Working Paper: CEPR ID: DP287
Authors: L. Alan Winters
Abstract: Agricultural support is often advocated as a means to national security. This is misguided. At current levels of consumption there is considerable scope for substitution away from food without catastrophic welfare losses, and even in the total absence of imports the United Kingdom could feed itself. Oil and chemical inputs into agriculture are probably more vulnerable to embargo than food, there having been virtually no past instances of successful food embargoes. If a food embargo is felt likely, the correct policy response would be to store food for the short run and agricultural inputs -- especially natural fertility -- to allow a rapid expansion of output in the longer run. Current 'high price, high output' agricultural policies increase dependence on vulnerable inputs (energy) and exhaust the soil. They probably reduce national security.
Keywords: agricultural policy; embargoes; national security; agricultural trade
JEL Codes: 114; 420; 71; 0
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| high agricultural output policies (Q18) | greater vulnerability in times of crisis (H12) |
| reliance on intensive farming methods (Q15) | reduced resilience to supply shocks (F41) |
| price changes (P22) | consumption patterns (D10) |
| political dynamics (D72) | embargo outcomes (P33) |
| current agricultural policies (Q18) | national security outcomes (F52) |