IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/zbw/esthes/299140.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Evaluating the agricultural policy in Kosovo: Lessons learnt and the pathway forward

Author

Listed:
  • Bajrami, Egzon

Abstract

Agricultural extension services and direct payments are key policy instruments; yet their effectiveness is often debated. Extension services lack a demand-driven approach, neglecting farmer preferences. Similarly, the effects of direct payments, particularly coupled payments, remain unclear. Thus, this dissertation studies farmers' preferences for extension services and the impact of coupled direct payments using experimental and quasi-experimental approaches, along with ethnographic fieldwork. Results reveal a preference for extension services with more farm visits, specialized expertise, demonstrations, and ICT use. Farmers are even willing to pay for improved services. While coupled payments had no impact on productivity or incomes, they positively affected farm size. Also, environmental effects were observed through land, livestock, and chemical use. Policy implications extend beyond the study region, while also emphasizing the importance of data reliability over availability.

Suggested Citation

  • Bajrami, Egzon, 2024. "Evaluating the agricultural policy in Kosovo: Lessons learnt and the pathway forward," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 299140, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esthes:299140
    DOI: 10.25673/116426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/299140/1/Bajrami-2024-agricultural-policy-Kosovo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.25673/116426?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. Bajrami, Egzon & Wailes, Eric J. & Dixon, Bruce L. & Musliu, Arben & Durand-Morat, Alvaro, 2019. "Do coupled subsidies increase milk productivity, land use, herd size and income? Evidence from Kosovo," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 121(3), pages 134-143.
    2. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Subervie, Julie, 2013. "How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27.
    3. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    4. Erik J. O'Donoghue & James B. Whitaker, 2010. "Do Direct Payments Distort Producers' Decisions? An Examination of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 170-193.
    5. Allanson, Paul & Hubbard, Lionel, 1999. "On the Comparative Evaluation of Agricultural Income Distributions in the European Union," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 26(1), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Stefan Bojnec & Laure Latruffe, 2009. "Determinants of technical efficiency of Slovenian farms," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 117-124.
    7. Xueqin Zhu & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2010. "Impact of CAP Subsidies on Technical Efficiency of Crop Farms in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 545-564, September.
    8. Maria Garrone & Dorien Emmers & Hyejin Lee & Alessandro Olper & Johan Swinnen, 2019. "Subsidies and agricultural productivity in the EU," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(6), pages 803-817, November.
    9. Mittal, Surabhi & Tripathi, Gaurav, 2009. "Role of Mobile Phone Technology in Improving Small Farm Productivity," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 22(Conferenc).
    10. Markus Frölich, 2007. "On the inefficiency of propensity score matching," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 91(3), pages 279-290, October.
    11. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    12. Nancy H. Chau & Harry de Gorter, 2005. "Disentangling the Consequences of Direct Payment Schemes in Agriculture on Fixed Costs, Exit Decisions, and Output," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1174-1181.
    13. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    14. Reed, M.S. & Ferré, M. & Martin-Ortega, J. & Blanche, R. & Lawford-Rolfe, R. & Dallimer, M. & Holden, J., 2021. "Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    15. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    16. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    17. Kässi, Otto, 2012. "Uncertainty and Heterogeneity in Returns to Education: Evidence from Finland," MPRA Paper 48738, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Aug 2013.
    18. Bajrami, Egzon & Wailes, Eric J. & Dixon, Bruce L. & Musliu, Arben & Durand-Morat, Alvaro, 2019. "Do coupled subsidies increase milk productivity, land use, herd size and income? Evidence from Kosovo," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 121(3), December.
    19. Martin Huber & Michael Lechner & Andreas Steinmayr, 2015. "Radius matching on the propensity score with bias adjustment: tuning parameters and finite sample behaviour," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 1-31, August.
    20. Chantal Le Mouel, 2004. "Impacts of alternative agricultural income support schemes on multiple policy goals," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 125-148, June.
    21. Štefan Bojnec & Imre Fertő, 2019. "Do CAP subsidies stabilise farm income in Hungary and Slovenia?," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(3), pages 103-111.
    22. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
    23. Erik J. O'Donoghue & James B. Whitaker, 2010. "Do Direct Payments Distort Producers' Decisions? An Examination of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 170-193.
    24. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    25. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    26. Teresa Penfield & Matthew J. Baker & Rosa Scoble & Michael C. Wykes, 2013. "Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 21-32, October.
    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. Moro, Daniele & Sckokai, Paolo, 2013. "The impact of decoupled payments on farm choices: Conceptual and methodological challenges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 28-38.
    2. Frýd, Lukáš & Sokol, Ondřej, 2021. "Relationships between technical efficiency and subsidies for Czech farms: A two-stage robust approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Raux, Charles & Chevalier, Amandine & Bougna, Emmanuel & Hilton, Denis, 2021. "Mobility choices and climate change: Assessing the effects of social norms, emissions information and economic incentives," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    6. Marit E. Kragt & Brendan Lynch & Rick S. Llewellyn & Wendy J. Umberger, 2019. "What farmer types are most likely to adopt joint venture farm business structures?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), pages 881-896, October.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Bernini, Cristina & Galli, Federica, 2024. "Economic and Environmental Efficiency, Subsidies and Spatio-Temporal Effects in Agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    9. Akshay Vij & Rico Krueger, 2018. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Papers 1802.02299, arXiv.org.
    10. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    11. Thompson, Wyatt & Gerlt, Scott & Dewbre, Joe H. & Effland, Anne B., 2020. "Rescuing the Decoupling Literature from Incomparable Chaos," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304366, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Vij, Akshay & Krueger, Rico, 2017. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 76-101.
    13. Laurent Ott & Mehdi Farsi & Sylvain Weber, 2021. "Beyond political divides: analyzing public opinion on carbon taxation in Switzerland," Chapters, in: Axel Franzen & Sebastian Mader (ed.), Research Handbook on Environmental Sociology, chapter 17, pages 313-339, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Jin, Yan, 2022. "Understanding planting preferences – A case-study of the afforestation choices of farmers in Ireland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    16. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    17. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    18. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    19. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    20. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.

    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:zbw:esthes:299140. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.