Griswold’s innovative argument against subsidies

A report from France’s state statistical agency say that

French farmers, seen by many as the pampered beneficiaries of generous European subsidies, have been getting poorer since the late 1990s, despite the fact that they are increasingly taking second jobs outside farming to boost their income…

Earlier CAP reforms, slowing productivity improvements and sharp falls in agricultural prices have squeezed French farmers’ incomes in the last decade, according to Insee. It says farming revenues have fallen since 1998 and, in spite of a recovery last year, are still down about 10 per cent.

Dan Griswold reads that FT story and writes:

The decline of the French farm has occurred despite, or perhaps because of, the generous support of the CAP. France’s farmers receive the equivalent of $11.6 billion a year in handouts, more than one fifth of total European Union spending on agriculture. Those subsidies have arguably kept French farms from becoming more competitive and thus contributed to their long-term decline.

Subsidies hurt their recipients?!? Such a counterintuitive suggestion needs to be backed by an argument, but Griswold doesn’t make one.

1 thought on “Griswold’s innovative argument against subsidies

Comments are closed.