IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277109.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agri-environmental policy decentralization: theoretical analysis and application to abandoned wetland in Brittany

Author

Listed:
  • Bareille, F.
  • Zavalloni, M.

Abstract

In a context of reflections around the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, the European Commission is considering the possibility to decentralize the provision of environmental goods towards lower level of governments. We examine the gains of such potential policy using a simple model of an economy constituted of homogeneous regions and considering that agriculture produces jointly local and global PGs (public goods). We assume that the central government faces lower deadweight losses than the local government but that the local government can better target their subsidies. Our analytical results present the differences of landscape structure (constituted of two areas) and welfare in three cases of governance: full-centralization (EU is in charge of environmental good provision), full-decentralization (local government is in charge of environmental good provision) and partial decentralization (EU allocates a share of its budget to the local government for the provision of environmental goods). We apply our theoretical model to the case of abandoned wetlands in Brittany. Based on this example and the actual CAP budget dedicated for environmental good provision, we illustrate the difference of welfare between the three cases of governance. Acknowledgement : The authors acknolewdge funding from the project: PROVIDE, PROVIding smart DElivery of public goods by EU agriculture and forestry; H2020 programme of the European Commission, grant number 633838. This work does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Union and in no way anticipates the Commission s future policy in this area.

Suggested Citation

  • Bareille, F. & Zavalloni, M., 2018. "Agri-environmental policy decentralization: theoretical analysis and application to abandoned wetland in Brittany," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277109, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277109
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277109/files/970.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Grischa Perino & Olena Talavera, 2014. "The Benefits of Spatially Differentiated Regulation: The Response to Acid Rain by U.S. States Prior to the Acid Rain Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(1), pages 108-123.
    3. Robin Boadway, 1997. "Public Economics and the Theory of Public Policy," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 753-772, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Ostrom, Vincent & Tiebout, Charles M. & Warren, Robert, 1961. "The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 831-842, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 2003. "Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(12), pages 2611-2637, December.
    8. Pate, Jennifer & Loomis, John, 1997. "The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 199-207, March.
    9. Epple, Dennis & Nechyba, Thomas, 2004. "Fiscal decentralization," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 55, pages 2423-2480, Elsevier.
    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. François Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni, 2020. "Decentralisation of agri-environmental policy design," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 47(4), pages 1502-1530.
    2. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Hoang, Long Phi & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A comparative study of transaction costs of payments for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 141-149.
    3. Francis Bloch & Ünal Zenginobuz, 2015. "Oates’ decentralization theorem with imperfect household mobility," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(3), pages 353-375, June.
    4. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    5. Pierre Salmon, 2006. "Horizontal Competition Among Governments," Chapters, in: Ehtisham Ahmad & Giorgio Brosio (ed.), Handbook of Fiscal Federalism, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Catharina Druckenbrod & Volker Beckmann, 2018. "Production-Integrated Compensation in Environmental Offsets—A Review of a German Offset Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    7. Brülhart, Marius & Bucovetsky, Sam & Schmidheiny, Kurt, 2015. "Taxes in Cities," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 1123-1196, Elsevier.
    8. Wallace Oates, 2005. "Toward A Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(4), pages 349-373, August.
    9. Loeper, Antoine, 2011. "Coordination in heterogeneous federal systems," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 900-912.
    10. Chu, Angus C. & Yang, C.C., 2012. "Fiscal centralization versus decentralization: Growth and welfare effects of spillovers, Leviathan taxation, and capital mobility," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 177-188.
    11. Thiel, Andreas & Schleyer, Christian & Hinkel, Jochen & Schlüter, Maja & Hagedorn, Konrad & Bisaro, Sandy & Bobojonov, Ihtiyor & Hamidov, Ahmad, 2016. "Transferring Williamson's discriminating alignment to the analysis of environmental governance of social-ecological interdependence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 159-168.
    12. Garzarelli, Giampaolo, 2018. "Internal Organization in a Public Theory of the Firm: Toward a Coase-Oates Federalism Nexus," MPRA Paper 86955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Vogt, Nora & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Lock-in effects in competitive bidding schemes for payments for ecosystem services: Revisiting the fundamental transformation," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 158, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    14. Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2020. "Valuing Rural Residents' Attitude Regarding agri-environmental Policy in China: A Best-worst Scaling Analysis," Discussion Paper Series DP2020-01, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    15. 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.
    16. Feder, Christophe, 2018. "Decentralization and spillovers: A new role for transportation infrastructure," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 36-47.
    17. 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.
    18. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Reprint of ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 283-294.
    19. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 130-141.
    20. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    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:iaae18:277109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.