B i o - b a s e d a n d A p p l i e d E c o n o m i c s BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 Copyright: © 2021 A. Matthews. Open access, article published by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Citation: A. Matthews (2021). The contri- bution of research to agricultural policy in Europe. Bio-based and Applied Eco- nomics 10(3): 185-205. doi: 10.36253/bae- 12322 Received: October 4, 2021 Accepted: November 19, 2021 Published: January 11, 2022 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Donato Romano. Discussants: Jeroen Candel, Emil Erjavec, Donato Romano. ORCID AM: 0000-0003-1051-1499 BAE 10th Anniversary paper The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Alan Matthews Trinity College Dublin, Ireland E-mail: alan.matthews@tcd.ie Abstract. This paper surveys some of the key themes in European agricultural policy research in recent decades. It identifies three main drivers of this research: a gradual broadening of the scope of the discipline in response to changing political priorities and values; an enlarged toolbox of policy instruments that has raised new questions and required the development of new modes of analysis; and the availability of new data sources, increased computing power, as well as the introduction of new methodo- logical advances from economics, statistics and psychology that have opened the way to new and more powerful analytical tools. Particular attention is paid to direct pay- ments and agri-environment-climate measures as examples of new policy instruments that have driven the research agenda. The paper concludes by identifying requirements to ensure that agricultural policy research remains vibrant and relevant in the future. Keywords: agricultural policy, Common Agricultural Policy, direct payments, agri- environment-climate measures, policy research. JEL Codes: Q18, Q58. INTRODUCTION This paper discusses some significant trends in European agricultural policy research in recent decades as a contribution to the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Bio-based and Applied Economics journal published by the Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (Santera- mo and Raggi 2021). This field of enquiry relates to the implementation of practical agricultural policy. In Koester’s words, ‘Agricultural policy is the entirety of all efforts, actions and measures aimed at regulating, influencing or directly determining the course of economic activity in the agricultural sector’ (Koester 2020, 2). Agricultural policy research includes analysis of the objectives of agricultural policy; diagnosis of actual outcomes compared to policymakers’ objectives or overall social welfare; the evaluation of inter- ventions and instruments that might bring the actual situation closer to the desired policy outcome; and the reasons for policy change. While political economists and political scientists have been concerned with the why of gov- ernment intervention in agricultural markets, agricultural economists have been more concerned with the how and how well – how food and agricul- tural policies should be designed to achieve specific objectives and how well http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 186 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 policies have succeeded in their aims. This review is confined to the contribution of agricultural economists. The frame of the discussion in this paper is further nar- rowed by only tangentially considering issues to do with the food industry and agricultural trade, both of which are inextricably bound up with agricultural policy, but which are discussed in separate review articles in this celebratory series (Mazzocchi, 2021; Olper and Raimon- di, 2021). Reviews of agricultural policy research in Europe tend to take the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as the starting point and examine the CAP’s impact on various policy dimensions, for example, agricultur- al income (Szerletics and Jámbor 2020), environment (Alliance Environnment 2017), jobs (Schuh et al. 2016), developing countries (Blanco 2018), nutrition and health (Recanati et al. 2019), or several dimensions at once (Pe’er et al. 2017). One of the few attempts to systematise the evolution of agricultural policy research, albeit still rooted in the dynamics of CAP reform, is Erjavec and Lovec (2017). This paper notes the shifting focus of the CAP over time and proposes that this requires greater cooperation between disciplines in order to broaden the theoretical underpinnings of explanations for this shift. Their paper builds on the idea that successive CAP reforms represent a paradigm shift (meaning changes not only in mechanisms but also in principles and objec- tives (see also Skogstad 1998; Daugbjerg and Swinbank 2011 for elaboration of the role of paradigm shifts). This paper has a more modest objective. It is nei- ther intended as a systematic review of recent European agricultural policy research nor does it enter the debate whether recent reforms of the CAP can be attributed to paradigmatic changes or not (Rac, Erjavec, and Erjavec 2020). It presents a narrative describing recent trends in agricultural policy research and the factors that have driv- en these changes. Three factors are highlighted in subse- quent sections: a gradual broadening of the scope of the discipline in response to changing political priorities and values; an enlarged toolbox of policy instruments that has raised new questions and required the development of new modes of analysis; and the availability of new data sources, increased computing power, as well as the intro- duction of new methodological advances from economics, statistics and psychology that have opened the way to new and more powerful analytical tools (Figure 1). BROADENING SCOPE OF THE POLICY AGENDA Agricultural policy analysis has always been an applied discipline that has responded to the changing priorities and objectives of practical agricultural policy. The competence for agricultural policy in the EU is for- mally shared between the Union and the member states, although the Treaties require that the Union shall define and implement a common agricultural policy with com- mon objectives and a common implementation. Thus, one driver of the changing agricultural policy research agenda has been changing priorities and objectives of the CAP. Another driver has been the growing aware- ness of the market failures around agricultural produc- tion, both in terms of the under-provision of public goods but even more sharply the external costs imposed on society in terms of both health and the depletion of natural capital. Yet another driver has been shifts in social values and expectations around the way food is produced, notably with respect to animal welfare, qual- ity attributes, short supply chains and farm structures. It should be stressed that new objectives have been layered on top of existing ones rather than substitut- ing for them. Further, the emergence of new objectives has been a gradual and evolving process rather than marked by sharp discontinuities. Daugbjerg and Swin- bank (2016) introduced the idea of policy layering into agricultural policy analysis. They characterise the path of CAP reform, with its redesign of EU farm price sup- port into WTO-compatible decoupled payments, togeth- er with the greening of the CAP, as a stepwise process of dual policy layering aimed at addressing new policy con- cerns while retaining the core objective of farm income support. Their objective was to suggest a causal relation between policy layering and the sustainability of the reform path. Here, I use the concept of policy layers sim- ply to highlight that new policy objectives have emerged in addition to earlier concerns rather than replacing them. An illustration of the evolution in agricultural policy priorities is shown in Figure 2. I now show how agricultural policy research has reflected this growing multi-dimensionality. Figure 1. Major influences on European agricultural policy research. Source: Own elaboration. 187The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 Ensuring food security Assuring the availability of food supplies and at rea- sonable prices are among the five objectives specified for the CAP in the original Treaty of Rome and which have remained unchanged to this day. The tagline on the European Commission’s webpage explaining the CAP continues to affirm that ‘The common agricultural policy supports farmers and ensures Europe’s food security’.1 Despite the harrowing experiences of food shortages in the immediate aftermath of the second World War, national-level food security has not been an issue in the EU since before the CAP came into force, though indi- vidual households can suffer food insecurity due to lack of means to purchase sufficient nutritious food rather than due to any problems of availability (Borch and Kjærnes 2016). Nonetheless, food security continues to be prominent in agricultural policy debates, although with very different framings of how the objective is inter- preted (Candel et al. 2014), including the appropriate role for European agriculture in contributing to global food security. The COVID-19 pandemic and the associ- ated lockdowns underlined the potential vulnerabilities in food supply and the issue has once again become live, even though it is generally recognised that EU food sup- ply chains proved remarkably resilient to date during the pandemic (Montanari et al. 2021; Meuwissen et al. 2021). The Commission has since announced a contingency plan for ensuring food supply and food security in times of crisis which includes a food crisis response mechanism (European Commission 2021b). The pandemic also trig- gered a literature reflecting more widely on the condi- tions for resilient food systems and the measures needed to realise them, which we consider further below. 1 European Commission, ’The common agricultural policy at a glance’, https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common- agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en, accessed 2 September 2021. Support for farm incomes Income issues in agriculture refer to the level, sta- bility, and distribution of income (Finger and El Benni 2021). The objective of ‘ensuring a fair standard of living for the farming community’ is also a Treaty objective, although there has been much debate over whether the Treaty wording sees this as a stand-alone objective or as the consequence of increased productivity and structur- al change. There is no doubt that for policymakers and farm organisations support for farm incomes is a major justification for the CAP. The Commission regularly pro- duces a comparison of average farmer income (measured per work unit of family labour) with average gross wages and salaries in the total economy to show that farmers’ income are ‘still lagging behind’, while emphasising that direct income support payments ‘partially fill the gap between agricultural income and income in other sec- tors’ and ‘remain an essential part of the CAP’ (Europe- an Commission 2017; 2018a). Whether there is indeed an income gap between farm and non-farm incomes and the extent to which this reflects agriculture-specific characteristics is a mat- ter of definition and measurement (Hill 2019). Taking its cue from the Treaty reference to ‘standard of living for the farming community’, the European Court of Audi- tors has argued that the disposable income of the farm household is the relevant indicator for family farms but that relevant data to make comparisons on this basis are not available (ECA 2016). Such data are collected in the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU- SILC) but the small number of farm households in this survey makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions. By pooling these data across EU countries, Rocchi, Marino, and Severini (2020) find evidence that, on average, farm household incomes are lower than in non-farm house- holds and even more so if the comparison is made with self-employed households in the non-farm sector. Con- trolling for observable differences such as age, education, marital status and health status markedly reduces the size of the disparity, as does accounting for a wider defi- nition of income to include nonmonetary factors, but it does not completely eliminate it. In addition to these observable characteristics that can account for differences in income, non-observable characteristics might also differ systematically between the two population groups. For example, unobservable preferences might determine the sorting of households into the farm sector while unobserved characteristics, such as skills, might affect incomes. Marino, Rocchi, and Severini (2021) revisit the EU-SILC dataset using a fixed effects regression methodology to control for these Figure 2. Overview of changes in CAP priorities over time. Source: Own elaboration. 