Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy Reforms pp 171–181Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Summary and Conclusion: Beyond ‘New Wine in Old Bottles’

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 593 Accesses

Abstract

In conclusion, the results of the research are summarized. Rationalist, ideational and critical realist approaches are considered not simply as alternative explanations, but also as alternative approaches to science. By being based on broader meta-theoretical assumptions, the critical realist approach enables reflection on and endorsement of existing research and progress towards a deeper level of explanation. Furthermore, realist assumptions of the nature of the object of inquiry are considered essential for the introduction of relevant explanations and for bringing about real policy change in terms of CAP reform, as well as in terms of change in other related policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackrill, R. 2000. The Common Agricultural Policy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baracuhy, B. 2011. Brazilian Economic Diplomacy: Agriculture and the WTO. In The New Economic Diplomacy: Decision-Making and Negotiation in International Economic Relations, ed. S. Woolcock and N. Bayne, 341–358. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. 1975. A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. 1978. The Possibility of Naturalism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. 1991. Philosophy and the Idea of Freedom. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, L. 1984. The Foundations of Economic Method. London: Geo. Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P., and L.J.D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cafruny, A. 1989. Economic Conflicts and the Transformation of the Atlantic Order: The US, Europe, and the Liberalisation of Agriculture and Services. In Atlantic Relations Beyond the Reagan Era, ed. S. Gill. New York: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cafruny, A.W., and M. Ryner. 2003. A Ruined Fortress? Neoliberal Hegemony and Transformation in Europe. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, W.D., W. Grant, and T.E. Josling. 2004. Agriculture in the New Global Economy. Chaltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, W.D., and S. Tangermann. 1999. The 1992 Reform, the Uruguay Round and the Commission: Conceptualizing Linked Policy Games. Journal of Common Markets 37(3): 385–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crombez, C., L. Knops, and J.F.M. Swinnen. 2012. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy Under the Co-decision Procedure. Intereconomics 6: 336–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, C. 1997. Farmes’ Influence on East–West Integration in Europe: Policy Networks and Power. TKI Working Papers on European Integration and Regime Formation. Esbjerg: South Jutland University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, C., and A. Swinbank. 2004. The CAP and EU Enlargement: Prospects for an Alternative Strategy to Avoid the Lock-in of CAP Support. Journal of Common Market Studies 42(1): 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, C., and A. Swinbank. 2007. The Politics of CAP Reform: Trade Negotiations, Institutional Settings and Blame Avoidance. Journal of Common Market Studies 45(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, C., and A. Swinbank. 2009. Ideas, Institutions and Trade: The WTO and the Curious Role of EU Farm Policy in Trade Liberalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Erjavec, K., and E. Erjavec. 2009. Changing EU Agricultural Policy Discourses? The Discourse Analysis of Commissioner’s Speeches 2000–2007. Food Policy 34: 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erjavec, E., M. Lovec, and K. Erjavec. 2015. From Greening to Greenwash: Drivers and Discourses of the CAP 2020 Reform. In The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy: An Imperfect Storm, ed. J.F.M. Swinnen. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, London: Rowman and Littlefield Internati.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearne, A.P. 1997. The History and Development of the CAP, 1945–1990. In The Common Agricultural Policy, ed. C. Ritson and D.R. Harvey, 11–55. Wallingford, London: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, R. 2002. The Common Agricultural Policy: Continuity and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garzon, I. 2006. Reforming the CAP. History of a Paradigm Change. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, W. 1997. The Common Agricultural Policy. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, C.H.C.A., and U. Latacz-Lohmann. 2004. Will Enlargement Gridlock CAP Reforms? A Political Economy Perspective. EuroChoices 3(1): 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P.T. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A. 2003. Path Dependency and the CAP. Journal of European Public Policy 10(3): 405–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., R.O. Keohane, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koester, U., and Ali El-Agraa. 2007. The Common Agricultural Policy. In The European Union. Economics and Policies, 8th ed, ed. A.M. El-Agraa, 373–410. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. 1998. Economics and Reality. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovec, M., and E. Erjavec. 2012. ‘Big Bang’ Enlargement and Common Agricultural Policy Reform. Društvena istraživanja 21(1): 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovec, M., and E. Erjavec. 2015. The Co-decision Trap: How the Co-decision Procedure Hindered CAP Reform. Intereconomics 50(1): 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynggaard, K. 2007. The Institutional Construction of a Policy Field: A Discursive Institutional Perspective on Change Within the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 14(2): 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynggaard, K., and P. Nedergaard. 2009. The Logic of Policy Development: Lessons Learned from Reform and Routine Within the CAP 1980–2003. Journal of European Integration 31(3): 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power—From Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A., and F. Schimmelfennig. 2009. Liberal Intergovernmentalism. In European Integration Theory, ed. T. Diez and A. Wiener, 67–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, W., and T. Josling. 2002. Agricultural Policy Reform: Politics and Process in the EU and US in the 1990s. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockenden, J., and M. Franklin. 1995. European Agriculture: Making the CAP Fit the Future. London: Chatham House Papers of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pokrivcak, J., C. Crombez, and J.F.M. Swinnen. 2006. The Status Quo Bias and Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: Impact of Voting Rules, the European Commission and External Changes. European Review of Agricultural Economics 33(4): 562–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pokrivcak, J., C. Crombez, and J.F.M. Swinnen. 2008. Impact of External Changes and the European Commission on CAP Reforms: Insights from Theory. In The Perfect Storm: The Political Economy of the Fischer Reforms of Common Agricultural Policy, ed. J.F.M. Swinnen, 9–24. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pokrivcak, J., H. de Gorter, and J.F.M. Swinnen. 2001. Does a ‘Restaurant Table Effect’ Exist with the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy? A Note. Journal of Agricultural Economics 52(3): 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C., and M. Tilzey. 2005. Agricultural Policy Discourses in the European Post-Fordist Transition: Neo-liberalism, Neo-mercantilism and Multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography 29(5): 581–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C., and M. Tilzey. 2007. Agricultural Multifunctionality, Environmental Sustainability and the WTO: Resistance or Accommodation to the Neoliberal Project for Agriculture? Geoforum 38(207): 1290–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritson, C., and D.R. Harvey (eds.). 1997. The Common Agricultural Policy, 2nd ed. Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinbank, A., and C. Daugbjerg. 2006. The 2003 CAP Reform: Accommodating WTO Pressures. Comparative European Politics 4(1): 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinbank, A., and R. Tranter, eds. 2005. Decoupling EU Farm Support: Does the New Single Farm Payment Scheme Fit the Green Box? Easty Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 6 (1): 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen, J.F.M. 2008. The Political Economy of the Fischler Reforms of the EU’s CAP: The Perfect Storm? In The Perfect Storm: The Political Economy of the Fischer Reforms of Common Agricultural Policy, ed. J.F.M. Swinnen, 135–166. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen, J.F.M. 2010. The Political Economy of Agricultural and Food Policies: Recent Contributions, New Insights, and Areas for Further Research. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(1): 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilzey, M. 2006. Neo-liberalism, the WTO and New Modes of Agri-Environmental Governance in the European Union, the USA and Australia. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 14(1): 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilzey, M., and C. Potter. 2006. Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Mercantilism, and Multifunctionality: Contested Political Discourses in European Post-Fordist Rural Governance. In International Perspectives on Rural Governance: New Power Relations in Rural Economies and Societies, ed. L. Cheshire, V. Higgins, and G. Lawrence. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, M. 1993. Food and Agriculture in a Market Economy. An Introduction to Theory, Practice and Policy. La Hutte: APS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wight, C. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Marko Lovec

Authors
  1. Marko Lovec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lovec, M. (2016). Summary and Conclusion: Beyond ‘New Wine in Old Bottles’. In: The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy Reforms. Central and Eastern European Perspectives on International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57278-3_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation