• Emil Erjavec, PhD University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical faculty, Domzale
  • Guna Salputra, PhD State Institute of Agrarian Economics (LSIAE)


The form and scope of direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy are controversial for several reasons: high budgetary costs, unfair distribution between old and new Member States and weak argumentation of payments; consequently, they will have to be redefined for the period 2013-2020 and this calls for a need for policy impact assessment. The paper presents an analysis of the impact of different direct payments policy scenarios on the agricultural markets of the ten new EU Member States (NMS). The study is based on the AGMEMOD (AGricultural MEmber states MODelling) EU-27 dynamic econometric partial equilibrium models. The Baseline Scenario assumes that from 2013 on, the Single Area Payment Scheme would continue, dairy quotas would be abolished and some other policy instrument changes would take place as agreed in the 2008 Health Check policy conclusions. Preservation of the current policy would lead to further growth in production of most agricultural markets, resulting from accelerated technological development and the opportunities provided by the EU common market. The only exceptions are dairy and beef sectors, where NMS would face a drop in competitiveness. The Scenario Abolish implies total abolishment of the Pillar I direct supports and according to the Reduced EU-Wide Flat Rate Payments Scenario, payments at the entire EU area would be made more uniform, but would be – owing to the expected overall reduction of budgetary funds for Pillar I of CAP – at a substantially lower level. According to the model simulations, reducing the level of payments or their abolishing would not result in any dramatic medium-term changes on agricultural markets in NMS by 2020, which could serve as an argument for the future CAP reforms.


Download data is not yet available.


1. AGMEMOD Partnership. Impact Analysis of CAP Reform on the Main Agricultural Commodities. Report III. AGMEMOD – Model Description. Sevilla.
2. Begg I., and A. Sapir, J. Eriksson. The Purse of the European Union: Setting Priorities for the Future. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, 2008.
3. Buckwell A. Next step in the CAP reform. Eurochoices, 6, no. 2, 2007: 13-19.
4. Bureau J.-C. and L.-P Mahé. CAP reform beyond 2013: An idea for a longer view. Paris: Studies and Research 64, Notre Europe, 2008.
5. Burfisher, M. E. and J. Hopkins. Decoupled Payments: Household Income Transfers in Contemporary U.S. Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER822) 2003.
6. Chau N. H. and H. DeGorter. Disentangling the consequences of direct payment schemes in agriculture on fixed costs, exit decisions and output. Working Paper 2001-16, Ithaca: Cornell University Department of Applied Economics and Management, 2001.
7. Cipriani G. Rethinking the EU budget three unavoidable reforms. Brussels: Centre for European policy studies, 2007.
8. Cooper T. and K. Hart, D. Baldock. The Provision of Public Goods by Agriculture in the EU. A report for DG Agriculture, London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2010.
9. Daugbjerg C. and A. Swinbank. “The Politics of CAP Reform: Trade Negotiations, Institutional Settings and Blame Avoidance”. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45, no. 1, 2007: 1-22.
10. Zahrnt, V. Public Money for Public Goods: Winners and Losers from CAP Reform. Brussels: European Centre for International Political Economy, Working Paper, N° 08/2009.
11. ECORYS. A study on EU spending. Final Report. European Commission, Directorate General for Budget, Contract No. 30-CE-0121821/00-57. Rotterdam: ECORYS Nederland BV, 2008.
12. Erjavec, E. and T. Donnelan, S. Kavčič. «Outlook for CEEC agricultural markets after EU Accession”. Eastern European economies, 2006, 44, no 1: 83-103.
13. Garzon I. Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy: History of a Paradigm Change. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
14. Grybauskaité D. “Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe Results of the public consultation”. Plenary Presentation at Budget Conference “Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe”, Brussels, 12 November 2008. Available at:
15. Hofreiter et all. 2009. "Declaration by a Group of Leading Agricultural Economists:A Common Agricultural Policy for European Public Goods". November.
16. OECD. Multifunctionality – towards an analytical framework. Paris: OECD 2003.
17. OECD. Decoupling: Policy implications. Paris: OECD 2006.
18. RISE. Rise Task Force on Public Goods from Private Land. Brussels: The Rise Foundation. 2009. (
19. Roe, T., and A. Somwaru, X. Diao. “Do Direct Payments Have Intertemporal Effects on US Agriculture?”, in C.B. Moss and A. Schmitz (eds.), Government Policy and Farmland Markets, Ames: Iowa State Press, 2003.
20. Salamon, P. and F. Chantreuil, T. Donnellan, E. Erjavec, R. Esposti, K. Hanrahan, M. van Leeuwen, F. Bouma, W. Dol, G. Salputra, How to deal with the challenges of linking or large number of individual models: the case of the AGMEMOD partnership. Agrarwirtschaft, 57, no.8, 2008: 373-378.
21. Swinnen J.F.M. The perfect storm - The Political Economy of the Fischler Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), 2008.
How to Cite
ERJAVEC, Emil; SALPUTRA, Guna. COULD THE RADICAL CHANGES OF DIRECT PAYMENTS POLICY DESTROY AGRICULTURAL MARKETS IN THE EU NEW MEMBER STATES?. Economics of Agriculture, [S.l.], v. 58, n. 1, p. 45-65, mar. 2011. ISSN 2334-8453. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 03 dec. 2020.
Original scientific papers