The Bad Harvest: Crop Insurance Reform Has Become a Good Idea Gone Awry
The Bad Harvest: Crop Insurance Reform Has Become a Good Idea Gone Awry
复制标题
歉收：农作物保险改革本是一个好主意却出了差错
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Skees
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Skees
许多农业政策分析人士认为，与临时援助相比，部分补贴的作物保险将是保护农民免受灾难影响的一种更有效、更公平的方式。这些争论导致了1980年、1994年和2000年的重大农作物保险立法，以及过去20年来几项农业法案的其他重大改革。但目前的联邦农作物保险计划昂贵、复杂且效率低下。这个过程已经被一组利益相关者捕获，他们帮助混合了曾经是一个好想法的范围、成本和低效。该计划的好处是抬高了地价，为年轻农民创造了进入门槛。这些补贴对保险公司的行为产生了意想不到的反常后果。目前的计划偏爱风险最高的农民和地区，并已变得如此慷慨的补贴，以至于它可能比临时援助更低效和不公平。
Many agriculture policy analysts have argued that partially subsidized crop insurance would be a more efficient and equitable way to protect farmers from disaster than ad hoc aid. Those arguments led to major crop insurance legislation in 1980, 1994, and 2000, as well as other significant reforms in several farm bills over the past twenty years. But the current federal crop insurance program is expensive, complex, and inefficient. The process has been captured by a set of stakeholders who have helped compound the scope, costs, and inefficiency of what at one time was a good idea. Benefits from the program are bid into land prices, creating barriers to entry for young farmers. And the subsidies have had unintended and perverse consequences on insurance company behavior. The current program favors the highest risk farmers and regions and has become so heavily subsidized that it may be even more inefficient and inequitable than ad hoc assistance.