Search results

Polish agriculture is one of the main sectors of the national economy that, under the influence of political transformations and European integration, is subject to measures stimulating its development. The instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been an important supporting stimulus.

This chapter aims to evaluate the significance of the common agricultural policy to the growth and development of agriculture and to structural transformations therein triggered primarily by the influx of additional CAP funds.

The agricultural sector was examined together with its selected characteristics in the context of CAP instruments' impact after 2004. Data included the streams of funding for Polish agriculture and indicators illustrating changes in structural features, economic performance and productivity of production factors. The indicators included changes in the number, structure and potential of farmsteads, changes in the level of employment in agriculture, this sector's share in total gross value added, profitability of farmsteads, capital expenditure level and changes in labour and land profitability compared with changes in the level of employment and agricultural production intensity. They were calculated based on data from EUROSTAT, Statistics Poland and Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN).

The outcomes confirm that common agricultural policy has contributed to create development processes in Polish agriculture. Changes in the sector affected structural characteristics, production factors productivity and the income of agricultural producers. Since Poland joined the European Union (EU), the percentage of agricultural workers declined by 8.4 p.p. and the number of farms decreased by nearly 30%. These changes were accompanied by a nearly twofold increase in agricultural labour productivity, 50% increase in land productivity and the profitability of land increased by 43%.

Purpose – This chapter elucidates the post–Second World War development of Western agricultural policy. It focuses primarily on the influence that the European Union and the United States have had on global policy evolution.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter draws on historical sources and other secondary data.

Findings – The chapter documents how agriculture was never seen as a sector commes les autres. Agricultural exceptionalism became practice, never falling easily under the rubric of those organisations, like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or the World Trade Organization, that were designed to reduce impediments to trade. As a result, trade in agricultural goods even today remains tightly controlled by national governments, seen most clearly with the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. Further, the chapter documents the rise of productivism in the West, where the search for ever more, and cheaper, calories provided the rationale that bigger is better – bigger farms, bigger machinery, more technology inputs into agriculture, but fewer people working them, and fewer farms, which leads to questions about their sustainability and resilience in an era of climate change. The chapter ends with an acknowledgement of a changed world – where Brazil, China and India exert more influence in international trade negotiations, including those relating to agriculture. Their differing agenda in this area helps to explain, in part, the wreckage of the Doha Round of the WTO.

Originality/value – By identifying the main lines of post-1945 Western agricultural policy, the chapter provides context into which the authors contributing to this volume are able to place their chapters. The chapter also addresses a lacuna in the literature in that it deals with the entire sweep of post-war Western agricultural policy in a way that makes it accessible to the reader.

During the past two decades Croatia has faced numerous challenges: gaining independence, war conflicts, political and economic transition and the process of European Union (EU) accession. Despite rich and diversified landscapes and cultural heritage, it is still faced with problems limiting the economic development. So the purpose of this chapter is to point out the pragmatic reasons of Croatian delay in the process of adjustment to European business and agricultural policy standards.Based on statistic and literature analysis, the study determines specific characteristics of Croatian regions, rural areas, rural population and agriculture. Agriculture after independence shows increase in utilized area, but the production is still below pre-war level and results with unsteady and modest value. Harmonization with Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) standards is slow; big steps have been made in establishing new institutions in agriculture and preparing adequate legislative framework, so there are no significant formal differences between Croatian and European agricultural policy. However, European agricultural policy models cause problems. There is a daily debate about a low degree of self-sufficiency of the domestic production, low competitiveness and uncontrolled import of farm products. Farmers still often expect for the government to organize the production and guarantee the purchase prices as were in former, socialistic system.Due to these reasons, a fear was expressed by farmers that they could not be able to meet the strict criteria for the European financing. Despite this, a large part of farmers see the possibilities for their existence in rural areas, mostly through development of non-agricultural activities.

Purpose – This chapter explores the way in which the food crisis of 2008 and issues of food security have impinged upon debates about agriculture and agricultural support in Scotland.

Methodology/approach – Adopting a discourse analytic approach, a series of pivotal Scottish agricultural policy documents produced between 2001 and 2010 are examined. Official agricultural policy discourse over time is traced as is the nature of that discourse as the food crisis impinged upon and altered the context of debates about agricultural policy reform.

Findings – The chapter finds that prior to the food crisis, agricultural policy documents were dominated by neoliberal discourse that emphasised the importance of agriculture becoming more oriented towards the market and by a growing emphasis on multifunctionality. But after the food crisis, the dominant political rhetoric utilised different arguments to defend agricultural subsidies and argue for a continuing role for the state in perpetuating agricultural production. It is suggested, however, that the key factor in this retrenchment to continued farm support was not the food crisis per se; rather, it was the intersection of issues of food security with the rise to power of the Scottish nationalists and their resistance to the UK's neoliberal position.

