IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02743124.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic experiments as a tool for agricultural policy evaluation: insights from the European CAP

Author

Listed:
  • Liesbeth Colen

    (IPTS - JRC Institute for Prospective Technological Studies - JRC - European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Seville], UCL - Université Catholique de Louvain = Catholic University of Louvain)

  • Sergio Gomez-Y-Paloma

    (IPTS - JRC Institute for Prospective Technological Studies - JRC - European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Seville])

  • Uwe Latacz-Lohmann

    (Department of Agricultural Economics - Kiel University, UWA - The University of Western Australia)

  • Marianne Lefebvre

    (UA - Université d'Angers)

  • Raphaële Préget

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • Sophie Thoyer

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier, Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

Abstract

This article assesses the potential contribution of economic experiments to evidence-based policy making in the field of agriculture, with a special focus on the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP evaluation mostly relies on standard evaluation tools such as farm and market simulation models, calibrated with EU-wide statistical data, statistical and econometric analysis of survey data, and a range of qualitative methods such as interviews with stakeholders, focus group or internet-based public consultation. Yet, the CAP has changed considerably over the past decades, requiring adaptations of its evaluation toolbox. A detailed review of existing studies using economic experiments for designing and evaluating agricultural policies provides the backbone for a comprehensive assessment of the complementarity of experimental approaches with standard evaluation tools. The article also provides recommendations aiming at facilitating inclusion of economic experiments into the CAP evaluation toolbox based on conclusions drawn from a workshop organized with experts, academics and policy makers of Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission.

