Modelling the effects of agricultural and rural policy
Download
1 / 27

final Gent1 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 248 Views
  • Uploaded on

Psaltopoulos 1 D., Balamou 1 E., Roberts 2 D. and Pouliakas 2 K. 1. Department of Economics, University of Patras, Greece 2. University of Aberdeen Business School, Scotland TERA Final Conference

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'final Gent1' - paul


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Modelling the effects of agricultural and rural policy

Psaltopoulos1 D., Balamou1 E., Roberts2 D. and Pouliakas2 K.

1. Department of Economics, University of Patras, Greece

2. University of Aberdeen Business School, Scotland

TERA Final Conference

As a pre-Congress Symposium of the European Association of Agricultural Economists - XIIth Congress,

Gent (B), August 26-29, 2008

Modelling the Effects of Agricultural and Rural Policy


Introduction

  • CAP has undergone a “fundamental reform” within the 2003/04 “Mid-Term Review”

  • CAP and its reforms are influencing the development of rural areas in EU (positive and negative effects)

  • Concerns are raised on the economic effects of the new CAP, and more specifically on the risk (in specific areas) of production disruption and abandonment due to decoupling. Several studies have dealt with this issue.

  • However, studies have not explicitly addressed the rural-urban effects of the recent CAP reform. So the issue here is “how are these effects distributed between rural and urban space?”


Introduction

Objective:

Assess the nature and magnitude of (both rural and urban) economic effects associated with a change in the levels and nature of agricultural policy (likely future policy-directions) in each of the study regions

Four Policy Scenarios:

  • 30% decrease in coupled support for agriculture

  • Full Decoupling: coupled support becomes full decoupled

  • Switch of Pillar 1 funds into Pillar 2

  • Increased Modulation: decoupled SFP support to agricultural HHS is  by 20% and transferred to Pillar2


The Modeling Framework

The Modeling Framework

The Modeling Framework

  • The Bi-Regional CGE Model

  • IFPRI CGE model (Lofgren et al., 2002) modified to allow specific characteristics of the study areas and moreover RURAL-URBAN INTERACTIONS

    The Bi-Regional SAM

  • Rural/ Urban Regions

  • Spatial distinct for: Activities, Factors, HHS

  • Non-spatial commodities


The Modeling Framework

The Modeling Framework

The Modeling Framework

  • The Bi-Regional CGE Model

  • Production – (based in rural or urban part) maximise profits

  • Consumers – maximise their well-being (have demand curves)

  • Model Closure rules – assumptions on how markets operate:

    1. Labour  Neoclassical: segment by labour skill levels

    2. Government balance  GSAV.Flx and DirTax.Fx

    3. External balance  FSAV.Flx and Exch.Rate.Fx

    4. Savings-Investment Balance  Savings Driven


The Study Areas

  • Scottish Study Area

    Rural East Highlands:

  • Population: 69.386

    1991-2001:  2.3%

  • Agriculture: Mixed (plus forestry)

  • Secondary: Construction, Food Manufacturing

  • Tertiary: Trade-Tourism

    Urban: Inverness

  • Population: 43.340

    1991-2001: 8.6%

  • attract new sectors (pharmaceuticals- knowledge-based activities )

  • Greek Study Area

    Rural: Archanes

    Population: 4.548

    1991 – 2001: 6.3%

  • Agriculture: Vine/ Olive

  • Secondary: SMEs (proc. of agric. products)

  • Tertiary: Trade - Tourism

    Urban: Heraklion

  • Population: 137.711

    1991 – 2001: 14.2%

  • Large number of industries and modern tertiary sector



Agricultural Policy Scenarios and Causal Mechanisms

Scenario 1:-30% in coupled support for agriculture

 Net Indirect Activity Tax of Agricultural Sector

  • Value Added of Agricultural Sector

  • Activity of the Agricultural Sector  Domestic Production of Agricultural Products

  • Labour is free from agriculture   PCap.& PLand

    Agricultural is linked with the other Rural/Urban Sectors  Second-order Production, Price, HHS Income Effects ()

     AGGREGATE AND NET RURAL/ URBAN EFFECT DEPENDS ON COMPETING FORCES


Agricultural Policy Scenarios and Causal Mechanisms

Scenario 2: Full Decoupling

 Direct Income Transfers from GOV to Agr. HHS

 Income and Spending of Agr. HHS

  • Good Produced in the study regions

  • Factor and Goods Prices  Production

Leak towards the RoW

Second-order Production, Price & HHS Income effects ()

TOTAL EFFECT DEPENDS ON INTERACTION OF THE TWO MECHANISMS


Agricultural Policy Scenarios and Causal Mechanisms

Scenario 3: Switch of Pillar1 funds into Pillar2-Axis 3

 Exogenous Investment Demand of the Construction Commodity

  • Demand of Composite Good and Imports of the Construction Commodity

     Activity of the Construction Sector 

    Construction is linked with the other Rural/Urban Sectors  Second-order Production, Price, HHS Income Effects ()

     AGGREGATE AND NET RURAL/ URBAN EFFECT DEPENDS ON COMPETING FORCES


Agricultural Policy Scenarios and Causal Mechanisms

Scenario 4: Increased Modulation

  • 80% Direct Income Transfers from GOV to Agr. HHS

 20% Exogenous Investment Demand of the Construction Commodity

TOTAL EFFECT DEPENDS ON INTERACTION OF THE THREE MECHANISMS




Conclusions

  • Spread of CAP impacts from rural to urban areas

  • Coupled price support is important for the rural economies  removing them results in losses but these do not seem drastic

  • Coupled price support seems to constrain economic activity in the urban regions

  • Cutting coupled price support “hurts” others than just farmers  agricultural linked sectors (especially processing sectors of agricultural products) seem to experience hard times


Conclusions

  • Pillar 2 scenario leads to higher negative effects

  • Transfer of SFP funds to the income of Agricultural HHS rather “improves” the situation but “improvements” are rather marginal  household spending leaks from the region more than agricultural production “spending”

  • Should agricultural households chose to use their extra income to support production rather than consumption (as assumed in the model), the magnitude and distribution of impacts would be more similar to those of AGPCUT scenario


Conclusions

  • Impacts of Modulation Scenario: a bit worse than Pillar 2 but better than Full Decoupling

  • Differences of results between the study areas:

  • Stronger links between agriculture and processing sectors

  • ownership of agricultural factors by urban residents

  • Results suggest that other wider effects may be in force as price and income effects work their way around regional economies and across rural and urban boundaries, but that these wider effects will be region-specific.


Conclusions

  • However results suggest that there may be a case (and opportunities) for intra-regional targeted compensation to lessen the negative effects of CAP reform while promoting the positive effects of a move towards a less distorting policy environment.

  • Further modeling and analysis is required to explore this further.



ad