Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T03:30:48.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The 1995 Farm Bill: Opportunities and Challenges for Economists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Howard H. Conley*
Affiliation:
Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC

Abstract

The 1994 congressional elections brought expectations of policy reform that extended to agriculture. This paper examines the role of economic analysis and how policymakers made use of it in developing the policies of the Agricultural Reconciliation Act, also known as the Freedom to Farm Act. Budget reduction pressures, other/secondary policy objectives, and a closed debate led to the system of fixed, declining payments to farmers that characterize an economist's solution, without the direct participation of economists, to interventionist government policy. Left unanswered are questions of political stability of the policy and whether the direct payments themselves are adequate or excessive.

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, M., Daft, L., and Earley, T.. “Large-Scale Land Idling Has Retarded Growth of U.S. Agriculture.” Report prepared for the National Grain and Feed Foundation, Washington DC, May 1994.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 7 February 1996, 142, pt. 17.Google Scholar
Cox, T.Assessing the Regional Impacts of Alternative Proposals for Reform or Elimination of Federal Milk Market Orders.” Testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. Washington DC, 23 May 1995.Google Scholar
Dicks, M. R., Ray, D. E., De La Torre Ugarte, D. G., and White, R.. “The Freedom to Farm Act.” Rep. No. 6, jointly prepared through Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, University of Tennessee, and Great Plains Agricultural Policy Center, Oklahoma State University, October 1995.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. “The Budget Reconciliation Proposal—Its Effects on the Agriculture Sector.” FAPRI Staff Rep., University of Missouri-Columbia, 6 December 1995a.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. “Impacts of Commodity Program Elimination on the U.S. Dairy Sector.” FAPRI Work. Pap. No. 4-95, University of Missouri-Columbia, 25 April 1995b.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. “Impacts of Elimination of the Commodity Credit Corporation Purchase Program on the U.S. Dairy Sector.” FAPRI Work. Pap. No. 7-95, University of Missouri-Columbia, 10 May 1995c.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. “Policy Options for the 1995 Farm Bill.” FAPRI Staff Rep., University of Missouri-Columbia, and Iowa State University, 27 April 1995d.Google Scholar
Frydenlund, J. E.Freeing America's Farmers: The Heritage Plan for Rural Prosperity.” Staff Rep., the Heritage Foundation, Washington DC, 1995.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. L.A 1995 Farm Bill to Improve the General Welfare.” Guest editorial. Choices (1st Quarter 1995): 1.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. D.Participation Levels and Farm Welfare Effects Under Alternative Portfolios of Risk Management Instruments.” Invited paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Risk Management Preconference, San Diego, 6 August 1994.Google Scholar
Iowa Farm Bill Study Team. “Findings of the 1995 Iowa Farm Bill Study Team.” B. Horan, Study Team Chairman, West Des Moines IA, January 1995.Google Scholar
Miranda, M. J., and Glauber, J. W.. “Providing Crop Disaster Assistance Through a Modified Deficiency Payment ProgramAmen J. Agr. Econ. 73(November 1991): 1234–43.Google Scholar
National Institute for Livestock and Dairy Policy, Dairy Market and Policy Education Committee. “Comments on Federal Milk Marketing Orders: A Response to Senator Richard G. Lugar's Invitation for Public Comments.” Briefing Pap. No. 19, NILDP, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 1 February 1995.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. G.The Twelve Best Reasons for Commodity Programs: Why None Stands Scrutiny.” Choices (2nd Quarter 1995):4-7, 4344.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990 Farm Bill: Proposal of the Administration. USDA, Washington DC, February 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995 Farm Bill: Guidance of the Administration. USDA, Washington DC, 1995a.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996 Budget Summary. USDA, Washington DC, February 1995b.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Preliminary Analyses of Policy Options: To Eliminate the Dairy Price Support Program and the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP); and to Eliminate the Dairy Price Support Program, Maintain DEIP, and Create a Dairy Export Board; and a Preliminary Analysis of Potential Markets for Dairy Exports.” Testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. Washington DC, 11 May 1995c.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. “USDA to Extend and Target CRP Contracts.” USDA Release No. 0946.94, Washington DC, 14 December 1994.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. “Revenue Assuranceflnsurance.” Briefing paper, USDA/ERS, Washington DC, 10 June 1994.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture. Legislative Business Meeting, 20 September 1995.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. “Draft Questions for Comprehensive Senate Agriculture Committee Hearing on the 1995 Farm Bill.” Briefing paper, Washington DC, 9 December 1994.Google Scholar