188 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 individual unobservable characteristics. Again, the raw data show that farm household incomes are much lower than for nonfarm households, particularly in the newer member states, but there are also significant differences in observable characteristics. By further controlling for unobservable characteristics, their conclusions are revised. Broadly-defined farm households still generally have a lower household income than comparable non- farm households but except in the newer member states the differences are not significant. However, narrowly- defined farm households (those mainly dependent on their farm income) are better off than comparable non- farm households in nearly all comparisons. They further find that being self-employed in agriculture instead of in other industries no longer represents a relative disadvan- tage across the EU countries. To summarise, this research confirms that farm household incomes are on average lower than non-farm household incomes across the EU, though with impor- tant differences in the size of the disparity across coun- tries. The conditional income comparisons identify the factors that account for this and it appears sector-spe- cific issues related to working in agriculture are not an important explanatory factor. It can be noted that the income of farm households in the dataset includes sup- port payments under the CAP as well as remuneration from the ownership of substantial farm assets includ- ing land. Furthermore, the European Commission data, even if not helpful in throwing light on relative stand- ards of living, are still important in highlighting the rel- ative difference in labour productivity between the two sectors which will have implications for future structural change. Promoting rural development and employment The Treaties note that, in working out the com- mon agricultural policy, ‘account shall be taken of the particular nature of agricultural activity, which results from the social structure of agriculture and from struc- tural and natural disparities between the various agri- cultural regions’. The Treaties also specify territorial cohesion as an EU objective, with the aim of reducing disparities between the levels of development of the dif- ferent regions paying particular attention, inter alia, to rural regions. The socio-economic disparities between rural and other regions are well documented. This led in 1999 to the introduction of a common rural develop- ment policy as the second Pillar of the CAP, building on precedents emerging in the previous decade (the Com- mission’s Communication on The future of rural society COM (88) 501 in 1988 marks the beginning of a territo- rial rural policy). Rural development policy has a com- plex series of objectives, including modernisation of the agricultural sector, integrating environmental con- cerns, generational renewal, and broader socio-economic development particularly emphasising community-led local development and job creation. However, overall expenditure on territorial measures within the CAP has always been low. Recurring themes include the desir- ability of moving towards a more integrated concept of rural development built around a ‘place-based’ approach, developing more explicit synergies with EU cohesion policy, and focusing on the endogenous development of territorial capital and particularly the role of LEADER groups (Dax and Copus 2016). Most recently, the Com- mission’s proposed long-term vision for rural areas, accompanied by proposals for a Rural Pact and a Rural Action Plan (European Commission 2021a), will no doubt stimulate a further wave of rural research. Integrating environmental concerns The integration of environmental goals into the CAP began in the 1980s with the growing awareness of the adverse environmental consequences of more intensive agricultural practices but also of the role that farmers can play in terms of management of natural resources and landscape conservation. Attention shifted to the interactions between agricultural production and water, air, soil, landscape and biodiversity. Agricultural pollu- tion issues were addressed mainly by regulation, while the model of paying farmers to provide desired envi- ronmental outcomes was made mandatory for member states in the agri-environment regulation that accompa- nied the MacSharry CAP reform in 1992 (Latacz-Lohm- ann and Hodge 2003). Environmental cross-compliance for those in receipt of CAP payments was introduced in the Fischler 2003 CAP reform, while the 2014-2020 CAP saw the introduction of a greening payment in Pillar 1 requiring farmers to follow three specific practices seen as beneficial for climate and the environment (Matthews 2013). The huge literature stimulated by these develop- ments is discussed later in the paper. The political agreement on the CAP post 2020 includes a revised green architecture where the green- ing payment conditions have become part of a revised cross-compliance (now referred to as enhanced condi- tionality), while at least 25% of a member state’s direct payments envelope must be allocated to eco-schemes to fund measures beneficial to the climate and environ- ment as well as animal welfare. The urgency to strength- en interventions to improve environmental outcomes on agricultural land has been underlined by the specific 189The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 targets set out in the Commission’s Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies to reduce the use of pesticides, mineral fertilisers and antimicrobials, to increase the area under organic farming, and to reserve more space for nature on farmland (European Commission 2020a; 2020b). Whether the implementation of the new green architecture in member state CAP Strategic Plans will be up to the challenge of achieving these targets will likely become a major focus of agricultural policy research in the coming period (Baldock 2020). The economics of transition A specific issue that attracted the attention of agri- cultural policy researchers in Europe after 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall was the economics of transition in agriculture from central planning to a market economy (the countries affected included not only those that later become EU members, but also the Balkans, Russia, Bela- rus, Ukraine and Moldova, Transcaucasia and Central Asia). The socialist system left a legacy of a badly dis- torted economic system and prices. The institutional and relative price changes associated with the reorganisation of this system resulted in major disruptions and imme- diate declines in investment and output. State-owned assets such as input supply, credit and food process- ing and distribution companies were privatised as were state-owned farms using different privatisation mod- els (e.g. direct sale, vouchers). In those countries where land had been collectivised, land was either restituted to former owners, physically distributed to farm work- ers, or ownership was transferred to workers through certificates. Nonetheless, the share of land now farmed by large corporate farms in many of these countries remains very high, though often co-existing with many very small-scale individual farms that produce only for their own consumption (semi-subsistence farms). These institutional changes gave rise to a significant research effort addressing issues such as trade competitiveness (Bojnec and Fertő 2008; 2015), price reforms (Bojnec and Swinnen 1997; Anderson and Swinnen 2008), farm restructuring, privatisation and land reform (Koester 2005; Swinnen 2009), and productivity growth (Gorton and Davidova 2004). This research effort was extended after 2000 to the implications for the CAP of the accession to the EU of the former Soviet-bloc economies in central and east- ern Europe. Both the importance of agriculture in these economies, particularly in employment terms, as well as the low productivity and consequential low incomes of those working in agriculture, were seen as pos- ing a financial threat to EU agricultural policy which was still largely conceived as an income support policy for farmers (Bojnec 1996; Gaisford, Kerr, and Perdikis 2003; Hartell and Swinnen 2017). Many papers have also focused on the performance of the agri-food sec- tor in these economies after accession (Csáki and Jám- bor 2013). As institutional structures have stabilised the topic of transition economics is one of the few layers that has now largely disappeared, although comparisons of the performance of older and newer member states with- in the EU continue to attract the interest of researchers (Csáki and Jámbor 2019). Pursuing competitiveness Increased productivity is also one of the Treaty objectives for the CAP. Post-war agricultural production in Europe increased dramatically with the adoption of mechanisation, chemicals, intensive livestock breeding, new seed varieties and the extension of irrigation (Mar- tín-Retortillo and Pinilla 2015). Increased production was supported with high tariffs against imports and the use of export subsidies to dispose of surpluses. During this period of “Fortress Europe” (cost) competitiveness was given little explicit attention. This began to change with the 1992 CAP reform that began the process of switching CAP support from the product to the pro- ducer. A decade later, the Commission reflected on the success of this move in promoting greater market orien- tation and competitiveness when introducing the Mid- Term Review (European Commission 2002). This focus on market orientation has been maintained through successive reforms. One of the nine specific objectives for the CAP post 2020 is ‘to enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness, including greater focus on research, technology and digitalisation’. Productivity is an important determinant of com- petitiveness in the longer term and can be measured using either parametric, non-parametric or index num- ber approaches (Latruffe 2010). Policy researchers have been interested in measuring the rate of growth in total factor productivity; in differ- ences in relative productivity across member states; and in whether productivity levels are converging over time (Baráth and Fertő 2017). Developments have taken place in measuring farm level productivity using new estima- tion techniques to address classical problems of endoge- neity and identification when trying to estimate produc- tion functions using farm level data (Sauer et al. 2021). Contributions have sought to identify the factors respon- sible for productivity trends, building on the decomposi- tion of productivity growth into technical change (shifts in the technical frontier), technical efficiency change 190 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 (catching up with a shifting technical frontier), scale efficiency change, and efficiency change due to changes in the mix of inputs and outputs. There have also been attempts to integrate the use of environmental resources into productivity measures led by the OECD Network on Agricultural Productivity and the Environment. Finally, researchers have examined the effectiveness of policies to stimulate productivity growth (Viaggi 2015; Zezza et al. 2017; Détang-Dessendre et al. 2019). Rel- evant work has been done by the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) in developing the con- cept of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) as an interactive innovation system involving farmers, education, extension and research (SCAR 2019). Addressing climate policy Successive reports by the International Panel of Cli- mate Change have warned about the dangers of anthro- pogenic climate change. The Paris Agreement which has the objective to limit global warming to well below 2˚C and preferably below 1.5˚C compared to pre-industrial levels entered into force in 2015. To achieve this temper- ature goal, the parties including the EU have committed to achieve a balance between emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the second half of the twentieth century, on the basis of equity. The European Climate Law adopted in 2021 commits the EU to reach climate neutrality by 2050. Agriculture is both affected by climate change and a contributor to it. Agricultural emissions contribute around 11% of total EU emissions while the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector is a net sink. Policy research has investigated the impacts of cli- mate change (Bozzola et al. 2018; Van Passel, Massetti, and Mendelsohn 2017), the ability of farmers to adapt to climate change (Moore and Lobell 2014), and the mitiga- tion potential of agriculture, using marginal abatement cost curves to shed light on the cost-effectiveness of dif- ferent interventions (De Cara and Jayet 2011; Eory et al. 2018; Pérez Domínguez et al. 2020). The literature on policy design to bring about emissions reduction in agri- culture in an efficient way remains surprisingly under- developed (Ancev 2011; De Cara and Vermont 2011; Grosjean et al. 2018) but the Commission proposal in the Farm to Fork Strategy to introduce a carbon farm- ing initiative to reward farmers for carbon sequestration may spark greater interest in market-based approach- es. Climate action has been an explicit objective of the CAP since the 2007-2013 programming period. Evalua- tions suggest that the measures taken to date have had a very limited impact on reducing agricultural emissions, although some measures may have helped to reduce emissions in the LULUCF sector (Alliance Environn- ment 2019; ECA 