Lotze, Hermann: Integration and Transition on European Agricultural and Food Markets: Policy Reform, European Union Enlargement, and Foreign Direct Investment - Four Essays in Applied Partial and General Equilibrium Modeling -


Chapter 1. General Introduction and Overview

1.1. Statement of the Issues

European markets for agricultural and food products are characterized by two major processes over the last decade: integration and transition. The term integration is mostly used with respect to the Common Agricultural Market, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Monetary System within the European Union (EU). Since the foundation of the European Economic Community in 1957, agricultural and food markets have become more and more integrated. This process will be further advanced by the introduction of a common currency in 1999. On the other hand, the term transition is usually assigned to the process of economic reform and restructuring in Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) after the breakdown of socialist regimes and central planning. The transition process from plan to market has been going on for about a decade now, and countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have made tremendous progress in establishing market economic systems. Other countries, like the majority of the Newly Independent States in the Former Soviet Union, are lagging behind and have quite a way to go in transforming their economies. Hence, the term "transition" will remain important for some time in Central and Eastern European food industries.

However, it can also be stated that transition processes become more and more relevant in Western Europe. The Common Agricultural Policy is constantly changing which is caused by internal as well as external reasons. Budget limitations, administrative problems and reduced political acceptance force the EU Commission to modify the CAP. In addition, negotiations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have and will put considerable external pressure for reform on EU agriculture. Although the last CAP reform in 1992 brought about the most profound changes to European agricultural policy in the last 40 years, already the next steps are outlined in the Agenda 2000 proposals. The Agenda 2000 is supposed to provide a suitable framework for European agriculture and food markets at the beginning of the next century. It can be said that EU agriculture faces an on-going process of transition from high government protection towards more and more open competition on world markets. Moreover, the Agenda 2000 indicates that the future EU


agricultural policy will have to include broader aspects concerning regional development and environmental protection.

On the other hand, Central and Eastern European countries are facing the challenges as well as the opportunities of economic integration. While traditional trade relationships from socialist times, e.g. between the Former Soviet Union and the Central European countries, have collapsed, the most important trading partners are now in Western Europe. Most transition countries have preferential trading agreements with the European Union. Moreover, the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) was created in order to explore the benefits of open markets within the region. The same applies to several common market arrangements among the Newly Independent States. However, market integration also means that producers in CEEC are facing Western import competition. Especially in the food industry, this has led to serious decreases in domestic production, as food processing was generally one of the least competitive sectors in centrally planned economies.

Probably the strongest element of transition and East-West integration in the near future will be the prospective Eastern enlargement of the European Union. Once the first five candidates for EU membership, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, will be in the Union, they will also be integrated in the Common Agricultural Policy, even though there might be a considerable adjustment period. Later, the process of integration might continue with the accession of even more new members from the CEEC region, or with the extension of the common currency towards the more prosperous Central European countries like Poland or Hungary. By that time, these countries might not be called transition countries any more.

A further important aspect of East-West integration is the flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) by Western food companies into the transition countries. In the general process of economic globalization, the movement not only of equity capital, but also of related technical and management know-how through multinational firms has become a very important issue. Even in socialist times a few Western firms had joint-venture agreements with state-owned companies in CEEC. Since the beginning of economic and political transition, the inflow of foreign capital into this region has risen sharply. FDI can be expected to play an important role not only in the process of economic restructuring in the transition economies, but also with respect to regional


integration on European food markets. However, to which extent the potential of foreign firms can actually be realized, depends to a large part on the policy environment in the recipient countries.

In this study, various aspects of European integration and transition, i.e. agricultural policy reform, EU Eastern enlargement, and FDI in transition countries, are analyzed using applied partial as well as general equilibrium modeling approaches. The major objective of the study is to quantify the separate effects of these economic processes, and to show important linkages and interactions between them. First, for the case of a further CAP reform, the effects of uniform land and labor subsidies on output and factor markets are analyzed in a general equilibrium framework. Second, based on the uniform land subsidy, a prospective EU enlargement is simulated in the same modeling framework. Implications for production and trade, government budgets, and regional welfare in the EU as well as the new members are demonstrated. Third, the economic impact of sector-specific FDI inflows into the the transition economies is analyzed in a general equilibrium model. Finally, a partial equilibrium model is used for simulating the interaction between FDI, trade policy intervention and imperfect competition in the Polish sugar industry. In this case, the policy choice is also related to the potential integration of Poland into the EU.

