, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 69–78 | Cite as

The income efficiency of government expenditure on agricultural policy

  • Ulrich Koester
  • Ernst-August Nuppenau
Articles Agricultural Policy


Farming worldwide and national agricultural policies are in a profound crisis. Farmers everywhere are complaining about inadequate incomes. A large proportion of farms are threatened on both sides of the Atlantic, in the EC no less than in the USA. This situation has coincided with a period of intense state intervention in agriculture. Spending on agriculture has risen steeply both in the EC and in the USA. The question arises how much of this farm spending benefits farmers.


Government Expenditure Government Spending Agricultural Policy Common Agricultural Policy Farm Income 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A far-reaching synopsis of the methods of welfare-oriented policy assessment is to be found in R. Just, D. L. Hueth, A. Schmitz: Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy, Englewood Cliff 1982. Such assessments have often been made for the farm sector; see for example T. Josling : Agricultural Policies in Developed Countries: A Review, in: Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 25 (1974), No. 1, pp. 219–260.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The relationship between expenditure and income has often been pointed out. See for example G. Schmitt, S. Tangermann: Zur Auswirkung der Agrarpreisstützung auf das landwirtschaftliche Einkommen, in W. Grosskopf, M. Köhne (eds.) : Einkommen in der Landwirtschaft -Entstehung, Verteilung, Verwendung und Beeinflussung, Münster-Hiltrup 1984, pp. 759 ff.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The 1984-85 sample survey covered 9,516 farms operated on a full-time commercial basis and 686 run as a spare-time occupation; Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (BMELF): Agrarbericht 1986, Bonn 1986, p. 186.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See the Federal Government’s reply to the question tabled by Members of the Deutscher Bundestag, in: Bundestagsdrucksache 10/ 6337, Entwicklung der EG-Finanzen durch die europäische Agrarpolitik, Bonn 15. 12. 1986, especially the information on reductions in tax receipts, pp. 16 f.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cf. BMELF: Agrarbericht 1985, Bonn 1985, p. 84.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See H. Priebe : Die subventionierte Unvernunft, Landwirtschaft und Naturhaushalt, Berlin 1985, for example p. 148.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    With regard to the problems this causes in the markets, see P. Salamon: Die Märkte für Milch und Fette, in: Agrarwirtschatt, Vol. 35, No. 12, Hanover 1986, pp. 408–425.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See U. Koester : Policy Options for the Grain Economy of the European Community: Implications for Developing Countries, IFPRI Report No. 35, Washington 1982, especially pp. 38 ff.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    That is to say the signatories to the Lomü Convention.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Enterprise Institute, Legislative Analyses. Issues in 1985 Agricultural Legislation, Washington D.C. 1985, p. 12.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See A. S. Friedeberg: Three methods of reducing EEC milk supplies, in: Food Policy, Vol. 10 (1985), No. 3, pp. 199–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    See I. Kiechle: Agrarpolitik im Zwang zur Neuausrichtung, in: Berichte über Landwirtschaft, Vol. 64, No. 4, November 1986, p. 520.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© HWWA and Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Koester
    • 1
  • Ernst-August Nuppenau
    • 1
  1. 1.Christian-Albrechts UniversityKiel

Personalised recommendations