IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v24y2025i1p14-19.html

Why the Administrative Burden of Cross Compliance Matters

Author

Listed:
  • Nadja El Benni
  • Christian Ritzel
  • Gabriele Mack

Abstract

The administrative burden imposed by the direct payment system is a major concern highlighted in recent farmers’ protests. Based on a survey of 808 Swiss farmers, we analyse farmers’ perceptions of the administrative burden associated with the direct payment system and how this affects the costs and farmers’ views and reactions to the policy. Our results show that the perceived administrative burden varies among farmers and is not strongly related to the actual time spent on forms. Well‐trained and informed farmers find administrative tasks less burdensome. The bureaucracy involved in agricultural policy matters not only because it increases farmers’ perceived administrative burden but also because it leads to dissatisfaction with the government. Overall, we estimate the private administrative costs of cross‐compliance obligations for Switzerland to be about 5 per cent of the annual Swiss budget for direct payments. To reduce farmers’ perceived administrative burden, policymakers should prioritise reducing compliance costs, which will also reduce psychological costs. Digitalisation can help achieve this outcome, but its success depends on farmers’ knowledge of information and communication technologies. Knowledge, administrative efficiency and perceived legitimacy are crucial for reducing non‐compliance with direct payment regulations. Addressing these factors will help improve the effectiveness of agricultural policies. La charge administrative imposée par le système de paiement direct est une préoccupation majeure mise en évidence lors des récentes protestations des agriculteurs. Sur la base d'une enquête menée auprès de 808 agriculteurs suisses, nous analysons la perception qu'ont les agriculteurs de la charge administrative associée au système de paiement direct et la manière dont cela affecte les coûts, ainsi que leurs opinions et leurs réactions à l'égard de la politique. Nos résultats montrent que la charge administrative ressentie varie selon les agriculteurs et n'est pas fortement liée au temps réel passé sur les formulaires. Les agriculteurs bien formés et informés trouvent les tâches administratives moins lourdes. La bureaucratie impliquée dans la politique agricole est importante non seulement parce qu'elle augmente le fardeau administratif ressenti par les agriculteurs, mais aussi parce qu'elle conduit au mécontentement à l’égard du gouvernement. Dans l'ensemble, nous estimons que les coûts administratifs privés liés aux obligations de conditionnalité pour la Suisse représentent environ 5 pour cent du budget annuel suisse destiné aux paiements directs. Pour réduire la charge administrative ressentie par les agriculteurs, les décideurs politiques devraient donner la priorité à la réduction des coûts de conformité, ce qui réduirait également les coûts psychologiques. La numérisation peut contribuer à atteindre ce résultat, mais son succès dépend de la connaissance qu'ont les agriculteurs des technologies de l'information et de la communication. Les connaissances, l'efficacité administrative et la légitimité ressentie sont essentielles pour réduire le non‐respect des réglementations sur les paiements directs. La prise en compte de ces facteurs contribuera à améliorer l'efficacité des politiques agricoles. Der mit dem Direktzahlungssystem verbundene Verwaltungsaufwand wird von vielen mit großer Besorgnis gesehen, was in den jüngsten Protesten der Landwirtschaft zum Ausdruck kam. Auf der Grundlage einer Umfrage unter 808 Schweizer Landwirtinnen und Landwirten analysieren wir, wie sie den Verwaltungsaufwand wahrnehmen, der mit den Direktzahlungen verbunden ist. Wir untersuchen auch wie sich die Kosten des Verwaltungsaufwands auf ihre Ansichten und Reaktionen auf die Politik auswirkt. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass der wahrgenommene Verwaltungsaufwand variiert und nicht in einem engen Zusammenhang mit dem tatsächlichen Zeitaufwand für das Ausfüllen der Formulare steht. Gut ausgebildete und informierte Landwirtinnen und Landwirte empfinden die Verwaltungsaufgaben als weniger belastend. Die mit der Agrarpolitik verbundene Bürokratie ist nicht nur deshalb von Bedeutung, weil sie den empfundenen Verwaltungsaufwand erhöht, sondern auch, weil sie zu Unzufriedenheit mit der Regierung führt. Insgesamt schätzen wir die privaten Verwaltungskosten der Cross‐Compliance‐Regelungen für die Schweiz auf etwa 5 Prozent des jährlichen Budgets der Direktzahlungen. Um die von den Landwirtinnen und Landwirten empfundene administrative Belastung zu verringern, sollte die Politik der Senkung der Compliance‐ bzw.‐ Erfüllungskosten Vorrang einräumen. Das würde auch die psychologischen Kosten senken. Die Digitalisierung kann dazu beitragen, aber ihr Erfolg hängt vom Wissen der Landwirtschaft Betreibenden über die Informations‐ und Kommunikationstechnologien ab. Wissen, Verwaltungseffizienz und wahrgenommene Legitimität sind für die Einhaltung von Direktzahlungsverordnungen entscheidend. Die Berücksichtigung dieser Faktoren wird dazu beitragen, die Wirksamkeit der Agrarpolitik zu verbessern.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadja El Benni & Christian Ritzel & Gabriele Mack, 2025. "Why the Administrative Burden of Cross Compliance Matters," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 24(1), pages 14-19, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:24:y:2025:i:1:p:14-19
