Content summary: Direct subsidies are a common practice in agricultural support worldwide.

The direct subsidies implemented since 2004 are a major breakthrough in my country's agricultural policy.

Judging from the practice of direct subsidy policies, the subsidy burden of local governments is asymmetrical to their food security. In the subsidy model, there is an asymmetry between farmers' subsidy income and food production, and asymmetry between farmers' subsidy income and the production of high-quality products.

These phenomena lead to the unfairness of direct subsidy policies.

The unfairness of the subsidy policy reduces the efficiency of the direct subsidy policy.

Adjusting the relationship between fairness and efficiency in subsidy policies is a particularly urgent practical issue in the practice of direct subsidy policies.

This article believes that starting from the system of raising and using subsidy funds, improving the organizational system of direct subsidy policies, selecting farmers' immediate grain production subsidy models that are highly related to food security, appropriately increasing subsidy inputs and expanding the scope of subsidies are the key to improving the practice of direct subsidy policies.

key to fairness and efficiency.

Keywords: direct subsidy, fairness, efficiency. Constrained by the WTO Agriculture Agreement, direct subsidy policy has become a common practice in agricultural protection policies.

Since 2004, a major breakthrough in my country's agricultural protection policy has been the implementation of direct subsidy policies based on extensive pilot projects.

The expected goals of my country's direct subsidy policy are to increase farmers' income from growing grain, maintain food security, promote agricultural structural adjustment, protect agricultural resources and ecological security, and thereby achieve sustainable development of the agricultural economy.

Therefore, this article intends to conduct a tentative exploration of fairness and efficiency in the implementation of direct subsidy policies from a practical perspective.

Fairness and efficiency performance in the practice of direct subsidy policy The meaning of fairness and efficiency in direct subsidy policy The fairness of direct subsidy policy refers to the fact that within a production year, all grain production that meets the scope of direct subsidy should receive corresponding subsidies; the second refers to the burden of local governments

The direct subsidy funds are in the same direction as the degree of food security required by the area under its jurisdiction.

The efficiency of direct subsidy policies means that direct subsidy funds can maximize the income of farmers, promote the deepening of agricultural structural adjustment, improve national food security, promote the protection of agricultural resources and the environment, and achieve sustainable development of the agricultural economy.

Equity and Efficiency in the Practice of Direct Subsidy Policy One of the manifestations of the relationship between equity and efficiency in the practice of direct subsidy policy is that fairness in the distribution of subsidy funds is conducive to the realization of the expected goals of the direct subsidy policy.

That is, fair policy implementation can promote the improvement of policy efficiency.

If the subsidy policy is implemented fairly, farmers can obtain corresponding subsidy income as long as their production projects are within the scope of direct subsidies. Production projects that do not meet the scope of direct subsidies cannot obtain subsidy income. In order to obtain direct subsidy income, farmers' production activities

It must be highly consistent with the scope of direct subsidies.

In this way, the selection of farmers' production projects is closely integrated with the original intention of the direct subsidy policy.

The consistency between farmers' production project selection and the scope of direct subsidies is first to stabilize grain production area and production volume.

The more food produced, the more subsidy income will be received.

The second is to promote the adjustment of agricultural structure and deepen the "clean production" of grain.

The more high-quality products farmers produce, the more subsidies they receive.

In order to obtain subsidies for high-quality products, farmers will not only consciously increase the production of high-quality products and reduce the production of inferior products, but also consciously protect agricultural resources and the environment and implement "clean production."

It can be seen that fair implementation of direct subsidies can improve the efficiency of direct subsidy policies, thereby helping to achieve the expected goals of direct subsidy policies.

How to achieve fairness in the implementation of direct subsidy policies requires special attention.

The second manifestation of the relationship between fairness and efficiency in direct subsidy policies is the unfairness of the implementation of direct subsidy policies, which will greatly reduce the efficiency of direct subsidy policies and hinder the realization of the expected goals of direct subsidy policies.

That is, unfair policy implementation leads to a decrease in policy efficiency.

The unfairness in the practice of direct subsidy policies is mainly reflected in the following three aspects.

First, the burden of subsidy funds borne by local governments in major grain-producing areas and non-main grain-producing areas "deviates" from the food security guarantee needs of their jurisdictions.

Direct subsidy funds come from the Grain Risk Fund.

Since 1994, the central government and local governments have been required to establish food risk funds.

Since 1999, the central and local governments have contributed to the food risk fund at a ratio of 1:1.5, and the shortfall has been shared at a ratio of 1:1.

Under such a direct subsidy fund burden system, the more grain produced in a local government area, the more subsidy funds it bears; the less grain produced in a local government area, the less subsidy funds it bears.

Local governments that produce more food and contribute more to the country's food security are also the ones that bear a heavier burden on the country's food security.

Local governments that produce less grain and bear less subsidy funds enjoy the same degree of food security as local governments that produce more grain and bear more subsidy funds.

The benefits of local government subsidies in major grain-producing areas have spilled over to non-major grain-producing areas.

According to the general principles of economics, if the spillover of local government subsidy funds cannot be compensated, then the rational behavior of local governments is to not provide subsidy funds or to reduce subsidy fund expenditures as much as possible.

Under comparative interests, when the income of grain-producing farmers drops due to lack of subsidies, farmers will consciously reduce grain production.

The end result is that the country's food quantity security is threatened.

The original intention of direct subsidies - to stabilize grain production - is difficult to achieve.