Conversion subsidies for organic production: results from Sweden and lessons for the United States
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.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agecon:v:22:y:2000:i:2:p:133-146. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.