Agricultural and Food Science, Vol. 14 (2005): 224–235. 224 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 14 (2005): 224–235. © Agricultural and Food Science Manuscript received May 2004 The static welfare effects of the accession to the European Union on the Finnish agricultural markets Jyrki Niemi MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, Luutnantintie 13, FI-00410 Helsinki, Finland, e-mail: jyrki.niemi@mtt.fi Finland’s entry into the European Union in 1995 and the application of the Common Agricultural Policy have had major repercussions on Finland’s agriculture, which faces the major disadvantages of an unfavour- able climate and farm structure. This paper attempts to measure the direct static welfare effects associated with the opening of Finnish agricultural markets for more competition. Using a standard comparative static partial equilibrium analysis in the Marshallian economic surplus framework, the welfare effects are calcu- lated for eight major cereal and livestock commodities produced in Finland for the year 2003. The results suggest that farmers, despite the growth in direct payments, have incurred large annual welfare losses rang- ing from EUR 570 to EUR 600 million. Consumers, on the other hand, have gained from the accession between EUR 815 and 875 million annually. The taxpayers’ have gained – as a result of the decrease in the direct subsidies and export restitutions paid by the national budget – between EUR 470 and EUR 580 mil- lion. The net welfare benefit in Finland, in terms agricultural sector only, was a welfare benefit of EUR 500–700 million in 2003. Key words: integration, European Union, Common Agricultural Policy, Finland, welfare analysis Introduction Finland’s accession to the European Union (EU) in January 1995, and the application of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) changed the operational environment of the Finnish food sector considera- bly. In the closed economy before joining the EU the Finnish food markets were almost completely regulated. As a result of the EU membership the administrative regulation of the food chain was re- placed by increased market orientation, which thus directs the development of both agriculture and the food industry. The single European market guaran- tees the free movement of goods, so that differ- ences in the prices between the member states may 225 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 14 (2005): 224–235. for the most part result only from e.g. transporta- tion costs or differences in the quality and consum- er habits. The minimum prices of agricultural products guaranteed by the CAP are considerably lower than the producer prices under the farm in- come acts applied in Finland before the EU mem- bership, and the prices also vary more than be- fore. There has been considerable concern over the impact of Finland’s accession to the EU on the ag- ricultural sector. The entry has also generated dis- cussion and debate about the benefits and costs of the CAP in Finland. While interest has been high, only limited research (Penttilä 1997) documenting the welfare effects of accession appear to exist to- date. The purpose of this article is to measure the direct welfare effects associated with Finland’s ac- cession into the EU and compliance with the CAP on the Finnish agricultural sector. The welfare effects concern various groups within a country, e.g. consumers, producers, the government, and the overall national economy with its income and resource allocation effects as well as EU countries as a whole. Some of these welfare effects are static, while others are dynam- ic. The scope of this analysis is limited because of the difficulty in addressing the complete set of ef- fects on the Finnish economy resulting from entry, and the particular interest in identifying the effects in the Finnish agricultural markets. In addition, the analysis concentrates on the static effects, and the inter-group transfers within a country, and neglect the possible inter-country income transfers. The article starts by discussing briefly the agri- cultural policy objectives in Finland and the EU, and evaluating the impacts of the application of the CAP on Finnish agriculture. The next section of the paper outlines the traditional economic argu- ment concerning the static welfare effects of re- moving trade barriers. This is followed by a de- tailed quantitative analysis on welfare effects of integration. Static calculations are used to illus- trate how adopting EU price levels have affected producer and consumer surpluses. The budgetary transfers between Finland and the EU are also ex- amined in the context of the CAP. Some summary remarks are offered in the final section. Finnish agriculture within the EU According to a very general comparison of agri- cultural policies in the EU (Fearne 1991) and Fin- land before the EU membership (Kola 1993), the basic principles and means seemed to be quite similar. The policy was production-oriented in both Finland and the EU. Price and income sup- port as well as border protection in the form of variable levies and import licensing were the pri- mary means. However, differences existed espe- cially with regard to the means by which income objective for the agricultural population was in- tended to be achieved. Clearly, productivity of ag- riculture has been stressed more in the EU than Finland. The promotion of structural development, technical