RE: Public support for farm subsidies
David Levenstam wrote: >>Far more people support the general idea of freedom of speech than support many specific unpopular examples. The analysis of bundling issues and logrolling has a long history in the field of public choice, but an interesting recent paper on this topic is: Saari, D. and K. Sieberg (2001) "The Sum of the Parts can Violate the Whole" American Political Science Review, 95(2): 415-433. Alex Dr Alex Robson School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Commerce Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200. AUSTRALIA Ph +61-2-6125-4909 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2002 2:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Public support for farm subsidies Hi, I'm new to the list, having just moved here after 11 years in the Field of Farm Subsidies (Iowa), so I hope it's alright for me to reply. Living in Iowa I observed tremendous support for agricultural subsidies, including both price supports (which legislation under the Contract With American began to phase out) and ethanol subsidies (a form of ADC, or Aid to Dependent Corporations, in particular to Archer Daniel Midlands, which bills itself as "Supermarket to the World" but which might just as well call itself "Airline to Bob Dole"). Even many self-proclaimed conservatives supported ag subsidies during the Iowa Caucus seasons, and I saw some of them unabashedly demand from Phil and Wendy Gramm continued ag subsidies even as these conservatives applauded the Gramms' opposition to government subsidies. Having grown up in Chicago and lived in Denver I saw virtually no support whatsoever from urban residents, even statist-liberals, for ag subsidies. Of course I am speaking anecdotally, and not statistically, but I try to recall that the wording of a poll can substantially alter its results. Imagine, to take what seems like a clear example, the difference we might see between a poll that asked "do you support cutting welfare?" and one that asked "do you support cutting welfare if it would cut payments to starving single mothers?" or even one that asked simply "do you support cutting welfare if it would cut payments to single mothers?" Many people who would in general support cutting welfare might think twice when confronted directly with the possibility that a cut in welfare could reduce welfare payments to single mothers. To take an example that Milton Friedman has I believe used over the years, imagine the difference between asking whether people support freedom of speech and whether they support the freedom to say nasty things about Bill Clinton (or George Bush, or the Pope, or whomever; Iowa has a large percentage of Catholics in the population, many of whom take a dim view of criticizing the Pope). Far more people support the general idea of freedom of speech than support many specific unpopular examples. In our ag subsidy poll, imagine the different between asking Canadians (or indeed Americans) whether they (we) support increasing ag subsidies and asking whether they support increasing ag subsidies if other countries' governments already provide higher subsidies. Contrasting Canada's "low" subsidies with the subsidies of other governments plays, as Eric suggests, on Canadians' xenophobia; in the case of Americans, we have seen Pat Buchanan (and Ralph Nader, though he would deny it) playing likewise on American xenopobia. I've personally seen herds of conservatives who would otherwise at least claim to oppose Big Government stampeding after Buchanan (Pat again, not James) as he tried to lead them over the Big Government cliff of protectionism. Yet I cannot imagine that in any national poll that asked simply, "do you support higher ag subsidies" that Americans, even typically subsidy-sympathetical statist-liberals, would in any large percentage say "yes." Does anyone see any evidence that outside of areas in which farming plays a large role Americans support higher (or indeed continued) ag subsidies? Sincerely, David B. Levenstam In a message dated 7/30/02 3:07:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << This question has been bounced around on the armchair list for a while...here's a bit of evidence on the question. It's from Canada, but I doubt that American results would be that much different. The vast majority of Canadians support farm subsidies for the indefinite future. The question keys into a bit of standing Canadian anti-Americanism, but change the question wording to reflect American farmers receiving lower subsidies than the French, and I think results of an American poll would be quite similar. The poll, taken August 2001, can be found at: http://www.canadianalliance.ca/hotissues/viewby/index.cfm?DoID=756&readartic le =1&dirlevel=2&category=4&department=37 Eric -- "If you found out that Canadian farmers receive less subsidies than American or European farmers, which of these two statem
Re: Public support for farm subsidies
Hi, I'm new to the list, having just moved here after 11 years in the Field of Farm Subsidies (Iowa), so I hope it's alright for me to reply. Living in Iowa I observed tremendous support for agricultural subsidies, including both price supports (which legislation under the Contract With American began to phase out) and ethanol subsidies (a form of ADC, or Aid to Dependent Corporations, in particular to Archer Daniel Midlands, which bills itself as "Supermarket to the World" but which might just as well call itself "Airline to Bob Dole"). Even many self-proclaimed conservatives supported ag subsidies during the Iowa Caucus seasons, and I saw some of them unabashedly demand from Phil and Wendy Gramm continued ag subsidies even as these conservatives applauded the Gramms' opposition to government subsidies. Having grown up in Chicago and lived in Denver I saw virtually no support whatsoever from urban residents, even statist-liberals, for ag subsidies. Of course I am speaking anecdotally, and not statistically, but I try to recall that the wording of a poll can substantially alter its results. Imagine, to take what seems like a clear example, the difference we might see between a poll that asked "do you support