The growth and modernization of China’s livestock industry has rocked global soybean markets in recent years and many expect a similar impact on world corn markets in coming years. Despite the importance, there is a dearth of verifiable information of the underlying supply and de mand of meat and feed ingredients in China to make such forecasts. Moreover, China seeks the conflicting goals of maintaining high prices for corn to encourage production and developing a competitive and modern livestock industry, all the while embracing market mechanisms. How China addresses these conflicting objectives will impact the feed and livestock industry in China and around the world. Information available to construct a rough supply and demand framework for meat and feed ingredients in China indicate that there is still room for animal product consumption to grow in China. However, whether the additional demand will be met by increasing domestic production or by importing meat and other animal products will depend, partially on whether China can improve production efficiency and if it can effectively address the environmental consequences of greater animal production in large, modern, and more efficient operations. If so, China will likely turn to global markets to procure sufficient feed grains to meet the growing demand as corn production is expected to grow more slowly than feed grain consumption.
{"title":"Will China Import More Corn","authors":"B. Lohmar","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.200300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.200300","url":null,"abstract":"The growth and modernization of China’s livestock industry has rocked global soybean markets in recent years and many expect a similar impact on world corn markets in coming years. Despite the importance, there is a dearth of verifiable information of the underlying supply and de mand of meat and feed ingredients in China to make such forecasts. Moreover, China seeks the conflicting goals of maintaining high prices for corn to encourage production and developing a competitive and modern livestock industry, all the while embracing market mechanisms. How China addresses these conflicting objectives will impact the feed and livestock industry in China and around the world. Information available to construct a rough supply and demand framework for meat and feed ingredients in China indicate that there is still room for animal product consumption to grow in China. However, whether the additional demand will be met by increasing domestic production or by importing meat and other animal products will depend, partially on whether China can improve production efficiency and if it can effectively address the environmental consequences of greater animal production in large, modern, and more efficient operations. If so, China will likely turn to global markets to procure sufficient feed grains to meet the growing demand as corn production is expected to grow more slowly than feed grain consumption.","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132762922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A number of agricultural resource, environmental and health concerns will condition the capacity of the agricultural sector in both developed and developing countries to increase production in the coming century. These concerns give rise to four generic issues: (a) Many of the issues are international in scope. In turn, the responses will also have to be international or at least multinational. (b) The capacity to design and build the institutions necessary to achieve increases in agricultural production is limited. (c) Much more attention needs to be given to designing technologies and institutions that increase the number of alternative actions that can be taken in the future, and (d) National and international capacities to monitor changes in the sources of and changes in productivity, environmental amenities and health conditions are severely limited.
{"title":"Sustainable Growth In Agricultural Production: Into the 21st Century","authors":"V. Ruttan","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.131638","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.131638","url":null,"abstract":"A number of agricultural resource, environmental and health concerns will condition the capacity of the agricultural sector in both developed and developing countries to increase production in the coming century. These concerns give rise to four generic issues: (a) Many of the issues are international in scope. In turn, the responses will also have to be international or at least multinational. (b) The capacity to design and build the institutions necessary to achieve increases in agricultural production is limited. (c) Much more attention needs to be given to designing technologies and institutions that increase the number of alternative actions that can be taken in the future, and (d) National and international capacities to monitor changes in the sources of and changes in productivity, environmental amenities and health conditions are severely limited.","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131270800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S ome critics of NAFTA are concerned that u.s. