This paper aims at this situation. I will first outline the development of American agricultural policy, and then discuss its enlightenment and influence on China. The so-called enlightenment, considering what China can learn from the experience of the United States. The so-called impact refers to how China will respond to the impact of changes in American agricultural policies on China's agricultural development after China's entry into WTO.
The Development of American Agricultural Policy
The agricultural policy of the federal (central) government of the United States is the result of the interaction of three factors. First, natural factors such as land, population and climate, second, market factors and third, political factors. The development of American agricultural policy since the founding of the People's Republic of China can be roughly divided into two stages. Before the 1920s, the American government basically adopted a laissez-faire and non-intervention policy towards the agricultural products market, but promoted the development of agriculture by investing in the economic base. Since the 1930s, the US government has directly intervened in the agricultural products market through financial subsidies and other means.
Laissez-faire and agricultural extension
Like all other countries, the economic development of the United States began with agriculture. In early colonial countries, the production and export of agricultural products and raw materials were their economic lifeblood. /kloc-At the beginning of the 20th century, agricultural products accounted for 75% of the total export value of the United States. In 1930s, more than 75% of tobacco and more than 80% of cotton were exported abroad. Until the civil war, cotton alone accounted for more than half of American exports.
/kloc-In the second half of the 20th century, with the development of western territories, the arable land in the United States tripled. Although the price of agricultural products fell sharply after the civil war, compared with non-agriculture, it still showed a spiral upward trend for more than half a century. There are three main reasons. First of all, the demand from Europe has greatly increased. Foreign markets absorbed one third of new agricultural products. Nearly half of the new wheat products are sold overseas. Second, the growth of American cities and immigrant population has stimulated the demand for agricultural products. Third, with the development of industrialization, the growth rate of agricultural productivity in the United States is much lower than that of manufacturing productivity.
From the civil war to the 1920s, the American government adopted a non-intervention policy on the fluctuation of agricultural product market prices. But it was not completely passive, but adopted a series of investment policies, which indirectly or directly promoted the development of American agriculture. First of all, the federal government and many state governments invested heavily in canals and railways, which greatly reduced the transportation cost of agricultural products. After the Civil War, the increase of American agricultural products export largely benefited from the reduction of transportation costs, which enhanced the competitiveness of American agricultural products in the European market.
Secondly, from 65438 to 0862, the federal government began to implement a series of policies and measures specifically aimed at agricultural development. 1862, President Lincoln signed the land-grant universities Act and the Homestead Act. The former bill stipulates that the federal government will grant state-owned land to the States free of charge, and the States must use the obtained land and its income to build universities with agronomy and engineering as their main disciplines. The latter bill stipulates that all farmers who have cultivated state-owned land continuously for five years can obtain the ownership of 160 mu of state-owned land only by paying the required certificate fee. In the same year, the United States Department of Agriculture was established. 1987, the us congress passed a law to establish agricultural experimental stations funded by the federal government in various States. In the 30 years after 1862, USDA's expenditure grew at an average annual rate of 13.2%.
A series of policies and measures for supporting agriculture implemented by the federal government of the United States since the second half of the19th century are not only the result of socio-economic changes such as territorial expansion, population increase and accelerated industrialization in the United States, but also the product of changes in its political system and power. Here, take the passage of the land-grant universities Bill as an example. The bill was introduced by Representative Moreel from Vermont. According to the proposal, each state obtains state-owned land from the federal government free of charge according to the number of senators and congressmen it owns (calculated by 300,000 acres of land per congressman or senator). This proposal was strongly supported by the eastern state legislators with a small land and a large population. However, since almost all of the \ \ \ \ "state-owned land \ \ \ \" held by the federal government is located in the west, legislators in western states are worried that once this proposal becomes law, a large area of land in the west may be used for speculation by giant businessmen in the east. A congressman representing Wisconsin criticized the proposal to turn the whole western region into new york territory. \ \ \ \ "Western lawmakers are also worried that the land-grant universities Bill may hinder the passage of the homestead law and the railway bill requiring the federal government to fund the construction of the transcontinental railway. These two bills are the key to the development of the western region and are fought for by western legislators.
Due to the opposition of western parliamentarians, the land-grant universities Bill was once stranded and failed to pass the special committee of the National Assembly. But it was finally passed by the National Assembly in 1862 and the Homestead Law. The reason is determined by the democratic electoral system in the United States. 1862 is the election year. If * * * and the party with a majority in Congress can't win the vote in the Midwest, they can't win the election. 1860 * * * and the party's national congress in Chicago made a resolution to support the Homestead Law and build a continental railway. With the approaching of 1862 general election, it is necessary for * * * and the party to promote the legislation of homestead law. As a historian said, \ \ \ * * * And the party's position in the central and western regions is so weak that its campaign team has to face the majority of voters in the central and western regions without passing the homestead law.
Therefore, * * * and the leadership of the Party promoted the adoption of the Homestead Law in the National Assembly in May 1862. Western lawmakers reciprocated and stopped opposing the land-grant universities Bill. Senator Pomeroy of Kansas said, "Now almost all of them (Eastern Councillors) have voted for the homestead act, and they will never get their hands on those lands again. Therefore, the eastern States should receive land grants from universities. \ \ \ \ "Homestead Law and land-grant universities Law were passed in the same year of 1862, which was the result of the logrolling of interests of parliamentarians representing the East and the West.
Financial subsidies and direct intervention
Although the government has taken the above-mentioned measures to support agriculture, the agricultural development in the United States has been in a state of ups and downs since the Civil War. Especially during the First World War and the Great Depression, American agriculture experienced unprecedented ups and downs. At the beginning of the war, the total net income of American agriculture was $3.6 billion. By 19 19, it will reach $9.3 billion. But after only two years, the income dropped sharply to $3.7 billion. Then, in the 1920s, agricultural income gradually rose to $6 1 billion, but fell to $654,380+0.9 billion again in the 32 years of the Great Depression. 1932, agriculture still employs a quarter of the American labor force, but in the greatly reduced national income, agriculture only accounts for about 7%. Many farmers who are heavily in debt and trapped in poverty are desperate. They either block the transportation of grain into the city, or gather people to make trouble, violently resist the law, and threaten the personal safety of law enforcers.
The direct cause of the agricultural crisis is the sharp drop in the prices of agricultural products. With the same price, the wheat price of 1932 is only four times that of 1925.
Source: China Rural Research Network.