This paper examines the history and ongoing debate surrounding U.S. farm subsidies, which were first introduced in 1933 to protect farmers from volatile agricultural output. The paper outlines the original rationale for subsidies — shielding farmers from income fluctuations and ensuring food security — and traces their growth from $1.5 billion in 1933 to an annual average of $16.4 billion between 1998 and 2007. It then presents the key arguments made by opponents, including concerns about taxpayer burden, reduced work incentives, and the shift of benefits away from small, low-income farms toward large, high-revenue operations. The paper concludes by calling for a broader policy approach to strengthening the agricultural sector.
Farm subsidies were introduced in the United States in 1933 after years of declining agricultural production. Subsidies were seen as a way of helping farmers cope with the highly unpredictable nature of agricultural output. When output was low, farmers would often suffer immensely, and the government decided to step in with various payments to support the rural population. Various forms of subsidies were introduced, such as "price supports, which guaranteed farmers a certain price for their crops, and government purchases of excess crops. Farmers were also paid to stop farming some land to limit overproduction." [2]
While the purpose of farm subsidies was undeniably well-intentioned — aiming to help poor farmers — the subject has become rather controversial and contentious over the years. Many have begun questioning the need for, and long-term effects of, farm subsidies; some even question the very premise on which they were first introduced. There remains, however, a sizeable segment of the population that believes in farm subsidies and continues to support them.
Proponents of farm subsidies advance a fundamental argument for their continuation: that subsidies protect farmers against sharp fluctuations in yearly income caused by the unpredictable nature of farming. "Despite the bad press they've garnered recently, [farm] subsidies serve two critical purposes — protecting farmers from drastic fluctuations in commodity prices often caused by weather or market setbacks, and consumers from the price spikes associated with steep drops in crop inventories. Throughout history, crop failures were facts of life driven home with horrifying frequency until the 20th century, when farm price supports became common." [3]
Other reasons cited in favor of subsidies include national food security, higher levels of agricultural production, and a more stable farming infrastructure. Farm subsidies have continued to grow since their inception despite strong opposition. "The 2002 Farm Bill introduced direct payments, which are payments for certain crops independent of price. Over the years, subsidies have increased... In 1933 farmers received $1.5 billion in government payments, and more recently from 1998 to 2007, farmers received an annual average of $16.4 billion (both totals are in constant 2000 dollars)." [4]
"Overproduction, weak incentives, and taxpayer burden"
"Large farms displacing small farmers as beneficiaries"
Farm subsidies were hotly debated during the Bush administration and came very close to an end. However, while the threat was present, it never materialized into something concrete, and the program continues in the United States. The impasse over farm subsidies is unlikely to be resolved unless both sides can reach an amicable agreement.
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.