The EU budget and the CAP: An agenda for the review?

R. Ackrill, Adrian Kay, D. Harvey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Counterpoint - Ackrill and Kay

Professor David Harvey's proposed agenda for CAP reform in EuroChoices 5(1) is, we believe, unrealistic. It pays insufficient attention to the politics of EU policy-making and ignores the importance countries place on protecting their shares of EU spending. We recognise the incremental nature of CAP reform, but believe this can lead to significant cumulative effects. Our proposal builds on modulation to transfer more CAP spending from Pillar I to Pillar II. Farmers receiving the largest payments should have their payments cut through higher compulsory modulation rates. We also seek a reduction of EU spending on the CAP, with greater national contributions achieved through the established channel of co-financing.

Reply to Ackrill and Kay - David Harvey

Ackrill and Kay (A&K) say my suggestions for national subscription, co-financing and discretion for CAP Pillar 1 spending and associated elimination of the troublesome UK rebate risk a stalemate, and that the further reform will necessarily be incremental, rather than radical. In reply, I argue that some radical reform will eventually be necessary, so that it makes sense to think about the required directions now. I also argue that my own suggestions are not so far from A&K's analysis as they seem to suppose. My suggestions seem little more likely to generate a stalemate than A&K's incremental change forecasts.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)20-25
Number of pages5
Issue number3
Early online date15 Dec 2006
Publication statusPublished - 2006


Dive into the research topics of 'The EU budget and the CAP: An agenda for the review?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this