Aim of study: This paper evaluates the effect of pre-accession EU grants on beneficiaries in the agri-food sector using a quasi-experimental approach on the case of Croatia. An insight into the available literature reveals a lack of rigorous research and evaluation of the results of using these funds in Croatia as well as in other beneficiary countries.Area of study: Republic of Croatia, Europe (2006–2017).Material and methods: Two datasets were used: (1) financial and structural data on the population of Croatian enterprises for the 2003–2017 period, and (2) data on SAPARD and IPARD grants in the 2007–2016 period. Data were analyzed using counterfactual impact analysis, i.e., a combination of difference-in-difference approach and propensity score matching.Main results: The grants showed to have a positive effect on firm survival, as well as positive effects on obtaining bank loans and increasing turnover, value added, employment, and total factor productivity. Heterogeneous treatment effects show that the grants resulted in the greatest additionality for micro-sized firms located in Central Croatia. Cost-benefit analysis estimates an increase in the value added, which outweighs scheme-induced costs by 120% in the short run and 90% in the mid run.Research highlights: Pre-accession programs in Croatia had a positive impact on the beneficiaries’ growth and business performance indicators in both short and mid term. This paper also promotes the application of similar research in other EU candidate countries where the same or similar funds are implemented.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/8055485.pdf

The impact assessment of the EU pre-accession funds on agriculture and food companies: The Croatian case

After the Arab revolts the EU attempted to contribute to the rural development of the Arab Mediterranean states by designing the European Neighbourhood Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (ENPARD). Through ENPARD the EU tried to diffuse policies that were implemented in the new member states (NMS) and the candidate countries. Based on the experiences of one NMS (Croatia) and one candidate country (Turkey), the article surveys what is (not) learned from the pre-accession programmes and the limits of policy diffusion in Egypt and Tunisia. The article claims that policy diffusion must be distinguished from policy convergence and that policy success must be contextualized by taking into account the role of domestic actors in each case study.

/pdf/not-learning-from-the-past-the-diffusion-of-the-eu-s-rural-1n0su1h5cl.pdf

(Not) learning from the past? The diffusion of the EU’s rural development policy in its neighbouring countries

/pdf/the-impact-assessment-of-the-eu-pre-accession-funds-on-4jb2wz9x78.pdf

The Impact Assessment of the EU Pre-Accession Funds on Agriculture and Food Companies: The Croatian Case

Turkey has acquired a valuable experience on rural development with five-year-development plans that were launched in 1960’s. A number of rural development projects, which have been financed by the United Nations and the World Bank, have been carried out in the underdeveloped regions of Turkey. With the EU Helsinki Council that recognizes Turkey as an EU candidate country in 1999, Though Turkey did not utilize pre-accession assistance programs like PHARE, SAPARD, CARDS, ISPA that Central Eastern European Countries (CEEC’s) took advantage, but she benefited tremendously from the EU pre-accession assistance program under the instrument of IPA rural Development. Following the National Rural Development Strategy, which was prepared by the Ministry of Development in collaboration with the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MoFAL) of Turkey in 2005, Turkish side, provided technical assistance by the EU, worked out IPARD program with the hard negotiations held with the EU Commission concerning the priorities, the number of cities and the number of sub-measures and sectors to be funded under Rural development program. MoFAL decided to implement the IPARD Program in two phases between the periods 20072010 and 2011-2013. In the first phase, 20 provinces out of 42 have been funded. The EU allocated 873,89 million Euro for seven-year-period. The setting up an IPARD Paying Agency in Headquarter and its divisions in provincial level took a lot of hard works to get accreditation by the EU. So, the completion of all 20 provinces’ accreditation was concluded as late as in the last quarter of 2011. Nowadays, the IPARD Paying Agency has announced six-call for proposals nowadays. As a result of the first two call for proposals made in 2011, only 15.974.636,95 € of the allocated funds by the EU has been used. This study discusses the process that is made by the EU on rural development program in Turkey and analyse the challenges which is made for benefiting from the EU funds. From the first implementation year of IPARD Program, it seems that Turkey won’t be able to use all funds allocated by the EU.

The impact of the EU instrument for pre-accession for rural development (IPARD)-Turkey

This paper focuses mostly on fattening farms which are potentially eligible for supporting under the IPARD (Instrument for Pre-accession to Rural Development) Programme of Turkey funded by the EU since the year 2011. The study scrutinizes the current situation of fattening farms by using independent variables based on information and data about owners of the holding, fattening farms and their production structure. It also questions whether or not they meet the EU standards. In this framework, 444 fattening farms, representing all provinces to be supported, were selected with simple random sampling and logistic regression analysis was used to observe if any significant relationship between independent variables with the dependent variable “willingness to prepare a project to meet EU standards by benefiting from the IPARD funds”. In the study, the fattening farms were grouped and evaluated in three categories; beef cattle farms, sheep and goat farms, and all fattening farms. According to the results of this study, the beef cattle farms keep their animals fed a few times a year are 5.926 times (p<0.01) more eager to prepare a project to meet EU standards than those who keep their animals fed only two a times year, the sheep/goats breeders who sell their animals to the slaughterhouses or meat processing plants are 1.995 times (p<0.05) more eager to prepare a project to meet EU standards than those who only breed and sell their animals for sacrifice ceremony held once a year. The beef cattle breeders who have social security are 3.257 times (p<0.05) more eager to prepare a project to meet EU standards than cattle breeders who have no social security. The current work provides our understanding of the fattening farms in the country by analysing all possible factors which might affect them.

Tecer Atsan

Papers

The impact of the EU instrument for pre-accession for rural development (IPARD)-Turkey

Turkish fattening farms in the EU process