Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2025, 71(2):71-85 | DOI: 10.17221/186/2024-AGRICECON

Does farm ownership structure matter? Distribution of CAP subsidies between primary and final beneficiaries in SlovakiaOriginal Paper

Jan Pokrivcak1, Marian Toth2, Pavel Ciaian ORCID...3, Mario Juliny4
1 Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia
2 Faculty of Business and Economics, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, the Czech Republic
3 Joint Research Centre (JRC), Seville, Spain
4 Institute of Agricultural Policy, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Slovakia, Bratislava, Slovakia

This paper analyses the distribution of CAP subsidies between primary beneficiaries (farms) and final beneficiaries (farm owners) in Slovakia in 2021, using unique micro-level data. The results show a significant inequality in the distribution of CAP subsidies between primary and final beneficiaries in Slovakia. The majority of CAP payments (92% for primary beneficiaries and 89% for final beneficiaries) are concentrated among the top 20% of beneficiaries, with a higher concentration among primary beneficiaries than final beneficiaries. However, there is a reversal at the top stratum of beneficiaries. The top 1% of primary beneficiaries receive 26.2% of CAP subsidies, compared to 31.0% for final beneficiaries. For the remaining 99% of beneficiaries, the distribution of CAP subsidies is more concentrated at the level of primary beneficiaries than at the level of final beneficiaries. The analyses suggest that the implementation of the CAP in Slovakia has not been sufficient to address the unequal distribution of CAP subsidies.

Keywords: CAP; subsidies; distribution; micro-level; primary beneficiary; final beneficiary

