The other day, I read an article in Dagsavisen about the different views of the Norwegian political parties with respect to the Norwegian agriculture. The Right wants to stop most subsidies to Norwegian farmers and thus force them to compete with agricultural products from abroad. The Left, on the other side, wants to keep the extensive subsidies and protect the farmers from foreign competition.
I tend to hold the view that the Norwegian farming is not competitive, and that we should not artificially keep it alive with high levels of subsidies and high tariff-barriers. A near arctic environment can hardly be said to be ideal for farming. Why should the taxpayers pay the salaries for a few individuals who want to cling on to something that's not at all able to compete with agriculture in other more suitable areas?
Also, it would be much fairer towards developing countries, e.g. in Africa, if we would truly open ourselves to real free-trade instead of building tariff-barriers to keep those countries from selling their produce to us. That could enable many poor farmers in developing countries to build better lives for themselves. It is inherently unfair the way that we are shutting these farmers out of our markets, and insisting that they need to open up for us to sell our products to them.
In addition to that, the world would be better off if we were to concentrate on areas where we are able to compete, and let countries with suitable climates concentrate on agriculture. That is what is called comparative advantage - we should all do what we do or can do best, and then trade fairly with one another. That will lead to products of better quality, made faster, and in greater amounts.
But - and this is a very weighty but - there are two other factors in the equation. Firstly, there is a food shortage coming. With growing populations, some have estimated that global food production needs to be doubled or tripled in the next 40-50 years. That taken into account, it might not be so desirable to pull the plug on the Norwegian agriculture and let it die. Maybe, in the long run, it would be wise to keep it alive for a while.
The other thing is that if the global warming continues, which in all probability it will, this would lead to the Norwegian climate becoming more suitable for farming than it is now. And thus, in a few years, the Norwegian farming might become a lot more competitive than what is now the case.
I guess the bottom line is that, as with many other issues, this is a difficult one, and it's not easy to say what's the right thing to do. As one of the richest countries in the world, such mercantilistic policies are in any case simply unethical. And the subsidies and tariff-barriers need to be lowered, even though that means that some farmers will be forced out of business. Farms being shut down is not an irreversible process. When or if the Norwegian climate will become more favorable, agriculture will inevitably grow even though it temporarily shrinks.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think you have to support local farming. What happens when the price of oil makes transporting food from far away prohibitively expensive? It's a thought that isn't crazy.
Local food production is a national security issue. If you can't make your own food, at least enough to feed your people for awhile, then doesn't it seem possible that your country could not stand political pressure very long at all?
Well, right, who's going to put pressure on little old Norway? I'm just saying, first you can't grow your own food because it's cheaper to buy it from Africa, then you don't educate your own children, because it's cheaper to let the Swedes do it. Then who knows what. And then no one is doing anything because it's always cheaper to let someone else do it.
I didn't know Norwegian farmers grew much besides potatoes and carrots, and short season plants.
Post a Comment