IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agecon/v22y2000i2p133-146.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Lohr, Luanne
  • Salomonsson, Lennart

Abstract

Environmental and social justifications for organic conversion subsidies are as pervasive in the United States as in Europe, but national policy does not explicitly support organic agriculture. Using Sweden's experience, we analyze factors that affect whether a subsidy is required to motivate organic conversion. We use a utility difference model to compare farmers who converted before and after the subsidy. Significant factors in conversion without subsidies are greater livestock diversity and more sales outlets. Farmers requiring subsidies manage larger farms, are more concerned with organic inspection quality and adequacy of technical advice, and reside in areas with more organic farms. Results suggest that a subsidy induces mainly those already inclined toward organic agriculture to convert. Limited exposure to organic systems and a marketing and technical information infrastructure designed to support conventional agriculture restrict the potential effect of a conversion subsidy in the United States.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Lohr, Luanne & Salomonsson, Lennart, 2000. "Conversion subsidies for organic production: results from Sweden and lessons for the United States," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 133-146, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agecon:v:22:y:2000:i:2:p:133-146
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169-5150(99)00045-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hanemann, W., 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Economics," CUDARE Working Papers 198636, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Cook, Roberta L., "undated". "Marketing organic commodities in California: Structure and obstacles to expansion," Western Economic Association Conference Archive 291727, Western Economic Association.
    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. Franz Hackl & Gerald Pruckner, 1999. "On the gap between payment card and closed-ended CVM-answers," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 733-742.
    2. Richard Bennett & Douglas Larson, 1996. "Contingent Valuation Of The Perceived Benefits Of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 224-235, January.
    3. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    4. V. Smith & Xiaolong Zhang & Raymond Palmquist, 1997. "Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-Market Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 223-247, October.
    5. Seck, Abdoulaye, 2016. "A dichotomous-choice contingent valuation of the Parc Zoologique de Hann in Dakar," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(3).
    6. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Maddison, David & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2011. "The impact of climate on life satisfaction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2437-2445.
    9. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    10. Abdurrahman B. Aydemir & Erkan Duman, 2021. "Migrant Networks and Destination Choice: Evidence from Moves across Turkish Provinces," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 2109, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    11. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    12. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    14. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    15. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    16. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    17. Christman, Laine & Kimberly, Rollins & Micheal, Taylor & Sohan, Agbonlahor, 2014. "Willingness to Pay to Reduce Wild Fire Risk in Wild land-Urban Interface: A Comparative Analysis of Public Programs and Private Actions," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170703, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Adhikari, Saroj & McFadden, Brandon R. & Nalley, Lawton Lanier, 2024. "Lights Out, Choices In: Preferences for Load Shedding in South African," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343789, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Paramita Sinha & Martha Caulkins & Maureen Cropper, 2018. "Do Discrete Choice Approaches to Valuing Urban Amenities Yield Different Results Than Hedonic Models?," NCEE Working Paper Series 201804, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    20. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.

    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:eee:agecon:v:22:y:2000:i:2:p:133-146. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/agec .

    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.