Received: May 27, 2024; Revised: November 19, 2024; Accepted: December 5, 2024; Published: February 28, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Pokrivcak J, Toth M, Ciaian P, Juliny M. Does farm ownership structure matter? Distribution of CAP subsidies between primary and final beneficiaries in Slovakia. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2025;71(2):71-85. doi: 10.17221/186/2024-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. APA (2021): Integrated administration and control system 2021. Agricultural Paying Agency, Bratislava, Slovak Republic. [Dataset]. [Unpublished raw data]
    2. Baldoni E., Ciaian P. (2023): The capitalization of CAP subsidies into land prices in the EU. Land Use Policy, 134: 106900. Go to original source...
    3. Bekkerman A., Belasco E.J., Smith V.H. (2019): Does farm size matter? Distribution of crop insurance subsidies and government program payments across U.S. farms. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 4: 498-518. Go to original source...
    4. Carter S. (2001): Multiple business ownership in the farm sector - Differentiating monoactive, diversified and portfolio enterprises. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 7: 43-59. Go to original source...
    5. Ciaian P., Kancs D., Espinosa M. (2018): The impact of the 2013 CAP reform on the decoupled payments' capitalisation into land values. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69: 306-337. Go to original source...
    6. Dinis I. (2024): Examining disparities in common agriculture policy direct payments among farming systems: Evidence from Portugal. Agricultural and Food Economics, 12: 1-23 Go to original source...
    7. European Commission (2008): Impact Assessment, SEC (2008) 1885. Brussels, European Commission. (accessed Feb 15, 2024).
    8. European Commission (2011a): Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy. Brussels, European Commission.
    9. European Commission (2011b): Impact assessment. Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020. Brussels Commission Staff Working Paper - Annex 3. SEC (2011) 1153 final/2.
    10. European Commission (2018): Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by member states under the CAP strategic plans and financed by the EAGF and by the EAFRD. COM/2018/392, Brussels, European Commission. (accessed Feb 15, 2024)
    11. European Commission (2020): Direct payments to agricultural producers - graphs and figures. Financial year 2019. Available at: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-10/direct-aid-report-2019_en_0.pdf (accessed Nov 28, 2024).
    12. European Commission (2021): Report from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation framework including an assessment of the performance of the common agricultural policy 2014-2020. Brussels, COM (2021) 815 final.
    13. European Commission (2022): Common Agricultural Policy for 2023-2027: 28 CAP strategic plans at a glance. Brussels: European Commission. Available at https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-12/csp-at-a-glance-eu-countries_en.pdf (accessed Nov 20, 2023).
    14. European Union (2013): Regulation No. 1307/2013 of European Parliament and the council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy. Official Journal of the European Union, L 347/608.
    15. Espinosa E., Louhichi K., Perni A., Ciaian P. (2020): EU-Wide Impacts of the 2013 CAP direct payments reform: A farm-level analysis. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42: 695-715. Go to original source...
    16. Floyd J.E. (1965): The effects of farm price supports on the returns to land and labor in agriculture. Journal of Political Economy, 73: 148-158. Go to original source...
    17. Gagalyuk T., Valentinov V. (2019): Agroholdings, turbulence, and resilience: The case of Ukraine. Journal of East European Management Studies, 24: 484-496. Go to original source...
    18. Garcia-Bernardo J., Jansky P., Misak V. (2021): Common agricultural policy beneficiaries: Evidence of inequality from a new data set. IES Working Paper No. 4/2021, Prague, Charles University in Prague, Institute of Economic Studies. 1-36.
    19. Gardner B.L. (1987): The Economics of Agricultural Policies. New York, McGraw - Hill, Companies. 1-387.
    20. Gocht A., Britz W., Ciaian P., Gomez y Paloma, S. (2013): Farm type effects of an EU-wide Direct Payment Harmonisation. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64: 1-32. Go to original source...
    21. Kilian S., Salhofer K. (2008): Single payments of the CAP: Where do the rents go? Agricultural Economics Review, 9: 96-106.
    22. Kirwan B.E. (2007): The distribution of U.S. agricultural subsidies. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-37. Go to original source...
    23. Kirwan B. (2009): The incidence of U.S. agricultural subsidies on farmland rental rates. Journal of Political Economy, 117: 138-164. Go to original source...
    24. MacDonald J., Hoppe R., Banker D. (2006): Growing farm size and the distribution of farm payments. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. Economic Brief No. 6. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=42917 (accessed Nov 15, 2024).
    25. Matthews A. (2018): Why capping will be a mirage? CAP reform. Available at http://capreform.eu/why-capping-will-be-a-mirage/ (accessed Feb 15, 2024).
    26. Matyukha A., Voigt P., Wolz A. (2015): Agro-holdings in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan: Temporary phenomenon or permanent business form? Farm-level evidence from Moscow and Belgorod regions. Post-Communist Economies, 27: 370-394. Go to original source...
    27. Michálek J., Ciaian P., Kancs D. (2014): Capitalization of the single payment scheme into land value: Generalized propensity score evidence from the European Union. Land Economics, 90: 260-289 Go to original source...
    28. Möllers J., Herzfeld T., Arapi-Gjini A., Batereanu L. (2022): An analysis of farm support measures in the Republic of Moldova. Halle (Saale), Germany, IAMO Discussion Paper No. 199, Halle (Saale), IAMO. Available at https://www.iamo.de/fileadmin/documents/dp199.pdf (accessed Nov 28, 2024).
    29. Lososová J., Zdeněk R. (2023): Simulation of the impacts of the proposed direct payment scheme - The case of the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 69: 13-24. Go to original source...
    30. OJEU (2018): Budgets: Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2018/251 of the European Union's General Budget for the Financial Year 2018. Official Journal of the European Union, L 57/1.
    31. O'Neill S., Hanrahan K. (2016): The capitalization of coupled and decoupled CAP payments into land rental rates. Agricultural Economics, 47: 285-294. Go to original source...
    32. Patton M., Kostov P., McErlean S.A., Moss J. (2008): Assessing the influence of direct payments on the rental value of agricultural land. Food Policy, 33: 397-405. Go to original source...
    33. Pieter W., Musmeci R., Gojsic D., Nunez J., Belicka D. (2021): The largest 50 beneficiaries in each EU member state of CAP and cohesion funds. Policy department for budgetary affairs, European Parliament. Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2021)679107 (accessed Feb 15, 2024).
    34. Pokrivčák J., Tóth M., Ciaian P., Bušík M., Svorenčík A. (2020): Why cannot direct payments be capped in Slovakia? A political economy perspective. Prague Economic Papers, 29: 625-648. Go to original source...
    35. Román A.A. (2024): Ukrainian agriculture: From Russian invasion to EU integration. European Parliament, European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), PE 760.432. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/760432/EPRS_BRI(2024)760432_EN.pdf (accessed Nov 28, 2024).
    36. RFB (2021): Register of final beneficiaries. Statistical Office of Slovak Republic, Bratislava, Slovak Republic. [Dataset][Unpublished raw data]
    37. RSPS (2021): Register of public sector partners. Ministry of Justice of Slovak Republic, Bratislava. Available at https://www.justice.gov.sk/sluzby/register-partnerov-verejneho-sektora/ (accessed Dec 6, 2021).
    38. Salhofer K., Schmid E. (2004): Distributive leakages of agricultural support: Some empirical evidence. Agricultural Economics, 30: 51-63. Go to original source...
    39. Swinnen J.F.M. (2015): The political economy of the 2014-2020 common agricultural policy an imperfect storm. London, Rowman & Littlefield International, 1-556.
    40. Viegas M., Wolf J., Cordovil F. (2023): Assessment of inequality in the common agricultural policy in Portugal. Agricultural and Food Economics, 11: 1-15. Go to original source...
    41. Wandel J. (2011): Business groups and competition in post - Soviet transition economies: The case of Russian 'agroholding'. Review of Austrian Economics, 24: 403450. Go to original source...
    42. World Bank (2024): Priorities for agricultural support in Ukraine. World Bank. Available at https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099062524074615884/pdf/P1801981319afe091b8b71b33b7a901d4e.pdf (accessed Nov 28, 2024).

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content