Search results

One of the foremost objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the European Union (EU) is to increase agricultural productivity through subsidization of farmers. However, little empirical research has been done to examine the effect of subsidies on farm performance and, in particular, the channels through which subsidies affect productivity. Using a Bayesian hierarchical model in which input productivity, efficiency change, and technical change depend on subsidies and other factors, including farm location, we analyze empirically how subsidies affect the performance of farms. We use an unbalanced panel from the EU's Farm Accountancy Data Network on Danish, Finnish, and Swedish dairy farms and partition the data into eight regions. The data set covers the period 1997–2003 and has a total of 6,609 observations. The results suggest that subsidies drive productivity through efficiency and input productivities and the magnitudes of these effects differ across regions. In contrast to existing studies, we find that subsidies have a positive impact on technical efficiency. The contribution of subsidies to output is largest for dairy farms in Denmark and Southern, Central, and Northern Sweden.

The primary objective of the present study is to figure out the relative effectiveness of alternate public expenditure with regard to agricultural development particularly in the context of input subsidies vis-a-vis investment. Besides, the authors also endeavour to test the applicability of crowding-out hypothesis in the present context.

Initially, unit root tests are applied for checking stationarity of the underlying data using Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS) tests. Further, the highly celebrated autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) model is applied on annual time series data for the period 1991–2020 to investigate the long-run and short-run impact of the said relationship.

The authors observe that public investment is more productive than input subsidies for overall agricultural development. Besides, the findings document the existence of crowding-in hypothesis, i.e. complementarity between public investment and private investment in case of the agricultural sector in India.

The outcome of the research recommends to reprioritize state expenditure and reformulate agricultural policy regarding the public financing of agriculture. More to invest and less to subsidize seems a better policy intervention to achieve desirable outcomes from the Indian agriculture in the long run.

This study is novel in the sense that the subsidies vs investment debate is revisited in the current scenario of agricultural development so that resource allocation be optimized. To ensure robustness of the study, the authors specifically took four proxies of agricultural development, namely, productivity growth, private investment, food security and farmers’ income.

China has shifted its agricultural policy from tax agriculture to support it. The purpose of this paper is to examine the agricultural policy changes of China in recent years, focussing on the support policy. China supports its agriculture sector through tax elimination, area payment and input subsidy. In this paper, the author intends to evaluate China’s agricultural support policy effect with a modified policy evaluation model (PEM).

The author modifies PEM used by OECD to estimate the effects of these support policies on production and farmer’s income.

The main findings are input subsidy policy has more effect than area payment policy in general; input subsidy policy has more effects on production while area payment has more effects on farmer’s income; and the sensitivity analysis further indicates that input subsidy policy has more influence than area payment as regarding production impact ratio, while area payment has more influence on income impact ratios.

Based on these findings, when it comes to the support policy in terms of area payment and input subsidies only, the author puts forward the following policy implications: to increase input subsidy in budgets and expand the covering scope, and to continue implementing area payment policy with more budgets. However, support policies playing an important role in improving production efficiency and marketing support should be given priority.

The main contributions of this paper are modifying the OECD PEM to China’s conditions; and quantifying China’s agricultural policy effects.

Since 2004, subsidies increased by 670 percent in the Chinese fertilizer industry to reduce the farmer's burden. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether subsidies benefit the target groups, the fertilizer subsidy distribution pattern and benefit allocation pattern among fertilizer producers and other sectors were investigated.

The Muth model is extended to evaluate the impacts of a subsidy on multi-stage markets.

It is found that the total benefits from the policy are about RMB 7.7 billion yuans. The fertilizer suppliers gain about RMB 51 billion yuans from the favorable policy with mean subsidy incidence 0.8 and capturing about 70 percent of total surplus.

The results suggest that transferring parts of subsidies to the non-fertilizer sectors could be considered an efficient way to redistribute welfare indifferent sectors.

This study first use the equilibrium displacement model to quantity the distribution of fertilizer subsidy in a vertical market in China.

This paper investigates the effects of the total abolition of all forms of agricultural subsidies to producers and border tariffs on the prices of staple cereals.

The authors use the GTAP global economy-wide model and focus on 27 countries and 8 regions. The GTAP database that is used contains information on budgetary transfers to producers and market price support such as domestic price support, tariffs, export subsidies, quotas on exports or imports and other border measures.

The removal of subsidies is estimated to significantly increase the prices of wheat and other cereal grains in Japan, paddy rice in Malaysia and Indonesia, processed rice in Malaysia and Indonesia and wheat in Brazil and India. When border tariffs are removed, cereal prices are projected to fall in several countries, but the decline is more pronounced for wheat in Kenya and Japan, other cereal grains in South Korea and all staples in Nepal.

