公的財政、財政支援強度、有機転換：OECD農業支援措置に関するクロスカントリー証拠

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:農業支援と環境転換の因果関係を扱う際、集計指標ではなくプログラム単位の設計変数に注目すべきという方法論的示唆。

🏢実務担当者:農業・食品企業にとって、補助金依存ではなく条件付き支援やサプライチェーン調達基準への対応が有機転換の鍵となる可能性を示す。

🏛政策担当者:補助金の総額拡大だけでは有機転換が進まないため、条件付け・ターゲティング・成果連動型の支援設計を検討すべき。

Public agricultural support increasingly shapes governments’ capacity to finance sustainable structural transformation, making it important to determine whether different forms of support are associated with measurable outcomes rather than merely sustaining existing production structures. Previous research has not established cross-nationally whether major dimensions of agricultural support produce contemporaneous, one-year-lagged or persistent changes in organic land use, leaving the transition relevance and timing of such support insufficiently understood. This study evaluates whether OECD agricultural support measures are systematically associated with the organic transition across immediate, one-year-lagged, and long-run horizons. The analysis combines Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development support indicators with Food and Agriculture Organization land-use data for an unbalanced international panel of 26 reporting units, comprising individual countries and the European Union aggregate, over 2004–2024, with 514 reporting-unit-year observations. The empirical strategy applies cross-sectionally augmented panel unit-root tests, bootstrap Westerlund cointegration tests, first-difference TWFE models, reporting-unit-level wild-cluster-bootstrap inference with 9,999 replications, Holm adjustment for multiple testing, and robustness checks in R version 4.4.0. The level variables were non-stationary, whereas their first differences were stationary under the parsimonious one-lag specification, with cross-sectionally augmented panel unit-root statistics ranging from −3.3252 to −2.4108 and probability values below 0.01, while bootstrap Westerlund probability values of 0.576–0.930 provided no evidence of a stable long-run relationship between organic land use and any support measure. In the contemporaneous first-difference models based on 462 observations, coefficients were 0.0019 for total budgetary support estimate, 0.0011 for total support estimate, 0.0004 for producer support estimate, 0.0134 for general services support estimate, and −0.0012 for consumer support estimate, with wild-bootstrap probability values of 0.524–0.929. The corresponding one-year-lagged coefficients were −0.0027, 0.0037, 0.0044, 0.0228, and −0.0038, respectively, but none was statistically significant, with wild-bootstrap probability values of 0.109–0.736 and all Holm-adjusted probability values equal to 1.000, providing no robust evidence that changes in aggregate support intensity systematically preceded organic expansion. The findings provide no robust evidence that the aggregate volume or intensity of agricultural support is, by itself, systematically associated with organic expansion, and they indicate that future research should examine program-level financing, targeting, and conditionality as potential mechanisms linking public resources to verifiable transition outcomes.

• semanticscholar https://armgpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/FMIR_3_2026_9.pdffirst seen 2026-10-03 05:26:50 · last seen 2026-10-07 05:34:30