¹ Johnson, D. Gale, “World Agriculture, Commodity Policy, and Price Variability,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57, No. 5 (12 1975): 823–27Google Scholar; “Are High Farm Prices Here to Stay?” The Morgan Guaranty Survey, (August 1974) pp. 9–14; World Agriculture in Disarray (London and New York: Macmillan, 1973)Google Scholar, especially Chapters 11, 12, and 13.

² United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), “An Integrated Programme for Commodities: International arrangements for individual commodities with an integrated programme; Report by the UNCTAD secretariat,” TD/B/C. 1/188, July 8, 1975, p. 9 [italics added for emphasis]. The footnote included in the original was “Rates of Protection may even become negative, which is what happens when export of a commodity is prohibited or restricted.”

³ UNCTAD, An Integrated Programme for Commodities: Specified proposals for decision and action by governments; Report by the Secretary-General of UNCTAD,” TD/B/C. 1/193, October 28, 1975, p. 10.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Johnson, Harry G., Economic Policies Toward Less Developed Countries (Washington: Brookings, 1967Google Scholar; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1967), especially Chapter 2.

⁶ D. Gale Johnson, World Agriculture in Disarray, Chapter 11.

⁷ Ibid., Chapter 9.

⁸ Ibid., pp. 144–48.

⁹ Economic Research Service, US Dept. of Agriculture, World Agricultural Situation, WAS-10, 07 1976, p. 15Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 21. In the rest of the world grain fed to livestock decreased by only 1 million tons between 1973–74 and 1974–75. Since the feed use of grain in Canada and Oceania combined decreased by 3.4 million tons (16 percent of the 1973/74 feeding levels) the rest of the world actually increased grain fed to livestock. Prices do have beneficial effects, when they are permitted to play a role.

¹¹ Between 1973–74 and 1974–75 grain feeding in the Soviet Union is estimated to have increased by 2 million tons. Grain fed to livestock in the European Community did decrease by 1.5 million tons—an insignificant reduction of 2 percent. See WAS-10, p. 21.

¹² Whatever factors that may induce a reduction in the birth rate are highly likely to further reduce death rates. While there has been a remarkable decline in death rates in the developing countries since 1950, in the near term a significant part of any decline in birth rates will be offset by further declines in death rates. As a rough guess, it seems reasonable that perhaps half of any decline in birth rates during the next decade will be offset by further reductions in the death rate.

¹³ Schultz, T. W., “Value of U.S. Farm Surplus to Underdeveloped Countries,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 42 (12 1960): 1031–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Johnson, D. Gale, World Food Problems and Prospects (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1975)Google Scholar, Chapter 7, and citations therein.

¹⁵ Ibid., Chapter 2.

¹⁶ Comptroller General of the United States, Disincentives to Agricultural Production in Developing Countries, Washington: GAO, ID–76–2, 11 26, 1975Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁷ Sukhatme, Vasant A., “The Utilization of High-Yielding Rice and Wheat Varieties in India: An Economic Assessment,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, The University of Chicago, 1976, Chapters 4 and 5Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Wong, Chung Ming, “A Model of the Rice Economy of Thailand,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, The University of Chicago, 1976Google Scholar. Production loss estimate derived from Table 9, p. 53.

¹⁹ I have presented this program in greater detail in “International Food Security: Issues and Alternatives,” in U.S. Department of Agriculture, International Food Policy Issues, A Proceeding, For. Agri. Econ. Rpr. No. 143, 01 1978, pp. 81–90Google Scholar.

²⁰ An important assumption that underlies both of the tables should be noted. In calculating optimal carryovers it was assumed that international trade in grains remained at a “normal” or average level. In other words, variations in net trade were not permitted to offset any part of the year-to-year production variations. If such variations in trade were permitted, the level of optimal carryovers would be reduced. For further discussion of the model and the results, see Johnson, D. Gale and Sumner, Daniel, “An Optimization Approach to Grain Reserves for Developing Countries,” in Eaton, David J. and Steele, W. Scott, eds., Analyses of Grain Reserves, A Proceedings, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Report No. 634, Washington: 08 1976, pp. 39–55Google Scholar.

²¹ It should be noted that one of the assumptions made in the tables was that there was free trade in grain among the countries of Africa. This, of course, is not true. Thus both optimal carryovers and the size of the insurance payments for Africa would be larger if the analyses had been carried out for each country. One of the important points made by the author and Sumner (ibid., pp. 67–68) is that policy barriers limiting or preventing trade in grain among countries greatly increase the size of reserves required to achieve increased stability of grain availability. Much of the need for grain reserves is the result of policy decisions and is not due to production variability. For example, our analyses indicate that if there were free trade in grain among all the developing countries, with no variation in annual grain trade with the industrial countries, the optimal grain carryovers would be approximately the same (for a given level of probability) as for India alone (ibid., p. 77).