With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
Despite showing leadership in opposing a pork-laden farm bill, the administration failed to do so yesterday. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson denied Texas Governor Rick Perry's request to cut in half the government-mandated level for ethanol in gasoline to help reduce soaring corn prices. While debate continues over the exact contribution of biofuels to the recent global food price hikes, corn-based ethanol has clearly driven up the price of corn and Governor Perry is particularly concerned about the effect of rising feed prices on the state's large livestock industry.
For me, the impact of biofuels on staple grain prices -- white corn, wheat, and rice -- is of even greater interest because people, not cows, depend on them for nutrition and the burden on poor people in developing countries, who often spend half of their household incomes on food, is especially high. Whatever the impact is, and the estimates range from the low single digits to as high as 75 percent in a recently-released World Bank paper, it will surely grow as the mandate for blending gasoline with ethanol is set to rise from 9 billion gallons to 15 billion gallons by 2015. This means that nearly one half (up from roughly one quarter) of the U.S. corn crop will be diverted from food, for people or animals, to fuel.
Waiving all or part of the mandate this year would not solve the food crisis on its own, but it would set the stage for a new president and Congress to reconsider this ill-advised policy next year. They should do so, not only because of the upward pressure on food prices, but also because corn is an inefficient ethanol feedstock (requiring almost as much energy to produce as it generates when burned), the taxpayer burden from government subsidies to the industry grows with production, and the competition for land to produce crops for both food and fuel probably contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions compared with gasoline, rather than reducing those emissions as promised.
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and Representative Ed Royce (R-CA) have teamed up with Democratic colleagues Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) to introduce new legislation that would reform US international food aid to deliver more help to more people in crisis, faster.
As donors gather next week in Rome to pledge funds to the International Fund for Agriculture Development , they may be wondering where the United States is. Given the generally high marks this independent fund earns for development effectiveness, the uncertainty around a US pledge is troubling. In this “America First” moment, it’s worth asking when it comes to IFAD, what’s in it for the United States and what will be lost if the United States drops out?
One of the mysteries of development economics is why more people in subsistence agriculture don't migrate to cities where incomes are much, much higher. New data suggests one answer: when they move, their incomes may not go up as much as we thought.
Members of the World Trade Organization will be meeting next week in Buenos Aires to discuss the future of agricultural and other trade policies that could have important implications for food security and jobs in developing countries (eventually). And members of the US House and Senate agricultural committees will be meeting through next year to craft a new five-year farm bill that will help shape global markets and determine how much and how quickly US food aid can be delivered to people in desperate need around the world.