"One of the first studies of its kind after the US reformed a controversial export subsidy program called “Step 2,” Paying the Price estimates how much farmer incomes in West Africa could increase after further subsidy reform, and what these gains would mean in practical terms for a typical West African cotton farming household. The report confirms that substantial reform of American cotton subsidies in the 2007 Farm Bill could lead to increased income to feed an additional million children for a year or pay school fees for at least two million children living in poor West African cotton-growing households.""Reform" in the above, I gather, means the elimination of "counter-cyclical payments, marketing loans, and direct payments" in the U.S.
Trivia: This CD is in my collection.
Posts
3 comments:
At a quick glance, this looks like partial equilibrium, first order effect, but still good. Daniel should take note, since he's pushed the dev-country-ag-subsidies-are-ok-for-deving nations line (admittedly this is a more specific case)? Is cotton the only agricultural good that this would work for? (I think Dani Rodrik sort of said that in one his posts before)
Note also that one of the authors is Cato affiliated.
What are you going to do? Cato may be untrustworthy, but I trust Oxfam tremendously.
Cato may be untrustworthy, but I trust Oxfam tremendously.
Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe you're missing my point, but it seems like somebody's point is being missed. Maybe.
Also. Why? Only because
d(Robert's Ideology, Cato's Ideology)>d(Robert's Ideology, Oxfam's Ideology)? I mean, given that one assumes that one's ideology is roughly correct, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's the extent of the > that matters, or here, specifically, the word "tremendously". In the next post you criticize Barro and Cowen for production function type stuff. This paper has the same implicit assumptions + some more (partial equilibrium). Careful.
Post a Comment