Updated List of Wording Research
This post will be periodically updated to include new research and
reports produced by the topic committee and community volunteers.
Research item 1: How does decrease support? (Reduce, eliminate, cut.)
Supp. Question: Domestic agricultural production?
Verbs - (Group 1) - How much to reduce subsidies?
Types of Subsidies - (Group 2) - What types of subsidies?
The Status Quo - The Current Farm Bill
The controversy paper
Research item 1: How does decrease support? (Reduce, eliminate, cut.)
Research item 2: Does agricultural support include market access (i.e., tariff and trade barriers)?
Research item 3: Does agricultural support include R&D?
Research item 4: Does agricultural support include conservation?
Research item 5: Does AMS include market access?
Research 6: Does AMS include export subsidies?
Research item 7: Does ‘decouple’ limit out R&D?
- Steve
Research item 8: What would be best verb be for decreasing
subsidies if the affirmative already reduced agricultural support?
Research item 9: What would be the way to phrase: market access, domestic support, and export subsidies? Is this an and/or or and?
Research item 10 : Does commodity-related trade measures work?
Supp. Question: Domestic agricultural production?
Verbs - (Group 1) - How much to reduce subsidies?
- Agriculture Verbage by Sue Peterson.
- Verb Choice - Substantially Reduce by Kelly Young.
- Substantially Reduce by Jason Peterson.
Types of Subsidies - (Group 2) - What types of subsidies?
- AMS- & PSE-Based Resolutions by David Cram Helwich.
- Types of Subsidies by Sean Lowry.
- Types of Subsidies by Gordon Stables.
- Which Commodities by Steve Mancuso.
The Status Quo - The Current Farm Bill
- Updates on the 2007 Farm Bill by Brian Rubaie.
The controversy paper
- "Reforming U.S. Agricultural Policy" the 08-09 submitted by the Vanderbilt University Debate Team, specifically Bryan Grayson, Nick Brown, Cameron Norris & Phil Rappmund.
I just started watching this morning and have two observations. First, that the topic deliberation process doesn't seemed to have significantly changed, in spite of the fact that the pre-committee process has changed substantially. In other words, the research being done on site seems eerily similar to the types of choices that were made prior to the community voting for controversy papers. Second and related to the first: why doesn't the controversy paper that was voted on by the community, serve as the basis for the wordings on the ballots. The paper has five wordings. Why would not the charge of the committee be as simple as checking those wordings for any huge problems, making minor adjustments and putting them on the ballot? Wouldn't this be the safest way to stay closest to the spirit of the topic process changes, create more meaning for the new process by putting responsibility on the community to pay attention to the wording papers, but most importantly, allow the committee to spend more time enjoying Rangers baseball. Seriously, Steve's quote this morning: what do coaches out there want? Personally, I want the wordings put on the ballot to come as close to what I voted for as possible.
Ede
Reply to this
I appreciate the shout out from Brian Cashman's best friend.
The new revelations of weaknesses in terms used in the paper (like Gordon's current discussion of "subsidies") as justification for replacing terms in the original wordings is exactly what I'm concerned about. Advances in technology allow the topic committee to have "debates" over the meaning of words almost immediately. When Steve and I debated, we couldn't have do so. The assumption that our debate is better by finding out as much as we can about the topic is what I'm questioning.
All I'm asking is for the committee to consider a few things about the subsidies debate that is becoming highly specific and in-depth today, prior to the season. First, if "reduce subsidies" was the topic voted on thirty years ago, would not the topic committee debate become the debate season and would that season have been productive and educational? Second, can the complexity of the debate happening now be realistically resolved by tomorrow afternoon? If not, what is likely the quality of the improved, more specific wordings? Finally, if the committee moves forward on the exact or near exact wordings voted on in the paper, as opposed to further research (wording papers and topic committee work) justifying abandonment of those original wordings, has the democratic process worked?
I won't hinder the process anymore, but I do encourage some big picture reflection about how it seems the process is breaking down again, in similar ways to how it has in the past. For me as an example, if the word "subsidies" is a poor word choice, given that it is the exact choice voted on, the decision to change it is one that affects the educational expectations of the voters, even if it is problematic. The decision to change it, changes the expectations of the voters and the nature of the debates. That may or may not in the end create debates, but it always creates different ones.
With love,
Ozzie Guillen
Reply to this
With due respect, Ede you are off on the nature of the work being done.
1) The resolutions in the controversy paper have been the starting point for our work. You can review the pre-meeting work to see how we specifically built our work from these efforts. The discussion of AMS, for example, is explcilitly offered as one such example. We are doing EXACTLY what you asked for by vetting this term against other items like 'agricultural support' and other OECD metrics.
2) The essence of the controversy 'reduce the role of ag subsidies' is guiding and limiting our work. This is not the case for prior approaches. When you served on the committee we were empowered to pursue any direction related to the winning 'noun.'
If you have specific areas where you see our work departing (rather than perfecting as you offer) the controversy paper, please let us know. We take this responsibility very seriously.
Reply to this
Hi Ede,
Appreciate the suggestion. In all fairness, we have begun with the topic paper wordings and we quickly found problems with AMS, subsidies only, tariffs only and rescind. The reason we are having a tremendously long discussion about AMS vs PSE vs TSE vs ag support, grammar and verbage is in attempts to strengthen the topic paper wordings.
Reply to this
Ede -
I think you have some legitimate concerns. But, if you look at the introduction to the original controversy paper, there is a vast list of things other than subsidies included in that list: "through subsidies, price supports, quotas, tariffs, and other trade barriers." I think our attempt is to find a method of including all of these things instead of limiting the scope the resolution to simply subsidies. That requires use of terms beyond just subsidy. I also think that the controversy voted on was "reforming agricultural policy in the US". I am not trying to say you are wrong to be concerned and I appreciated your reference back to the original paper as it directly impacted my writing some sample resolutions. But, I think you are being overly limiting in your interpretation of the controversy paper. I actually think that subsidies is a more technical term than agricultural support, which is what the major discussion has been about at the meeting.
I appreciate your input, but just want to defend the process a bit.
Reply to this
Sue,
That's cool, subsidy was just one example, not the sum total of the concern. The bigger picture issue is thinking about what expectations are created when people vote for the wording paper relative to the charge and scope of the committee. And how putting example wordings in that paper relates to the process.
If the goal of the decision to put actual example wordings in the controversy paper is to "empower" voters to have more of a direct voice in the process and give clarity to the committee, then this by definition, might or might not create some new boundaries that the committee might want to consider, that's all.
I think everyone has a goal of creating and maintaining a great process, especially the folks on the committee, and my criticism attempts to be productive and constructive, and not a challenge to the effort and compassion of the members.
The committee may decide that example wordings are too limiting or that the controversy paper doesn't create an explicit constraint on the committee's final wording choices. That's cool too. But if the membership expects the wordings to grow directly from the paper but something different is the actual process, this probably needs to be explicated for the membership. And perhaps it already has.
Good luck, time to go cause trouble at the ball field...
Reply to this