CAP support policy impact on Bulgarian agriculture
Keywords:
areas, Bulgaria, CAP, determination, livestock number, subsidiesAbstract
The main objective of the study is to identify the main areas of impact of the CAP in Bulgarian agriculture and to analyze the impact that subsidies on areas and livestock in certain industries. The development of agriculture during the years of EU membership shows a high dependency and relationship between subsidies and production, which is revealed by the size of the area in particular crops and the number of livestock. This influence is different in the different sectors, with much stronger connection and effect in certain productions, while in others the impact is insignificant. By estimating the coefficient of determination,the impact and the extent to which subsidies affect and drive the development of certain industries is judged. Through causality analysis, the explanation is outlined, both upon ongoing processes in the analyzed sectors and on the identification of the development trends. The results of this study are complemented by a descriptive analysis of the current situation and trends in the productions observed, which shows the extent to which the different agricultural support policy contributes to changes in agricultural industry development. This allows better understanding for the effects and processes that are taking place in Bulgarian agriculture since the accession to the EU.
References
Bachev, H. (2012). Impact of EU CAP on agricultural farms in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Management, 57 (5-6), 33-55.
European Parliament (2018). A comparative analysis of Global Agricultural Policy: Lessons for the future CAP. Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, 112. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2018)629183
Galluzzo, N. (2012). Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy payments towards Romanian farms.Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 24 (2),199-205.
Herzfeld, T. & Jongeneel, R. (2012). Why do farmers behave as they do? Understanding compliance with rural, agricultural and food attributed standards.Land Use Policy, 29 (1), 250-260. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837711000688
Ivanov, B., Popov, R., Mitova, D., Toteva, D. & Stoychev, V. (2019).Competitiveness and impact of direct payments in agriculture.Institute of Agricultural Economics, 103 (Bg).
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (2018). BANSIK – Final results for land occupation and territorial use of Bulgaria.Agrostatistical Book 2007-2017.https://www.mzh.government.bg/bg/statistika-i-analizi/
Minviel, J. &Latruffe, L. (2016). Effect of public subsidies on farm technical efficiency: A meta-analysis of empirical results. Applied Economics, 49 (2), 213-242. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00036846.2016.1194963?needAccess=true
Payment Agency (2007-2019). Annual Reports of the activity of State Fund Agriculture and Payment Agency. Annual series 2007-2019, approved by Ministry Council.
Rogers, J. & W. Alan Nicewander (1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician,42 (1),59–66. doi:10.2307/2685263.JSTOR 2685263.https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~rabbee/correlation.pdf.
Sokolova, E. (2014). SAPS Effect on different farm types – application of regression analysis.Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Management,59 (4), 3-14.
Solnik, B., Bourcrelle, C. & Le Fur, Y. (1996). International market correlation and volatility. Financial Analyst Journal, 52 (5), 17-34.
Zwolak, J. (2016). Regression relationship between production and factors of production in Polish agriculture.Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 22 (6), 893-896.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

