IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v21y2022i2p28-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Experiments to Design and Evaluate the CAP: Insights from an Expert Panel

Author

Listed:
  • Daniele Curzi
  • Sylvain Chabé‐Ferret
  • Salvatore Di Falco
  • Laure Kuhfuss
  • Marianne Lefebvre
  • Alan Matthews

Abstract

Over the last twenty years the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has considerably evolved, by introducing new objectives and instruments to address the increasing number of challenges ahead. These changes call for the use of innovative tools to analyse agricultural policy design and evaluation. During the last European Association of Agricultural Economics conference, a panel of experts presented their points of view on how experiments can enhance the CAP evaluation toolkit. In this article we summarise the main insights emerging during this session. We present a review of the different existing experimental approaches followed by some examples of their application in the study of the CAP and a discussion of the potential hurdles to the use of experimental results to design actual policies. From the different contributions it emerges that experimental approaches may represent effective tools to improve the design and evaluation of the CAP. However, a potential hurdle to their wider use is that experimental results often fail to be confirmed when applied to large‐scale policy interventions. In this article we discuss some potential solutions to the main problems affecting the scalability of experimental results, and we provide some insights on how experiments can help to improve the CAP further. Au cours des vingt dernières années, la politique agricole commune (PAC) a considérablement évolué en introduisant de nouveaux objectifs et instruments pour relever le nombre croissant de défis à venir. Ces changements appellent l'utilisation d'outils innovants pour analyser la conception et l'évaluation des politiques agricoles. Lors de la dernière conférence de l'Association européenne d'économie agricole, un panel d'experts a présenté son point de vue sur la manière dont les expérimentations peuvent enrichir la boîte à outils d'évaluation de la PAC. Dans cet article, nous résumons les principales idées qui ont émergé au cours de cette session. Nous présentons une revue des différentes approches expérimentales existantes, suivie de quelques exemples de leur application dans l'étude de la PAC, et une discussion des obstacles potentiels à l'utilisation des résultats expérimentaux pour concevoir des politiques réelles. Des différentes contributions, il ressort que les approches expérimentales peuvent représenter des outils efficaces pour améliorer la conception et l'évaluation de la PAC. Cependant, un obstacle potentiel à leur utilisation plus large est que les résultats expérimentaux ne sont souvent pas confirmés lorsqu'ils sont appliqués à des interventions politiques à grande échelle. Dans cet article, nous discutons de certaines solutions potentielles aux principaux problèmes de généralisation des résultats expérimentaux, et nous donnons un aperçu de la manière dont les expérimentations peuvent aider à améliorer davantage la PAC. In den letzten zwanzig Jahren hat sich die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik (GAP) durch die Einführung neuer Ziele und Instrumente zur Bewältigung der immer zahlreicheren Herausforderungen erheblich weiterentwickelt. Diese Veränderungen erfordern den Einsatz innovativer Instrumente zur Analyse der Gestaltung und Bewertung der Agrarpolitik. Auf der letzten Konferenz der European Association of Agricultural Economics (EAAE) hat eine Gruppe von Experten ihre Ansichten darüber dargelegt, wie Experimente das Instrumentarium zur Bewertung der GAP verbessern können. In diesem Artikel fassen wir die wichtigsten Erkenntnisse aus dieser Sitzung zusammen. Wir geben einen Überblick über die verschiedenen bestehenden experimentellen Ansätze, gefolgt von einigen Beispielen ihrer Anwendung bei der Untersuchung der GAP und einer Diskussion über die potenziellen Hürden bei der Nutzung experimenteller Ergebnisse für die Gestaltung aktueller Politiken. Aus den verschiedenen Beiträgen geht hervor, dass experimentelle Ansätze wirksame Instrumente zur Verbesserung der Gestaltung und Bewertung der GAP darstellen können. Ein potenzielles Hindernis für ihren breiteren Einsatz ist jedoch, dass experimentelle Ergebnisse bei der Anwendung auf groß angelegte, politische Maßnahmen oft nicht bestätigt werden können. In diesem Artikel erörtern wir einige mögliche Lösungen für die Hauptprobleme, die die Skalierbarkeit experimenteller Ergebnisse beeinträchtigen und wir geben Einblicke, wie Experimente zur weiteren Verbesserung der GAP beitragen können.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniele Curzi & Sylvain Chabé‐Ferret & Salvatore Di Falco & Laure Kuhfuss & Marianne Lefebvre & Alan Matthews, 2022. "Using Experiments to Design and Evaluate the CAP: Insights from an Expert Panel," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(2), pages 28-34, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:21:y:2022:i:2:p:28-34
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12363
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12363?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sophie Thoyer & Raphaële Préget, 2019. "Enriching the CAP evaluation toolbox with experimental approaches: introduction to the special issue," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 347-366.
    2. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    4. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    5. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    6. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro‐Hurlé & Ciaran Blanchflower & Liesbeth Colen & Laure Kuhfuss & Jens Rommel & Tanja Šumrada & Fabian Thomas & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Can Economic Experiments Contribute to a More Effective CAP?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 42-49, December.
    7. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    8. Sylvain Chabé-Ferret & Philippe Le Coent & Arnaud Reynaud & Julie Subervie & Daniel Lepercq, 2019. "Can we nudge farmers into saving water? Evidence from a randomised experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 46(3), pages 393-416.
    9. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    10. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé & Ciaran Blanchflower & Liesbeth Colen & Laure Kuhfuss & Jens Rommel & Tanja Šumrada & Fabian Thomas & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Can Economic Experiments Contribute to a More Effective CAP? [Les expérimentations économiques peuvent-elles contribuer à rendre la PAC plus efficace ?]," Post-Print hal-03329617, HAL.
    11. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    12. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    13. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    14. Sylvain Chabé-Ferret & Philippe Le Coent & Arnaud Reynaud & Julie Subervie & Daniel Lepercq, 2019. "Can we nudge farmers into saving water? Evidence from a randomised experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 393-416.
    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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.