cutting welfare?" and one that asked "do you support cutting welfare if it would cut payments to starving single mothers?" or even one that asked simply "do you support cutting welfare if it would cut payments to single mothers?" Many people who would in general support cutting welfare might think twice when confronted directly with the possibility that a cut in welfare could reduce welfare payments to single mothers. To take an example that Milton Friedman has I believe used over the years, imagine the difference between asking whether people support freedom of speech and whether they support the freedom to say nasty things about Bill Clinton (or George Bush, or the Pope, or whomever; Iowa has a large percentage of Catholics in the population, many of whom take a dim view of criticizing the Pope). Far more people support the general idea of freedom of speech than support many specific unpopular examples. In our ag subsidy poll, imagine the different between asking Canadians (or indeed Americans) whether they (we) support increasing ag subsidies and asking whether they support increasing ag subsidies if other countries' governments already provide higher subsidies. Contrasting Canada's "low" subsidies with the subsidies of other governments plays, as Eric suggests, on Canadians' xenophobia; in the case of Americans, we have seen Pat Buchanan (and Ralph Nader, though he would deny it) playing likewise on American xenopobia. I've personally seen herds of conservatives who would otherwise at least claim to oppose Big Government stampeding after Buchanan (Pat again, not James) as he tried to lead them over the Big Government cliff of protectionism. Yet I cannot imagine that in any national poll that asked simply, "do you support higher ag subsidies" that Americans, even typically subsidy-sympathetical statist-liberals, would in any large percentage say "yes." Does anyone see any evidence that outside of areas in which farming plays a large role Americans support higher (or indeed continued) ag subsidies? Sincerely, David B. Levenstam In a message dated 7/30/02 3:07:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << This question has been bounced around on the armchair list for a while...here's a bit of evidence on the question. It's from Canada, but I doubt that American results would be that much different. The vast majority of Canadians support farm subsidies for the indefinite future. The question keys into a bit of standing Canadian anti-Americanism, but change the question wording to reflect American farmers receiving lower subsidies than the French, and I think results of an American poll would be quite similar. The poll, taken August 2001, can be found at: http://www.canadianalliance.ca/hotissues/viewby/index.cfm?DoID=756&readarticle =1&dirlevel=2&category=4&department=37 Eric -- "If you found out that Canadian farmers receive less subsidies than American or European farmers, which of these two statements would come closer to your view: a) Canadian farmers should not receive subsidies to help them compete with the subsidies that farmers in other nations receive, even if this means that some farmers go bankrupt ... 13% b) Canadian farmers should receive subsidies to help them compete until farm subsidies in other nations are lowered, even if this means subsidizing farming for many years 78% c) no opinion ... 10% >>
Public support for farm subsidies
This question has been bounced around on the armchair list for a while...here's a bit of evidence on the question. It's from Canada, but I doubt that American results would be that much different. The vast majority of Canadians support farm subsidies for the indefinite future. The question keys into a bit of standing Canadian anti-Americanism, but change the question wording to reflect American farmers receiving lower subsidies than the French, and I think results of an American poll would be quite similar. The poll, taken August 2001, can be found at: http://www.canadianalliance.ca/hotissues/viewby/index.cfm?DoID=756&readarticle=1&dirlevel=2&category=4&department=37 Eric -- "If you found out that Canadian farmers receive less subsidies than American or European farmers, which of these two statements would come closer to your view: a) Canadian farmers should not receive subsidies to help them compete with the subsidies that farmers in other nations receive, even if this means that some farmers go bankrupt ... 13% b) Canadian farmers should receive subsidies to help them compete until farm subsidies in other nations are lowered, even if this means subsidizing farming for many years 78% c) no opinion ... 10%
Another Armchair Sighting -- Independent Institute
I repeat below the top part of the blurb, because I think it's almost great -- I wish that the "most were dying" included a range of numbers, 50-80% for instance, to go along with the 90% after. I mention this because, as part of the excellent idea that incentives matter, even with incentives you seldom reach 100% of desirable outcome. And too much gov't is to try to get this 100% by "free" regulation, rather than market incentives (IMO). Have others read the book? This promo makes it look really good; congratulations to Alex Tabarrok (again). Tom Grey ENTERPRENEURIAL ECONOMICS FOR FUN, PROFIT, AND A BETTER WORLD Until self-trained economist Edwin Chadwick came along, 19th-century Britain had a huge problem with its convicts bound for Australia: most were dying before they reached the "fatal shore" down under. Chadwick, however, proposed a solution as effective has it was simple. Instead of paying sea captains by the number of convicts that boarded their ships, he suggested paying them for the number of convicts who disembarked from their ships -- under their own power. It worked. Soon after Chadwick's policy was implemented, convict survival rates surged to over 90 percent. Clearly, incentives matter! This point is abundantly illustrated with novel examples in the new Independent Institute book, ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMICS: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science, explained its editor, Alex Tabarrok, in a talk at the FEE National Convention in Las Vegas in May.
