IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/wiaesp/401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Environmental Implications Of Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel W. BROMLEY

Abstract

There are three general classes of environmental implications from agriculture: (1) amenity implications; (2) habitat implications; and (3) ecological implications. Environmental "benefits" or "costs" from agriculture require a prior specification of the norm against which the status quo is to be compared. Agriculture is no longer simply an activity that produces commodities for local, regional, national, or international markets. Indeed, in the OECD countries, commodity abundance, not commodity scarcity, is the norm and so it is necessary to see agriculture as primarily a land management activity that provides (and supports) rural livelihoods, and that happens also to produce some marketable commodities. This fundamental redefinition of agriculture allows us to escape the conceptual trap that seems to prevail in many discussions about the environmental attributes of agriculture. That conventional view holds that there is some normal structure of agriculture in each ecological setting which gives rise to some "natural" level of costs of production. This thinking then allows a seamless transition into a discussion of subsidies and "distortions" that contravene some inherent comparative advantage. Recent preoccupation with revising world trade arrangements has tended to reinforce such thinking.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel W. BROMLEY, 1996. "The Environmental Implications Of Agriculture," Staff Papers 401, University of Wisconsin Madison, AAE.
  • Handle: RePEc:wop:wiaesp:401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/wis/stpap401.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    2. Arild Vatn & Daniel Bromley, 1997. "Externalities — A market model failure," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 135-151, March.
    3. Bystrom, Olof & Bromley, Daniel W., 1998. "Contracting For Nonpoint-Source Pollution Abatement," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Bromley, Daniel W & Hodge, Ian, 1990. "Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 197-214.
    5. Olof BYSTROM & Daniel W. BROMLEY, 1996. "Abstract Of Contracting For Non-Point-Source Pollution Abatement," Staff Papers 392, University of Wisconsin Madison, AAE.
    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. Moon, Wanki & Kuethe, Todd H. & Kraft, Steven E. & Esseks, J. Dixon, 2005. "Public Preferences for Multifunctionality of Agriculture: National Survey of Registered Voters," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19430, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Salhofer, Klaus & Streicher, Gerhard, 2005. "Production Effects of Agri-environmental "Green Box" Payments: Empirical Results from the EU," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24494, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Colyer, Dale, 2004. "Environmental Regulations And Competitiveness," Working Papers 19100, West Virginia University, Department of Agricultural Resource Economics.
    4. Saleem Shaik & Glenn A Helmers & Michael Langemeier, 2005. "'Direct and Indirect Shadow Price Estimates of Nitrate Pollution Treated as an Undesirable Output and Input', Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol. 27, No. 2 (December 2002) pp: 420-432," Development and Comp Systems 0512023, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Esperanza Vera-Toscano & José Gómez-Limón & Eduardo Moyano & Fernando Garrido, 2008. "Factors Determining Citizen’s Attitudes Towards Agri-Environmental Property Rights," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(4), pages 541-561, December.
    6. Brugnaro, Caetano, 2010. "Valuing Riparian Forests Restoration: a CVM Application in Corumbatai River Basin," Brazilian Journal of Rural Economy and Sociology (Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural-RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 48(3), pages 1-14.
    7. Steele, Scott R., 2009. "Expanding the solution set: Organizational economics and agri-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 398-405, December.
    8. Shaik, Saleem & Helmers, Glenn A. & Langemeier, Michael R., 2002. "Direct And Indirect Shadow Price And Cost Estimates Of Nitrogen Pollution Abatement," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Colyer, Dale, 2004. "Environmental Regulations and Agricultural Competitiveness," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17.

    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. Petrick, Martin, 2004. "Governing Structural Change And Externalities In Agriculture: Toward A Normative Institutional Economics Of Rural Development," IAMO Discussion Papers 14878, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    2. Fraser, Iain & Chisholm, Tony, 2000. "Conservation or cultural heritage? Cattle grazing in the Victoria Alpine National Park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 63-75, April.
    3. Greiner, Romy & Cacho, Oscar, 2001. "On the efficient use of a catchment's land and water resources: dryland salinization in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 441-458, September.
    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. Zylicz, Tomasz, 2010. "Goals and Principles of Environmental Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(4), pages 299-334, May.
    6. Remig, Moritz C., 2017. "Structured pluralism in ecological economics — A reply to Peter Söderbaum's commentary," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 533-537.
    7. Ana Iolanda Voda & Catalin Chiriac, 2012. "An inexhaustive criticism of the standard economic theory from an Austrian perspective related to growth and development," Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, Pro Global Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 195-202, July.
    8. Andrew Johnston & Kenneth Amaeshi & Emmanuel Adegbite & Onyeka Osuji, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility as Obligated Internalisation of Social Costs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 39-52, April.
    9. Ceddia, Michele Graziano & Bartlett, Mark & Lucia, Caterina De & Perrings, Charles, 2011. "On the regulation of spatial externalities: coexistence between GM and conventional crops in the EU and the ‘newcomer principle’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(1), pages 1-18.
    10. Maria de Fátima Ferreiro, 2016. "Towards a Political Economy of Land: Reciprocal Rights and Duties in Private Property," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 6(4), pages 1231-1231.
    11. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    12. Petrick, Martin, 2008. "Theoretical and methodological topics in the institutional economics of European agriculture. With applications to farm organisation and rural credit arrangements," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 45, number 92318.
    13. Gramzow, Andreas, 2009. "Rural development as provision of local public goods: Theory and evidence from Poland," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 51, number 92313.
    14. Remig, Moritz C., 2015. "Unraveling the veil of fuzziness: A thick description of sustainability economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 194-202.
    15. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    16. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    17. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    18. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    19. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    20. Mario Jametti & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, 2005. "Assessing the Efficiency of an Insurance Provider—A Measurement Error Approach," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 15-34, June.

    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:wop:wiaesp:401. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dauwius.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.