IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/intere/v55y2020i2d10.1007_s10272-020-0880-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New CAP Delivery Model, Old Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Marko Lovec

    (University of Ljubljana — Faculty of Social Science)

  • Tanja Šumrada

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Emil Erjavec

    (University of Ljubljana)

Abstract

The proposed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2021–2027 will be more flexible and, presumably, more effective. To provide for sufficient ambition and prevent a race to the bottom, national strategic plans will be introduced with quantitative targets covering both policy pillars. This article argues that since formal requirements and the evaluation model are weak on actual long-term impact, substantial improvements are unlikely. To test this, programming rules are experimentally evaluated on the implementation of CAP 2014–2020 in Slovenia. The experiment shows that while measures and resources broadly correspond to policy objectives, the specific relevance of measures is generally weak and has potential effects dispersed among several objectives, resulting in high costs for individual objectives at best. Without the effective inclusion of an impact assessment, the outcome will rely on the capacity and benevolence of national governance systems.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:intere:v:55:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10272-020-0880-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10272-020-0880-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10272-020-0880-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10272-020-0880-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Maria Espinosa, 2016. "The Impact of the 2013 CAP Reform on the Decoupled Payments' Capitalization into Land Values," EERI Research Paper Series EERI RP 2016/04, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    2. Garrone, Maria & Emmers, Dorien & Olper, Alessandro & Swinnen, Johan, 2019. "Jobs and agricultural policy: Impact of the common agricultural policy on EU agricultural employment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Alexander Gocht & Pavel Ciaian & Maria Bielza & Jean-Michel Terres & Norbert Röder & Mihaly Himics & Guna Salputra, 2016. "Economic and environmental impacts of CAP greening: CAPRI simulation results," JRC Research Reports JRC102519, Joint Research Centre.
    4. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    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. Roberto Cagliero & Francesco Licciardo & Marzia Legnini, 2021. "The Evaluation Framework in the New CAP 2023–2027: A Reflection in the Light of Lessons Learned from Rural Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Anna Kasprzyk & Alina Walenia, 2023. "Native Pig Breeds as a Source of Biodiversity—Breeding and Economic Aspects," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-30, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Emil Erjavec & Ilona Rac, 2023. "Improving the Quality of CAP Strategic Planning through Enhancing the Role of Agricultural Economics," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 22(2), pages 71-76, August.
    5. Brečko Jure & Žgajnar Jaka, 2022. "Possible Impact of Risk Management Strategies with Farm Model on a Mixed Farm Type," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 13(3), pages 23-35, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Bonfiglio, A. & Camaioni, B. & Carta, V. & Cristiano, S., 2023. "Estimating the common agricultural policy milestones and targets by neural networks," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Stefano Ciliberti & Luca Palazzoni & Sofia Maria Lilli & Angelo Frascarelli, 2022. "Direct Payments to Provide Environmental Public Goods and Enhance Farm Incomes: Do Allocation Criteria Matter?," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 13(1-2).

    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. Francisco Simões & Ilkay Unay-Gailhard & Alen Mujčinović & Bernardo Fernandes, 2021. "How to Foster Rural Sustainability through Farming Workforce Rejuvenation? Looking into Involuntary Newcomers’ Spatial (Im)mobilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    3. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    4. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    5. Matt Andrews, 2022. "This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success," CID Working Papers 413, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    6. Ciliberti, Stefano & Frascarelli, Angelo, 2018. "Does the basic payment efficiently enhance farm incomes? Evidences from Italy," 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary 271957, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    8. Sobelson, Robyn K. & Young, Andrea C., 2013. "Evaluation of a federally funded workforce development program: The Centers for Public Health Preparedness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 50-57.
    9. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    10. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    11. Maria Garrone & Dorien Emmers & Alessandro Olper & Jo Swinnen, 2018. "Subsidies and Agricultural Productivity: CAP payments and labour productivity (convergence) in EU agriculture," Working Papers of LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance 634340, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance.
    12. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    13. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111.
    14. Fangyuan Chang & Andrea Eriksson & Britt Östlund, 2020. "Discrepancies between Expected and Actual Implementation: The Process Evaluation of PERS Integration in Nursing Homes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Louise R. Manfredi & Meriel Stokoe & Rebecca Kelly & Seyeon Lee, 2021. "Teaching Sustainable Responsibility through Informal Undergraduate Design Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Laura Kreiling & Ahmed Bounfour, 2020. "A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1718-1747, December.
    17. Ciaian, Pavel & Espinosa, Maria & Louhichi, Kamel & Perni, Angel, 2020. "Farm Level Impacts of Trade Liberalisation and CAP Removal Across EU: An Assessment using the IFM-CAP Model," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(2), May.
    18. Amanda Sahrbacher & Jordan Hristov & Mark V. Brady, 2017. "A combined approach to assess the impacts of Ecological Focus Areas on regional structural development and agricultural land use," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 111-144, December.
    19. Pavel Ciaian & Dusan Drabik & Jan Falkowski & d'Artis Kancs, 2016. "Market Impacts of New Land Market Regulations in Eastern EU Member States," EERI Research Paper Series EERI RP 2016/02, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    20. Hyun-Kyu KANG, 2015. "Development of Guideline for Preliminary Feasibility Study on Government R&D Programs in Korea," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 2805212, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.

    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:spr:intere:v:55:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10272-020-0880-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.