Originality/value – The chapter provides the key insight that, for Scotland at least, the food crisis did not spark a change in domestic agricultural policies, but rather became an argumentative resource that was opportunistically deployed in established debates about agricultural policy reform.

Purpose – This chapter aims to explore the consequences of a renewed impetus for ‘neo-productivist’ agriculture on multifunctionality in Western Europe.

Design/methodology/approach – We analyse how the issue of multi-functionality has been interpreted and implemented in Western Europe through a comparison between Norway and Scotland (as an EU example). Relevant policy documents and literature are analysed. The chapter explores whether European agricultural multifunctionality is being revised in response to the rise of neo-liberal (neo-productivist) ideologies, food security and climate change issues.

Findings – Our results suggest that Norway and the European Union have developed somewhat different understandings of multifunctionality. In response to recent events these forms are diverging further with the EU strengthening and Norway weakening their respective policies and discourses. However, in both cases, food security and climate change are emerging as key elements in the restructuring of both policy and rhetoric.

Research limitations/implications and practical implications – The study has been limited to an overview of multifunctionality within the European context and a case study approach using Norway and Scotland. Nevertheless, in highlighting the flexible use of the notion of ‘multifunctionality’, it illustrates to policymakers the importance of maintaining a focus on its key environmental and social objectives in the face of pressures to increase production and liberalise agricultural policies.

Originality/value – This is one of the first studies to point out the varied nature of the ‘multifunctionality’ discourse in Europe and how it is likely to change further in response to economic, environmental and social changes.

Since Greece became a member of the EU and after the implementation of plethora of structural funds programs regarding the agricultural sector, the situation has remained more or less the same as far as the structural characteristics of the agricultural sector is concerned.

The agricultural sector in Greece accounts for €6.67 billion and contributes 4.3% to the total GVA which is double compared with the average European one (1.6%). The Agricultural Factor income per annual work unit (AWU) has reached 94% of the EU average. During the economic crisis (2009–2013) the value of this index decreased 22% while in the next years an upward trend followed and in 2019 reached the same level as before the economic crisis. During the period 2005–2018, productivity in Greece showed moderate and negative TFP growth numbers while in the same period, the TFP growth was stronger in the EU presenting an increase of 10%. The trade balance of agri-food products in Greece is negative, although recently this trade deficit has been reduced following an improvement in the agri-food sector's export performance. The value of agri-food products exports amount to €6.04 billion, which are the third largest category of exported goods. Also, the value of exports of manufactured products rose 70% during the period 2009–2019 against the exports of commodities, which also rose with a lower rate (25%), something that it is positive for the Greek economy, given the higher added value of manufactured products. Under the current Common Agricultural Policy Action Plan (2014–2020), Greece has a guaranteed flow of around €20 billion for direct support of agricultural income through direct payments (Pillar I) and has earmarked €15 billion and the remaining €5 billion under the Rural Development Program, (Pillar II). However, the direct payments are not allocated fairly.

The COVID-19 pandemic crisis hit the entire Greek economy and the agri-food sector which has just recovered from the recent economic crisis. However, during this crisis, the Greek agro-food chain has demonstrated great resilience to guarantee the supply of food to consumers. In the era of COVID-19, the key factors that can be employed by agri-food industry as a strategy for penetrating in global markets, are (1) Focus on developed markets, (2) Marketing in branded form (not bulk), and ideally emphasis on the uniqueness of the raw material, and (3) Sufficient volume of products to gain a leading share in the premium segment of the market. In addition, knowledge and innovation have a key role to play in helping farmers and rural communities meet future challenges. Finally, the only way in order to achieve economies of scale in the agri-food sector is to increase the level of cooperation at all levels by any available means.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

Purpose – This chapter discusses farmers' and policy responses to global shocks, specifically in terms of soaring prices for agricultural products in 2007. We discuss whether these shocks influenced Norwegian agricultural policy and Norwegian farmers perceptions of their situation.

Design/methodology/approach – As a background, we review trends in agricultural policy post-World War II both globally and in Norway, including empirical evidence for the changing global situation of agriculture. This chapter also analyses farmers' perceptions of their situation from 2002 to 2010 in light of these changing reality and policy response.

Findings – One immediate effect of increasing food prices was increasing incomes for food exporters and food exporting countries, an increase which also trickled down to the producers. Simultaneously, production costs rose as many input-factors became more expensive. In Norway, we saw the emergence of more optimism among farmers, more willingness to invest in farming (as opposed to a focus on cost reduction), and clear signs of a ‘repositioned productivism’.

Originality/value – In this chapter, we present an analysis of the relationship between global events, agricultural restructuring and local responses. The chapter also discusses the case of productivism along the lines drawn by Burton and Wilson (this volume), and argues that in the Norwegian system we can indeed see traces of an emerging ‘repositioned productivism’.