IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/98866.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agrarpolitik als Management öffentlicher Güter: Zur Ökonomik der dezentralen Bereitstellung von Natur in der Kulturlandschaft

Author

Listed:
  • Nuppenau, Ernst-August

Abstract

Political procedures aimed at solving conflicts of agriculture and the environment are becoming increasingly important. In contrast to previous research, property rights solutions are regarded as inappropriate to solve the conflicts between farming and nature conservation due to transaction costs. The political process is considered as a substitute for market transactions in an agri-environment being a public good and advised as an ecological main structure (EMS). The paper addresses the problem by introducing a public manager who is responsible for the provision of an ecological main structure. It applies a political economy model of social bargaining, shows how a tragedy of the commons problem may prevail in field margin provision, and outlines a social optimum for an EMS. Finally, it provides for a solution to the problem of establishing socially acceptable rules for individuals in a political economy framework. In that solution farmers’, environmentalists’, and a manager’s interests are considered simultaneously and the paper provides for a unified solution on the basis of a derived public objective function.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2001. "Agrarpolitik als Management öffentlicher Güter: Zur Ökonomik der dezentralen Bereitstellung von Natur in der Kulturlandschaft," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 50(03), pages 1-6.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:98866
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.98866
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/98866/files/10_Nuppenau.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.98866?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. Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2000. "Public Preferences, Statutory Regulations and Bargaining in Field Margin Provision for Ecological Main Structures," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 1(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Martin Whitby, 2000. "Challenges and Options for the UK Agri‐Environment: Presidential Address," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 317-332, September.
    3. Gordon C. Rausser & Pinhas Zusman, 1992. "Public Policy and Constitutional Prescription," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 247-257.
    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. Holm-Muller, Karin & Witzke, Heinz Peter, 2002. "Das moderne Konzept der internen Subventionierung als Kriterium zur Identifizierung von Wettbewerbsverzerrungen bei europäischen Agrarumweltmaßnahmen," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 51(05), pages 1-8.

    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. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    2. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    3. Lennox, Gareth D. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2011. "Suitability of short or long conservation contracts under ecological and socio-economic uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2856-2866.
    4. Rausser, Gordon C., 1991. "Predatory versus productive government: the case of U.S. agricultural policies," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt21913950, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    5. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    6. Gordon C. Rausser, 1992. "Predatory versus Productive Government: The Case of U.S. Agricultural Policies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 133-157, Summer.
    7. Lyons, Robert F. & Rausser, Gordon C. & Simon, Leo K., 1994. "Disruption and continuity in Bulgaria's agrarian reform," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt20n2p0ns, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    8. Collentine, Dennis & Larsson, Martin & Hannerz, Nils, 2004. "Exploiting decision heuristics and IT in the design of a DSS for voluntary agri-environmental programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 303-315, July.
    9. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    10. Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2018. "Eco-System Services in Agrarian Value Chains: Value Detection of Bio-Diversity as Public Good Provision, Problems, and Institutional Issues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Dobbs, Thomas L. & Pretty, Jules, 2008. "Case study of agri-environmental payments: The United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 765-775, May.
    12. Beghin, John C. & Fafchamps, M., 1995. "Constitution, Institutions, and the Political Economy of Farm Policies. What Empirical Content?," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1620, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Schroder, William R. & Mavondo, Felix, 1996. "The Government Agribusiness Interface: a Review of Conceptual Issues and Viewpoints for the Australian Food Manufacturing Sector," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(02), pages 1-10, August.
    14. Rausser Gordon & Simon Leo & Stevens Reid, 2008. "Public vs. Private Good Research at Land-Grant Universities," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-31, December.
    15. Cook, David C. & Lonsdale, Mark, 2006. "A strategic protection approach to biosecurity: Policy implications of an ‘immune system’ model for addressing the risks and consequences of invasive species," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174469, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Gerard Wynn & Bob Crabtree & Jacqueline Potts, 2001. "Modelling Farmer Entry into the Environmentally Sensitive Area Schemes in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 65-82, January.
    17. Cook, David C. & Fraser, Rob W., 2008. "Trade and invasive species risk mitigation: Reconciling WTO compliance with maximising the gains from trade," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 176-184, April.
    18. Greenville, Jared W. & MacAulay, T. Gordon, 2006. "Protected Areas and the Management of Fisheries: An Institutional Perspective," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139739, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Bullock, David S., 2005. "Should We Expect Government Policy to Be Pareto Efficient?: The Consequences of an Arrow-Debreu Economy with Violable Property Rights," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19444, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. David C. Cook & Rob W. Fraser & Jeffrey K. Waage & Matthew B. Thomas, 2009. "Prioritising Biosecurity Investment between Protecting Agricultural and Environmental Systems," Studies in Economics 0908, School of Economics, University of Kent.

    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:98866. 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.