Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:55:44.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against the Odds: Retrenchment in Agriculture in France and the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

William D. Coleman ,
Michael M. Atkinson  and
Éric Montpetit
William D. Coleman
Affiliation:
McMaster University, in Canada
Michael M. Atkinson
Affiliation:
McMaster University, in Canada
Éric Montpetit
Affiliation:
McMaster University, in Canada
Get access

Abstract

This article extends recent work on a comparative theory of retrenchment in social policy by asking whether the politics of retrenchment travels well across policy areas, with policy feedback remaining a crucial variable for explaining government success or failure. The article analyzes policy change in agriculture in the United States and France, a natural choice for an extension of retrenchment theory because agricultural policy resembles social policy in some respects but also provides telling points of contrast. The article finds that the call for new theories focusing on retrenchment is justified: the politics of agricultural retrenchment differs from that of expansion, and success at retrenchment varies by program.

The analysis shows, as well, that retrenchment has been significant both in the U.S. and in France and the European Union. Variations in policy feedback help explain why these policy changes occurred. Moreover, the France-U.S. comparison highlights how systemic institutional factors shape the politics of retrenchment. Finally, focusing on agriculture, a policy sector in which international developments have a greater direct importance than they do in social policy, the article identifies an additional systemic retrenchment strategy: constraining domestic programs through international agreements.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , July 1997 , pp. 453 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1997

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

1 Pierson, Paul, Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics ofRetrenchment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ibid.; and Pierson, , “The New Politics of the Welfare State,” WorldPolitics 48 (January 1996)Google Scholar.

3 For some of the varying meanings of parity in the U.S., see Goldstein, Judith, “The Impact of Ideas on Trade Policy: The Origins of U.S. Agricultural and Manufacturing Policies,” International Organization 43 (Winter 1989), 35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bowers, Douglas, Rasmussen, Wayne, and Baker, Gladys, History ofAgricultural Price-Support andAdjustment Programs, 1933–84 (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 1984)Google Scholar. For France, see Gervais, Marcel, Jollivet, Marcel, and Tavernier, Yves, La fin de la Francepaysanne depuis 1914 (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1977), 635—36Google Scholar.

4 For more analysis of the differences between these two paradigms in agriculture, see Coleman, W. D., Skogstad, Grace, and Atkinson, Michael M., “Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture,” Journal ofPublic Policy 16 (October-December 1996)Google Scholar.

5 Pierson (fn. 1), 15.

6 Weaver, R. Kent, “The Politics of Blame Avoidance,” Journal ofPublic Policy 6 (October-December 1986)Google Scholar.

7 Arnold, Douglas, The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

8 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The Uruguay Round:A Preliminary Evaluation of the Impacts of the Agreement on Agriculture in the OECD Countries (Paris: OECD 1995), 11.

9 Mover, H. Wayne and Josling, Timothy E., Agricultural Policy Reform: Politics and Process in the and the USA (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990), 190Google Scholar; Keeler, John T. S., “Agricultural Power in the European Community: Explaining the Fate of the CAP and GATT Negotiations,” Comparative Politics 28 (January 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 For a discussion of these differences, see Bourgeois, Lucien, Politiques agricoles (Paris: Domi-nos/Flammarion, 1993), 91–93Google Scholar.

11 Paarlberg, Robert, “How Agriculture Blocked the Uruguay Round,” in Avery, William, ed., World Agriculture and the GATT (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1993), 41Google Scholar.

12 As Pierson (fn. 2) has hypothesized, budget crises create policy windows for retrenchment (p. 177).

13 H. Wayne Moyer, “The European Community and the GATT Uruguay Round: Preserving the Common Agricultural Policy at All Costs,” in Avery (fn. 11), 112.

14 Stefan Tangermann, “An Ex-Post Review of the 1992 MacSharry Reform” (Paper presented at the conference, “CAP Reform: What Next?” Nottingham, U.K., March 1996).

15 Commission of the European Communities (CEC), The Development and Future of the CAP, COM (91) 100 Final, “Communication of the Commission to the Council: The Development and Future of the CAP, Reflections Paper of the Commission” (Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities (OOPEC), 1991).

16 CEC, The Development andFuture ofthe CAP, Follow-up to the Reflections Paper COM(91)100 of 1 February 1991, COM(91)258/3 (Brussels: CEC, 1991).

17 For a discussion of these political divisions, see Delorme, Helene, “French Agricultural Policy Objectives: Historical Context and Current Issues,” in Kjeldahl, R. and Tracy, M., eds., Renationalisation of the Common Agricultural Policy? (Leuven: Institute of Agricultural Economics, Copenhagen and Agricultural Policy Studies, 1994)Google Scholar.

