Suchergebnisse

We present the first disaggregated estimation of the causal effects of a nationwide AES program on environmentally-relevant practices for a nationally representative sample. We study the AES program that has been implemented in France between 2000 and 2006 as part of the EU policy for rural development. The causal effect of the AES program is the average difference between practices of participants in the presence of the program and what their practices would have been had the program not been implemented. This counterfactual situation cannot be observed and intuitive approximations using non participants' practices or participants' practices before receiving the AES are plagued by large sources of bias (selection bias and time trend bias). To correct for these sources of bias, we use Difference-in-Difference (DID) matching. The main idea is to compare each participant to a non participant "twin" with the same observed characteristics. We combine matching with DID to correct for any remaining bias that may be due to unobserved variables. Our results suggest that the size of windfall effects of the AES programs depends on the specific prerequisites for each AES. For example, the AES supporting conversion to organic farming, which combined large payments with the strong requirement of not being an organic farmer when applying for the AES, have had negligible windfall effects. We cannot conclude on the extent of windfall effects of payments for extensive herding. We provide a first attempt to integrate the results of causal analysis in a cost-benefit evaluation of the AES. We argue that evaluation should be prepared at the same time the program is designed. This would improve the collection of data and enable using the first results of the evaluation to design the next program (by suppressing or altering the less efficient AES). Finally, this could allow for the implementation of experimental methods to evaluate policies that do not comply with the assumptions of DID-matching, like payments for extensive herding.

Can agricultural extension policies be improved by leveraging the power of peer influence? In this study, we evaluate the performance of the French Ecophyto plan aimed at reducing pesticide use, focusing on its flagship scheme, which has provided technical assistance to 3,000 volunteer pilot farms enrolled as peer groups since 2011. We use panel data collected from a representative sample of vineyards, known to be among the heaviest consumers of pesticides. We apply a variety of quasi-experimental approaches to estimate the impact of program participation on pesticide use and crop yields of enrolled vineyards. We find that participants have used 8 to 22 percent lesser pesticides than they would have used in the absence of the program. Moreover, we find that this change of practices resulted in a decrease in yields for only a fraction of enrolled peer farms, while others appear to have maintained their yields. Altogether these results suggest that providing technical assistance to peer groups can be effective in significantly reducing pesticide use in France, and presumably in developed countries more generally, for a cost per hectare that is not greater than that of the average European agri-environmental scheme.

Can agricultural extension policies be improved by leveraging the power of peer influence? In this study, we evaluate the performance of the French Ecophyto plan aimed at reducing pesticide use, focusing on its flagship scheme, which has provided technical assistance to 3,000 volunteer pilot farms enrolled as peer groups since 2011. We use panel data collected from a representative sample of vineyards, known to be among the heaviest consumers of pesticides. We apply a variety of quasi-experimental approaches to estimate the impact of program participation on pesticide use and crop yields of enrolled vineyards. We find that participants have used 8 to 22 percent lesser pesticides than they would have used in the absence of the program. Moreover, we find that this change of practices resulted in a decrease in yields for only a fraction of enrolled peer farms, while others appear to have maintained their yields. Altogether these results suggest that providing technical assistance to peer groups can be effective in significantly reducing pesticide use in France, and presumably in developed countries more generally, for a cost per hectare that is not greater than that of the average European agri-environmental scheme.

Can agricultural extension policies be improved by leveraging the power of peer influence? In this study, we evaluate the performance of the French Ecophyto plan aimed at reducing pesticide use, focusing on its flagship scheme, which has provided technical assistance to 3,000 volunteer pilot farms enrolled as peer groups since 2011. We use panel data collected from a representative sample of vineyards, known to be among the heaviest consumers of pesticides. We apply a variety of quasi-experimental approaches to estimate the impact of program participation on pesticide use and crop yields of enrolled vineyards. We find that participants have used 8 to 22 percent lesser pesticides than they would have used in the absence of the program. Moreover, we find that this change of practices resulted in a decrease in yields for only a fraction of enrolled peer farms, while others appear to have maintained their yields. Altogether these results suggest that providing technical assistance to peer groups can be effective in significantly reducing pesticide use in France, and presumably in developed countries more generally, for a cost per hectare that is not greater than that of the average European agri-environmental scheme.

We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.

International audience ; We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.

International audience ; We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.

International audience ; We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.

We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.

We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.

International audience ; We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.

International audience ; We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.

We illustrate how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could be used as a learning tool to shed light on various aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). RCTs are quasi-absent from the CAP evaluation toolbox, despite their frequent use to evaluate other European Union policies, or agricultural policies in developing countries. We draw upon existing debates on the role of RCTs in policy-making to derive a list of points of attention. We then consider four specific examples of evaluation questions for the CAP, and based on examples drawn from agricultural and social policies in developing and developed countries, argue that the RCT toolbox has the potential to significantly add to existing approaches to evaluating and designing components of the CAP.