Using Choice Framing to Improve the Design of Agricultural Subsidy Schemes

Ocean, Neel; Howley, Peter

doi:10.3368/le.97.4.041620-0055r1

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is still informative to observe that a significant proportion of farmers appear willing to sacrifice some profitability for environmental conservation. This is consistent with other research which suggests that many farmers plan to maintain proenvironmental farm practices even after the end of an AES contract (Kuhfuss et al 2016;Howley and Ocean 2021).…”

Section: Some Examples Of the Types Of Behavioursupporting

confidence: 92%

Which Benefits Would Make Farmers Happier, and Which Would They Choose?

Ocean¹,

Howley²

2022

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We presented six novel farming vignettes to UK farmers that describe trade-offs between pecuniary and nonpecuniary benefits. What farmers would choose corresponds with what they think would make them happier, which supports the use of subjective well-being as a proxy for decision utility in agricultural research. Where a disparity between choice and well-being does exist, farmers seem willing to trade happiness for pecuniary benefits. Our results also suggest that farmers often trade pecuniary gains for non-pecuniary benefits. The utility derived from non-pecuniary benefits may help to explain farmer behaviours such as unsubsidised environmental improvements, and reluctance to adopt efficiency-enhancing technologies.

show abstract

Section: Some Examples Of the Types Of Behavioursupporting

confidence: 92%

Which Benefits Would Make Farmers Happier, and Which Would They Choose?

Ocean¹,

Howley²

2022

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the complexity and bureaucracy involved are viewed as intimidating and can lower the number of potential applicants [51]. Smaller farmers, in particular, who lack the funds to hire advisors who would assist them in applying for and implementing these schemes, are particularly discouraged from applying [52]. According to the results of the regression model, farmers getting subsidies decline by 0.4% for every 1% rise in the number of small farms.…”

Section: Multiple Linear Regressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Disparities in CAP Direct Payments Among Farming Systems: evidence from Portugal

Dinis¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the stated goals of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms has been to provide a fairer distribution of payments across and within Member States, but little progress has been accomplished, with about 20% of farmers receiving 80% of the total amount of Direct Payments. The structural factors that underlie this inequity, notably the preponderance of specific types of farming systems, are investigated in this research. A logit model was developed using Agricultural Census data at the Commune level, using the evolution of the percentage of farmers receiving Direct Payments in Portugal as the dependent variable. The findings reveal that the local importance of arable crops (cereals) and cattle farming systems, as well as the existence of larger farms and younger farmers, all contributed to farmers' increasing access to DP between 2009 and 2019. In traditional Mediterranean farming systems, however, access to DP has been restricted to a smaller proportion of farmers. However, there appears to have been some redistribution in the previous two CAP programming cycles, from bigger to smaller farmers, older to younger farmers, and from olives, cereals, and cattle to other types of production, notably vineyards.

show abstract

“…We consider the databases Scopus and Web of Science (for peer-reviewed) as well as Ideas/RePEC (for non-peer-reviewed) studies (see Appendix S1, Section C).6 Other papers that focus on European farmers but were excluded as they did not report comparable parameters areCoelho et al (2012), Villanueva and Gómez-Limón (2023),Bougherara et al (2021),Ocean and Howley (2021), as well asČop et al (2023).7 Note that the structural estimate of Bonjean (2023) has a parameter greater than one; here we use the estimate obtained from the mid-point method.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A note on European farmers' preferences under cumulative prospect theory

Finger,

Garcia,

McCallum

et al. 2023

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explaining farmer decision making using cumulative prospect theory is of increasing importance. We present a systematic review on European farmers' preferences under the cumulative prospect theory framework. We identified 17 studies covering 2324 farmers from 12 European countries. All studies report that (on average) farmers are: (i) risk averse, (ii) loss averse, and (iii) overweight small probabilities and underweight large probabilities. However, there is a large heterogeneity across and within studies. These findings have implications for the analysis and design of policy and insurance.

show abstract

Using Choice Framing to Improve the Design of Agricultural Subsidy Schemes

Cited by 8 publications

References 66 publications

Which Benefits Would Make Farmers Happier, and Which Would They Choose?

Which Benefits Would Make Farmers Happier, and Which Would They Choose?

Examining Disparities in CAP Direct Payments Among Farming Systems: evidence from Portugal

A note on European farmers' preferences under cumulative prospect theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About