Abstract
Counterpoint - Ackrill and Kay
Professor David Harvey's proposed agenda for CAP reform in EuroChoices 5(1) is, we believe, unrealistic. It pays insufficient attention to the politics of EU policy-making and ignores the importance countries place on protecting their shares of EU spending. We recognise the incremental nature of CAP reform, but believe this can lead to significant cumulative effects. Our proposal builds on modulation to transfer more CAP spending from Pillar I to Pillar II. Farmers receiving the largest payments should have their payments cut through higher compulsory modulation rates. We also seek a reduction of EU spending on the CAP, with greater national contributions achieved through the established channel of co-financing.
Reply to Ackrill and Kay - David Harvey
Ackrill and Kay (A&K) say my suggestions for national subscription, co-financing and discretion for CAP Pillar 1 spending and associated elimination of the troublesome UK rebate risk a stalemate, and that the further reform will necessarily be incremental, rather than radical. In reply, I argue that some radical reform will eventually be necessary, so that it makes sense to think about the required directions now. I also argue that my own suggestions are not so far from A&K's analysis as they seem to suppose. My suggestions seem little more likely to generate a stalemate than A&K's incremental change forecasts.
Professor David Harvey's proposed agenda for CAP reform in EuroChoices 5(1) is, we believe, unrealistic. It pays insufficient attention to the politics of EU policy-making and ignores the importance countries place on protecting their shares of EU spending. We recognise the incremental nature of CAP reform, but believe this can lead to significant cumulative effects. Our proposal builds on modulation to transfer more CAP spending from Pillar I to Pillar II. Farmers receiving the largest payments should have their payments cut through higher compulsory modulation rates. We also seek a reduction of EU spending on the CAP, with greater national contributions achieved through the established channel of co-financing.
Reply to Ackrill and Kay - David Harvey
Ackrill and Kay (A&K) say my suggestions for national subscription, co-financing and discretion for CAP Pillar 1 spending and associated elimination of the troublesome UK rebate risk a stalemate, and that the further reform will necessarily be incremental, rather than radical. In reply, I argue that some radical reform will eventually be necessary, so that it makes sense to think about the required directions now. I also argue that my own suggestions are not so far from A&K's analysis as they seem to suppose. My suggestions seem little more likely to generate a stalemate than A&K's incremental change forecasts.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 20-25 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | EuroChoices |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 15 Dec 2006 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 |