One major reason Japanese farmers have been so successful in pushing their policy preferences and forestalling liberalizing trade agreements is that the main groups in other countries that traditionally challenge farmers by supporting liberalization, namely consumers, business, and the food industry, are either unwilling or unable to challenge the JA’s preference for protection . Moreover, while farmers are united in their opposition to agricultural liberalization their opponents, most notably consumers and the food industry, are internally divided. Consumer organizations, for example, are dominated by concerns over food quality and prefer to restrict access to the Japanese market to ensure that the preponderance of available products are those of Japanese origin, in which they have a high degree of trust. Because of this strong preference among consumers for food of Japanese origin, many in the food processing and distribution industry are reluctant to push for agricultural liberalization. Their fear is that demand for their products will decline if they are made with or include the imported agricultural goods. The result is that, despite their small share of the population, farmers are able to extract new policies, or preserve existing policies,grow hydroponic that benefit a small share of the population and inconvenience a much greater share of the population. While these group preferences are indicative of the peculiarities of the Japanese case, the broader explanation of farmer influence and power tracks the European story.
Japanese farmers, like those in Europe, have powerful and well-coordinated organizations. These organizations operate from the national level all the way down to the local level, giving farmers access to and influence over key actors at all levels of decision making. Tight control over members and impressive capacity for coordination allows Japanese farmer organizations to influence not only politicians concerned with re-election but also key actors, like business, that might challenge farmer preferences. Boycotts are one common strategy employed by farmer organizations in Japan to shape policy by punishing other interests that challenge agriculture. For example, in the mid-1980s, Nōkyō led a boycott against Mitsubishi Kōgyō Cement because a company executive belonged to a Nikkeirencommittee that pushed for agricultural policy reform. Since that incident, Nikkeiren has struggled to find executives willing to sit on the committee . Farmers also executed a successful boycott of Sony, Daiei , and the food-maker Ajinomoto because their executives had pushed for agricultural policy reform as part of a Keidanrencommittee. In these cases, the boycotts were ended only after the executives from the offending companies apologized to farmers and quit the committee . So, farmer organizational power in Europe is often manifested through street protests, Japanese farmers often direct their organizational influence toward hurting the economic interests of their main policy opponents.
The JA’s organizational strength allows Japanese farmers to exert significant electoral influence, rewarding politicians who commit to protecting and advancing preferred farmer policies, and punishing those who do not. As a Japanese official explained, “If JA doesn’t like a candidate, they will do a smear campaign. Farmers are maybe not strong enough to make someone win, but they are strong enough to make sure someone loses” . The farmers have long been a staunch ally of the Liberal Democratic Party , which governed Japan, uninterrupted from 1955 to 1993. Since its formation in 1955, the LDP has only been out of power from 1993 to 1994 and 2009 to 2012. The JA’s ability to coordinate the voting of its membership played an important role of the LDP’s defeat in 2009 and its return to power in 2012. In the run up to the 2009 election, many farmers threw their support behind the Democratic Party of Japan as opposed to their traditional ally, the LDP. This shift appears to have been prompted more by the DPJ’s aggressive campaign to win the farmers over than farmer anger with a specific LDP policy. In an effort to win farmers away from the LDP, the DJP announced a plan to transition agricultural policy from price supports to a system of direct income compensation. The policy was an extension of one offered in the 2007 Upper House elections that proved to be very successful in winning rural votes away from the LDP. These policy promises in 2009 lured numerous JA prefectural offices into tempering their commitments to the LDP, saying that decisions on whom to support would be made on a district-by-district basis, or, in the most extreme cases, that this election would be a “free vote” and no official candidate would be endorsed. The DPJ, thanks to their plan for supporting farmer incomes, won the support of the agricultural community and thus the election.
After taking power, the DPJ adopted their new farmer income scheme, which provided a direct income subsidy for all commercial farm households, regardless of size. The scheme was also designed to compensate farmers for times when production costs exceeded sale prices. Under the policy, farmer incomes increased for the first time since 2003. Despite these positive developments, the LDP took back farmer support and won the next elections in 2012. A central promise of the LDP was to increase public spending on the farm sector, which had been cut by the DPJ to pay for the new income support program. Under the DPJ, the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries had declined . In the run up to the 2012 elections, the LDP committed to reversing this decline. In addition, its agricultural policy platform promised to replace the “individual farm household income compensation scheme with enhanced direct payments to farmers for the multifaceted functions of agriculture” . The way the direct income payment was handled by the DPJ also came under criticism: some viewed it as a way to separate farmers from the powerful farmer organizations by weakening the dependent relationship between the two. Essentially, a direct income payment from the government could weaken, if not break, the relationship between farmers and the JA because farmers would be paid independent of production and would thus be less dependent on JA services. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the DPJ could not overcome the opposition of the farmers, and the JA more broadly, to the DPJ’s position in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, aiming to reduce trade barriers. Farmers, protected by high tariff barriers, feared that an influx of low-priced agricultural goods would follow the adoption of the TPP. The JA stated an official position of opposition to the TPP and those who supported it, no matter their party affiliation. In the 2012 election, the JA published a list of the 177 candidates it endorsed, 162 of which were from the LDP. Of the 177 officially endorsed, 173 were elected . As these examples demonstrate, my framework for studying agricultural policy making and reform can provide help provide a fuller understanding of decision making in domains outside of Europe. Japanese farmers have repeatedly shown the ability to defend preferred policies, defeat unwanted reforms, and even silence those who advocate economic liberalization, whether a powerful political party or a major industry. As in Europe,growing lettuce hydroponically it is difficult if not impossible to take support away from farmers or even to challenge their policy preferences.This third and final mini case tests the applicability of my argument to cases that involve agricultural interests but are not agricultural policy proper. Additionally, this mini case tests my argument beyond the European/EU context. Decision making occurs at the supranational level, and, beginning with the 1986 Uruguay Round, agricultural interests are just one set of voices within a much broader set of voices. Essentially, in the case of world trade after 1986, agriculture cannot simply sort out its own situation in isolation, excluding all other interests.
