In the low-carbon supply chain, when confronted with an external market offering higher profitability prospects, the monopoly manufacturer will prioritize serving that market, inevitably resulting in supply disruptions to local channels. This study delves into two distinct subsidy strategies employed by the government to avert supply disruption: a technology-driven "push" subsidy, devised to improve the ability to reduce emissions, and a price-responsive "pull" subsidy, geared towards influencing wholesale prices. Furthermore, if the external market spans international borders, the manufacturer must contend with the imposition of tariffs. Consequently, we analyze how these two subsidy types mitigate the risk of local supply disruptions within domestic and cross-border markets. The presence of carbon tariffs will have an impact on government subsidies and manufacturer capacity. Specifically, the surge in external market prices augments the strength of the effect. Alternatively, when the external market price is low, capacity has a negative impact on government subsidies. Moreover, we observed that when the manufacturer's capacity falls short, the government favors the implementation of pull subsidies. This arises from the fact that scarcity of goods tends to drive up prices, prompting the government to adopt the pull model to bolster consumption and alleviate the pressure on consumers.

Due to the deep integration of modern information technology, supply chain management has moved into a new stage of a smart supply chain. Considering the dual smart innovation of the manufacturer's production and retailer’s service, the manufacturer-led Stackelberg game model is constructed in the smart supply chain. Under the single and coordinated government subsidy strategies, the optimal decisions of the smart supply chain are researched, and the impacts of manufacturers' risk aversion on the government subsidy strategies and supply chain decisions are analysed. In addition, the efficiencies of different government subsidy strategies are compared and analysed by numerical simulation. Finally, the results show that: (i) The moderate risk aversion by the manufacturer can improve social welfare and help provide consumers with more affordable products. (ii) The government expenditure and product prices are highest under the coordinated subsidy strategy. (iii) Subsidising manufacturers is more beneficial than subsidising retailers among the two single government subsidy strategies. (iv) In general, the coordinated government subsidy strategy is more effective than the single subsidy strategy for the innovative development of a smart supply chain. In conclusion, the research provides a significant practical reference for jointly building the smart supply chain.

The agricultural production, due to the specificity of the functioning of the agricultural industry, is influenced by factors that have significant impacts on agricultural enterprises and determine the importance of state support. The unpredictable factors of agrarian production such as weather, natural disaster, and epidemics increase the risks of agricultural business. That is why farmers need to attract investments. But some farmers do not attract investment because of government subsidies. Besides, using government subsidies could have a negative impact on agrarian business. So, it is necessary to establish the effectiveness of governance for agricultural production and food security in general.

Government subsidies have been a major concern in many developing countries and they could create major problems such as increase in smuggling, lack of interest in investment, etc. During the past couple of years, the government of Iran decided to eliminate subsidies in different goods such as energy prices and food. In this paper, we present a survey to measure the impacts of such deregulation on Iranian economic factors including inflation, unemployment, tuition fee, consumer consumption pattern and city transportation facilities. The survey distributes a questionnaire among 51 university students aged 20 to 26 in Likert scale. We have used Pearson correlation test to study the relationship between deregulation on government subsidies and other mentioned factors. The results of the survey indicate that there is a meaningful relationship between government subsidies and unemployment, transportation facilities, consumer consumption pattern. However, the survey does not find sufficient evidence to believe that there is any relationship between government subsidies and inflation, increase in tuition fee.