IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v79y2018icp293-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy

Author

Listed:
  • Bateman, Ian J.
  • Balmford, Ben

Abstract

In early 2019 the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union and with it the Common Agricultural Policy. The UK Government has announced its intentions to formulate a novel agricultural policy following the principle that public funding should be restricted to the provision of public goods. However, the acceptance, interpretation and application of this principle is the subject of intense debate. We overview the background to this debate, reveal the major flaws in present policy and identify and provide our answers to three key questions which future policy must address: (1) What are the farm related public goods that public money should support?; (2) How should that spending be allocated?; (3) How much should be spent? We believe that these questions and their answers will be of general interest beyond the UK.

Suggested Citation

  • Bateman, Ian J. & Balmford, Ben, 2018. "Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 293-300.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:293-300
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718308603
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Inman, Alex & Winter, Michael & Wheeler, Rebecca & Vrain, Emilie & Lovett, Andrew & Collins, Adrian & Jones, Iwan & Johnes, Penny & Cleasby, Will, 2018. "An exploration of individual, social and material factors influencing water pollution mitigation behaviours within the farming community," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 16-26.
    2. Engel, Stefanie, 2016. "The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 9(1-2), pages 131-177, July.
    3. Rose, David C. & Sutherland, William J. & Parker, Caroline & Lobley, Matt & Winter, Michael & Morris, Carol & Twining, Susan & Ffoulkes, Charles & Amano, Tatsuya & Dicks, Lynn V., 2016. "Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 165-174.
    4. Traill, Bruce, 1984. "The effects of government policies on agricultural input markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 111-120, May.
    5. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Katharine R. E. Sims & Patricia Yañez-Pagans, 2015. "Only One Tree from Each Seed? Environmental Effectiveness and Poverty Alleviation in Mexico's Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 1-40, November.
    6. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    7. Milczarek-Andrzejewska, Dominika & Zawalińska, Katarzyna & Czarnecki, Adam, 2018. "Land-use conflicts and the Common Agricultural Policy: Evidence from Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 423-433.
    8. Anthony Lamb & Rhys Green & Ian Bateman & Mark Broadmeadow & Toby Bruce & Jennifer Burney & Pete Carey & David Chadwick & Ellie Crane & Rob Field & Keith Goulding & Howard Griffiths & Astley Hastings , 2016. "The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(5), pages 488-492, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Palmer, Charles & Groom, Ben & Langton, Steve & Sileci, Lorenzo, 2022. "Biodiversity-food trade-offs when agricultural land is spared from production," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 116614, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Doris Läpple & Osayanmon Wellington Osawe, 2023. "Concern for animals, other farmers, or oneself? Assessing farmers' support for a policy to improve animal welfare," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(3), pages 836-860, May.
    3. Gloria Salmoral & Benjamin Ababio & Ian P. Holman, 2020. "Drought Impacts, Coping Responses and Adaptation in the UK Outdoor Livestock Sector: Insights to Increase Drought Resilience," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Xing Xiong & Xinghou Yu & Yuxin Wang, 2022. "The impact of basic public services on residents’ consumption in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    5. Rita Vilkė & Živilė Gedminaitė‐Raudonė & Tomas Baležentis & Dalia Štreimikienė, 2021. "Farmers' awareness of eco‐efficiency and cleaner production as environmental responsibility: Lithuanian case," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 288-298, January.
    6. Moxey, Andrew & Smyth, Mary-Ann & Taylor, Emily & Williams, A. Prysor, 2021. "Barriers and opportunities facing the UK Peatland Code: A case-study of blended green finance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Roman Rudnicki & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Mirosław Biczkowski, 2021. "A Spatial Typography of Environmentally Friendly Common Agricultural Policy Support Relevant to European Green Deal Objectives," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Wiśniewski, Łukasz & Rudnicki, Roman & Chodkowska-Miszczuk, Justyna, 2021. "What non-natural factors are behind the underuse of EU CAP funds in areas with valuable habitats?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    9. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    10. Arnott, David & Chadwick, David & Harris, Ian & Koj, Aleksandra & Jones, David L., 2019. "What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 194-208.
    11. Maderson, Siobhan, 2023. "Co-producing agricultural policy with beekeepers: Obstacles and opportunities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    12. Kam, Hermann & Smith, Heather & Potter, Clive, 2023. "Public money for public goods: The role of ideas in driving agriculture policy in the EU and post-Brexit UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Gunton, Richard M. & Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Basden, Andrew & van Asperen, Eline N. & Christie, Ian & Hanson, David R. & Hartley, Sue E., 2022. "Valuing beyond economics: A pluralistic evaluation framework for participatory policymaking," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Badura, Tomas & Vačkářová, Davina, 2020. "Public preferences for post 2020 agri-environmental policy in the Czech Republic: A choice experiment approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    16. Angelika Zimmermann & Nora Albers & Jasper O. Kenter, 2022. "Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 757-782, July.
