IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v107y2014icp185-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross Compliance as payment for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies

Author

Listed:
  • Meyer, Claas
  • Matzdorf, Bettina
  • Müller, Klaus
  • Schleyer, Christian

Abstract

Cross Compliance (CC) is a mechanism for encouraging farmers to fulfill certain environmental conditions in return for governmental support payments. Introduced to United States (US) and European Union (EU) agricultural policy from the 80s onwards, upcoming new US (Farm Bill 2012) and EU (Common Agricultural Policy after 2013) policies will include CC. Cross Compliance is seen (i) as a policy for enforcing environmental objectives or (ii) as a way to organize and reward agricultural public good production. In recent years, the instrument's effectiveness and efficiency have been criticized. To validate the deviating understandings, we drew back on an economic institutionalist perspective. We found that regarding EU CC as payment for public goods does not generally align with the existing German property rights distribution. In both the EU and US, CC standards above those contained regulatory law have characteristics of a payment for public goods but create severe problems. We conclude that CC, even if useful for triggering and broadening environmental protection efforts, may cause several long-term problems. Therefore, the rights structure should be clearly communicated, law enforcement function should be temporary, the instrument should be included in an overall concept, and payments should be better linked to the environmental output.

Suggested Citation

  • Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina & Müller, Klaus & Schleyer, Christian, 2014. "Cross Compliance as payment for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-194.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:107:y:2014:i:c:p:185-194
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914002559
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.010?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. Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
    2. Barnes, A.P. & Willock, J. & Hall, C. & Toma, L., 2009. "Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(12), pages 1715-1722, December.
    3. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    4. Arild Vatn, 2002. "Multifunctional agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(3), pages 309-327, July.
    5. Engel, Christoph, 2008. "Learning the law," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 275-297, December.
    6. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    7. Hodgson, Geoffrey M., 2013. "Editorial introduction to ‘Ownership’ by A. M. Honoré (1961)," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 223-255, June.
    8. Haddad, Brent M., 2003. "Property rights, ecosystem management, and John Locke's labor theory of ownership," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 19-31, August.
    9. Bruno Frey, 1992. "Pricing and regulating affect environmental ethics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(4), pages 399-414, July.
    10. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    11. Andrea Knierim, 2007. "Farm management systems and voluntary action: what can Germany learn from Canada?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(3), pages 341-359.
    12. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    13. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "Cooperative behavior and institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 188-196, January.
    14. Claassen, Roger, 2012. "The Future of Environmental Compliance Incentives in U.S. Agriculture: The Role of Commodity, Conservation, and Crop Insurance Programs," Economic Information Bulletin 121803, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. Claassen, Roger & Breneman, Vincent E. & Bucholtz, Shawn & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert C. & Morehart, Mitchell J., 2004. "Environmental Compliance In U.S. Agricultural Policy: Past Performance And Future Potential," Agricultural Economic Reports 34033, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    16. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    17. Bromley, Daniel W., 1995. "Property rights and natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 129-135, August.
    18. Claassen, Roger & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Peters, Mark & Breneman, Vincent E. & Weinberg, Marca & Cattaneo, Andrea & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Hellerstein, Daniel & Hopkins, Jeffrey W. & Johnsto, 2001. "Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape," Agricultural Economic Reports 33983, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    19. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    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. Morgan, Stephen N. & Mason, Nicole M. & Shupp, Robert S., 2016. "Do Open Comment Processes Increase Regulatory Compliance? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235719, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Rastislav Kotulic & Mariana Dubravská, 2015. "Impact Of Management Tendencies Of The Common Agricultural Policy On The European Union Budget," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 62-70, June.
    3. Donald Larson & Will Martin & Sebnem Sahin & Marinos Tsigas, 2016. "Agricultural Policies and Trade Paths in Turkey," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 1194-1224, August.