2021). The Commission’s recent Fit for 55 package of legislative initiatives designed to achieve the more ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction target included in the Climate Law for 2030 will increase the need to reduce agricultural emissions in the coming CAP programming period (Matthews 2021). Farm structure concerns Interest in farm structures arguably goes back to the early years of the CAP when the then Agriculture Commissioner Sicco Mansholt proposed to offer finan- cial incentives to drastically reduce the farm popula- tion to release land to enable remaining farms to grow to a viable size. However, the regulations that followed were only a pale shadow of the original proposal (Stead 2007). The central role of the family farm in the Euro- pean model of agriculture is taken as a given, although nowhere explicitly stated as an agricultural policy objec- tive. The eastern enlargements of the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013 radically altered the farm structure distribu- tion by introducing a significant duality. On the one hand, a large number of farm holdings were now sub- sistence or semi-subsistence farmers (Davidova 2011). On the other hand, the conversion of former collec- tive or state farms into joint stock companies in some new member states created a new type of farm holding that was virtually unknown in the older member states (Maurel 2012). By the middle of the following decade political con- cern was growing over trends in farm consolidation and farmland concentration. For some, the focus has been on land grabbing and the rise of large-scale land deals (van der Ploeg, Franco, and Borras 2015; Kay, Peuch, and Franco 2015); for others, it is safeguarding the position of the family farm (Davidova and Thomson 2014; Hennessy 2014); for some, it is opposition to industrial farming and the growth of ‘mega’ farms (Greenpeace 2019); for others, the issue is generational renewal (European Commission 2018d; Zagata et al. 2017); while yet others focus on the decline in the overall number of farms and its impact on rural vitality. Common to all is the view that current pat- terns of farm structural change should be halted or even reversed (Falkenberg 2016). This concern over the pace of structural change has been forcefully articulated by the current Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Devel- opment Janusz Wojciechowski on many occasions since he took up office. However, the Commission’s own fig- ures showing the disparity in the returns per work unit in agriculture relative to the rest of the economy suggests 191The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 that the outflow of labour and thus farm consolidation will continue for some time to come. Resilient and sustainable food systems In recent years, the issue of resilient and sustain- able food systems has moved centre stage in recogni- tion of the multiple and interrelated challenges they face including poor diets, poor health outcomes, food waste, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, resource scarcity, inequality and climate change at both the global and EU levels (European Commission 2020a; SAPEA 2020; SCAR 2020; Webb and Sonnino 2021). The food systems approach links these issues together, in contrast to sectoral analyses that look at the individual issues separately. The adoption of the UN Agenda for Sustain- able Development in 2015 with its 17 Sustainable Devel- opment Goals has given further impetus to this research direction (Scown and Nicholas 2020), as has the appar- ent vulnerabilities in food supply chains revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic (Bisoffi et al. 2021). Food systems encompass the entire value chain from ecosystem services to primary production, processing, packaging, distribution, retailing, food service, waste stream management, safety assurance, to consumers, their nutrition, the food environment and diet-related diseases. Sustainable food and nutrition security has been defined as the capacity of a food system to deliver food and nutrition security in an environmentally, eco- nomically and socially sustainable manner, thus com- bining nutrition and health with a social-ecological sys- tems perspective (Zurek et al. 2018). The food systems perspective draws attention to the interactions, includ- ing synergies and trade-offs, between different policy domains and levels of government. There is a strong nor- mative element in this literature. Many studies conclude that ‘business as usual’ is no longer a viable option and that radical system-wide change is required. Their aim is to identify workable paths towards a healthier, more socially just and environmentally sustainable food sys- tem (SAPEA 2020). Achterbosch et al. (2019) review the way in which food systems thinking has been reflected in EU research grouped around themes such as food system governance; sustainable diets; food, nutrition and health; agroecology; agricultural innovation; alternative methods of food dis- tribution; food waste and the circular bioeconomy; and development. The food systems literature draws atten- tion to new research questions such as the future role of animal agriculture in Europe; the most effective ways to reduce food waste and to build a circular bioeconomy; how to redesign food environments to encourage more healthy eating habits; the balance between extensification and intensification in contributing to more sustainable food production; how to implement true cost accounting to reflect fully the role of externalities and environmental impacts; and improving resilience. DIVERSIFICATION OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS Agricultural policy research has been influenced not only by the expanding scope of topics to be addressed but also by the introduction of new policy instruments that have raised new issues in terms of assessing their effectiveness as well as their interactions with other poli- cy goals. For reasons of space we choose to highlight two examples here: direct payments and agri-environment- climate measures. Direct payments Direct payments were introduced into the CAP from 1994 onwards, first as coupled payments and then, after 2005, as decoupled payments. Given the important con- tribution they make to farm income, they have attracted much research: how equally are they distributed; do they have production effects; are they capitalised into land values; do they impact on productivity growth; how do they influence the process of farm structural change? The concern with how direct payments are distribut- ed arises from the well-known statistic that 80% of pay- ments accrue to the largest 20% of farms, which in turn is driven by the allocation mechanism of direct pay- ments which is related to land. Distributional analyses have used either the annual Commission data on pay- ments by size of payment or micro-level farm data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). The most recent analysis using Commission data shows a trend towards a more equitable distribution of aid in the old- er member states, but the opposite trend for the newer member states (Alfaro-Navarro et al. 2021). Farm-level analysis has been used to investigate the dependence of farm incomes on direct payments by investigating sce- narios that assume the complete abolition of the CAP (Ciaian et al. 2020). By linking a farm-level model with the CAPRI partial equilibrium model they overcome the limitations of a purely static analysis. They conclude that a small sub-set of farms (pigs, poultry, dairy and horti- culture) could experience an increase in income due to improvements in both prices and yields but those farms that are currently most dependent on CAP subsidies (arable and cattle farms) would experience significant income losses. Another farm-level analysis concluded 192 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 that the 2013 CAP reform only partially succeeded in its objective to equalise payments across farms, but also showed that CAP subsidies (and direct payments in par- ticular) contribute to a reduction in the inequality of total farm income (Espinosa et al. 2020). Severini and Tantari (2015) reached the same conclusion using Italian farm level data. It is no surprise that coupled direct payments stimu- late production (Smit et al. 2017; Jansson et al. 2020), but views have differed on the importance of the production effects of decoupled payments (Moro and Sckokai 2013). This is a vital parameter when modelling the impact of changes to CAP instruments (Balkhausen, Banse, and Grethe 2008; Boulanger, Boysen-Urban, and Philippidis 2021). Truly decoupled payments do not affect the mar- ginal incentive to produce but economists have pointed to various mechanisms whereby such payments might affect production compared to the absence of such pay- ments. Payments that are decoupled in a static and risk- less world may not be production neutral in a dynamic and risky world. Studies have therefore tried to assess directly whether direct payments have kept land and labour in production that might otherwise have exited the sector, or inf luenced investment through wealth effects or by increasing access to credit where imperfect credit markets exist. A drawback of this literature is that empirical work has often been constrained to comparing decoupled payments with the previous system of partial- ly-coupled payments rather than being able to undertake a test of the impact of these payments compared to the absence of these payments. For payments to be fully decoupled they must be fully capitalised into land values. Another way to esti- mate the ‘degree of decoupling’ is therefore to examine the extent to which these payments are capitalised into land values and land rents. A high rate of capitalisation into land values implies a low transfer efficiency of sup- port to farmers (if we exclude the benefits they receive as owners of land), and thus a lower likelihood that the payments will distort production. Economic theory can describe the degree to which support is capitalised into land rents as a function of three parameters: i) how the policy is implemented, specifically its initial incidence (targeted to land, inputs or labour); ii) the ease which land can be shifted to alternative uses (its elasticity of supply); and iii) the ease with which land can be substi- tuted with other factors of production (its elasticity of substitution) (Floyd 1965). However, specific features of the CAP payments implementation mechanism seem to play a dominant role. Varacca et al. (2021) undertake a meta-analysis of the capitalisation of CAP payments into land prices. In line with expectations, they find that the introduction of decoupled payments increased the capitalisation rate, although the extent of this effect hinges on the imple- mentation scheme adopted by a member state. In par- ticular, the rate of capitalisation is influenced by the relationship between the number of eligible hectares and the number of payment entitlements in those member states that adopted the Single Farm Payment. Other fac- tors can also reduce the rate of capitalisation, including the time-limited commitment to payments, the costli- ness of cross-compliance conditions, rural land market imperfections, and differences in the value of entitle- ments (Ciaian, Kancs, and Swinnen 2008). Allowing for multiple estimates from individual papers, the range of estimates for the capitalisation rate is strikingly large. The Varacca et al. (2021) study concludes that the capi- talisation rate for coupled payments is around 11 cents per euro of payment. Decoupled payments have a high- er capitalisation rate, depending on the implementa- tion model, while capitalisation in rental transactions is higher still, varying between 15 and 49 cents per euro. Guastella et al. (2021) find that between 28 and 52 cents per euro of additional subsidy capitalise into land pric- es in member states that adopted the hybrid and the regional model, respectively, but find no evidence of capitalisation in farmland prices in member states that adopted the historical model. The corollary of these findings is that the residual payment increases the returns to the remaining produc- tion inputs, including intermediate inputs, capital and labour, and will likely inf luence production through these routes. Biagini, Antonioli, and Severini (2020) throw further light on this issue by directly estimating the income transfer efficiency of CAP payments in Italy. Italy made all land uses (except forests) eligible for enti- tlements, generating an abundance of eligible hectares compared to entitlements. Studies show that as a result the capitalisation of direct payments into land values was negligible. An income transfer efficiency of unity would indicate the payments do not affect production decisions. They find that the income transfer efficiency of most CAP measures is less than unity, pointing to the existence of leakages. Their paper highlights that policy participation costs differ across farms and across instru- ments and also play a role in determining transfer effi- ciency. A recurring theme has been the investigation of the impact of CAP subsidies on productivity growth (Min- viel and Latruffe 