Because these negotiations are supranational, like CAP negotiations, farmer organizations and their influence are predominantly mediated through national representatives to the GATT meetings. Essentially, the task of this mini-case is to demonstrate that the major claims of my argument still hold under the conditions outlined above. When GATT was created in 1948, agriculture received special treatment. It was thought that agricultural interests were so powerful and agriculture such a touchy national subject that its inclusion would render any negotiations dead in the water. So unlike manufacturing sectors, agriculture was exempted from the prohibition on the use of both quantitative import restrictions and export subsidies. In addition, agriculture was left out of the first three rounds of multilateral trade talks in the GATT in order to assure successful negotiations. As a result of agriculture’s special treatment and its absence from GATT negotiations, domestic agricultural programs were allowed to develop unchecked. The resulting agricultural surpluses were one of the major factors that pushed agriculture to be fully included in GATT multilateral negotiations despite major concerns over the dilatory effects of powerful farming interests and the objections that would certainly be raised by negotiating parties in defense of their particular agricultural profile. The centerpiece of the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations was the section on agriculture. The GATT UR was launched in 1986 and was supposed to be concluded by 1990. Due to delays on the agricultural section of the negotiations, an agreement was not reached until 1993, almost doubling the length of the GATT UR. The declaration launching the Uruguay Round identified greater liberalization in agricultural trade as the fundamental goal of the round. Particular attention was to be paid to domestic support, market access, and export subsidies . The specific goals for agriculture were to reduce import barriers, to order to improve market access, and to restrict the use of direct and indirect subsidies in order to improve the competitive environment. US Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter insisted on the inclusion of policies relating to domestic support over the strong objection of some EC member states, most notably France. In short, in the GATT UR, reformers wanted to remove protectionist trade barriers and dramatically cut, if not completely eliminate, subsidies for agriculture, including those designed to boost farmer incomes. In a major break from previous GATT negotiations, the UR was to be treated as a “single undertaking” . In other words, the round could not be concluded without an agreement on agriculture. By contrast, the Tokyo Round was described as “GATT à la carte” because contracting parties could decide which agreements they did and did not want to sign .In all previous rounds, agriculture was either excluded entirely or treated under special, separate rules. The EC played a key role in pushing for the single undertaking condition for the Uruguay Round. For France, which was reluctant to include agriculture in the UR negotiations, the condition was particularly important because it “represented the potential for offsetting gains in other sectors: to rebalance trade with Japan and to ensure the newly industrializing countries, particularly in Asia, met in full their obligations under the GATT” . In practice, the single undertaking condition permitted agriculture to cause extensive delays in the negotiations, repeatedly proving to be the issue that blocked everything. Negotiations at the Uruguay Round took place over seven years. Throughout the talks, the US and EC advanced radically different negotiating positions. An inability to reach an agreement on agriculture resulted in the collapse of the round, and the original deadline for an agreement, 1990, was missed. Talks were revived by GATT Director General Arthur Dunkel and ultimately concluded in 1993 with an agreement that was dramatically watered down from the initial GATT UR objectives and was ultimately quite favorable to farmers. In the end, farmer income payments, which GATT officials sought to eliminate or at least restrict, were entirely preserved and the dismantling of tariff barriers was delayed or restricted such that most farmers felt little to no effect from these changes. The Uruguay Round negotiations were driven by the sharply divergent positions of the United States and the European Community, supported by the Cairns Group43 and Japan, respectively. The US saw government support as the root of trouble in farm trade while the EC blamed the market. Specifically, the US called for dramatic liberalization, primarily by reducing the protection and support afforded to European farmers under the CAP. The EC, however, argued that that the aim of negotiations should be to “progressively reduce support to the extent necessary to reestablish balanced markets and a more market oriented agricultural trading system” but not to phase out support and protection .