IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conversion subsidies for organic production: results from Sweden and lessons for the United States


  • Lohr, Luanne
  • Salomonsson, Lennart


Organic conversion subsidies used in Europe are less likely to be politically acceptable in the United States, where organic agriculture development is market-driven. Persistent barriers to conversion in the United States include limited availability of and access to production and market information, training in management systems and cost of conversion-related investments. By determining whether these factors affect the requirement of a subsidy to convert, we can suggest whether U.S. policy makers need to provide subsidies to encourage conversion and identify policy variables consistent with market-based approaches that could stimulate conversion. A utility difference model is used with Swedish data to analyze factors that determine whether a subsidy is required to motivate organic conversion. The results show that farmers requiring subsidies manage larger less-diversified farms and are more concerned with organic inspection, quality, and adequacy of technical advice. Access to more market outlets and information sources substitutes for payment level in the farmer's utility function, indicating that services rather than subsidies may be used to encourage organic agriculture. To the extent that conditions are similar in the U.S. organic sector, market-based programs such as cost-sharing for conversion and market access improvement should stimulate growth of this industry. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Suggested Citation

  • Lohr, Luanne & Salomonsson, Lennart, 2000. "Conversion subsidies for organic production: results from Sweden and lessons for the United States," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 22(2), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaaeaj:175372

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Cragg, Michael & Kahn, Matthew, 1997. "New Estimates of Climate Demand: Evidence from Location Choice," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 261-284, September.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:175372. 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: .

    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.