2017; Garrone et al. 2019). In theory, the direction of this effect could go either way. Positive effects might arise if direct payments provide farmers with the necessary financial means to keep technologies 193The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 up to date or to invest in efficiency-improving on-farm organisation. Negative effects might arise if farmers are less motivated to perform well with more income due to subsidies or where a soft budget constraint means that farmers over-invest leading to inefficient use of resourc- es. Early literature that focused on the impact of cou- pled payments found a predominantly negative relation- ship. More recent studies suggest that decoupled pay- ments may have a positive effect on technical efficiency, although this may vary across different farming systems (Bonfiglio et al. 2020). Another issue that agricultural policy research has investigated has been the impact of direct payments on the pace of structural change in agriculture. Direct pay- ments can, in principle, influence the entry, growth and exit of farms. If direct payments are capitalised into land values and land rents, increased land rents and pric- es may represent significant barriers to entry into the agricultural sector and may also impede restructuring within the sector. Direct payments may also influence a producer’s decision to exit the industry, particularly for low-profit farmers, given that receipt of the payment is contingent on having access to land. There is evidence at least for the EU-15 member states that the change to a decoupled payments regime after 2005 may have slowed the rate of farm consolidation in the EU (Brady et al. 2009; Kazukauskas et al. 2013). There is also evidence from survey intentions and simulation modelling (Bar- tolini and Viaggi 2013; Brady et al. 2009) that decoupled payments slow down the rate of structural change rela- tive to a situation of no agricultural policy support. The CAP’s income support payments have created incentives for some farmers not to exit agriculture, reduced land reallocation towards more efficient farms, and helped to keep less efficient farms active. If new entrants or enlarg- ing farms are seen as more productive, this mechanism may mitigate any production-stimulating effect of these payments through other channels. Environmental interventions The second policy instrument that has generated a significant volume of research is the voluntary agri- environment-climate measure (AECM) in the CAP. It is distinguished from the income support instruments by its focus on environmental outcomes, its voluntarism, its contractual nature, and its reliance on an objective mechanism to establish payment levels. This has given rise to a vast literature focusing on the ecological effec- tiveness of these measures, the factors that influence farmer participation, the most efficient ways of designing contracts, their impact on other CAP objectives such as farm income and employment, and their cost effective- ness (Uthes and Matzdorf 2013). An obvious question is whether the agricultural practices supported by AECM payments have delivered the desired environmental effects (ecological efficiency). Such studies are usually undertaken by ecologists rather than economists. Although AECMs are often seen as the poster boy of the CAP and the type of payment for pub- lic goods to which the CAP as a whole should aspire, the literature on ecological effectiveness is surprisingly criti- cal (ECA 2011). This may partly reflect the findings of the highly influential seminal review of AECM effective- ness by Kleijn and Sutherland (2003) which is still fre- quently cited despite the experiences with AECMs since then. However, a more recent meta-analysis concluded that the expectation that results of previous evaluations would be used to improve future policy was not borne out in practice (Batáry et al. 2015). These authors found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU’s agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. For the 2014-2020 period, it seems many managing authori- ties continued with the interventions used in the previ- ous programming period even where the Rural Develop- ment Programmes state that the AECM measures have been improved (ENRD 2016). Still, evaluation studies suffer from methodological weaknesses that make it dif- ficult to draw strong conclusions (Josefsson et al. 2020). AECMs often have multiple goals such as the protection of environmentally valuable landscapes, reduction of pollution, enhancement of biodiversity, and climate miti- gation that makes outcomes difficult to quantify. Fur- thermore, few studies examine whether farmers main- tain their conservation practices over time, or the extent of rigour of these practices. A large literature has explored the factors affecting adoption of AECMs by farmers. Farmers receive finan- cial support to participate but uptake is patchy and there is evidence of systematic non-participation in schemes. Understanding the factors that influence farmer partici- pation in AECMs can help to design schemes that better incentivise farmers to participate. There is a widespread view that, at least in some countries, it can be difficult to attract farmer participation and thus there is a low uptake of AECMs but firm evidence on this is hard to obtain. Numerous analyses indicate that the main factor encouraging farmers to participate in AECMs is finan- cial incentives rather than environmental concerns (Pav- lis et al. 2016; Wąs et al. 2021), although Dessart, Barrei- ro-Hurlé, and van Bavel (2019) highlight the importance of behavioural factors. Brown et al. (2021) argue that over-emphasising economic considerations may hamper 194 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 the effectiveness of environmental payments, potentially corroding farmer attitudes to policy and environmental objectives. Adoption studies initially focused on factors such as farm structure (intensive vs extensive) or farm- ers’ socio-demographic characteristics (education, age). More recent work has investigated the influence of behavioural factors such as farmers’ motivations and attitudes, the role of social capital and farmer’s networks, as well as the role played in diffusion by whether one’s neighbours have adopted the practices. Most papers focus on individual schemes and specific countries. A review paper by Lastra-Bravo et al. (2015) surveyed ten papers that used a probit/logit model to examine the determinants of adoption. Over 160 vari- ables affecting uptake were identified, and grouped into five major categories: economic factors, farm struc- ture, farmer characteristics, farmers’ attitudes towards AECMs, and social capital (i.e. the connections, shared values and understandings between individuals and groups). Results indicate that farms less likely to join an AECM are those where there is a high dependence on agricultural activities for farm income, those where there is the presence of a successor on a farm, and farms with a high proportion of family labour. In one of the few studies that take an EU-wide perspective based on FADN data, Zimmermann and Britz (2016) show that participation in AECMs is more likely in less inten- sive production systems where, however, per committed hectare premiums tend to be lower. Another line of research addresses the contractual design of AECMs, starting from the dominant action- based approach that requires participants to demonstrate compliance with specific management actions (prescrip- tions) to potentially more cost-effective contract designs, such as payments by results, auctions, spatial targeting, and collective implementation (Berkhout, van Doorn, and Schrijver 2018). The popularity of action-based approaches can be explained by lower transactions and monitoring costs as well as less risk for farmers. Howev- er, these approaches may have contributed to the disap- pointing results of AECMs to date given that they often encourage enrolment of less intensively farmed areas at lower risk of environmental losses, encourage farmers to choose those actions that require the least change to their management practices, and do little to promote long-term attitudinal change or commitment to improv- ing environmental outcomes. As one paper noted: ‘Thus far, no consensus exists whether [AECMs] incentivize adoption of pro-environmental production or simply offer windfall profits for those already operating at lower intensities’ (Uehleke, Petrick, and Hüttel 2019). Results-based schemes (RBS) in which farmers are paid for achieving agreed environmental outcomes rather than performing specific management actions are advo- cated on the grounds that they give farmers greater flex- ibility in the way they achieve environmental outcomes which may be more in line with their own farm charac- teristics, can encourage innovation in successful practic- es, and by giving farmers a greater sense of ownership of the outcomes they may be more successful in promoting behavioural change (Burton and Schwarz 2013; Chaplin, Mills, and Chiswell 2021). Despite these apparent advan- tages, RBS have largely remained as pilot and small-scale initiatives. Partly it can be difficult to define indicators for the desired ecological outcomes, partly RBS imply greater risk for farmers, while administrations worry about higher transactions costs (Šumrada et al. 2021). Research is seeking to address these issues, for example, by looking at the potential for hybrid schemes using a mixture of action- and results-based approaches, and by exploring the use of self-assessment by farmers to reduce monitoring costs (Herzon et al. 2018). Many policy problems in the design of AECMs can be understood within the framework of principal- agent theory. The issue is to design a policy that results in agents (farmers) doing what is in their best interests while also achieving the objectives of the principal (the state). Designing such a policy faces problems of asym- metric information resulting in adverse selection (aris- ing from the availability of information known to the agent but not to the principal, such as the opportunity costs of farmers in providing the environmental out- come) and moral hazard (because it is difficult for the principal to monitor compliance, the agent has an incentive to cheat). Adverse selection means that farm- ers with the lowest compliance costs (perhaps because they are already managing their land in an environmen- tally-friendly way) have the greatest incentive to join a scheme, resulting in comparatively limited environ- mental gains and overcompensation of compliance costs (Latacz-Lohmann and Schilizzi 2005). Different contract designs have been proposed to overcome these problems, including the use of targeting mechanisms, incentive- compatible screening mechanisms, and auctions (Ver- gamini, White, and Viaggi 2015). Collective implemen- tation can also be important to widen the adoption of AECMs and to lower transactions costs. Olivieri et al. (2021) provide a systematic review of relevant papers to understand better how these innovative contract solu- tions can improve the effectiveness of AECMs under asymmetric information and help to avoid policy fail- ures relative to action-based approaches. 195The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 AN EXPANDED TOOLBOX Agricultural policy research relies on a large and sophisticated toolbox of methods and databases com- prising statistical and experimental approaches, various farm-level, agent-based as well as sector models, and a dedicated collection of microeconomic data in the form of the farm accountancy data network (FADN) as well as census, survey, and administrative data (Finger and El Benni 2021). Developments in data collection and access, models and new methodologies have been an important driver of the policy research agenda. Availability of data Agricultural policy research has a strong empirical focus and relies heavily on the availability of accurate and reliable data. Agricultural and other statistics col- lected by national statistical agencies and coordinated by Eurostat have been and remain a primary source of data, supplemented by administrative data, and survey data collected by researchers themselves. Recent devel- opments in data availability, accessibility and diffusion have helped to drive the expanding agenda of agricultur- al policy research by opening new areas of enquiry and permitting the use of new methodologies. Nonetheless, both Eurostat and the Commission recognise that the absence of data in many new policy areas is likely to be a constraint for future policy analysis. The European agricultural statistics system (EASS) maintained by Eurostat consists of 10 legal acts and their implementing measures, as well as of a number of gen- tlemen’s agreements. Eurostat embarked in 2016 on a strategy for agricultural statistics for 2020 and beyond with multiple objectives to clarify and streamline defi- nitions, diversify data sources and improve the speed, flexibility and effectiveness of the EASS while preserving high quality data and long time series. It recognised new data needs linked to the greening of the CAP, climate change challenges, production structures, food supply chains, price volatility, yields and geo-referenced infor- mation (Eurostat 2016). Agricultural policy research has greatly benefit- ed from the farm-level micro data collected through the Commission’s Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) intended to provide reliable information on farm incomes in the EU (Vrolijk et al. 2004). Many of the papers cited in this review made use of FADN data for income comparisons and distribution analysis, effi- ciency studies, environmental assessments, microsimula- tion modelling, and policy impact analysis. The Farm to Fork Strategy proposes to extend the current FADN to a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN) to include a broader set of indicators on the sustainability perfor- mance of farms. Given resource constraints, this may require a trade-off between the size of the representa- tive sample and the breath of coverage of data collected (Vrolijk and Poppe 2021). The administration of the CAP requires the collec- tion of a huge amount of data through the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) that cen- tralises data on agricultural subsidies paid by the EU in each member state. Data collected under the CAP’s Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (soon to become the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework) also includes administrative data supplied by member states as well as Eurostat data (European Commission 2018c). Researchers’ access to these data seems to vary across member states although the Com- mission has invested heavily in developing data plat- forms such as the Agri-Food Data Portal.2 The attempt by the Commission to increase transparency around the distribution of CAP payments by requiring mem- ber states to publish information on the names of ben- eficiaries, the municipality and the postal code where available on nationally-managed websites with a search tool, first introduced in 2009, has generated very limited research (one exception is Scown, Brady, and Nicho- las 2020). This may be because member states have not made much effort to make these sites user-friendly and considerable effort is required to turn these data into usable information. The European Data Strategy pro- posed by the Commission includes rules on open data and the reuse of public sector information that will hopefully improve researchers’ future access to admin- istrative datasets. The ongoing digital revolution is greatly increas- ing the amount of data collected regarding both farms and consumer behaviour. In addition to the traditional public sector actors involved in collecting and aggre- gating agricultural data, the digital revolution engages additional actors such as agricultural equipment manu- facturers, software developers and other private actors. Managing rights to agricultural data and privacy con- cerns relating to the use of both personal and non- personal data is emerging as a key regulatory challenge (Kosier 2019). The voluntary Code of Conduct for agri- cultural data sharing launched by a coalition of associa- tions from the EU agri-food chain in 2018 represents an important first step in building the necessary trust and transparency (van der Burg, Wiseman, and Krkeljas 2020). The development of a common agriculture data 2 The portal can be accessed at https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/ DataPortal/home.html. 196 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 space will be facilitated by Commission initiatives as part of its European Data Strategy. The role of modelling Agricu ltura l economists have put signif icant effort into the development of policy models which are increasingly used in impact assessment and to support policymaking. Policy models come in many forms – programming models, agent-based models, microsimu- lation models, partial equilibrium models and comput- able general equilibrium models – and increasingly include links to biophysical, land use and other models in order to evaluate impacts on a wider range of indi- cators than the narrowly economic ones of production, prices, income, trade and economic welfare. As the focus of policy has shifted from markets to farms, models have evolved to capture the heterogeneity of farm responses, for example, to changes in direct payments (Espinosa et al. 2020; Gocht et al. 2013). In the past, models were often developed for specific purposes and rarely re-used, encouraged by a pattern of research funding that priori- tised novelty rather than the maintenance and develop- ment of existing models. Two developments at European level have improved this situation. One is that the EU research programme has begun to fund a cluster of research projects that aim to improve modelling capabilities while also interacting with each other.3 The other is the creation of a modelling platform (the integrated Modelling Platform for Agro-economic Commodity and Policy Analysis, iMAP) at the Com- mission’s Joint Research Centre since 2005 that includes selected partial and general equilibrium models (M’barek and Delincé 2015). iMAP facilitates the analysis of a given policy question with different tools, allowing com- parison of results to substantiate the findings as well as extending the range of outputs given that the different models complement each other. The impact assessment undertaken for the Commission’s legislative proposal for the CAP post 2020 illustrates the contribution of the iMAP models (European Commission 2018b). iMAP also contributes to making model results and harmonised data sources publicly available, thus increasing transpar- ency and facilitating their scientific review. Future directions for agricultural policy modelling were identified as part of the SUPREMA project (Gon- zalez-Martinez, Jongeneel, and Salamon 2021). In line 3 These include SUPREMA: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773499; AGRICORE: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/816078); BESTMAP: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/817501; MIND STEP: https://cordis. europa.eu/project/id/817566. with the narrative in the earlier part of this paper, the conclusions noted the increasingly wide range of issues and outcomes that policies sought to address. In par- ticular, more effort is needed to integrate environmental and social aspects as well as economic outcomes. As no model can attempt to provide all the answers, the pro- ject emphasised the need to ensure that models can be coupled and work together which adds another layer of complexity to their design. Models will increasingly be designed in a modular fashion so that depending on the question being asked discrete components can be includ- ed or not as needed. Resources also need to be found to support the ongoing work of model maintenance and development as well as to undertake model comparisons. Experimental methods and behavioural insights Experimental approaches are a relatively recent but rapidly-growing addition to the methodological toolbox both for agricultural policy design and impact evalu- ation. Insights from behavioural economics are also increasingly applied to understanding how farmers respond both to stronger regulations and to the broad- er range of voluntary measures now offered as part of agricultural policy. Although they are quite distinct (experimental economics is a methodological approach while behavioural economics is a research programme informed by a richer set of assumptions about human behaviour than mainstream economics) they are often seen as complementary as experiments can be used to test predictions of human behaviour drawn from behav- ioural economics (Thoyer and Préget 2019). Experiments are particularly useful in tr y ing to establish cause-effect relationships because they seek to control all extraneous factors in order to iso- late the impact of the ‘treatment’ (the policy interven- tion or different designs of the intervention). Colen et al. (2016) survey the contributions of experimental approaches to agricultural policy, relatively limited at that time, and discuss the main challenges of integrat- ing these approaches into the toolbox for agricultural policy impact assessment and evaluation. Lefebvre et al. (2021) give examples of policy insights from experiments and also review the challenges in making better use of experimental approaches. A network of experimental- ists, the Research network on Economic Experiments for the CAP (REECAP) has been established with the aim of promoting the increased recourse to economic experi- ments for CAP evaluation. Behavioural economics explores the implications of observing how farmers and consumers actually make decisions rather than assuming that they are rational, 197The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 self-interested, utility-maximising individuals. Psychol- ogy and other social sciences help to rationalise devia- tions in behaviour from the standard model and under- pin the notion that there are systematic biases that if accounted for in designing policies can help to improve policy outcomes. Much of this literature has focused on ways to improve participation in agri-environment schemes due to their voluntary nature (Dessart, Barrei- ro-Hurlé, and van Bavel 2019). The EU created in 2019 the Competence Centre on Behavioural Insights within the Commission’s Joint Research Centre to promote the use of behavioural insights in policymaking and the use of behavioural research is foreseen in the Better Regula- tion guidelines for evidence-based policymaking (Baggio et al. 2021). As behavioural change among both consum- ers and farmers is central to achieving the objectives of the European Green Deal when it comes to food sys- tems, the extent and relevance of this research is only going to increase in future. CONCLUSIONS This review of recent agricultural policy research has highlighted its expanding breadth and the growing use of innovative datasets and methodologies. Yet it is far from comprehensive, and some readers will regret the omission of specific mention of topics such as the bio- economy, risk management, or political economy. We have highlighted the close relationship between research efforts and topics with the changing needs and priorities of practical agricultural policy. We have used the con- cept of layering to suggest that new policy needs and pri- orities have been added cumulatively to the agricultural policy research programme rather than deleting or sub- stituting for previous themes. It is impressive to observe how responsive the discipline has been to the changing needs and demands of policymakers and stakeholders. In looking to the future, it seems appropriate to highlight two themes. The growing breadth of policy research brings with it a growing need for interdisci- plinary collaboration. Erjavec and Lovec (2017) have already observed that the shift in focus of CAP research from market distortions to broader societal issues such as food, environment and development requires greater collaboration with political and other social sciences to avoid policy failures. I would argue that the expanded research programme described in this paper points to the need for an even greater range of disciplinary col- laborators including ecologists, climate scientists, nutri- tionists, food technologists, and other natural scientists. My impression, which requires further empirical test- ing, is that many of the most cited papers that are driv- ing the broader food systems and food policy agenda are not published in the traditional agricultural economics journals and often do not include economists among their authors (Fresco et al. 2021). In the past, agricul- tural economists often had a training in basic agricul- tural science which facilitated their contribution to, for example, farm management research. Being able to com- municate across disciplinary boundaries will become an increasingly important skill. The downside, of course, is that investment in developing such skills takes time and resources that could otherwise be used to build research competences and output within one’s own discipline. The ready access to information and the accompany- ing problem of information overload may, paradoxical- ly, have the effect of encouraging greater specialisation where researchers can feel confident that, at least in their own specific areas, they have a full and complete under- standing of the state of play. A second question that comes naturally to an agri- cultural policy researcher is whether their research has any actual impact on practical agricultural policy. Researchers will be aware that research funding applica- tions increasingly require evidence of impact or policy relevance. The commitment to the Better Regulation agenda within the EU and many national administra- tions includes a requirement for impact assessments (IAs) to gather and evaluate evidence to support policy- making. Reidsma et al. (2018) examine the use of scien- tific evidence in IAs in the area ‘Agriculture and rural development’ undertaken by the Commission between 2003 and 2014. Examining the total of 24 IAs conducted during this period, they concluded that this policy area ‘provided relatively much scientific background com- pared to other policy areas’ based on