progress, and optimum utilisation of pro- duction factors have represented the characteristics of productivity development support in the EU, whereas so-called maintenance support of existing structures of both production and regional alloca- tion predominated in Finland (Kola 1993). The level of agricultural support in Finland was clearly higher than in the EU, as measured by Producer Subsidy Estimate (PSE). While the total percentage PSE in the EU was 47% in 1994, the respective figure in Finland was 64%. This higher support level was also reflected in higher producer prices in Finland. The desire to become part of the EU led to a change in direction of the Finnish agri- cultural policy in the early 1990s. However, the producer prices paid in Finland remained much higher than the minimum prices of agricultural products guaranteed by the EU. At the time of accession, Finnish producer prices were approximately double those in the EU countries. Therefore Finnish farmers faced a change in output prices and direct support which were of exceptional magnitude compared to that of any other country which had ever joined the EU (Table 1). Commitment to the CAP lowered the producer price level in Finland by 40%, on aggre- gate, right at the beginning of 1995. Lower feed costs and reduction of other costs compensated only partly for lower prices of agricultural prod- ucts. 226 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Niemi, J. Welfare effects associated with opening of Finnish agricultural markets Table 1. Comparison of market prices and per-unit subsidies received by producers before the EU accession in 1994 and after the entry in 2003 (EUR/kg). 1994 2003 Market Direct Per-unit Market Direct Per-unit Commodity price payment gross return price payment gross return Wheat 0.36 0.03 0.39 0.12 0.23 0.35 Barley 0.26 0.05 0.31 0.11 0.19 0.30 Oats 0.25 0.05 0.30 0.09 0.19 0.28 Beef 3.78 2.00 5.78 1.86 1.68 3.54 Pork 2.65 0.10 2.75 1.15 0.88 2.03 Poultry 2.00 0.09 2.09 1.17 0.77 1.94 Eggs 1.88 0.14 2.02 0.80 0.98 1.78 Milk 0.35 0.22 0.57 0.34 0.19 0.53 Source: MTT Economic Research, Helsinki, Finland. On market prices only, the survival of Finnish agricultural production would have been very dif- ficult (Kola et al. 1992, Kettunen and Niemi 1994). A comprehensive package of compensatory pay- ments was therefore agreed to facilitate the adjust- ment. There is a provision in the Accession Treaty concerning the conditions of accession for national long-term aids, especially operating north of the 62nd parallel. To cover any outstanding problems, Finland was granted permission to pay direct na- tional aid, to which certain restrictions are applied (Kettunen and Niemi 1994). Agricultural support, its nature and amount, has thus played a significant role in securing the preconditions for agriculture in the different pro- duction sectors in different parts of Finland. Be- cause of the unfavourable natural conditions, the role of support in the income formation of agricul- ture is much greater in Finland than in other parts of the EU. In 2004 support payments totalled about EUR 1.8 billion, which represents 45% of the total output of agriculture. Despite the growth in the support payments, agricultural income has been falling. Calculated in fixed prices, agricultural in- come was almost 34% lower in 2004 than in 1994 (Niemi and Ahlstedt 2005). Membership in the EU has not lead to any sig- nificant changes in the volume of Finnish agricul- tural production, but the structural development has been very rapid. There were 103,000 farms in 1994, but 10 years later in 2004 there were about 70,000 left, and this trend continues. The number of farms has fallen by more than 3% a year, and those engaged in livestock production even more. For example, the number of farms specialising in milk production has decreased by almost 7% a year. Even though the structure of Finnish agricul- ture has changed quite rapidly, the development of agricultural productivity has been relatively slow. In 2004, the same use of production inputs yielded about 12% more than in 1992, showing that pro- ductivity grew by a little under 1% a year. The new economic environment has not promoted agricul- tural productivity development as was expected. The consumer price of food fell, on average, by 11% when Finland joined the EU in 1995. The re- duction was caused by the 40 % decrease in the producer price level. The average share of the pro- ducer price in the retail price was about 40%, roughly speaking, when milk, meat, and cereal products are taken into account. The share of these in the food expenditure was about 70%. Since the producer prices decrease by 40%, the food prices decrease by about 11% as a result of this. In other words, the absolute marketing margins of process- ing and trade remained more or less unaltered as a result of the accession. Between 1995 and 2004, food prices rose by 11% in nominal terms, while the general consumer price index rose by 13.4%, which means that food prices are still below the level in 1995 in real terms. 