Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:00:38.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future Directions for the Government in Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

James W. Dunn
James W. Dunn*
Affiliation:
Agricultural economics at Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 1996 Farm Bill marks a new direction for the government in agriculture. By decoupling payments from price levels for crops, it undermines long-run political support for programs. Dairy price supports will end in 2000, and nutrition programs will be on a separate reauthorization schedule from farm programs. Together, these actions should weaken the farm bill coalition, making the remaining programs much more difficult to reauthorize than in earlier years. The 1996 Farm Bill may be the last farm bill of its kind and the beginning of the end to active government involvement in agricultural markets.

Type
Invited Presentations
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 127 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Congressional Record. 1977, 1981, 1985, 1990.Google Scholar
Dole, Senator Robert. 1990. Floor statement on the 1990 Farm Bill. Congressional Record. 101st Congress, 2d sess. Vol. 148. October 25.Google Scholar
Prentice, Barry E., and Bruning, Edward R. 1994. “The Stability/Efficiency Regulatory Trade-off: The Case of For-Hire Trucking.” Proceedings of the Transportation Research Forum 1: 43–58.Google Scholar
Smith, Stephen M. 1995. “The Changing Rural Policy Context.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24: 139–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tweeten, Luther G. 1995. “The Twelve Best Reasons for Commodity Programs: Why None Stands Scrutiny.” Choices, 2d. quarter: 4–7.Google Scholar