    17. Roman Rudnicki & Mirosław Biczkowski & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Paweł Wiśniewski & Stanisław Bielski & Renata Marks-Bielska, 2023. "Towards Green Agriculture and Sustainable Development: Pro-Environmental Activity of Farms under the Common Agricultural Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-23, February.
    18. Çullu, Mehmet Ali & Teke, Mustafa & Aydoğdu, Mustafa Hakkı & Günal, Hikmet, 2022. "Effects of subsidy and regulation policy on soil and water resources of cotton planted lands in Harran Plain, Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    19. Alastair Greig & Ziping Wu, 2021. "The impacts of a reduction in British meat and dairy consumption on Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 36(2), pages 133-148, March.
    20. Holt, Alison & Morris, Joe, 2022. "Will environmental land management fill the income gap on upland-hill farms in England?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    21. Stefano Ciliberti & Luca Palazzoni & Sofia Maria Lilli & Angelo Frascarelli, 2022. "Direct Payments to Provide Environmental Public Goods and Enhance Farm Incomes: Do Allocation Criteria Matter?," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 13(1-2).
    22. Mergoni, Anna & Dipierro, Anna Rita & Colamartino, Chiara, 2024. "European agricultural sector: The tortuous path across efficiency, sustainability and environmental risk," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    23. Matteo Olivieri & Maria Andreoli & Daniele Vergamini & Fabio Bartolini, 2021. "Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    24. Dempsey, Benedict, 2021. "Understanding conflicting views in conservation: An analysis of England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    25. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    2. Ito, Junichi & Feuer, Hart N. & Kitano, Shinichi & Asahi, Haruka, 2019. "Assessing the effectiveness of Japan's community-based direct payment scheme for hilly and mountainous areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 62-75.
    3. Cisneros, Elías & Börner, Jan & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2022. "Impacts of conservation incentives in protected areas: The case of Bolsa Floresta, Brazil," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Núñez-Regueiro, Mauricio M. & Hiller, Josh & Branch, Lyn C. & Núñez Godoy, Cristina & Siddiqui, Sharmin & Volante, José & Soto, José R., 2020. "Policy lessons from spatiotemporal enrollment patterns of payment for ecosystem service programs in Argentina," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    6. Moros, Lina & Vélez, María Alejandra & Corbera, Esteve, 2019. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia's Amazon Piedmont," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 468-488.
    7. Naime, Julia & Angelsen, Arild & Rodriguez-Ward, Dawn & Sills, Erin O., 2024. "Participation, anticipation effects and impact perceptions of two collective incentive-based conservation interventions in Ucayali, Peru," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    8. Izquierdo-Tort, Santiago & Jayachandran, Seema & Saavedra, Santiago, 2024. "Redesigning payments for ecosystem services to increase cost-effectiveness," Documentos de Trabajo 21022, Universidad del Rosario.
    9. Maldonado, Jorge H. & Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Henao-Henao, Juan P. & Bruner, Aaron, 2019. "Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Lliso, Bosco & Pascual, Unai & Engel, Stefanie, 2021. "On the role of social equity in payments for ecosystem services in Latin America: A practitioner perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    11. Valatin, G. & Ovando, P. & Abildtrup, J. & Accastello, C. & Andreucci, M.B. & Chikalanov, A. & El Mokaddem, A. & Garcia, S. & Gonzalez-Sanchis, M. & Gordillo, F. & Kayacan, B. & Little, D. & Lyubenova, 2022. "Approaches to cost-effectiveness of payments for tree planting and forest management for water quality services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    12. Bauchet, Jonathan & Asquith, Nigel & Ma, Zhao & Radel, Claudia & Godoy, Ricardo & Zanotti, Laura & Steele, Diana & Gramig, Benjamin M. & Chong, Andrea Estrella, 2020. "The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    13. Ito, Junichi, 2022. "Program design and heterogeneous treatment effects of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.
    15. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    16. Bourceret, Amélie & Amblard, Laurence & Mathias, Jean-Denis, 2023. "How do farmers’ environmental preferences influence the efficiency of information instruments for water quality management? Evidence from a social-ecological agent-based model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 478(C).
    17. Robalino, Juan & Pfaff, Alexander & Sandoval, Catalina & Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. Arturo, 2021. "Can we increase the impacts from payments for ecosystem services? Impact rose over time in Costa Rica, yet spatial variation indicates more potential," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    18. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    19. Ridier, Aude & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), April.
    20. Chervier, Colas & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2019. "When the Implementation of Payments for Biodiversity Conservation Leads to Motivation Crowding-out: A Case Study From the Cardamoms Forests, Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 499-510.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:293-300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.