Methods Of Increasing Food Security

Farm subsidies help farmers to keep the prices of their products low and competitive in the international market. This means that national farmers and their products receive sufficient support and revenue to keep them in business. If this were not the case, there is a danger that retailers will begin to find foreign markets from which to important even basic foods such as corn and meat. The danger here is then that many American

A few weeks ago I was driving into work and I was listening to the radio, NPR news. A story caught my ear, my economic sense started to tingly. It was a story on sugar subsidies and how that has raised the price to consumer in the United States for a very long period. It delved into other types of protection for domestic sectors but mainly focus on agriculture. Most consumers are probably unaware that many of their commodities that they purchase in the grocery market are artificially higher in price than they should be due to tariffs and other protectionist measures that the government erects to “protect” domestic producers. The question is does this protect jobs and industry for America? Are the consumers better off?

Government in the EU pay farmer subsidies which mean we will but their products from the richer countries and not buy the products made in poorer countries.

For many countries, subsidies and the lobbying power behind them can have great effects on governmental policies and direction. By far, though, the agricultural subsidies advocates in the United States and, to a slightly lesser extent, the European Union have profound sway in government policies. Being dubbed the “breadbasket of the world” gives farmers and their lobbyists in the US immense power to ensure that the government subsidies continue to favor agriculture producers. By and large, this practice has tipped the scales in both the US and the EU when it comes to ensuring that subsidies remain non-distortionary towards world markets. With policies in place that position national farmer interests ahead of global interests, higher production is encouraged, world prices are driven lower, and the incentive for developing countries to invest in agriculture is limited. While the US employs essentially the most distortionary practices, the EU does attempt to limit these distortionary effects. Still, both country’s policies display long-term negative side effects on an international scale.

Protectionism, specifically, is a reaction to the inherently unequal outcomes and instability of a global economic system. Both Ferguson and Krugman see protectionism as antithetical to globalization. Protectionism, though, has been the last ditch effort of states attempting to shield themselves from the unpredictability caused by globalization.This is most apparent in the agricultural sector, where global fluctuations in prices can harm a state’s ability to feed its populace. Of the current age of globalization, Krugman writes that, “When the prices of wheat, rice and corn soared…many governments rushed to protect domestic consumers by banning or limiting exports, leaving food-importing countries in dire straits.” When laborers in a democratic nation cannot afford to purchase enough of the crops they produce in order to feed themselves, then the government has little choice than to intervene and impose tariffs. This in turn causes problems in food-importing countries, who long ago exchange agricultural capabilities for industry. The irony is that protectionism is both is a reaction to the disruption in the global system and the cause of the cascading effect of those

Subsidized agriculture in the USA is one of the greatest hardships to economic growth in low income nations. Industrialized nation has Economic Cooperation and Development and have spent over $100 billion on crop programs. These types of programs make farm overproduction. Which makes markets have to much product which in turn hurts low income nations because of over production you have surplus stocks which in turn are sold at a lower cost.

However, I firmly believe that governmental efforts to increase or limit international trade will prove vital in guaranteeing future development and peace throughout the world. It can clearly be argued that the United States is currently not doing enough in this respect. For example, as of August 2014, Chinese trade with Africa dwarfed American trade with Africa by over $100 billion. Similarly, the governmental gifting of subsidies and tax breaks to agricultural producers has in recent years unfairly allowed the United States to dominate certain world markets, such as those of cotton, corn and oil products. While incentivising American production may increase voter support at home, such distorting practices minimise competition from developing countries overseas, thus doing little to alter the current status

In between 1990-92 and 2010-12, the number of undernourished people, who mostly live in developing region, specifically South-Eastern Asia, has been rapidly decreasing for about 44% (FAO, 2012). Through this past few years, communities, government, and practitioners have done many efforts to enhance individual’s food security level. BYRC, or known as Broadway Youth Resource Centre teams up with several programs to provide food, life, housing, employment, and education services to low socioeconomic youths, between age 13-24 years old. Other communities have been working to maintain sustainable food systems through building community gardens, volunteering, and buying local produce. Moreover, government also plays a critical role in subsidizing funds or offering volunteer opportunities and training programs, and finally, practitioner has invented several sustainable agriculture techniques, including organic farming. Unfortunately, these efforts are not well received by every individual in the whole nation, resulting in the expansion number of undernourished people in some other parts of the world, for example in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Asia (FAO, 2012). By providing some synergies and tensions between communities, government, and practitioner approaches to improve food security, this paper is assessed to show the reasons why the progress of the efforts is unstable or sometimes diminishes, leading to the results

In light of this, I would like to explore research frontiers in the area of the challenges of managing food and farm businesses in a global setting of the 21st Century. In our society beleaguered by agricultural problems that ranges from economic to environmental problems such as weather and global warming, issues concerning trade and management of agricultural enterprises has been the topic of debate for the past decade. Many developing/poor countries who earn their living from agriculture continuously suffer from poverty and hunger as a result of the increasing pressures on the world's resource base. Policymakers are gripped with finding solutions to problems such as structural and technological constraints, inappropriate domestic policies and an unfavourable external economic environment. As a result, the growth of these economies has been slow, undernourishment has been increasing and the marginalization of these countries in the global economy has continued. This trend has created problems for developing countries over the past decade. Economic and financial

