IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v129y2023ics0264837723000844.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public money for public goods: The role of ideas in driving agriculture policy in the EU and post-Brexit UK

Author

Listed:
  • Kam, Hermann
  • Smith, Heather
  • Potter, Clive

Abstract

The role played by concepts and ideas in driving policy transformations has been much discussed in the political science literature. This paper presents a case study of ideas and the extent to which they drive policy change, drawing on the example of the Public Money for Public Goods (PMPG) principle in relation to the reform of EU and UK agriculture policy. We assess the factors which have promoted the adoption of the PMPG principle and the extent to which it is currently being realised under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and the UK's post-Brexit agriculture policies. Drawing on a range of expert interviews, we find that policy concepts such as this have the capacity to be utilised by policymakers when looking to solve ‘wicked’ policy problems, and once mobilised, can gradually gain acceptance amongst stakeholders, lobbyists and policymakers over time. However, we also report evidence of dilution and mission creep, with a gap emerging between the original idea, its interpretation, and how it is realised in the messy world of policy advocacy and resistance. We conclude that advocates of the PMPG principle need to seize some recent windows of opportunities under an emerging set of post-Brexit set of land management schemes to further develop and implement this important policy idea.

Suggested Citation

  • Kam, Hermann & Smith, Heather & Potter, Clive, 2023. "Public money for public goods: The role of ideas in driving agriculture policy in the EU and post-Brexit UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:129:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723000844
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723000844
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106618?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. Li, Huan & Zhang, Ruohao & Khanna, Neha, 2021. "Environmental Justice: A Multigenerational Perspective," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313873, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Li, Minghao & Zhang, Wendong, 2021. "Trade policies have environmental implications," ISU General Staff Papers 202108120700001837, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Andrew J Tanentzap & Anthony Lamb & Susan Walker & Andrew Farmer, 2015. "Resolving Conflicts between Agriculture and the Natural Environment," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, September.
    4. Page, Benjamin I. & Shapiro, Robert Y., 1983. "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 175-190, March.
    5. David Blunkett & David Richards, 2011. "Labour In and Out of Government: Political Ideas, Political Practice and the British Political Tradition," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 9(2), pages 178-192, May.
    6. Bateman, Ian J. & Balmford, Ben, 2018. "Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 293-300.
    7. Coleman, William D. & Skogstad, Grace D. & Atkinson, Michael M., 1996. "Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 273-301, September.
    8. Grace Skogstad & Matt Wilder, 2019. "Strangers at the gate: the role of multidimensional ideas, policy anomalies and institutional gatekeepers in biofuel policy developments in the USA and European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 343-366, September.
    9. ., 2021. "Agriculture and the environment," Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Iraq, chapter 8, pages 133-160, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Carsten Daugbjerg & Alan Swinbank, 2011. "Explaining the ‘Health Check’ of the Common Agricultural Policy: budgetary politics, globalisation and paradigm change revisited," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 127-141.
    11. Cristina Corduneanu-Huci & Alexander Hamilton & Issel Masses Ferrer, . "Understanding Policy Change : How to Apply Political Economy Concepts in Practice," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 11879, September.
    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).

    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. Wiśniewski, Łukasz & Rudnicki, Roman & Chodkowska-Miszczuk, Justyna, 2021. "What non-natural factors are behind the underuse of EU CAP funds in areas with valuable habitats?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. de Boon, Auvikki & Sandström, Camilla & Rose, David Christian, 2022. "Perceived legitimacy of agricultural transitions and implications for governance. Lessons learned from England’s post-Brexit agricultural transition," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    3. Hayo, Bernd & Neumeier, Florian, 2017. "The (In)validity of the Ricardian equivalence theorem–findings from a representative German population survey," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 162-174.
    4. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    5. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Xing Xiong & Xinghou Yu & Yuxin Wang, 2022. "The impact of basic public services on residents’ consumption in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    7. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers, 2013. "Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Natalia V. TRUSOVA & Oleksandr S. PRYSTEMSKYI & Oksana V. HRYVKIVSKA & Alina Zh. SAKUN & Yurii Y. KYRYLOV, 2021. "Modeling Of System Factors Of Financial Security Of Agricultural Enterprises Of Ukraine," Regional Science Inquiry, Hellenic Association of Regional Scientists, vol. 0(1), pages 169-182, June.
    11. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.
    12. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    13. Donald L. Jordan & Benjamin I. Page, 1992. "Shaping Foreign Policy Opinions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(2), pages 227-241, June.
    14. Benjamin Michallet & Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & François Facchini, 2015. "Greening Up or Not? The Determinants Political Parties’ Environmental Concern: An Empirical Analysis Based on European Data (1970-2008)," Working Papers 2015.25, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Liza G. Steele, 2015. "Income Inequality, Equal Opportunity, and Attitudes About Redistribution," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 444-464, June.
    16. Angelika Zimmermann & Nora Albers & Jasper O. Kenter, 2022. "Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 757-782, July.
    17. Kinda, Romuald, 2010. "Democratic institutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels," MPRA Paper 27455, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    19. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    20. Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata & Oscar Tembo & Susan Siamundele, 2018. "Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.

    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:lauspo:v:129:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723000844. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.