WORLD WHEAT CONTROL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21874, 9 August 1934, Page 10

WORLD WHEAT CONTROL

In an article on the world wheat plan which was published in the Times nearly a year ago Mr. R. J. Thompson said: "For the first time we have had the Governments of no fewer than 22 countries, representing the sellers and the buyers of one of the main primary products of the world, agreeing on a plan intended to promote their common interests. This plan puts an end, at least for a time, to inconsiderate international competition by allotting to each of the principal suppliers a definite share in the market." It is now reported that the final figures from Argentina, for the first year of the wheat agreement, show an excess over quota of 32,365,144 bushels. It is impossible to allocate the blame, the neglect or the administrative inefficiency responsible for this amazing departure from planned marketing. It is obvious, however, that the excess exports from Argentina rnusi have destroyed the purpose. The total estimated demand was 560,000,000 bushels allocated among the principal exporting countries as follows :—Canada, 200,000,000 bushels ; Argentina, 110,000,000 bushels; Australia, 105,000,000 bushels; Danubian countries, 50,000,000-54,000,000 bushels ; United States, 47,000,000 bushels. The balance was to be provided by Russia and other unspecified exporters. The total was less by 100,000,000 bushels than the import demand of the previous year, the reduced quantity being fixed owing to heavier harvest yields in Europe. The very fact that the seasons are opposite in the two hemispheres is bound to make wheat planning a very complicated matter. But this is not all. Production varies with the weather. It may be increased or reduced by tariffs, subsidies and national quota restrictions, which now are part of the policy of most European countries. Even with the most precise export control—and clearly there has been nothing approaching that standard in the ports of Argentina—world planning in wheat must be largely a matter of guesswork. Acreage restrictions will not necessarily reduce output. This method has been employed in regard to cotton in the United States. Subsidies were paid to growers reducing part of their crop, but it was frequently found that this money was expended in more fertilisers and in more cultivation, with the result that the acreage cut was partly nullified. The failure of wheat planning may yet have a telling object lesson for those attempting to deal in the same way with products of smaller world volume.