IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v64y2016i4p667-694.html

Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP

Author

Listed:
  • Liesbeth Colen
  • Sergio Gomez y Paloma
  • Uwe Latacz-Lohmann
  • Marianne Lefebvre
  • Raphaële Préget
  • Sophie Thoyer

Abstract

This article assesses the potential contribution of economic experiments to evidence-based policy making in the field of agriculture, with a special focus on the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP evaluation mostly relies on standard tools such as farm and market simulation models, calibrated with EU-wide statistical data; statistical and econometric analysis of survey data; and a range of qualitative methods such as interviews with stakeholders, focus group or internet-based public consultation. Yet, the CAP has changed considerably over the past decades, requiring adaptations of its evaluation toolbox. A detailed review of existing studies using economic experiments for designing and evaluating agricultural policies provides the backbone for a comprehensive assessment of the complementarity of experimental approaches with standard evaluation tools. The article further provides recommendations aiming at facilitating inclusion of economic experiments into the CAP evaluation toolbox based on conclusions drawn from a workshop organized with experts, academics, and policy makers of Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:4:p:667-694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/cjag.2016.64.issue-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:4:p:667-694. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.