IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i9p1656-d1222703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Eco-Scheme Support on Romanian Farms—A Gini Index Decomposition by Income Source at Farm Level

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Toma

    (Faculty of Management and Rural Development, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, 59 Mărăști Boulevard, 011464 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Paula Stoicea

    (Faculty of Management and Rural Development, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, 59 Mărăști Boulevard, 011464 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Carina Dobre

    (Faculty of Management and Rural Development, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, 59 Mărăști Boulevard, 011464 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Adina Iorga

    (Faculty of Management and Rural Development, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, 59 Mărăști Boulevard, 011464 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

The Common Agricultural Policy 2021–2027 includes stronger environmental and climate targets to contribute to Green Deal objectives. By using direct payment funds for sustainable agricultural practices, the CAP aims to strengthen incomes, reduce climate impact, protect biodiversity, etc. However, there are many conditions farmers must meet to access funds under eco-schemes, and there are many concerns about their impact on income and profitability. It is, therefore, important to understand the impact of subsidies on Romanian farms. This study analyses income inequality on three Romanian farms (with a cultivated area between 2400 and 2600 ha, 550 and 610 ha, and 40 and 66 ha during the 2019–2021 period), focusing on the impact of different income sources (production and subsidies). The study is based on data collected during the 2019–2021 period and uses Gini coefficients and concentration indicators. The results show the following: the inequality-reducing effect of subsidies depends on crop rotation and changes in income from agricultural production; the influence of subsidies on inequality at the farm level is very low; the dependence on direct payments can be overcome by good crop selection and management; farmers cannot survive without subsidies, especially in years with difficult conditions; the impact of subsidies was higher for the lowest-profit variants. These findings are important because eco-schemes are voluntary, and stakeholders are not expected to spend the money allocated to eco-schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Toma & Paula Stoicea & Carina Dobre & Adina Iorga, 2023. "The Effect of Eco-Scheme Support on Romanian Farms—A Gini Index Decomposition by Income Source at Farm Level," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:9:p:1656-:d:1222703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/9/1656/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/9/1656/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adams, Richard H, Jr, 2002. "Nonfarm Income, Inequality, and Land in Rural Egypt," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(2), pages 339-363, January.
    2. Kaditi, Eleni A. & Nitsi, Elisavet I., 2011. "Vertical and horizontal decomposition of farm income in equality in Greece," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(01).
    3. Miguel Viegas & Jan Wolf & Francisco Cordovil, 2023. "Assessment of inequality in the Common Agricultural Policy in Portugal," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Ewa Kiryluk-Dryjska & Agnieszka Baer-Nawrocka & Obinna Okereke, 2022. "The Environmental and Climatic CAP Measures in Poland vs. Farmers’ Expectations—Regional Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-13, June.
    5. Irina Pilvere & Aleksejs Nipers & Aija Pilvere, 2022. "Evaluation of the European Green Deal Policy in the Context of Agricultural Support Payments in Latvia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Pierre Dupraz & Hervé Guyomard, 2019. "Environment and Climate in the Common Agricultural Policy," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(1), pages 18-25, April.
    7. Marko Lovec & Tanja Šumrada & Emil Erjavec, 2020. "New CAP Delivery Model, Old Issues," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 55(2), pages 112-119, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ioan Prigoreanu & Bianca Antonela Ungureanu & George Ungureanu & Gabriela Ignat, 2024. "Analysis of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Policies in Agriculture in the EU Regarding the European Green Deal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-31, December.

