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.
American taxpayers can celebrate the expiration at the end of 2011 of more than $6 billion in subsidies for ethanol and other biofuels, but other absurdities and distortions remain. For example, as Matthew Wald recently reported in the New York Times, fuel producers will pay penalties to the U.S.
I think few of us involved in the 2008 farm bill process would have thought the new farm bill could be even worse, but the agricultural committees seem to have found a way to hijack the supercommittee process to their own ends.
The latest edition of the World Bank’s Food Price Watch arrived in my inbox the other day and it was a helpful reminder that, while the world’s attention is focused on the Horn of Africa, there are still millions of people in other parts of the world who are at risk of going hungry or sinking back in to poverty because of high food prices.
My Foreign Policy column this week suggests that in the Twenty-First Century, famines can only occur with the active engagement of local leadership – taking away food from producers and/or denying access to agencies delivering emergency relief. In Somalia, the leadership that is denying access is al-Shabab – the group in control of the areas of the country where famine has already begun.
I wrote here three years ago, during the last food price crisis, that corn-based ethanol subsidies were economically inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and inequitable. So I listened with great interest yesterday to an NPR story on the likelihood that the ethanol subsidy will be eliminated as part of a budget deal.
With many farm commodity prices at near-record highs, agricultural subsidies are emerging as a key target in the budget debate. Direct payments of roughly $5 billion per year are coming in for particular scrutiny because they are distributed without regard to market prices. Agriculture industry groups, however, complain that targeting farm subsidies is unfair:
Last week, the G-20 agriculture ministers meeting in Paris issued a communiqué calling for the World Food Programme to develop hedging strategies to purchase food. In a little-noticed section towards the end of a 24-page document, the ministers stated:
We invite the multilateral, regional and national development banks or agencies to further explore, in connection with the private sector as appropriate:
Development of hedging strategies that could help international humanitarian agencies, in particular WFP, to optimize food procurements and maximize the purchasing power of financial resources, building upon forward purchase… (Annex 5)
The Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa held an event on Capitol Hill on Friday to launch an excellent report by Stephanie Mercier, a former Senate Ag Committee staffer. I had the pleasure of serving as a discussant. Though the report title focuses on food aid and the next farm bill, the report also covers the evolution of U.S. food aid and the modest but important improvements that were made in the 2008 farm bill.