IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support

Registered author(s):

    The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a widely debated policy in terms of both its budget and its instruments. In order to serve the citizens of Europe properly, CAP requires optimal identification of the public objectives desired. This paper aims to analyse the relative weights that citizens assign to the various potential objectives of the CAP and to show how these can be used to improve the selection of policy instruments. As a means of identifying social preferences we used the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique on a population sample in Castilla y León (Spain). Results show how the current policy decision process lacks mechanisms capable of identifying social preferences and thus leading to the choice of sub-optimal policies.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Centro de Estudios Andaluces in its series Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces with number E2004/57.

    in new window

    Length: 28 pages
    Date of creation: 2004
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2004_57
    Contact details of provider: Postal: c/ Bailén 50. 41001 Sevilla
    Phone: (34) 955 055 210
    Fax: (34) 955 055 211
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
    2. J. A. Kregel, 1980. "Introduction," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 3(1), pages 19-20, October.
    3. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    4. Laininen, Pertti & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2003. "Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 514-524, August.
    5. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    6. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    7. Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
    8. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    9. Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
    10. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1996. "Measuring Public Preferences for the Environmental Amenities Provided by Farmland," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 23(4), pages 421-36.
    11. Korhonen, Pekka & Wallenius, Jyrki, 1990. "Using qualitative data in multiple objective linear programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 81-87, September.
    12. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G. & Dellmann, Klaus, 2003. "The allocation of intangible resources: the analytic hierarchy process and linear programming," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 169-184, September.
    13. Easley, Robert F. & Valacich, Joseph S. & Venkataramanan, M. A., 2000. "Capturing group preferences in a multicriteria decision," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 73-83, August.
    14. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    15. Fichtner, John, 1986. "On deriving priority vectors from matrices of pairwise comparisons," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 341-345.
    16. Aczel, J. & Alsina, C., 1986. "On synthesis of judgements," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 333-339.
    17. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    18. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1996. "Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 538-549.
    19. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    20. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    21. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2004_57. 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: (Susana Mérida)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.