IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v16y2017i2p18-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The United Kingdom's Domestic Policy for Agriculture after Brexit

Author

Listed:
  • Berkeley Hill

Abstract

The decision in June 2016 by the UK to leave the EU found government departments responsible for domestic agriculture without detailed plans for a post‐Brexit national agricultural policy. In February 2017, the Secretary of State indicated five broad ‘priorities’ that largely continue the direction of previous domestic policy. While agricultural trade issues must remain unsettled for some years, consideration can be given now to the shape of UK post‐Brexit domestic agricultural policy in each of the devolved administrations (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). This article considers from first principles the interventions that could justify public funding. Market failure lies behind the rationale for a range of actions that broadly correspond with current Rural Development Programmes, though not all elements are likely to survive scrutiny. Basic Payments are not seen as having any supporting rationale and should be withdrawn; the issue is how best to exit from them. The end result should be a policy that results in a British agriculture more attuned to the nation's environmental objectives, more internationally competitive, more innovative, and capable of achieving these aims at a lower public cost, thereby freeing up resources for other pressing national purposes. Après la décision prise par le Royaume‐Uni en juin 2016 de quitter l'Union européenne, les ministères publics en charge de l'agriculture se sont révélés sans plan précis de politique agricole intérieure pour l'après Brexit. En février 2017, le Secrétaire d’État a énoncé cinq grandes ‘priorités’ qui se situent largement dans la continuité des politiques intérieures précédentes. Alors que les questions de politique agricole commerciale vont rester en suspens pendant quelques années, il est temps de réfléchir maintenant à la formulation de la politique agricole intérieure pour l'après Brexit dans chacune des administrations responsables (Angleterre, Pays de Galles, Écosse et Irlande du Nord). Cet article part des principes fondamentaux pour considérer les interventions susceptibles de justifier un financement public. La présence de défaillances de marché justifie toute une gamme d'actions qui correspondent plus ou moins aux Programmes pour le Développement Rural actuels, même si tous les éléments ne survivront pas à un examen détaillé. Il semble que les paiements de base n'aient aucune justification et il faut donc les supprimer. La question est de savoir comment procéder au mieux. Il conviendrait d'aboutir à une politique qui rende l'agriculture britannique plus conforme aux ambitions environnementales du pays, plus compétitive au plan international, plus innovante, et capable de réaliser ces objectifs à un coût moindre pour les pouvoirs publics, permettant ainsi de libérer des ressources nécessaires à d'autres objectifs publics pressants. Als sich das Vereinigte Königreich im Juni des Jahres 2016 dazu entschied, die EU zu verlassen, lagen in den für die Landwirtschaft zuständigen Ressorts der Regierung keine detaillierten Planungen für die nationale Agrarpolitik nach dem Brexit vor. Im Februar des Jahres 2017 hat der Staatssekretär fünf allgemeine „Prioritäten” vorgestellt, die im Wesentlichen die Ausrichtung der bisherigen nationalen Politiken fortsetzt. Während Fragen zum Agrarhandel noch ein paar Jahre unbeantwortet bleiben werden, kann nun die Ausgestaltung der nationalen Post‐Brexit‐Agrarpolitik in den dezentralen Verwaltungen (England, Wales, Schottland und Nordirland) überlegt werden. Dieser Beitrag betrachtet von Grund auf die Maßnahmen, die eine öffentliche Finanzierung rechtfertigen könnten. Marktversagen ist der Grund für eine Reihe von Maßnahmen, die sich weitgehend mit derzeitigen ländlichen Entwicklungsprogrammen decken. Aber nicht alle Maßnahmen würden einer Prüfung standhalten. Basiszahlungen werden nicht als förderlich erachtet und sollten zurückgezogen werden. Die Frage ist nur, wie ein solcher Ausstieg am besten vollzogen werden kann. Das Endergebnis sollte eine Politik sein, die zu einer britischen Landwirtschaft führt, die den umweltpolitischen Zielen des Landes eher gerecht wird, international wettbewerbsfähiger und innovativer ist, und schließlich diese Ziele mit geringeren öffentlichen Kosten erreicht und so Ressourcen für andere drängende nationale Zielsetzungen freisetzt.

Suggested Citation

  • Berkeley Hill, 2017. "The United Kingdom's Domestic Policy for Agriculture after Brexit," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 16(2), pages 18-23, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:16:y:2017:i:2:p:18-23
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12158
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12158?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. Lynch, John & Donnellan, Trevor & Hanrahan, Kevin, 2016. "Exploring the Implications of GHG Reduction Targets for Agriculture in the United Kingdom and Ireland," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236370, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Petit, Michel, 1985. "Determinants of agricultural policies in the United States and the European Community:," Research reports 51, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Kam, Hermann & Potter, Clive, 2024. "Who should deliver agri-environmental public goods in the UK? New land managers and their future role as public good providers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    2. John Davis, 2018. "Communicating Economic Concepts and Research in a Challenging Environment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 591-605, September.

    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. Trofimov, Ivan D., 2017. "Political economy of trade protection and liberalization: in search of agency-based and holistic framework of policy change," MPRA Paper 79504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Fertő, Imre, 1999. "A Európai Unió közös agrárpolitikájának gazdaságtana II. A CAP politikai gazdaságtana [The economics of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, Part II. The political economy of CAP]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 813-822.
    3. Herve Guyomard & Louis Pascal Mahe & Terry L. Roe, 1994. "L'agriculture au GATT et la nouvelle PAC : la fin d'une exception ?," Post-Print hal-01593896, HAL.
    4. Jonathan Brooks, 1996. "Agricultural Policies In Oecd Countries: What Can We Learn From Political Economy Models?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 366-389, January.
    5. Haniotis, Tassos & Ames, Glenn C.W., 1987. "EC Enlargement and US Agricultural Exports," 1989 Occasional Paper Series No. 5 197665, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Warley, T.K., 1988. "Agriculture in the GAIT: Past and Future," 1988 Conference, August 24-31, 1988, Buenos Aires, Argentina 183126, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Dean A. DeRosa, 1996. "Regionalism and the Bias Against Agriculture in Less Developed Countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(Supplemen), pages 45-66, November.
    8. Bahreinian, Aniss, 1987. "EC common agricultural policy and the world trade in feed grain: a multi-region nonspatial price equilibrium analysis," ISU General Staff Papers 198701010800009612, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. H. Guyomard & L. P. Mahé & K. J. Munk & T. L. Roe, 1993. "Agriculture In The Uruguay Round: Ambitions And Realities," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 245-263, May.
    10. Hélène Delorme, 1993. "Le volet agricole de l'Uruguay Round : une nouvelle régulation mondiale ?," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 218(1), pages 3-11.
    11. Michel Petit, 2019. "Another Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: What to Expect," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(1), pages 34-39, April.
    12. Tassos Haniotis & Glenn C. W. Ames, 1987. "Origins of the recent US-EC agricultural trade dispute," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(1), pages 99-109.
    13. M. Petit, 1986. "La crise de la politique agricole commune affectera-t-elle les exportations françaises de produits agricoles et agro-alimentaires ?," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 173(1), pages 22-28.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:eurcho:v:16:y:2017:i:2:p:18-23. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.