227 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 14 (2005): 224–235. Lower retail prices have in turn stimulated growth in consumption. The EU membership also clearly reinforced the position of retail trade in the food chain relative to the domestic raw material produc- tion and food industry. The retail sector has been able to take advantage of the competition between the domestic food companies and between the do- mestic companies and foreign ones. Evaluation of the effects of integration Quantitative analyses of the effects of integration and trade liberalisation are typically performed in either a partial or general equilibrium framework. By their very nature, partial equilibrium (PE) mod- els allow highly detailed studies on the impacts of trade policy changes to be made for specific mar- kets or products. In contrast, general equilibrium (GE) models, or computable general equilibrium (CGE) models, attempt to describe the effects of trade liberalisation on the economy as a whole and the intersectoral linkage in particular (Shoven and Whalley 1984, Hertel 1997). The GE models are thus very suitable to ana- lyse the overall trade and welfare effects, as they offer a comprehensive assessment of cross- and in- ter-industry linkages, including upstream and down stream effects. Yet, the challenges of GE methodology include its complexity, data require- ments, dissaggregation issues, and model sensitiv- ity to the selection of key parameters. Model usage typically requires very large start-up costs, so that the usage of a GE model often is limited to larger institutions with skilled resources in this area of economics. In PE analysis, we limit our view to a specific sector of the domestic and international economy, as we hold “all other things constant”, at least con- ceptually. The main emphasis will be on price, production, and trade effects of integration as ap- plied to individual agricultural commodities (John- son 1973, Bale and Greenshields 1978, Bale and Lutz 1981). For the analysis of trade policy princi- ples, the PE model has numerous advantages. It is simple to understand and manipulate. For specific trade policy schemes and interventions, PE analy- sis provides sharp results that highlight important differences among policy regimes. Such models also require less data and fewer assumptions about key variables in the analysis than the GE models. A disadvantage of the PE approach is that it sup- presses interactions between commodities that are actually linked together by substitution and com- petition (Houck 1984). It has generally been observed that GE welfare gains turn out to be higher than their PE counter- parts (Winters 1987, Gylfason 1994, Tokarick 2003), though there are difficulties in performing strict comparisons between PE and GE models. Hertel (1992) however, finds that the market ef- fects of CAP removal on agricultural markets are very similar, regardless of whether one uses a PE or GE model. Gohin and Moschini (2004) show that both GE and PE models yields comparable welfare effects when analysing the agricultural sector of developed economies (where agriculture constitutes a small fraction of economic activities), and when no other distortions exist in the rest of the economy. The focus of this article is the identification of the direct welfare effects of Finland’s entry into the EU on the Finnish agricultural markets. More specifically, the objective is to compare the welfare in the existing situation in the EU with that derived from a non-entry scenario. The benefit or cost of integration is the extent to which welfare under current situation exceeds welfare under non-entry scenario. Most empirical attempts at measuring the ef- fects of different trade policy schemes on welfare are based upon the pragmatic Marshallian concept of economic surplus, where the welfare effects of integration are derived in terms of domestic elas- ticities of supply and demand, frequently with the assumption of a perfectly elastic foreign-offer curve (Varian 1992). Economic surplus measures are used to compute gains and losses accruing to producers and consumers. This method based on welfare economics is well known, for both its use- 228 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Niemi, J. Welfare effects associated with opening of Finnish agricultural markets fulness and limitations. Corden (1957), Deaton and Muellbaur (1980), Just et al. (1982) and Gard- ner (1987) provide useful discussions of the con- cept of producer and consumer surplus. Consider graphically the effects of agricultural policy integration on trade and welfare in the par- tial equilibrium demand-supply framework. The situation is illustrated in Figure 1, where the do- mestic demand curve for the product in question is D, domestic supply curve is S, and the supply curve of imports is ES. The domestic product is assumed to be a perfect substitute for the import. Assume now that a binding quota has been im- posed on imports, so that with the import barrier in place, the internal market price is kept at p1, and hence domestic producers obtain higher prices for more output than if no trade distortions are ap- plied. The direct payment, s1, further increases per- unit returns to producers from p1 to r1. This brings total consumption to C1 at price p1, and production to Q1 at per-unit return r1 (= p1 + s1). Consider now that import barriers are removed and market prices are allowed to seek a level con- sistent with the unfettered flow of imports. This lowers the market price received by domestic pro- ducers and paid by domestic consumers from p1 to p2. Yet, the producers are compensated for the de- crease in market prices by a direct subsidy, s2, so that per-unit returns to producers, including the subsidy, decrease from r1 to r2 as a result of the ac- cession. These policy changes raise