LES PLANS CONJOINTS AU QUÉBEC*

Abstract

Cette bréve étude se propose ďanalyser ľun des outils de la politique agricole du Québec, à savoir les plans conjoints. Après avoir décrit les principals étapes institutionnelles qui ont conduit à l'élaboration de cet instrument, nous avons essayé de mesurer ses répercussions sur les prix, les quantités et le nombre de producteurs. Bien que les statistiques existantes soient sujettes à caution, il semble que les résultats ne correspondent pas aux espoirs attendus, notamment en matière de prix. Dans ces conditions, il nous a paru nécessaire de discuter 1'outil utilisé, de mettre en relief ses insuffisances et de proposer si possible quelques améliorations.MARKETING BOARDS IN QUEBEC ‐ “Agricultural product prices in constant dollars in the province of Quebec have been declining in 1967 compared to 1959.”“The beneficial influence of marketing boards on average price received for agricultural products has been far less beneficial than is commonly believed.”“Marketing Boards are restricted geographically within the confines of specific regions of provinces, and further restricted through a lack of competent administrators in sufficient numbers.”“Additionally, the existing antagonism in Quebec between cooperatives and marketing boards too often results in compromise solutions prejudicial to both groups”.In simple language, the author evaluates agricultural product marketing boards in Quebec. Within a few pages the author questions marketing boards as a tool for real price maintenance of agricultural products; reviews the inability of boards to ‘impose’ prices on consumers because they also represent consumers; discusses government policy intervention in marketing boards and analyses the limited power of boards‐essentially that of price negotiation with little economic power to act as monopolistic vendors.The author also makes suggestions for improving the operation of marketing boards. To be fully effective a board's power of negotiation must be accompanied by effective means of influencing costs of transportation and of purchased inputs, as well as efficiency of farm operation. The alternatives suggested are either that existing arrangements will persist or that an environment will be able to develop in which institutions can grow and work toward improving agriculture without the need for periodic crisis management by legislation.