In contrast to the education and sales results the percent of income a family
earned from farming or ranching and a the age of farm operators, increase the likelihood
that farm operators would indicate that trade should be restricted to pursue domestic,
economic, and social policy goals even if those policies affect international trade. One
can only conjecture on the rationale for such finding. Clearly one can defend the finding
that a farm operator who receives no income from farming or ranching may be indifferent
or favor restricting trade because of the lack of direct economic consequences on his or
her farm operation. However, the motivation for a farm operator who receives 51%-75%
of his or income from farming is less clear. This finding suggests a protectionist
sentiment and the belief that farm operators who receive any percentage of their income
from farming or ranching and farm operators between the age of 35 and 44 years old
would be better off under a closed policy regime. The “young farmers’” perception may
be reflecting the “infant industry” argument and the need for protection from import
competition while their operation “grows up.”
The results of this study go to a larger issue in trade policy intervention and the
actions of policymakers. In particular, policymakers often intervene in markets and
justify their actions on the constituents that they serve. While certain segments of an
economy may argue for protection, in the case of agriculture, the results seem to suggest
that farm operators would prefer free trade to market intervention. This conclusion also
suggests, that all thins being equal, policymakers may have less to fear from the
constituents than they believe.
18