consumption of the product to C2, reduce domestic output to Q2, and raise imports from bc to ad. Thus, there is an increase on imports as indicated by the arrows. With the ideas of producer and consumer sur- plus a somewhat closer analysis of the effects as- sociated with the shift from closed markets to open and more competitive markets can be developed. The removal of import barriers raises consumer surplus by the area p1gdp2. This is the partial equi- librium economic benefit of this policy-induced change to consumers. Consumer surplus is funda- mentally the net value that consumers as a group obtain by being able to purchase as much as they wish at the going market price rather than having to pay the highest price they would be prepared to offer for each additional unit (Houck 1984). The area gdc is part of the real income gained by con- sumers because of the price decrease from p1 to p2. Producers lose the area r1jhr2 in producer sur- plus value because per-unit returns decrease as a result of the accession. Producer surplus is the net value obtained by owners of productive assets fixed in the sector to be analysed (Houck 1984). The area jih is an efficiency gain in production, re- Fig. 1. Partial equilibrium effects associated with a removing of trade barriers. Price Quantity ES D S p1 p2 d r2 r1 Q2 Q1 C1 C2 cba e f g h j i 229 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 14 (2005): 224–235. flecting the additional marginal value produced elsewhere in the economy because of the decrease in agricultural production. Taxpayers are paying now r2hap2, instead of r1jfp1 before the entry. There are several well-known limitations in the procedure employed above. A static single market analysis ignores the interactions within the food chain and between the food sector and other sec- tors of the economy, and it does not include the costs of adjustment to trade shocks (e.g. unem- ployment). Compensating and equivalent variation would be more appropriate techniques than pro- ducer and consumer surplus calculation when stat- ic effects of integration are analysed. This kind of analysis also ignores factor mobility between countries. Furthermore, quantification of the welfare ef- fects of the policy change requires knowledge of demand and supply elasticities of agricultural products. This is a limiting aspect because the ad- ministered price system distorts supply and de- mand responses. Technically, the requirement of elasticity estimates does not hinder analysis, if we are satisfied with reasonably accurate qualitative results, despite less precise quantitative estimates. Another limitation is the static nature of the meth- od ignoring adjustment time needed for changes, although knowledge of short-run and long-run elasticity estimates allows for both static and dy- namic results. Finally the method implicitly equates individual marginal utility with that of the society. Quantitative examination of the static welfare effects Estimation technique and data The quantitative results of this study are derived by using standard partial equilibrium comparative static analysis in the Marshallian economic surplus framework. Economic surplus measures (i.e. pro- ducer and consumer surplus) are calculated by comparing the evolution of the agricultural market with and without entry into the EU. Using this method the welfare effects of Finland’s entry into the EU and compliance with the CAP are evaluat- ed for eight major cereals and livestock commodi- ties produced and imported in Finland. The range of commodities contained in the analysis spans wheat, barley, oats, beef, pork, poultry, egg and milk. These eight products account for more than 90 percent of the output of Finnish agricultural production at market price. As with most policy changes, the response of the individuals impacted by integration depends on the time perspective. In this analysis we focus on the medium term, which is defined as the period that at least one factor is fixed. The year of the analysis is year 2003. The basic formulae for calculation are repre- sented by equations (1) through (8): 1) estimated domestic production without entry into the EU Q1 = Q2 + ns [(r1 – r2)/ r1] Q2 2) estimated domestic consumption without entry into the EU C1 = C2 + nd [(p1 – p2)/ p1] C2 3) net social benefit in production as a result of accession NCBp = [0.5 (Q2 – Q1)] * (r2 – r1) 4) net social benefit in consumption as a result of accession NCBc = [0.5 (C2 – C1)] * (p1 – p2) 5) welfare gain of producers as a result of acces- sion PSd = [Q1 - 0.5 (Q2 – Q1)] * (r2 – r1) 6) welfare gain of consumers as a result of acces- sion CSd = [C1 + 0.5 (C2 – C1)] * (p1 – p2) 7) change in taxpayers’ expenditure as a result of accession TXd = Q1 (r1 – p1) – Q2 (r2 – p2) + EX1 + S2 – TX2 8) net social benefit in society as a result of acces- sion NSBd = NCBp + NCBc + TXd where r1 is the per-unit return faced by domestic producers under a non-entry scenario; r2 is the per-unit return in the entry scenario in 2003; p1 is 230 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Niemi, J. Welfare effects associated with opening of Finnish agricultural markets the market price faced by domestic consumers un- der a non-entry scenario; p2 is the market price in 2003; Q1 is the simulated production quantity un- der a non-entry scenario, Q2 is the actual quantity of production in 2003; C1 is the simulated con- sumption under a non-entry scenario, C2 is the ac- tual