    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. Gabriela Trnková & Zdeňka Malá, 2013. "Analysis of inequality of gross added value of conventional and organic farms in selected EU countries," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 61(7), pages 2883-2891.
    2. Anna Nowak & Monika Różańska‐Boczula, 2024. "A comparative view of the level of agricultural sustainability – The case of European Union member states," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 2638-2652, June.
    3. Svetlana Aleksandrova-Zlatanska & Bozhidar Ivanov & Margarita Ivanova & Daniela Dimitrova, 2025. "Green Deal in Agriculture through the Sights of Researches," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 156-173.
    4. Newman, Constance & Canagarajah, Sudharshan, 2000. "Gender, poverty, and nonfarm employment in Ghana and Uganda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2367, The World Bank.
    5. Ibáñez, A. M. & Kisner, J. & Jaramillo, C. & Fernández, M. & Arias, M. & Bocarejo, D., 2011. "Cuando el crecimiento viene de afuera: dinámicas territoriales en Susa y Simijaca," Working papers 068, Rimisp Latin American Center for Rural Development.
    6. Tilman Br�ck, 2004. "The Welfare Effects of Farm Household Activity Choices in Post-War Mozambique," HiCN Working Papers 04, Households in Conflict Network.
    7. Marek Zieliński & Wojciech Józwiak & Agata Żak & Tomasz Rokicki, 2025. "Development of Eco-Schemes as an Important Environmental Measure in Areas Facing Natural or Other Specific Constraints Under the Common Agriculture Policy 2023–2027: Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Gero Carletto & Katia Covarrubias & Benjamin Davis & Marika Krausova & Kostas Stamoulis & Paul Winters & Alberto Zezza, 2007. "Rural income generating activities in developing countries: re-assessing the evidence," The Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, vol. 4(1), pages 146-193.
    9. Shobha Shetty, 2006. "Water, Food Security and Agricultural Policy in the Middle East and North Africa Region," World Bank Publications - Reports 37139, The World Bank Group.
    10. Coudouel, Aline & Hentschel, Jesko & Wodon, Quentin, 2002. "Измерение И Анализ Бедности [Poverty Measurement and Analysis]," MPRA Paper 10492, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Frýd, Lukáš & Sokol, Ondřej, 2021. "Relationships between technical efficiency and subsidies for Czech farms: A two-stage robust approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Krzysztof Piotr Pawłowski & Gabriela Sołtysiak, 2024. "The Potential Impact of the European Green Deal on Farm Production in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Marzia Ingrassia & Stefania Chironi & Giuseppe Lo Grasso & Luciano Gristina & Nicola Francesca & Simona Bacarella & Pietro Columba & Luca Altamore, 2022. "Is Environmental Sustainability Also “Economically Efficient”? The Case of the “SOStain” Certification for Sicilian Sparkling Wines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, June.
    14. XING, Li & FAN, Shenggen & LUO, Xiaopeng & ZHang, Xiaobo, 2009. "Community poverty and inequality in western China: A tale of three villages in Guizhou Province," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 338-349, June.
    15. Xiao, Han & Zheng, Xinye & Xie, Lunyu, 2022. "Promoting pro-poor growth through infrastructure investment: Evidence from the Targeted Poverty Alleviation program in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. Tushar Agrawal & Ankush Agrawal, 2023. "Beyond Consumption Expenditure: Income Inequality and Its Sources in India," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 23(1), pages 7-27, January.
    17. Jabłoński Łukasz, 2019. "Inequality in Economics: The Concept, Perception, Types, and Driving Forces," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 27(1), pages 17-43, March.
    18. Elodie Letort & Fanny Le Gloux & Pierre P. Dupraz, 2021. "How can health concerns improve environmental public good provision through labels?," Post-Print hal-03338427, HAL.
    19. Andrzej Parzonko & Anna Justyna Parzonko & Piotr Bórawski & Ludwik Wicki, 2023. "Return on Equity in Dairy Farms from Selected EU Countries: Assessment Based on the DuPont Model in Years 2004–2020," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    20. Helmy, Imane, 2020. "Livelihood Diversification Strategies: Resisting Vulnerability in Egypt," GLO Discussion Paper Series 441, Global Labor Organization (GLO).

    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:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:9:p:1656-:d:1222703. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.