Output Effects of Agri-environmental Programs of the EU



Estimation Results

Equation (6) depicts the results of regression (4) (t-ratios in parentheses):

(6) vi,1994 = 0.638 + 0.0020 AREA1994 + 0.170RATIO1994 + 0.106 UV1994 + 0.060 AUH1994 +

(21.7)    (5.1)          (6.11)              (8.8)            (5.9)

+ 0.062 D1 1997 -0.169 D2 1997 - 0.165 D3 1997 + 0.023 D4 1997 - 0.027 D5 1997 -
(2.7)           (7.8)           (4.7)           (1.5)         (1.3)

- 0.074 D6,1997 - 0.053 D7,1997 - 0.0003D8,1997 - 0.132D9,1997 -? 0.129 D10,1997
(4.3)           (1.1)           (0.0)            (2.1)           (1.1)

R2 = 0.37

(the critical t-value for a regression with 1383 observations and 15 independent variables is tcrit=1.96)

For a panel regression, the value of R2 is quite satisfactory; moreover, it can be seen
that farms that later participated in the OEPUL-programs, even in 1994 exhibited quite
diverse grain yields (e.g., farms that in 1997 were to participate in the program #9 “Non-
application of fungicides” showed on average 17% lower than farms that were not to
participate).

The covariance matrix derived in regression (6) is used to perform the Monte Carlo
simulations described above. Table 2 presents the results of 2000 times running regression
(3). Mean coefficients values and t-ratios along with the lower and upper 5%-limits of their
respective distributions are presented and can be interpreted in the following way: For
example, participating in the OEPUL program “organic farming” reduces yields on average
(of our 2000 regressions) by 11%. In 95% of our 2000 regressions the negative impact on
yields from program participation is between 7% and 14.5%. The average t-value is -4.38 and
in 95% or our regressions it is between -2.65 and -6.04. Hence, organic farming a statistical
negative impact on yields. Beside organic farming significant negative impacts on yields are
only estimated for participation in the “extensive crop cultivation” program. Participation in
the program “Non-application of agro-chemicals, whole farm” has a negative impact on



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Outsourcing, Complementary Innovations and Growth
3. Importing Feminist Criticism
4. Tax systems and tax reforms in Europe: Rationale and open issue for more radical reforms
5. Competition In or For the Field: Which is Better
6. Developmental Robots - A New Paradigm
7. Moffett and rhetoric
8. Modelling Transport in an Interregional General Equilibrium Model with Externalities
9. The name is absent
10. Integration, Regional Specialization and Growth Differentials in EU Acceding Countries: Evidence from Hungary
11. Does Presenting Patients’ BMI Increase Documentation of Obesity?
12. Monetary Discretion, Pricing Complementarity and Dynamic Multiple Equilibria
13. The name is absent
14. BODY LANGUAGE IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE IN LARGE GROUPS
15. The name is absent
16. Ronald Patterson, Violinist; Brooks Smith, Pianist
17. The name is absent
18. THE EFFECT OF MARKETING COOPERATIVES ON COST-REDUCING PROCESS INNOVATION ACTIVITY
19. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
20. SOME ISSUES CONCERNING SPECIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION DEMAND MODELS