quantity of consumption in 2003, ns is own- price elasticity of supply, nd is own-price elasticity of demand, EX1 represents country’s export subsi- dy payment before the EU membership in 1994, S2 represents the sum of direct subsidies received from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGG) in 2003, and TX2 repre- sents country’s payment to the EAGG in 2003. The base year of the analysis is calendar year 2003. The quantity figures, production and con- sumption levels in year 2003 are based on the sta- tistics compiled by the Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The price figures, per-unit returns faced by domestic produc- ers and market prices faced by domestic consum- ers, used in this study, are weighted averages cal- culated at the MTT Economic Research (Table 1). The producers’ unit-returns include both sales in- come and all the support payments allocated to the commodity in question. Substituting non-entry per-unit returns and prices into the supply and demand equations al- lows us to estimate a level of consumption and production in the no-entry alternative for 2003. From this, the net social losses and changes in con- sumer and producer surpluses can be calculated. Information required for the analysis are entry and non-entry prices and direct support payments as well as production and consumption of agricultural products in 2003 and own-price supply and de- mand elasticity estimates by commodity for Fin- land. Market prices and direct aids in nominal terms of 1994 are used as non-entry figures in 2003. Whether the producer price level of 1994 could have been kept by not entering the EU is of course debatable, as the outcome of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture would have hit the country anyway. One alternative to the prices of 1994 could be to use the price development in Nor- way as a reference scenario, since Norway was the fourth country negotiating parallel to Finland, Austria and Sweden. One could e.g. start in na- tional prices 1994 and assume that they would have developed parallel two what has happened in Norway since 1994. However, that would lead to very high price increases, which is doubtful in the Finnish case. In the same way, using real prices of 1994 as non-entry prices in 2003 would lead to much larger price differences than using nominal prices of 1994. Demand is estimated here at the wholesale level, and not at the final consumption level. Sur- plus measured along the wholesale demands equals the final demand surplus under two conditions: when marketing inputs and farm products are com- bined in fixed proportions, and when inputs are available at given prices, i.e. there exist no rents (Just et al. 1982, Gardner 1987). Supply and demand elasticities The price elasticities of demand and supply play an important role in the calculation of the welfare effects. By using the price elasticities of demand and supply, the effects of the price changes, result- ing from the EU accession, on the consumption and production are calculated. The own-price elas- ticities of supply and demand, used in this study, are presented in Table 2. Supply elasticities are based on studies by Kola (1991), Penttilä (1997), Niemi (2003) and Hyytiäinen (2005). Demand elasticities were taken from Rouhiainen (1979) and Laurila (1994). In all cases these elasticities are long-run equilibrium elasticities based on time series econometric estimates. The elasticities are generally estimated as single equations using ordi- nary least squares (OLS). There are significant problems with most of these elasticity estimates. First of all, there is the difficulty of determining what the ceteris paribus effect of a price change of the product itself, and what is caused by the price change of a related product, income changes or price shift. Further- more, the results of the elasticity calculations often differ a great deal. Different studies attempt to de- fine elasticities in different situations. Some stud- 231 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 14 (2005): 224–235. ies calculate only product specific elasticities and ignore the cross-price effects. Most empirical work on the supply elasticities draw upon the general specification of supply rela- tions as follows: Qt = α0 + βPt + γjXjt + uit where Q is some output measurement, P is some price variable, X is a set of other explanatory vari- ables, t is the time period index, j is a variable in- dex, and uit is the usual error term. On the price side, most researches assume that farmers antici- pate prices from their knowledge of current and past price. A major source of differences among the sup- ply studies has to do with properly controlling for non-price factors affecting production such as weather, infrastructure and technological changes which prices. Studies vary in this regard depending on the availability of data and on the authors’ judg- ments as to the relevance of particular non-price variables. On the demand side, the general specification posits that demand is a function of price and in- come. Rouhiainen (1979) employed single equa- tion methodology to estimate demand elasticities by using disappearance data at the national level, often referred as the Food Balance Sheets. Laurila (1994) employed the Almost Ideal Demand Sys- tem (AIDS) to analyse the demand for food prod- ucts in Finland in a system context. It is important to note that in this study the cross-price terms