The Common Agricultural Policy is a system of state grants to farmers in the EU.

Why do farms warrant public funding in this way? Isn’t this, in effect a form of protectionism?

  • See also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18805/… - this is almost a duplicate.
    – MSalters
    Commented Jan 21, 2019 at 13:31
  • Comments deleted. Comments should not be used to answer the question. If you would like to answer, please write a real answer which adheres to our standards of quality. And neither should comments be used to discuss the subject matter of the question. For more information about what comments on questions should and should not be used for, please review the help center article about the commenting privilege.
    – Philipp
    Commented Jan 21, 2019 at 16:14
  • 1
    Just to clarify definitions - giving a private enterprise public funds is usually called a subsidy. Protectionism, on the other hand refers to government regulation (other than giving money) that makes life harder for foreign companies (often via tariffs). So they are similar, but not the same.
    – sleske
    Commented Jan 30, 2019 at 10:29

3 Answers 3


Farmers receive subsidies in many many countries around the world, including EU countries prior to the CAP, the US, or Switzerland. One justification that's commonly offered is that self-sufficiency is a strategic goal that requires state support. The original policy was also devised when Europe was just coming out of food rationing that lasted for a decade after WWII. Nowadays, this productivity objective has partly been replaced with policies designed to safeguard the landscape and ecosystems through specific agricultural practices. And of course other sectors of the economy also receive subsidies and support from states in various ways.

So what's specific to the CAP is not that farmers receive subsidies, it's that they may not receive subsidies from individual states, instead getting them solely through EU programmes. That's why the CAP was such a large part of the EU budget for many decades (less so now). EU federalists hoped that other sectors would follow but that never happened. In other domains (industry, defense, research, education, healthcare, etc.) individual EU member states fund specific policies or directly subsidizes businesses within the bounds set by EU rules (in particular the rules on “state aid”).

  • 8
    @Ben Yes, that's what I am referring to in the second paragraph. It's not necessarily a lot of money relative to EU GDP or farm subsidies elsewhere but it's large compared to the EU budget because other “traditional” big spending items (including defense, education or subsidies to industry or transportation) are mostly covered through the member states budget, not the EU budget. The EU budget is far from negligible but not that large relative to the total GDP.
    – Relaxed
    Commented Jan 20, 2019 at 17:30
  • 7
    It is often argued that the reason for massive agricultural subsidies in the EU is that French and German farmers possess massive political clout. It is also argued that agriculture in those countries and throughout much of continental Europe is far less efficient than it is in the UK and the Anglo world. One reason for this has to do with ancient systems of land inheritance, which led to average farm sizes being far larger in Britain. This, in turn, led to much greater economies of scale and hence financial efficiency. Many in Britain argue that the EU "feather-beds" inefficient agriculture.
    – WS2
    Commented Jan 20, 2019 at 19:06
  • 4
    @WS2 Of course small-scale inefficiency is more resilient, and resilience is a clear strategic goal of farm subsidies.
    – sgf
    Commented Jan 20, 2019 at 20:14
  • 5
    @Ben this article puts fossil fuels subsidy at 6bn on th UK. google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/…
    – Jontia
    Commented Jan 21, 2019 at 8:31
  • 4
    @Ben and this one puts Rail Industry subsidies at £6.4bn (including 2bn for HS2). orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/39381/…
    – Jontia
    Commented Jan 21, 2019 at 11:11

Not all of the so-called "CAP" has its primary goal of agricultural output. For example, in the UK there are large areas of land where the weather and soil conditions are only suitable for low-intensity sheep farming. However grazing sheep have been a part of the stable ecosystem of these areas for centuries, and removing them because they are "uneconomic" would cause the entire ecosystem to change dramatically, by destroying important habitats for wildlife, increasing soil erosion and hence changing the ecosystem of downstream river systems, increasing the risk of long-burning peat wildfires, etc.

In effect the farmers in these areas are being subsidized to maintain the environment, not to produce meat and wool.

In fact the policy of subsidies to these areas was changed to focus on the environmental protection issues, since the original payment rules led to environmental damage through attempts at unsustainable over-production to maximize the subsidy payments.

