DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT:
Research Report
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT:: SELECTED FRENCH EVIDENCES
Pierre Boulanger
Copyright Date: Feb. 1, 2010
Published by: European Centre for International Political Economy
Pages: 48
OPEN ACCESS
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep00120
Table of Contents
Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
Select / Unselect all
  1. Front Matter
    Front Matter (pp. 1-1)
  2. Table of Contents
    Table of Contents (pp. 2-4)
  3. 1. DIRECT PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION: AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
    1. DIRECT PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION: AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH (pp. 5-11)

    In order to adapt an almost exclusive past price support to a more market-oriented and budgetary-monitored agricultural policy, the 1992 reform started to shift the main mechanism from guaranteed price to direct “compensatory” payment. Its implementation allows a theoretical targeting of farm support since policy makers are able to determine their amount (coupled or decoupled to market-price and production, static or dynamic) criteria (respecting cross-compliance or providing specific amenities), and timing (bounded or not). In this context, the 1992 reform initiated the progressive targeting of the European farm support.³

    Direct payments towards crop lands have been computed, by hectare, considering...

  4. 2. SPECIALISATION AND CONCENTRATION OF SUPPORT: THE CASE OF MARKET-COMMODITY PRODUCTION
    2. SPECIALISATION AND CONCENTRATION OF SUPPORT: THE CASE OF MARKET-COMMODITY PRODUCTION (pp. 11-24)

    The question of inequity in French distribution has never been accurately challenged. There are several dimensions when studying the support allocation issue. The sector-based one is the most relevant since it corresponds to the historical raison d’être of the CAP in spite of progressive decoupling. This section provides a case study on territorial distribution of support in light with market-commodity production and CAP’s pillar dichotomisation. It stresses the hybrid status of the French historical decoupling scheme.

    French crop producers have been the main financial recipients of the direct payment mechanism. By being a crucial livestock production input, cattle breeder indirectly...

  5. 3. SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCENTRATION OF SUPPORT: THE CASE OF WATER QUANTITATIVE MANAGEMENT
    3. SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCENTRATION OF SUPPORT: THE CASE OF WATER QUANTITATIVE MANAGEMENT (pp. 25-32)

    This section examines the setting up and distribution of irrigation subsidies. It illustrates a public policy incoherency at a time of an expected persistent disequilibrium between water demand and supply. As a result, this case study also contributes to jeopardise the legitimacy and sustainability of French SFPs.

    Water management has been acknowledged a new “rural development” challenge within the CAP health check. This section focuses on the quantity issue of water management, not on quality. Human pressures on limited water resources call for various actors’ responsibilities and public policy coherence. France is facing a water problem and agriculture has a...

  6. 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS: A RENEWED POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DIRECT PAYMENT RATIONAL AND DISTRIBUTION
    4. CONCLUDING REMARKS: A RENEWED POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DIRECT PAYMENT RATIONAL AND DISTRIBUTION (pp. 33-34)

    Distribution of support has to be considered in line with policy objectives. The progressive decoupling of market-commodity direct payments goes in line with minor redistribution. From 2010 on, less than 20% of French direct payments – supported by the European budget – are targeted in view with recent policy objectives. Most of direct payments remain broad SFPs labelled within the European regulations with “income support scheme for farmers”. It is a sector-based redistributive policy which suffers from weak income targeting (OECD, 2003). In addition, the scheme of a sector-based redistributive policy is still questionable. As a result, in spite of...

  7. Appendix 1. Transparency initiative as regards French farm support recipients
    Appendix 1. Transparency initiative as regards French farm support recipients (pp. 35-37)
  8. Appendix 2. 2008 CAP health check main issues and outcomes
    Appendix 2. 2008 CAP health check main issues and outcomes (pp. 38-38)
  9. Appendix 3. Crop yield reference plan used in coupled direct payment computation by French départements/sub-départements
    Appendix 3. Crop yield reference plan used in coupled direct payment computation by French départements/sub-départements (pp. 39-41)
  10. Appendix 4. Gini index for French metropolitan départements in 2007
    Appendix 4. Gini index for French metropolitan départements in 2007 (pp. 42-43)
  11. Appendix 5. Farm holdings receiving more than one million euros a year in French outermost
    Appendix 5. Farm holdings receiving more than one million euros a year in French outermost (pp. 44-44)
  12. Appendix 6. Lorenz curves for direct payments in Guadeloupe and Martinique
    Appendix 6. Lorenz curves for direct payments in Guadeloupe and Martinique (pp. 45-45)
  13. Appendix 7 Recipients of irrigation subsidies: the 20 largest départements
    Appendix 7 Recipients of irrigation subsidies: the 20 largest départements (pp. 46-46)
  14. Bibliography
    Bibliography (pp. 47-48)