For the researcher, the variety of applications in this study reveals various strengths and weaknesses of the modeling approaches and shows specific needs for further model improvements. Moreover, the model exercises provide useful results for institutions and policy-makers who are responsible for shaping the framework around the integration and transition processes in Europe.

1.2. Structure of the Study

The main part of this study consists of four previously published essays which cover various issues mentioned in the last section. Preceding the actual analyses, Chapter 2 provides a descriptive overview of applied general equilibrium (AGE) modeling as well as the structure of a specific AGE model developed by the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP). In Chapter 3, 4 and 5, the GTAP model is used for the analysis of EU agricultural policy reform, Eastern enlargement, and FDI in transition countries,


respectively. In Chapter 6, a new partial equilibrium model is developed for analyzing the impact of FDI in the Polish sugar industry.

Chapter 2 starts with a brief overview of applied general equilibrium modeling. Then, the structure of the GTAP model is explained in detail by referring to the actual computer software code. Furthermore, the GTAP database as well as possible extensions to the standard model are discussed. The complete model code is listed in the appendix to Chapter 2. This rather technical information is provided in order to make later model applications more transparent and replicable for the interested reader. For the same reason, the model code necessary for implementing the relevant scenarios in Chapter 3 through 5 is also given in respective appendices.

In Chapter 3, recent developments and proposals for further reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy are discussed. Based on a study by Kirschke et al. (1997), new options for a simplified and more transparent policy regime are developed. Major elements are uniform labor and land subsidies, combined with a partial as well as complete removal of border protection measures. Several policy scenarios are defined and analyzed in a general equilibrium framework. An earlier version of this paper was published in Herok and Lotze (1997).<1>

Chapter 4 provides an AGE analysis of an EU Eastern enlargement under a new CAP. External restrictions, like tariff bindings from the GATT Uruguay Round, are important in formulating a policy regime which would facilitate the enlargement. In this paper, a policy regime based on uniform land subsidies, as discussed in Chapter 3, is taken as an option for preparing EU agriculture for the prospective integration of new members from Central and Eastern Europe. The actual enlargement is assumed to occur in the year 2005. Various scenarios are defined in which different development paths for the transition economies are also taken into account. Using the GTAP model, a forecast up to the year 2005 is conducted under varying conditions. Subsequently, the integration effects are analyzed by modeling a customs union between the EU and the new


members. Earlier versions of this paper have been published in Herok and Lotze (1998) and accepted for publication in Herok and Lotze (forthcoming).<2>

In Chapter 5, the impact of FDI by Western firms on the transition process in CEEC is analyzed within the GTAP modeling framework. The paper starts with a theoretical overview of the potential effects of FDI on recipient economies. Recent data on sector-specific FDI flows into the transition countries are presented which are then used for the empirical analysis. The model distinguishes between various sectors for primary agriculture and the food industry as well as manufactures and services. Several scenarios are defined, taking important features like technology transfer effects and labor market rigidities into consideration. Previous publications of this work can be found in Lotze (1997a; 1997b; 1998).

Finally, in Chapter 6 also the effects of FDI in the transition process are analyzed, but a different approach is taken. Here, the focus is very specifically on one sector and one country, i.e. the sugar industry in Poland. A relatively simple, partial equilibrium model is developed for analyzing the interaction between FDI, distorting trade policies and imperfect competition on a domestic market in the recipient country. Input linkages to sugar beet producers are also included in the model. Various options with respect to the Polish sugar policy are formulated. These policy options are also related to the expected EU Eastern enlargement. Due to the debate on a further CAP reform, it is currently not clear how the EU sugar regime might look like at the time of enlargement. However, the type of the policy intervention will have important implications for the impact of FDI in the Polish sugar industry. A previous version of this paper was published in Lotze (1997c).

Although the individual chapters of this study partly overlap in their topics and methodology, they can be read independently from each other. Therefore, all the references and appendices related to a certain chapter are given right at the end of the chapter. Footnotes are numbered separately for each chapter. Having more or less independent chapters also implies that certain repetitions are unavoidable. For example, each of the chapters in which the GTAP model is used includes a very brief description of the model structure in order to make the results plausible. For further details on the


modeling technique as well as possible extensions to the standard model the reader is referred to Chapter 2.

1.3. Main Findings

As already mentioned in Section 1.1, the EU Common Agricultural Policy is constantly changing. After the last reform in 1992, a lot of scope for further adjustment remains. On the one hand, there is a rising pressure for more external liberalization which is caused by the on-going multilateral trade negotiations in the WTO and the prospective Eastern enlargement of the EU. On the other hand, there is also growing internal demand for simplified policy measures, as the CAP has become ever more complicated and expensive to administer. Direct factor subsidies have been discussed as an alternative form of income support to farmers which could be less distorting with respect to domestic consumers and international trade. In Chapter 3, partial and complete liberalization scenarios for the CAP are analyzed in connection with uniform compensation payments related to agricultural land or labor. The level of the factor subsidies is calculated by taking the total amount of current compensation payments and dividing it by the total amount of agricultural land or labor. For matter of comparison, additional scenarios without any compensation are also simulated. An AGE model is a suitable tool for this analysis, as factor movements into and out of agriculture are explicitly taken into account.

Due to reduced border protection, agricultural output in the EU drops in all scenarios. The model results show that the effects of the factor subsidies on output levels are very small compared to the scenarios without any compensation. Hence, distortions with respect to domestic product markets and international trade are almost negligible. World market prices for all agricultural and food products rise, and it appears that the EU would be able to fulfill its requirements from the GATT Uruguay Round even in the partial liberalization scenarios. In addition, EU budget expenditures are reduced between 17 percent under partial liberalization and 42 percent under complete liberalization. However, uniform factor subsidies cause new distortions on land and labor markets. In the case of a land subsidy, land rents are seriously driven up which favors land owners, but not necessarily active farmers. A labor subsidy significantly slows down the employment reduction in agriculture after further liberalization of the CAP. For any kind of factor subsidy, it has to be kept in mind that the specific design of


these new policy instruments would have an impact on factor use and prices. This has been neglected in the current AGE model. Moreover, other studies have shown that, even under partial liberalization, severe adjustment costs occur on the farm level. This indicates that there might be a discrepancy between the aggregate AGE model reactions and the adjustment possibilities for the individual farm.

If there is a political consensus that farm income support will have to be provided by the EU for some time, uniform land subsidies might be a useful option for a future development of the CAP, although they are not without their own problems. Land subsidies are probably easier to administer than labor subsidies, and they could be more easily linked to region-specific environmental standards. This is an important feature, since aspects of environmental protection will become more relevant to EU agriculture in the future. In any case, factor subsidies should be seen only as a further step of the CAP towards a simplified policy regime and generally lower protection levels. From an economic point of view, any kind of subsidy should be phased out after a certain adjustment period, unless it pays for the provision of certain public goods which are not remunerated by the market.

In Chapter 4, a uniform land subsidy is taken as the basic policy instrument which could prepare the CAP for the integration of several transition countries. The Eastern enlargement will be a big challenge for the EU in terms of administration and budget expenditures. For both reasons, the CAP will have to be modified prior to the integration of new members. The model calculations in Chapter 4 try to illustrate the effects of an EU enlargement in the year 2005 under partial and complete liberalization of the CAP, in connection with a uniform land subsidy. The group of new members in the model consists of seven countries (CEC-7).<3> In order to make the integration scenarios more realistic, four different development paths until 2005 are considered. Various rates of economic growth are assumed for the CEC-7 due to uncertainty about the general economic development in the near future. Several difficulties arise with respect to transferring the CAP to the new members. It is, for example, by no means clear whether farmers in these countries will be eligible for any direct payments under the current CAP. Moreover, the Central European countries have their own tariff bindings under the WTO regulations which should not be violated after an EU


integration. As a compromise, in the model simulations the land subsidy is transferred only in relative terms according to local factor price levels.

After EU integration under partial liberalization of the CAP, domestic prices and output for non-grain crops and meat products rise strongly in the CEC-7. For milk products, the quota regulation is applied which leads to domestic price increases of more than 60 percent. Trade creation occurs especially in agriculture and food products where bilateral trade flows between CEC-7 and the old EU-15 nearly double. Trade diversion effects occur to the disadvantage of the Former Soviet Union. The transfer of land subsidies to the new members causes additional budget expenditures for the EU-15 at about 5 billion ECU. However, in the partial liberalization scenarios this is nearly balanced by reduced budget outlays for the CAP in general. Under complete liberalization of the CAP, output in agriculture and food products declines in the CEC-7 after EU integration. However, during the period up to the year 2005 they are able to grow faster under this scenario, and the total effect leaves them better off compared to a partial CAP liberalization. Moreover, huge budget savings on the side of the EU-15 would give room for much more structural support to the new member countries. Increased trade within the enlarged EU together with budget transfers from the old members lead to overall welfare gains for the CEC-7 between 1.7 and 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) at pre-enlargement levels. However, these numbers include only the static welfare gains from creating the customs union. If more dynamic effects like reduced political uncertainty and capital accumulation were taken into account, the calculated welfare gains from enlargement were probably much larger.

In view of the recent Agenda 2000 proposals by the European Commission, partial liberalization of the CAP certainly seems to be a realistic option for the upcoming enlargement, although problems with WTO restrictions should not be neglected. If current CAP instruments would be transferred to the new members, they are very likely to create severe distortions in these emerging market economies. This would also apply to a uniform land subsidy which would certainly create distortions on the land market. However, as already mentioned, such a simple policy instrument would be less distorting than product-specific payments, and it would be much less demanding with respect to administrative requirements. To the Central European countries, these arguments are even more relevant than to the current EU. Principally, agricultural policies in an enlarged EU should be as open as possible to world market competition.


This would prepare the new members for exploiting their comparative advantages in the agricultural and food sector while avoiding painful adjustments at later times, which Western European agriculture currently has to go through.

A further aspect of East-West integration, i.e. foreign direct investment activities by Western companies in the CEEC, is analyzed in Chapter 5. Since the political changes in Europe in 1989, total FDI flows into the transition countries have increased rapidly. However, the country and sector distribution has been very uneven. For example, Slovenia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have received much higher inflows of foreign capital, relative to their levels of GDP, than most countries in the Former Soviet Union. In all countries, the share of agriculture in total capital inflows is negligible, while the food processing industry received on average 11 percent of all FDI in the CEC-7, and 8 percent in the FSU. Four experiments are conducted in Chapter 5 in order to estimate the impact of FDI in the transition economies up to the year 1996. By using the GTAP model with data on sector-specific capital inflows, the effects of FDI can be separated from other simultaneous influences during the simulation period. Moreover, technical change can be implemented in the model in order to capture the know-how transfer related to FDI. Labor market imperfections which prevail in the transition countries are also considered. However, while imperfect labor mobility can be easily implemented in the model, real unemployment does not occur in the current version.

Generally, expectations in the CEEC are high with respect to the contributions of FDI to the process of economic restructuring and growth. However, so far the aggregate model results show a rather modest impact. For the time period between 1992 and 1996, an additional annual growth of GDP is calculated between 0.4 and 0.8 percent for the CEC-7, and about 0.2 percent for the FSU. Technology transfer effects account for about half of the total gains. The model also provides sector-specific employment effects. It becomes clear that labor is moving out of sectors with high shares of foreign investment. This is partly caused by substitution effects between capital and labor. Furthermore, additional technical change has not only output enhancing, but also input saving effects. More capital intensive new technologies introduced by foreign firms tend to use primary as well as intermediate inputs more efficiently. In the case of the food industry, this causes a decline in the domestic demand for agricultural products. Hence, in the model, domestic agriculture in the transition countries gains relatively


little from FDI by Western food processing companies. Imperfect labor mobility between sectors does not alter the results significantly.

The model experiments in Chapter 5 indicate that FDI should not be viewed as a major source of external finance in the transition process. Foreign capital can only be a supplement to domestic savings which have to provide the basis for economic development. Nevertheless, FDI may provide initial starting points for productivity growth and spillovers for local producers. The dynamic effects of management know-how transfer and "learning by watching" are, of course, very difficult to quantify.

Two important aspects with respect to the impact of FDI have been omitted in the AGE analysis in Chapter 5: government intervention and imperfectly competitive product markets. Government taxation and trade policy interventions will have important implications for foreign investors. Moreover, FDI is likely to change the competitive situation in the transition economies, where especially the food industry is often still dominated by state authorities.

In Chapter 6, the interaction between FDI, trade policies and imperfect competition is analyzed for the case of the sugar industry in Poland. The Polish government plans to privatize its sugar factories with participation of foreign firms in the near future. Western European sugar companies already show an interest in this sector, since Poland has very favorable conditions for sugar beet production, and it will be one of the first new members in the EU. This also implies hat the highly protective EU sugar policy would be applicable to Polish producers. In preparation for EU membership, Poland itself has already introduced a quota regime for sugar production. For the analysis, a new partial equilibrium model has been developed which is based on recent theoretical work in the literature. The model captures various types of trade policy intervention, government taxation and oligopsonistic behavior in the processing industry. Agents in the model are local as well as foreign sugar processors, sugar beet suppliers, consumers and the local government. The government is assumed to maximize domestic welfare by charging an output tax on sugar.

In the model, domestic sugar production is partly displaced by more productive foreign firms. This is clearly welfare improving, although the net effect for sugar beet farmers is ambiguous. If total sugar production does not rise, e.g. under a quota system, the


demand for sugar beets is reduced due to higher productivity in the processing stage. The size of the overall welfare gain crucially depends not only on the level of investment, but also on the policy instruments in place. Under high domestic protection, local as well as foreign sugar processors gain a higher producer surplus, but foreign firms can transfer their share abroad, as far as they are not taxed. The optimal tax rate rises with the level of investment. In the case of a restrictive quota regulation, part of the quota rents also accrue to foreign firms. Local consumers suffer from high domestic prices which additionally reduces the overall welfare gain for the recipient country. Under certain circumstances, i.e. a low investment level and a deficiency payment system with high domestic producer prices, the overall welfare effect of FDI can even be negative. The positive impact of FDI on domestic competition is rather small. Sugar beet producers gain significantly from higher producer prices, but this is merely a redistribution of rents which were captured by the imperfectly competitive processing industry before.

From the analysis in Chapter 6 it can be concluded that it is not in the best interest of a transition country to create investment incentives through distorting policy interventions. FDI will bring about sizeable benefits to the domestic economy only in the case when foreign firms enter a market because of differences in production costs or other real locational advantages. Under protectionist policy regimes, the positive contribution of FDI to local welfare is much smaller than in the case of undistorted markets. Part of the rents created through policy intervention accrue to foreign companies and cannot fully be captured by the local government through taxation. Increased competition in the processing industry has considerable advantages for raw input suppliers. This can be an important policy objective with respect to rural development in transition countries. However, the corresponding overall welfare improvement is rather small.

1.4. Implications for Further Research

The analyses in this study provide plenty of scope for further research. The first group of possible extensions includes the consideration of additional policy problems and scenarios as well as more detailed presentation of the results. The second group consists of advances in the modeling techniques.


With regard to additional policy scenarios, the distorting effects of land and labor subsidies on output and factor markets deserve further attention. Especially the influence of various model parameters on factor movements and factor price changes might be important. Systematic sensitivity analysis needs to be considered in this respect. In addition to uniform subsidy schemes, the precise proposals for the Agenda 2000 as they are now available should be modeled, which would require further disaggregation concerning agricultural commodities and various types of premia. A new database with a more detailed sector coverage in agriculture and food has been published by the Global Trade Analysis Project. This is certainly a good starting point for more precise agricultural policy analysis in the AGE framework. Implicit modeling of the EU budget would also make these policy scenarios more realistic. In addition, recent progress in welfare decomposition techniques facilitates a better representation of the model results.

Furthermore, various aspects which have been treated separately in this study should be combined into more comprehensive model simulations. For example, the analysis of an EU enlargement would become more realistic under a scenario covering the Agenda 2000 as well as endogenous FDI flows between regions. The consideration of a longer adjustment period with partial transfer of certain policy measures to the new member countries might be an additional option. The connection between FDI, trade policies, and imperfect competition in the AGE framework could be established by drawing on the modeling exercises in Chapter 5 and 6. Endogenizing the decisions of foreign firms between export activities and FDI as well as the decision between various types of FDI would be further useful extensions to the scenarios presented in this study.

This leads to further advances in the modeling techniques. In order to capture endogenous capital movements between regions more realistically, a dynamic modeling approach would be required. There are some examples of GTAP applications with endogenous capital accumulation which could be taken as a guideline. Issues like know-how transfer and technology spillovers could also be treated more appropriately in a dynamic setting. Another important area of model improvement is the implementation of imperfect competition and unemployment, as these issues are crucial in the transition process. Some progress has been made in the GTAP framework, and Chapter 6 also provides a useful concept for further extensions.


The explicit introduction of multinational firms into an AGE model would be an important improvement for capturing the effects of FDI. Generally, sector-wide model reactions could probably be made more plausible by taking into account the reactions and decisions of individual firms. For example, farm-based agricultural sector models show that there is often a discrepancy between adjustment possibilities of single firms and model reactions which are determined by sector-wide elasticity parameters. Firms' reactions are often restricted by sunk costs and path dependence which are usually not reflected in aggregated sector or AGE models. Moreover, especially in the process of transition, economic agents might reveal a behavior which differs from the traditional assumptions of utility and profit maximization. However, modeling structural change in a certain industry through entry or exit of individual firms is very difficult, since this is a highly non-linear process.

The long-run objective in applied economic modeling should be to close the gap between the aggregated sector level and single-firm models. Coming from the AGE approach, this would imply the development of a dynamic model with a detailed sector disaggregation, capturing multinational firm activity as well as imperfect competition. In practice, it is often difficult to provide the linkages down to the single firm, as consistent interfaces between different modeling approaches are often hard to define. However, on the basis of single-farm models, some progress has already been made in deriving sector wide model reactions by aggregating many single entities for a certain region (Balmann et al. 1998).

1.5. References

Balmann, A.; Lotze, H.; Noleppa, S. (1998): "Agrarsektormodellierung auf der Basis "typischer Betriebe" - Teil 1: Eine Modellkonzeption für die neuen Bundesländer." In: Agrarwirtschaft 47 (5) , p.222-230 .

Herok, C.A.; Lotze, H. (1997): "Neue Wege der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik: Handelseffekte und gesamtwirtschaftliche Auswirkungen. " In: Agrarwirtschaft 46 (7), p.257-264 .

Herok, C.A.; Lotze, H. (1998): Auswirkungen einer Osterweiterung der EU unter einer veränderten Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik. In: Heißenhuber, A.; Hoffmann, H.; von Urff, W. (eds.): Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft in einer erweiterten EU . Münster-Hiltrup , p.155-163 .


Herok, C.A.; Lotze, H. (forthcoming): "Implications of an EU Eastern Enlargement under a new Common Agricultural Policy. " In: Journal of Policy Modeling.

Kirschke, D.; Hagedorn, K.; Odening, M.; von Witzke, H. (1997): Optionen für die Weiterentwicklung der EU-Agrarpolitik. Kiel.

Lotze, H. (1997a): Wohlfahrtseffekte von Ausländischen Direktinvestitionen im Ernährungssektor Mittel- und Osteuropäischer Staaten. In: Bauer, S.; Herrmann, R.; Kuhlmann, F. (eds.): Märkte der Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft - Analyse, einzelwirtschaftliche Strategien, staatliche Einflußnahme. Münster-Hiltrup, p.487-499.

Lotze, H. (1997b): Foreign Direct Investment in Central and East European Food Industries: A General Equilibrium Analysis. Poster paper presented at the XXIII. International Conference of Agricultural Economists, August 10-16, Sacramento, California .

Lotze, H. (1997c): Foreign Direct Investment with Trade Policies and Imperfect Competition: the Case of the Polish Sugar Industry. In: Loader, R.J.; Henson, S.J.; Traill, W.B. (eds.): Globalisation of the Food Industry: Policy Implications. Reading, UK, p.557-569 .

Lotze, H. (1998): Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer in Transition Economies: An Application of the GTAP Model. In: Brockmeier, M.; Francois, J.F.; Hertel, T.; Schmitz, P.M. (eds.): Economic Transition and the Greening of Policies: Modeling New Challenges for Agriculture and Agribusiness in Europe . Kiel , p.124-141 .



Claudia A. Herok contributed to this chapter an overview of the current policy debate regarding further CAP reform. She was also supportive in discussing the model results.


In this chapter, Claudia A. Herok provided valuable information about the preparation for an EU Eastern enlargement. She was also very helpful in formulating the model scenarios as well as discussing the results.


These are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

[Titelseite] [Widmung] [Danksagung] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Abkürzungsverzeichnis] [Selbständigkeitserklärung]

© Die inhaltliche Zusammenstellung und Aufmachung dieser Publikation sowie die elektronische Verarbeitung sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung, die nicht ausdrücklich vom Urheberrechtsgesetz zugelassen ist, bedarf der vorherigen Zustimmung. Das gilt insbesondere für die Vervielfältigung, die Bearbeitung und Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronische Systeme.

DiML DTD Version 2.0
Zertifizierter Dokumentenserver
der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
HTML - Version erstellt am:
Wed Apr 26 13:12:53 2000