The alternative scenarios on the removal of agricultural subsidies in all agricultural sectors and the elimination of border tariffs are purely speculative as the analysis ignores important political economy considerations of agricultural and food policy reforms.

The findings from this study point to the importance of implementing additional policy measures to mitigate the possible negative effect of repurposing the support to agriculture and ensure the food security and welfare of those categories of buyers who heavily depend on the price of staple food for their livelihoods.

This study’s findings confirm that the elimination of agricultural subsidies would impact global food security directly by making staple food less affordable to the poorest and indirectly by decreasing the available household budget for other presumably more nutritious food groups. Consequently, it is expected that these price increases could make segments of the world population poorer, particularly the net-food buyers due to a decline in their real income.

The authors assess the impact of removing the subsidies on the economy in a comprehensive way, particularly given the recent policy focus on net zero emissions and Sustainable Development Goals that include healthy foods. The authors also consider the counter effects of tariff reduction on this, which is price-reducing.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the multiplier effects of the grain subsidy program in China, which is a large food self-sufficiency project that is implemented as a cash transfer program. Income multiplier effects have not been empirically examined in the evaluation of the grain subsidy program although increasing the income of farmers is the original goal of this project.

A large number of household-level observations are employed to measure the program’s income multiplier. An unrestricted model was first employed to measure the multipliers in a period of two years, and the difference was evaluated. Then, the income promotion effects of grain subsidy on various income sources for each specific subset of the population, such as liquidity conditions and household characteristics, were estimated.

The results show that the grain subsidy program has a high income multiplier, and the income promotion effect of the transferred subsidies is from agricultural production derived by intensifying input for each unit of land. The multiplier effect of the grain subsidy program as a cash transfer program can be interpreted as the shadow value of relaxing liquidity constraints and could be particularly utilized by households with more farming land and farmers in less developed regions in China. Hence, to maximize the income multiplier effect, the grain subsidy distribution method should consider these criteria instead of retaining the prevalent standard that is based on contracted land areas.

This study addresses the gap that the effect of China’s grain subsidy program on income increment has not been empirically examined in nation wide.

In Bangladesh, the fertilizer market is the main source of corruption in the agriculture sector. Market imperfection allows the input dealers to extract extra benefit from the market through selling fertilizer at higher than government declared price, and the benefit is positively correlated with market restriction. Bribery or unauthorized payment in the fertilizer market negatively affects farm profit. Empirical evidence shows that restricted fertilizer markets encourage corruption, as bribe-paying farmers can acquire their required fertilizer and thus operate at a higher efficiency level than their counterparts who do not pay bribes. Alternatively, in markets where sufficient supply is available and farmers face liquidity constraints, corruption further restricts farmers to collecting their optimal input bundle and ultimately reduces efficiency. Nepotism and negligence of duty are the two most common form of corruption in the extension service. Along with identifying several key causes of corruption, this article suggests some interventions to combat corruption.

It is noted that a number of presently developing countries, in an attempt to offset the unfavourable internal terms of trade facing their agricultural sector, have recently increased subsidies to this sector. A useful aid to the measurement of subsidies is the Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE); this conceptually simple “tool” possesses the merit of being easily computed and easily comprehended by policy‐makers. In this article the results of a study of PSEs for the dairy industry in Peninsular Malaysia are presented and analysed. Overall, it is observed that the dairy industry is heavily subsidised, with the parastatal ranch sector more so than the smallholder sector. Doubt is also expressed as to whether the infant‐industry argument is a valid one in Malaysian conditions.

Domestic supports on Turkish agriculture have substantially increased over the past decade while empirical evaluation of their output impact is limited. Also, the existing literature often neglects potential spatial spillover effects of agricultural policies or subsidies. The purpose of this paper is to quantify the direct and spillover effects of Turkish agricultural domestic measures and agricultural credits use on the added agricultural value.

This study applied a spatial panel model incorporating spatial interactions among the dependent and explanatory variables to evaluate the impact of government support and credit on Turkish agricultural output. A provincial data set of agricultural output values, input factors and government subsidies from 2004 to 2014 was used to model the spatial spillover effects of government supports.

Results show that a one percent increase in agricultural credits in a given province leads to an average increase of 0.17 percent overall in agricultural value-added per hectare, including 0.05 percent from the direct effect and 0.12 percent from the spillover effect. Contrary to agricultural credits, a one percent increase in government supports in a province generates a mixed direct and spillover effects, resulting in an overall reduction of 0.13 percent in agricultural value-added per hectare in Turkey.

This study could be extended by controlling for climate, biodiversity and investment factors to agricultural output in addition to input and policy factors if such data were available.

This study fills the gap in the literature by determining the total effect, including direct and spatial spillover effect, of domestic supports and credits on Turkish agricultural value. The findings provide crucial information to decision makers regarding the importance of incorporating spatial spillover effects in the design of agricultural policy.