the inclusion of references to scientific studies. Both the European Par- liament and the European Court of Auditors regularly publish studies which draw on research outputs in sup- port of their policy recommendations. However, actual impact is difficult to evaluate. While the above evidence suggests that policy research is ref- erenced when taking decisions, it is often far from deter- mining policy outcomes. The simple linear model whereby knowledge drives policy and that policymaking is driven by ‘evidence’ produced by science has been heavily criti- cised by the literature in political science, policy stud- ies, and public administration (Boswell and Smith 2017). Most studies show that the use of evidence is highly selec- tive. Some commentators attribute this to weaknesses in research communication and call for improved methods of knowledge exchange (e.g., policy briefs) as well as greater interaction (e.g. through stakeholder workshops) with poli- 198 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 cymakers to build trust. Increasingly, we see such initia- tives as part of H2020 projects while the European Asso- ciation of Agricultural Economics and the UK Agricul- tural Economics Society have jointly published Eurochoices with the specific aim of better communicating research results to policymakers. One might also make the case that agricultural policy research, even if not immediately vis- ible in changes to CAP policy instruments, for example, has nonetheless had an influence over a longer timespan in shifting the range of what are deemed to be relevant responses to specific policy problems. This instrumentalist view of the role of research in policymaking is challenged by other conceptual framings, most strongly the notion that it is politics that determines the research that is undertaken, or at least determines the research that is considered relevant, rath- er than the other way round. The way in which research funded by commercial interests often results in research findings that are of direct use to those interests is well documented. Similar mechanisms can be at play in pol- icy research if research funders signal what is likely to be funded (or not) and what the expected outcomes are likely to be. In other cases, the research process itself is not informed by politics but the use made of research findings (or not) may ultimately be decided through a political process. Researchers need to be careful in criti- cising this outcome as research findings are not value- neutral. Implementing new policies or policy reforms will likely have distributional impacts by affecting vari- ous interests differently and may also challenge underly- ing values. While researchers can play an important role in highlighting the way power relations can affect the outcomes of political decision-making, it is ultimately the role of policymakers to weigh up and evaluate the trade-offs and make the final decision. In conclusion, it is interesting to compare the nar- rative in this paper with one I wrote 25 years previously assessing the policy interests of agricultural economists at that time based on contributions to the 1996 Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (Matthews 1997). It is striking how many of the themes mentioned in that paper are also highlighted here. The concluding paper to that Congress by Claus-Hennig Hanf was entitled “Agricultural economics in Europe: a thriving science for a shrinking sector?” (Hanf 1997). Hanf poses the question how agricultural economics can maintain its relevance as a discipline (or quasi-dis- cipline, to use the term suggested by Fresco et al. (2021) when they pose a similar question) when the economic size of its focus of enquiry diminishes in importance. Hanf was writing at a time when in his own coun- try and elsewhere there was great pressure to close and amalgamate university departments of agricultural eco- nomics. He noted that the profession had maintained its numerical strength partly because the CAP gave rise to an almost inexhaustible supply of research projects, but also because agricultural economists enlarged their research domain to tackle new research problems. That these continue to be successful survival strategies is sup- ported by the narrative in this paper. However, he also identified several pitfalls, including a potential loss of identity, a tendency to apply a narrow toolbox of theo- ries and methods based on a strict neoclassical para- digm, and the dangers of losing the familiarity with the natural and technical environment in these newer research fields that has been the hallmark of agricultural economists in the past. With these strictures in mind, it seems reasonable to suggest that agricultural policy research can maintain its relevance to practical agricultural policy if it continues to take up issues of societal concern, maintains its inde- pendence, encourages methodological innovation and supports a variety of methodological approaches, col- laborates closely with other disciplines, while building on its long tradition of empirical analysis and working with data. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Alan Matthews is Professor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. The author would like to acknowledge thoughtful com- ments on an earlier draft from Jeroen Candel, Emil Erjavec and Donato Romano. REFERENCES Achterbosch, T.J., A. Getz Escudero, J.D. Dengerink, and S. van Berkum. 2019. Synthesis of Existing Food Sys- tems Studies and Research Projects in Europe: Inde- pendent Expert Report. Independent Expert Report for the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: Publi- cations Office of the European Union. https://data. europa.eu/doi/10.2777/004919. Alfaro-Navarro, J.L., J. Mondejar-Jimenez, M. Vargas-Var- gas, J.C. Gazquez-Abad, and J.F. Jimenez-Guerrero. 2021. “The Effects of The Distribution of Agricultural Direct Payments.” Agricultural Economics–Czech 67 (9): 351–62. Alliance Environnment. 2017. Literature Reviews on the Effects of Farming Practices Associated with the CAP 199The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 Greening Measures on Climate and the Environment. Developed in the Context of the Evaluation Study of the Payment for Agricultural Practices Beneficial for the Climate and the Environment (“Greening” of Direct Payments). Brussels: European Commission. ———. 2019. Evaluation Study of the Impact of the CAP on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Ancev, T. 2011. “Policy Considerations for Mandating Agriculture in a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33 (1): 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppq031. Anderson, K., and J. Swinnen. 2008. Distortions to Agri- cultural Incentives in Europe’s Transition Economies. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications. Baggio, M., E. Ciriolo, G. Marandola, and R. van Bavel. 2021. “The Evolution of Behaviourally Informed Pol- icy-Making in the EU.” Journal of European Public Policy 28 (5): 658–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017 63.2021.1912145. Baldock, D. 2020. “Locating the CAP in an Escalating Green Agenda.” Italian Review of Agricultural Eco- nomics 75 (3): 13–18. Balkhausen, O., M. Banse, and H. Grethe. 2008. “Mod- elling CAP Decoupling in the EU: A Comparison of Selected Simulation Models and Results.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 59 (1): 57–71. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00135.x. Baráth, L., and I. Fertő. 2017. “Productivity and Con- vergence in European Agriculture.” Journal of Agri- cultural Economics 68 (1): 228–48. https://doi. org/10.1111/1477-9552.12157. Bartolini, F., and D. Viaggi. 2013. “The Common Agricul- tural Policy and the Determinants of Changes in EU Farm Size.” Land Use Policy 31: 126–35. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.007. Batáry, P., L.V. Dicks, D. Kleijn, and W.J. Sutherland. 2015. “The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management.” Conservation Biology 29 (4): 1006–16. https://doi. org/10.1111/cobi.12536. Berkhout, P., A. van Doorn, and R. Schrijver. 2018. Tar- geted Payments for Services Delivered by Farmers: Possible Approaches. Report 2018-052. Wageningen: Wageningen Economic Research. Biagini, L., F. Antonioli, and S. Severini. 2020. “The Role of the Common Agricultural Policy in Enhancing Farm Income: A Dynamic Panel Analysis Accounting for Farm Size in Italy.” Journal of Agricultural Eco- nomics 71 (3): 652–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477- 9552.12383. Bisoffi, S., L. Ahrné, J. Aschemann-Witzel, A. Báldi, K. Cuhls, F. DeClerck, J. Duncan, et al. 2021. “COV- ID-19 and Sustainable Food Systems: What Should We Learn Before the Next Emergency.” Fron- tiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5: 53. https://doi. org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.650987. Blanco, M. 2018. The Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on Developing Countries. Brussels: European Parliament Directorate-General for External Affairs. Bojnec, Š. 1996. “Integration of Central Europe in the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union.” The World Economy 19 (4): 447–63. Bojnec, Š., and I. Fertő. 2008. “European Enlargement and Agro-Food Trade.” Canadian Journal of Agricul- tural Economics/Revue Canadienne d’agroeconomie 56 (4): 563–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 7976.2008.00148.x. ———. 2015. “Are New EU Member States Catching up with Older Ones on Global Agri-Food Markets?” Post-Communist Economies 27 (2): 205–15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2015.1026690. Bojnec, Š., and J.F.M. Swinnen. 1997. “The Pattern of Agricultural Price Distortions in Central and East- ern Europe.” Food Policy 22 (4): 289–306. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00020-1. Bonfiglio, A., R. Henke, F. Pierangeli, and M.R. Pupo D’Andrea. 2020. “Effects of Redistributing Policy Sup- port on Farmers’ Technical Efficiency.” Agricultural Economics 51 (2): 305–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ agec.12556. Borch, A., and U. Kjærnes. 2016. “Food Security and Food Insecurity in Europe: An Analysis of the Academic Discourse (1975–2013).” Appetite 103 (August): 137–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2016.04.005. Boswell, C., and K. Smith. 2017. “Rethinking Policy ‘Impact’: Four Models of Research-Policy Relations.” Palgrave Communications 3 (1): 1–10. https://doi. org/10.1057/s41599-017-0042-z. Boulanger, P., K. Boysen-Urban, and G. Philippidis. 2021. “European Union Agricultural Support ‘Coupling’ in Simulation Modelling: Measuring the Sustainabil- ity Impacts.” Sustainability 13 (6): 3264. https://doi. org/10.3390/su13063264. Bozzola, M., E. Massetti, R. Mendelsohn, and F. Capi- tanio. 2018. “A Ricardian Analysis of the Impact of Climate Change on Italian Agriculture.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 45 (1): 57–79. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx023. Brady, M., K. Kellermann, C. Sahrbacher, and L. Jelinek. 2009. “Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: 200 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 Some EU Results.” Journal of Agricultural Econom- ics 60 (3): 563–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477- 9552.2009.00216.x. Brown, C., E. Kovács, I. Herzon, S. Villamayor-Tomas, A. Albizua, A. Galanaki, I. Grammatikopoulou, D. McCracken, J.A. Olsson, and Y. Zinngrebe. 2021. “Simplistic Understandings of Farmer Motivations Could Undermine the Environmental Potential of the Common Agricultural Policy.” Land Use Policy 101 (February): 105136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landuse- pol.2020.105136. Burg, S. van der, L. Wiseman, and J. Krkeljas. 2020. “Trust in Farm Data Sharing: Reflections on the EU Code of Conduct for Agricultural Data Sharing.” Ethics and Information Technology, July. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10676-020-09543-1. Burton, R.J.F., and G. Schwarz. 2013. “Result-Oriented Agri-Environmental Schemes in Europe and Their Potential for Promoting Behavioural Change.” Land Use Policy 30 (1): 628–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2012.05.002. Candel, J., G. Breeman, S. Stiller, and C. Termeer. 2014. “Disentangling the Consensus Frame of Food Securi- ty: The Case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy Reform Debate.” Food Policy 44: 47–58. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.10.005. Chaplin, S.P., J. Mills, and H. Chiswell. 2021. “Develop- ing Payment-by-Results Approaches for Agri-Envi- ronment Schemes: Experience from an Arable Trial in England.” Land Use Policy 109 (October): 105698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105698. Ciaian, P., D.A. Kancs, and J. Swinnen. 2008. Static and Dynamic Distributional Effects of Decoupled Pay- ments: Single Farm Payments in the European Union. LICOS Discussion Paper Series 207/2008. Leuven: LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Perfor- mance, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. http://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1142728. Ciaian, Pavel, M. Espinosa, K. Louhichi, and A. Perni. 