    4. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    5. Galli, Francesca & Prosperi, Paolo & Favilli, Elena & D'Amico, Simona & Bartolini, Fabio & Brunori, Gianluca, 2020. "How can policy processes remove barriers to sustainable food systems in Europe? Contributing to a policy framework for agri-food transitions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Zhihan Xu & Jianchun Xu & Xiaofang Chai & Ning Zhang & Rong Ye & Fei Xu, 2022. "Rural Revitalization and Land Institution Reform: Achievement, Conflict and Potential Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Baur, Ivo & Schläpfer, Felix, 2018. "Expert Estimates of the Share of Agricultural Support that Compensates European Farmers for Providing Public Goods and Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 264-275.
    8. Bertoni, Danilo & Aletti, Giacomo & Ferrandi, Giulia & Micheletti, Alessandra & Cavicchioli, Daniele & Pretolani, Roberto, 2018. "Farmland Use Transitions After the CAP Greening: a Preliminary Analysis Using Markov Chains Approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 789-800.
    9. Schmidt, Alena & Mack, Gabriele & Möhring, Anke & Mann, Stefan & El Benni, Nadja, 2019. "Stricter cross-compliance standards in Switzerland: Economic and environmental impacts at farm- and sector-level," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Morgan, S. & Mason, N. & Shupp, R., 2018. "Stakeholder Comments, Contributions, and Compliance: Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277122, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Funke, Katja & Hirschauer, Norbert & Peth, Denise & Mußhoff, Oliver & Becker, Oliver Arránz, 2019. "Can personality traits explain compliance behaviour? - A study of compliance with water-protection rules in German agriculture," SocArXiv jnexr, Center for Open Science.
    12. Yannis E. Doukas & Luca Salvati & Ioannis Vardopoulos, 2023. "Unraveling the European Agricultural Policy Sustainable Development Trajectory," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, 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. Meyer, Claas & Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2018. "Qualitative comparative institutional analysis of environmental governance: Implications from research on payments for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 169-180.
    2. Farley, Joshua & Schmitt, Abdon & Burke, Matthew & Farr, Marigo, 2015. "Extending market allocation to ecosystem services: Moral and practical implications on a full and unequal planet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 244-252.
    3. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    4. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    5. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    6. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    7. Farrell, Katharine N., 2014. "Intellectual mercantilism and franchise equity: A critical study of the ecological political economy of international payments for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 137-146.
    8. Yanez-Pagans, Patricia, 2013. "Cash for Cooperation? Payments for Ecosystem Services and Common Property Management in Mexico," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151295, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Neuteleers, Stijn & Engelen, Bart, 2015. "Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 253-260.
    10. Primmer, Eeva & Paloniemi, Riikka & Similä, Jukka & Tainio, Anna, 2014. "Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-10.
    11. Thiel, Andreas & Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Characteristics of resources and the provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Germany: the cases of fruit tree meadows and wolf protection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116082, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Petursson, Jon Geir & Vedeld, Paul, 2017. "Rhetoric and reality in protected area governance: Institutional change under different conservation discourses in Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 166-177.
    13. Spash, Clive L., 2008. "Ecosystems Services Valuation," MPRA Paper 101233, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Lele, Sharachchandra & Srinivasan, Veena, 2013. "Disaggregated economic impact analysis incorporating ecological and social trade-offs and techno-institutional context: A case from the Western Ghats of India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 98-112.
    15. Thiel, Andreas, 2014. "Developing an analytical framework for reconstructing the scalar reorganization of water governance as institutional change: The case of Southern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 378-391.
    16. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    17. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    18. Helen Kopnina, 2017. "Sustainability: new strategic thinking for business," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 27-43, February.
    19. Yanez-Pagans, Patricia, 2013. "Cash for Cooperation? Payments for Ecosystem Services and Common Property Management in Mexico," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151294, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Sattler, Claudia & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice—Approaches, design process and innovative aspects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 2-11.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:107:y:2014:i:c:p:185-194. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.