Agrarwirtschaft 56 (2007), Heft 7

Source: own calculations


the lump-sum scenario in the interval between about 20%
and 80% of EU co-financing. At low and at high levels of
external grants there is no difference in the budget alloca-
tion between the lump-sum and the co-financing scenarios,
as the bias in favour to MSL measures is only relevant
within the range between about 20% and 80% EU co-
financing. At high EU co-financing levels the difference in
co-financing between MSL and VNS measures becomes so
small, that there is no distortion under the co-financing
scenario. At low financial volumes, the lower bound for
grassland causes the same choice of measures for both
scenarios; and there is no distortion in the multi-level co-
financing system.
The findings show that budget allocation and priority set-
ting for the agri-environmental programme in Saxony-
Anhalt would be different and would lead to higher “objec-
tive achievement”, if Saxony-Anhalt received federal and
EU grants as a lump-sum. In the case study considered, the
difference in the values of the objective function between
the EU co-financing system and the lump-sum scenarios
would amount to up to 6% for an EU co-financing level of
60%. Hence, the objective achievement
could be increased by this amount in an
undistorted financing system. This is con-
siderable, but not as high as might have
been expected. This is mainly due to the
specific restrictions in the case study, like
the upper bounds and grassland restric-
tions, and the objective coefficients as-
sumed.
Figure 6. Values of the objective function
Level of lump-sum (mio. €)
24.17 27.62 32.23 37.15 40.73 44.95 52.85

Source: own calculations
5. Conclusions
The influence of different mixed co-
financing schemes on regional policy-
making has been considered exemplarily
using the results of an interactive pro-
gramming approach for the case of design-
ing the agri-environmental programme of
Saxony-Anhalt. The implications of co-
financing have been discussed for several
policy scenarios.
First, the current EU co-financing system
for agri-environmental programmes cer-
tainly provides an extended financial budget for these pro-
grammes.
Second, the mixed co-financing changes priority setting and
the allocation of funds between measures. It is obvious that
a region can maximise benefits from external grants by
shifting money into measures with higher external co-
financing levels. Furthermore, the results draw a more de-
tailed picture showing that the impact of mixed co-
financing in the German system on regional policy-making
will decline when the EU co-financing level is increased,
due to a reduced difference of the external co-financing
level between measures. Respectively, the impact increases
when the EU co-financing level is reduced. For the case of
Saxony-Anhalt two opposite strategic options were dis-
cussed. If the “objective 1” status is lost, MSL measures
gain a higher priority. If on the other hand Saxony-Anhalt
retains the “objective 1” status, VNS measures gain a
higher priority due to an increased co-financing level.
Third, if Saxony-Anhalt receives EU and federal grants as a
lump-sum, giving the chance of undistorted policy deci-
sion-making, the values of the objective function are higher
in all scenarios than with co-financing.
It can be assumed that local actors have a good
knowledge about the impact of agri-environmental
measures in a region and also better represent local
preferences for the provision of public goods than
upper political levels. Therefore, the lump-sum sce-
nario shows a best and undistorted allocation of funds
from a regional point of view. The results are congru-
ent with the principle of “fiscal equivalence” and the
demand for extended and unbiased local responsibil-
ity (Osterburg and Stratmann, 2002: 276). The
case study of the agri-environmental programme of
Saxony-Anhalt underlines the general problem of
decision-making and co-financing in a multi-level
political system (Oates, 1999: 1122).
The model used for the case study in Saxony-Anhalt
reflects the specific conditions and constraints of this
region. The strength of the interactive programming
303
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Happiness in Eastern Europe
3. PRIORITIES IN THE CHANGING WORLD OF AGRICULTURE
4. Inhimillinen pääoma ja palkat Suomessa: Paluu perusmalliin
5. Can a Robot Hear Music? Can a Robot Dance? Can a Robot Tell What it Knows or Intends to Do? Can it Feel Pride or Shame in Company?
6. The name is absent
7. Enterpreneurship and problems of specialists training in Ukraine
8. The name is absent
9. Human Resource Management Practices and Wage Dispersion in U.S. Establishments
10. TOWARDS THE ZERO ACCIDENT GOAL: ASSISTING THE FIRST OFFICER MONITOR AND CHALLENGE CAPTAIN ERRORS