Agricultural subsidies are a massive part of government spending in most industrialized countries. They also seem to be unassailable politically: few politicians dare criticize them.
Due to a budget crisis, New Zealand phased out most of its agricultural - and fisheries - subsidies in 1984-1986 and now has negligible government intervention in the farm sector.
The government offered a number of subsidies during the 1970s to assist farmers after the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community[12] and by the early 1980s government support provided some farmers with 40 percent of their income.[13] In 1984 the Labour government ended all farm subsidies under Rogernomics,[14] and by 1990 the agricultural industry became the most deregulated sector in New Zealand.[15] To stay competitive in the heavily subsidised European and US markets New Zealand farmers had to increase the efficiency of their operations.[16][17]
Unsurprisingly these reforms are talked up as "noble effort" by free market promoters like CATO.
Facing high budget deficits in the 1980s, New Zealand cut government spending, including eliminating nearly all farm subsidies. That was an impressive reform because the country is highly dependent on agriculture. Since then, New Zealand has remained a model of market-based farming.
The New Zealand government also lauds the results, though it does note they were contentious.
The redefinition of the State's role in business has been amongst the most successful, in economic and commercial terms, and the most controversial, in terms of its social and political impacts, of all of New Zealand's broad programme of reform since 1984.
Unexpectedly, even papers addressing Green-style concerns are rather approbative as well.
Reform had a positive impact on biodiversity by reducing the use of fertilizers and pesticides, decreasing pollution levels in rivers and reducing the farming of marginal land. There was a halt to land clearance and overstocking, which had been major causes of high levels of soil erosion. Livestock production has now been intensified on better land rather than hills prone to erosion, and hills have been reforested leading to a 50 percent increase in area under plantations.
It should be noted however, that agriculture in New Zealand has in recent years intensified significantly, especially in the dairy sector, which has caused renewed concerns about pollution and loss of biodiversity.
In the fisheries sector, as a result of both subsidy removal and the introduction of the new management regime, fish stocks were managed more effectively and in some cases recovered from overexploitation.
Having said all that, have there been any studies made, much later than the 80s, after the reforms had been in place for at least a decade, on how the general New Zealand public feels about the government having withdrawn all those subsidies? Are they supportive? Critical? On what basis? What about the farmers?
Considering how much almost everyone else spends on farm support, and how much it is claimed to be critical everywhere, what can be learned from New Zealand?
p.s. This question is asking about public sentiment and whether outcomes are perceived to have been beneficial. Please don't base answers primarily on hypothetical "food security" considerations at a national level. If said reforms have made individuals food insecure, by all means, that bears mentioning (and backing up with sources).
