The federal government spends about $10 billion a year in assistance to growers of certain crops. But farmers unprotected against markets by government subsidies appear to be doing better than those in the programs.

• Some 63 percent of farms that didn't participate in federal programs had favorable financial positions in 1993, compared to only 59.6 percent of farms that did participate, according to the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

• At the other extreme, only 16 percent of nonparticipating farms were labeled "marginally solvent" or "vulnerable," while 20 percent of participating farms were in those categories.

Agricultural economists say the farm programs themselves may increase instability in the industry because the legislation and rules governing the programs change so often.

The farm sector plays a smaller and smaller role in the economy, even in rural communities.

• Farming accounts for less than 2 percent of gross domestic product.

• Only about 17 percent of the nation's counties rely on farming for 20 percent or more of their earned income.

• In rural communities, farming alone now generates only 9 percent of employment.

The bulk of farm support money goes not to the family farm often mentioned in political talks, but to the very largest operations. In 1993, for example:

• Only 16 percent of all farms made more than $100,000 in sales, but those farms got two-thirds of all government support payments.

• Only 2.2 percent of farms had annual sales of more than half a billion dollars, but those farms received 14 percent of all support payments.

• Farmers with average household incomes exceeding $160,000 received an average of $50,000 from the government.

New Zealand abolished all farm subsidies in 1986 with only eight months' notice. Despite dire predictions of increased suicides among farmers and of farmers abandoning their land, real gross agricultural output has continued to climb.

Source: John Merline, "Can Farming Survive Markets?" Investor's Business Daily, March 9, 1995.

ea mj 95a