Student: Ethan Goldblatt
Graduation date: May 2015
Type: Concentration (single major)
Date approved: November 2013
Summary
There are many forces influencing food and agricultural policy, two of which I am interested in are the economic and political factors. As Hopkins and Puchala discuss in their book, The Global Political Economy of Food, “the international system of production, distribution and consumption of food is managed by states, corporations and international organizations” (Hopkins and Puchala 1978, 3). Because there are a number of essentially disparate actors all influencing different food systems, taking a broad approach by looking at the political and economic factors involved allows space to make comparisons between these actors without being boxed in by a framework too narrow or specific. I’ve decided to situate this concentration in the global north for a number of reasons. Hopkins and Puchala go on to explain that, “because of the United States’ position as the lead food exporter…the decisions of public and private officials in this country have weighed heavily, often decisively, in setting and enforcing norms of the global food regime” (Hopkins and Puchala 1978, 27). It was and continues to be countries like the United States that have set the precedent for the global food regime. This is pertinent because it affects the global south: “As third world states sought to develop national economies, their agrarian strategies were shaped by the opportunities and limits of world food markets” (Friedmann 1993, 37). This idea is at the root of why this concentration is situated in the global north. It is the global north that, because of the market power, has created the norms of the current food paradigm. By examining what shapes the food policies of the global north, we can then understand the cause and effect relationship to the global food paradigm as a whole. In other words, in studying industrial agriculture I aim to situate domestic agricultural policy in the global political economy. This concentration is important to the Food and Agriculture theme because it incorporates a vital component of the theme that was previously left out: policy. The theme touches on important issues such as food security, GMOs and climate change, but leaves out policy as the mover of these more specific ideas.
One possible situated context is looking at how economic and political factors in the United States have shifted agricultural policy in the last century. During the majority of the 20th century, agricultural policy diverged significantly from free market principles by instituting supply management. As a response to the Great Depression, agricultural policy shifted away from a free market approach in an attempt to avoid another horrific economic crisis. Supply management was based on two programs: price supports and production controls. Price supports provided artificially high prices to farmers for certain crops. However, to receive price supports, farmers had to adhere to production controls, which limited the amount a farmer could produce of the crop he/she was receiving price supports for (Winders 2009). It was believed at the time that the problem was overproduction. So, the government passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) in 1993. Through supply management, the government supported farmers by raising prices of agricultural commodities, thereby controlling surpluses (Winder 2009). This was the agricultural policy for the majority of the twentieth century, until 1996 when legislation passed the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR Act). The FAIR Act ended price supports and production controls, in an attempt to move agriculture back towards a free market economy. What are the economic and political incentives that influence these drastic changes in agricultural policy within a relatively short timeframe?
A second possible situated context could take shape in the European Union (EU). The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was formed in 1962, as “a partnership between agriculture and society, between Europe and its farmers” (European Commission 2012, 3). As the name indicates, it is a common policy for all the Member states of the European Union and is managed and funded by the resources of the EU annual budget (European Commission 2012). Since its establishment, the CAP has seen numerous policy reforms, the majority of which have taken place in the last twenty years. As with American agricultural policy, the CAP includes price supports and limits to overproduction. However, the CAP stresses that policy is more than just a list of state interventions, and can be seen as “a process of related steps or stages in which each step leads to the next in a logical progression–a ‘rational’ model–in an attempt to tackle problems faced by society” (European Commission 2012, 2). While this is a righteous definition of policy, does the CAP intend to rectify the problems of society as a whole? If not, who within the society benefits more from the CAP?
