IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/agraaa/104-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill: A review of the literature

Author

Listed:
  • OECD

Abstract

Main changes to US farm programmes under the 2014 Farm Bill aim to strengthen instruments for risk management, both in commodity and in crop insurance programmes. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill consolidated voluntary conservation programmes supporting agricultural land preservation and the adoption of environmentally friendly production practices. In the literature reviewed, analysts generally acknowledge the reinforced capacity of farm programmes to reduce farm revenue losses and the diversity of options offered to farmers to manage risk. They also discuss farmers' choices of participation in programmes and coverage level in terms of optimisation of their benefits. They also outline the scope for higher budget costs if prices keep falling, but note that some provisions limit the increase. Regarding the impact of programmes on land and markets, the consensus is that by design, the two new crop commodity programmes do not influence current planting decisions, but they could generate small wealth and risk effects. Similarly the new dairy programme could affect the decisions of risk adverse farmers. Support to crop insurance on the other hand is based on current parameters, and unlimited, thus it is expected to encourage higher input use to maximise profit, in addition to the wealth and risk effects. Empirical analyses find very small effects of crop insurance subsidies on total land use, but some suggest a non-negligible impact on crop rotation, and variable input use. Overall, the literature finds that conservation payments seem to have had a positive impact on the environment. In particular, they have encouraged farmers to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices and address a broader set of environmental objectives. Some experts note, however, that some programmes may not necessarily bring additional benefits. Experts consider that cross-compliance mechanisms have partly contributed to reduce soil erosion by encouraging farmers to use less erosive cropping practices (e.g. conservation tillage, conservation crop rotations) and to retire particularly erodible land.

Suggested Citation

  • Oecd, 2017. "Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill: A review of the literature," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 104, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:agraaa:104-en
    DOI: 10.1787/ff39e390-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/ff39e390-en
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/ff39e390-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Azzam, Azzeddine & Walters, Cory & Kaus, Taylor, 2021. "Does subsidized crop insurance affect farm industry structure? Lessons from the U.S," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1167-1180.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural policy; conservation programmes; crop insurance; risk management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:agraaa:104-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tdoecfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.