Home

US Farm Policy Disadvantages Poor And Disenfranchised

By Carol Welch, UN Millennium Campaign US and Canada      Thursday June 21, 2007

It seems that US farm policy gives the short end of the stick to poor and disenfranchised people in both the U.S. and the world. Today, Oxfam  released a study that shows that if the U.S. cut the billions it gives in cotton subsidies to a handful of farmers, millions of poor farmers in the cotton-producing regions of West Africa would see a boost to their incomes.

Yesterday, the Washington Post ran another article in their excellent series on US farm policy, “Harvesting Cash”, which explored how US farm subsidies “favor big over small, white over black”, looking at the situation in the Mississippi Delta, one of the poorest regions in America. The common denominator is that whether we’re talking global economic and trade rules, or US agriculture policy, those who are poor and those who have been left out, continue to face a deck that is stacked against them.

 In the American South, black farmers continue to suffer the consequences of a legacy of slavery, racism, and discrimination. Instead of helping them, US farm policy has exacerbated inequalities. According to the Post article, farmland in the Mississippi Delta has been passed down for generations, with whites owning most of the land. In one county, blacks owned about five percent of the land (but are a majority of the population). Because farm payments are based on farm size and production, most subsidies go to the white farmers who own the land. While US farm policy has numerous goals- such as conservation, rural development, income support for farmers- most of the money in the Farm Bill goes in commodity payments to farm owners. In the Delta, rural development money, which could have a wider impact on the community, was only about $55 million, compared to almost $1.2 billion in farm subsidies- a 1 to 20 ratio. This disparity “has helped preserve a two-tiered economy and a widening economic chasm between the races”. As one farmer put it, “You’re in the Delta. Most of the real economy is controlled by large families. It has been that way for 200 to 300 years.”

The same disparities exist at a global level, only the difference in living standards is even starker. Rich country subsidies allow farmers in rich countries to overproduce and dump it on the world market, undercutting prices and further impoverishing struggling farmers in Africa. According to Oxfam’s study, reducing cotton subsidies in the US would boost world prices and allow small cotton farmers in the developing countries to capture some of the benefit. When a typical family farm in West Africa earns only $2,000, any increase will help families who struggle to survive and create opportunities for their children. 

Not surprisingly, rich countries’ agriculture subsidies have been a big sticking point in the World Trade Organization trade negotiations, and poor countries rightly refuse to go along with a trade deal that fails to tackle meaningfully trade-distorting subsidies.

What is especially tragic is that we don’t have to look “over there” to see the harmful and unfair impacts of US agriculture policy. It’s right here in our own backyards, where small farmers struggle to compete against big, subsidized farms. Reforming US trade policy would be a win for global poverty, it would be a win for domestic poverty, and it would be a win for rural livelihoods everywhere.

Click here for Oxfam's "Give Poor Farmers A Fighting Chance" Action

Carol Welch is the US Coordinator for the UN Millennium Campaign.
Published under:

Comments

Post new comment

Please solve the math problem above and type in the result. e.g. for 1+1, type 2.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <b> <p> <br> <blockquote><em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li><img><dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.
  • Link to content with [[some text]], where "some text" is the title of existing content or the title of a new piece of content to create. You can also link text to a different title by using [[link to this title|show this text]]. Link to outside URLs with [[http://www.example.com|some text]], or even [[http://www.example.com]]. Link to existing or new content with CamelCaseWords.

More information about formatting options