Common Agricultural Policy: a New Governance Regime
Reform of the CAP has been a major issue for the Commission for some time, but since the late 1990s, pressure for change has increased greatly following changes in budgetary constraints, negotiations with the WTO and the enlargement eastwards. Given the current situation and the inadequacy of the reforms proposed by the Commission and Sapir’s report (2003), there seem to be certain advantages in returning to Roosevelt’s theory whereby we might admit the existence of an ‘agricultural exception’. Agricultural products cannot be governed just by the laws of international trade. Following the traditional distinction between the first and the second pillar of the CAP, two kinds of proposals can be made regarding firstly the price support mechanisms, and secondly the rural development policy.
KeywordsEurope Income Turkey Expense Decen
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and bibliography
- Allaire, G. and T. Dupeuple, ‘De la multifonctionnalité de l’activité agricole à la multiévaluation de la production agricole’, Economie Rurale (June 2003) pp. 131–56.Google Scholar
- Boussard, J. M., ‘Commerce, développement et volatilité des prix agricoles’, mimeo, INRA (2003).Google Scholar
- Carfantan, J. Y., La mondialisation déloyale (Fayard, 2002).Google Scholar
- Pouch, T., ‘La PAC et l’OMC: éléments de cadrage’, mimeo, Université de Marne la Vallée, OEP (2003).Google Scholar
- Sapir, A., An Agenda for a Growing Europe, Report for the President of the European Commission (2003).Google Scholar
- Saraceno, E., ‘Rural Development and the Second Pillar of the CAP’, mimeo (2002).Google Scholar
- Viladomiu, L., ‘La gestion del desarollo rural en la futura UE’, mimeo (2004).Google Scholar