The Impact of the 2013 CAP Reform on the Decoupled Payments’ Capitalisation into Land Values

We assess the effects of the 2013 CAP reform on the capitalisation of decoupled payments in land rental values. Our estimates suggest that the reform leads to an increase in the capitalisation of decoupled payments by an additional 18 cents for each Euro of decoupled payments relative to the pre‐reform situation. However, there is an important variation in the reform effects between Member States (MS) particularly between Old Member States (OMS) and New MS (NMS). In NMS, the capitalisation rate slightly reduces from 83% in the pre‐reform period to 79% in the post‐reform period. Although, the rate is significantly lower in OMS, it doubles (from 21% to 43%) due to the reform. The main sources of the post‐reform capitalisation in the European Union (EU) are the pre‐reform capitalisation accounting for 69% of the total post‐reform capitalisation, followed by the entitlement stock change with 19%, by the internal convergence of payments with 18%, the budget change (including external convergence) with 1%, and the differentiation of payments (redistributive payment) with ?7%. Overall, our estimates suggest that on average in the EU, the non‐farming landowners’ policy gains are 27% of the total decoupled payments in the post‐reform period compared to 18% in the pre‐reform period.     

Subsidies and agricultural productivity in the EU

This paper investigates the relationship between EU agricultural subsidies and agricultural labor productivity growth by estimating a conditional convergence growth model. We use more representative subsidy indicators and a wider coverage (panel data from 213 EU regions over the period 2004–2014) than have been used before. We find that, on average, EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies increase agricultural labor productivity growth, but this aggregate effect hides important heterogeneity of effects of different types of subsidies. The positive effect on productivity comes from decoupled subsidies, that is, Pillar I decoupled payments and some Pillar II payments. Coupled Pillar I subsidies have the opposite effect: they slow down productivity growth.     

The impact of decoupled payments on U.S. cropland values

An extensive literature has shown that various farm programs may influence the value of farmland, but other studies have not examined the cropland price effects of direct, or decoupled, payments separate from countercyclical payments. This study uses nationally representative confidential field‐level panel data with farmer‐reported per‐acre land values. We analyze the impact of decoupled and other farm program payments on farmland values. Using a fixed effects model and controlling for various factors that influence farmland values, we find that an additional dollar of decoupled payments has a large and statistically significant impact on farmland values of about $18 per acre. These results are comparable with similar studies undertaken in Europe.     

The capitalization of coupled and decoupled CAP payments into land rental rates

This article explores the extent to which payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are capitalized into land rents in Ireland with implications for the transfer efficiency of such payments, since subsidies may not benefit targeted recipients if they are capitalized into input prices. Capitalization in the years preceding and following the "decoupling" of agricultural support payments from agricultural production is explored. In the period prior to decoupling, direct support (Pillar 1) payments were highly capitalized into Irish agricultural rents (67–90 cents per euro of subsidies), while in the post‐decoupling period capitalization appears to have declined somewhat.     

Is Passive Farming A Problem for Agriculture in the EU?

We address a new agricultural policy concern following the decoupling of CAP direct payments in 2005: passive farming, whereby landowners maintain their agricultural area to collect payments without producing commodities. It is claimed that passive farming is hindering agricultural development by ‘blocking’ access to farmland for expanding farmers. We evaluate the links between the EU's Single Payment Scheme (SPS), passive farming, land use and agricultural development. Following identification of the rational landowners’ optimal land‐use choice, we evaluate the effects of the SPS using a spatial, agent‐based model that simulates farmers’ competition for land in a case‐study region of Sweden. We show that passive farming does not constrain land from being used in production; on the contrary more land is used than would be the case without the SPS. We conclude that passive farming is not a problem for agriculture, but provides public goods that would otherwise be under provided: preservation of marginal farmland and future food security. However SPS payments on highly productive land inflate land values (capitalisation) and slow structural change, which hinder agricultural development. Consequently CAP goals could be better served by targeting payments on marginal land and phasing out payments to highly productive land.     

Did the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act Alter Farm Enterprise Diversification?

We estimate how much United States farms changed enterprise diversification in response to a marked increase in crop insurance coverage brought about by the 1994 Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act, which substantially increased insurance subsidies. The analysis exploits farm‐level panel census data to compare farm‐specific changes in enterprise diversification over time. By examining diversification decisions of the same farms over time, we control for time‐invariant unobserved individual heterogeneity. We then use pooled cross‐sectional data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Resource Management Survey to estimate the relationship between farm diversification and average returns. We find that the insurance subsidies caused a modest increase in enterprise specialisation and production efficiency. Estimated efficiency gains are far less than the subsidies.     

The Effects of Direct Payments on Technical Efficiency of Irish Beef Farms: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis

The 2003 Mid‐Term Review of the CAP sought to refocus the EU's farm support policy to foster a more competitive and market‐orientated agricultural sector. The foundation of this reform comprised the introduction of decoupled payments to farmers, replacing the EU's previous system of supports that were directly linked to production of designated crops and livestock. This paper explores the effect of coupled payments and their subsequent replacement by decoupled support, on the technical efficiency of specialist beef farms in Ireland. Given the high reliance of beef farmers in Ireland on CAP payments, the decoupling of payments has been especially important for the sector. A stochastic production frontier is estimated using a panel dataset comprising detailed accountancy data for Irish beef farms between the years 2000 and 2013. Our results indicate that technical efficiency in the beef farming sector has been consistently poor, with an average efficiency score of only 0.53 during the period analysed. However, we found that direct income received in the form of coupled payments had a positive impact on farm efficiency, and that this positive effect was maintained after their replacement with decoupled income support.     

Passive farming and land development: A real options approach

The EU's farmers are no longer required to produce commodities to receive direct payments as long as they keep their land in good condition. Some believe this is bad for development because it encourages passive farming. We evaluate, using a real options approach, the implications of decoupled payments for the desirability and optimal timing of agricultural land development when considering sunk investment costs and uncertain future returns. We find that decoupled payments accelerate development while passive farming increases, by adding managerial flexibility, the value associated with land. We then use the Nash bargaining solution to identify the rental share to be paid for leasing land. We show that a deal for the lease of land can always be reached, but that the facility to use passive farming as an outside option allows landowners to extract policy rents, thereby undermining the potential for the Basic Payment Scheme to support tenant farmers’ incomes.     

Land Market Imperfections and Agricultural Policy Impacts in the New EU Member States: A Partial Equilibrium Analysis

This article analyses how transaction costs and imperfect competition in the land market affect the welfare effects of agricultural subsidies in the new Eastern Member States of the European Union. Benefits of land subsidies end up with landowners in new Eastern Member States also with imperfections in the new Eastern Member States land markets. With unequal access to subsidies, small tenant farmers may even lose out from the subsidies. Decoupling of payments shifts policy rents to farmers, but constrains productivity-enhancing restructuring. Using reserve entitlements to mitigate this effect reduces the intended benefits on distortions and target efficiency.     

The Impact of Coupled and Decoupled Government Subsidies on Off-Farm Labor Participation of U.S. Farm Operators

With the 1996 Farm Act, the United States introduced payments that were designed to be "decoupled." Labor allocation choices are likely to be affected by receipt of payments, and income from off-farm jobs has been the major source of income for most farm households for sometime. This article examines whether the 1996 change has affected the off-farm labor participation of farm households. We conclude that the observed increase in off-farm participation of farm operators who received payments was not the result of the 1996 policy change. Government payments, whether coupled or decoupled, have a negative effect on off-farm labor participation.     

Estimating persistent and transient technical efficiency and their determinants in the presence of heterogeneity and endogeneity

We develop an estimation procedure that generates consistent estimates of the technology parameters, long-run (persistent) and short-run (transient) technical inefficiencies and the marginal effects of their determinants for the stochastic frontier model developed by Colombi et al. (2014, Journal of Productivity Analysis 42, 123) and Kumbhakar et al. (2014, Journal of Productivity Analysis 41, 321). Our approach accounts for three sources of potential endogeneity: (i) unobserved heterogeneity; (ii) simultaneity of input use with both types of technical efficiency; (iii) potential correlation of the noise term with the regressors. Using this approach we examine the effect of direct payments and farm size on the persistent and transient technical efficiency of French crop farms before and after the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy decoupling reform of 2003. Our results show that subsidy payments per hectare of utilised agricultural land had a significant positive effect on persistent technical efficiency and a significant negative effect on transient technical efficiency during the period before decoupling. For the period after the reform, the effect of subsidies is found to be significantly negative for persistent technical efficiency and insignificant for transient technical efficiency. The overall effect of subsidies on technical efficiency is found to be negative in both periods, albeit substantially lower in the period after decoupling. The effect of farm size on technical efficiency is found to be significant only for the period prior to the reform: it reduced persistent technical inefficiency but increased transient technical inefficiency during that period.     

How Decoupled are Decoupled Payments? The Evidence from Ireland

This article explores the production effects of the EU's system of decoupled payments and the implications for WTO negotiations. We compare survey data on Irish farmers' production plans post decoupling to the optimal outputs predicted by a farm-level profit maximisation model. The results show that, post decoupling, a significant number of farmers plan to use their decoupled payments to continue or expand economically non-viable production. An econometric analysis reveals that the decision to maintain or expand production levels post decoupling is not significantly influenced by current or future projected profitability levels. The analysis suggests likely widespread cross subsidisation of unprofitable production post decoupling but that aggregate production is still likely to decline relative to the traditional coupled, but production-limiting, blue box payments. If the EU wants to claim in the current WTO negotiations that decoupled payments amount to green box support, then the argument must be made that the payments have no, or at most minimal, trade distorting effects or effects on production. If it becomes apparent to members of the WTO that European farmers are using their decoupled income to subsidise market loss production, then the green boxing of the EU's decoupled payment scheme may come up for debate at the negotiations.     

Do Chinese farmers benefit from farmland leasing choices? Evidence from a nationwide survey

Using China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), this study investigates factors associated with the choice of farmland leasing strategies and the impact of leasing options on farm performance. Particular attention is given to off‐farm employment and farm subsidies. Additionally, the study applies a selectivity‐based approach to assess the relationship between farmland leasing choices and farm businesses’ performance. Off‐farm employment, older and educated operators, large farms and old‐age pension plans increase the likelihood of leasing out farmland. Part‐time off‐farm employment, grain subsidies and mechanised farms increase the likelihood of leasing in farmland. Finally, the selectivity correction terms in the value of crop production are significantly negative in the choices of farmland leasing, indicating the presence of sample selection effects. Accounting for selectivity is essential to ensure unbiased and consistent estimates.     

Agricultural Subsidies and Rural Development

How consistent is a single farm payment system with rural development goals? A new economic geography model is used to compare coupled subsidies to ‘single farm payments’ effects on the location of farming, agro‐industry and non‐farm activity between rural and urban areas. This abstract model features a majority of employment in service sectors, farming vertically linked to manufacturing, and strong preferences for geo‐varieties. It appears that both coupled subsidies and single farm payments can decrease spatial agglomeration. But only the single farm payment policy raises welfare in both rural and urban regions of this stylised economy.     

Farm Type Effects of an EU‐wide Direct Payment Harmonisation

In this study, we analyse how three scenarios involving different levels of harmonisation of common agricultural policy (CAP) decoupled payments in the EU affect the distribution of farm income across regions and farm types. We use the farm type extension of the common agricultural policy impact (CAPRI) model, which captures farm heterogeneity across the EU. The first scenario (NUTS1) assumes uniform per‐hectare payments at the NUTS1 level. The second scenario (MS‐CONV) equalises the per‐hectare rates inside each Member State (MS) and partially harmonises the single payment scheme (SPS) across MS in line with the 2011 Commission proposal. The third scenario simulates a uniform per‐hectare payment at the EU level. Depending on the implementation of the SPS, the NUTS1 flat rate induces a substantial redistribution of payments across farm types and NUTS2 regions, particularly in regions that apply the historical SPS. The MS‐CONV and EU flat‐rate schemes have more significant impacts at the EU‐wide level. In the EU‐15, almost all farms lose payments from MS‐CONV and EU‐wide flat rates, whereas in the EU‐10, almost all farm types gain from these scenarios. Our conservative estimates indicate that the flat‐rate payments could redistribute up to €8.5 billion. Lower land rental costs partially offset the losses of farm income in the EU‐15 from payment redistribution. Land rents drop for all flat‐rate scenarios across most sectors and farm sizes in the EU‐15. In the less productive new MS, the landowners’ rental income is largely unaffected by the introduction of the flat rate.     

