When U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz announced in 1974 that "food is a weapon," he voiced a growing national belief in the political power of food resources. President Carter's 1980 decision to embargo grain sales to the Soviet Union appeared at first to confirm this popular notion. But can exporting nations, such as the United States, really use food as a powerful instrument of foreign policy? If so, are they using that weapon more frequently? Are importing nations taking steps to reduce their vulnerability? Challenging the view that food has emerged as a political weapon, Robert Paarlberg undertakes the first systematic inquiry into the relation between food resources and international power. Paarlberg maintains that food trade is seldom manipulated for reasons of foreign policy, due to the greater priority assigned by most nations to domestic food and farm policy objectives. To support his argument, he reviews the recent grain trade experience of three significant and divergent nations—India, the Soviet Union, and the United States. He then examines in detail two exceptional instances in which the coercive power of the U.S. food weapon was put to the test: Lyndon Johnson's manipulation of food aid to India in 1965–1967 and the Carter embargo on grain sales to the Soviet Union in 1980–1981. He concludes that the difficulties experienced in each instance only reinforced the larger trend against linking grain trade policy to foreign policy—a trend that can be applauded by those concerned with world food security and trade efficiency. Robert Paarlberg's challenge of the food power concept provides a valuable comparative insight into the conduct of national as well as international food policies.
When U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz announced in 1974 that "food is a weapon," he voiced a growing national belief in the political power of food resources. President Carter's 1980 decision to embargo grain sales to the Soviet Union appeared at first to confirm this popular notion. But can exporting nations, such as the United States, really use food as a powerful instrument of foreign policy? If so, are they using that weapon more frequently? Are importing nations taking steps to reduce their vulnerability? Challenging the view that food has emerged as a political weapon, Robert Paarlberg undertakes the first systematic inquiry into the relation between food resources and international power. Paarlberg maintains that food trade is seldom manipulated for reasons of foreign policy, due to the greater priority assigned by most nations to domestic food and farm policy objectives. To support his argument, he reviews the recent grain trade experience of three significant and divergent nations—India, the Soviet Union, and the United States. He then examines in detail two exceptional instances in which the coercive power of the U.S. food weapon was put to the test: Lyndon Johnson's manipulation of food aid to India in 1965–1967 and the Carter embargo on grain sales to the Soviet Union in 1980–1981. He concludes that the difficulties experienced in each instance only reinforced the larger trend against linking grain trade policy to foreign policy—a trend that can be applauded by those concerned with world food security and trade efficiency. Robert Paarlberg's challenge of the food power concept provides a valuable comparative insight into the conduct of national as well as international food policies.
Chapter 1. The Case Against Modern Farming -- Chapter 2. Food Swamp Nation -- Chapter 3. The Limits of Local Food -- Chapter 4. The Panic for Organic -- Chapter 5. Should Peasants Stay Poor? -- Chapter 6. Rejecting Biotech Food -- Chapter 7. The Fate of Farm Animals -- Chapter 8. The Brave New Future of Food.
Commissioned by the International Food Policy Research Institute, this discussion paper asks who is responsible for assuring food security in an age of globalization? Paarlberg (political science, Wellesley College) argues that significant hunger persists in some regions largely because of governance deficits and failures at the national, rather than the global, level. He then suggests options for improving the performance of national governments in countries increasingly affected by hunger (particularly those in Africa). Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)
What's good for the United States may well turn out to be good for international economic policy coordination. In this post-cold war era marked by pressing domestic social concerns and fiscal deficits, Robert L. Paarlberg says that the U.S. government should take an inward-first approach to global economic policy. Unless the domestic front is secured, he believes that international initiatives cannot succeed for lack of domestic support. It's a contrary view. The outward-first approach has dominated U.S. policy in the post-war and cold war eras. Paarlberg holds that the period was exceptional in the longer history of the nation and its relations with other nations. In the future, this sort of policymaking will be increasingly difficult to sustain. The U.S. economy is not as strong as it once was in relation to other economies. The security imperatives of the cold war have largely evaporated. And Congress is certainly no longer deferential to the executive branch. Under these new circumstances, outward-first international conferences, international negotiations, and international agreements may not work as a starting point for international economic cooperation. In this highly readable book, part of the Brookings Integrating National Economies Series, Paarlberg offers an in-dept examination of the merits of an inward-first approach to economic policy leadership. He contends that this approach should not be equated with protectionism, because it refers only to policy sequence, not to content. To the extent that inward-first is unilateral, he maintains that unilateral action at home can pave the way for cooperative actions abroad. He tests his argument with more detailed studies in several different policy arenas—including international fiscal policy coordination and discipline, agricultural policy reform, and global environmental policy. Leadership Abroad Begins at Home presents an instructive survey of American political and policymaki
Genetically modified (GM) food crops have inspired increasing controversy over the past decade. By the mid-1990s they were widely grown in the U.S., Canada, and Argentina, but precautionary regulations continue to limit their use elsewhere. The restrictive policies of Europe and Japan toward GM crops have been much discussed. Less attention has been paid to the policies affecting the adoption of GM crops in the developing world, where their potential impact on the availability and quality of food is even greater. In this book Robert Paarlberg looks at the policy choices regarding GM food made by four important developing countries: Kenya, Brazil, India, and China. Of these, so far only China has approved the planting of GM crops. Paarlberg identifies five policy areas in which governments of developing countries can either support or discourage GM crops: intellectual property rights, biosafety, trade, food safety, and public research and investment. He notes that highly cautious biosafety policies have so far been the key reason that Kenya, Brazil, and India have hesitated to plant GM crops. These cautious policies have been strongly reinforced by international market forces and international diplomatic and NGO pressures. China has been less cautious toward GM crops, in part because there is less opportunity in China for international organizations or independent critics of GM crops to challenge official policy.
Bank lending for agriculture and rural development from the 1970s to the 1980s: will the decline continue? Anticipating the challenges of the 1990s. Regional variations.
In a lively and easy-to-navigate, question-and-answer format, Food Politics carefully examines and explains the most important issues on today's global food landscape.
Because of these powerful underlying circumstances, America's strongest policy response, both to climate change and obesity, will be adaptation rather than mitigation. As the damaging consequences of climate change become manifest, America will not impose adequate measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption, attempting instead to protect itself from storms and sea-level rise through costly infrastructure upgrades. In response to the damaging health consequences of obesity, America will opt for medical interventions and physical accommodations, rather than the policy measures that would be needed to induce better diets or more exercise. These adaptation responses will generate serious equity problems, both at home and abroad. Responding to obesity with medical interventions will fall short for those in America most prone to obesity - racial minorities and the poor - since these groups have never enjoyed adequate access to quality health care.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.