IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae02/24801.html

A Multicommodity EU Policy Framework Incorporating Public Good Criteria into the Direct Payment System in Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Dunne, W.
  • O'Connell, J.J.

Abstract

For decades the CAP has been the major influence in shaping EU agriculture and food production. The economic and policy environment in the EU is now very different from that which prevailed in the earlier decades. The future economic, social and geographic diversity of the EU will be further increased by enlargement. Agricultural policies and the related operational frameworks will inevitably change to accommodate this added diversity and the changing societal and consumer values. This paper evaluates how the current shape of EU agriculture has been influenced by the reforms to date. It also attempts to focus on where EU farming may be, or wish to go, over the next decade. The evaluation is restricted to the beef sector as it has been to the forefront in the policy reforms of the last decade and because the adjustments were inevitably complex due to the scale of the oversupply problems, the biological and market intricacies involved. This evaluation concluded that the current EU beef policy is severely constrained with poor targeting of the income supports, high production costs, based on an administratively complex and expensive control system without any clear benefit to either society or taxpayer for a rather large expenditure. In the past, agricultural policy in the EU was primarily driven by the need for a secure food supply and with the objective of sustaining the economic and social needs of farmers. But, in the well fed and affluent EU society of the 21st century, agricultural policy will be mainly driven by the economic and social goals which are rapidly changing. This society places a declining value on extra units of food production, but an increasing value on any public goods consumed in the production process. As a consequence, the mix of agricultural production and public goods that this society is prepared to support financially is changing rapidly. The level and components of farm incomes in the EU in the 21st century will reflect these changes. Farm revenue will likely consist of a mix of payments for conventional agricultural products and public goods. The public good payments will be conditional on the level and type of inputs used, farming practices, types of products produced and a societal vision of the role of farming. This will affect production costs, scale of operation and the future configuration of agriculture and rural society. To meet this evolving situation the paper also develops and outlines a multicommodity framework by which the EU could reorient its direct payment (DP) system to incorporate a range of public good values to the mutual benefit of consumers, taxpayers and farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Dunne, W. & O'Connell, J.J., 2002. "A Multicommodity EU Policy Framework Incorporating Public Good Criteria into the Direct Payment System in Agriculture," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24801, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae02:24801
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24801/files/cp02du22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.24801?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. Louis-Pascal Mahé, 2001. "Can the European model be negotiable in the WTO ?," Post-Print hal-02416838, HAL.
    2. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1996. "Measuring Public Preferences for the Environmental Amenities Provided by Farmland," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 23(4), pages 421-436.
    3. Spencer Henson, 1996. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Reductions In The Risk Of Food Poisoning In The Uk," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 403-420, January.
    4. Richard Bennett & Douglas Larson, 1996. "Contingent Valuation Of The Perceived Benefits Of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 224-235, January.
    5. John Mclnerney, 1996. "Old Economics For New Problems ‐Livestock Disease: Presidential Address," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 295-314, January.
    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. Rong-Gang Cong & Mark Brady, 2012. "How to Design a Targeted Agricultural Subsidy System: Efficiency or Equity?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-12, August.

    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. Spencer Henson & Bruce Traill, 2000. "Measuring Perceived Performance of the Food System and Consumer Food‐Related Welfare," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 388-404, September.
    2. Phil Simmons, 2006. "Perspectives on the 2003 and 2004 avian influenza outbreak in Bali and Lombok," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 435-450.
    3. Gilg, Andrew W. & Battershill, Martin, 1998. "Quality farm food in Europe: a possible alternative to the industrialised food market and to current agri-environmental policies: lessons from France," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-40, February.
    4. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    5. Fofana, Abdulai & Toma, Luiza & Moran, Dominic & Gunn, George J. & Stott, Alistair W., "undated". "Measuring the economic benefits and costs of Bluetongue virus outbreak and control strategies in Scotland," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51052, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Simmons, Phil, 2005. "Perspectives On The 2003 And 2004 Avian Influenza Outbreak In Bali &Lombok," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137949, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    8. Stott, Alistair W. & Milne, Catherine E. & Gunn, George J., 2009. "Evaluation of approaches to control of Maedi-Visna disease of sheep using a Markov chain simulation model for a range of typical British Flocks," Working Papers 61102, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    9. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    10. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lupín, Beatriz & Lacaze, María Victoria, 2006. "Incidencia de los atributos de calidad en las percepciones y elecciones de los consumidores de alimentos orgánicos," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1066, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    11. Horan, Richard D. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2003. "The Economics Of Managing Wildlife Disease," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22224, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Mullen, John D. & Helyar, K.R. & Pagan, Phil, 2000. "Economic and Biological Perspectives on Off-site Effects Associated with Soil Acidification," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123709, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Tegene, Abebayehu & Barnard, Charles H., 2002. "Farmland Protection: The Role Of Public Preferences For Rural Amenities," Agricultural Economic Reports 33963, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    15. Éric Cahuzac & Daniel Hassan & Sylvette Monier-Dilhan, 2007. "Sécurité sanitaire des aliments : fausse alerte et vraie crise," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(1), pages 55-64.
    16. The Anh Phan & Phuong Hoang Mai, 2016. "Determinants Impacting Consumers¡¯ Purchase Intention: The Case of Fast Food in Vietnam," International Journal of Marketing Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(5), pages 56-68, October.
    17. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    18. Kathryn Anderson & Diana Weinhold, 2005. "Do Conservation Easements Reduce Land Prices? The Case of South Central Wisconsin," Urban/Regional 0506001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. J.M. Bewley & Boehlje & A.W. Gray & H. Hogeveen & S.J. Kenyon & S.D. Eicher & M.M. Schutz, 2010. "Stochastic simulation using @Risk for dairy business investment decisions," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 70(1), pages 97-125, May.
    20. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:eaae02:24801. 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.