IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi15/210576.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessment Of Targeting In The Rural Development Programme: A Case Study Of The Austria Investment Support Measure

Author

Listed:
  • Morawetz, Ulrich
  • Sinabell, Franz

Abstract

Targeting is a central part of many public support schemes to increase cost-effectiveness of policy intervention. Interestingly, targeting in the Rural Development Programs (RDP) of the EU has so far not been quantitatively evaluated for investment support schemes. In this article we suggest how the effectiveness of targeting in the investment support schemes can be evaluated with routinely available data. For an Austrian case-study we find that targeting of investment support measures could be substantially increased if eligibility criteria were used more extensively, as maximum aid-intensity differentiation turns out not to be effective and selection through ranking is not selective if the budget constraint is not binding.

Suggested Citation

  • Morawetz, Ulrich & Sinabell, Franz, 2015. "Assessment Of Targeting In The Rural Development Programme: A Case Study Of The Austria Investment Support Measure," 55th Annual Conference, Giessen, Germany, September 23-25, 2015 210576, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi15:210576
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.210576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/210576/files/159_Morawetz_Sinabell%20-%20Assessment%20of%20Targeting.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.210576?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. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(1), pages 187-199.
    2. Eugene Smolensky & Siobhán Reilly & Eirik Evenhouse, 1995. "Should Public Assistance Be Targeted?," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 3-28, September.
    3. Stephen Pudney & Monica Hernandez & Ruth Hancock, 2007. "The welfare cost of means-testing: pensioner participation in income support," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 581-598.
    4. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 2004. "The Determinants of Participation in a Social Program: Evidence from a Prototypical Job Training Program," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 243-298, April.
    5. Houssou, Nazaire & Zeller, Manfred, 2011. "To target or not to target? The costs, benefits, and impacts of indicator-based targeting," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 626-636, October.
    6. Lumley, Thomas, 2004. "Analysis of Complex Survey Samples," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 9(i08).
    7. Bibi, Sami & Duclos, Jean-Yves, 2007. "Equity and policy effectiveness with imperfect targeting," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 109-140, May.
    8. Hunt Allcott & Christopher Knittel & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2015. "Tagging and Targeting of Energy Efficiency Subsidies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 187-191, May.
    9. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    10. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1988. "Cash versus Kind, Self-selection, and Efficient Transfers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 691-700, September.
    11. David P. Coady & Susan W. Parker, 2009. "Targeting Performance under Self-selection and Administrative Targeting Methods," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 559-587, April.
    12. Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 1991. "Public Provision of Private Goods and the Redistribution of Income," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 979-984, September.
    13. Duclos, Jean-Yves, 1995. "Modelling the take-up of state support," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 391-415, November.
    14. Alexis Diamond & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2013. "Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 932-945, July.
    15. Sekhon, Jasjeet S., 2011. "Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching package for R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i07).
    16. Viviane Azevedo & Marcos Robles, 2013. "Multidimensional Targeting: Identifying Beneficiaries of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 447-475, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. David Coady & César Martinelli & Susan W. Parker, 2013. "Information and Participation in Social Programs," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 27(1), pages 149-170.
    2. Adeola Oyenubi & Martin Wittenberg, 2021. "Does the choice of balance-measure matter under genetic matching?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 489-502, July.
    3. Henrik Jacobsen Kleven & Wojciech Kopczuk, 2011. "Transfer Program Complexity and the Take-Up of Social Benefits," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 54-90, February.
    4. David P. Coady & Susan W. Parker, 2009. "Targeting Performance under Self-selection and Administrative Targeting Methods," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 559-587, April.
    5. Tuan Nguyen-Anh & Nguyen To-The & Song Nguyen-Van, 2021. "Economic impacts of political ties in Vietnam: evidence from Northern rural households," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 993-1021, October.
    6. Massimo Baldini & Daniele Pacifico & Federica Termini, 2015. "Imputation of missing expenditure information in standard household income surveys," Center for the Analysis of Public Policies (CAPP) 0116, Universita di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Dipartimento di Economia "Marco Biagi".
    7. Wendimu, Mengistu Assefa & Henningsen, Arne & Gibbon, Peter, 2016. "Sugarcane Outgrowers in Ethiopia: “Forced” to Remain Poor?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 84-97.
    8. Coady, David P. & Parker, Susan W., 2005. "Program participation under means-testing and self-selection targeting methods," FCND discussion papers 191, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Modou Mar & Nadine Massard, 2021. "Animate the cluster or subsidize collaborative R&D? A multiple overlapping treatments approach to assess the impacts of the French cluster policy [The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment comp," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(4), pages 845-867.
    10. Henningsen, Arne & Mpeta, Daniel F. & Adem, Anwar S. & Kuzilwa, Joseph A. & Czekaj, Tomasz G., 2015. "The Effects of Contract Farming on Efficiency and Productivity of Small-Scare Sunflower Farmers in Tanzania," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212478, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Kyle Rozema & Nicolas Ziebarth, 2015. "Behavioral Responses to Taxation: Cigarette Taxes and Food Stamp Take-Up," Working Papers 150015, Canadian Centre for Health Economics.
    12. Gary King & Christopher Lucas & Richard A. Nielsen, 2017. "The Balance‐Sample Size Frontier in Matching Methods for Causal Inference," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 473-489, April.
    13. Adeola Oyenubi, 2020. "A note on Covariate Balancing Propensity Score and Instrument-like variables," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(1), pages 202-209.
    14. Henningsen, Arne & Mpeta, Daniel F. & Adem, Anwar S. & Kuzilwa, Joseph A. & Czekaj, Tomasz G., 2015. "A Meta-Frontier Approach for Causal Inference in Productivity Analysis: The Effect of Contract Farming on Sunflower Productivity in Tanzania," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 206200, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. De los Santos-Montero, Luis A. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., 2017. "Natural Resource Management and Household Well-being: The Case of POSAF-II in Nicaragua," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 42-59.
    16. Mr. David Coady & Susan Parker, 2009. "Targeting Social Transfers to the Poor in Mexico," IMF Working Papers 2009/060, International Monetary Fund.
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4713 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Lucia Mangiavacchi & Paolo Verme, 2013. "Minimum income in a transition economy," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 21(4), pages 683-712, October.
    19. Massimo Baldini & Daniele Pacifico & Federica Termini, 2015. "Imputation of missing expenditure information in standard household income surveys," Department of Economics 0049, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    20. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    21. Hanming Fang & Peter Norman, 2014. "Toward an efficiency rationale for the public provision of private goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 375-408, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:gewi15:210576. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.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.