Bezencon (2011, pp.64,65) states that the earnings of Fair Trade farmers will be protected by price floor set by Fairtrade Foundation to ensure selling price of Fairtrade certified products is higher than market price and independent of the current market condition. Taking the coffee industry in 2013 as an example, despite the fact that coffee prices was low, Fairtrade farmers in Mexico, Peru, Tanzania and Indonesia sold around 8 to 26 percent higher, are mentioned in Fairtrade International (2016, p.1). It seems that Fairtrade farmers’ income can be secured. Yet data gathered in the Dragusanu et al. (2014, pp. 228-229) suggests a considerable proportion of crops produced by Fairtrade-certified farmers can be sold for the Fairtrade price: coffee (45 percent), cane sugar (54 percent), cocoa (61 percent), bananas (72 percent), and cotton (60 percent). It shows the exceptions do occur in the prevention of earning below the minimum price. As a result, Fairtrade growers cannot gain better price as the targets of Fairtrade and hence income stability cannot be guaranteed.

In my opinion, based on an application of my personal business study, a solution to solve malnutrition in Ethiopia is to stimulate Ethiopian economy and to increase education standard to raise quality of life and standard of living of people on Ethiopia. I believe that when those who are suffering from malnutrition care more whether they have something to eat rather than what to eat and how to eat nutritiously. The more they have money in their pockets to satisfy their basic needs and poverty condition lessens, the more they care about their well being. The Ethiopia economic condition may be improved by engaging in businesses that the country or each city has absolute competitive advantages or comparative advantages according to Ricardo’s theory that they can produce a particular good or service at a lower marginal and lesser opportunity cost over another trading partner. Even if Ethiopia may have absolute cost disadvantage in the production of most of the goods, a basis for mutually beneficial trade may still exist from specializing in and export goods in which it is relatively more efficient. Nevertheless, according to the research, I found out that problems Ethiopia facing range from political issues to economic struggle to water shortage to starvation which is crucial, immense and importantly interrelated. The suggestions I gave above are a

This essay will discuss the effects that agricultural subsidies have on globalization. The main points that will be covered in regards to subsidies and their effects on worldwide productivity, poverty in undeveloped countries, the stance of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) and some discussion on implementation. First, it would be prudent to define some terms that will be used in this paper.

The economy of Senegal depends on agriculture, particularly the groundnut and cotton farming, which accounts for about 50% of export income (World Bank, 1989). This is due to the countries significance to this sector, after independence the government put in place strategies to increase groundnut production, hence the introduction of a credit system to assist farmers purchase seeds, farm equipment’s and fertilizers at reduced price (Dembele, 2003). This followed the setting up of boards of committees tasked with the responsibilities to set up prices at which groundnut were sold at each season. Further to this, private traders were also prevented from coming into the groundnut market. However, with the introduction of the structural adjustment programme (SAF) the government was forced to remove subsides and abolish the credit scheme for the farmers, also was the dissolution of the marketing board which set prices for the groundnut farmer. While removal of subsides for farmers was imposed on the Senegalese government led to price increase in food commodity, subsequent many people going hungry as they could not afford basic food commodities, notwithstanding the human right abuse (Fonjong,2014). Thought-provoking, during the same period the industrialised world including; United States of America (USA) and Europe were subsidizing their farmers with billions of dollars. Furthermore, the Senegalese government was asked to remove restrictions of importation

When considering the challenges and opportunities posed by EU non market policies, we must look at both the food producer and the manufacturer as both can have positive and negative reactions. Going forward, global warming is now high on the agenda of policy makers. With agriculture a high contributor, it is unsurprising that measures are being introduced that have effect on the producers’ and manufacturers’. The buzz word now associated with the future of the environment and the food industry is “sustainability”. This refers to sustainable growth as the producers (farmers) try to maximise output. Moreover, with world populations set to dramatically increase up to 2050, the EU and the world must find ways to promote food production. Therefore, policies are now becoming more difficult and multifunctional. This is symbolised through the increasing awareness of the environment and it becoming more and more apparent in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). “The industry realises the need to protect and, where possible, improve biodiversity. Given that the industry’s raw materials are grown in the natural environment, and the industry purchases and processes 70% of EU agricultural production, it is essential that agricultural practices are sustainable.” FoodDrink Europe. (2011). It is here in the CAP that I have found non-market policies to have impacted both positively and, at times, negatively on the food producers and manufacturers operating in the EU. The

These are objectives of this paper: the next section will provide a theoretical framework with examining trade liberalisation and protectionism, and agricultural liberalisation and food security at international trade; after that, it will examine the trend in agri-food trade and CAP reforms.