Editing Subsidy (section)

===Examples===

====Agricultural subsidies====
Support for agriculture dates back to the 19th century. It was developed extensively in the EU and US across the two World Wars and the Great Depression to protect domestic food production, but remains important across the world today.<ref name="Robin et al 2003" /><ref name="Myers 1996" /> In 2005, US farmers received $14 billion and EU farmers $47 billion in [[agricultural subsidies]].<ref name="Kolb 2008"/> Today, agricultural subsidies are defended on the grounds of helping farmers to maintain their livelihoods. The majority of payments are based on outputs and inputs and thus favour the larger producing agribusinesses over the small-scale farmers.<ref name="cheapMyers and Kent 2001" /><ref name="Steenblik 1998">{{cite web|last=Steenblik|first=R.|title=Previous Multilateral Efforts to Discipline Subsidies to Natural Resource Based Industries|url=http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/fisheries/1918086.pdf|work=Workshop on the Impact of Government Financial Transfers on Fisheries Management, Resource Sustainability, and International Trade|access-date=2013-08-05|year=1998|archive-date=2012-10-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121022174905/http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/fisheries/1918086.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In the US nearly 30% of payments go to the top 2% of farmers.<ref name="Robin et al 2003" /><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too |title=How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too |access-date=2018-04-23 |archive-date=2018-04-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423232755/https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too |url-status=unfit }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://fairfarmsnow.org/who-benefits-from-farm-subsidies/ |title=Who Benefits from Farm Subsidies? |access-date=2018-04-23 |archive-date=2018-04-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423232528/https://fairfarmsnow.org/who-benefits-from-farm-subsidies/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

By subsidising inputs and outputs through such schemes as "yield based subsidisation", farmers are encouraged to over-produce using intensive methods, including using more fertilizers and pesticides; grow high-yielding [[monocultures]]; reduce [[crop rotation]]; shorten fallow periods; and promote exploitative land use change from forests, rainforests and wetlands to agricultural land.<ref name="Robin et al 2003" /> These all lead to severe environmental degradation, including adverse effects on soil quality and productivity including [[erosion]], nutrient supply and salinity which in turn affects carbon storage and cycling, water retention and [[drought tolerance|drought resistance]]; water quality including pollution, nutrient deposition and [[eutrophication]] of waterways, and lowering of water tables; diversity of flora and fauna including indigenous species both directly and indirectly through the destruction of habitats, resulting in a genetic wipe-out.<ref name="cheapMyers and Kent 2001" /><ref name="Robin et al 2003" /><ref name="Portugal 2002">{{cite journal|last=Portugal|first=L.|title=OECD Work on Defining and Measuring Subsidies in Agriculture|journal=The OECD Workshop on Environmentally Harmful Subsidies, Paris, 7–8 November 2002|year=2002}}</ref><ref name="OECD 2003">{{cite web|last=OECD|title=Perverse incentives in biodiversity loss|url=http://www.oecd.org/env/resources/19819811.pdf|work=Working Party on Global and Structural Policies Working Group on Economic Aspects of Biodiversity|access-date=2013-08-05|year=2003|archive-date=2013-12-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203022538/http://www.oecd.org/env/resources/19819811.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

Cotton growers in the US reportedly receive half their income from the government under the [[Farm Bill of 2002]]. The subsidy payments stimulated [[overproduction]] and resulted in a record cotton harvest in 2002, much of which had to be sold at very reduced prices in the global market.<ref name="Kolb 2008" /> For foreign producers, the depressed cotton price lowered their prices far below the break-even price. In fact, African farmers received 35 to 40 cents per pound for cotton, while US cotton growers, backed by government agricultural payments, received 75 cents per pound. Developing countries and trade organizations argue that poorer countries should be able to export their principal commodities to survive, but protectionist laws and payments in the United States and Europe prevent these countries from engaging in international trade opportunities.

====Fisheries====
Today, much of the world's major fisheries are [[overexploited]]; in 2002, the [[World Wildlife Fund|WWF]] estimate this at approximately 75%. Fishing subsidies include "direct assistant to fishers; loan support programs; tax preferences and insurance support; capital and infrastructure programs; marketing and price support programs; and fisheries management, research, and conservation programs."<ref name="Robin et al 2003 p4">{{cite book|last=Robin|first=S.|title=Perverse Subsidies and the Implications for Biodiversity: A review of recent findings and the status of policy reforms |year=2003 |page=4 |publisher=Vth World Parks Congress: Sustainable Finance Stream |location=Durban, South Africa |url=http://conservationfinance.org/guide/WPC/WPC_documents/Overview_PanB_Wolcott_v2.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203173214/http://conservationfinance.org/guide/WPC/WPC_documents/Overview_PanB_Wolcott_v2.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2013-12-03|author2=Wolcott, R.|author3=Quintela, C.E.}}</ref> They promote the expansion of [[fishing fleet]]s, the supply of larger and longer nets, larger yields and indiscriminate catch, as well as mitigating risks which encourages further investment into large-scale operations to the disfavour of the already struggling small-scale industry.<ref name="Robin et al 2003" /><ref name="Porter 1998">{{cite web|last=Porter|first=G.|title=Natural Resource Subsidies, Trade and Environment: The Cases of Forest and Fisheries|url=http://www.ciel.org/Publications/NaturalResourceSubsidies.pdf|work=Center for Environmental Law|access-date=2013-08-05|year=1998|archive-date=2012-09-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120915083324/http://www.ciel.org/Publications/NaturalResourceSubsidies.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Collectively, these result in the continued overcapitalization and overfishing of marine fisheries.

