IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae17/261105.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does CAP spending reflect taxpayer preferences? An analysis of expenditures for public goods and income redistribution in relation to preference indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Schläpfer, Felix
  • Baur, Ivo

Abstract

Public support for agriculture in the European Union (EU) and other European countries targets two main objectives: providing public goods and securing a fair standard of living for farmers. However, whether the current level of spending on measures targeting these two goals reflects taxpayer preferences is unknown. We used a cross-section of countries to explore how levels of support relate to likely indicators of taxpayer demand. The indicators were derived from theoretical considerations, empirical literature on the demand for public goods, and opinion research about specific policy preferences. We evaluated eleven expectations concerning the relationships between these indicators and spending on direct payments (pillar 1), total payments for voluntary measures (pillar 2) and agri-environment measures in the reference year 2012. We found that spending on public goods was consistently related to variations in income and other indicators of willingness to pay. Spending on income support, in contrast, did not show the expected relations with preference indicators. Furthermore, the study revealed that reliable information about parameters of taxpayer preferences for agricultural support is currently largely lacking. More decentralized and participatory processes in agricultural policymaking would improve our knowledge about taxpayer preferences, and reduce the information needs of policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Schläpfer, Felix & Baur, Ivo, 2017. "Does CAP spending reflect taxpayer preferences? An analysis of expenditures for public goods and income redistribution in relation to preference indicators," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261105, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae17:261105
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.261105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261105/files/Schl%C3%A4pfer%20F%20and%20Baur%20I%20%282017%29%20Does%20CAP%20spending%20reflect%20taxpayer%20preferences%20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261105/files/Schl%C3%A4pfer%20F%20and%20Baur%20I%20%282017%29%20Does%20CAP%20spending%20reflect%20taxpayer%20preferences%20.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.261105?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    2. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Goodman, Robert P, 1973. "Private Demands for Public Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 280-296, June.
    3. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    4. Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2010. "The Political Economy of the Most Radical Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 59(Supplemen), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Borcherding, Thomas E & Deacon, Robert T, 1972. "The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 891-901, December.
    6. Mark Brady & Konrad Kellermann & Christoph Sahrbacher & Ladislav Jelinek, 2009. "Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 563-585, September.
    7. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1994. "Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 223-233.
    8. Jan Pokrivcak & Christophe Crombez & Johan F. M. Swinnen, 2006. "The status quo bias and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: impact of voting rules, the European Commission and external changes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(4), pages 562-590, December.
    9. Barry R. Weingast, 2005. "The Performance and Stability of Federalism: An Institutional Perspective," Springer Books, in: Claude Menard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, chapter 7, pages 149-172, Springer.
    10. Olson, Mancur, Jr, 1969. "The Principle of "Fiscal Equivalence": The Division of Responsibilities among Different Levels of Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 479-487, May.
    11. Javier Olivera, 2015. "Preferences for redistribution in Europe," IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Kahn, Matthew E & Matsusaka, John G, 1997. "Demand for Environmental Goods: Evidence from Voting Patterns on California Initiatives," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 137-173, April.
    13. Waltert, Fabian & Schläpfer, Felix, 2010. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 141-152, December.
    14. Deacon, Robert T & Shapiro, Perry, 1975. "Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(5), pages 943-955, December.
    15. John B. Loomis, 2000. "Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 312-321.
    16. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    17. Felix Schläpfer & Nick Hanley, 2003. "Do Local Landscape Patterns Affect the Demand for Landscape Amenities Protection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 21-34, 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. Felix Schläpfer, 2020. "External Costs of Agriculture Derived from Payments for Agri-Environment Measures: Framework and Application to Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-19, July.

    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. Robert Deacon & Felix Schläpfer, 2010. "The Spatial Range of Public Goods Revealed Through Referendum Voting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 305-328, November.
    2. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    3. Nick Hanley & Felix Schlapfer, "undated". "Calibration of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods with Voting and Tax Liability Data: Provision of Landscape Amenities in Switzerland," Working Papers 2002_2, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    4. Nelson, Erik & Uwasu, Michinori & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 580-593, May.
    5. Edmund M. Balsdon, 2012. "Property Value Capitalization and Municipal Open Space Referenda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 201-232.
    6. Uwasu, Michinori & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2005. "Voting on Open Space: An Analysis of the Decision to Hold a Referendum and of Referendum Results," Staff Papers 13837, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    7. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    8. Oates, Wallace E., 2005. "Property taxation and local public spending: the renter effect," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 419-431, May.
    9. Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "The Political Economy of Environmental Policy," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 1, pages 3-30, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. 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.
    11. Brady P. Horn & Michael Cantor & Rodney Fort, 2015. "Proximity And Voting For Professional Sporting Stadiums: The Pattern Of Support For The Seahawk Stadium Referendum," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(4), pages 678-688, October.
    12. Miriam Hortas-Rico & Vicente Rios, 2020. "Is there an optimal size for local governments? A spatial panel data model approach," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(7), pages 958-973, July.
    13. Eli M. Noam, 1981. "Income Sensitivity of Price Elasticities: Effects On the Demand for Public Goods," Public Finance Review, , vol. 9(1), pages 23-34, January.
    14. Gabriel Ahlfeldt & Wolfgang Maennig & Michaela Ölschläger, 2009. "Lifestyles and Preferences for (Public) Goods: Professional Football in Munich," Working Papers 030, Chair for Economic Policy, University of Hamburg.
    15. Prendergast, Patrick & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna & Lang, Corey, 2019. "The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 258-268.
    16. Ahlheim, Michael & Schneider, Friedrich, 2013. "Considering household size in Contingent Valuation studies," FZID Discussion Papers 68-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    17. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    18. Jesse Malkin & Aaron Wildavsky, 1991. "Why the Traditional Distinction between Public and Private Goods Should be Abandoned," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(4), pages 355-378, October.
    19. Heintzelman, Martin D. & Walsh, Patrick J. & Grzeskowiak, Dustin J., 2013. "Explaining the appearance and success of open space referenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 108-117.
    20. Eli Noam, 1982. "Demand functions and the valuation of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 271-280, January.

    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:eaae17:261105. 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.