There are many opinions from different parts of the world and it is like that because each country has its own point of view and depends how much are they involved in the situation. I will try to distinguish myself and to be objective. I think that if the subsidies were removed overnight the impact on the average consumer and producer will be very bad. Family farmers will be driven into bankruptcy and this will lead to production falls. With less production the market will have risen on food prices and this will reflect directly to the average consumer.
Another thing that will probably happen is that big corporation will continue their growth and they will kill smaller farmers with their prices. This will cause no competition in the agriculture and will lead to unfairly high prices. Another important thing that may occur is the lower quality of the products, because every farmer corporation will try to get as much as they can and they will no longer care about the quality because the competition is gone. I think that the benefits will be less from removing the subsidy, because this will lead to affecting the market.
Another important question that faced the world is: What would be better for the poorest country increasing the foreign aid or give them the opportunities to struggle for their money on agriculture market or in other words stopping the subsidy in the rich countries, so the poorest one can have their opportunities to compete. When I’m in the situation to choose between two decisions like poor or rich, small or big I think that the answer is always somewhere in the middle. But unfortunately at most of the time we have to take solutions that are mutually exclusive.
We have one very good expression about that in Bulgaria “There is no way Wolf to be full and lamb to be whole. ”. If there is an opportunity for those two things to work together will be great. If not, I am thinking that it is always better to let the countries who know what they are doing, to do the right things and wait for them to help others. Otherwise if smaller countries going to the debt, bigger will not be able to help them at all. If they are not good enough to compete in the niche, they have to try improve their goods and try to find another way to sell their produce or crops or whatever they have.
They have to try to make their goods different than others and this will make them more competitive at the market. This is my opinion about this question and the best way is if they do not know how to compete and how to be attractive on the market they better stay and wait for aids. Otherwise this will lead to lower quality of the agricultural goods and sometimes shortage of these goods. Government in developed countries continues to lavish extensive support on agricultural producers even though those producers constitute very small segments of the population.
I think that government does this in order to help its own nation not just the producers. Yes they try to stimulate internal production with the entire subsidy that they gave but this is good for the whole nation not just for producers. Otherwise they have to import all this goods from other countries and this will cause higher price on the market and this will lower the purchasing power of average consumer. In my opinion government doing this in order to satisfy and protect its nation.
Regarding to the question about World Trade Organization and what they are trying to do with reducing barriers to free trade in agriculture I absolutely agree with them. As I stated before the perfect way is to find the golden middle between subsidies and free trade. In fact, free trade exists now, but some countries have difficulties in fighting competition. In any case I do not think that the full subsidy is correct, but in some areas is imperative. Each country should establish its own priorities for subsidies and to comply with World Trade Organization.