IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Revisiting Pesticide Taxation Schemes

Listed author(s):
  • Finger, Robert
  • Möhring, Niklas
  • Dalhaus, Tobias
  • Böcker, Thomas

The risks caused by pesticide use for human health and nature are one of the major challenges for agricultural policies. Despite their high potential to contribute to better policies, economic instruments such as pesticide taxes are rarely used in the current policy mix. In this essay, we combine current discussion on pesticide policies in European countries with new insights from recent economic research to provide an outline for better pesticide policies to policy makers and stakeholders. We show that differentiated taxation schemes have a high potential to reduce risks caused by pesticide use and that the targeted re-distribution of tax revenues in the agricultural sector is crucial to create leverage effects on pesticide use and to increase the acceptability of pesticide taxes.

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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916311600
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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 134 (2017)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 263-266

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:134:y:2017:i:c:p:263-266
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.001
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

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.:

as
in new window


  1. Nadja El Benni & Robert Finger & Miranda P.M. Meuwissen, 2016. "Potential effects of the income stabilisation tool (IST) in Swiss agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 475-502.
  2. Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
  3. Elsa Martin, 2015. "Should we internalise inter-temporal production spillovers in the case of pest resistance?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 42(4), pages 539-578.
  4. Theodoros Skevas & Spiro E. Stefanou & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2012. "Can economic incentives encourage actual reductions in pesticide use and environmental spillovers?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(3), pages 267-276, 05.
  5. Zilberman, David & Millock, Katti, 1997. "Financial incentives and pesticide use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 133-144, April.
  6. J. K. Horowitz & E. Lichtenberg, 1994. "Risk-Reducing And Risk-Increasing Effects Of Pesticides," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 82-89.
  7. Britz, Wolfgang & Delzeit, Ruth, 2013. "The impact of German biogas production on European and global agricultural markets, land use and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1268-1275.
  8. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
  9. Aubert, Magali & Enjolras, Geoffroy, 2014. "The Determinants of Chemical Input Use in Agriculture: A Dynamic Analysis of the Wine Grape–Growing Sector in France," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(01), pages 75-99, May.
  10. G. Enjolras & M. Aubert, 2014. "The determinants of input use in agriculture: A dynamic analysis of the wine-growing sector in France," Post-Print halshs-01026299, HAL.
  11. Thomas Böcker & Robert Finger, 2016. "European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, April.
  12. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
  13. JunJie Wu, 1999. "Crop Insurance, Acreage Decisions, and Nonpoint-Source Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(2), pages 305-320.
  14. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & José M. Gil, 2008. "Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 219-229, 09.
  15. Skevas, Theodoros & Stefanou, Spiro E. & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Pesticide use, environmental spillovers and efficiency: A DEA risk-adjusted efficiency approach applied to Dutch arable farming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 658-664.
  16. Florence Jacquet & Jean-Pierre Butault & Laurence Guichard, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Post-Print hal-01018979, HAL.
  17. Chen, Pei-Chi & McIntosh, Christopher S. & Epperson, James E., 1994. "The Effects of a Pesticide Tax on Agricultural Production and Profits," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 12(2).
  18. Valentin Bellassen, 2015. "Les certificats d'économie de produits phytosanitaires : quelle contrainte et pour qui ?," INRA UMR CESAER Working Papers 2015/4, INRA UMR CESAER, Centre d'’Economie et Sociologie appliquées à l'’Agriculture et aux Espaces Ruraux.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:134:y:2017:i:c:p:263-266. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.