IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331256.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Organic Production in a Dynamic CGE Model – Effects of the 2003 Reform of the CAP

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobsen, Lars-Bo

Abstract

Concerns about the impact of modern agriculture on the environment have in recent years led to an interest in supporting the development of organic farming. Besides environmental benefits, the aim is to encourage the provision of “multifunctional” properties of organic farming such as rural amenities and rural development that are spill-over benefits additional to the supply of food. In this paper we modify an existing dynamic general equilibrium model of the Danish economy to specifically incorporate organic farming. In the model and input-output data each primary agricultural sector and each secondary food industry has been split into two separate industries: one producing organic products, the other producing conventional products. The substitution nests in private consumption have also been altered to enable pair wise substitution between organic and conventional products. To receive specific subsidies for organic production the current regulation requires organic farmers to produce using organic methods for a period of five years. Failing to do so will mean that received subsidies during the period must be paid back thus practically forcing farmers to retain the organic authorization even though it might be economically optimal to withdrawn from organic farming in the current year. This means that the return to land can vary substantially between conventional and organic farming in the short run. To introduce this concept into the model we develop a theory that describes the dynamic time path of land allocation between organic and conventional farming. Agricultural land is treated explicitly as a stock and there is a stock accumulation relationship for land and an explicit modelling of the rate of stock accumulation (i.e. land investment based on expected returns). While returns can differ between conventional and organic farming in the short run we assume the land allocation adjust within organic farming to equalize return for all usage of organic land in each year. The same apply for conventional land. We use the empirical model to illustrate the land allocation theory by constructing a long term forecast for the development of the Danish economy. Moreover we simulate the effect of the recently agreed 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobsen, Lars-Bo, 2004. "Organic Production in a Dynamic CGE Model – Effects of the 2003 Reform of the CAP," Conference papers 331256, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331256/files/1717.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vaittinen, Risto, 2003. "Liberalisation of Agricultural Trade - Global Implications and what it Means for the EU," Discussion Papers 303, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    2. W. Jill Harrison & J. Mark Horridge & K.R. Pearson, 2000. "Decomposing Simulation Results with Respect to Exogenous Shocks," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 15(3), pages 227-249, June.
    3. Gérard Roland, 2004. "Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, and Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026268148x, December.
    4. Widgren, Mika & Sulamaa, Pekka, 2003. "EU Enlargement and Beyond: A Simulation Study on EU and CIS Integration," CEPR Discussion Papers 3768, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. McDougall, Robert, 2003. "Russian Energy Taxes for GTAP 5.3," GTAP Research Memoranda 1369, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    6. Kennedy, David, 2002. "Regulatory reform and market development in power sectors of transition economies: the case of Kazakhstan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 219-233, February.
    7. repec:zbw:bofitp:2003_012 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. repec:zbw:bofitp:2004_002 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Kerkelä, Leena, 2004. "Distortion costs and effects of price liberalisation in Russian energy markets : A CGE analysis," BOFIT Discussion Papers 2/2004, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    3. Kerkelä, Leena, 2004. "Distortion costs and effects of price liberalisation in Russian energy markets: A CGE analysis," BOFIT Discussion Papers 2/2004, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    4. Katja Mann, 2015. "The EU, a Growth Engine? The Impact of European Integration on Economic Growth in Central Eastern Europe," FIW Working Paper series 136, FIW.
    5. Eicher, Theo S. & Schreiber, Till, 2010. "Structural policies and growth: Time series evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 169-179, January.
    6. Oliver Schenker, 2013. "Exchanging Goods and Damages: The Role of Trade on the Distribution of Climate Change Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 261-282, February.
    7. Rode, Martin & Gwartney, James D., 2012. "Does democratization facilitate economic liberalization?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 607-619.
    8. Lamo, Ana & Messina, Julián & Wasmer, Etienne, 2011. "Are specific skills an obstacle to labor market adjustment?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 240-256, April.
    9. Simeon Djankov & Edward Miguel & Yingyi Qian & Gérard Roland & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2005. "Who are Russia's Entrepreneurs?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(2-3), pages 587-597, 04/05.
    10. Pavel Ciaian & Ján Pokrivčák & Dušan Drabik, 2008. "Prečo sú niektoré sektory v tranzitívnych ekonomikách menej reformované ako ostatné? prípad výskumu a vzdelávania v oblasti ekonómie [Why some sectors of transition economies are less reformed than," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(6), pages 819-836.
    11. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    12. Masten, Arjana Brezigar & Coricelli, Fabrizio & Masten, Igor, 2008. "Non-linear growth effects of financial development: Does financial integration matter?," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 295-313, March.
    13. Grzegorz W. Kolodko, 2009. "A Two-thirds Rate of Success: Polish Transformation and Economic Development, 1989-2008," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2009-14, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    14. repec:wvu:wpaper:06-03 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. DELL'ANNO, Roberto & VILLA, Stefania, 2012. "Growth in Transition Countries: Big Bang versus Gradualism," CELPE Discussion Papers 122, CELPE - CEnter for Labor and Political Economics, University of Salerno, Italy.
    16. Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2017. "Religion, administration & public goods: Experimental evidence from Russia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 42-60.
    17. Grajzl, Peter & Baniak, Andrzej, 2018. "Private enforcement, corruption, and antitrust design," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 284-307.
    18. Mübariz Hasanov & Tolga Omay, 2011. "The Relationship Between Inflation, Output Growth, and Their Uncertainties: Evidence from Selected CEE Countries," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(0), pages 5-20, July.
    19. Campos, Nauro F & Giovannoni, Francesco, 2006. "The Determinants of Asset Stripping: Theory and Evidence from the Transition Economies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 681-706, October.
    20. Kryeziu Liridon & Coşkun Recai, 2018. "Political and Economic Institutions and Economic Performance: Evidence from Kosovo," South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 84-99, December.
    21. Mark Gradstein & Branko Milanovic, 2004. "Does Libertè = Egalité? A Survey of the Empirical Links between Democracy and Inequality with Some Evidence on the Transition Economies," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 515-537, September.
    22. Nandini Gupta & John C. Ham & Jan Svejnar, 2000. "Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 323, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.

    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:pugtwp:331256. 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/gtpurus.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.