IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rae/jourae/v91y2010i1p73-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

La pertinence de la politique rurale à l’aune des théories de la justice

Author

Listed:
  • Yves Schaeffer

    (CEMAGREF, UR DTGR, 2 rue de la Papeterie, BP 76, F-38402 St Martin d’Hères et AgroSup Dijon, UMR-1041 CESAER, Université de Bourgogne, France)

  • Francis Aubert

    (AgroSup, UMR-1041 CESAER, Dijon, France)

Abstract

[paper in French] How to evaluate the relevance of the French rural policy? When the question is to what extent the objectives of the policy are reached owing to public interventions, the method is relatively well known. However, when the question is to what extent these objectives are relevant, an important problem is faced: the referential of this evaluation is indefinite. In this article, we propose to define this referential on the basis of moral and political philosophy: The objectives are relevant if they are derived from a conception of justice that is itself relevant. From this viewpoint, the relevance of the current orientations of the rural policy is dubious, since they rest on weak and questionable philosophical foundations. Beyond this analysis, we want to stress on the importance for the State to adopt a clear conception of justice, so as to firmly found its action.

Suggested Citation

  • Yves Schaeffer & Francis Aubert, 2010. "La pertinence de la politique rurale à l’aune des théories de la justice," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(1), pages 73-101.
  • Handle: RePEc:rae:jourae:v:91:y:2010:i:1:p:73-101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/188385/2/91-1-%2073-101.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc Fleurbaey, 2005. "Freedom with forgiveness," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 4(1), pages 29-67, February.
    2. Karine Daniel & Maureen Kilkenny, 2009. "Agricultural Subsidies and Rural Development," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 504-529, September.
    3. Fleurbaey, Marc, 2012. "Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199653591, Decembrie.
    4. Callois, Jean-Marc, 2006. "Quality labels and rural development : a new economic geography approach," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 78.
    5. Jean-Marc Callois, 2006. "Quality labels and rural development : a new economic geography approach," Post-Print hal-01201116, HAL.
    6. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    7. Jean-Marc Callois, 2006. "Quality labels and rural development : a new economic geography approach," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 78, pages 31-51.
    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. Schaeffer, Yves & Aubert, Francis, 2010. "La pertinence de la politique rurale à l’aune des théories de la justice," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 91(1).
    2. Cei, Leonardo & Stefani, Gianluca & Defrancesco, Edi & Lombardi, Ginevra Virginia, 2018. "Geographical indications: A first assessment of the impact on rural development in Italian NUTS3 regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 620-630.
    3. Takayama, Taisuke & Norito, Takashi & Nakatani, Tomoaki & Ito, Ryoji, 2021. "Do geographical indications preserve farming in rural areas? Evidence from a natural experiment in Japan," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    4. Leonardo Cei & Edi Defrancesco & Gianluca Stefani, 2018. "From Geographical Indications to Rural Development: A Review of the Economic Effects of European Union Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Jeremiah Hurley & Neil Buckley & Katherine Cuff & Mita Giacomini & David Cameron, 2011. "Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 341-372, July.
    6. Niehues, Judith & Peichl, Andreas, 2011. "Lower and Upper Bounds of Unfair Inequality: Theory and Evidence for Germany and the US," IZA Discussion Papers 5834, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Erik Schokkaert & Tom Truyts, 2017. "Preferences for redistribution and social structure," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 545-576, December.
    8. Aitor Calo-Blanco, 2016. "Fair compensation with different social concerns for forgiveness," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(1), pages 39-56, March.
    9. Clément, Valérie & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Rulleau, Bénédicte, 2015. "Perceptions on equity and responsibility in coastal zone policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 284-291.
    10. Akbaş, Merve & Ariely, Dan & Yuksel, Sevgi, 2019. "When is inequality fair? An experiment on the effect of procedural justice and agency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 114-127.
    11. John E. Roemer & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Equality of Opportunity," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1921, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    12. Aitor Calo-Blanco, 2022. "Fair income tax with endogenous productivities and a fresh start," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(2), pages 395-420, June.
    13. Lars Schwettmann, 2012. "Competing allocation principles: time for compromise?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 357-380, September.
    14. Corneo, Giacomo & Fong, Christina M., 2008. "What's the monetary value of distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 289-308, February.
    15. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    16. Kristof Bosmans & Z. Emel Öztürk, 2022. "Laissez-faire versus Pareto," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 741-751, May.
    17. repec:onb:oenbwp:y::i:95:b:1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2013. "Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 120-134.
    19. Sylvie Thoron, 2016. "Morality Beyond Social Preferences: Smithian Sympathy, Social Neuroscience and the Nature of Social Consciousness [La moralité au delà des préférences sociales. La sympathie Smithienne, les neurosc," Post-Print hal-01645043, HAL.
    20. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fair and efficient division through unanimity bargaining when claims are subjective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 56-73.
    21. Fleurbaey, Marc & Schokkaert, Erik, 2009. "Unfair inequalities in health and health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 73-90, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    : rural policy; evaluation; relevance; social justice; Rawls;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    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:rae:jourae:v:91:y:2010:i:1:p:73-101. 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: Nathalie Saux-Nogues (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inrapfr.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.