Modelling the impacts of policy on entry into organic farming: Evidence from Danish–UK comparisons, 1989–2007

This paper analyses organic farming entry decisions using a piece-wise linear depiction of policy. Our goal is to ascertain, from the available but limited information, whether Danish and UK policy measures toward organic agriculture have affected participation. Despite considerable interest in the growth of organic farming there has been little systematic analysis of it, although it is commonly believed that enhanced income levels have played a part. Whilst analyses of organic farming policy have provided extensive reviews of instruments applied, generally speaking, the spirit of those enquiries takes as datum that organic policies have had the desired impacts. Yet such conjectures remain mostly untested. Hence, there is a need to examine systematically if there exist relationships between the introduction of organic farming policies and the growth of organic farming, and whether particular policy measures are more effective than others. Here, we take a first step in this endeavor by undertaking an econometric analysis of the relationship between 14 organic farming policy measures and participation rates in Denmark and the UK during 1989–2007. Using two response variables – the numbers of farmers converted to organic production and the total land area under organic practice – we implement a simple, Bayesian methodology and evaluate the stepwise-linear impacts of policy. Extensions for future work are discussed. Six policy measures in the two study countries were found to be significant influences on participation, five of them direct supply-side instruments. For the UK, all of the policies are annual subsidies for organic farmers once conversion was complete. For Denmark, the policies are the introduction of organic subsidies for non-dairy farms, the extension of subsidies beyond 1997 and support for the costs of marketing services.     

What comes first,agricultural growth or democracy?

Today, the international community faces two major development challenges: how to ignite growth and how to establish democracy. Economic research has identified two plausible hypotheses regarding this association. The first hypothesis emphasizes the need to start with democracy and institutions that secure property rights. The second hypothesis emphasizes the need to start with physical and human capital accumulation. In this article, we discuss some of the econometric evidence on the relationship between institutions, human capital, and agricultural productivity growth across developed and developing countries with the objective of finding support for one or the other hypothesis. We find that most variables used in the literature to capture the effect of institutions are not independent of the process of growth. While no evidence of causation from political institutions to agricultural productivity growth is found, human capital accumulation emerges as an important source of growth.     

Presidential Address: The Visible or Invisible Hand? The Balance Between Markets and Regulation in Agricultural Policy

The recent crisis in global financial markets has brought into question reliance on markets to determine the conduct of economic affairs and generated pressure for greater regulation and government control. Neither a neoliberal nor a neoregulatory approach is likely to be able to solve pressing problems affecting agriculture and natural resources, such as a deterioration in environmental quality and the challenge of climate change. To find solutions we need to employ a more realistic behavioural model than that typically used in economic analysis, and to recognise the key role played by values in individual and collective decision making. A more devolved approach to policy formation based on collective action seems to offer the greatest chance of success. More effort needs to be directed to understanding the drivers and processes of collective decision making, and how it can be harnessed to address pressing policy issues.     

On the foundation of agricultural policy research in the United States

This paper identifies three scientific research programs in agricultural economics. The farm management approach (1870-1933), the farm problem approach (1933-1982) and the domestic and global welfare approach (1982-). In respect to agricultural policy research two competitive research programs developed out of the farm crisis of the 1920s. One program argued for government intervention in agriculture. The other argued for stability in the general economy. The former program degenerated during the 1970s because of countervailing empirical evidence and a change in the understanding of positive economics. The latter program stayed progressive by adding the international dimension and by applying welfare economic analysis. Two other important factors influenced the development of agricultural policy. First, the unique institutional set up of the land grant system in which agricultural economics was founded as an applied science with a bias to help farmers. Second, the convergence of agricultural economics towards general economics that shifted the approach from applied to basic.     

Reshaping the global agricultural landscape: perspectives from Brazil

This article highlights the main changes observed in Brazilian agriculture and analyzes the connections of the observed changes in global agriculture. My approach to the analysis focuses the main drivers of changes, where institutions play a central role. Three driving forces are are considered: first, the effects of global demand for food, fiber, and energy; second, the sustainability debate; and third, the bio‐energy paradigm. Each driver presents both local as well as global effects. The article does not emphasize the impact changes in Brazil had on the global agricultural landscape but argues that the impacts run from local and global changes, which cannot be discussed separately.