Effects of redistributing policy support on farmers’ technical efficiency

The objective of this article is twofold: first, investigating the relationship between technical efficiency and decoupled direct payments of a sample of Italian farms prior to the application of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy reform; second, evaluating possible implications of alternative scenarios about distribution of direct payments on technical efficiency. To these aims, a stochastic frontier analysis is adopted. Results indicate that direct payments produce significant effects on technical efficiency in specialized farms, which received higher levels of support. However, effects are contrasting. Moreover, results show that redistribution of policy subsidies may negatively impact on technical efficiency to an extent depending upon the criterion of redistribution applied. Finally, some policy suggestions are given.     

The Role of the Common Agricultural Policy in Enhancing Farm Income: A Dynamic Panel Analysis Accounting for Farm Size in Italy

As a multi-objective policy, the EU Common Agricultural Policy continues to secure significant income support for farmers as one of the nine specific objectives. We estimate the income transfer efficiency of a broad set of pivotal policy measures, focusing on the effects of farm structure on income transfer efficiency. We use dynamic modelling, based on a micro-data panel of Italian farms for the period 2008–2014, allowing for endogeneity, simultaneity bias, and omitted variables. In line with previous studies and economic expectations, we find that decoupled direct payments provide the highest contribution to agricultural incomes, followed by agri-environmental payments and on-farm investment subsidies. Coupled payments have no significant impacts on farmers’ income. Generally, for all analysed Common Agricultural Policy measures, large farms benefit from greater transfer efficiency levels compared with medium and small farms. These differences among instruments and across farms suggest that policy-participation costs may play a pivotal role, together with the economic structure of farms, in determining the income transfer efficiency of CAP policies.     

Credit Market Imperfections and the Distribution of Policy Rents

This article shows that credit market imperfections have important implications for the distribution of policy rents. In a model with land as fixed factor and credit market imperfections, when an area payment is given, land rents go up by more than the subsidy. On aggregate farms may lose from the subsidy. The results depend on the extent to which subsidies have direct and indirect effects on the credit constraints, on whether farms rent or own land, and on farm heterogeneity.     

Capitalisation of the SPS into Agricultural Land Rental Prices under Harmonisation of Payments

As the 2013 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) calls for the harmonisation of Single Payment Scheme (SPS) payments, we estimate the implications of this mandate on agricultural land rental rates over time as Germany began harmonising payments in 2010. Using Bavarian farm‐level panel data we find strong capitalisation effects that increase substantially in the years following 2009. On average, the marginal effect on rental rates of an additional SPS euro is 37 cents, growing over time to 53 cents as harmonisation develops.     

Impacts of 2003 CAP reform on land rental prices and capitalization

Based on a graphical analysis, we investigate the impacts of the Fischler Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on land rental prices and the capitalization of single farm payments (SFP) into land values. The model shows that the degree of capitalization mainly depends on the scarcity/surplus of SFP entitlements relative to eligible hectares, the implementation model (historical versus regional) and the land supply elasticity. If there are more SFP entitlements than eligible hectares, the degree of capitalization into land values may not decline and may even increase due to the inclusion of other supports such as animal premiums in the SFP. We test this hypothesis with an empirical analysis of cross-section data on land rental prices in Bavaria for 2005. Empirical results indicate that decoupled SFP are capitalized into rental prices to a larger degree than the coupled direct payments of the time prior to the reform.