IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aesc18/273477.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing farmers’ preferences for the future of the Common Agricultural Policy: insights from of a discrete choice experiment in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Latacz, Uwe
  • Schreiner, Julia

Abstract

This paper analyses the determinants of German farmers’ acceptance of alternative agricultural policy packages. The analysis is based on a discrete choice experiment with 434 farmers from across Germany. The study participants presented with the choice of three different policy packages in each of the seven choice sets for which responses were to be given, plus an option to withdraw from the present agricultural policy. The data was analysed using a random parameter logit model and a latent class estimation to reveal preference heterogeneity among those surveyed. Around two thirds of respondents declared themselves to be in favour of the continuation of direct payments. Less than half of the respondents (40 %) were prepared in principle to accept higher standards in the environment and animal welfare in return for continued direct payments. However, nearly one quarter (23%) of those surveyed wanted direct payments to continue without having to do anything in return. The majority of farmers surveyed were against a state safety net through market intervention. One third of respondents wanted the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy in its present form, including direct payments.

Suggested Citation

  • Latacz, Uwe & Schreiner, Julia, 2018. "Assessing farmers’ preferences for the future of the Common Agricultural Policy: insights from of a discrete choice experiment in Germany," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273477, Agricultural Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc18:273477
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.273477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/273477/files/Uwe_Latacz-Lohmann_Latacz-Lohmann%20and%20Schreiner.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.273477?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    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. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    2. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    3. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    4. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    5. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    6. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    7. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    9. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    11. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    12. DeLong, Karen L. & Syrengelas, Konstantinos G. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Visual versus Text Attribute Representation in Choice Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    15. 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.
    16. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Robert W. Paterson & Kevin J. Boyle & Christopher F. Parmeter & James E. Neumann & Paul De Civita, 2008. "Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1363-1377, December.
    18. Burmester, Alexa B. & Eggers, Felix & Clement, Michel & Prostka, Tim, 2016. "Accepting or fighting unlicensed usage: Can firms reduce unlicensed usage by optimizing their timing and pricing strategies?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 343-356.
    19. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Clark, Andrew E. & Senik, Claudia & Yamada, Katsunori, 2017. "When experienced and decision utility concur: The case of income comparisons," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-9.
    21. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; International Development;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aesc18:273477. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aesukea.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.