The Adoption of Grant Aid in Agriculture
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8963418 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ian Bowler (corresponding author), I R Bowler |
| Year | 1976 |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 143-143 |
| Publication date | 1976-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0020-2754 • E-ISSN: 1475-5661 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.2307/621980 |
| OpenAlex | W2329250284 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 2 |
The paper focuses attention on spatial variations in the distribution of Government grant aid to agriculture. Relatively little is known about either the factors that control the spatial incidence of grant aid, or the spatial characteristics of the inputs. The analysis uses data for counties, parishes and farms in the United Kingdom for two investment grantsthe Farm Improvement Grant (1957-70) and the Small Farm Grant (1959-7o)-and identifies two components in the pattern of inputs. One is the level of adoption by those potentially eligible for grant aid, the other is the mean value of aid to individual farms. Spatially variable socio-economic resistances in the adoption process are identified, although random elements remain an important factor in the distribution of grant aid. It is concluded that either a promotional agency, or a more selective form of grant aid to agriculture is required to offset the spatial biases caused by variations in factors such as farm type and size. Low farm incomes have posed a major agricultural problem in developed economies for the last two decades,' and a wide variety of sophisticated economic measures has been developed by governments in an attempt to stabilize and raise aggregate earnings. One group of measures has been designed to reduce production costs on farms so as to give higher profit margins without having to increase product prices or output. In particular, long-term increases in the efficiency of production have been sought through grant-aided investment in such items as farm buildings, machinery and production co-operatives. However, insufficient attention has been paid to spatial variations in the input of government assistance, and relatively little is known about either the factors influencing the spatial incidence of grant-aided investment, or the spatial characteristics of the inputs. Both aspects have been considered in an analysis of two grant-aid schemes available until recently in the United Kingdom-Farm Improvement Grants (1957-70)2 and Small Farm Grants (1959-70).3 The paper is exploratory in nature, and, in the absence of an established theoretical framework, it approaches the spatial incidence of grant aid as the outcome of the adoption process. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GRANT AID Three kinds of agricultural innovations can be distinguished: those which leave the final product unchanged but reduce the unit cost of output, those which provide new products or services, and those which change business organization or marketing structure.4 Grant-aided investment falls into the first category in so far as each type of grant aid is qualitatively different from existing forms of government intervention at the time of its introduction. The characteristics of the grants are briefly described since they create resistances to their adoption by individual farmers. Economic resistances are created by the initial capital cost required to adopt the innovation, by the rate at which investment is recovered, and by the degree of risk involved. Technical resistances are created by the relative 'utility' of the innovation for particular farming systems, by the degree of compatibility with existing practices, and by the amount of change required to implement the innovation. The Farm Improvement Grant (F.I.G.) had the economic objective of stimulating capital investment in fixed equipment and land improvement so as to raise the efficiency of production
Agricultural economics · Agriculture · Archaeology · Economics · Geography · Political science · Regional science · Agricultural Economics and Policy · ICT Impact and Policies · Regional Development and Policy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,12 |
| Citation span | 2000 - 2024 (25) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |