Background

  • Kevin F. Hanrahan
  • Trevor Donnellan
  • Emil Erjavec
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to set the modelling and policy context for the AGMEMOD model. These contexts are important since they define the shape of AGMEMOD and the analytical purposes that it seeks to fulfil. The AGMEMOD model seeks to reflect the heterogeneity of European agriculture through its modelling of agricultural commodity markets in all EU Member States. The need for a detailed representation of policy instruments within the model’s structure is also stressed given the heterogeneity in CAP implementation that has emerged since the Fischler reforms of 2003 and the accession of countries from Central and Eastern Europe. The strengths and weaknesses of partial equilibrium and general equilibrium approaches to agricultural policy modelling are also reviewed.

Keywords

Origins of the CAP CAP reforms Modelling the CAP Partial equilibrium modelling Computable general equilibrium modelling 

References

  1. Banse M, Tangermann S (1996) Agricultural implications of Hungary’s accession to the EU. Partial vs. general equilibrium effects. Working Paper 1/2. Joint Research Project “Agricultural Implications of CEEC Accession to the EU”, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  2. Begg I (2005) Funding the European Union. A federal trust report on the European Union’s Budget. The Federal Trust for Education and Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bureau JC, Mahé LP (2008) CAP reform beyond 2013: an idea for a longer view. Notre Europe Studies and Research No. 64, Notre Europe, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission (2010) EU budget 2009: financial report. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission (2011) Agriculture in the EU: statistical and economic information report 2010. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  6. European Council (1999) Council regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of May 17, 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations. OJ L160, 26 June, 1999Google Scholar
  7. European Union (2001) Göteborg European Council 15 and 16 June 2001: presidency conclusions. SN 200/1/01 REV 1. Available via http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/00200-r1.en1.pdf. Cited 21 June 2011
  8. European Union (2008) Consolidated versions of the treaty on European Union and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Office for Official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, OJ C 115, 9.5.2008Google Scholar
  9. Gros D (2008) How to achieve a better budget for the European Union? CEPS working document No. 289, April 2008. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. Jensen JD (1996) An applied econometric model for Danish Agriculture (ESMERALDA), Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics, report no. 90Google Scholar
  11. Josling T (2008) External influences on CAP reforms: an historical perspective. In: Swinnen JFM (ed) The perfect storm: the political economy of the Fischler Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. Pindyck R, Rubinfeld D (2008) Microeconomics, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. Richter S (2008) Facing the monster “Juste retour”: on the net financial position of member states vis-à-vis the EU Budget and a proposal for reform. Research Report 348, Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  14. Riordan B, Donnellan T, Hanrahan KF, McQuinn K (2002) Projection of policy impacts on the agri-food sector: overview and introduction to AG-MEMOD. Paper presented at the 10th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE), Zaragoza, 28–31 August 2002Google Scholar
  15. Robinson S (1989) Multisectoral models. In: Chenery HB, Srinivasan TN (eds) Handbook of development economics. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Salamon P, Chantreuil F, Donnellan T, Erjavec E, Esposti R, Hanrahan KF, van Leeuwen M, Bouma F, Dol W, Salputra G (2008) How to deal with the challenges of linking a large number of individual national models: the case of the AGMEMOD Partnership. Agrarwirtschaft 57(8):373–378Google Scholar
  17. Salvatici L, Anania G, Arfini F, Conforti P, De Muro P, Londero P, Sckokai P (2001) Recent developments in modelling the CAP: hype or hope? In: Heckelei T, Witzke HP, Henrichsmeyer W (eds) Agricultural sector modelling and policy information systems. Proceedings of the 65th European Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE). Bonn, Germany, 29–31 March 2000. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, KielGoogle Scholar
  18. Swinbank A, Tanner C (1996) Farm policy and trade conflict: the Uruguay Round and CAP reform. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  19. Tyers R, Anderson K (1992) Disarray in world food markets: a quantitative assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Tongeren FW, Meijl H, Surry Y (2001) Global models applied to agricultural and trade policies: a review and assessment. Agr Econ 26(2):149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2008) Revised draft modalities for agriculture. WTO, TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4, Committee on Agriculture Special Session, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science +Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin F. Hanrahan
    • 1
  • Trevor Donnellan
    • 1
  • Emil Erjavec
    • 2
  1. 1.Rural Economy Research CentreTeagascCo GalwayIreland
  2. 2.Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaDomžaleSlovenia

Personalised recommendations