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12454
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12454?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. Huber, Robert & El Benni, Nadja & Finger, Robert, 2024. "Lessons learned and policy implications from 20 years of Swiss agricultural policy reforms: A review of policy evaluations," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 13(2), July.
    2. Nadja El Benni & Christian Ritzel & Katja Heitkämper & Christina Umstätter & Alexander Zorn & Gabriele Mack, 2022. "The cost of farmers’ administrative burdens due to cross-compliance obligations," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 65(5), pages 930-952, April.
    3. Christian Ritzel & Gabriele Mack & Marco Portmann & Katja Heitkämper & Nadja El Benni, 2020. "Empirical evidence on factors influencing farmers’ administrative burden: A structural equation modeling approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-16, October.
    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. Nadja El Benni & Yanbing Wang & Jeanine Ammann & Gabriele Mack & Robert Finger, 2026. "A Scoping Review of Nudges for Enhancing Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 137-159, March.
    2. Yanbing Wang & Simon Hug & Judith Irek & Robert Finger, 2025. "Product differentiation, quality, and milk price stability: The case of the Swiss cheese market," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 416-435, March.
    3. De Ponti, Santiago Esteban & Balaine, Lorraine & Buckley, Cathal & McGuire, Ryan, 2026. "Measuring the economic sustainability of European livestock production: A participatory approach to develop policy-relevant indicators," 100th Annual Conference, March 23-25, 2026, Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 397900, Agricultural Economics Society (AES).
    4. Scherfranz, Verena & Schaak, Henning & Kantelhardt, Jochen & Reimand, Karl & Braito, Michael & Bodea, Flaviu V. & Costache, Cristina & Popa, Răzvan & de Vries, Reinier & Kleijn, David & Kadulin, Aki &, 2025. "Farmers'perceived financial and non-financial costs of their biodiversity measures – Exploring viewpoints with Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    5. Viviana Garcia & Niklas Möhring & Yanbing Wang & Robert Finger, 2026. "Farmer behavior toward herbicide‐free agriculture and conservation tillage," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 108(1), pages 28-53, January.
    6. Nadja El Benni & Robert Finger & Judith Irek & Gabriele Mack & Jeanine Ammann, 2025. "No evidence of a rural‐urban divide in prioritizing agricultural policy goals," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(2), pages 666-693, May.
    7. Low, Guy & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Finger, Robert & Dalhaus, Tobias, 2025. "Frost shocks negatively impact the supply of high-stem juicing apples in Switzerland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    8. Junquera, Victoria & Rubenstein, Daniel I. & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Knaus, Florian, 2022. "Structural change in agriculture and farmers' social contacts: Insights from a Swiss mountain region," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    9. Schaub, By Sergei & El Benni, Nadja & Jan, Pierrick & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Richter, Franziska & Klaus, Valentin H., 2025. "Optimizing land-use strategies to improve grassland multifunctionality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    10. Eileen Ziehmann & Robert Huber & Robert Finger, 2025. "Remote‐Sensing for Herbicide‐Free Agriculture: A Bio‐Economic and Policy Appraisal," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(3), pages 666-682, September.
    11. Nadja El Benni & Robert Finger & Jeanine Ammann & Judith Irek & Antonia Kaiser & Christian Ritzel & Yanbing Wang & Gabriele Mack, 2025. "Aligning agricultural policy: discrepancies between public and farmer priorities," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.

    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:eurcho:v:24:y:2025:i:1:p:14-19. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.