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Mexico's food and agricultural sector is replacing U.S. exports, and u.s. imports are replacing domestic production, causing a decline in U.S. jobs. But a closer examination of the effects of FDI points to a different story. On balance, U.S. food companies' investments have increased their sales in Mexico, without cutting into U.S. food exportS; and they have stimulated Mexican importS of U.S. agricultural raw materials and semi-processed products like vegetable oil. The drafters of the North America Free Trade Agreement of 1994 (NAFTA) saw trade liberalization as the principal means toward market integration between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA indeed fostered rapid growth in trade among its members, including food and agricultural trade. From 1990 to 1998, U.S. exports of processed food to Mexico grew from $1.1 to $2.8 billion, and Mexican processed food exports to the United States grew from $1.0 billion to $2.3 billion. Meanwhile, FDI between the United States, Canada, and Mexico increased even more rapidly, paving the way for a regional food system with more specialization, greater trade, and changing production and consumption patterns. The importance of U.S. FDI in Mexico is evident, considering that the $6 billion in annual processed food sales generated by these investments-nearly all to the Mexican market-overshadows U.S. exports of processed food products to Mexico by more than 2 to 1. FDI is the major way that U.S. food processing firms have entered the Mexican market (figure 1). U.S. investment in Mexico's processed food industry The stock of U.S. investment in Mexico's food processing industry increased from $321 million in 1986 to $5 .0 billion in 1997 (figure 2). The trend began when the Mexican government changed investment rules in the late 1980s. Then the enactment of NAFTA in 1994 spurred Mexican economic growth, leading to increased investor confidence and a synergy between trade and investment. Mexico is now the third largest host for U.S. FDI
{"title":"Foreign Direct Investment and Agricultural Trade: The U.S.-Mexico Experience","authors":"H. Bolling, Javier Elizalde, C. Handy","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.131702","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.131702","url":null,"abstract":"S ome critics of NAFTA are concerned that u.s. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Mexico's food and agricultural sector is replacing U.S. exports, and u.s. imports are replacing domestic production, causing a decline in U.S. jobs. But a closer examination of the effects of FDI points to a different story. On balance, U.S. food companies' investments have increased their sales in Mexico, without cutting into U.S. food exportS; and they have stimulated Mexican importS of U.S. agricultural raw materials and semi-processed products like vegetable oil. The drafters of the North America Free Trade Agreement of 1994 (NAFTA) saw trade liberalization as the principal means toward market integration between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA indeed fostered rapid growth in trade among its members, including food and agricultural trade. From 1990 to 1998, U.S. exports of processed food to Mexico grew from $1.1 to $2.8 billion, and Mexican processed food exports to the United States grew from $1.0 billion to $2.3 billion. Meanwhile, FDI between the United States, Canada, and Mexico increased even more rapidly, paving the way for a regional food system with more specialization, greater trade, and changing production and consumption patterns. The importance of U.S. FDI in Mexico is evident, considering that the $6 billion in annual processed food sales generated by these investments-nearly all to the Mexican market-overshadows U.S. exports of processed food products to Mexico by more than 2 to 1. FDI is the major way that U.S. food processing firms have entered the Mexican market (figure 1). U.S. investment in Mexico's processed food industry The stock of U.S. investment in Mexico's food processing industry increased from $321 million in 1986 to $5 .0 billion in 1997 (figure 2). The trend began when the Mexican government changed investment rules in the late 1980s. Then the enactment of NAFTA in 1994 spurred Mexican economic growth, leading to increased investor confidence and a synergy between trade and investment. Mexico is now the third largest host for U.S. FDI","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116985576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Over the past year, the United States and Canada, who have already formed a free trade agreement (the CFT A), have begun negotiations with Mexico to create a North America Free Trade Area (NAFTA). The European Community (EC) is pushing ahead with plans to harmonize its internal market by January 1, 1993, and joined with the 7 countries of the European Free Trade Association in October 1991 to create the European Economic Area. Australia and New Zealand have further integrated the ties between their economies under the Closer Economic Relations (CER) agreement. Many Latin American countries are aggressively pursuing regional economic integration, with an eye on eventually forming free trade areas with the United States. In January of this year, the 6-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), until now a primarily political grouping, announced their intention to form a free trade area. At the same time, the Uruguay Round being conducted under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has experienced great difficulties and delays. It nearly collapsed in December 1990 largely over the question of agriculture and was stalled most of 1991 and into 1992. Such developments lead to this question, "Do regional trading arrangements have a positive effect on liberalizing the trading environment for agricultural products?" Some experts and observers respond yes; others say no. Here Goodloe will summarize the pro arguments and Raney will counter with the con, leaving you to reach your own conclusion.
