IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ugeofs/16640.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conversion Subsidies For Organic Production: Results From Sweden And Lessons For The United States

Author

Listed:
  • Lohr, Luanne
  • Salomonsson, Lennart

Abstract

Environmental and social justifications for organic conversion subsidies are as pervasive in the United States as in Europe, but national policy does not explicitly support organic agriculture. Using Sweden's experience, we analyze factors that affect whether a subsidy is required to motivate organic conversion. We use a utility difference model to compare farmers who converted before and after the subsidy. Significant factors in conversion without subsidies are greater livestock diversity and more sales outlets. Farmers requiring subsidies manage larger farms, are more concerned with organic inspection quality and adequacy of technical advice, and reside in areas with more organic farms. Results suggest that a subsidy induces mainly those already inclined toward organic agriculture to convert. Limited exposure to organic systems and a marketing and technical information infrastructure designed to support conventional agriculture restrict the potential effect of a conversion subsidy in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Lohr, Luanne & Salomonsson, Lennart, 1998. "Conversion Subsidies For Organic Production: Results From Sweden And Lessons For The United States," Faculty Series 16640, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ugeofs:16640
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.16640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/16640/files/fs9804.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.16640?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. Hanemann, W., 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Economics," CUDARE Working Papers 198636, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Cragg, Michael & Kahn, Matthew, 1997. "New Estimates of Climate Demand: Evidence from Location Choice," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 261-284, September.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    4. Cook, Roberta L., 1988. "Marketing organic commodities in California: Structure and obstacles to expansion," Western Economic Association Conference Archive 291727, Western Economic Association.
    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. 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.
    2. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    3. V. Smith & Xiaolong Zhang & Raymond Palmquist, 1997. "Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-Market Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 223-247, October.
    4. Franz Hackl & Gerald Pruckner, 1999. "On the gap between payment card and closed-ended CVM-answers," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 733-742.
    5. Seck, Abdoulaye, 2016. "A dichotomous-choice contingent valuation of the Parc Zoologique de Hann in Dakar," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(3).
    6. 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.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    9. Maddison, David & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2011. "The impact of climate on life satisfaction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2437-2445.
    10. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    11. Sung-Min Kim & Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Substituting Natural Gas with Renewable Methane: A Contingent Valuation Experiment in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    12. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    13. Abdurrahman B. Aydemir & Erkan Duman, 2021. "Migrant Networks and Destination Choice: Evidence from Moves across Turkish Provinces," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 2109, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    14. Dagnew Hagos & Alemu Mekonnen & Zenebe G/egziabhe, 2014. "Households Willingness to Pay for Improved Urban Solid Waste Management: the Case of Mekelle City, Ethiopia," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 22(01), November.
    15. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    16. repec:sae:envval:v:11:y:2002:i:2:p:145-161 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Ritten, Chian Jones & Breunig, Ian M., 2013. "Willingness to Pay for Programs for the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine on a Rocky Mountain West College Campus," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 12(01), pages 1-15.
    18. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Buckland, Steve, 1995. "Valuing Biodiversity Losses Due To Acid Deposition: A Contingent Valuation Study Of Uncertain Environmental Gains," Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics 140539, University of Stirling, Department of Economics.
    20. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    21. Brian Witt, 2019. "Tourists’ Willingness to Pay Increased Entrance Fees at Mexican Protected Areas: A Multi-Site Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, May.

    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:ugeofs:16640. 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/daugaus.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.