Without support, the levels of agricultural public goods such as food security and landscape preservation would fall short of demand in high-cost countries. However, as demonstrated by Norway as a case study, the current level of support is disproportionate from a public goods perspective, and the policy instruments are badly targeted at the public goods in question. Because agricultural land is a major component of both food security and landscape preservation, giving rise to a high degree of cost complementarity between the public goods, it would be more efficient to support land-extensive production techniques than production per se.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rolf Jens Brunstad (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: