm produce exporters. Due to lack of support from the government such as subsidiaries, they end up producing less than their need. Then the government on U.S. takes opportunity to export its abundant to this countries. Arguably, the economy of a country grows significantly if the country is capable of producing enough for its citizens and if it is even capable to export the excess. Subsequently, the relationship between the U.S and the neighboring countries has improved due to their trade partnership which significantly involves trading of agricultural produce. Countries like Mexico and Canada are major trade partners with the U.S involving the interchange of these produces. Despite the fact that these countries also have an improved agricultural systems, the U.S subsidy had outweighed their production making it the largest producer of the products in the region. Thus, we can conclude that the trade involving the exchange of these products has also helped in the establishment of good trade relationship with its neighboring countries.
Subsidiaries on the other hand stabilize agriculture infrastructure greatly. Notably, farm subsidies encourage large-scale farming. Large-scale farming, on the other hand, requires heavy farm machinery to work with. Farming being one of the less paying professions, and financial help given to the farmer is very important because it gives the farmer a chance to invest in farming equipment's and technology. Many farmers thus get assurance of stabilizing their farming machinery from subsidies given by the government. Without subsidies many farmers will not be able to afford equipment's and technology required for better produce. They would also be unable to afford transportation means for the produce without government assistance because some transport machinery are very expensive. Therefore, we agree that U.S. government has significantly assisted in stabilizing farming by assisting farmers with funds to invest in machinery and technology and also providing a way for farmers to access far equipment's which they cannot afford to purchase privately. The government also provides a significantly cheaper transport for farm produce for farmers. Gardner, 2009 argues that the story of U.S. agriculture is a success story due to many factors including subsidies. He confirms that subsidies have well helped in development of agriculture significantly. Subsidies have assisted agriculture sector to move from analog way to marvel of technological progress and productivity. He also states that different from earlier farming in U.S., there is great improvement in equipment and technology leading to expansion in farming geographical area which the writer argues that has increased by more than 200 million acres since the beginning of financial assistance to farmers by the government. Advancement in farming technology and equipment has therefore allowed agriculture in U.S. rapidly at its extensive margin from the past farming method. However, this great step of technological farming has also faced critiques that it is affecting the environment. The critique complain that U.S. government subsidy has helped farmers to cultivate large part of land reducing land for natural resources. However, this critique has made no effect on the will of the government to support farming (Burke, & Emerick, 2016). Therefore, there is a significant advantage accrued to subsidies given to farmers by the government.
Notably, through the subsidies, the government has also been able to control the food supply. For the governed to be able to feed the ever-increasing population, there is a need for the government to find ways to manage food supply within its borders. With the continuing consumption and population progress, it shows that the world demand for agricultural produce will continue increasing for the next like forty years. In addition, research shows there is an increase in demand for farming resources such as land, water, and energy. This factor has reduces the ability of a country to produce enough for the population. If the government withdraws its subsidies, therefore, would be a threat to food supply. However, if the U.S. government continues to support farmers with subsidies, the state can continue maintaining its food security within its borders (Ross, Pandey, & Ross, 2015). Notably, farmers are faced with uncontrollable events that if the government does not support them they will fail to produce. The issue of climate and global warming, for instance, is an unpredictable condition that farmers cannot control. For a country to manage food supply, therefore, needs to subsidies farmers. The writer also argues that for the last half-century population has increased greatly. In the same way, food production to satisfy the population has increased even largely. This shows that when the world is faced by challenges like the increase in population, the government is able to come up with better strategies to curb the challenges and maintain supply (Godfray, et al, 2010). Subsidies are one of the best strategies that the government has come up with to manage food supply.
Moreover, subsidies have inflated land prices in the rural areas. Many people who live in the U.S. urban areas are now considering to buy land in the rural areas to enjoy subsidies. Through this way, we can argue that government subsidy promote urban-rural migration which is an important aspect to decongest cities. On the other hand, landowners in the rural areas have acquired extra money to raise their standards of living. Increase in demand for agricultural land has led to hiking of price encouraging many landowners to sell a portion while they develop the other. There is also increase in development in rural areas as population increases. The government also sees the need to develop these areas with public amenities like hospitals, water, and electricity (Gardner, 2009). Therefore, we can argue that government subsidies have played a vital role in the development of rural areas and rise in people's living standards in this area. Also, there has been a significant reduction of the unutilized land in the U.S, following the massive utilization of the land in agricultural practices. A significant size of land has been put into agricultural production, which is evident by big plantations across the country, which are characterized by both large scale and small scale farming practices.
To sum up this discussion, U.S. government farm subsidies have many advantages to the government and to farmers. However, other research still criticizes the agenda of the government to subsidize agricultural practices. History shows that agriculture subsidies started in the 18th century but have been developing to now that farmers are well funded by the government. Remarkably, there are many advantages beginning with the ability to give farmers steady incomes. Notably, with changes in weather conditions and seasons, farming cannot be relied upon sometimes. However, government subsidies cover many produce risk and therefore assure farmers a steady income. Secondly, the issue of food prices has been faced by many critiques but have not discouraged the government. Subsidies have allowed the government to control farm produce prices to a point where citizens are spending only ten percent of their income while in other countries they spend at least sixty percent. However, there are complaints that many citizens are turning heavyweight. In addition, subsidies have greatly reduced agricultural imports in U.S. while encouraging exports to other countries. Considering that farming is one of professions with least incomes, government subsidies have helped farmers to invest heavily in farm equipment and technology. Also considering the cost of agricultural technology and machinery, farmers could not have afforded this equipment that help them to farm in large scale and hence getting great produce. However, other researchers also give a negative opinion about it claiming that it has totally changed a lot of land to farming land which has significant effect on changing climate. Lastly, food management is a vital aspect in such an economy like U.S with such a big population. Subsidies have helped the government to manage food supply making sure they have sufficient for their citizens. In addition, demand for rural land has increased prompting to a hike in price for rural land. We can therefore conclude that subsidies have helped the government in reaching another level of food security. Even with more opposing opinion therefore, subsidies is an important factor in U.S. agriculture.
References
Alston, J. M., Sumner, D. A., & Vosti, S. A. (2008). Farm subsidies and obesity in the United States: National evidence and international comparisons. Food Policy, 33(6), 470-479.
Batabyal, A. A. (2001). By David Orden, Robert Paarlberg, and Terry Roe, Policy Reform in American Agriculture: Analysis and Prognosis.
Bovard, J. (2005). Hoover‘s Second Wrecking of American Agriculture. Future of Freedom Foundation.
Burke, M., & Emerick, K. (2016). Adaptation to climate change: Evidence from US agriculture. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(3), 106-40.
Gardner, B. L. (2009). American agriculture in the twentieth century: How it flourished and what it cost. Harvard University Press.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., ... & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812-818.
Robinson, S., Burfisher, M. E., Hinojosa-Ojeda, R., & Thierfelder, K. E. (1993). Agricultural policies and migration in a US-Mexico free trade area: A computable general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Policy Modeling, 15(5-6), 673-701.
Ross, R. B., Pandey, V., & Ross, K. L. (2015). Sustainability and strategy in US Agriculture food firms: An assessment of current practices. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 18(1), 17-48.