18 Neville, William and Mordaunt, Francis, A Guide to the Reformed Common Agricultural Policy (London: Estates Gazette, 1993), 18Google Scholar.

19 See Grant, Wyn P., “The Limits of Common Agricultural Policy Reform and the Option of Renationalisation,” Journal of European Public Policy 2 (March 1995), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We classify the change in milk quotas the same way, seeing it as an attempt to do a better job lining up supply with demand.

20 See Delorme, Hélène, “L'accord de Marrakech: Du conflit à la cooperation entre l'Union Europeenne et les États-Unis,” Économic Rurale 226 (1995), 31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tangermann (fn. 14).

21 Delorme, Hélène, “Le volet agricole de l'Uruguay Round: Une nouvelle regulation mondiale?” Économic Rurale 218 (1993), 8Google Scholar.

22 Pierson (fn. 1), 20–22.

23 The agreement on domestic support does not have a large immediate impact on the EC or the U.S.; most commitments were already reached by 1995. See OECD (fn. 8), 40.

24 Stefan Tangermann, “An Assessment of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture” (Paper prepared for the Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and the Trade Directorate of the OECD, 1994), 39.

25 Ibid., 24.

26 “Countries will no longer be able to initiate quantitative import restrictions, variable import levies, minimum import prices, discretionary import licensing, nontariff measures maintained through state trading, voluntary export restraints or similar measures”; OECD (fn. 8), 33.

27 Ibid., 46.

28 For example, negotiators agreed that the base period for calculating reductions to export subsidies could be either 1986–88 or 1990–92. Since export subsidies were higher in both the EC and the U.S. in the latter period, the overall reduction in subsidies ends up being significantly smaller than originally envisaged. Delorme (fn. 17), 54; OECD (fn. 8), 86–87.

29 Delorme (fn. 17) classifies French farmers into three groups. Many of the cereal and sugar producers in the north had considerable sympathy for the market-liberal position of the UK and its allies. A second group drawing principally from the dairy and livestock sectors embraced more controls over production and price and were termed the quantitative group by Delorme. Normally, the FNSEA represented this position. Finally, there were many smaller producers in the Massif Central and the south of France who sought even more state protection and were the most strongly opposed to CAP reform and the GATT agreement. Weaker than the first two groups, their interests were defended by various organizations including the Confédération paysanne.

30 The summary description of the LMA that follows is based upon France, Ministere de l'agriculture, de la pêche, et de l'alimentation, “La loi de modernisation de l'agriculrure,” Bima 1430 (1995)Google Scholar; and on the analysis of the bill provided by the Chambres d'agriculture: Assemblee permanente des chambres d'agriculture, “La loi de modernisation de l'agriculture, 1. Le cheminement d'un projet, 2. Orientation des productions, emploi et protection sociale,” Chambres d'agriculture (August-September 1995); and “La loi de modernisation de l'agriculture. 3. Entrepreise agricole, gestion de l'espace,” Chambres d'agriculture (January 1996).

31 Orden argues that partisan differences between Republicans and Democrats had always existed but that they were not visible because of the long-standing dominance of the Democrats in Congress. See David Orden, “The 1996 Farm Bill: What Happened? Why Did It Happen? Will It Last?” (Manuscript, Blacksburg, Va., 1996).

32 The term “freedom to farm” appears to have a long pedigree in Republican politics. Ezra Taft Benson, Eisenhower's secretary of agriculture, used the term to summarize his opposition to Democratic proposals for price support at his confirmation hearings in 1953. See Hansen, John Mark, Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 128Google Scholar. After Benson retired, he wrote a book with the phrase as the title; Benson, , Freedom to Farm (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960)Google Scholar.

33 Goldstein (fn. 3), 32.

34 These payment levels were expected to achieve the savings of $13.4 billion from projected costs for commodity programs if the 1991 farm bill had been extended.

35 Sion Roberts, “U.S. Farm Bill: The Dairy Sector,” National Farmers Union 21 (May 1996).

36 Gardner, Bruce L., “Practical Policy Alternatives for the 1995 Farm Bill,” in Sumner, Daniel A., ed., Agricultural Policy Reform in the United States (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1995), 56Google Scholar.

37 See section 147 of the FAIR Act.

38 Deborah Hargreaves, “U.S. Farm Act 'Puts EU under Pressure,'” Financial Times, June 28, 1996.

39 Pierson, , “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change,” World Politics 45 (July 1993), 621–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Lowi, Theodore J., “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory,” World Politics 16 (July 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Pierson (fn. 1), 42.

