Rent-seeking in agricultural policy revisited: a new look at the Common Agricultural Policy consensus

IF 0.9 Q4 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Studies in Agricultural Economics Pub Date : 2018-08-22 DOI:10.7896/j.1801
B. Czyżewski, A. Matuszczak
{"title":"Rent-seeking in agricultural policy revisited: a new look at the Common Agricultural Policy consensus","authors":"B. Czyżewski, A. Matuszczak","doi":"10.7896/j.1801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is generally believed that agricultural interventionism represents the payment of political rents to farmers. We attempt to show that the concept of political rent known as the rent-seeking theory is not valid for agricultural policy. It is not justified to identify the entire subsidies paid to agriculture as a ‘political rent’, since political rents cannot be taken to include payments for the supply of public goods or those transfers which compensate for market imperfections. Our work aims firstly to review the concepts of rents and rent-seeking, and to develop a methodology for quantifying political rents in agricultural policy. We perform comparative analyses with the aim of calculating the ‘pure political rent’, based on the input-output approach for representative farms according to the EU FADN typology and on a decomposition of the Hicks–Moorsteen TFP index for the period 2004-2012 and 27 European Union Member States. The calculations of political rents show that historical payments are neither a rational nor a just solution. No attempts have yet been made in the literature to quantify political rents, even though this might lead to an improvement in the effectiveness of public expenditure. The original methodology is proposed for valuing these items.","PeriodicalId":44547,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Agricultural Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

It is generally believed that agricultural interventionism represents the payment of political rents to farmers. We attempt to show that the concept of political rent known as the rent-seeking theory is not valid for agricultural policy. It is not justified to identify the entire subsidies paid to agriculture as a ‘political rent’, since political rents cannot be taken to include payments for the supply of public goods or those transfers which compensate for market imperfections. Our work aims firstly to review the concepts of rents and rent-seeking, and to develop a methodology for quantifying political rents in agricultural policy. We perform comparative analyses with the aim of calculating the ‘pure political rent’, based on the input-output approach for representative farms according to the EU FADN typology and on a decomposition of the Hicks–Moorsteen TFP index for the period 2004-2012 and 27 European Union Member States. The calculations of political rents show that historical payments are neither a rational nor a just solution. No attempts have yet been made in the literature to quantify political rents, even though this might lead to an improvement in the effectiveness of public expenditure. The original methodology is proposed for valuing these items.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视农业政策中的寻租:共同农业政策共识的新视角
人们普遍认为,农业干预主义代表着向农民支付政治租金。我们试图表明,被称为寻租理论的政治租金概念对农业政策是无效的。将支付给农业的全部补贴确定为“政治租金”是没有道理的,因为政治租金不能被视为包括公共产品供应或弥补市场缺陷的转移支付。我们的工作首先旨在回顾租金和寻租的概念,并开发一种量化农业政策中政治租金的方法。我们进行了比较分析,目的是根据欧盟FADN类型的代表性农场的投入产出法,以及对2004-2012年期间和27个欧盟成员国的希克斯-摩尔斯蒂恩TFP指数的分解,计算“纯政治租金”。政治租金的计算表明,历史支付既不是理性的,也不是公正的解决方案。文献中还没有试图量化政治租金,尽管这可能会提高公共支出的有效性。提出了对这些项目进行估价的原始方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Agricultural Economics
Studies in Agricultural Economics AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
11
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Facilitating PLF Technology Adoption in the Pig and Poultry Industries Comparing the impacts of economic uncertainty, climate change, Covid-19, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict: Which is the most dangerous for EU27 food prices? Assessing the sectoral and cross-sectoral impacts of new European Union broiler chicken welfare measures in Hungary as proposed by the European Food Safety Authority Suckler-cow and sheep farming in global comparison – production systems and economics The profitability of site-specific fertilisation based on Sure Grow Solutions – A Canadian case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1