REFORMS OF THE COMMUNITY AGRARIAN POLICY: MISCONCEPTION OR NEW AGRICULTURAL ARCHITECTURE?

  • Boris ; Spasojević Catering, Trade and Tourism Vocational School, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Aleksandar Đukić Catering, Trade and Tourism Vocational School, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Dragan Stanković Republic Administration for Geodetic and Property Affairs of Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Te European Union is the most complex and by any aspect the most unique example of a regional economic integration. Its origin, evolution and survival are based on a common legislative and institutional framework. Te so-called common policies implemented in a number of economic and non-economic areas are particularly distinctive. Most of them are implemented on two levels: national and communal. Te only common policy that is fully implemented at the European Union level is the Community Agrarian Policy (CAP), whereas the agriculture has the highest expenditure in the communal budget. Te function of CAP is primarily economic as its goals are strictly related to economic issues: price stability of agricultural products, productivity growth, higher wages for the farmers, etc. Te CAP strengthens the Union’s social cohesion, which is of utmost importance in times of constant crises, BREXIT and other extreme instabilities. For this reason, the CAP has been in the processes of continuous reforms (MacShary, Mansholt and those of recent times) for decades, in order to increase its efciency and justify enormous fnancial investments. Te CAP results depend on the achievement of preset objectives and the exchange of agricultural products and food that the European Union generates globally. It has been demonstrated that the CAP is a signifcant common policy, both in achieving economic goals and in the sphere of strengthening communal cohesion.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Boris ; Spasojević, Catering, Trade and Tourism Vocational School, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina


Aleksandar Đukić, Catering, Trade and Tourism Vocational School, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina


Dragan Stanković, Republic Administration for Geodetic and Property Affairs of Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina


References

1. Barnes, P. i Barnes,G.(1999).Environmental policy in the European Union. Edward Elgar Pub, UK.
2. European Commission (2000). From the Single Act to Maastricht and Beyond: the Means to mach our Ambitions. Downloaded on 15 October 2017. from https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/commission_communication_from_the_single_act_to_maastricht_and_beyond_the_means_to_match_our_ambitions_11_february_1992-en-ff61d9a6-7b3f-4153-8ba1-451af0476e28.html
3. Mikuš, O., Franić, R. i Ramani, D.(2013). Smjernice zajedničke poljoprivredne politike Europske unije nakon 2013 (eng. Guidelines of the Community Agrarian Policy of the European Union afer2013). Agronomic Gazette, Zagreb.
4. Plumb, H.(1996). Te Cork Declaration – A Living Countryside, Rural Europe – Future perspectives. Cork, Ireland.
5. Popović, G. (2016). Ekonomija Evropske unije (eng. Economics of the European Union). Institute for textbooks and teaching aids, East Sarajevo.
6. Popović, G., Zakić, Z. and Stojanović, Ž.(2009). Savremena ruralna politika (eng. Contemporary Rural Politics), Faculty of Economics, University in Banja Luka.
7. Eurostat (2013). Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020. Downloaded on 15 October 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05_en.pdf
8. Zakić, Z. and Stojanović, Ž. (2008). Ekonomika agrara (Economics of Agriculture). Faculty of Economics, Belgrade.
Published
2017-12-29
How to Cite
SPASOJEVIĆ, Boris ;; ĐUKIĆ, Aleksandar; STANKOVIĆ, Dragan. REFORMS OF THE COMMUNITY AGRARIAN POLICY: MISCONCEPTION OR NEW AGRICULTURAL ARCHITECTURE?. ECONOMICS - Innovation and economic research, [S.l.], v. 5, n. 2, p. 117-125, dec. 2017. ISSN 2303-5013. Available at: <http://economicsrs.com/index.php/economicus/article/view/121>. Date accessed: 21 apr. 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/eoik-2017-0024.
Section
Review report