In an editorial on the Doha stalemate, the LA Times says:

Much of U.S. agricultural policy is designed to protect the interests of a small number of large and wealthy producers. Laws originally passed to aid small farmers during the Depression now result in astonishing inequities and are often counterproductive. The Washington Post recently revealed that the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion since 2000 to people who don’t farm at all — they simply happen to own property that was once used as a farm. Meanwhile, real farmers who rent cropland are being forced out of business by landowners who find it more profitable to use their property for other purposes while continuing to collect federal cash for crops they aren’t growing.

Ending these subsidies and lowering agricultural tariffs would boost the U.S. economy, eliminate waste and help farmers in the Third World trade their way out of poverty. It’s a shame Washington thinks that its protectionist farm policies are something to be surrendered only grudgingly, and only if others do so. Good riddance, we say.

While I agree it is absurd to pay $1.3 billion in agricultural subsidies to people who don’t farm at all, abolishing those payments won’t help farmers in the Third World trade their way out of poverty. Poor country exporters are only damaged by subsidies that actually affect their competitors’ level of agricultural output. These trade-distorting payments, which in WTO jargon are classified as “amber box” subsidies, are what the EU and US need to cut more deeply in order to achieve a trade deal with developing countries. Abolishing handouts to non-farmers who live on former farmland is a great idea, but it won’t break the Doha stalemate.