Premium
EU‐Politik: Derzeitiger Umgang mit Kleinbetrieben und semi‐subsistenzwirtschaftlichen Betrieben
Author(s) -
Thomson Kenneth J.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
eurochoices
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.487
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 1746-692X
pISSN - 1478-0917
DOI - 10.1111/1746-692x.12046
Subject(s) - subsistence agriculture , pillar , common agricultural policy , payment , european union , direct payments , business , agriculture , member state , neglect , economics , public economics , member states , economic policy , geography , engineering , finance , structural engineering , archaeology , medicine , nursing
Summary The CAP comprises a well‐developed system of common farm income support but a much weaker set of structural instruments which tackle the obvious problems of many small and semi‐subsistence farmers ( SSF s) in most parts of the European Union, especially in the New Member States which joined in the 2000s. This policy imbalance derived from both Member State reluctance to agree on a common set of instruments directed at such issues, and a general focus on full‐time or main‐occupation farmers, to the neglect of part‐time farming and other income sources. In the CAP to date, Pillar I payments are based largely on farm size. Along with minimum eligibility criteria, this has resulted in a policy bias against small and SSF s, while residual market support measures tend to favour larger farms. Pillar II measures, with their more flexible programming and eligibility structures, are potentially more valuable to small and SSF s. However, such farms are often excluded in practice, either directly due to eligibility criteria built into the design of Rural Development Programmes, or indirectly due to complex application procedures or the associated risk‐taking.