Suggested Citation

  • Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez-Y-Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2015. "Economic experiments as a tool for agricultural policy evaluation: insights from the European CAP," Post-Print hal-02743124, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02743124
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02743124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02743124/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gneezy, Uri & Rustichini, Aldo, 2000. "A Fine is a Price," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Nagler, Amy M. & Menkhaus, Dale J. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Ehmke, Mariah D. & Coatney, Kalyn T., 2013. "Subsidy Incidence in Factor Markets: An Experimental Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(1), pages 1-17, February.
    3. repec:mpr:mprres:7879 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Dean Karlan & Robert Osei & Isaac Osei-Akoto & Christopher Udry, 2014. "Agricultural Decisions after Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 129(2), pages 597-652.
    5. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    6. Ronald G. Cummings & Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2004. "Using laboratory experiments for policymaking: An example from the Georgia irrigation reduction auction," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 341-363.
    7. Timothy N. Cason & Lata Gangadharan, 2005. "A Laboratory Comparison of Uniform and Discriminative Price Auctions for Reducing Non-point Source Pollution," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    8. McIntosh, Christopher R. & Shogren, Jason F. & Dohlman, Erik, 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Supply Response to Counter-cyclical Payments and Base Acre Updating under Uncertainty: An Experimental Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Charles R. Plott, 1997. "Laboratory Experimental Testbeds: Application to the PCS Auction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 605-638, September.
    10. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    11. Loi, Massimo & Rodrigues, Margarida, 2012. "A note on the impact evaluation of public policies: the counterfactual analysis," MPRA Paper 42444, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-47, April.
    13. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Subervie, Julie, 2013. "How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27.
    14. Xavier Gine & Jessica Goldberg & Dean Yang, 2012. "Credit Market Consequences of Improved Personal Identification: Field Experimental Evidence from Malawi," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2923-2954, October.
    15. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    16. Rodrik, Dani, 2008. "The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, but How Shall We Learn?," Working Paper Series rwp08-055, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Gary Burtless, 1995. "The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 63-84, Spring.
    18. repec:feb:artefa:0086 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Stéphane J. Baele, 2013. "The ethics of New Development Economics: is the Experimental Approach to Development Economics morally wrong?," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 7(1), November.
    20. Lips, Markus & Gazzarin, Christian, 2008. "What are the preferences of Dairy Farmers regarding their Work? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Eastern Part of Switzerland," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44132, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    21. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2009. "Can Field Experiments Return Agricultural Economics to the Glory Days?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1259-1265.
    22. Enno Bahrs & Stephan Kroll & Matthias Sutter, 2008. "Trading Agricultural Payment Entitlements: An Experimental Investigation of Bilateral Negotiations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1201-1207.
    23. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    24. repec:feb:artefa:0110 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. John A. List, 2011. "Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 3-16, Summer.
    26. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2011. "Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2350-2390, October.
    27. Glenn W. Harrison, 2014. "Cautionary notes on the use of field experiments to address policy issues," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 753-763.
    28. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2006. "Ajae Appendix: Consumers’ Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon: A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-8, November.
    29. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    30. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schulz, Norbert & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept "Greening": Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Gremany," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170560, Agricultural Economics Society.
    31. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff & Moritz Maack, 2013. "The impact of price floors on farmland investments: a real options based experimental analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(35), pages 4872-4882, December.
    32. Parkhurst, Gregory M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Bastian, Chris & Kivi, Paul & Donner, Jennifer & Smith, Rodney B. W., 2002. "Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 305-328, May.
    33. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    34. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    35. Norbert Schulz & Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept “Greening”: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 26-48, January.
    36. Bouguen, Adrien & Filmer, Deon & Macours, Karen & Naudeau, Sophie, 2014. "Preschools and early childhood development in a second best world: Evidence from a scaled-up experiment in Cambodia," CEPR Discussion Papers 10170, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    37. Randall Blair & Kenneth Fortson & Joanne Lee & Anu Rangarajan, "undated". "Should Foreign Aid Fund Agricultural Training? Evidence from Armenia," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 74d16d1a54bd430eb39d64979, Mathematica Policy Research.
    38. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    39. Plott, Charles R., 1989. "An updated review of industrial organization: Applications of experimental methods," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 1109-1176, Elsevier.
    40. René van Bavel & Nuria Rodríguez-Priego & Ioannis Maghiros, 2015. "Seven Points to Remember when Conducting Behavioural Studies in Support of EU Policy-making," JRC Research Reports JRC96525, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    41. Lars Brink, 2013. "Making Agricultural Economics Research Relevant for Policy Advice," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(1), pages 15-36, March.
    42. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    43. Erwin Bulte & Gonne Beekman & Salvatore Di Falco & Joseph Hella & Pan Lei, 2014. "Behavioral Responses and the Impact of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Double-blind Field Experiment in Tanzania," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(3), pages 813-830.
    44. Christopher R. McIntosh & Jason F. Shogren & Erik Dohlman, 2007. "Supply Response to Countercyclical Payments and Base Acre Updating under Uncertainty: An Experimental Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1046-1057.
    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. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2015. "(How) can economic experiments inform EU agricultural policy?," Post-Print hal-02519194, HAL.
    2. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    3. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. Peters, Jörg & Langbein, Jörg & Roberts, Gareth, 2016. "Policy evaluation, randomized controlled trials, and external validity—A systematic review," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 51-54.
    5. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Bjorn Van Campenhout & David J. Spielman & Els Lecoutere, 2021. "Information and Communication Technologies to Provide Agricultural Advice to Smallholder Farmers: Experimental Evidence from Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 317-337, January.
    7. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Arriaza, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose A., 2015. "Matching supply-side and demand-side analyses for the assessment of agri-environmental schemes: The case of irrigated olive groves of southern Spain," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211919, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2016. "Partner selection into policy relevant field experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 31-56.
    11. Abby Kelly & Kalyn T. Coatney & Xiaofei Li & Keith H. Coble, 2020. "Subsidy Incidence in the Presence of Bertrand Suppliers of Complementary Inputs: A U.S. Agricultural Example," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 479-501, September.
    12. Lemeilleur, Sylvaine & Subervie, Julie & Presoto, Anderson Edilson & de Castro Souza, Roberta & Macchione Saes, Maria Sylvia, 2016. "Eco-certified contract choice among coffee farmers in Brazil," Working Papers MOISA 245867, Institut National de la recherché Agronomique (INRA), UMR MOISA : Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs : CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
    13. Hans‐Theo Normann & Roberto Ricciuti, 2009. "Laboratory Experiments For Economic Policy Making," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 407-432, July.
    14. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    15. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    16. Angus Deaton, 2009. "Instruments of development: Randomization in the tropics, and the search for the elusive keys to economic development," Working Papers 1128, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Health and Wellbeing..
    17. Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Villanueva, Anastasio J., 2021. "Exploring the commodification of biodiversity using olive oil producers’ willingness to accept," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel, 2014. "Agri-environmental schemes in olive growing: farmers’ preferences towards collective participation and ecological focus areas," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182918, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Sylvaine Lemeilleur & Subervie Julie & Anderson Edilson Presoto & Roberta de Castro Souza & Maria Sylvia Macchione Saes, 2020. "Coffee farmers’ motivations to comply with sustainability standards," Post-Print halshs-02278751, HAL.
    20. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    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:hal:journl:hal-02743124. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.