Differences in Agricultural Support between Countries – The OECD Measurement

Open access

Abstract

Countries provide different levels of support from public expenditures to farmers. Some countries subsidise their agricultural producers more significantly. On the other hand, other group of countries provides less support to their producers from public resources. Different international organisations and institutions provide their own indicators as in the case of the Oranisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD provides a comprehensive framework to measure the level of support and to identify its structure. This measurement provides a comparable review of support to agriculture from public budgets and helps to evaluate the transfers from taxpayers to producers or consumers. The aim of our work was to present this measurement framework, the differences in support between OECD and some non-OECD countries and to see if there is an evidence of development in level and/or in structure of supports in agriculture in the 2016, 2017 and 2018’s editions of OECD publications taken into consideration. The comparative analysis shows that not only the level, but the composition of support differes from country to country.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • BIELIK P. – JURÍČEK P. – KUNOVÁ D. 2007. The comparison of agricultural support policies in the OECD and the EU countries from the perspective of economic globalization processes. In Agricultural Economics – Czech 2007 no. 53 pp. 339–348.

  • BOJNEC Š. – FERTŐ I. 2019. Do CAP subsidies stabilise farm income in Hungary and Slovenia? In Agricultural Economics – Czech 2019 no. 65 pp. 103–111.

  • BROOKS J. – DYER G. – TAYLOR E. 2008. The Policy Evaluation Model (PEM) In Modelling Agricultural Trade and Policy Impacts in Less Developed Countries OECD Food Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers Paris : OECD Publishing 2008 no. 11.

  • CZYZEWSKI B. – SMEDZIK-AMBROZY K. 2017. The regional structure of the CAP subsidies and the factor productivity in agriculture in the EU 28. In Agricultural Economics – Czech 2017 no. 63 pp. 149–163.

  • MARTINI R. 2011. Long Term Trends in Agricultural Impacts OECD Food Agriculture and Fisheries Papers no. 45 Paris : OECD Publishing 2011-04-01. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgdp5zw179-en

  • OECD. 2018. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2018 OECD Publishing Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2018-en. ISBN 978-92-64-30234-1.

  • OECD. 2017. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2017 OECD Publishing Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2017-en. ISBN 978-92-64-27563-8.

  • OECD. 2016a. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2016 OECD Publishing Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2016-en. ISBN 978-92-64-20893-3.

  • OECD. 2016b. OECD’s Producer Support Estimate and Related Indicators of Agricultural Support. Concepts Calculations Interpretation and Use (The PSE Manual). Paris : Trade and Agriculture Directorate 2016 pp. 18–19.

  • OECD. 2011. Evaluation of Agricultural Policy Reforms in the European Union OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264112124-en

  • POKRIVČÁK J. – CIAIAN P. 2004. Agricultural Reforms in Slovakia. In Finance a úvěr – Czech Journal of Economics and Finance vol. 54 2004 no. 9–10 pp. 420–435.

  • SIUDEK T. – ZAWOJSKA A. 2012. How does the general economy and the agriculture sector performance influence the farm producer support in the OECD countries? In Agricultural Economy – Czech vol. 58 2012 no. 3 pp. 101–118.

  • TANGERMANN S. 2005. Is the concept of the Producer Support Estimate in Need of Revision? OECD Food Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers Paris : OECD Publishing 2005 no. 1. http://dx.doi.org/:10.1787/845314770374

  • ZBRANEK P. – CHRASTINOVÁ Z. 2018. Vzťah dotácií a ekonomickej výkonnosti slovenských fariem – Relationship of subsidies and economic performance of Slovak farms. In Ekonomika poľnohospodárstva vol. 18 2018 no. 2 pp. 5–16.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 38 38 18
PDF Downloads 18 18 10