IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/334282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Randomised Controlled Trials for the Evaluation of the CAP: Empirical Evidence about Acceptance by Farmers

Author

Listed:
  • Morawetz, Ulrich B.
  • Tribl, Christoph

Abstract

To conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Common Agricultural Policy it would be necessary to exclude a random selection of farms from participation. This exclusion might limit the acceptance of RCTs. We assess the acceptance of an innovative alternative RCT called the ‘unconditional payment RCT’ (upRCT). UpRCTs allow for the evaluation of the impact of policy measures in which farmers receive a payment conditional on the adoption of farm management practices (e.g., agri-environment-climate measures). We surveyed Austrian farmers who participated in the ‘refrain from silage’ measure to compare the acceptance of a conventional RCT and an upRCT using thought experiments. The acceptance of the farmers was between 18% and 51%, and the treatment effects of both variants were of comparable size. Our survey suggests that acceptance of the up-RCT is about twice as high as the acceptance of the conventional RCT. We discuss that upRCTs are useful when a new measure is introduced or when the up-RCT is conducted for several years.

Suggested Citation

  • Morawetz, Ulrich B. & Tribl, Christoph, 2020. "Randomised Controlled Trials for the Evaluation of the CAP: Empirical Evidence about Acceptance by Farmers," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(3), July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:334282
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334282/files/830_org.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334282?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    2. H. Allen Klaiber & Klaus Salhofer & Stanley R. Thompson, 2017. "Capitalisation of the SPS into Agricultural Land Rental Prices under Harmonisation of Payments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 710-726, September.
    3. Sophie Thoyer & Raphaële Préget, 2019. "Enriching the CAP evaluation toolbox with experimental approaches: introduction to the special issue," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 347-366.
    4. Nancy H. Chau & Harry de Gorter, 2005. "Disentangling the Consequences of Direct Payment Schemes in Agriculture on Fixed Costs, Exit Decisions, and Output," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1174-1181.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Lilli Aline Schroeder & Alexander Gocht & Wolfgang Britz, 2015. "The Impact of Pillar II Funding: Validation from a Modelling and Evaluation Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 415-441, June.
    7. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    8. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    9. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Subervie, Julie, 2013. "How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27.
    10. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu, 2006. "The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 448-457.
    12. Darnhofer, Ika & Schermer, Markus & Steinbacher, Melanie & Gabillet, Marine & Daugstad, Karoline, 2017. "Preserving permanent mountain grasslands in Western Europe: Why are promising approaches not implemented more widely?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 306-315.
    13. Jeffrey Englin & Trudy Cameron, 1996. "Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 133-147, March.
    14. Kirchner, Mathias & Schmidt, Johannes & Kindermann, Georg & Kulmer, Veronika & Mitter, Hermine & Prettenthaler, Franz & Rüdisser, Johannes & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schönhart, Martin & Strauss, Fran, 2015. "Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes — The impact of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 161-174.
    15. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Julia Höhler & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Mikołaj Czajkowski & François J. Dessart & Paul J. Ferraro & Tongzhe Li & Kent D. Messer & Leah Palm‐Forster & Mette Termansen & Fabian Thomas & Katarzyna Zagórsk, 2024. "Perspectives on stakeholder participation in the design of economic experiments for agricultural policymaking: Pros, cons, and twelve recommendations for researchers," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(1), pages 338-359, March.
    2. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro‐Hurlé & Ciaran Blanchflower & Liesbeth Colen & Laure Kuhfuss & Jens Rommel & Tanja Šumrada & Fabian Thomas & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Can Economic Experiments Contribute to a More Effective CAP?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 42-49, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean-Marc Blazy & Julie Subervie & Jacky Paul & François Causeret & Loic Guinde & Sarah Moulla & Alban Thomas & Jorge Sierra, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of Agri-Environmental Schemes promoting compost use to sequester carbon in soils in Guadeloupe," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02748634, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    2. Blazy, J.-M. & Subervie, J. & Paul, J. & Causeret, F. & Guindé, L. & Moulla, S. & Thomas, A. & Sierra, J., 2021. "Ex-ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of public policies to sequester carbon in soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Marie Ferré & Stefanie Engel & Elisabeth Gsottbauer, 2023. "External validity of economic experiments on Agri‐environmental scheme design," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 661-685, September.
    4. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro‐Hurlé & Ciaran Blanchflower & Liesbeth Colen & Laure Kuhfuss & Jens Rommel & Tanja Šumrada & Fabian Thomas & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Can Economic Experiments Contribute to a More Effective CAP?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 42-49, December.
    5. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    6. Daniele Curzi & Sylvain Chabé‐Ferret & Salvatore Di Falco & Laure Kuhfuss & Marianne Lefebvre & Alan Matthews, 2022. "Using Experiments to Design and Evaluate the CAP: Insights from an Expert Panel," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(2), pages 28-34, August.
    7. Alexandre Sauquet, 2021. "Ex-post analysis of the crop diversification policy ofthe CAP Greening in France," Working Papers hal-03455548, HAL.
    8. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.
    9. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    10. Janusch, Nicholas & Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Messer, Kent D. & Ferraro, Paul J., 2017. "Behavioral Insights for Agri-Environmental Program and Policy Design," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266299, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    12. Appel, F. & Balmann, A., 2018. "Predator or prey? - Effects of fast-growing farms on their neighborhood," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277358, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    14. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Can RCTs help improve the design of CAP," Working Papers hal-01974425, HAL.
    15. Justin Dijk & Erik Ansink, 2018. "Conservation auctions, collusion and the endowment effect," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-093/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Christoph Duden & Oliver Mußhoff & Frank Offermann, 2023. "Dealing with low‐probability shocks: The role of selected heuristics in farmers’ risk management decisions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 382-399, May.
    17. Javier Castaño & Maria Blanco & Pilar Martinez, 2019. "Reviewing Counterfactual Analyses to Assess Impacts of EU Rural Development Programmes: What Lessons Can Be Learned from the 2007–2013 Ex-Post Evaluations?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, February.
    18. Fritz Wittmann & Michael Eder, 2023. "Farmers facing changed urban dietary patterns: whether and what to adapt?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 28(7), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    20. Buchholz, Matthias & Danne, Michael & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "An experimental analysis of German farmers’ decisions to buy or rent farmland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:334282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.