From: Randall Parker 

Lynne Kiesling
http://knowledgeproblem.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_knowledgeproblem_archive.html#1
06583118247940900
  links to an interesting Foreign Policy (that's a journal) article by
Arvind Panagariya on agriculture and first world trade rules:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13920


“Agricultural Protectionism in Rich Nations Worsens Global Poverty”

Not necessarily. If developed countries eliminate all forms of agricultural
protection, including subsidies to domestic producers and quotas on foreign
imports, their agricultural production will decline and the worldwide price
of agricultural products will increase. Therefore, poor countries that are
efficient agricultural producers will benefit from higher prices and access
to new export markets. But consider the flip side: Poor countries that
import agricultural products will suffer from higher prices. In 1999, as
many as 45 of the 49 least developed countries imported more food than they
exported. In 2001, for example, Senegal spent as much as $450 million on
food imports, equivalent to about 10 percent of its gross domestic product
and one third of its annual export earnings. Certainly, if agricultural
trade is liberalized and prices rise, some poor countries will become net
agricultural exporters, but many will not.


Think about that. The first world is essentially subsidizing food
production and therefore lowering the price of food for the poorest
countries that do not make enough food and have to import food. What is the
difference between giving food as aid and just subsidizing the food to make
it cheaper to buy? Just a matter of degree.

This makes intuitive sense. For some time I've been thinking about Europe's
much higher CAP subsidies vs US food subsidies (about twice the percentage
of the final food price) that I'd be happy to cut US subsidies, leave
European subsidies in place and allow European taxpayers pay part of my
food bill. Cool. That would be great.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5