Well, they didn't actually acknowledge that they had been wrong, but the NYT today complained that high food prices (partly the result of biofuel subsidies) are having a devastating impact on the developing world. The NYT used to run editorials on a regular basis that complained that farm subsidies "harvest poverty" in the developing world. Okay, here's the problem. Subsides lower prices. Let's say that again (I know it seems simple, but many highly credentialed people get it wrong), subsidies lower prices. The farm subsidies that the NYT harshly condemns lead to lower worldwide food prices. The NYT can complain about high food prices leading to hunger for people who can't afford food. It can also complain about low food prices stifling agricultural development in poor countries. But, it cannot complain about both high and low food prices and expect anyone to take its views seriously. The reality is that rich country agricultural subsidies have a mixed impact on the developing world. Their elimination would benefit producers and provide a net benefit to some countries, but this would not be the boon the NYT, along with the World Bank and some NGOs, implied. It would be a great step forward if this issue could be discussed more seriously in the future. [Dani Rodrick made this point in reference to the World Bank last week.]
--Dean Baker