are suppressed, and the acces- sion effects on production and consumption are explained solely by own-price effects. As supply and demand functions are homogeneous of degree zero in prices, it is not theoretically consistent to simply suppress cross-price elasticities (even though the cross-price terms are usually small). In particular, the impacts of the application of CAP on production costs in the livestock sectors have been ignored in the analysis. The fact that de- creases in gain prices resulted in decreased prices for animal feed is not taken into account. Because of these methodological drawbacks, and because elasticity estimates differ widely from researcher to researcher, a range analysis is used in the study. In range analysis different own-price elasticities are used to estimate the accession ef- fects on production and consumption. The purpose of using different own-price elasticities is to dem- onstrate the “sensitivity” of the results to changes in the elasticity estimates. Thus, the results of the study provide orders of magnitude rather than ex- act measures. Regarding the performance of the elasticities used in this study, the actual development in pro- duction as well consumption lends support to the lower bound elasticities. By using the high elas- ticities, the estimated impact of accession on the volume of agricultural production, in particular, is much larger than what has actually taken place be- tween 1994 and 2003. Results Effects on production and trade The effects of entry into the EU on production and consumption volumes are summarised in Table 3, from which a number of points can be made. Since accession has decreased per-unit returns received by agricultural producers, it has also decreased the Table 2. Own price elasticities of demand and supply of agricultural products in Finland. Demand elasticities Supply elasticities Commodity Low High Low High Wheat –0.15 –0.35 0.25 0.70 Barley –0.10 –0.30 0.10 0.50 Oatsß –0.10 –0.30 0.10 0.45 Beef –0.10 –0.35 0.05 0.45 Pork –0.15 –0.45 0.00 0.30 Poultry –0.10 –0.40 0.20 0.80 Eggs –0.10 –0.25 0.15 0.40 Milk –0.05 –0.40 0.10 0.75 Sources: Rouhiainen (1979), Kola (1991), Laurila (1994), Penttilä (1997), Niemi (2003), and Hyytiäinen (2005). 232 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Niemi, J. Welfare effects associated with opening of Finnish agricultural markets volume of production, when production and sup- ply are positively related to producers’ returns. On the other hand, as a result of lower market prices there is a considerable increase in domestic con- sumption with the entry into the EU. The effects on trade are merely a combination of the effects on production and consumption, since stocks are as- sumed to be constant. The entry has caused an in- crement in the import of all agricultural products analysed. Effects on economic welfare The net social benefits in consumption and pro- duction of agricultural commodities as a result of integration are displayed in Table 4. One can view these benefits as (1) the real income gain by con- sumers, and (2) the efficiency gain in production. The consumers gain economic value as internal prices of agricultural products decrease from pre- vious level. The efficiency gain in production re- flects part of the additional marginal value pro- duced elsewhere in the economy because of the decrease in domestic agricultural production. The sum of net social benefits in production and in consumption for the Finnish economy range from EUR 30 million (the low elasticity case) to EUR 120 million (the high elasticity case). Con- sumption benefits range from a high of EUR 90 million to a low of EUR 30 million. And net ben- efits in production range between zero and EUR 30 million. In general, the ranking of the total net so- cial benefits corresponds to what we might expect. The pork and beef industries have incurred the highest benefit, both ranging from EUR 6–7 mil- lion to EUR 35–38 million. As the results in Table 5 indicate, the most sizeable effects of entry are the welfare transfers between consumers and producers. Consumers have gained about EUR 815–875 million for the total of eight major commodities analysed. Clear- ly, these gains are important to consumers, even though the magnitude of these benefits is small relative to market sales. According to the calcula- tion, the pork consumers have incurred the largest gains, about EUR 223–245 million. Producers, on the other hand, have incurred large welfare losses from a low EUR 570 million Table 3. Estimated percentage changes in agricultural production and consumption in Finland as a result of the EU accession. Estimated change in production Estimated change in consumption Commodity Low High Low High Wheat –2.4 –6.4 10.8 29.3 Barley –0.5 –2.4 6.4 21.9 Oats –0.6 –2.8 6.7 23.3 Beef –1.9 –14.9 5.4 21.7 Pork 0.0 –7.3 9.3 34.1 Poultry –1.4 –5.5 4.3 19.9 Eggs –1.8 –4.5 6.1 16.8 Milk –0.9 –6.1 0.2 1.7 Table 4. Net social benefits of the EU accession in Finnish agriculture, EUR million. Net social benefit in production Net social benefit in consumption Sum of net social benefit in production and consumption Commodity Low High Low High Low High Wheat 0.3 0.9 5.5 12.9 5.8 13.8 Barley 0.1 0.3 3.3 9.8 3.3 10.1 Oats 0.1 0.4 2.8 8.4 2.9 8.7 Beef 2.1 18.4 4.6 16.1 6.7 34.5 Pork 0.0 5.5 10.9 32.5 10.9 38.0 Poultry 0.1 0.4 1.4 5.7 1.5 6.1 Eggs 0.1 0.3 1.6 4.1 1.8 4.4 Milk 0.5 3.8 0 0.3 0.5 4.1 Total –0.4 29.9 30.1 89.8 33.3 119.7 