| According to the approaches of partial equilibrium,comparative analysis and quantitative analysis,this paper gives a theoretical and empirical analysis of the primary agricultural subsidy polices now and ever used in the world,and the corresponding impact of the polices. The author, in view of international experience, penetrates the strong and weak points of all forms of primary agricultural subsidy polices, which provides a scientific foundation for the appropriate adjustments of our agricultural subsidy polices and thus increases the farmers'income and raises our comprehensive capacity of agricultural production. Theoretical analysis shows that "amber box policy"like agricultural products'price support, the balance subsidy between target price and price, and the input subsidy can distort the market price, which will result in the net loss of social welfare, though stimulate production in a short time. Price support police may also lead to agricultural commodity overproduction. Under this policy, the monopoly purchase and distorting of market price in long run may cause the loss of farmers'interests. And under the world trade, the balance subsidy between target price and price, and the input products'subsidy will reduce the price of agricultural products and increase the farming export. Meanwhile, it will jeopardize the interest of other countries'producers. "Green Box Policy"like general agricultural service support subsidy, farming producers'retirement and transfer subsidy, etc. can increase agricultural total output and raise the per capital. Incomes that are non-linked to production will enable farmers to raise their incomes and promote social welfare. When agricultural policies are adjusted, the backup implementation of this policy will help improve the practice of new policies. The "green-for-grain"subsidy as a representative of, the agricultural environment protection subsidy can increase the social net welfare. As for the areas of foresting, and the corresponding subsidy rate, there exist a best level, which should neither be too high nor too low, or else it will affect the maximum of social net welfare. The empirical analysis of this paper indicates that under the frame of Agriculture Agreement, all the members of WTO are making adjustments respectively toward their agricultural subsidy policies, most of which are market-oriented. Price support policy has its innate malpractice, for instance, the implementation of U.S. non-recourse loan policy, EU and Japan's price support policies, and China's "Protection Price"policy all exerted a negative effect like "an increase of the agricultural products stock and the fiscal overburden of the government". The transformation from indirect price support to direct income subsidy is the trend of each country's adjustments of the agricultural subsidy policies, which can be seen from either the U.S. agricultural subsidy policy ruled by Agricultural Law of 1996 and 2002, or our direct grain subsidy policy. To improve the environment quality and the raise agricultural productive capacity are becoming the chief goal of agricultural subsidy policy. Before China's entry into WTO, the level of our "Green Box Subsidy"is low and its structure isn't reasonable, and the "Amber Box Subsidy"even minus value. Generally speaking, before China's entry into WTO, our agricultural products price intervention policy has distorted the market price, which jeopardized the farmers'interests though benefited the consumers. The general agricultural service support of our government has a great influence on the increased output of agricultural products and increased revenue of farmers. However, the total output of the producers'support did not have much obvious effect on farmers'income. The producers'support effects of certain agricultural products are different. After China entered into WTO, when the frame of WTO's agricultural agreement treaty, we've made corresponding adjustments of the agricultural subsidy policy, which has exerted a positive effects like and... |
PDF Full Text Request