首页
登录
职称英语
This spring, disaster loomed in the global food market. Precipitous increases in
This spring, disaster loomed in the global food market. Precipitous increases in
游客
2024-12-29
13
管理
问题
This spring, disaster loomed in the global food market. Precipitous increases in the prices of staples like rice (up more than a hundred and fifty percent in a few months) and maize provoked food riots, toppled governments, and threatened the lives of tens of millions. But the bursting of the commodity bubble eased those pressures, and food prices, while still high, have come well off the astronomical levels they hit in April. For American, the drop in commodity prices has put a few more bucks in people’s pockets; in much of the developing world, it may have saved many from actually starving. So did the global financial crisis solve the global food crisis?
Temporarily, perhaps. But the recent price drop doesn’t provide any long-term respite from the threat food shortages or future price spikes. Nor has it reassured anyone about the health of the global agricultural system, which the crisis revealed as dangerously unstable. Four decades after the Green Revolution, and after waves of market reforms intended to transform agricultural production, we’re still having a hard time insuring that people simply get enough to eat, and we seen to be vulnerable to supply shocks than ever.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Over the past two decades, countries around the world have moved away from their focus on "food security" and handed market forces a greater rote in shaping agricultural policy. Before the nineteen-eighties, developing countries had so-called "agricultural marketing boards", which would buy commodities from farmers at fixed prices (prices high enough to keep farmers farming), and then store them in strategic reserves that could be used in the event of bad harvests or soaring import prices. But in the eighties and nineties, often as part of structural-adjustment programs imposed by the I.M.F. or the World Blank, many marketing boards were eliminated or cut back, and grain reserves, deemed inefficient and unnecessary, were sold off. In the same way, structural-adjustment programs often did away with government investment in and subsidies to agriculture--more notably, subsidies for things like fertilizers and high-yield seeds..
The logic behind these reforms was simple: the market would allocate resources more efficiently than government, leading to greater productivity. Farmers, instead of growing subsidized maize and wheat at high cost, could concentrate on cash crops, like cashews and chocolate, and use the money they made to buy staple foods. If a country couldn’t compete in the global economy, production would migrate to countries that could. it was also assumed that, once governments stepped out of the way, private investment would flood into agriculture, boosting performance. And international aid seemed a more efficient way of relieving food crises than relying in countries to maintain surpluses and food-security programs, which are wasteful and costly.
This "marketization" of agriculture has not, to be sure, been fully carried through. Subsidies are still endemic in rich countries and poor, while developing countries often place tariffs on imported food, which benefit their farmers but drive up prices for consumers. And in extreme circumstance countries restrict exports, hoarding food for their own citizens. Nonetheless, we clearly have a leaner, more market-friendly agriculture system than before. It looks, in fact, a bit like global manufacturing, with low inventories (wheat stocks are at their lowest since 1977), concentrated production (three countries provide ninety percent of corn exports, and five countries provide eighty percent of rice exports,) and fewer redundancies. Governments have a much smaller role, and public spending on agriculture has been cut sharply.
The problem is that, while this system is undeniably more efficient, it’s also much more fragile. Bad weather in just a few countries can wreak havoc across the entire system. When prices spike as they did this spring, the result is food shortages and malnutrition in poorer countries, since they are far more dependent on imports and have few food reserves to draw on. And, while higher prices and market reforms were supposed to bring a boom in agricultural productivity, global crop yields actually rose less between 1990 and 2007 than they did in the previous twenty years, in part because in many developing countries private-sector agricultural investment never materialized, while the cutbacks in government spending left them with feeble infrastructures.
These changes did not cause the rising prices of the past couple of years, but they have made them more damaging. The old emphasis on food security was undoubtedly costly, and often wasteful. But the redundancies it created also had tremendous value when things went wrong. And one sure thing about a system as complex as agriculture is that things will go wrong, often with devastating consequences. If the just-in-time system for producing cars runs into a hitch and the supply of cars shrinks for a while, people can easily adapt. When the same happens with food, people go hungry or even starve. That doesn’ t mean that we need to embrace price controls or collective farms, and there are sensible market reforms, like doing away with import tariffs, that would make developing-country consumers better off. But a few weeks ago Bill Clinton, no enemy of market reform, got it right when he said that we should help countries achieve "maximum agricultural self-sufficiency". Instead of a more efficient system. We should be trying to build a more reliable one. [br] Which of the following is NOT a feature of the existing agricultural system?
选项
A、Reduced government spending.
B、Concentrated production.
C、Self sufficiency.
D、Low wheat stocks.
答案
C
解析
从第五段最后一句“Governments have a much smaller role, and public spending on agriculture has been cut sharply”可以看出,A项是正确的;从第五段第五句“It looks, in fact, a bit like global manufacturing, with low inventories(wheat stocks are at their lowest since 1977), concentrated production, and fewer redundancies.”可以看出,B项和D项都是正确的,因此只有C项自给自足不是现存农业体系的一个特征,因此为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3890035.html
相关试题推荐
Tattoosdidn’tspringupwiththedawnofbikergangsandrook’n’rollbands.
Tattoosdidn’tspringupwiththedawnofbikergangsandrook’n’rollbands.
Likeallanimalspecies,plantspeciesmustspreadtheiroffspringtosuitabl
Likeallanimalspecies,plantspeciesmustspreadtheiroffspringtosuitabl
Likeallanimalspecies,plantspeciesmustspreadtheiroffspringtosuitabl
Likeallanimalspecies,plantspeciesmustspreadtheiroffspringtosuitabl
Likeallanimalspecies,plantspeciesmustspreadtheiroffspringtosuitabl
ThequestionIamaskedmostoftenlikeItravelaroundtheworldspringsfro
ThequestionIamaskedmostoftenlikeItravelaroundtheworldspringsfro
ThequestionIamaskedmostoftenlikeItravelaroundtheworldspringsfro
随机试题
Theideaofafishbeingabletogenerateelectricitystrongenoughtolight
踏进美国的领土,作为一个外国人受到友好亲切的接待,手续既简便而且又不必交费,办事干净利落,不能不令人心里感到暖洋洋的。我曾听说,在美国的社会里,黑人将会成
WelcometoJoinUs1.呼吁大家参加自助游社团组织的上海自助游2.参加自助游社团的好处3.如何加入自助游社团
集体商标、证明商标注册人没有对该商标的使用进行有效管理或者控制,致使该商标使用的
对于墙柱高厚比的下列描述,不正确的是( )。
A.大黄 B.芦荟 C.番泻叶 D.甘遂 E.大戟治疗热淋涩痛,应选用
避雷针与主接地网的地下连接点至35kV及以下设备与接地网的地下连接点,沿接地体的
封闭式基金和某些特殊的开放式基金均可以在证券交易所市场挂牌交易。()
关于工程质量评估报告的说法,正确的是( )。A.工程质量评估报告应在正式竣工验收
我国诊断巨大胎儿的最低体重标准是( )。A.4000g B.5000g C
最新回复
(
0
)