233 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 14 (2005): 224–235. to a high EUR 600 million. The magnitude of the losses due to the CAP has been most pronounced for the beef and pork producers. Beef producers’ welfare loss ranged from EUR 213 to EUR 229 million. Pork producers have lost from EUR 135 to EUR 144 million. Budgetary transfers Apart from transfers between producers and con- sumers, there are budgetary transfers, which must also be taken into account when documenting wel- fare changes in the whole society. The calculations show that agricultural budgetary benefit from the application of the CAP in Finland range from EUR 470 million (the low elasticity case) to EUR 580 million (the high elasticity case). In other words, taxpayers have gained between EUR 470 to 580 million from the CAP. The taxpayers’ welfare gain is mainly a result of the decline in export subsidy payments. The export support of agricultural prod- ucts has been abolished from the state budget, be- cause the export cost charges are paid from the EU funds. In the first years of Finland’s membership, the support for the price adjustment of agriculture in the transitional period actually increased the state expenditure, but during the post-entry period the state expenditure has gradually decreased. In addi- tion, it is estimated that Finland’s receipts from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGG) have been higher than Finland’s contribution to the fund over the first ten years in the EU. In 2003 Finland’s receipts from the EAGG amounted to EUR 760 million. Finland’s exact contribution to the EAGG is not known, since pay- ments are made to the EU budget as a whole and not to each special fund separately. However, if we make the usual assumption that the proportion of a member state’s contribution that goes to EAGG is equal to the share of EAGG in the total EU budget, we find that Finland’s contribution to the fund in 2003 should be equal to EUR 625 million. Conclusions The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the welfare effects of Finland’s accession to the Euro- pean Union generated by the application of the Common Agricultural Policy. Analysis is focused on static effects and results are derived from a very simple partial equilibrium model that distinguishes eight agricultural commodities but ignores supply and demand interactions between these eight prod- ucts. While robust not enough to include income and second round resource allocation effects, or dynamic adjustment in the industry, this approach nonetheless provides a useful framework for dis- cussing benefits and costs of the integration into the EU. The benefit or cost of integration is the extent to which welfare under current situation exceeds welfare derived from a hypothetical non-entry sit- uation. This is what we have attempted to measure. Others (i.e. politicians) will have to evaluate and select what benefits and costs are desirable and ac- ceptable. The quantitative results of the study indi- cate that Finland has incurred welfare benefits re- sulting from the application of the CAP. The most sizeable effects of integration are the welfare trans- fers between consumers and producers. According Table 5. Monetary effects of the EU accession in the Finnish agricultural markets, EUR million. Welfare gain of producers Welfare gain of consumers Commodity Low High Low High Wheat –26 –28 107 101 Barley –26 –26 106 99 Oats –25 –25 86 80 Beef –217 –266 176 165 Pork –139 –155 245 223 Poultry –13 –14 67 63 Eggs –14 –15 56 53 Milk –119 –129 31 31 Total –570 –600 875 815 234 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Niemi, J. Welfare effects associated with opening of Finnish agricultural markets to the study, consumers have gained between EUR 815 and 875 million for the total of eight major commodities analysed. Farmers, on the other hand, have incurred large welfare losses from EUR 570 to EUR 600 million. As a result of the decrease in subsidies paid by the government, the taxpayers’ welfare gain range from EUR 470 to EUR 580 million. The taxpayers’ welfare gain is mainly a result of the decline in export subsidy payments. According to the study, the net social benefit in Finland of the application of the CAP, in terms ag- ricultural sector only, was a welfare benefit of EUR 500–700 million. References Bale, M. & Greenshields, B.L. 1978. Japanese agricultural distortions and their welfare value. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60: 59–64. Bale, M. & Lutz, E. 1981. Price distortions in agriculture and their effects: An international comparison. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 8–22. Corden, W.M. 1957. The calculation of the cost of protec- tion. Economic Record 33: 29–51. Deaton, A. & Muellbauer, J. 1980. Economics of consumer behaviour. New York: Cambridge University Press. 450 p. Fearne, A. 1991. The history and development of the CAP 1945–85. In: Ritson, C. & Harvey, D. (eds.). The Com- mon Agricultural Policy and the world economy. Waal- ingford: CAB International. p. 21–70. Gardner, B. 1987. The economics of agricultural policies. New York: McGraw-Hill. 384 p. Gohin, A. & Moschini, C. 2004. Evaluating the market and welfare impacts of agricultural policies in developed countries: Comparison of partial and general equilibri- um measures. Paper presented at the International conference on Policy Modelling, EcoMod 2004, 30 June–2 July 2004, Paris. 