2017年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_Who_finances_the_Queens_CAP_payments_The_CAP_as_a_dooH_niboR_Scheme_8页_547kb

Summary of "Who finances the Queen's CAP payments?"

Core Content

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union is analyzed in this document as a regressive and unjust system that disproportionately benefits wealthy landowners while underfunding small farmers. The author, Richard E. Baldwin, highlights how the CAP is funded through a "flat tax" system, where each member state contributes based on their GDP, and the funds are distributed to farm owners rather than farmers.

Main Points

• CAP Payments to Royalty: In England, the CAP pays substantial sums to wealthy landowners who are not necessarily farmers. For example, the Queen of England received €231,559, and the Duke of Westminster received €259,710 in 2003-04.
• Wealth Disparity: These payments are funded by EU citizens, including some of the poorest, such as those from Latvia, whose average per capita income is less than €5,000. The wealth of the Duke of Westminster exceeds the entire GDP of Malta.
• Regressive Distribution: The CAP's payments are highly skewed. In the EU15, the top 6% of farms by size receive 53% of the total payments, while the smallest 52% of farms receive only 4%. In Germany, 40% of all payments go to just 2.5% of farms, and in Italy, 60% of the money goes to 8% of farms.
• EU Funding Mechanism: The EU budget is funded through a flat tax system, which contributes approximately 1% of each member's GDP. This means that all member states, regardless of wealth, contribute proportionally to the EU budget, which in turn funds the CAP.
• Oxfam and Guardian Data: The data from the Guardian and Oxfam show that the CAP is a "dooH niboR" (Robin Hood backwards) scheme, where the rich receive the most benefits.
• Political Influence: The document notes that agricultural ministers, like the Netherlands' Cees Veerman, have a financial stake in the CAP system, which influences their political decisions and lobbying efforts.
• Reform Challenges: Despite the 2003 CAP reforms, the system remains regressive. The author suggests that a €7 billion cut to the CAP budget could significantly reduce payments to the wealthiest landowners without affecting the majority of farmers.

Key Information

• CAP Payments by Income Level: The CAP payments are distributed in a highly unequal manner, with a small percentage of farms receiving a large share of the funds.
• EU Contribution System: The EU's "flat tax" system ensures that all member states contribute proportionally to their GDP, which means that poorer countries like Latvia and Malta subsidize the payments to the wealthiest landowners in richer countries.
• Impact of CAP on EU Citizens: The CAP is criticized for its regressive nature, as it transfers wealth from the poor to the rich, and is seen as socially unjust despite being labeled as socially progressive.
• Future Implications: As more data on CAP payments becomes public through Freedom of Information requests, the unjust financial linkages between the CAP and wealthy landowners will become more apparent, potentially leading to public backlash and reform.

Table Highlights

Table 1: CAP Payments to English Royalty (2003-04)

Table 2: Simulated New Member State Payments to British Nobility

Conclusion

The CAP is a deeply regressive policy that transfers significant funds from poorer EU citizens to wealthy landowners, including royalty. This system is funded through a flat tax on all member states, which means that even the poorest countries contribute to the wealth of the richest. The author argues that this system is a form of "legitimate corruption" and that reform is necessary to make the CAP fairer. The data from various EU member states support this claim, showing a consistent pattern of wealth concentration among large landowners.