Advertisement

EU Budgetary Politics and Its Implications for the Bioeconomy

  • Jeroen CandelEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Palgrave Advances in Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies book series (PABEP)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the process of EU budgetary policymaking and its implications for the bioeconomy. Negotiations about the Multiannual Financial Framework belong to the most contentious of EU politics. These negotiations do not only shape the size of the overall budget and allocations to the various programs, they also have more indirect effects by altering power constellations and rules of the game in sectoral policy processes. The chapter elaborates the most important of these dynamics and associated controversies, with a particular emphasis on the EU’s biggest spending policy: the Common Agricultural Policy. The chapter ends with setting out various other budgetary developments and proposals that are relevant to the bioeconomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackrill, R.W. 2000. CAP Reform 1999: A Crisis in the Making. Journal of Common Market Studies 38: 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ana. 2018. Tsipras Says CAP and Regional Policy Cuts a ‘Gift’ to Anti-Europeans. Last modified at December 31, 2018. https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/tsipras-says-cap-and-regional-policy-cuts-a-gift-to-anti-europeans/
  3. Bos, M. 2011. The EU Budget. In EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas, ed. A. Oskam, G. Meester, and H. Silvis, 2nd ed. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Cadogan, S. 2018. Creed Warns Against National Co-financing of Direct Farm Payments. Last modified at January 5, 2018. https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/farming/creed-warns-against-national-co-financing-of-direct-farm-payments-821224.html
  5. Candel, J.J.L. 2016. Putting Food on the Table: The European Union Governance of the Wicked Problem of Food Security. PhD Dissertation, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  6. Candel, J.J.L., and G.R. Biesbroek. 2016. Toward a Processual Understanding of Policy Integration. Policy Sciences 49: 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrubba, C.J. 1997. Net Financial Transfers in the European Union: Who Gets What and Why? The Journal of Politics 59: 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eberlein, E., and E. Grande. 2005. Beyond Delegation: Transnational Regulatory Regimes and the EU Regulatory State AU. Journal of European Public Policy 12: 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. 2013. The Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020—Frequently Asked Questions. Last modified at November 19, 2013. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-1004_en.htm
  10. ———. 2015. Glossary of Terms Related to the Common Agricultural Policy. Last modified at April, 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/glossary_en
  11. ———. 2017. Reflection Paper on the Future of EU Finances. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2018a. A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defences: The Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021–2027. Brussels: European Commission. COM(2018) 321 final.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2018b. Modernising the EU Budget’s Revenue Side. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/budget-proposals-modernising-budget-revenue-side-may2018_en.pdf
  14. ———. 2018c. Proposal for a Council Regulation Laying Down the Multiannual Financial Framework for the Years 2021 to 2027. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. European Committee of the Regions. 2017. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: Local and Regional Leaders Call for a Fair, Sustainable and Inclusive CAP. Last modified at July 12, 2017. https://cor.europa.eu/en/news/Pages/Reforme-de-la-Politique-Agricole-Commune.aspx
  16. European Court of Auditors. 2018a. Commission’s and Member States’ Actions in the Last Years of the 2007–2013 Programmes Tackled Low Absorption but Had Insufficient Focus on Results. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2018b. Using Cohesion Funds Money Should Not Become an End in Itself. Last modified at September 12, 2018. https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?nid=10396
  18. Feindt, P.H., C.J.A.M. Termeer, J.J.L. Candel, and Y. Buitenhuis. 2019. Assessing How Policies Enable or Constrain the Resilience of Farming Systems in the European Union: Case Study Results—SURE-Farm Report. Berlin/Wageningen: SURE-Farm.Google Scholar
  19. Greer, A. 2017. Post-Exceptional Politics in Agriculture: An Examination of the 2013 CAP Reform. Journal of European Public Policy 24: 1585–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grethe, H. 2008. Agricultural Policy: What Roles for the EU and the Member States? In Subsidiarity and Economic Reform in Europe, ed. G. GelauffF, I. Grilo, and A. Lejour. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Khan, M.R. 2018. New ‘Hanseatic’ States Stick Together in EU Big League. Accessed at January 17, 2019. https://www.ft.com/content/f0ee3348-f187-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f
  22. Laffan, B., and B. Linder. 2015. The Budget: Who Gets What, When, and How? In Policy-Making in the European Union, ed. H. Wallace, M. Pollack, and A.R. Young. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lasswell, H.D. 1958. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? New York: Meridian.Google Scholar
  24. Lyngaard, K., and P. Nedergaard. 2009. The Logic of Policy Development: Lessons Learned from Reform and Routine within the CAP 1980–2003. Journal of European Integration 31: 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Majone, G. 1996. Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Matthews, A. 2013. Implications of the European Council MFF Agreement for the Agricultural Environment. Last modified at February 26, 2013. http://capreform.eu/implications-of-the-european-council-mff-agreement-for-the-agricultural-environment/
  27. ———. 2014. The Impact of the Simultaneous MFF Negotiations on the European Parliament’s Influence on the 2013 CAP Reform. Dublin: The Institute for International Integration Studies.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2015. Gainers and Losers from the CAP Budget. Last modified at November 17, 2015. http://capreform.eu/gainers-and-losers-from-the-cap-budget/
  29. ———. 2018. National Co-financing of CAP Direct Payments. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Union Studies.Google Scholar
  30. Mattila, M. 2004. Contested Decisions: Empirical Analysis of Voting in the European Union Council of Ministers. European Journal of Political Research 43: 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Michalopoulos, S. 2018. EU Agriculture Ministers to Decide on EFSA’s Budget, Sources Say. Last modified at October 31, 2018. https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-agriculture-ministers-to-decide-on-efsas-budget-sources-say/
  32. OECD. 2017. Evaluation of Agricultural Policy Reforms in the European Union: The Common Agricultural Policy 2014–20. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson, J. 1995. Decision-Making in the European Union: Towards a Framework for Analysis. Journal of European Public Policy 2: 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scholaert, F. 2019. European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 2021–2027. Brussels: European Parliament Research Service.Google Scholar
  35. SER. 2006. Co-financing of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Hague: Sociaal Economische Raad.Google Scholar
  36. Sheehy, S. 1999. A Long, Long History of Agricultural Reform. The Irish Times, February 22.Google Scholar
  37. Swinnen, J., ed. 2015a. The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy: An Imperfect Storm. London: Rowman and Littlefield International.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2015b. The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy: Introduction and Key Conclusions. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
  39. Thatcher, M. 2001. European Regulation. In European Union: Power and Policy-Making, ed. J. Richardson. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Toekomstglb.nl. 2018. Italië tegen gelijktrekken hectarepremies. Last modified at September 25, 2018. https://toekomstglb.nl/italie-tegen-gelijktrekken-hectarepremies/
  41. Williams, R., I. Eichler, N. Gottmann, H. Förster, and A. Siemons. 2018. Energy and the MFF—Study for the ITRE Committee. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Administration and Policy GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options