42 See Hansen (fn. 32); and Browne, William P., Private Interests, Public Policy and American Agriculture (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

43 Gervais, Jollivet, and Tavernier (fn. 3), 213–17.

44 Paarlberg, Robert and Orden, David, “Explaining U.S. Farm Policy in 1996 and Beyond: Changes of Party Control and Changing Market Conditions,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 (December 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Salisbury, Robert H. and Shepsle, Kenneth A., “U.S. Congressmen as Enterprise,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 6 (1980)Google Scholar.

46 Browne, William P., Cultivating Congress: Constituents, Issues and Interests in Agricultural PolicyMaking (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1995), 42–47Google Scholar.

47 Ibid., 114.

48 Hansen (fn. 32), chap. 1.

49 Browne (fn. 46), 189.

50 Retrenchment was far less impressive in two of the other sacred cows of U.S. support policy. The much-maligned sugar and peanut programs survived largely intact and outside freedom to farm. See United States Department of Agriculture, “1996 Farm Bill,” Agricultural Outlook Supplement (April 1996), 3.

51 See David Orden, Robert Paarlberg, and Terry Roe, “What Is Happening to U.S. Farm Policy: A Chronology and Analysis of the 1995–96 Farm Bill Debate,” Working Paper no. 96–4 (Blacksburg, Va.: International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, 1996).

52 See Clerc, François, “FNSEA-CNJA: Les conflits de l'unite,” in Coulomb, Pierre et al. , eds., Les agrieulteurs et lapolitique (Paris: FNSP, 1990)Google Scholar.

53 Hayward, Jack, The State and the Market Economy: Industrial Patriotism and Economic Intervention in France (Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1986), 42–44Google Scholar.

54 See Hall, Peter A., Governing the Economy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), chap. 7Google Scholar; and Zysman, John, Governments, Markets, and Growth (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

55 Hayward (fn. 53); Keeler, John H. S., The Politics of Neocorporatism in France: Farmers, the State, and Agricultural Policy-Making in the Fifth Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Pierre Coulomb, “La cogestion, une nouvelle tentative corporatiste?” in Coulomb et al. (fn. 52); Bruneteau, Bernard, Les paysans dans l'État: Le gaullisme et le syndicalisme agricole sous la V République (Paris: L'Harmattan, 1994)Google Scholar; Marie, Jean-Louis, Agriculteurs et politique (Paris: Montchrestien, 1994)Google Scholar.

56 Fouilleux, Eve, La cogestion a la française à l'épreuve de l'Europe: L'exemple de la réforme de la Politique Agricole Commune (Grenoble: Centre de Recherche sur le Politique, l'Administration et le Territoire, 1996), 21–22Google Scholar; Rieger, Elmar, “Agricultural Policy,” in Wallace, H. and Wallace, W., eds., Policy-Making in the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 123Google Scholar.

57 Fouilleux (fn. 56), 68–72.

58 Ibid., 64.

59 Pivot, Catherine, “Offices d'intervention et régulation contractuelle,” Revue d'économie politique 95 (1985)Google Scholar.

60 Coulomb (fn. 55); Pierre Coulomb and Delorme, Hélène, “L'agriculture, les agriculteurs et la crise,” Pour 102 (1985), 12–25Google Scholar.

61 This point became clear after interviews with the offices responsible for cereals, milk, and wine conducted in Paris in June 1995.

62 Editorial, “1993, Année de la résistance syndicate,” L'Information agricole 659 (1993), 23Google Scholar.

63 Cacheux, Jacques Le and Mendras, Henri, “Élements pour une nouvelle politique agricole,” Revue del'QFCE 42 (1992), 126Google Scholar.

64 Stephen Woolcock and Michael Hodges, “EU Policy in the Uruguay Round,” in Wallace and Wallace (fn. 56), 318.

65 This multilevel aspect of agricultural policy-making is discussed at some length in Patterson, Lee Ann, “Agricultural Policy Reform in the European Community: A Three-Level Game Analysis,” International Organization 51 (Winter 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Mazey, Sonia and Richardson, Jeremy, “Introduction: Transference of Power, Decision Rules, and Rules of the Game,” in Mazey, and Richardson, , eds., Lobbying in the European Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 22Google Scholar; Grant, Wyn P., “Pressure Groups and the European Community,” also in Mazey and Richardson; and Justin Greenwood, Jiirgen Grote, and Karsten Ronit, “Conclusions: Evolving Patterns of Organizing Interests in the European Community,” in Greenwood, Grote, and Ronit, eds., OrganizedInterests and the European Community (London: Sage, 1992), 245–48Google Scholar.

67 Confidential interview, Paris, June 1995.

68 Pierson (fn. 2), 177.