@article{oai:kanagawa-u.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004902,
 author = {五嶋, 陽子 and Gotoh, Yoko},
 journal = {経済貿易研究 : 研究所年報},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {1930年代の大恐慌によって農家の純所得が激減し、租税公課や借入返済のために農場抵当権解除や強制公売が激増した。1933年農業調整法の制定後、連邦政府は国防予算に匹敵する規模の農業関連支出予算を投入し農産物の購買力を引き上げる政策を展開した。綿花生産制限計画は自発的参加に基づき、減反または生産量の削減に対して借地料の補償金と減反の損失を相殺する減反給付金、さらに極めて偏在的な受益構造が確認されるオプションを地主とプランテーション経営者に供したが、耕作者は必ずしも連邦政府の移転支出を得なかった。同法がヒトではなくモノを直接の対象としたため、借地農の階層的下位転落は免れず、シェアクロッパーは農業労働者に仕事を奪われ立退きに遭った。加工税の還付で生じた加工業者への移転支出の他に、減反計画に不参加の農家は農産物価格の上昇とその後の消費の一時的減少からの回復により、収入の増加という派生的便益を享受し、連邦政府の移転支出は海外の親会社とその株主を利するというスピルオーバーを伴った。
A sharp decrease in farmersʼ net income that the Great Depression brought about in 1930s led to an explosion in farm mortgage cancellations and compulsory public auctions due to local taxes and loans in the US. Federal government spent in an agricultural adjustment program arbitrarily greater or lesser than national security to give agricultural commodities a purchasing power.
In the case of cotton reduction in the acreage or in the production on a voluntary basis, rental or benefit payments as well as dominant options were provided for landlords and plantation owners but not necessarily for tenant farmers and sharecroppers. Since the policy which was declared by Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 did not focus on entire farmers but farm products, the social hierarchy of cotton tenant farmers was degraded and sharecroppers were stripped of their farming jobs and eventually evicted. The difference between refunds processors received and processing taxes they had paid was nothing but transfer expenditure. The derivative benefits from the cotton reduction spilled over not only to other farm owners who did not participate in it but also to other outsiders such as parent companies and their shareholders overseas., Article, 論説},
 pages = {17--38},
 title = {ニューディール初期農業調整事業の受益構造の再考 －綿作を中心にして－},
 volume = {44},
 year = {2018}
}