The same also applies in the high-intensity sector of the UK, where subsidies have been awarded to improve the environment in opposition to maximizing output - for example by extending the uncultivated borders of fields to provide wildlife habitats and corridors, maintaining hedgerows rather than replacing them with fences (or removing them completely in arable farming areas) etc.

  • 6
    In short, farmers are partly turning into the state's gardeners :) Commented Jan 21, 2019 at 8:55
  • 1
    Mind you, that risk of soil erosion is there because those sheep farmers first cut down the trees. The true environment would have been a forest, but the CAP doesn't pay for that.
    – MSalters
    Commented Jan 21, 2019 at 13:31
  • @MSalters - "True" environment is not always the best environment. For example, in some countries pastures are disppearing because they turn into intensive agriculture or, interestingly, woods, when pastures are abandoned. To keep diversity, the goal is not to maximize the area of woods (the "true" environment) but to keep some pastures to mantain biodiversity.
    – Pere
    Commented Jan 21, 2019 at 18:40
  • 1
    I find it curious, the notion of a "true" environment. As though there is something special about the random scattering of prehistoric seeds on the wind falling on fertile soil. Certainly an environment that consists of wheat grass is much better than the same land being covered varieties of weed grasses.
    – Stephen
    Commented Jan 22, 2019 at 4:11

I'll quote from 2 books.

European Union Governance and Policy Making: A Canadian Perspective (2018). pp 214-215.

The main goals in the creation of the European Union (EU) were both political (to not have another war) and economic (to recover from the devastation of World War II). The means of achieving these goals were mainly economic, with the view that once the EU member states were economically integrated, another war would be almost impossible (see Theme 1of this book). Economic integration trumped all up until the 1990s, when other non-economic issues started to gain importance for the EU political elites and citizens. Agriculture was one of the first policy areas where market integration was seen as highly important. The six founding member states of the European Economic Community (EEC) (Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and West Germany) considered the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) a necessity in order to cope with food shortages stemming from the aftermath of World War II, prevent at any cost such future shortages, and stabilize income for farmers. The CAP was an attempt to reach these objectives by creating a common agricultural market that would facilitate the movement of goods and factors of production among the European countries.
      To achieve its original objectives, the CAP introduced several policy instruments, which had important domestic and international consequences and influenced the evolution of the CAP through the years. Over time, the EU has become larger, more diverse, increasingly focused on sustainable development, and competitive in a highly globalized world. Thus, the main question this chapter sets out to address is whether the objectives of the CAP have been altered in response to new domestic and international conditions. The chapter analyzes the impacts of the main agricultural policy instruments and whether the pressure for change was strong enough to result in policy that sustains an efficient and internationally competitive sector.

Mark Corner PhD on Karl Barth - University of Durham (1978). BA and MA in History - Cambridge University (1976). The European Union: An Introduction (2014). p 123.

There are many ways in which the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides a perfect introduction to the European Union (EU) at work. In the first place, it raises fundamental economics questions concerning the nature of a managed market and, in particular, the way in which the EU organises a market in agricultural products. In the second place, it is a very important part of the work of the EU and involves a significant slice of its budget (today about one-third, though in the past it has been much more). Third, it is a policy that, in the jargon, involves ‘actors’ at many different levels. On the one hand, the EU comes under international pressure ‘from above’ – from particular nations such as the USA and institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) – and, on the other hand, it faces pressure ‘from below’ involving particular countries (France is often singled out, but Germany and the United Kingdom have been just as robust in seeking to exercise influence). Fourth, the CAP throws a great deal of light – in a very practical way – on questions that are often discussed in a (sometimes) stiflingly academic manner concerning who really has power in the EU (a debate that usually leads to some conclusion claiming, for instance, that the Commission is ‘really’ steered by the member states). Fifth, the CAP is controversial and much discussed. People tend to know about ‘butter mountains’ and ‘wine lakes’, not to mention tales of farmers being ‘paid to do nothing’ under various attempts to reform the CAP.

  • Could you add some commentary to explain the relevance of, in particular, the second quote to the question? Commented Jun 18, 2019 at 7:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .