Agricultural Policies in the Next Decade: A Global Perspective
Many countries around the world either tax agriculture or provide subsidies through trade and agricultural policies. This paper presents historical developments in the United States, European Union, Canada, China, India, and Thailand, which generally subsidize agriculture although the level of subsidization has decreased because of the significant rise in commodity prices. While progress has been made in lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers around the world with positive outcomes, the future progress in this area is questionable as evidenced by the Doha Round trade talks. Policy makers are now grappling with how to deal with price instability, uncertainty, and rising food prices.
High Commodity Prices and the EU's Single Payment Scheme: Some Consequences of Double‐Dipping
"When negotiating agricultural policies, decisions are generally based on historical net farm income figures, which are derived from the then current price and production data. In 2003, when the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) was introduced in the EU, agricultural commodity prices were "low." As a result the SPS is very generous when viewed in light of today's "high" agricultural commodities prices: farmers are double-dipping. We provide an empirical assessment of the implications for compensatory payments under the SPS in combination with high commodity prices for two major EU crops: wheat and barley. Yearly compensatory payments for these two crops alone exceed $10 billion. The lesson of this result for agricultural policy reform is that the payments under the SPS should have been made more flexible and tied to future (farm gate) prices, i.e., so payouts would usually vary with changing market conditions, while still being decoupled from production decisions." Copyright (c) 2008 Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
The development of biological systematics : Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, nature, and the natural system
A reevaluation of the history of biological systematics that discusses the formative years of the so-called natural system of classification in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Shows how classifications came to be treated as conventions; systematic practice was not linked to clearly articulated theory; there was general confusion over the "shape" of nature; botany, elements of natural history, and systematics were conflated; and systematics took a position near the bottom of the hierarchy of sciences.