{"title":"TRADING BLOCS: Pro or Con for Agriculture?","authors":"C. Goodloe, T. Raney","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.131615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.131615","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past year, the United States and Canada, who have already formed a free trade agreement (the CFT A), have begun negotiations with Mexico to create a North America Free Trade Area (NAFTA). The European Community (EC) is pushing ahead with plans to harmonize its internal market by January 1, 1993, and joined with the 7 countries of the European Free Trade Association in October 1991 to create the European Economic Area. Australia and New Zealand have further integrated the ties between their economies under the Closer Economic Relations (CER) agreement. Many Latin American countries are aggressively pursuing regional economic integration, with an eye on eventually forming free trade areas with the United States. In January of this year, the 6-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), until now a primarily political grouping, announced their intention to form a free trade area. At the same time, the Uruguay Round being conducted under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has experienced great difficulties and delays. It nearly collapsed in December 1990 largely over the question of agriculture and was stalled most of 1991 and into 1992. Such developments lead to this question, \"Do regional trading arrangements have a positive effect on liberalizing the trading environment for agricultural products?\" Some experts and observers respond yes; others say no. Here Goodloe will summarize the pro arguments and Raney will counter with the con, leaving you to reach your own conclusion.","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"07 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129897036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
High nitrate levels in groundwater are impacting and restricting use of municipal water supplies in some locations. Nitrogen is a primary nutrient necessary for plant growth. Nitrogen is also a primary component of crop fertilizers, but when nitrogen is not used by crop plants, it can convert to nitrates and move with groundwater in the soil. Nitrates can contribute to pollution of lakes, rivers, and streams. Community groups and municipalities are filing citizen lawsuits under federal laws to restrict the use of manure and fertilizers that elevate nitrate concentrations in water supplies. While the federal water and pollution laws have exemptions for field application of livestock wastes and field runoff, the community groups and municipalities are charging that those exemptions do not apply in cases of nutrient application resulting in polluted drinking water. In new applications of federal law, their arguments are convincing courts to assess nitrate liability to farmers and restrict farming operations. When nitrate concentrations exceed the drinking water standard, community groups, and municipalities are looking to the courts for relief. A federal court in Washington State ruled that manure application that resulted in nitrates leaching into groundwater was the same as open dumping of garbage, holding the dairy farm liable for the nitrate contamination of ground water (United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 2015).
{"title":"The Debate about Farm Nitrates and Drinking Water","authors":"M. Hanson, A. Keller, M. Boland, W. Lazarus","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.233533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.233533","url":null,"abstract":"High nitrate levels in groundwater are impacting and restricting use of municipal water supplies in some locations. Nitrogen is a primary nutrient necessary for plant growth. Nitrogen is also a primary component of crop fertilizers, but when nitrogen is not used by crop plants, it can convert to nitrates and move with groundwater in the soil. Nitrates can contribute to pollution of lakes, rivers, and streams. Community groups and municipalities are filing citizen lawsuits under federal laws to restrict the use of manure and fertilizers that elevate nitrate concentrations in water supplies. While the federal water and pollution laws have exemptions for field application of livestock wastes and field runoff, the community groups and municipalities are charging that those exemptions do not apply in cases of nutrient application resulting in polluted drinking water. In new applications of federal law, their arguments are convincing courts to assess nitrate liability to farmers and restrict farming operations. When nitrate concentrations exceed the drinking water standard, community groups, and municipalities are looking to the courts for relief. A federal court in Washington State ruled that manure application that resulted in nitrates leaching into groundwater was the same as open dumping of garbage, holding the dairy farm liable for the nitrate contamination of ground water (United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 2015).","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128359896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Much uncertainty surrounds the Uruguay Round of Trade negotiations, especially with respect to agriculture. Negotiations are continuing. However, the outcomes are far from certain. Failure of this round of trade negotiations would not mean an end to GATT. Importantly, the existing environment for agricultural trade would not be immediately changed. Longer term effects are unclear. The biggest loss for U.S. agriculture would be the failure to realize the economic growth in developing countries that a successful Uruguay Round would stimulate and increasing market opportunities that would result from reductions in trade distorting subsidies and import barriers of developed countries.
