This paper compares two ways of financing the combating of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in the EU and uses a simulation model to determine the welfare and production implications of the two systems. The two systems analysed are (i) financing by the tax payers, resembling the system currently in place, and (ii) a compulsory insurance scheme where all costs are converted into regionally differentiated insurance premiums that are paid by the producers. The analysis indicates that welfare gains may be realised by shifting from the former to the latter financing system.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: