IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v49y2003i10id5431-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EU enlargement and the Common Agricultural Policy

Author

Listed:
  • V. Bečvářová

    (Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry, Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The incorporation of the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) to the common agrarian market of the European Union is an entrance the saturated market solving problems with surpluses of main agricultural commodities. That is why an increasing of competition among both current member states and the new members has been anticipated. The question related to productivity of factors as well as technology level influence on competitiveness on the occasion of lower prices of agricultural commodities that could bring about shift of trade between agricultural enterprises and food processors in the first stage of processing within commodity chain into some of new member countries (or changes within them) and steer flows of some of agricultural commodities utilised as raw materials. The decisive position of the second stage of agricultural products processing, characterised by highly finalised products, probably will push forward the existing member states, especially the main producers and major exporters of finalised food products in Europe. Their interest in generation and expansion of this kind of market with highly finalised food products on the CEECs food markets would be expected. Moreover, the "demand driven agriculture" implying qualitative criteria such as food safety and precaution, favourable method of production, environmental impact etc., presented by agricultural policies in last decade and for future, is largely influenced by final stages of agri-food commodity chains. Distributors and well-established processors are those who "translate" the consumer's demand to agricultural producers. Those decide significantly about the dimension, structure and market share of agricultural production in concrete area in essence. This situation has influenced effectiveness of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) exactly. Based upon the last reforms of the CAP in the EU evaluation, the significant changes of commodity markets regulation tools and a new approach partly related to income stabilisation policy partly to support of technological change and restructuring in wider social and regional aspects of the CAP are demonstrated there.

Suggested Citation

  • V. Bečvářová, 2003. "EU enlargement and the Common Agricultural Policy," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 49(10), pages 447-452.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:49:y:2003:i:10:id:5431-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/5431-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/5431-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/5431-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/5431-AGRICECON?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pindyck, Robert S & Rotemberg, Julio J, 1983. "Dynamic Factor Demands and the Effects of Energy Price Shocks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(5), pages 1066-1079, December.
    2. Swinbank, Alan, 1990. "Implications of 1992 for EEC farm and food policies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 102-110, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rajagopal, Dagmar & Shah, Anwar, 1995. "A rational expectations model for tax policy analysis: An evaluation of tax incentives for the textile, chemical and pharmaceutical industries of Pakistan," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 249-276, June.
    2. Karp, Larry & Perloff, Jeffrey M, 1988. "Dynamic Oligopoly: Estimation and Tests of Market Structure," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7fk1119n, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    3. Considine, Timothy J. & Larson, Donald F., 2006. "The environment as a factor of production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 645-662, November.
    4. Lecca, Patrizio & Swales, Kim & Turner, Karen, 2011. "An investigation of issues relating to where energy should enter the production function," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 2832-2841.
    5. Federico Revelli, 2012. "Business taxation and economic performance in hierarchical government structures," Working Papers 2012/12, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    6. Galeotti, Marzio & Maccini, Louis J. & Schiantarelli, Fabio, 2005. "Inventories, employment and hours," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 575-600, April.
    7. Wall, Charles A. & Fisher, Brian S., 1988. "Supply Response and the Theory of Production and Profit Functions," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(03), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Mamuneas, Theofanis P., 1999. "Spillovers from publicly financed R&D capital in high-tech industries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 215-239, February.
    9. Díaz Antonia & Puch Luis A., 2019. "Investment, technological progress and energy efficiency," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 1-28, June.
    10. Catherine J. Morrison, 1989. "Markup Behavior in Durable and Nondurable Manufacturing: A production Theory Approach," NBER Working Papers 2941, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Tang, Le & Jefferson, Gary, 2024. "A DSGE model of energy efficiency with vintage capital in Chinese industry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    12. Akbar Komijani & Nadiya Gandali Alikhani & Esmaeil Naderi, 2013. "The Long-run and Short-run Effects of Crude Oil Price on Methanol Market in Iran," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 3(1), pages 43-50.
    13. Catherine J. Morrison, 2000. "Assessing The Productivity Of Information Technology Equipment In U.S. Manufacturing Industries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(3), pages 471-481, August.
    14. Charlotta Groth, 2005. "Estimating UK capital adjustment costs," Bank of England working papers 258, Bank of England.
    15. Millard, Robert & Withey, Patrick & Lantz, Van & Ochuodho, Thomas O., 2017. "The general equilibrium costs and impacts of oil price shocks in Newfoundland and Labrador," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 192-198.
    16. Pelin ÖGE GÜNEY, 2013. "The Effects of Oil Prices Changes on Output Growth and Inflation: Evidence from Turkey," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 5(11), pages 730-739.
    17. Gardebroek, Cornelis, 2001. "The Impact Of Manure Production Rights On Capital Investment In The Dutch Pig Sector," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20490, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Larry Karp & Thierry Paul, 2005. "Intersectoral Adjustment and Policy Intervention: the Importance of General‐Equilibrium Effects," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 330-355, May.
    19. Susanto Basu & John Fernald, 2001. "Why Is Productivity Procyclical? Why Do We Care?," NBER Chapters, in: New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pages 225-302, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Steinbuks, Jevgenijs & Narayanan, Badri G., 2015. "Fossil fuel producing economies have greater potential for industrial interfuel substitution," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 168-177.

    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:caa:jnlage:v:49:y:2003:i:10:id:5431-agricecon. 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: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    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.