There are four categories of [[fisheries subsidy|fisheries subsidies]]. First are direct financial transfers, second are indirect financial transfers and services. Third, certain forms of intervention and fourth, not intervening. The first category regards direct payments from the government received by the fisheries industry. These typically affect profits of the industry in the short term and can be negative or positive. Category two pertains to government intervention, not involving those under the first category. These subsidies also affect the profits in the short term but typically are not negative. Category three includes intervention that results in a negative short-term economic impact, but economic benefits in the long term. These benefits are usually more general societal benefits such as the environment. The final category pertains to inaction by the government, allowing producers to impose certain production costs on others. These subsidies tend to lead to positive benefits in the short term but negative in the long term.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report of the Expert Consultation on Identifying, Assessing and Reporting on Subsidies in the Fishing Industry - Rome, 3-6 December 2002|url=http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4446e/y4446e0l.htm|website=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization|access-date=16 March 2018|archive-date=16 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180316214025/http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4446e/y4446e0l.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Manufacturing subsidies====
A survey of manufacturing in Britain found government subsidies had had various unintended dysfunctional consequences. The subsidies had usually been selective or discriminatory – benefiting some companies at the expense of others. Government money in the form of grants and awards of production and R&D contracts had gone to advanced and viable firms as well as old uneconomic enterprises. However, the main recipients had been larger, established companies – while most of the firms pioneering radical technical-product developments with long-term economic growth potential had been new small enterprises. 
The study concluded that instead of providing subsidies, governments wanting to benefit industrial-technological development and performance should lower standard rates of business taxation, raise tax allowances for investments in new plant, equipment and products, and remove obstacles to market competition and customer choice.<ref>''Manufacturing in Britain: A Survey of Factors Affecting Growth and Performance'', ISR/Google Books, 2019, pages 37-38. ISBN 9780906321614</ref>

====Others====
The US National Football League's ([[NFL]]) profits have topped records at $11 billion, the highest of all sports. The NFL had tax-exempt status until voluntarily relinquishing it in 2015, and new stadiums have been built with public subsidies.<ref>Clegg, Jonathan (28 April 2015).  [https://www.wsj.com/articles/nfl-to-end-tax-exempt-status-1430241845?mod=e2tw "NFL to End Tax-Exempt Status."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171112204558/https://www.wsj.com/articles/nfl-to-end-tax-exempt-status-1430241845?mod=e2tw |date=2017-11-12 }}  ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]''.  Retrieved 17 December 2019.</ref><ref name="Cohen 2008">{{cite web|last=Cohen|first=R.|title=Playing by the NFL's Tax Exempt Rulesh|url=http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3056:playing-by-the-nfls-tax-exempt-rules&catid=149:rick-cohen&Itemid=117|publisher=NonProfit Quarterly|access-date=2013-04-15|year=2008|archive-date=2013-08-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130820002728/http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3056:playing-by-the-nfls-tax-exempt-rules&catid=149:rick-cohen&Itemid=117|url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[Commitment to Development Index]] (CDI), published by the [[Center for Global Development]], measures the effect that subsidies and trade barriers actually have on the undeveloped world. It uses trade, along with six other components such as aid or investment, to rank and evaluate developed countries on policies that affect the undeveloped world. It finds that the richest countries spend $106 billion per year subsidizing their own farmers – almost exactly as much as they spend on foreign aid.<ref name="Fowler and fokker 2004">{{cite book|last=Fowler|first=P.|title=A Sweeter Future? The potential for EU sugar reform to contribute to poverty reduction in Southern Africa|year=2004|publisher=Oxfam International|location=Oxford|isbn=9781848141940|url=http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/a-sweeter-future-the-potential-for-eu-sugar-reform-to-contribute-to-poverty-red-114124|author2=Fokker, R.|access-date=2013-09-08|archive-date=2014-02-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140209142708/http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/a-sweeter-future-the-potential-for-eu-sugar-reform-to-contribute-to-poverty-red-114124|url-status=live}}</ref>