IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sec/cnstan/0178.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in Perspective of Joining Common Agricultural Policy - with Some Fiscal Remarks

Author

Listed:
  • Katarzyna Zawalinska

Abstract

This paper discusses problems connected with the accession of Central European Countries (CECs) to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A lot of attention is given to the analysis of the agricultural situation and prospects in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Also the evolution and the future of the CAP itself is broadly presented. Since the agricultural accession of CECs to the CAP will have an impact not only on the situation in the agricultural sectors in these countries but also on their overall economic situation, therefore some fiscal consequences are discussed in the end. The CECs problems with agriculture concern mainly the lack of modernisation (know-how), efficiency, and structural changes. The EU also has problems with agriculture. It is too costly . due to the high level of protection and overproduction (connected with storage of the costly surpluses) . and unequally developed (there are big differences in rural development among the Member Countries). The accession may, to some extent, solve CECs. and EU.s problems with agriculture, but under the condition, that the CECc will get ready to join the CAP structures, as much as it is possible. Therefore, generally, the pre-accession policies in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland should focus on investments in rural development and employment reductions since these policies guarantee improvement of agricultural productivity and improvement of agricultural to non-agricultural income ratio (which are the most desirable goals). It should be remembered, however, that the changes in agricultural sector need usually more time than the changes in other sectors so the agricultural accession of CECs to the CAP should come after the agricultural reorganisation. The pre-accession changes in agriculture will be co-financed by the EU. As far as budgetary effects are concerned, the pre-accession agricultural aid from the EU has little or no direct budgetary effects for the applicant countries. After the accession, the budgetary outflows from national CECs budgets to CAP will exceed budgetary inflows from CAP. This is because transfers from Member Countries to CAP come from national budgets but transfers from the CAP mostly do not come through the central national budgets but they are directed to the national paying agencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarzyna Zawalinska, 1999. "Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in Perspective of Joining Common Agricultural Policy - with Some Fiscal Remarks," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0178, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:sec:cnstan:0178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://case-research.eu/upload/publikacja_plik/SA178.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbone, Luca & Zalduendo, Juan, 1997. "EU (European Union) accession of central and eastern Europe : bridging the income gap," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1721, The World Bank.
    2. Anderson, Kym & Tyers, Rodney, 1993. "Implications of EC Expansion for European Agricultural Policies, Trade and Welfare," CEPR Discussion Papers 829, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Brown, D. & Deardorff & A. & Djankov, S. & Stern, R., 1995. "An Economic Assessment of the Integration of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland into the European Union," Papers 8, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies-.
    4. Richard E. Baldwin & Joseph F. Francois & Richard Portes, 1997. "The costs and benefits of eastern enlargement: the impact on the EU and central Europe," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 12(24), pages 125-176.
    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. Wilhelm Kohler & Chrisran Keuschnigg, 2001. "An Incumbent Country View on Eastern Enlargement of the EU. Part II: The Austrian Case," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 159-185, June.
    2. Wolfgang Quaisser & John Hall, 2002. "Toward Agenda 2007 : Preparing the EU for Eastern Enlargement," Working Papers 240, Leibniz Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung (Institute for East and Southeast European Studies).
    3. Arjan Lejour & Vladimir Solanic & Paul Tang, 2009. "EU Accession and Income Growth: An Empirical Approach," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 16(1), pages 127-144, May.
    4. Jensen, Hans G. & Frandsen, Søren E., 2003. "Implications of EU Accession of Ten New Members: The Copenhagen Agreement," Conference papers 331098, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Arjan Lejour & Ruud de Mooij & Richard Nahuis, 2001. "EU enlargement: economic implications for countries and industries," CPB Document 11, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. Fritz Breuss, 2002. "Benefits and Dangers of EU Enlargement," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 245-274, September.
    7. Ben J Heijdra & Christian Keuschnigg & Wilhelm Kohler, 2014. "Eastern Enlargement of the EU: Jobs, Investment and Welfare in Present Member Countries," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: European Economic Integration, WTO Membership, Immigration and Offshoring, chapter 2, pages 37-83, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Lúcio Vinhas de Souza, 2004. "A Wider Europe: Trade Relations Between an Enlarged EU and the Russian Federation," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0279, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    9. Stehn, Jürgen, 1999. "Agenda 2000: Ouvertüre oder Finale der Reformen im Zuge der EU-Osterweiterung?," Kiel Discussion Papers 336, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Kauppi, Heikki & Widgren, Mika, 2007. "Voting rules and budget allocation in the enlarged EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 693-706, September.
    11. Fritz Breuss, 2006. "Warum wächst die Wirtschaft in Österreich rascher als in Deutschland?," WIFO Working Papers 280, WIFO.
    12. Ben J. Heijdra & Christian Keuschnigg, 2000. "Integration and Search Unemployment: An Analysis of Eastern EU Enlargement," CESifo Working Paper Series 341, CESifo.
    13. Dimitris Kallioras & George Petrakos & Georgios Fotopoulos, 2005. "Economic integration, regional structural change and cohesion in the EU new member-states," ERSA conference papers ersa05p383, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Islam, Sulequl, 2003. "Expansions of the European Union and the NAFTA: Implications for New and Non-Member countries," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 3(2).
    15. Erich Gundlach, 2003. "Growth Effects of EU Membership: The Case of East Germany," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 237-270, September.
    16. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    17. Deniz Aksoy, 2010. "Who gets what, when, and how revisited: Voting and proposal powers in the allocation of the EU budget," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 171-194, June.
    18. Andrei A Levchenko & Jing Zhang, 2013. "The Global Labor Market Impact of Emerging Giants: A Quantitative Assessment," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 61(3), pages 479-519, August.
    19. Lorenzo Caliendo & Luca David Opromolla & Fernando Parro & Alessandro Sforza, 2021. "Goods and Factor Market Integration: A Quantitative Assessment of the EU Enlargement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(12), pages 3491-3545.
    20. Campos, Nauro F., 2001. "Will the Future Be Better Tomorrow? The Growth Prospects of Transition Economies Revisited," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 663-676, December.

    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:sec:cnstan:0178. 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: Anna Budzynska (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caseepl.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.