JUNE 2, 2008

1st Item: Discussion of ‘09-‘10 Potential Topics

-Past topic/controversy papers can be revised for submission next year (located on the topic website).
- Recommended topics for potential consideration:
•    Arms control (see: Greta Stahl’s paper),
•    Title VI/discrimination
•    Focusing the Latin America area (economic integration, labor, etc.)
•    Russia
•    Immigration labor rights
•    Reparations or a race-related policy topic
•    Genetic engineering
•    International institutions (particularly the World Bank and IMF)- potentially not using the USFG as the actor; instead the [IMF/World Bank] would be the actor

2nd Item: Concerns Coming Out of the Topic Working Groups    

Group 1: Verbage- All verbs are usually implemented by Congress. “Substantially reduce” a common phrase in WTO language, but there is a vague and inconsistently applied term. “Rescind” not used as much in the literature, but it is possibly flexible to use the executive office. The courts have also overturned some subsidies. Rescind may not be the best term for debate. “Elimination” is the most often used word to get rid of subsidies. “Cut” can be interpreted by the AFF whereas the NEG can argue why one particular definition is best.

Group 2: Types of Subsidies- Definition of a “subsidy” cleared up. Does the AFF need access to reducing trade tariffs/export subsidies in order to gain solvency? Are subsidies = tariffs? International vs. domestic biases and double standards in our use of the word “subsidy.” Are there non-germane types of subsidies (conservation, disaster management/insurance, etc)? Aggregate Measure of Support = an index created by the government to measure its $ value and market distortion support of commodities. However, AMS does not include research funding or external trade barriers and export subsidies. Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) calculations include conservation policies (which limit supply and increase prices) as well as research funding, but no export subsidies again. Should we go with a less-specific word like “support” and have room to specify AFF reductions? “Market access barriers” may include quotas, trade barriers, and guaranteed markets.

Group 3: Commodities- The Big 5/Core 5: corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, wheat. Each type of commodity is farmed by different demographics across the country and affect different demographics in other countries. Sugar AFFs are more geared towards international trade issues. Debates on biofuels are not necessarily guaranteed if corn or soybeans are simply on the ballot. Many subsidies go to biofuel “blenders” or researchers, who then drive up the demand for corn. Livestock subsidies and grazing rights are also potential AFFs. There is a unique set of advantages for livestock AFFs, as well as NEG strats. Fishery subsidizes risk overfishing/environmental impacts. However, solvency issues arise because the USA does not do enough fishing to access global solvency.  Foregoing a list topic in lieu of simply saying “commodity crops” is far too broad.

Further issues and areas for research included the discussion of tobacco. The U.S. no longer provides direct subsidies to tobacco farmers, but it may indirectly fund tobacco companies through farm equipment subsidies. Due to the small amount of people affected by major crops, we might look to include broader categories such as “commodity crops, fisheries, and livestock” to increase AFF flex. The term “agricultural support” may include subsidies and trade issues. Should agricultural research and development be included?

3rd Item: Research Questions for the Topic Committee (See Gordon's Post)