<P> The detrimental effects of perverse subsidies are diverse in nature and reach . Case - studies from differing sectors are highlighted below but can be summarised as follows . </P> <P> Directly, they are expensive to governments by directing resources away from other legitimate should priorities (such as environmental conservation, education, health, or infrastructure). </P> <P> Indirectly, they cause environmental degradation (exploitation of resources, pollution, loss of landscape, misuse and overuse of supplies) which, as well as its fundamental damage, acts as a further brake on economies; tend to benefit the few at the expense of the many, and the rich at the expense of the poor; lead to further polarization of development between the Northern and Southern hemispheres; lower global market prices; and undermine investment decisions reducing the pressure on businesses to become more efficient . Over time the latter effect means support becomes enshrined in human behaviour and business decisions to the point where people become reliant on, even addicted to, subsidies,' locking' them into society . </P> <P> Consumer attitudes do not change and become out - of - date, off - target and inefficient; furthermore, over time people feel a sense of historical right to them . Despite governments being responsible for the creation and (lack of) termination of subsidies, it is ironic that perverse subsidies are not tackled more rigorously, particularly as the above highlight their contradiction to the majority of governments' stated policies . </P>

The united states does not use subsidies as part of its policies