Sarkozy and Schwab should be ashamed of themselves.

If there is one thing that could bring down rising food costs currently, it is scrapping agricultural subsidies in America and Europe.

The subsidies feel like a conspiracy to grind Africa into submission. Not only do they cost the taxpayer half of the EU budget, but it piles on the costs of food bills.

Yet Susan Schwab disgraced herself, by saying that it was "unconscionable" that developing countries were demanding protectionist policies. I think all trade tarrifs should be lifted, but I would rather we had protectionism for Africa than Europe or the USA.

Sadly, there is little hope that subsidies will be lifted in the USA, owing to huge political pressure.

What is truely "unconsionable", is that there is protectionism for the rich. EU subsidies aren't going towards 'the little guy', nor are American subsidies, although Conservative politicians would have you believe otherwise. The subsidies are going to massive corporations, like Tate and Lyle.

How on earth Republicans and UMP members can bleat about the unfettered free market, like their British counterparts, while supporting trade barriers big enough to reach the clouds is bewildering.

Postscript: I'm hoping all people on here don't support Sarkozy. I remember the rather heated debate last year, when JR supported Sarkozy. Thank god he's gone, as there are actually many reasonable, and loyal socialist New Labourites. JR's support was based on the 35 hour working week, which was apparently bringing down France. You would have though from his moanings, that all French workers were being dragged out from their workplaces against their will. Well, it only applied to half of workers, and productivity as well as quality of life soared. But what about the economic effects? Unemployment fell by 3%. Someone's freedom to work more than 35 hours was still met. Except they weren't paid overtime. They still had freedom to work, but it was balanced against freedom from being coerced into working long hours. There are literally millions in this country who sign contracts 'voluntarily', saying that they should work for more than 48 hours. It was only a couple of years ago that a third of men were working more than 50 hours. We could learn some lessons from the French. But not on agricultural subsidies.



Display: Sort:

Re: Sarkozy (#1)

I agree but the French left are far more protective of agriculture than the right.

Labour's position has long been pro-free trade (apart from a bit of a lapse in the 79 - 83 period of madness) precisely because it means cheaper food for working people. Time we spoke out a bit more about that.

Re: Sarkozy (#2)

Indeed, when it was the biggest election issue, four score and seven years ago (and the couple of decades preceeding it), I think it was the Liberals and Labour who opposed tariffs, as opposed to the Tories.

Oh no they shouldn't... (#3)

My opinions on this matter are highly controversial, but I feel for too long this debate has been coloured by an almost universal consensus that I believe to be wrong, so I feel I should express them. Strategic protectionism is a good thing and has been the driver for the economic development of most developed nations. Free trade is little more than excuse for rich nations to exercise economic advantage.

The key with protectionism is to develop high value industries, developing nations should be allowed to exercise protectionist measures to accomplish this.

Agriculture is generally a distraction in this kind of debate since you can assume that any developing nation aspires towards developed status and in any developed nation agriculture makes up a very small proportion of GDP.


As far as agricultural subsidies go, there is no reason not to let them continue provided allowances are made for developing nations. French farmers are not all that wealthy and it pays to keep the agriculture ticking over in order to maintain the required base of skilled workers. With food prices riding high, our aim should be food security not the imposition of free market ideology.

Re: Oh yes they should.... (#4)

I made a point about how if you believe in protectionism, it should not be for the rich, but for the genuine dirt poor. Why are we giving hundreds of millions of pounds to Tate and Lyle?

I trust Oxfam, and they say that scrapping agricultural subsidies would be seven times more effective than the combined aid budgets of the world.

It hasn't been the key driving force for economic expansion. Look at New Zealand. They got rid of subsidies, and their agricultural sector has as a result become much stronger.


I think Blair was mostly progressive with foreign policy *ducks*. But in close competition with his support for an independent Palestine for his most progressive foreign policy, was his determination to get rid of CAP. Agricultural subsidies mean that African farmers start off tens of billions of pounds behind rich Western corporations. Lets just get that clear: far more is spent rewarding corporations, and rich farmers, than helping the rural poor with agricultural subsidies.


It is precisely because agriculture is a very small percentage of GDP over here, that it is not a distraction. Because we can profit off a very small percentage of GDP, while we ruin a major source of GDP for developing countries.

Free trade means food is cheaper. Who would survive trade barriers enforced upon Britain? Corporations, not a poor farmer. Put that in reverse, and we find that Africa doesn't have many cut throat corporations, but just poor farmers. Free trade doesn't punish any farmers, as we've seen with New Zealand, and it means the percentage that a low-income household spends on food in relation to income, drops. Because high food costs don't punish the rich. They hit the poor.

Re: Oh yes they should.... (#5)

A larger problem I feel is that countries have been forced by the WTO to lower their tariffs both on manufactured and agricultural goods and scrap certain protectionist policies. The result of this is that the business climate for farmers has become unstable due to fluctuations in the world market. My view is that developing nations should be allowed a greater range of policy tools to protect their domestic industries. I believe that it is better to depend on policies determined by national governments than to impose a centralised international economic doctrine.

I suspect that Oxfam whatever their good intentions are getting their figures from the World Bank, who tend to hold pro free trade views. It's along running dispute between the othodox and heterodox economic viewpoints. Many of the studies don't take into account such things as the fact that tariffs can be an excellent source of revenue for developing world governments who might have trouble raising money through other means of taxation. It's also worth pointing out that many of the subsidised products are "temperate zone" products such as beef, wheat and dairy products. Only Brazil and Argentina are major exporters of these products. Most developing world products such as coffee, tea and cocoa are not threatened by subsidies since their growth is not subsidised.

There is certainly some call for reform of the CAP to ensure that the benefits aren't given disporportionately to large agricultural firms, but for the most part the CAP is not in my opinion the universal evil it's often portrayed as. I'm not sure about the New Zealand example, but I don't think that the argument can be simply be cut and pasted to France.

Basically, by giving developing countries the freedom to impose their own policies they can better control the cost of agricultural products and create stable markets. The cost to the developing world will be higher food prices but the developing world can take the hit.

Re: Sarkozy and Schwab should be ashamed (#6)

Quite right - the collapse of the Doha Round  is a major catastrophe - far more significant than the Credit Crunch.  In the past the UK has been able to take a lead role, but with a socially toxic PM and a Foreign Sec who is at war with him..