The New Common Agricultural Policy: Ηow do Member States Respond to Flexibility?

Abstract

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a core policy of the European Union (EU), representing 40 per cent of the EU budget and a cornerstone of the integration process. Due to the path dependency that defined its evolution, it had always been a rather homogeneous and centralized policy. For the first time, the 2014-20 reform endowed Member States with the possibility to tailor the direct payments of the CAP along different fields of flexibility and thereby better address their national needs. This article examines these national choices in terms of the discontinuity they impose on the centralized policy model, showing that they reduced the policy inertia associated to the historical processes in place at the EU level, along a new national path dependency re-shaping the CAP implementation. The flexibility introduced by the 2014-20 reform was particularly embraced by Member States that had been penalized by the 'one-size-fits-all' historical archetype.

One or many Cohesion Policies of the European Union? On the differential economic impacts of Cohesion Policy across member states

“…National macro-institutional factors play a key role in shaping heterogeneous returns from Cohesion Policy. These results offer an innovative contribution to the debate on the economic value added of a supra-national EU-wide approach to the design and implementation of public policies and on the optimal degree of flexibility among member states (Henke et al, 2018). The evidence suggests that the place-based approach popularized by the Barca Report (Barca, 2009) needs to be balanced by new responsibilities and empowerment of individual member states.…”

Effects of redistributing policy support on farmers’ technical efficiency

“…The objectives are to better target support to certain actions, areas, and beneficiaries, and to better distribute support among farmers, territories, and Member States. This redistribution is pursued by reallocating direct payments among Member States (the so‐called external convergence) and making support converge to a more uniform level within Member States (the so‐called internal convergence), opting for one of the three models proposed (Henke et al., ). A model, the so‐called flat‐rate model, is based on full and immediate convergence, meaning that as from 2015 a uniform unit value of payment entitlements at national or regional level, i.e., a flat rate, is applied.…”

Geographical Indications and local development: the strength of territorial embeddedness

“…More generally, in evaluating the impact of GIs, our analysis can contribute to the ongoing policy debate on the effectiveness of space-sensitive policies in comparison with spatially blind interventions (Crescenzi & Giua, 2016;Farole et al, 2011;Varga, 2017). In light of post-2020 EU strategies, Cohesion Policy and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) plans exhibit an increasing emphasis on place-sensitive policies to support local development, especially with regard to rural and inner areas (Crescenzi & De Filippis, 2017;Henke et al, 2018). The necessity for tailored interventions that respond more closely to the needs of citizens has been strongly emphasized in the Cohesion Policy framework.…”