IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v31y2014i3p397-408.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Payments for ecosystem services in relation to US and UK agri-environmental policy: disruptive neoliberal innovation or hybrid policy adaptation?

Author

Listed:
  • Clive Potter
  • Steven Wolf

Abstract

This paper draws on ideas about policy innovation and adaptation to assess the extent to which ‘payments for ecosystem services’ (PES) can be seen as a challenge to traditionally more bureaucratic, state-centered ways of paying for the provisioning of environmental goods from agricultural landscapes through agri environmental policy (AEP). Focussing on recent experience in the United States and the UK, the paper documents the extent to which PES is now an established term of reference in AEP research and debate in both countries and postulates that this may usher in a new discourse of environmental provisioning in agriculture. The PES landscape is, however, currently highly fragmented and largely experimental, with ‘PES-like’ approaches being piloted in the field through partnerships between state agencies and localized private and charitable interests. State-supported AEP programs remain substantially intact, and rather than any displacement of state action, there appears to be a more gradual insertion of PES approaches and metrics into standard AEP operating procedures. This institutional stickiness is partly due to the continuing difficulty of agreeing the metrics necessary for measuring outcomes but may also be due to the politically well defended nature of traditional AEP entitlements and associated policy networks. We conclude by suggesting a need for further research to better understand these specifically political constraints and sources of resistance to PES and the ambiguous consequences for institutions, policy networks, rural communities and environment. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Clive Potter & Steven Wolf, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services in relation to US and UK agri-environmental policy: disruptive neoliberal innovation or hybrid policy adaptation?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(3), pages 397-408, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:31:y:2014:i:3:p:397-408
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-014-9518-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10460-014-9518-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-014-9518-2?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. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    3. JunJie Wu & Haixia Lin, 2010. "The Effect of the Conservation Reserve Program on Land Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21.
    4. 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.
    5. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    6. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    7. Nadine Lehrer & Dennis Becker, 2010. "Shifting paths to conservation: policy change discourses and the 2008 US farm bill," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(5), pages 639-655.
    8. Knutson, Ronald D. & Knutson, Sharron D. & Ernstes, David P. (ed.), 2007. "Perspectives on 21st Century Agriculture: A Tribute to Walter J. Armbruster," Books, Farm Foundation, number 36830.
    9. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    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. Wang, Pu & Poe, Gregory L. & Wolf, Steven A., 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Wealth Distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 63-68.
    2. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "Reasons for Adoption and Advocacy of the Ecosystem Services Concept in UK Forestry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 47-54.
    3. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Mendez, Alejandra Zaga & Dupras, Jérôme, 2019. "Putting nature ‘to work’ through Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Tensions between autonomy, voluntary action and the political economy of agri-environmental practice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 324-336.
    4. Arnott, David & Chadwick, David & Harris, Ian & Koj, Aleksandra & Jones, David L., 2019. "What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 194-208.
    5. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & Ávila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Sheng, Jichuan & Webber, Michael, 2018. "Using incentives to coordinate responses to a system of payments for watershed services: The middle route of South–North Water Transfer Project, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 1-8.
    7. Yu, Zhenning & She, Shuoqi & Xia, Chuyu & Luo, Jiaojiao, 2023. "How to solve the dilemma of China’s land fallow policy: Application of voluntary bidding mode in the Yangtze River Delta of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(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. Zhang, Jing & Brown, Colin & Qiao, Guanghua & Zhang, Bao, 2019. "Effect of Eco-compensation Schemes on Household Income Structures and Herder Satisfaction: Lessons From the Grassland Ecosystem Subsidy and Award Scheme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-53.
    2. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    3. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    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. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    7. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.
    9. 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.
    10. Kristin Nicolaus & Jens Jetzkowitz, 2014. "How Does Paying for Ecosystem Services Contribute to Sustainable Development? Evidence from Case Study Research in Germany and the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-24, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Frey, Gregory E. & Kallayanamitra, Chalisa & Wilkens, Philadelphia & James, Natasha A., 2021. "Payments for forest-based ecosystem services in the United States: Magnitudes and trends," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    13. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah, 2015. "Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social–ecological systems framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 172-181.
    14. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    15. Chan, Kai M.A. & Anderson, Emily & Chapman, Mollie & Jespersen, Kristjan & Olmsted, Paige, 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 110-122.
    16. Piffer Salles, Guilherme & Paiva Salinas, Delhi Teresa & Paulino, Sônia Regina, 2017. "How Funding Source Influences the Form of REDD+ Initiatives: The Case of Market Versus Public Funds in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 91-101.
    17. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    18. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    19. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:31:y:2014:i:3:p:397-408. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.