{"title":"Is The Uruguay Round Dead","authors":"Paul Drazek, M. Paggi","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.131645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.131645","url":null,"abstract":"Much uncertainty surrounds the Uruguay Round of Trade negotiations, especially with respect to agriculture. Negotiations are continuing. However, the outcomes are far from certain. Failure of this round of trade negotiations would not mean an end to GATT. Importantly, the existing environment for agricultural trade would not be immediately changed. Longer term effects are unclear. The biggest loss for U.S. agriculture would be the failure to realize the economic growth in developing countries that a successful Uruguay Round would stimulate and increasing market opportunities that would result from reductions in trade distorting subsidies and import barriers of developed countries.","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126299415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
COVID-19 led to widespread job losses and only partial recovery during 2020. Rural workers were less adversely impacted than urban workers early in the pandemic. We discuss the path of employment recovery for rural areas, how they fare relative to urban areas, and differences across rural areas by infection levels.
{"title":"Lost and Found? Job Loss and Recovery in Rural America during COVID-19","authors":"S. Cho, J. Lee, John V. Winters","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.313116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.313116","url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 led to widespread job losses and only partial recovery during 2020. Rural workers were less adversely impacted than urban workers early in the pandemic. We discuss the path of employment recovery for rural areas, how they fare relative to urban areas, and differences across rural areas by infection levels.","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126563162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Matthew P. Feldmann, Michael L. Morris, David Hoisington
"'VJhy have genetically modified organW isms (GMOs) suddenly become a lighming rod for public debate? Proponents of GMOs say that genetic modification of plants and animals is nothing more than the latest in a long series of productivityenhancing technologies that have helped increase the world's food supply. Opponents counter that GMOs are fundamentally different from naturally occurring organisms so different that they pose a threat to the character and quali ty of the food supply. Who is right? We attempt to shed light on the controversy by addressing 10 basic questions about GMOs. 1. What is a GMO? GMOs are living organisms (plants, animals, bacteria) into which foreign genes have been inserted. The foreign genes come from various sources and change the cha~ acteristics of the recipient organism. Genetically modified crops, the focus of this article, are designed to do one of two things: (1) lower farm-level production costs, or (2) enhance product quality.
{"title":"Genetically Modified Organisms: Why All The Controversy?","authors":"Matthew P. Feldmann, Michael L. Morris, David Hoisington","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.132113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.132113","url":null,"abstract":"\"'VJhy have genetically modified organW isms (GMOs) suddenly become a lighming rod for public debate? Proponents of GMOs say that genetic modification of plants and animals is nothing more than the latest in a long series of productivityenhancing technologies that have helped increase the world's food supply. Opponents counter that GMOs are fundamentally different from naturally occurring organisms so different that they pose a threat to the character and quali ty of the food supply. Who is right? We attempt to shed light on the controversy by addressing 10 basic questions about GMOs. 1. What is a GMO? GMOs are living organisms (plants, animals, bacteria) into which foreign genes have been inserted. The foreign genes come from various sources and change the cha~ acteristics of the recipient organism. Genetically modified crops, the focus of this article, are designed to do one of two things: (1) lower farm-level production costs, or (2) enhance product quality.","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121123323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Some Implications of Federal Grazing, Timber, Irrigation, and Recreation Subsidies","authors":"B. Gardner","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.131400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.131400","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133446758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S. Zahniser, T. Hertz, P. Dixon, Maureen T. Rimmer
hanges to U.S. immigration laws and policies could alter the supply of foreign-born labor to all industries, including agriculture. As of March 2010, unauthorized immigrants accounted for 5.2% of the U.S. civilian labor force, according to estimates by Passell and Cohn (2011). In crop agriculture, this proportion is much higher: 48% of hired farmworkers are unauthorized, according to data for 2007-09 from the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) (Carroll, Georges, and Saltz, 2011). Similar survey-based data are not available for the livestock and animal product sectors, although unauthorized immigrant workers are certainly present in those sectors as well. To better understand how changes in the supply of foreign-born labor might affect agriculture, we use a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the U.S. economy to evaluate two different scenarios: (1) a 156,000-person increase in the number of temporary nonimmigrant farmworkers, such as those now admitted via the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Program, and (2) a 5.8-million-person reduction in the number of unauthorized workers in all sectors of the economy, including agriculture. These figures were chosen to represent possible policy-induced changes to the supply of labor but do not represent an assessment of the effects of any specific legislative proposal. A CGE model is well suited for this type of analysis because it takes account of linkages between factor and product markets in all industries, allowing us to quantify the potential effects of changes in immigration policy on domestic demand for U.S. agricultural output, on the U.S. labor market and wage costs to agriculture, and on exchange rates and international agricultural trade. In this article, we summarize the main findings of our modeling work and discuss the evolving economic context for foreign-born farm labor in the United States. A more detailed discussion of our modeling results may be found in a recently published report by USDA’s Economic Research Service (Zahniser, et al., 2012). An analysis of the status of current legislative proposals relating to immigration and agriculture may be found in Martin (2012).
