No abstract

G orton M., H ubbard C. and H ubbard L. The folly of European Union policy transfer: why the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) does not fit Central and Eastern Europe, Regional Studies . This paper assesses the appropriateness of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for meeting rural development challenges in the New Member States (NMS). It argues that while the mitigation of structural problems confronting rural areas in these countries is critical to meeting the challenge of effectively integrating Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) into the European Union, the CAP is poorly suited to this task. Overall, the CAP was insufficiently reformed to accommodate CEE accession effectively and it represents a failure of the European Union to adjust adequately from an exclusively Western European institution into an appropriate pan-European organization.

This paper presents a rapid assessment of current and likely future impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak on rural economies given their socio-economic characteristics. Drawing principally on current evidence for the UK, as well as lessons from the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak and the 2007/8 financial crises, it outlines the likely key demand and supply effects, paying attention to the situation for agriculture as well as discussing the implications for rural communities. A distinction is made between the effects on businesses offering goods and services for out-of-home as opposed to in-home consumption. Gendered dimensions are also noted as likely business and household strategies for coping and adaptation. The paper concludes with a brief mapping of a research agenda for studying the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on rural economies.

Animal welfare is often cited as a classic public good, which implies market failure and, thus, that government intervention is required. However, the existing and accessible literature does not provide a comprehensive or coherent account of how governed markets are supposed to cope with issues such as animal welfare. This paper seeks to fill this gap. Conceptual analysis shows that the major cause of market failure in the case of farm animal welfare is a problem of consumption externalities. It is the specific regulation of animal welfare conditions which is a public good (or bad). Two important conclusions follow from this analysis, which are largely unexplored in the literature on animal welfare. First, measurement of potential market failure, through identifying actual willingness to pay (WTP) for animal welfare friendly products, is potentially misleading. The difference between citizen votes and consumer WTP for animal welfare is not prima facie evidence for either market failure or a gap in the market. Second, conventional arguments in favour of subsidies and assistance to producers for better animal welfare are misconceived and potentially counterproductive. A more rational policy is to subsidise the consumption of animal welfare products.

PurposeThis paper examines the attitude of UK pig farmers to the delivery of improved farm animal welfare standards and investigates how they contribute to this objective through their membership of a range of different farm assurance schemes. Design/methodology/approachThe analysis focuses on three main groups of pig farmers: (i) farmers engaged in conventional farm assurance schemes; (ii) farmers participating in specific animal welfare schemes and (iii) certified organic farmers. Fifty four farmers were interviewed about their participation in farm assurance schemes and their attitudes to animal welfare and towards the retailers and consumers they supply. Each answer was analysed individually and a list of themes identified for each type of scheme. These were compared and synthesised in an overall analysis. FindingsThe analysis identified how differently or similarly the different groups of farmers viewed the issues related to animal welfare. The findings revealed that while farmers shared some attitudes regardless of the schemes they participated in, there were differences between schemes in certain key areas such as farmers' motives for participation. Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the sample was limited to England (the main focus of pig production in the UK) and was not random, farmers were selected to reflect the geographical distribution of production and the range of relevant schemes. Originality/value of paperThis study adds to this limited literature that focuses on farmers' views, attitudes and perceptions with regard to animal welfare. The paper is of value to stakeholders involved in the food chain who have an interest in animal welfare such as farmers, retailers, consumers and policy-makers.