IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/iaaeaj/173816.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficient income redistribution for a small country using optimal combined instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Salhofer, K.

Abstract

In this paper I improve Gardner's surplus transformation curve framework by assuming that governments are able to vary many policy instruments simultaneously instead of only one. I use my framework to find the combination of the currently used instruments which provides the most efficient income redistribution for the Austrian bread grains market. Comparing the most efficient policy with the actual policy reveals that 464 X 106 Austrian shillings were wasted. I theoretically compare for a small country the transfer efficiency of every possible pair of the four major agricultural policy instruments: floor price, (production) quota, co-responsibility levy, and deficiency payments. Without considering the marginal cost of public funds (MCF), deficiency payments cum quota (equal to a fully decoupled direct income support) is the most efficient policy, succeeded by floor price cum quota, and floor price cum deficiency payments. If the MCF is taken into account, the ranking crucially depends on the market parameters, the transfer level, and the value of the MCF. For the Austrian bread grains market, I empirically demonstrate that given the present support level, a fully decoupled direct income support redistributes income most efficiently as long as the MCF is lower than 1.17. Beyond this value a floor price cum quota policy becomes more efficient. A floor price cum deficiency payments policy is never superior to the floor price cum quota.

Suggested Citation

  • Salhofer, K., 1996. "Efficient income redistribution for a small country using optimal combined instruments," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(3), February.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaaeaj:173816
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/173816
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Munk, K J, 1989. "Price Support to the EC Agricultural Sector: An Optimal Policy?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 76-89, Summer.
    2. Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan von, 1992. "A critical assessment of the political preference function approach in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 7(3-4), October.
    3. Kola, Jukka, 1993. "Efficiency of Supply Control Programmes in Income Redistribution," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 20(2), pages 183-198.
    4. Bullock, David S. & Jeong, Kyeong-Soo, 1994. "Comment: A critical assessment of the political preference function approach in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), April.
    5. von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, 1992. "A critical assessment of the political preference function approach in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 7(3-4), pages 371-394, October.
    6. Fullerton, Don, 1991. "Reconciling Recent Estimates of the Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 302-308, March.
    7. Bullock, David S. & Jeong, Kyeong-Soo, 1994. "A critical assessment of the political preference function approach in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 201-206, April.
    8. Charles L. Ballard & Don Fullerton, 1992. "Distortionary Taxes and the Provision of Public Goods," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 117-131, Summer.
    9. Bullock, David S, 1995. "Are Government Transfers Efficient? An Alternative Test of the Efficient Redistribution Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(6), pages 1236-1274, December.
    10. Ballard, Charles L., 1990. "Marginal welfare cost calculations : Differential analysis vs. balanced-budget analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 263-276, March.
    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. Van Herck, Kristine & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "Direct Payments and Land Rents: Evidence from New Member States," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126777, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Bullock, David S. & Salhofer, K., 1998. "Measuring the social costs of suboptimal combinations of policy instruments: A general framework and an example," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 18(3), May.
    3. Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs & Johan Swinnen, 2010. "EU Land Markets and the Common Agricultural Policy," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-31.
    4. Ciaian, Pavel & Pokrivcak, Jan, 2011. "Do agricultural subsidies crowd out or stimulate rural credit institutions? The Case of CAP Payments," Factor Markets Working Papers 100, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    5. Mittenzwei, Klaus, 2002. "Policy Design as an Irreversible Investment Under Uncertainty: Norwegian Agriculture and the WTO," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24875, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Ciaian, Pavel & Pokrivcak, Jan and Katarina Szegenyova, 2012. "Do agricultural subsidies crowd out or stimulate rural credit market institutions? The case of EU Common Agricultural Policy," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 16, November.
    7. Ciaian, Pavel, & Kancs, d’Artis & Swinnen, Jo & Van Herck, Kristine & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "Rental Market Regulations for Agricultural Land in EU Member States and Candidate Countries," Factor Markets Working Papers 117, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    8. repec:spr:agfoec:v:5:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-017-0083-z is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Kilian, Stefan & Salhofer, Klaus, 2009. "Entkoppelte Prämien, Bodenpreise und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 58(3).
    10. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2010. "Distributional Effects of CAP Subsidies: Micro Evidence from the EU," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2010_05, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    11. Van Herck, Kristine & Vranken, Liesbet, 2011. "Direct payments and rent extraction by land owners: Evidence form New Member States," 122nd Seminar, February 17-18, 2011, Ancona, Italy 99583, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Pavel Ciaian & Tomáš Ratinger, 2009. "Income Distribution Effects of EU Rural Development Policies: The Case of Farm Investment Support," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2009_01, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    13. Ciaian, Pavel, & Kancs, d’Artis & Swinnen, Jo & Van Herck, Kristine & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "Institutional Factors Affecting Agricultural Land Markets," Factor Markets Working Papers 118, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    14. Ciaian, Pavel & Pokrivcak, Jan & Kancs, d'Artis, 2013. "Empirical Evidence of the Distributional Effects of the CAP in New EU Member States," Working Papers 157117, Factor Markets, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    15. Fertő, Imre, 1998. "Az agrárpolitika politikai gazdaságtana I. A kormányzati politikák modellezése a mezőgazdaságban
      [The political economy of agrarian politics. Part I. Modeling of governmental policies in agricultur
      ," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 223-246.

    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:iaaeaj:173816. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.