IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa116/95213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Transaction costs and transaction benefits associated with the process of PGI/PDO registration in Austria

Author

Listed:
  • Penker, M.
  • Klemen, F.

Abstract

Since 1992, the European Union protects names of regional foods as Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). Besides direct benefits such as higher prices or the protection from unfair competition, researchers and rural development agents emphasize the indirect benefits resulting from an intensified interaction of producers, processers and retailers during the registration process. Based on a comparative case study in Austria, this paper analyses the relation of transaction costs and transaction benefits associated with the registration process of two PGIs. Whereas one case was based on extensive outsourcing to a private consultancy (for just under 50,000 Euro + 160 working hours invested by the producers over 3.5 years), the other one was mostly the result of extensive personal contributions of the regional producer group (2,000 hours over ten years) who were assisted by the state extension services (Chamber of Agriculture, additional 1,000 work hours). The comparative case study does not give any indication that outsourcing necessarily bears the risk of diminishing indirect benefits, such as social capital building, intensified co-operations with other rural sectors, higher awareness of and compliance with quality standards. This does not mean that there is no positive relation between transaction costs and transaction benefits but it emphasizes that there are more and less efficient processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Penker, M. & Klemen, F., 2010. "Transaction costs and transaction benefits associated with the process of PGI/PDO registration in Austria," 116th Seminar, October 27-30, 2010, Parma, Italy 95213, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa116:95213
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.95213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/95213/files/paper%20completo%20117.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.95213?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claude Ménard, 2005. "New institutions for governing the agri-food industry," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 421-440, September.
    2. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    3. Katherine Falconer & Pierre Dupraz & Martin Whitby, 2001. "An Investigation of Policy Administrative Costs Using Panel Data for the English Environmentally Sensitive Areas," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 83-103, January.
    4. Benner, Eckhard & Profeta, Adriano & Wirsig, Alexander, 2008. "Die Eu-Übergangsregelung Zum Herkunftsschutz Bei Agrarprodukten Und Lebensmitteln Aus Dem Blickwinkel Der Transaktions- Und Der Informationsökonomie," 48th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 24-26, 2008 52644, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Barjolle, Dominique & Lehmann, Bernard & Chappuis, Jean-Marc & Dufour, Martine, 1997. "Protected designation of origin and institutions (France, Spain and Italy)," 52nd Seminar, June 19-21, 1997, Parma, Italy 231270, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. Török, Áron & Maró, Zalán Márk, 2020. "A földrajzi árujelzők gazdaságtana - az empirikus bizonyítékok [The economics of geographical indicators - empirical evidence]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 263-288.
    2. Quiñones Ruiz, Xiomara Fernanda & Belletti, Giovanni & Penker, Marianne & Marescotti, Andrea & Scaramuzzi, Silvia, 2015. "Collective Efforts, Risks and Benefits for Registering Geographical Indications in the EU," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206463, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Áron Török & Lili Jantyik & Zalán Márk Maró & Hazel V. J. Moir, 2020. "Understanding the Real-World Impact of Geographical Indications: A Critical Review of the Empirical Economic Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-24, November.

    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. David Meintrup & Chang Woon Nam, 2009. "Shadow Market Area for Air Pollutants," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(4), pages 664-681, August.
    2. Christine Léger Léger-Bosch, 2019. "Farmland tenure and transaction costs: Public and collectively owned land vs conventional coordination mechanisms in France [Régime de tenure foncière et coûts de transaction: terres publiques et c," Post-Print hal-02573765, HAL.
    3. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    4. Valentová, Michaela & Horák, Martin & Dvořáček, Lukáš, 2020. "Why transaction costs do not decrease over time? A case study of energy efficiency programmes in Czechia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.
    6. Sauer, Johannes & Walsh, John, 2011. "ESS versus NVZ – The Cost-Effectiveness of Command-and-Control versus Agreement Based Policy Instruments," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108963, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. Pannell, David J. & Roberts, Anna M. & Park, Geoff & Alexander, Jennifer, 2013. "Improving environmental decisions: A transaction-costs story," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 244-252.
    8. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O’Neill, Eoin, 2018. "Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 263-272.
    9. Mettepenningen, E. & Beckmann, V. & Eggers, J., 2011. "Public transaction costs of agri-environmental schemes and their determinants--Analysing stakeholders' involvement and perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 641-650, February.
    10. DeBoe, Gwendolen & Stephenson, Kurt, 2016. "Transactions costs of expanding nutrient trading to agricultural working lands: A Virginia case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 176-185.
    11. Mettepenningen, Evy & Beckmann, Volker & Eggers, Jorg, 2008. "Public transaction cost of agri-environmental schemes and its determinants - Analysing stakeholders’ involvement and perceptions," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44321, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Weber, Anja Michaela, 2011. "Why do Farmers Spend Different Amounts of Transaction Costs in Agri-Environmental Schemes?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115738, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Nijiraini, Georgina & Thiam, Djiby, 2015. "Estimating transaction costs associated with water policy implementation in South Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212585, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Timothy Pearson & Sandra Brown & Brent Sohngen & Jennifer Henman & Sara Ohrel, 2014. "Transaction costs for carbon sequestration projects in the tropical forest sector," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(8), pages 1209-1222, December.
    15. Stefano Ciliberti & Simone Del Sarto & Angelo Frascarelli & Giulia Pastorelli & Gaetano Martino, 2020. "Contracts to Govern the Transition towards Sustainable Production: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Analysis in the Durum Wheat Sector in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-14, November.
    16. Carlos Omar Trejo-Pech & Roselia Servín-Juárez & Álvaro Reyes-Duarte, 2023. "What sets cooperative farmers apart from non-cooperative farmers? A transaction cost economics analysis of coffee farmers in Mexico," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    17. Maciejczak, Mariusz, 2015. "Will the institution of coexistence be re-defined by TTIP?," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211478, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    18. Banterle, Alessandro & Stranieri, Stefanella, 2008. "The consequences of voluntary traceability system for supply chain relationships. An application of transaction cost economics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 560-569, December.
    19. Massa, Silvia & Testa, Stefania, 2011. "Beyond the conventional-specialty dichotomy in food retailing business models: An Italian case study," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 476-482.
    20. Federica Di Marcantonio & Pavel Ciaian & Vicente Castellanos, 2018. "Unfair trading practices in the dairy farm sector: Evidence from selected EU regions," JRC Research Reports JRC112770, Joint Research Centre.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; Community/Rural/Urban Development; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Labor and Human Capital;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:eaa116:95213. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.