19 p. Gylfason, T. 1995. The macroeconomics of European agri- culture. Princeton Studies in International Finance 78, International Finance Section. Princeton N. J: Prince- ton University. 51 p. Hertel, T. 1992. Partial versus general equilibrium analysis of trade policy reform. The Journal of Agricultural Eco- nomics Research 44: 3–15. Hertel, T. (ed.). 1997. Global trade analysis: modelling and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 96 p. Houck, J.P. 1984. Elements of agricultural trade policies. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. 184 p. Hyytiäinen, P. 2005. Viljan tarjonta Suomessa vuosina 1970–2003. Abstract: Supply of grains in Finland dur- ing 1970–2003. Master Thesis, University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management. 54 p. Johnson, D.G. 1973. The impact of freer trade on North American agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 55: 294–303. Just, R.E., Hueth, D.L. & Schmitz, A. 1982. Applied welfare economics and public policy. Eaglewood Cliffs: Pren- tice-Hill, Inc. 85 p. Kettunen, L. & Niemi, J. 1994. The EU settlement of Finnish agriculture and national support. Agricultural Econom- ics Research Institute (MTT), research publications 75a. Helsinki: MTTL. 91 p. Kola, J. 1991. Production control in Finnish agriculture: De- terminants of control policy and quantitative and eco- nomic efficiency of dairy restriction. Agricultural Eco- nomics Research Institute (MTTL), research publica- tions 64. Helsinki: MTTL. 117 p. Kola, J. 1993. Principles of agricultural policy in Finland in relation to the CAP of the EC. In: Kettunen, L. (ed.). Finnish agriculture and European integration. Agricul- tural Economics Research Institute, research publica- tions 71. Helsinki: MTTL. p. 21–36. Kola, J., Marttila, J. & Niemi, J. 1992. Finnish agriculture in European integration: A firm level approach. Agricul- tural Science in Finland 1: 5–14. Laurila, I. 1994. Demand for food products in Finland: A de- mand system approach. Agricultural Science in Finland 3: 315–420. Niemi, J. 2003. Supply elasticity estimates for farm prod- ucts. MTT Economic Research, Mimeogr. Helsinki. 9 p. Niemi, J. & Ahlstedt, J. (eds.). 2005. Finnish agriculture and rural industries 2005 – Ten years in the European Un- ion. MTT Economic Research, publications 104a. Hel- sinki: MTT. 94 p. Penttilä, A. 1997. Suomen EU-jäsenyyden vaikutukset tuot- tajien ja kuluttajien hyvinvointiin. Abstract: Effects of the EU membership on the welfare of producers and con- sumers in Finland. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (MTTL), working papers 9/97. Helsinki: MTTL. 44 p. Rouhiainen, J. 1979. Changes in demand for food items in Finland 1950–77 with consumption forecasts for 1980, 1985 and 1990. Agricultural Economics Research In- stitute (MTTL), research publications 40. Helsinki: MTTL. 84 p. Shoven, J. & Whalley, J. 1984. Applied general-equilibrium models of taxation and international trade. Journal of Economic Literature 12: 1007–1051. Tokarick, S. 2003. Measuring the impact of distortions in agricultural trade in partial and general equilibrium. Pa- per presented at the International Conference “Agricul- tural policy reform and the WTO: Where we are head- ing?”, 23–26 June, Capri, Italy. 47 p. Tongeren, F. van, Meijl, H. van & Surry, Y. 2001. Global mod- els applied to agricultural and trade policies: a review and assessment. Agricultural Economics 26: 149–172. Varian, Hal R. 1992. Microeconomic analysis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 506 p. Winters, A. 1987. The economic consequences of agricul- tural support: A survey. OECD Economic Studies 9: 7– 54. 235 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 14 (2005): 224–235. SELOSTUS Yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan soveltamisen hyvinvointivaikutukset Suomessa Jyrki Niemi MTT (Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus) Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten EU:n yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan soveltaminen Suomessa on vaikuttanut maataloustuotteiden tuottajien ja kuluttajien hyvinvointiin. Tuottajien ja kuluttajien hyvinvointimuu- tokset määritettiin estimoitujen tuotanto- ja kulutusmää- rien avulla. Hyvinvoinnin mittarina käytettiin Marshal- lin hyvinvointitalousteorian ylijäämäkäsitteitä, joiden avulla EU-jäsenyyden aikainen hyvinvointimuutos mää- ritettiin rahana. Tutkimuksen mukaan tuottajat ovat kärsineet noin 570–600 miljoonan euron hyvinvointitappion EU-jäse- nyyden seurauksena. Kuluttajat ovat sitä vastoin saaneet yhteensä 815–875 miljoonaa euroa hyvinvointivoittoa maataloustuotteiden hintojen laskun myötä. Yhteiskun- nan hyvinvointimuutoksen määrittämiseen tarvittava ve- ronmaksajien hyvinvointimuutos saatiin vertaamalla tar- kasteluvuosina maataloudelle maksettuja tukia. Valtion varoista maksettujen tukien lasku on tuottanut veron- maksajille noin 470–580 miljoonaa euroa hyvinvointi- voittoa. Veronmaksajien hyvinvointivoitto on seurausta lähinnä vientikustannusmaksujen siirtymisestä EU:n budjetin kautta rahoitettaviksi. Koko yhteiskunnalle on koitunut EU-jäsenyyden seurauksena noin 500–700 mil- joonaa euroa hyvinvointivoittoa. The static welfare effects of the accession tothe European Union on the Finnishagricultural markets Introduction Finnish agriculture within the EU Evaluation of the effectsintegration Quantitative examination of thestatic welfare effects Results Conclusions References SELOSTUS