1 / 14

Demonstration Workshop Brussels, 26.11.2008

Demonstration of capabilities of a bi-regional CGE model to assess impacts of rural development policies (RURMOD-E). Demonstration Workshop Brussels, 26.11.2008. SPECIFICATION OF POLICY SCENARIOS. Demetrios Psaltopoulos Department of Economics University of Patras. Introduction. Objective

tariq
Download Presentation

Demonstration Workshop Brussels, 26.11.2008

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Demonstration of capabilities of a bi-regional CGE model to assess impacts of rural development policies (RURMOD-E) Demonstration WorkshopBrussels, 26.11.2008

  2. SPECIFICATION OF POLICY SCENARIOS Demetrios Psaltopoulos Department of Economics University of Patras

  3. Introduction Objective • Present specification of the 5 RURMOD-E Policy Scenarios • Including causal mechanisms Policy Scenarios • Full Decoupling • Increased Modulation (CAP H-C proposal): • i) Demand for construction • ii) Soft Modulation • Agriculture-centred RD Measures • Diversification of Rural Economy project • Renovation and Development of Villages project

  4. Scenario 1: Full Decoupling (FULL DEC) • Coupled support flowing to the agricultural sector becomes fully decoupled. • CAP subsidies (base year) set to zero – value transferred from govt. to agricultural HSH (SFP). • No modulation assumed. • Two Direct Impacts • Increase in indirect activity tax rate for agriculture • Increase in the income of agricultural HSH

  5. Scenario 1: Full Decoupling – Direct Impact 1  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

  6. Scenario 1: Full Decoupling – Direct Impact 2  Direct Income Transfers from GOV to Agr. HHS   Income and Spending of Agr. HHS  • Goods 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

  7. Scenario 2: Increased Modulation (MODUL, SOFT MOD) • Income support to agricultural HSH is reduced by 13%. • Equivalent amount + national co-financing (25% of total) transferred to Pillar 2 as increased demand for: • Construction (MODUL) • Construction, Machinery, Education, Public Administration (equal % - SOFT MOD) • Private contribution not taken into account. • Three Direct Impacts • Scenario 1 Impacts • Increased investment demand impact

  8. Scenario 2: Increased Modulation • Exogenous Investment Demand of the Construction (etc.) Commodity(ies)  • Domestic Production of the Construction (etc.) Commodity(ies)  • Domestic Activity of the Construction (etc.) Sector(s) What Happens with the Domestic Activity of other Sectors? Usually positive effects in other sectors, but possible trade-off due to decrease in AgrHHS Consumption.    Employment,   GDP

  9. Scenario 3: Agriculture-centred RD Measures (RDM-AGRI (Axes 1,2)) • Income support to agricultural HSH is reduced by 13%. • Equivalent amount + national co-financing (25% of total) transferred to Pillar 2 for Axes 1 and 2 measures. • To that we add study-area-specific public expenditure on Axes 1 and 2 measures {average per annum for 2000-2006 (Greece) and 2004-2006.(Czech Republic)} • Distribution of expenditure to measures follows the 2000-2006 (Greece) and 2004-2006 (Czech Republic) patterns, respectively • Axis 1 expenditure: Increased demand for construction (70%) and machinery (30%) {Farm Investment Plans + Young Farmers + Processing} and increase in the income of Agricultural HHS (Early Retirement) • Axis 2 expenditure: Increased farm output (Agri-environment) and increase in the income of Agricultural HHS (LFA) • Archanes-Heraklion • Axis 1: 67% of P2 (16% Early Retirement – 51% FIS, YFS, FP) • Axis 2: 33% of P2 (1.4% Agri-env. – 31.6% LFA) • Bruntal: • Axis 1: 3.7% of P2 (2.6% FIS, YFS, FP – 1.1% Early Retirement) • Axis 2: 96.3% of P2 (43.3% Agri-env. – 53% LFA)

  10. Scenarios 4 and 5: Rural Development (Axis 3) Projects • Diversification of Rural Economy project (311) • Renovation and Development of Villages project (322) • Real data from 2 projects implemented in the Greek study area • Same shock to both models • Expenditure (construction stage) • Business turnover (311) • Estimate of increase in tourism (322) • Real values (base-year) • Potentially we could also assess: • Effects of change in local purchasing pattern (311) • Effects of migration of urban HSH to rural area (322)

  11. Scenario 4: Diversification of Rural Economy project (311, RDIVERS) • Agrotourism unit • 12 rooms – 24 beds • Surrounding area infrastructure + building + machinery and equipment • Total cost (2004 prices) is 519.200 Euro (55% Public Expenditure – 45% Private) • Distribution: • Energy (40-41): 0.4% • Wholesale Trade (50-51): 1.3% • Retail Trade (52): 0.5% • Other Manufacturing (29): 6.8% • Private Services (70-74): 4.4% • Furniture (36): 3.8% • Construction (45): 82.8% • New Business turnover (55): 119000 Euro per annum

  12. Scenario 5: Renovation and Development of Villages project (322, RENOV) • Village Square • Total cost (2004 prices) is 228858 Euro (100% Public Expenditure) • Distribution: • Energy (40-41): 18.5% • Private Services (70-74): 18.9% • Construction (45): 62.6% • Estimate of increase in tourism flows: +10% per annum

  13. Scenarios 4 and 5: Rural Development (Axis 3) Projects • Diversification of Rural Economy project (311) • Renovation and Development of Villages project (322) • Real data from 2 projects implemented in the Greek study area • Same shock to both models • Expenditure (construction stage) • Business turnover (311) • Estimate of increase in tourism (322) • Real values (base-year)

  14. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!!

More Related