IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/erdnra/272189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It is all about the risk – how can an enabling environment for agricultural innovation be created within the Common Agricultural Policy?

Author

Listed:
  • Wieliczko, Barbara

Abstract

When creating an enabling environment for agricultural innovation adoption, it is not only the financial risk that has to be taken into account but also other aspects of risk and their behavioural determinants. The paper applies a systematic review approach to present the recent findings on behavioural factors that determine farmers’ participation in different policy schemes that should be taken into account when shaping innovation support instruments within the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The aim of the paper is to present what should be the next steps in developing an enabling environment for innovation adoption within the CAP and in which direction future research on adoption of innovations by farmers should go.

Suggested Citation

  • Wieliczko, Barbara, 2017. "It is all about the risk – how can an enabling environment for agricultural innovation be created within the Common Agricultural Policy?," Rural Areas and Development, European Rural Development Network (ERDN), vol. 14.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:erdnra:272189
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.272189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/272189/files/Wieliczko.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/272189/files/Wieliczko.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.272189?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. Peter-J Jost, 2011. "The Economics of Organization and Coordination," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13332.
    2. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2007. "Ambiguity Aversion as a Predictor of Technology Choice: Experimental Evidence from Peru," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-01, CIRANO.
    3. Sophie Clot & Fano Andriamahefazafy & Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez & Philippe Méral, 2014. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Can we kill two birds with one stone? Insights from a Natural Field Experiment in Madagascar," Working Papers 14-01, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2014.
    4. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    5. Elabed, Ghada & Carter, Michael R., 2015. "Compound-risk aversion, ambiguity and the willingness to pay for microinsurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 150-166.
    6. Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla & David Orden & Andrzej Kwieciński, 2014. "Enabling Environment for Agricultural Growth and Competitiveness: Evaluation, Indicators and Indices," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 67, OECD Publishing.
    7. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Naranjo, Maria A., 2011. "The effect of ambiguous risk, and coordination on farmers' adaptation to climate change — A framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2317-2326.
    8. Babcock, Bruce, 2015. "Using Prospect Theory to Explain Anomalous Crop Insurance Coverage Choice," 2015 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3-5, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts 189682, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Hardaker, J. Brian & Lien, Gudbrand, 2010. "Probabilities for decision analysis in agriculture and rural resource economics: The need for a paradigm change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 345-350, July.
    10. Bruce A. Babcock, 2015. "Using Cumulative Prospect Theory to Explain Anomalous Crop Insurance Coverage Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1371-1384.
    11. Ross, Nicholas & Santos, Paulo & Capon, Timothy, 2012. "Risk, ambiguity and the adoption of new technologies: experimental evidence from a developing economy," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126492, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez Y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Sophie Thoyer & Raphaële Préget, 2015. "(How) can economic experiments inform EU agricultural policy?," JRC Research Reports JRC97340, Joint Research Centre.
    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. Nagisa Shiiba & Hide-Fumi Yokoo & Voravee Saengavut & Siraprapa Bumrungkit, 2023. "Ambiguity Aversion And Individual Adaptation To Climate Change: Evidence From A Farmer Survey In Northeastern Thailand," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(01), pages 1-29, February.
    2. Brittney Goodrich & Jisang Yu & Monte Vandeveer, 2020. "Participation patterns of the rainfall index insurance for pasture, rangeland and forage programme," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 29-51, January.
    3. Hongli Feng & Xiaodong Du & David A. Hennessy, 2020. "Depressed demand for crop insurance contracts, and a rationale based on third generation Prospect Theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 59-73, January.
    4. Falco, Chiara & Rotondi, Valentina & Kong, Douch & Spelta, Valeria, 2021. "Investment, insurance and weather shocks: Evidence from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Sarah Janzen & Nicholas Magnan & Conner Mullally & Soye Shin & I. Bailey Palmer & Judith Oduol & Karl Hughes, 2021. "Can Experiential Games and Improved Risk Coverage Raise Demand for Index Insurance? Evidence from Kenya," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 338-361, January.
    6. Ranjan Kumar Ghosh & Shweta Gupta & Vartika Singh & Patrick S. Ward, 2021. "Demand for Crop Insurance in Developing Countries: New Evidence from India," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 293-320, February.
    7. Rommel, Jens & Hermann, Daniel & Müller, Malte & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2016. "Comparing The Predictive Power Of Risk Elicitation Instruments: Experimental Evidence From German Farmers," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244759, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    8. Goodrich, Brittney K. & Yu, Jisang, 2018. "Risk Preferences and the Participation Pattern of Rainfall Index Insurance," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273879, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Kelly A. Davidson & Brittney K. Goodrich, 2023. "Nudge to insure: Can informational nudges change enrollment decisions in pasture, rangeland, and forage rainfall index insurance?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 534-554, March.
    10. Boyd, Chris M. & Bellemare, Marc F., 2022. "Why not insure prices? Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 580-631.
    11. Francisco Rosas & Mariana Sans & Santiago Arana, 2018. "The effect of irrigation on income volatility reduction: a prospect theory approach," Documentos de Investigación 118, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.
    12. Fezzi, Carlo & Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2021. "Estimating risk preferences integrating insurance choices with subjective beliefs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    13. Norton, Benjamin P. & Hoel, Jessica B. & Michelson, Hope, 2020. "The demand for (fake?) fertilizer: Using an experimental auction to examine the role of beliefs on agricultural input demand in Tanzania," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304444, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    15. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Granado-Díaz, Rubén, 2023. "Assessing the demand for hydrological drought insurance in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    16. Mohit Anand & Ruiqing Miao & Madhu Khanna, 2019. "Adopting bioenergy crops: Does farmers’ attitude toward loss matter?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 435-450, July.
    17. Alexandre Gohin, 2019. "General Equilibrium Modelling of the Insurance Industry: U.S. Crop Insurance," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 4(2), pages 108-145, December.
    18. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2020. "Prospect theory in experiments : behaviour in loss domain and framing effects," Working Papers hal-02987294, HAL.
    19. Shin, Soye & Magnan, Nicholas & Mullally, Conner & Janzen, Sarah, 2022. "Demand for Weather Index Insurance among Smallholder Farmers under Prospect Theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 82-104.
    20. Cárcamo, Jorge & von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, 2016. "Assessing small-scale raspberry producers’ risk and ambiguity preferences: evidence from field- experiment data in rural Chile," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260774, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).

    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:erdnra:272189. 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/erdnnea.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.