Assessing Government Subsidies for Reducing Pesticide Use: A Meta‐Analysis

In the efforts being made by governments to reduce pesticide use, subsidies are an important instrument to encourage farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. Yet, their effectiveness remains uncertain due to diverse designs and contexts. To date, there are no studies that provide systematic synthesized evidence on the potentially heterogeneous effects of subsidies on pesticide use. The present study addresses this gap by conducting a meta‐analysis of 39 empirical studies (208 models) from the EU and other developed countries that examine the effects of subsidies on (i) direct measurement of pesticide use and (ii) indirect measurement of pesticide use based on the adoption of pesticide‐reducing practices. Using probit meta‐regressions and qualitative appraisal, we find two key results. First, for EU studies, Pillar I and Pillar II subsidies from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have opposite effects on pesticide use: Pillar II subsidies are more likely than Pillar I subsidies to reduce pesticide use. Second, if we consider studies from both the EU and the US, subsidies that target adoption of whole‐farm systems or bundles of practices outperform those targeting a single practice in reducing pesticide use. We provide some policy recommendations for policy design and highlight future research priorities.