2020. “Farm Level Impacts of Trade Liberalisation and CAP Removal Across EU: An Assessment Using the IFM-CAP Model.” The German Journal of Agri- cultural Economics (GJAE) 69 (2): 108–26. Colen, L., S. Gomez y Paloma, U. Latacz-Lohmann, M. Lefebvre, R. Préget, and S. Thoyer. 2016. “Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evalu- ation: Insights from the European CAP.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Cana- dienne d’agroeconomie 64 (4): 667–94. https://doi. org/10.1111/cjag.12107. Csáki, C., and A. Jámbor. 2013. “The Impact of EU Accession: Lessons from the Agriculture of the New Member States.” Post-Communist Economies 25 (3): 325–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2013.8131 39. ———. 2019. “Convergence or Divergence – Transition in Agriculture of Central and Eastern Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States Revisited.” Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 65 (No. 4): 160–74. https://doi.org/10.17221/195/2018- AGRICECON. Daugbjerg, C., and A. Swinbank. 2011. “Explaining the ‘Health Check’of the Common Agricultural Poli- cy: Budgetary Politics, Globalisation and Paradigm Change Revisited.” Policy Studies 32 (2): 127–41. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2010.541768. ———. 2016. “Three Decades of Policy Layering and Politically Sustainable Reform in the European Union’s Agricultural Policy.” Governance 29 (2): 265– 80. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12171. Davidova, S., and K. Thomson. 2014. Family Farming in Europe: Challenges and Prospects. Brussels: European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Poli- cies. Davidova, Sophia. 2011. “Semi-Subsistence Farming: An Elusive Concept Posing Thorny Policy Questions.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 (3): 503–24. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2011.00313.x. Dax, T., and A. Copus. 2016. The Future of Rural Devel- opment, Chapter 3, in Reflections on the Agricultural Challenges Post 2020 in the EU: Preparing the Next CAP Reform,. Brussels: European Parliament, Direc- torate General for Structural and Cohesion Policies. De Cara, S., and P.-A. Jayet. 2011. “Marginal Abatement Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from European Agriculture, Cost Effectiveness, and the EU Non- ETS Burden Sharing Agreement.” Ecological Eco- nomics 70 (9): 1680–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2011.05.007. De Cara, S., and B. Vermont. 2011. “Policy Considera- tions for Mandating Agriculture in a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme: A Comment.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33 (4): 661–67. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppr027. Dessart, F.J., J. Barreiro-Hurlé, and R. van Bavel. 2019. “Behavioural Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Policy-Oriented Review.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 46 (3): 417–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019. Détang-Dessendre, C., F. Geerling-Eiff, H. Guyomard, and K. Poppe. 2019. EU Agriculture and Innovation: What Role for the CAP?,. Paris and Wageningen: INRA and WUR. 201The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 ECA. 2011. Is Agri-Environment Support Well Designed and Managed? Special Report No. 7/2011. Luxem- bourg: European Court of Auditors. ———. 2016. Is the Commission’s System for Performance Measurement in Relation to Farmers’ Incomes Well Designed and Based on Sound Data? Special Report 1/2016. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors. ———. 2021. Common Agricultural Policy and Climate: Half of EU Climate Spending but Farm Emissions Are Not Decreasing. Special report 16/2021. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors. ENRD. 2016. Fact Sheet: M10.1 Agri-Environment-Cli- mate Commitments. Brussels: European Network for Rural Development. Eory, V., S. Pellerin, G. Carmona Garcia, H. Lehtonen, I. Licite, H. Mattila, T. Lund-Sørensen, J. Muldowney, D. Popluga, and L. Strandmark. 2018. “Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Agricultural Climate Policy: State-of-the Art, Lessons Learnt and Future Potential.” Journal of Cleaner Production 182: 705–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.252. Erjavec, E., and M. Lovec. 2017. “Research of European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy: Discipli- nary Boundaries and Beyond.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 44 (4): 732–54. https://doi. org/10.1093/erae/jbx008. Espinosa, M., K. Louhichi, A. Perni, and P. Ciaian. 2020. “EU-Wide Impacts of the 2013 CAP Direct Payments Reform: A Farm-Level Analysis.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42 (4): 695–715. https://doi. org/10.1093/aepp/ppz021. European Commission. 2002. Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy. COM(2002)394. Brussels. ———. 2017. The Future of Food and Farming. COM(2017) 713. Brussels. ———. 2018a. Ensuring Viable Farm Income. CAP Specif- ic Objectives Explained.... Brief No. 1. Brussels: DG Agriculture and Rural Development. ———. 2018b. Impact Assessment Accompanying the Commission’s Legislative Package on the Com- mon Agricultural Policy Post 2020, Documents {COM(2018) 392 Final} – {COM(2018) 393 Final} – {COM (2018) 394 Final. SWD(2018) 301 – Part 3/3. Brussels. ———. 2018c. Report from the Commission to the Europe- an Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and First Results on the Performance of the Common Agricultural Policy. COM(2018) 790. Brussels. ———. 2018d. Structural Change and Generation Renew- al. CAP Specific Objectives Explained.... Brief No. 7. Brussels: DG Agriculture and Rural Development. ———. 2020a. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System. COM(2020)381. Brussels. ———. 2020b. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives. COM(2020) 280. Brus- sels. ———. 2021a. A Long-Term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas - Towards Stronger, Connected, Resilient and Prosperous Rural Areas by 2040. COM(2021) 345. Brussels. ———. 2021b. Contingency Plan for Ensuring Food Supply and Food Security in Times of Crisis. COM(2021) 689. Brussels. Eurostat. 2016. Strategy for Agricultural Statistics for 2020 and Beyond. Brussels: European Commission. Falkenberg, K. 2016. Sustainability Now! A European Vision for Sustainability. EPSC Strategic Note. Brus- sels: European Commission, European Political Strat- egy Centre. Finger, R., and N. El Benni. 2021. “Farm Income in Euro- pean Agriculture: New Perspectives on Measurement and Implications for Policy Evaluation.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 48 (2): 253–65. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab011. Floyd, J.E. 1965. “The Effects of Farm Price Supports on the Returns to Land and Labor in Agriculture.” The Journal of Political Economy, 148–58. Fresco, L.O., F. Geerling-Eiff, A.-C. Hoes, L. van Was- senaer, K.J. Poppe, and J.G.A.J. van der Vorst. 2021. “Sustainable Food Systems: Do Agricultural Econo- mists Have a Role?” European Review of Agricultural Economics 48 (4): 694–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/ erae/jbab026. Gaisford, J.D., W.A. Kerr, and N. Perdikis. 2003. Econom- ic Analysis for EU Accession Negotiations: Agri-Food Issues in the EU’s Eastward Expansion. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Garrone, M., D. Emmers, H. Lee, A. Olper, and J. Swin- nen. 2019. “Subsidies and Agricultural Productivity in the EU.” Agricultural Economics 50 (6): 803–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12526. Gocht, A., W. Britz, P. Ciaian, and S. Gomez y Paloma. 2013. “Farm Type Effects of an EU-Wide Direct Pay- ment Harmonisation.” Journal of Agricultural Eco- nomics 64 (1): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477- 9552.12005. Gonzalez-Martinez, A., R. Jongeneel, and P. Salamon. 2021. “Lighting on the Road to Explore Future Direc- tions for Agricultural Modelling in the EU – Some Considerations on What Needs to Be Done.” Proceed- ings in Food System Dynamics, June, 139–50. https:// doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2021.2117. 202 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 Gorton, M., and S. Davidova. 2004. “Farm Productiv- ity and Efficiency in the CEE Applicant Countries: A Synthesis of Results.” Agricultural Economics 30 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2004. tb00172.x. Greenpeace. 2019. Feeding the Problem: The Dangerous Intensification of Animal Farming in Europe. Brussels: Greenpeace European Unit. Grosjean, G., S. Fuss, N. Koch, B.L. Bodirsky, S. De Cara, and W. Acworth. 2018. “Options to Overcome the Barriers to Pricing European Agricultural Emissions.” Climate Policy 18 (2): 151–69. https://doi.org/10.1080 /14693062.2016.1258630. Guastella, G., D. Moro, P. Sckokai, and M. Veneziani. 2021. “The Capitalisation of Decoupled Payments in Farmland Rents among EU Regions.” Bio-Based and Applied Economics 10 (1): 7–17. https://doi. org/10.36253/bae-10034. Hanf, C.-H. 1997. “Agricultural Economics in Europe: A Thriving Science for a Shrinking Sector?” European Review of Agricultural Economics 24 (3–4): 565–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/24.3-4.565. Hartell, J.G., and J.F.M. Swinnen. 2017. Agriculture and East-West European Integration. London: First pub- lished by Ashgate Publishing 2000, reissued 2017 by Routledge. Hennessy, T. 2014. CAP 2014-2020 Tools to Enhance Fam- ily Farming: Opportunities and Limits. Brussels: Euro- pean Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies. Herzon, I., T. Birge, B. Allen, A. Povellato, F. Vanni, K. Hart, G. Radley, et al. 2018. “Time to Look for Evi- dence: Results-Based Approach to Biodiversity Con- servation on Farmland in Europe.” Land Use Policy 71 (February): 347–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lan- dusepol.2017.12.011. Hill, B. 2019. Farm Incomes, Wealth and Agricultural Poli- cy. London, U.K.: Routledge. Jansson, T., I. Nordin, F. Wilhelmsson, P. Witzke, G. Manevska‐Tasevska, F. Weiss, and A. Gocht. 2020. “Coupled Agricultural Subsidies in the EU Under- mine Climate Efforts.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13092. Josefsson, J., M. Hiron, D. Arlt, A.G. Auffret, Å. Berg, M. Chevalier, A. Glimskär, et al. 2020. “Improving Scientific Rigour in Conservation Evaluations and a Plea Deal for Transparency on Potential Biases.” Conservation Letters 13 (5): e12726. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12726. Kay, S., J. Peuch, and J. Franco. 2015. Extent of Farm- land Grabbing in the EU. Brussels: European Parlia- ment Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies. Kazukauskas, A., C. Newman, D. Clancy, and J. Sauer. 2013. “Disinvestment, Farm Size, and Gradual Farm Exit: The Impact of Subsidy Decoupling in a Euro- pean Context.” American Journal of Agricultural Eco- nomics 95 (5): 1068–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/ aat048. Kleijn, D., and W.J. Sutherland. 2003. “How Effective Are European Agri-Environment Schemes in Conserving and Promoting Biodiversity?” Journal of Applied Ecol- ogy 40 (6): 947–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2664.2003.00868.x. Koester, U. 2005. “A Revival of Large Farms in East- ern Europe—How Important Are Institutions?” Agricultural Economics 32 (s1): 103–13. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2004.00017.x. ———. 2020. Foundations of Agricultural Market Analysis and Agricultural Policy. Munich: Verlag Franz Vahlen. Kosier, K. 2019. “Towards a New Data Economy for EU Agriculture.” Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs 4: 91–107. Lastra-Bravo, X.B., C. Hubbard, G. Garrod, and A. Tolón- Becerra. 2015. “What Drives Farmers’ Participation in EU Agri-Environmental Schemes?: Results from a Qualitative Meta-Analysis.” Environmental Science & Policy 54 (December): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2015.06.002. Latacz-Lohmann, U., and I. Hodge. 2003. “European Agri-Environmental Policy for the 21st Century.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Eco- nomics 47 (1): 123–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8489.00206. Latacz-Lohmann, U., and S. Schilizzi. 2005. Auctions for Conservation Contracts: A Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature. Report to the Scottish Exec- utive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (Project No UKL/001/05). Edinburgh. Latruffe, L. 2010. Competitiveness, Productivity and Effi- ciency in the Agricultural and Agri-Food Sectors. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 30. Paris: OECD Publishing. Lefebvre, M., J. Barreiro-Hurlé, C. Blanchflower, L. Colen, L. Kuhfuss, J. Rommel, T. Šumrada, F. Thomas, and S. Thoyer. 2021. “Can Economic Experiments Con- tribute to a More Effective CAP?” EuroChoices. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12324. Marino, M., B. Rocchi, and S. Severini. 2021. “Condition- al Income Disparity between Farm and Non-Farm Households in the European Union: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (2): 589–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12420. Martín-Retortillo, M., and V. Pinilla. 