Publikasjoner
NIBIOs ansatte publiserer flere hundre vitenskapelige artikler og forskningsrapporter hvert år. Her finner du referanser og lenker til publikasjoner og andre forsknings- og formidlingsaktiviteter. Samlingen oppdateres løpende med både nytt og historisk materiale. For mer informasjon om NIBIOs publikasjoner, besøk NIBIOs bibliotek.
1998
Forfattere
Sjur Spildo PrestegardSammendrag
In this note it is first shown that public intervention in agriculture may be desirable in the case of market failure. Then the focus is on objectives concerning income distribution, price and income stability. The note then focuses on the proposition that some of the conflicting views on agricultural policy between economists, politicians and countries, arise from a difference in the fundamental view on agricultural policy. Is agricultural policy basically seen as an income policy or social policy, or as an intervention to correct market failures in agriculture? I suggest that this difference in viewing agricultural policy, also influence views on which policy instruments to use. Economists (and politicians) who look upon agricultural policy as mainly an income policy or social policy, often speak in favour of decoupling support, i.e. that support not should be linked to production. This argument has a strong basis in economic theory. However, if the objectives of agricultural policy are regarded as mainly policy interventions to correct market failures, decoupling of support can not be seen as effective. If the objective is to maintain a public good such as the agricultural landscape, the support must be given to landscape maintenance (and this requires some agricultural activity). This implies that «a greening of policies» which intends to decouple support totally from agricultural production, will not be an effective policy. But «a greening of policy» by reducing tariffs and price support in favour of for example different forms of acreage support or support per head of animals, will be more efficient and less trade distorting. It is argued that this has to be taken into account in the forthcoming negotiations within the WTO on further agricultural liberalisation. To give purely income support, is the same as stating that the main reason for keeping an agriculture in that country, is to give farmers an income. In this note it is argued that it should be seen the other way round. To give farmers a decent income and standard of living can not be regarded as an agricultural objective in itself, it must be seen as a necessary condition for maintaining a national agriculture and thereby obtain other objectives (i.e. correcting market failures). If a society has as its main agricultural objective to secure the income of farmers compared to other groups in society, it can be argued that this could be done better through the regular tax and social system than as an integrated part of agricultural policy.
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Grete StokstadSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Sjur Spildo Prestegard Erik BøeSammendrag
Innleiingsvis vert det i kapittel 1 gjort greie for kvifor ein har sett nærmare på landbruket og landbrukspolitikken i Sveits. Det vert peika på at Sveits er det einaste større landet i Vest-Europa utanom Norge som ikkje er medlem av Den europeiske union (EU), og som dermed har ein eigen nasjonal landbrukspolitikk. Elles vert det påpeika at Sveits, på same måte som Norge, har hatt ein ambisiøs landbrukspolitikk i heile etterkrigstida med stor vekt på omfattande skjerming av eige landbruk og store budsjettoverføringar. Frå norsk side vil det kunna vera av stor interesse å få auka kunnskap om korleis Sveits planlegg å innretta sin landbrukspolitikk med tanke på framtida. Dette mellom anna for å finna ut kvar landa kan ha felles interesser i dei komande forhandlingane innan World Trade Organization (WTO) om ytterlegare liberaliseringar på landbruksområdet. [...]
Forfattere
Klaus MittenzweiSammendrag
This paper discusses arguments to justify active income redistribution by governments based on the assumption that the redistribution of income is the only government objective. Other (legal) governmental objectives like providing public goods or correcting for externalities are neglected. There exist sound economic arguments to justify active income redistribution by governments (e.g. risk averse behavior, preferences for equality, and concerns for the poor). These arguments, however, do not seem to confirm that policies aimed to redistribute income only should be eligible for special interest groups. The choice of policy instruments should be based on the concept of transfer efficiency. This concept ranks policy instruments according to their costs of transferring a given amount of income between individuals in the economy. Economic theory is biased in the understanding of the role government plays in the decision making process. Neo-classical theory holds the view that governments act as if they represented the aggregated preferences of the individuals in the economy. Public choice theory assumes instead that governments are made up by individuals who pursue their own interests (but do not necessarily act egoistically). According to this theory, governments can be induced to implement policies that redistribute income as a result of lobbying and rent-seeking behavior. Norway is characterized by a relatively equal distribution of income compared to other countries. The more or less equal distribution of total household income of Norwegian farmers is to a greater extent a result of part-time farming than a result of domestic agricultural policies that aim to equalize (agricultural) income among farmers. This picture may change considerably when agricultural income per man-year is concerned but further research is needed to answer this question.
Forfattere
Oskar PuschmannSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
The seasonal variations in volume of the milk in Norwegian goat dairyfarming, complicate production of brand goat cheeses. In the specialised goat dairy farming system most kids are culled shortly after birth without utilising the meat. In this paper the farm economics of an alternative system with altered period of kidding (currently in theperiod from January to March) combined with production of meat and cashmere fibre, is examined. May kidding combined with raising the kids for 8 or 20 months yielded the m ost promising economical return. Raising the kids one year is also profitable when kidding takes place in February while December kidding seems to perform best with thepresent system of culling the kids right after birth. Cashmere fibre production seems to be profitable on Norwegian dairy goat farms and fibre and meat could become an optio n in countries seeking to improve incomes on dairy goat farms. Compared to the present system the changes also would be favourable from an animal welfare point of view.
Forfattere
Anne ElgersmaSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Jon Frank Odd Egil Stabbetorp Lars Helge Frivold Odd EilertsenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Knut SolbraaSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag