Commodity Credit Corporation Definition

Cite this article as:"Commodity Credit Corporation Definition," in The Business Professor, updated March 11, 2019, last accessed May 31, 2020,


Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Definition

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is an agency of the government that supports, stabilizes and protects prices and farm income. It creates an even platform for supplying agricultural products. Besides this, it assists in the timely dispensation of these goods.

A Little More on What is the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)

The CCC management team is governed by the Board of Directors operating under the Agricultural minister who is a chairman and a director of the board by default. Besides the secretary, the president appoints seven members to the director. All these officers are US employees in the Agricultural wing.

Human resource from Farms Service Agency (FSA) conducts price support, procurement, preparation, recycling and storage and preparation programmes. This is because CCC has no one operating it.

Former president Franklin Roosevelt came up with a credit trade organization in October 1993 with a starting capital of $ 3 million. Most sources of these funds were the reconstruction of financial organizations. It is important to note that CCC became part of the US Agricultural wing in July 1939. Later in 1948, there was a formation of Federal Corporation in the Agricultural ministry by a written letter of the Property Credit Company.

The Agricultural Act of 1996 altered the US agricultural policy. This Act, while being passed did not consider the importance of subsidizing income, prices of agricultural goods and other regulations. Those who produced products like cotton, wheat, and rice had their losses reimbursed so as to take care of the variance between the target price and the fluctuating market price.

This 1996 Act placed a limit on expenditure, approved payment of a number of firms and also allowed choosing of commodities produced on the land

The rules of the Central Committee which were revised through nomination method became operational in 10 August 2012. This law takes into consideration the welfare of the manufacturers in things like purchases, loans, and payments. Besides these, it ensures the availability of materials required in production and selling of agricultural goods which in return allows for circulation in the system.

Currently, Commodity credit companies are administering vast national projects like income support projects, disasters, and protection. Another critical element work area for the CCC is the support from overseas which extends loans, guarantees the sale of products abroad and sends agricultural commodities to prevent hunger. Such support is mainly extended to developing countries.

References for the Commodity Credit Corporation

Academic Research on the Commodity Credit Corporation

  • Export credit guarantees: the commodity credit corporation and US agricultural export policy, Hyberg, B., Smith, M., Skully, D., & Davison, C. (1995). Food Policy, 20(1), 27-39. The author here uses a model to describe how export credit guarantees can be motivated through the use of incentives, for instance, the discount components. Such programs benefit importers and exporters in one way or the other
  • Provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Nelson, F. J., & Schertz, L. P. (2007). GSnJ 자료집, 3-7. This article is highlighting us on the Reform Act of 1996 and the provisions on how to improve Federal Agriculture.
  • USDA’s 2002 ethanol cost-of-production survey, Shapouri, H., & Gallagher, P. (2005). USDA’s 2002 ethanol cost-of-production survey. The paper talks about the production survey that was conducted in the year 2003 by the U.S Agricultural department. The study was done on 21 ethanol plants so as to predict the 2002 production cost. These plants produced about 550 million gallons of ethanol with various costs and expenses. The author goes ahead to inform us that the expansion of existing ethanol facility cost less compared to buying a new facility. In addition to this, the average cost of putting up a new plant had reduced in 2002 compared to 1998.
  • High performance liquid chromatographie analysis of intact and partially biodegraded linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, Linder, D. E., & Allen, M. C. (1982). Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 59(3), 152-155. The section is discussing the experiment that was done using high-performance liquid chromatography(HPLC) method to wholly and partially determine the degradation of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonates(LAS). The LAS degradation arising from semicontinuous activated sludge(SCAS), a die-away CO2 and a similar river-die away study were also determined by the use of HPLC using water solution. The finding shows that the HPLC method has a positive link with MBAS for intact LAS material. However, one major advantage of this HPLC method over MBAS is its ability to find out partly degraded intermediaries and their disappearance
  • Price discrimination and state trading: The case of US wheat, Skully, D. W. (1992). European Review of Agricultural Economics, 19(3), 313-329. The article is concerned with the export price discrimination in both non- price and price aspects. The model is applied to the Commodity Credit Corporation of the US and the methods it uses for price discrimination in subsidy of wheat export. It concludes that there is a consistency between the method of discrimination and the hypothesized state model.
  • Cross-compliance as a soil conservation strategy: a case study, Batie, S. S., & Sappington, A. G. (1986). American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(4), 880-885. Here, a program was developed for seventy-six farmers residing in Gibson County to estimate the effects of financial impacts of a hypothetical cross-compliance. Various program benefits were compared with the least-cost method. The author narrates that farmers would have a positive incentive in the presence of cost-sharing and vice versa.
  • The Commodity Credit Corporation: A Case Study of a Government Corporation, Frischknecht, R. L. (1953). Western Political Quarterly, 6(3), 559-569. This section talks about Commodity Credit Corporation while using Government Corporation as the case study.
  • A simulation model of the US export enhancement program for wheat, Seitzinger, A. H., & Paarlberg, P. L. (1990). American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(1), 95-103. The writer talks about models that represent discussions of Export Enhancement Programme (EEP) sales and how they are merged with models representing non-EEP. The advantages of EEP in line with enhanced U.S earnings from exports adjusted for subsidy costs are approximated to be less than one percent of the total US revenues. Generally, lowering of the CCC loan rate increase U.S wheat exports compared to EEF.
  • Marketing quotas and random yields: marginal effects of inframarginal subsidies on peanut supply, Borges, R. B., & Thurman, W. N. (1994). American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(4), 809-817. The U.S peanut program limits local sales but allows excess production to be crushed or exported. The study discloses that the world price is critical in establishing area than the inframarginal subsidy.
  • The Commodity Credit Corporation and Agricultural Lending, Hottel, B. (1981). Agricultural finance review-US Dept. of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service (USA). The Author is concerned with the contribution of the CCC in agricultural and how it has changed since its inception in 1933.CCC’s original role of minimizing the impacts of depressed prices of goods role of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in agricultural lending has changed since its beginning in 1933, reflecting changes in Government farm programs and farm economic conditions. The CCC’s original purpose of helping to minimize the effects of commodity prices is no longer focused on because it has moved to the financing dimensions of crop inventories.
  • An economic evaluation of alternative peanut policies, Nieuwoudt, W. L., Bullock, J. B., & Mathia, G. A. (1976). American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58(3), 485-495.  In this article, we use a linear programming framework to measure the impacts of these peanut policies on the geographic location of the production of peanut, treasury costs, consumer surplus amongst others. The author concludes that peanut production would increase in all the places except in Texas with little restrictive production limits. Georgia and Alabama would record the most growth.

Was this article helpful?