Implementing Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy in England: Geographies of the Rural Enterprise Scheme and Processing and Marketing Grant

David Charles Hunter Watts, B. Ilbery, D. Maye, L. Holloway

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper examines the geography of two policy instruments-tile Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) and the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG) that formed part of the second 'pillar' of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in England between 2000 and 2006. It starts by outlining the ongoing debate over the role of geography in policy research, all outcome of which has been a call for more empirical work that explores the 'difference that place makes' in the implementation of public funding mechanisms. The paper argues that the CAP is ripe for geographical analysis, as the Agenda 2000 reforms can be interpreted as moving it away from a 'sectoral' (agricultural) approach to a more 'territorial' (rural development) one. After outlining the place of the RES and PMG in the reformed CAP in England, the paper discusses three factors - farm size, proportion of land rented and location that may have influenced their geographies. The distribution of grant approvals under these schemes is then mapped using location quotients. Following this, the potential influence of the factors outlined above is tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic. The conclusion revisits the opening discussion fly reflecting on the difference that place has made to the implementation of the PMG and RES. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)683-694
Number of pages11
JournalLand Use Policy
Volume26
Issue number3
Early online date17 Nov 2008
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2009

Keywords

  • Common Agricultural Policy
  • England
  • Rural Enterprise Scheme
  • Processing and Marketing Grant
  • Public policy mechanisms
  • Geography of farm diversification
  • Location quotient
  • Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic
  • farm diversification
  • public-policy
  • grey geography
  • Northern Pennines
  • Wales
  • Agenda
  • reflections
  • relevance
  • adoption
  • shaw

Cite this

Implementing Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy in England : Geographies of the Rural Enterprise Scheme and Processing and Marketing Grant. / Watts, David Charles Hunter; Ilbery, B.; Maye, D.; Holloway, L.

In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, 07.2009, p. 683-694.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{881e9de3849c4f79af8b6abc2ac3cfa8,
title = "Implementing Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy in England: Geographies of the Rural Enterprise Scheme and Processing and Marketing Grant",
abstract = "This paper examines the geography of two policy instruments-tile Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) and the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG) that formed part of the second 'pillar' of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in England between 2000 and 2006. It starts by outlining the ongoing debate over the role of geography in policy research, all outcome of which has been a call for more empirical work that explores the 'difference that place makes' in the implementation of public funding mechanisms. The paper argues that the CAP is ripe for geographical analysis, as the Agenda 2000 reforms can be interpreted as moving it away from a 'sectoral' (agricultural) approach to a more 'territorial' (rural development) one. After outlining the place of the RES and PMG in the reformed CAP in England, the paper discusses three factors - farm size, proportion of land rented and location that may have influenced their geographies. The distribution of grant approvals under these schemes is then mapped using location quotients. Following this, the potential influence of the factors outlined above is tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic. The conclusion revisits the opening discussion fly reflecting on the difference that place has made to the implementation of the PMG and RES. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Common Agricultural Policy, England, Rural Enterprise Scheme, Processing and Marketing Grant, Public policy mechanisms, Geography of farm diversification, Location quotient, Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, farm diversification, public-policy, grey geography, Northern Pennines, Wales, Agenda, reflections, relevance, adoption , shaw",
author = "Watts, {David Charles Hunter} and B. Ilbery and D. Maye and L. Holloway",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.09.004",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "683--694",
journal = "Land Use Policy",
issn = "0264-8377",
publisher = "ELSEVIER APPL SCI PUBL LTD",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementing Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy in England

T2 - Geographies of the Rural Enterprise Scheme and Processing and Marketing Grant

AU - Watts, David Charles Hunter

AU - Ilbery, B.

AU - Maye, D.

AU - Holloway, L.

PY - 2009/7

Y1 - 2009/7

N2 - This paper examines the geography of two policy instruments-tile Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) and the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG) that formed part of the second 'pillar' of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in England between 2000 and 2006. It starts by outlining the ongoing debate over the role of geography in policy research, all outcome of which has been a call for more empirical work that explores the 'difference that place makes' in the implementation of public funding mechanisms. The paper argues that the CAP is ripe for geographical analysis, as the Agenda 2000 reforms can be interpreted as moving it away from a 'sectoral' (agricultural) approach to a more 'territorial' (rural development) one. After outlining the place of the RES and PMG in the reformed CAP in England, the paper discusses three factors - farm size, proportion of land rented and location that may have influenced their geographies. The distribution of grant approvals under these schemes is then mapped using location quotients. Following this, the potential influence of the factors outlined above is tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic. The conclusion revisits the opening discussion fly reflecting on the difference that place has made to the implementation of the PMG and RES. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - This paper examines the geography of two policy instruments-tile Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) and the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG) that formed part of the second 'pillar' of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in England between 2000 and 2006. It starts by outlining the ongoing debate over the role of geography in policy research, all outcome of which has been a call for more empirical work that explores the 'difference that place makes' in the implementation of public funding mechanisms. The paper argues that the CAP is ripe for geographical analysis, as the Agenda 2000 reforms can be interpreted as moving it away from a 'sectoral' (agricultural) approach to a more 'territorial' (rural development) one. After outlining the place of the RES and PMG in the reformed CAP in England, the paper discusses three factors - farm size, proportion of land rented and location that may have influenced their geographies. The distribution of grant approvals under these schemes is then mapped using location quotients. Following this, the potential influence of the factors outlined above is tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic. The conclusion revisits the opening discussion fly reflecting on the difference that place has made to the implementation of the PMG and RES. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Common Agricultural Policy

KW - England

KW - Rural Enterprise Scheme

KW - Processing and Marketing Grant

KW - Public policy mechanisms

KW - Geography of farm diversification

KW - Location quotient

KW - Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic

KW - farm diversification

KW - public-policy

KW - grey geography

KW - Northern Pennines

KW - Wales

KW - Agenda

KW - reflections

KW - relevance

KW - adoption

KW - shaw

U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.09.004

DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.09.004

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 683

EP - 694

JO - Land Use Policy

JF - Land Use Policy

SN - 0264-8377

IS - 3

ER -