itional appearance of the countryside, to protect the environment, to ensure food security at home and combat food scarcity abroad, to help the family farmer and to slow the corporate take-over of agriculture-are better achieved by their absence.subsidies forces farmers and farm-related industries to become more efficient, to diversify, to follow and anticipate the market. It gives farmers more independence, and gains them more respect. It leaves more government money to pay for other types of social services, like education and health care.Zealand agriculture is profitable without subsidies, and that means more people staying in the business: Alone among developed countries of the world, New Zealand has virtually the same percentage of its population employed in agriculture today as it did 30 years ago, and the same number of people living in rural areas as it did in 1920.
Output and net incomes for the New Zealand dairy industry are higher now than before subsidies ended - and the cost of milk production is among the lowest in the world. p align="justify"> The list of used literature
1.Data summarized from Life After Subsidies: The New Zealand Farming Experience 15 Years Later (2006), Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Inc). fedfarm.org.nz
2.Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evalu
3.Life After Subsidies: The New Zealand Farming Experience 15 Years Later (2002), Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Inc). fedfarm.org.nz
4.Reforming agricultural policy: lessons from four countries (2007)
6.Farming without subsidies? By Laura Sayre
