Policy choice framework guiding policy makers in changing farmer behavior

• Published in: Ecology and society Vol. 22; no. 2; p. 2
• Main Authors: Kaine, Geoff, Young, Justine, Lourey, Ruth, Greenhalgh, Suzie
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ottawa Resilience Alliance 01.06.2017
• Subjects: adoption; Agricultural management; Agricultural policy; Behavior; Climate change policy; compliance; Dogs; Ecology; Economic resources; Economics; Environmental policy; Farmers; Legislators; Market failure; Natural resource management; Natural resources; Nitrogen; policy implementation; policy instrument choice; Policy making; Resource management; Supply; Sustainable agriculture; water quality; wild dogs
• ISSN: 1708-3087; 1708-3087
• DOI: 10.5751/ES-09135-220202

There is a substantial literature on the characteristics of policy instruments. Unfortunately, there is an unhelpful degree of overlap in the strengths and weaknesses of different instruments. As a consequence, rarely is it the case that one particular instrument is obviously superior to all others. Policy makers must then make choices about which instrument(s) to use. The economics discipline can provide some insights for instrument choice through its exploration of market failures related to natural resource management. Few attempts, however, have been made to encapsulate these economic concepts in way to that could aid policy makers in these choices and ensure that policy instrument choice aligns with the fundamental cause of the behavior to be changed. We describe and provide example applications of the policy choice framework (PCF). The PCF was developed to assist policy makers to deliberately and systematically choose policy instruments to influence the behavior of farmers. The PCF is unique among methods for choosing policy instruments because it links the microeconomic reasons underpinning the choice of a primary policy instrument (stage one) with predictions of the behavior of farmers (stage two) and predictions about the organizational needs of agencies responsible for implementing policy (stage three). We describe the PCF using two applications: wild dog management and the control of agricultural nitrogen discharges. Our purpose was to show how the PCF could be employed to assist in policy instrument selection. We then discuss the implications for policy design and instrument choice.