close [X]

Policy Analysis Versus Policy Development

Market Intel / August 7, 2017

Credit: AFBF 

The American Farm Bureau Federation has a long and proud history of carefully evaluating the economics of policy proposals in order to understand potential pitfalls and other unintended consequences. At the same time AFBF has, since its inception, had a well-defined process for determining the organization’s policy positions. Each year the organization’s delegate body of farmer and rancher members deliberates and responds to challenges facing agriculture.  Following the Delegates work, the AFBF Board of Directors interprets and gives direction to AFBF staff to proceed with advocacy actions to communicate the message from farmers and ranchers to leaders in all branches of government.

With Congress moving past the opening days of debate on the next farm bill, AFBF economists will once again take up the challenge of analyzing the effects of various policy alternatives. Two recent analysis pieces look at two specific commodities – cotton and dairy – that are facing challenges in terms of the federal safety nets (Are MPP Dairy Improvements on the Way? and Cotton Coming Back in Title I?). These commodities have been subjected to considerable discussion by Farm Bureau members, as well as by AFBF’s Board of Directors.

The Congressional Budget Office’s June 2017 Baseline for Farm Programs reveals that both of these commodities, under the current Farm Bill, have very limited safety net support:  2017 to 2027 budget outlays for dairy are estimated at $839 million and for cotton these outlays are estimated at $874 million. Based on these CBO projections, program payments for cotton and dairy represent 1.5 percent and 0.18 percent of the of the farm value of these commodities, respectively.

This means that in order to provide additional support in the near term, as is being proposed in the Senate ag appropriations measure, resources will need to found and likely to also require finding 60 votes when the measure comes to the Senate floor. These political realities point to why the analysis has been done and critical to helping Farm Bureau, from the grassroots members to leadership, evaluate and determine our position and advocating from that decision.

To state it another way, the purpose of economic analysis is to help inform the membership and the leadership of Farm Bureau on the potential effects of these proposals on farmers and ranchers. It is not a Farm Bureau policy position, which is the purview of the membership and the Board. Analysis can help inform that process, but will never – should never – replace it.

Contact:
Bob Young
President
Agricultural Prospects
bob@agriculturalprospects.com
 
John Newton, Ph.D.
Chief Economist
(202) 406-3729
jnewton@fb.org
twitter.com/@New10_AgEcon
 

Share This Article

Credit: United Soybean Board / CC BY 2.0 

For the past year and a half, however, U.S. soybeans have been subject to retaliatory tariffs by China. Not only that, but China has suffered a devastating outbreak of African Swine Fever, which has decimated over 30% to as much as 50% of the world’s largest hog population (African Swine Fever Outbreak in China, African Swine Fever and China: Part II and African Swine Fever in China Keeps Getting Worse). Reducing demand, driving down prices and pushing up stockpiles, these events have roiled U.S. soybean markets. In 2019, soybean planted acres fell to the lowest level since 2011, 76.5 million acres.

Full Article

At 136,000 new jobs created, according to the establishment side of the September jobs report released October 4, this was another “just right” report. Expectations for the report ran somewhere in the 145,000 range, so 136,000 was slightly below expectations, but not enough to cause concern. From the other direction, the number by itself was not high enough to lead us to think the economy is heating up. The wage data helped to confirm this by showing a 3.5% increase over a year ago. Again, nice, but nothing concerning in either direction.

Full Article