美国移民法律和政策的变化可能会改变包括农业在内的所有行业的外国出生劳动力供应。根据Passell和Cohn(2011)的估计，截至2010年3月，非法移民占美国民用劳动力的5.2%。在农作物农业中，这一比例要高得多:根据美国劳工部全国农业工人调查(NAWS) 2007-09年的数据(Carroll, Georges, and Saltz, 2011)， 48%的雇佣农场工人是未经授权的。牲畜和动物产品部门没有类似的基于调查的数据，尽管这些部门肯定也存在非法移民工人。为了更好地理解外国出生劳动力供应的变化如何影响农业，我们使用美国经济的可计算一般均衡(CGE)模型来评估两种不同的情景:(1)临时非移民农场工人数量增加156,000人，例如现在通过H-2A临时农业计划进入的工人;(2)包括农业在内的所有经济部门的未经授权工人数量减少580万人。选择这些数字是为了表示政策可能导致的劳动力供应变化，但并不代表对任何具体立法建议的影响的评估。CGE模型非常适合这种类型的分析，因为它考虑了所有行业中要素和产品市场之间的联系，使我们能够量化移民政策变化对美国农业产出的国内需求、美国劳动力市场和农业工资成本、汇率和国际农业贸易的潜在影响。在这篇文章中，我们总结了我们的建模工作的主要发现，并讨论了在美国的外国出生的农场劳动力的不断变化的经济背景。关于我们的建模结果的更详细的讨论可以在美国农业部经济研究局最近发表的一份报告中找到(Zahniser, et al.， 2012)。马丁(2012)对目前有关移民和农业的立法提案的现状进行了分析。
{"title":"ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION REFORMS ON AGRICULTURE","authors":"S. Zahniser, T. Hertz, P. Dixon, Maureen T. Rimmer","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.129109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.129109","url":null,"abstract":"hanges to U.S. immigration laws and policies could alter the supply of foreign-born labor to all industries, including agriculture. As of March 2010, unauthorized immigrants accounted for 5.2% of the U.S. civilian labor force, according to estimates by Passell and Cohn (2011). In crop agriculture, this proportion is much higher: 48% of hired farmworkers are unauthorized, according to data for 2007-09 from the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) (Carroll, Georges, and Saltz, 2011). Similar survey-based data are not available for the livestock and animal product sectors, although unauthorized immigrant workers are certainly present in those sectors as well. To better understand how changes in the supply of foreign-born labor might affect agriculture, we use a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the U.S. economy to evaluate two different scenarios: (1) a 156,000-person increase in the number of temporary nonimmigrant farmworkers, such as those now admitted via the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Program, and (2) a 5.8-million-person reduction in the number of unauthorized workers in all sectors of the economy, including agriculture. These figures were chosen to represent possible policy-induced changes to the supply of labor but do not represent an assessment of the effects of any specific legislative proposal. A CGE model is well suited for this type of analysis because it takes account of linkages between factor and product markets in all industries, allowing us to quantify the potential effects of changes in immigration policy on domestic demand for U.S. agricultural output, on the U.S. labor market and wage costs to agriculture, and on exchange rates and international agricultural trade. In this article, we summarize the main findings of our modeling work and discuss the evolving economic context for foreign-born farm labor in the United States. A more detailed discussion of our modeling results may be found in a recently published report by USDA’s Economic Research Service (Zahniser, et al., 2012). An analysis of the status of current legislative proposals relating to immigration and agriculture may be found in Martin (2012).","PeriodicalId":185368,"journal":{"name":"Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134485702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：