Second Pillar o the CAP: What Can We Learn From the Experiences with the Menu Approach? /доклад на 87 семинаре ЕААЕ, Assessing Rural Development Policies of the CAP, Vienna, Austria, 21-23 April 2004
Опубликовано на портале: 29-03-2005
The menu approach of the second pillar of the CAP allows regions/countries to select those rural development measures which suit their needs best. The selection from the second pillar menu, which consists of 22 rural development measures, has to be reported in the Rural Development Plan. In this article we test the hypothesis ‘Regions select a few measures from the menu which are according to their rural development needs.’ For this purpose, we analysed three main steps which have to be taken in the application of the menu approach: (1) the identification of rural development priorities; (2) the selection of rural development measures to relieve these rural development priorities; and (3) the allocation of financial means to these rural development measures. The analysis is restricted to eight regions in the EU: four intermediate rural regions (Northern Netherlands, Lower Saxony, Wales and Emilia Romagna) and four most urban regions (Southern Netherlands, North Rhine-Westphalia, Flanders and Lombardia). It appears that the case study regions selected quite a large number of rural development measures from the menu, varying from 12 to 18. The analysis reveals that doubts can be raised whether all selected measures are according to the rural development priorities of the case study regions. In addition, it seems that rural development measures are sometimes interpreted in different ways by regions and that the relationship between the rural development measures and the three objectives of the second pillar is not unambiguous. Therefore, some reformulation of rural development measures and objectives of the second pillar is suggested at the end of this article. The findings of our analysis may serve as input in the debate on the future orientation of EU rural development policy.
аграрная экономика Европейский союз общая аграрная политика развитие сельского хозяйства сельское хозяйство
Структурные изменения российского зернового баланса в условиях антироссийских санкций: региональный аспект
TERRA ECONOMICUS. 2018. Т. 16. № 2. С. 122-139.
Экономический журнал ВШЭ. 2006. Т. 10. № 2. С. 317-348.
Estimating Insecticide Application Frequencies: A Comparison of Geometric and Other Count Data Models
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 1997. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 225-242.
Economic and Fiscal Impacts of a Retirement/Recreation Community: A Study of Tellico Village, Tennessee
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 1993. Vol. 25. No. 2. P. 134-147.
Retail Buyers' Expectations Concerning the Growth of Value-Added Produce and Perceptions of the Importance of Promotional Vehicles Used to Sell Value-Added Produce
Journal of Food Distribution Research. 1999. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 156-159.