Verbos de sentimiento y alternancias sintácticas

We next use the estimated model to simulate expenditure on NAPs in 21 EU member states.9 To this end, we collect data on the demand-side and supply-side determinants of agricultural policy expenditure for each of these member states, and enter these data into our estimate of equation (4). This study does this for each of the years from 2004 to 2010, and for each year it adds the simulated expenditures on NAPs across the 21 member states.

The results are summarised in Figure 4.10 _{The differences between CAP expenditure and simu-} lated expenditures on NAPs for the EU 21 are relatively small in most years. The largest dif- ference, estimated for 2010, amounts to just under 0.2 percent of GDP in the EU 21, or roughly Euro 23 billion. In most years it does not appear that the CAP has been much more or much less expensive that the NAPs that would have replaced it.

That said, these simulations provide some evidence that the CAP is capping agricultural spend- ing in the EU in recent years. From 2004 to 2006, the CAP was more expensive than or roughly as expensive as the simulated NAPs; since 2007 the simulated NAPs have been consistently more expensive that the CAP. In the fi rst decades of the CAP, when the EU’s budget grew rapidly, the common-pool problem and the resulting propensity to adopt increasingly expensive support measures went largely unchecked. Increasingly, however, limits on the growth of the EU budget, and on the share of CAP spending in that budget, may have disciplined agricultural policy and provided a counterweight to national preferences for higher levels of agricultural protection and support. In addition, peaking prices for agricultural commodities in 2007 and from 2010 onward have weakened the case for farm support.

9 _{These member states are the EU 15 plus the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Missing data preclude simulation for the}

remaining member states (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania). The EU 21 accounted for over 98 percent of the EU’s GDP in 2009.

10 _{The simulations depicted in Figure 4 are based on econometric estimates that are subject to uncertainty. The confidence intervals around our simulated}

EU-21 NAP expenditures are wide, which means that these expenditures could be considerably higher or lower than the most likely values presented in Figure 4. Using these confidence intervals we can determine that simulated expenditure on NAPs in 2010, for example, is higher than actual expenditure on the CAP with 74 percent probability.

Case Study 1: CAP

In Figure 5, actual 2009 CAP contributions and receipts, and simulated 2009 NAP expenditure is compared for each of the 21 member states. The aggregated results presented in Figure 4 above show that difference between actual CAP expenditure and simulated NAP expenditures for the EU-21 amounted to Euro 4.5 billion in 2009. Hence, replacing the CAP with NAPs in 2009 would have increased expenditure in some member states and reduced it in others, with the aggregate gains and losses for the EU as a whole roughly balancing. Using 2009 as a basis for comparison therefore highlights the redistribution in public expenditure between member states that is caused by the CAP.

Two comparisons are made. First, Figure 5 compares simulated NAP expenditure in 2009 with what each member state actually contributed to CAP expenditure in 2009. This comparison shows how much the ministry of fi nance in each member state could save (or how much more it would spend) if the CAP were replaced by national policies. Second, simulated NAP expenditure is also compared with the receipts that each member state received due to the CAP in 2009. This comparison shows how much more (or less) farmers in each member state would receive if the CAP were replaced by national policies.11

11 _{The simulated NAP expenditures in Figure 4 are also estimates and, hence, subject to uncertainty.}

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 % of EU-21 GDP 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: Own calculations

Simulated expenditure on NAPs, Actual expenditure on the CAP, Difference between simulated and actual expenditure in billion Euro Figure 4: Actual EU-21 CAP expenditure and simulated expenditure on national agricultural policies by 21 individual member states (percent of EU-21 GDP, and difference in billion Euro)

– 4.5 +11.5 +1.3 +8.0 0.0 +4.5 _+23.0

Case Study 1: CAP

According to the simulations, Germany, for example, would have spent roughly Euro 300 million less on a NAP than it contributed to fi nancing the CAP in 2009. In other words, renationalising agri- cultural policy would have saved Germany some money. In addition, all of the money that Germany would have spent on its NAP would have accrued to German agriculture, whereas under the CAP almost one-third of its contribution is transferred to other countries. Hence, replacing the CAP with a NAP would not only have reduced German agricultural policy expenditure by Euro 300 million, it would also have increased the amount of support provided to German farmers, by almost Euro 3 billion. The situation in the UK and to some extent Italy is similar. The shift to a NAP would have increased support to domestic farmers in these countries primarily by reducing the amounts that they currently contribute to support agriculture in other member states.

The situation in France differs from that in Germany, Italy, and the UK. According to the simula- tion, France would have spent roughly Euro 1 billion more on a NAP than it contributed to the CAP in 2009. One half of this amount would have replaced net receipts of roughly Euro 500 million that France received from the CAP in 2009, and the other half would have represented

United Kingdom Estonia Luxembourg Slov akia Austria Greece Spain Czech Republik Ireland Poland France Sweden _Denmark Italy Portugal Germany

Slovenia Hungary Belgium Netherlands Finland 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Million Euro

Source: Own calculations

Receipts from the CAP, Contribution to the CAP expenditure, Simulated NAP expenditure Figure 5: Actual 2009 contributions to CAP expenditure and simulated 2009 national agricultural policy expenditure for 21 member states

Case Study 1: CAP

increased support for agriculture in France. Given the freedom to determine its own agricultural policy, the simulations suggest that France would opt for, and pay for, higher levels of support.

The Netherlands and Sweden stand out as countries that, like France, would have spent consider- ably more on NAPs than they contributed to the CAP in 2009 (Euro 1.1 and Euro 0.6 billion more, respectively). However, like Germany, both are net contributors to the CAP, so shifting to NAPs would have greatly increased the support provided to their farmers (more than doubling it in the case of the Netherlands). Spain, Greece, Hungary, and Ireland would have spent roughly as much on NAPs as they contributed to the CAP in 2009, but since they are all major net recipients from the CAP, the shift to NAPs would lead to large reductions in agricultural support.

Poland is unique in that it would have spent considerably more on a NAP than it contributed to the CAP in 2009, but nevertheless would have provided its farmers with considerably less support than they received from the CAP. While farmers in Spain, Greece, Hungary, and Ireland would receive roughly as much support under NAPs as their governments currently contribute to the CAP, it appears that farmers in Poland would be able to persuade their government to spend much more on a NAP than it is currently contributing to the CAP.