Economic and environmental challenges in the global economy raise significant issues that require public policy and private sector attention over the next decade. Price volatility, invasive species, sustainable biofuels production, and climate change all affect our agricultural and resource base and its future. Agricultural and resource economists must provide analyses of public policy and private sector strategies based on innovative research that integrates insights across disciplinary boundaries. Proactive communication of the results to decision makers can make a difference in how these important societal issues are addressed and help to shape the future.

The 2008 farm bill involved 16 months of debate. The end product is similar to the 2002 farm bill in the crops arena, continuing counter-cyclical payments, direct payments, and marketing assistance loans. In addition, however, the 2008 bill adds a new, optional counter-cyclical revenue program (Average Crop Revenue Election, or ACRE), authorizes a new permanent disaster program, and contains various other changes. The new ACRE program provides an entirely new set of dimensions for producers to consider in deciding whether to opt into the program, including the multi-year trade-off between the loss of potential “traditional” payments and the revenue protection provided by ACRE, as well as the producer's own expectations about yield and price trends and variability. The payment calculation associated with the new permanent disaster program appears at first glance to be relatively simple, although the whole-farm nature of the program and the number of variables makes it quite complex.

Because of high commodity prices, beginning in 2006, subsidies to farmers in the United States, the European Union, and Canada have been reduced significantly. However, significant losses have been experienced by the red meat sector, along with escalating food prices. Because of rising input costs, the “farm boom” may not be as great as first thought. Ethanol made from corn and country-of-origin labeling cloud the U.S. policy scene. Higher commodity prices have caused some countries to lower tariff and non-tariff barriers, resulting in freer commodity trade worldwide. Policymakers should attempt to make these trade-barrier cuts permanent and should rethink current policy legislation to deal with the possibility of a collapse of world commodity markets. Agricultural commodity prices have dropped significantly since early 2008.

We estimate the impacts of various types of government payments to U.S. agriculture on different components of farm household consumption. Using 2003 to 2005 data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), we show that marginal rates of consumption differ by consumption category and income source, including different types of farm program payments. The results suggest that farm households treat income from different sources as imperfect substitutes and may reserve income from specific sources for specific types of consumption. Implications for the effects of different types of government payments on the farm household are considered.

This paper develops a stochastic model for comparing payments to U.S. corn producers under the U.S. Senate's Average Crop Revenue Program (ACR) versus payments under the price-based marketing loan benefit and countercyclical payment programs. Using this model, the paper examines the sensitivity of the density function for payments to changes in expected price levels. We also assess the impact of the choice of yield aggregation used in the ACR payment rate on the mean and variance of farm returns. We find that ACR payments lower the producer's coefficient of variation of total revenue more than does the price-based support, although ACR may not raise mean revenue as much. While corn farmers in the heartland states might still prefer to receive the traditional forms of support when prices are low relative to statutory loan rates and target prices, this outcome is not necessarily the case for farmers in peripheral production regions.

We determine how the U.S. ethanol tax credit and import tariff affect the corn-ethanol-gasoline markets and how farm subsidies interact with these policies. We show how the ethanol tax credit and import tariff each uniquely affect the ethanol and gasoline prices. The ethanol import tariff alone increases the terms of trade in ethanol imports and corn exports, but decreases the terms of trade in gasoline imports and the tax costs of farm price supports. With price-contingent farm subsidies in place, the optimal tariff and tax credit will depend on the price level. When farm subsidy expenditures are high, import subsidies for ethanol may increase social welfare due to the substantial size of the fuel market relative to the corn market.