2015. “Patterns and Causes of the Growth of European Agricultural Pro- 203The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 duction, 1950 to 2005.” Agricultural History Review 63 (1): 132–59. Matthews, A. 1997. “Emerging Policy Challenges for the Agri-Food Sector.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 24 (3–4): 549–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/ erae/24.3-4.549. ———. 2013. “Greening Agricultural Payments in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.” Bio-Based and Applied Economics 2 (1): 1–27. ———. 2021. “Promoting Climate Action in the Future Common Agricultural Policy.” Italian Review of Agricultural Economics 75 (3): 19–24. https://doi. org/10.13128/rea-12705. Mazzocchi, M. 2021. “Food nutrition and health”. Bio- based and Applied Economics [forthcoming]. Maurel, M.-C. 2012. “Large Farms in Central Europe: An Unchanging Spatio-Temporal Feature?” Etudes Rurales No 190 (2): 25–47. M’barek, R., and J. Delincé. 2015. IMAP, an Integrated Modelling Platform for Agro-Economic Commodity and Policy Analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Meuwissen, M.P.M., P.H. Feindt, T. Slijper, A. Spiegel, R. Finger, Y. de Mey, W. Paas, et al. 2021. “Impact of Covid-19 on Farming Systems in Europe through the Lens of Resilience Thinking.” Agricultural Sys- tems 191 (June): 103152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agsy.2021.103152. Minviel, J.J., and L. Latruffe. 2017. “Effect of Public Sub- sidies on Farm Technical Efficiency: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Results.” Applied Economics 49 (2): 213– 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1194963. Montanari, F., I. Ferreira, F. Lofstrom, C. Varallo, S. Volpe, E. Smith, M. Kirova, A. Wion, U. Kubota, and J. Albuquerque. 2021. Preliminary Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on European Agriculture: A Sec- tor-Based Analysis of Food Systems and Market Resil- ience. Brussels: European Parliament, Policy Depart- ment for Structural and Cohesion Policies. Moore, F.C., and D.B. Lobell. 2014. “Adaptation Poten- tial of European Agriculture in Response to Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 4 (7): 610–14. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2228. Moro, D., and P. Sckokai. 2013. “The Impact of Decou- pled Payments on Farm Choices: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges.” Food Policy 41: 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.04.001. Olivieri, M., M. Andreoli, D. Vergamini, and F. Bartolini. 2021. “Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provi- sion of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review.” Sustainability 13 (12): 6936. htt- ps://doi.org/10.3390/su13126936. Olper, A., and Raimondi, V. 2021. “Trade, globalization and agri-food system”. Bio-based and Applied Eco- nomics [forthcoming]. Pavlis, E.S., T.S. Terkenli, S.B.P. Kristensen, A.G. Busck, and G.L. Cosor. 2016. “Patterns of Agri-Environ- mental Scheme Participation in Europe: Indicative Trends from Selected Case Studies.” Land Use Policy 57 (November): 800–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2015.09.024. Pe’er, G., S. Lakner, R. Müller, G. Passoni, V. Bontzorlos, D. Clough, F. Moreira, et al. 2017. Is the CAP Fit for Purpose? An Evidence-Based Fitness-Check Assess- ment. Leipzig: German Centre for Integrative Biodi- versity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig. Pérez Domínguez, I., T. Fellmann, P. Witzke, F. Weiss, J. Hristov, M. Himics, J. Barreiro-Hurlé, M. Gomez Barbero, and A. Leip. 2020. Economic Assessment of GHG Mitigation Policy Options for EU Agriculture: A Closer Look at Mitigation Options and Regional Miti- gation Costs (EcAMPA 3). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://econpapers. repec.org/paper/iptiptwpa/jrc120355.htm. Ploeg, J.D. van der, J.C. Franco, and S.M. Borras. 2015. “Land Concentration and Land Grabbing in Europe: A Preliminary Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Devel- opment Studies / Revue Canadienne d’études Du Développement 36 (2): 147–62. https://doi.org/10.108 0/02255189.2015.1027673. Rac, I., K. Erjavec, and E. Erjavec. 2020. “Does the Pro- posed CAP Reform Allow for a Paradigm Shift towards a Greener Policy?” Spanish Journal of Agri- cultural Research 18 (3): 8. Recanati, F., C. Maughan, M. Pedrotti, K. Dembska, and M. Antonelli. 2019. “Assessing the Role of CAP for More Sustainable and Healthier Food Systems in Europe: A Literature Review.” Science of The Total Environment 653 (February): 908–19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.377. Reidsma, P., S. Janssen, J. Jansen, and M.K. van Ittersum. 2018. “On the Development and Use of Farm Models for Policy Impact Assessment in the European Union – A Review.” Agricultural Systems 159 (January): 111– 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.012. Rocchi, B., M. Marino, and S. Severini. 2020. “Does an Income Gap between Farm and Nonfarm House- holds Still Exist? The Case of the European Union.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy n/a (n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13116. Santeramo, F.G., and M. Raggi. 2021. “Ten Years of Bio- Based and Applied Economics: A Story of Successes, and More to Come.” Bio-Based and Applied Econom- ics 10 (1): 3–6. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-11497. 204 Alan Matthews Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 SAPEA. 2020. A Sustainable Food System for the European Union. Evidence Review Report No. 7. Berlin: Sci- ence Advice for Policy by European Academies. Sauer, J., W. Chancellor, P. Mennig, and J. Antón. 2021. Dynamics of Farm Performance and Policy Impacts: Case Studies. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisher- ies Papers, No. 165. Paris: OECD Publishing. https:// www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/dynam- ics-of-farm-performance-and-policy-impacts-case- studies_3ce71854-en. SCAR. 2019. Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe. 4th Report of the Strategic Working Group on Agricul- tural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development. ———. 2020. Resilience and Transformation. Report of the 5th SCAR Foresight Exercise Expert Group Natu- ral Resources and Food Systems: Transitions towards a ‘Safe and Just’ Operating Space. Luxembourg: Pub- lications Office of the European Union. Schuh, B., H. Gorny, J. Kaucic, S. Kirchmayr-Novak, M. Vigani, J. Powell, and E. Hawketts. 2016. Research for Agri Committee - The Role of the EU’s Common Agri- cultural Policy in Creating Rural Jobs. IP/B/AGRI/ IC/2015_158. Brussels: European Parliament, Direc- torate General for Internal Policies. Scown, M., and K. Nicholas. 2020. “European Agricul- tural Policy Requires a Stronger Performance Frame- work to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.” Global Sustainability 3 (E11. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.5). https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.5. Scown, M.W., M.V. Brady, and K.A. Nicholas. 2020. “Billions in Misspent EU Agricultural Subsidies Could Support the Sustainable Development Goals.” One Earth 3 (2): 237–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. oneear.2020.07.011. Severini, S., and A. Tantari. 2015. “The Distributional Impact of Agricultural Policy Tools on Italian Farm Household Incomes.” Journal of Policy Modeling 37 (1): 124–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2015.01.004. Skogstad, G. 1998. “Ideas, Paradigms and Institutions: Agricultural Exceptionalism in the European Union and the United States.” Governance 11 (4): 463–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00082. Smit, A.B., R.A. Jongeneel, H. Prins, J.H. Jager, and W. Hennen. 2017. Impact of Coupled EU Support for Sugar Beet Growing: More Production, Lower Prices. 2017–114. Wageningen Economic Research. Stead, D.R. 2007. “The Mansholt Plan Forty Years On Le Plan Mansholt Quarante Ans Après Der Mansholt- Plan Vierzig Jahre Später.” EuroChoices 6 (3): 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00074.x. Šumrada, T., B. Vreš, T. Čelik, U. Šilc, I. Rac, A. Udovč, and E. Erjavec. 2021. “Are Result-Based Schemes a Superior Approach to the Conservation of High Nature Value Grasslands? Evidence from Slovenia.” Land Use Policy, September, 105749. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105749. Swinnen, J.F.M. 2009. “Reforms, Globalization, and Endogenous Agricultural Structures.” Agricultural Economics 40 (s1): 719–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1574-0862.2009.00410.x. Szerletics, Á., and A. Jámbor. 2020. “The Economic Impacts of Direct Payments on Agricultural Income – A Literature Review.” Competitio 19 (1–2): 3–25. https://doi.org/10.21845/comp/2020/1-2/2. Thoyer, S., and R. Préget. 2019. “Enriching the CAP Evaluation Toolbox with Experimental Approaches: Introduction to the Special Issue.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 46 (3): 347–66. https://doi. org/10.1093/erae/jbz024. Uehleke, R., M. Petrick, and S. Hüttel. 2019. Agricultur- al Policy Evaluation with Large-Scale Observational Farm Data: Environmental Impacts of Agri-Environ- mental Schemes. SiAg-Working Paper 21. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Uthes, S., and B. Matzdorf. 2013. “Studies on Agri-Envi- ronmental Measures: A Survey of the Literature.” Environmental Management 51 (1): 251–66. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9959-6. Van Passel, S., E. Massetti, and R. Mendelsohn. 2017. “A Ricardian Analysis of the Impact of Climate Change on European Agriculture.” Environmental and Resource Economics 67 (4): 725–60. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10640-016-0001-y. Varacca, A., G. Guastella, S. Pareglio, and P. Sckokai. 2021. “A Meta-Analysis of the Capitalisation of CAP Direct Payments into Land Prices.” European Review of Agricultural Economics, no. jbab014 (February). https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab014. Vergamini, D., B. White, and D. Viaggi. 2015. “Agri-Envi- ronmental Payments Design in Europe, USA and Australia: The Potential of Auctions and Self-Select- ing Contracts for Designing Better Agri-Environ- mental Payments.” In Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 4th AIEAA Conference “Innovation, Productiv- ity and Growth: Towards Sustainable Agri-Food Pro- duction.” Ancona, Italy. Viaggi, D., ed. 2015. “Research and Innovation in Agri- culture: Beyond Productivity?” Bio-Based and Applied Economics Journal 4: 279–300. https://doi. org/10.22004/ag.econ.231942. Vrolijk, H., B. Meier, W. Kleinhanβ, and K. Poppe. 2004. “FADN: Buttress for Farm Policy or a Resource for 205The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 185-205, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12322 Economic Analysis?” EuroChoices 3 (3): 32–37. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2004.tb00032.x. Vrolijk, H., and K. Poppe. 2021. “Cost of Extending the Farm Accountancy Data Network to the Farm Sus- tainability Data Network: Empirical Evidence.” Sus- tainability 13 (15): 8181. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13158181. Wąs, A., A. Malak-Rawlikowska, M. Zavalloni, D. Viaggi, P. Kobus, and P. Sulewski. 2021. “In Search of Factors Determining the Participation of Farmers in Agri- Environmental Schemes – Does Only Money Matter in Poland?” Land Use Policy 101 (February): 105190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105190. Webb, P., and R. Sonnino, eds. 2021. Everyone at the Table: Co-Creating Knowledge for Food Systems Trans- formation. Independent Expert Report for the Euro- pean Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Zagata, L., J. Hrabák, M. Lošťák, M. Bavorová, T. Rating- er, L.-A. Sutherland, and A. McKee. 2017. Research for AGRI Committee - Young Farmers - Policy Imple- mentation after the 2013 CAP Reform. Brussels: Euro- pean Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies. Zezza, A., R. Henke, M. Lai, G. Petriccione, R. Solazzo, A. Sturla, A. Vagnozzi, S. Vanino, L. Viganò, and A.B. Smit. 2017. Research for AGRI Committee-Policy Support for Productivity vs. Sustainability in EU Agri- culture: Towards Viable Farming and Green Growth: Study. Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate- General for Internal Policies. Zimmermann, A., and W. Britz. 2016. “European Farms’ Participation in Agri-Environmental Measures.” Land Use Policy 50 (January): 214–28. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.019. Zurek, M., A. Hebinck, A. Leip, J. Vervoort, M. Kuiper, M. Garrone, P. Havlík, et al. 2018. “Assessing Sustain- able Food and Nutrition Security of the EU Food System—An Integrated Approach.” Sustainability 10 (11): 4271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114271. Volume 10, Issue 3 - 2021 Firenze University Press The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Davide Viaggi1,*, Fabio Bartolini2, Meri Raggi3 The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Alan Matthews Drinking Covid-19 away: wine consumption during the first lockdown in Italy Giulia Gastaldello*, Daniele Mozzato, Luca Rossetto Estimating a global MAIDADS demand system considering demography, climate and norms Wolfgang Britz The evolution of organic market between third-party certification and participatory guarantee systems Gianluca Iannucci1, Giovanna Sacchi2,*