testing it is possible that at the end of the current conversion phase a concept adapted to
practical conditions for the receipt of the biological diversity can be presented, which is
legitimised both from an ecologics and an economics point of view. This will be finished
until September 2006.
8. References
Allen, D. W. (1991). What are Transaction Costs?. Research in Law and Economics 14: 1-
18.
Allen, D. W. (2000). Transaction Costs. Encyclopaedia of Law and Economics, Vol. 1.
Benham, A. and Benham, L. (1998). Measuring the costs of exchange. Ronald Coase
Institute Working Papers, Number 1: http://www.coase.org/workingpapers/wp-
1.pdf.
Berg, E., Rauh, R., Heissenhuber, A. and Hofmann, H. (1993). Analyse der Vor- und
Nachteile unterschiedlicher Konzepte zur Entlohnung externer Leistungen der
Landwirtschaft unter besonderer Berücksichtigung okologischer Leistungen:
Weihenstephan.
Bertke, E., Gerowitt, B. and Isselstein, J. (2002). Okologische Güter der pflanzlichen
Biodiversitat in einem Konzept zur ergebnisorientierten Honorierung okologischer
Leistungen der Landwirtschaft. BfN-Scripten, Treffpunkt biologische Vielfalt II.
Bonn: 191-198.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4: 386-405.
Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Costs. Journal of Law and Economics: 1-44.
Commission of the European Communities (2004). Proposal for a Council Regulation on
support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD): http://europa.eu.int/eur-
lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2004/com2004_0490en01.pdf
Dagnino, J. M. and Farina, P. E. (1999). Transaction costs in Argentina. Paper presented at
the ISNIE 1999.
De Soto, H. (1989). The Other Path: New York.
Fischer, A., Hespelt, S.-K. and Marggraf, R. (2003). Ermittlung der Nachfrage nach
okologischen Gütern der Landwirtschaft - Das Northeim-Projekt. Agrarwirtschaft.
Jahrgang 52, Heft 8. Bonn: 390-399.
15