|
Agricultural support is often advocated as raising national security; there is also an implication that national security is above economic analysis. In Discussion Paper No. 287, Programme Director L Alan Winters challenges that view. He argues that the amount of security desired must depend on its cost, and that choices must be made between different means of achieving security. Winters reports estimates of welfare losses in the United Kingdom arising from reductions in the supply of food and rises in its price; the estimates are not exceptionally high and do not justify special treatment of food production. Even with a total absence of imports the UK could feed itself. Virtually no recent food embargoes have been successful. The correct policy response to a possible embargo is to store food for the short run as well as agricultural inputs especially natural fertilizers which will allow a rapid expansion of output in the longer run. Current `high price, high output' agricultural policies increase dependence on vulnerable energy inputs, exhaust the soil and so probably reduce national security. Alan Winters discussed security arguments for agricultural subsidies at a lunchtime meeting, reported in this Bulletin.The National Security Argument for Agricultural Protection L Alan Winters Discussion Paper No. 287, November 1988 (IT) |
|