A third situated context for studying industrial agricultural politics in the global north takes root in Japan. While being a part of the global north, Japan provides a stark contrast to the political economy of agriculture in the US and the EU. For one, their differences make it hard to transpose Western political concepts into studies of Japanese agricultural paradigms (Mulgan 2000). One such difference is that the dividing line between the public and private sector are often indistinguishable. This makes terms like ‘lobby’ difficult to use, because the word presupposes that there is a group doing the lobbying, and a disparate group being lobbied, when in Japan those boundary-lines are blurred. Another fundamental difference between Japan and the Western states is that Japan’s grain (rice) is produced by a vast number of small household farmers, as opposed to oligopolistic and monopolistic corporations as in the US (Mulgan 2000). However, as many differences as there are, similarities can be drawn as well. Japanese rice farmers receive price supports and subsidies for commodity prices, conversions to cropland, production inputs, etc. In fact, the Japanese government annually increased the ‘producer price’ paid to rice farmers, which at one point made Japan the leading industrialized country in level of support for agriculture (Mulgan 2000). However, there have been significant changes in agricultural policy in the past few decades. In 1987, Japan reduced the producer price (or price supports) for the first time in 31 years, and in the 1990s, abolished all remaining quantitative restrictions on farm imports. What are the agricultural policies in Japan, and who benefits and who suffers from the common practices of industrialized agriculture in Japan? These are some of the questions that the concentration asks about agricultural policy across the global north. The examples above include the US, the EU, and Japan as possible situated contexts. How are these three examples similar and how are they different in their agricultural policies? Who are the power-holders, and who are the organized interests that seek to influence them? And who benefits and who suffers as the result of these agricultural policies?
References
European Commission. 2012. “The Common Agricultural Policy: A Partnership Between Europe and Farmers.” Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed October 20. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-overview/2012_en.pdf
Friedmann, Harriet. 1993. “The Political Economy of Food: A Global Crisis.” New left review: 29-29.
Hill, Berkeley. 2012. Understanding the Common Agricultural Policy. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. http://orbis.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=956937 (accessed October 08, 2013).
Hopkins, Raymond F., and Donald James Puchala. 1978. The Global Political Economy of Food. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Mulgan, Aurelia George. 2000. Politics of Agriculture in Japan. Psychology Press.
Winders, William. 2009. The Politics of Food Supply: U.S. Agricultural Policy in the World Economy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Additional References
Franck, Caroline, Sonia M. Grandi, and Mark J. Eisenberg. 2013. “Agricultural Subsidies and the American Obesity Epidemic.” American Journal Of Preventive Medicine 45, no. 3: 327-333. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 8, 2013).
Sato, Kyoko. 2007. Review of Japan’s Agricultural Policy Regime, by Aurelia George Mulgan. Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40022168 (accessed November 13, 2013).
*Note: While the Friedmann and Hopkins sources are relatively dated, they still provide relevant information about the history of international food systems.
Questions
- Descriptive: How homogeneous is the global north in patterns of industrial agricultural policy? For instance, how does policy differ between the US, the EU, and Japan? What are the differences in agricultural policy between the global north and south?
- Explanatory: Who benefits and who suffers from these policies and from the common practices of industrial agriculture in these contexts? Who/What are the external actors that have an effect on the decisions of policy makers regarding industrial agriculture?
- Evaluative: To what degree, if any, does the current industrial agriculture paradigm unequally affect differing socioeconomic groups?
Concentration courses
- SOAN 350 (Global Inequality, 4 credits), spring 2014. This course focuses on the relationships between the global north and south, including issues surrounding food and multinational corporations. It will be specific to my concentration in its exploration of the inequality between the global north and south, in relation to the issues mentioned above.
- ENVS 499 (Independent Study, 4 credits), spring 2014. This independent study course will give me the time and space to do extensive research on the history of agricultural policy in the global north. Having this base will be key in moving towards more intensive research in ENVS 499T next fall.
- SOAN 249 (The Political Economy of Food, 4 credits), fall 2014. This class will cater to my concentration in that it situates food in the context of political economy, identifying some of the political, economic, and social factors surrounding food. *Note: this course will not be used as a breadth course.
- ENVS 460 (Environmental Law and Policy, 4 credits), fall 2014. This class will provide me with an understanding of the proceedings of law and policy, and will provide a platform for further study of food policy. I was initially going to take public policy, but this class will be a better fit for my concentration and area of study as I move towards a thesis.
Arts and humanities courses
- HIST 261 (Global Environmental History, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.