评估CAP的随机对照试验:关于农民接受度的经验证据

IF 0.7 4区 经济学 Q4 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Ulrich B. Morawetz, C. Tribl
{"title":"评估CAP的随机对照试验:关于农民接受度的经验证据","authors":"Ulrich B. Morawetz, C. Tribl","doi":"10.30430/69.2020.3.183-199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Common Agricultural Policy it would be necessary to exclude a random selection of farms from participation. This exclusion might limit the acceptance of RCTs. We assess the acceptance of an innovative alternative RCT called the ‘unconditional payment RCT’ (upRCT). UpRCTs allow for the evaluation of the impact of policy measures in which farmers receive a payment conditional on the adoption of farm management practices (e.g., agri-environment-climate measures). We surveyed Austrian farmers who participated in the ‘refrain from silage’ measure to compare the acceptance of a conventional RCT and an upRCT using thought experiments. The acceptance of the farmers was between 18% and 51%, and the treatment effects of both variants were of comparable size. Our survey suggests that acceptance of the up-RCT is about twice as high as the acceptance of the conventional RCT. We discuss that upRCTs are useful when a new measure is introduced or when the up-RCT is conducted for several years.","PeriodicalId":48919,"journal":{"name":"German Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"44 1","pages":"183-199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomised Controlled Trials for the Evaluation of the CAP: Empirical Evidence about Acceptance by Farmers\",\"authors\":\"Ulrich B. Morawetz, C. Tribl\",\"doi\":\"10.30430/69.2020.3.183-199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Common Agricultural Policy it would be necessary to exclude a random selection of farms from participation. This exclusion might limit the acceptance of RCTs. We assess the acceptance of an innovative alternative RCT called the ‘unconditional payment RCT’ (upRCT). UpRCTs allow for the evaluation of the impact of policy measures in which farmers receive a payment conditional on the adoption of farm management practices (e.g., agri-environment-climate measures). We surveyed Austrian farmers who participated in the ‘refrain from silage’ measure to compare the acceptance of a conventional RCT and an upRCT using thought experiments. The acceptance of the farmers was between 18% and 51%, and the treatment effects of both variants were of comparable size. Our survey suggests that acceptance of the up-RCT is about twice as high as the acceptance of the conventional RCT. We discuss that upRCTs are useful when a new measure is introduced or when the up-RCT is conducted for several years.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"German Journal of Agricultural Economics\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"183-199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"German Journal of Agricultural Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30430/69.2020.3.183-199\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Journal of Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30430/69.2020.3.183-199","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

为了进行随机对照试验(RCT)来评估共同农业政策,有必要排除随机选择的农场参与。这种排除可能会限制随机对照试验的接受。我们评估了一种创新的替代RCT,称为“无条件支付RCT”(upRCT)的接受程度。定期定期评估允许评估政策措施的影响,在这些政策措施中,农民根据采用农场管理做法(例如农业-环境-气候措施)获得付款。我们调查了参加“避免青贮”措施的奥地利农民,以比较使用思想实验的传统RCT和upRCT的接受程度。农民的接受度在18%到51%之间,两种变体的治疗效果相当。我们的调查表明,接受上升随机对照试验的人大约是接受常规随机对照试验的两倍。我们讨论了当引入一项新措施或进行了数年的上升随机对照试验时,普通随机对照试验是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Randomised Controlled Trials for the Evaluation of the CAP: Empirical Evidence about Acceptance by Farmers
To conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Common Agricultural Policy it would be necessary to exclude a random selection of farms from participation. This exclusion might limit the acceptance of RCTs. We assess the acceptance of an innovative alternative RCT called the ‘unconditional payment RCT’ (upRCT). UpRCTs allow for the evaluation of the impact of policy measures in which farmers receive a payment conditional on the adoption of farm management practices (e.g., agri-environment-climate measures). We surveyed Austrian farmers who participated in the ‘refrain from silage’ measure to compare the acceptance of a conventional RCT and an upRCT using thought experiments. The acceptance of the farmers was between 18% and 51%, and the treatment effects of both variants were of comparable size. Our survey suggests that acceptance of the up-RCT is about twice as high as the acceptance of the conventional RCT. We discuss that upRCTs are useful when a new measure is introduced or when the up-RCT is conducted for several years.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
German Journal of Agricultural Economics
German Journal of Agricultural Economics AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The GJAE publishes a broad range of theoretical, applied and policy-related articles. It aims for a balanced coverage of economic issues within agricultural and food production, demand and trade, rural development, and sustainable and efficient resource use as well as specific German or European issues. The GJAE also welcomes review articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信