    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. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Rommel, Jens & Olschewski, Roland, 2021. "Types of collective action problems and farmers’ willingness to accept agri-environmental schemes in Switzerland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. Jean-Marc Blazy & Julie Subervie & Jacky Paul & François Causeret & Loic Guinde & Sarah Moulla & Alban Thomas & Jorge Sierra, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of Agri-Environmental Schemes promoting compost use to sequester carbon in soils in Guadeloupe," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02748634, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    3. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    4. Marie Ferré & Stefanie Engel & Elisabeth Gsottbauer, 2023. "External validity of economic experiments on Agri‐environmental scheme design," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 661-685, September.
    5. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro‐Hurlé & Ciaran Blanchflower & Liesbeth Colen & Laure Kuhfuss & Jens Rommel & Tanja Šumrada & Fabian Thomas & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Can Economic Experiments Contribute to a More Effective CAP?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 42-49, December.
    6. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Michels, Marius & Luo, Hao & Weller von Ahlefeld, Paul Johann & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2023. "Compliance with pre-harvest interval rules in apple production—A comparative analysis of green nudges among fruit growers and agricultural students in Germany," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    8. Blazy, J.-M. & Subervie, J. & Paul, J. & Causeret, F. & Guindé, L. & Moulla, S. & Thomas, A. & Sierra, J., 2021. "Ex-ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of public policies to sequester carbon in soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    9. Morawetz, Ulrich B. & Tribl, Christoph, 2020. "Randomised Controlled Trials for the Evaluation of the CAP: Empirical Evidence about Acceptance by Farmers," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(3), July.
    10. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    11. Alexandre Sauquet, 2021. "Ex-post analysis of the crop diversification policy ofthe CAP Greening in France," Working Papers hal-03455548, HAL.
    12. Philippe Coent, 2023. "Payment for environmental services related to aquifers: a review of specific issues and existing programmes," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 273-310, December.
    13. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    14. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    15. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    16. Peter Howley & Neel Ocean, 2022. "Can nudging only get you so far? Testing for nudge combination effects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 1086-1112.
    17. Benjamin Ouvrard & Raphaële Préget & Arnaud Reynaud & Laetitia Tuffery, 2020. "Nudging and Subsidizing Farmers to Foster Smart Water Meter Adoption," Working Papers hal-02958784, HAL.
    18. Neckermann, Susanne & Turmunkh, Uyanga & van Dolder, Dennie & Wang, Tong V., 2022. "Nudging student participation in online evaluations of teaching: Evidence from a field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    19. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    20. Douadia Bougherara & Lea Gosset & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2023. "Innovativeness, innovation adoption and priming: Nudging farmers in a large-scale randomized experiment in France," Post-Print hal-04227775, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:eurcho:v:21:y:2022:i:2:p:28-34. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.