Question

Study the arguments for and against agricultural subsidies. What is your view on this issue?

Answer 1

Explanation:

In India, with 60-70 percent rural population, agricultural subsidies have been used to reduce cost burden on farmers, and also steer modern technologies into agriculture. Over years, it was seen that none of the subsidies do reach the small, marginal and needy farmers. Both kind of subsidies have helped corporate agricultural companies, at the same time, polluting rural environment and increasing the cost of production. For example, Indian farmers had a long tradition of preserving seeds from their harvest, share among themselves and reuse them. Government, with a declared objective of increasing yields, introduced hybrid seeds often offering subsidies to induce farmers to shift from their traditional methods. Now, it is genetically modified seeds. In the process, currently farmers who had zero cost on seeds today end up paying anywhere between 6 to 50 percent of per acre production cost, despite subsidies. And, have lost the skills, capacity, abilities and inclination to preserve, select and improvise seeds in their home. Same story with soil enrichment materials and methods. Dependence of farmers on chemical fertilisers has increased multiple times, and the cost burden. Corporate companies and big farmers have gained from subsidies, while non-subsidised farmers faced the changed scenario. Officials have been extremely inefficient in identifying and connecting the programmes with the needy beneficiaries.

In India, with 60-70 percent rural population, agricultural subsidies have been used to reduce cost burden on farmers, and also steer modern technologies into agriculture. Over years, it was seen that none of the subsidies do reach the small, marginal and needy farmers. Both kind of subsidies have helped corporate agricultural companies, at the same time, polluting rural environment and increasing the cost of production. For example, Indian farmers had a long tradition of preserving seeds from their harvest, share among themselves and reuse them. Government, with a declared objective of increasing yields, introduced hybrid seeds often offering subsidies to induce farmers to shift from their traditional methods. Now, it is genetically modified seeds. In the process, currently farmers who had zero cost on seeds today end up paying anywhere between 6 to 50 percent of per acre production cost, despite subsidies. And, have lost the skills, capacity, abilities and inclination to preserve, select and improvise seeds in their home. Same story with soil enrichment materials and methods. Dependence of farmers on chemical fertilisers has increased multiple times, and the cost burden. Corporate companies and big farmers have gained from subsidies, while non-subsidised farmers faced the changed scenario. Officials have been extremely inefficient in identifying and connecting the programmes with the needy beneficiaries.After weaning away farmers from their methods, and introducing 'external input' agriculture, presently, government is saying it is extremely expensive and burdensome to provide agricultural subsidies. And, wants farmers to buy from open, competitive markets. However, farmers who forever are at a disadvantage in markets do not get adequate price for their produce. Thus, the argument for direct cash payments.

Mark as Brainlist