COMMON FINANCING FOR AGRICULTURAL POLICY BUDGETARY QUESTIONS

Can we agree fully with the statement, that “agricultural spending is a major distorting factor in the EU economy and a distinct obstacle to the Lisbon agenda’s implementation”? (Gros, 2008) Is it without question that Europe’s agriculture is in position to become sustainable and competitive without certain kind of common policy with no Community financing? Is it unambiguous in every respect, that the challenges facing the sector – globalization, trade liberalization, climate change, water management, Lisbon process, enlargement, changing preferences – could be answered at national level utilizing exclusively national financial sources? The answers to these questions are complex. So the purpose of the paper is multiple: - Exploration of factors justifying community level intervention. – Could be applied the bottom line of the “decentralization theorem” to budgetary questions and needs of the agricultural policy? According to our hypothesis the answer is considered yes. - Assessing present CAP - taking into account its ability to provide EU wide public goods (multifunctional elements serve in deed significant cross-border externalities) and to create EU value added. - Making an attempt to redefine EU’s agricultural policy through exploring objectives having a greater impact by being implemented at the supranational level and not at other secondary decision levels. – Making an attempt to outline a Common Rural Policy, a policy promoting the provision of public goods required by the society by means of targeted and decoupled economic policy measures. In order to attain the objectives of the paper we apply the theory of fiscal federalism, make analysis on EU public finances in a broader context.


Issue Date:
Nov 13 2008
Publication Type:
Conference Paper/ Presentation
PURL Identifier:
http://purl.umn.edu/44820
JEL Codes:
Q14; Q18; H41
Series Statement:
3.2.4




 Record created 2017-04-01, last modified 2017-08-25

Fulltext:
Download fulltext
PDF

Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)