The politics of CAP reform: Trade negotiations, institutional settings and blame avoidance

In this article we argue that the conclusion of the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture and the subsequent role of the WTO has changed the international context of CAP policy-making. However, comparing the three latest CAP reforms, we demonstrate that pressures on the CAP arising from international trade negotiations cannot alone account for the way in which the EU responds in terms of CAP reform. The institutional setting within which the reform package was determined also played a crucial role. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the CoAM seems to be a more conducive setting than the European Council for undertaking substantial reform of the CAP. We suggest that the choice of institutional setting is influenced by the desire of farm ministers and of heads of state or government to avoid blame for unpopular decisions. When CAP reform is an integral part of a broader package, farm ministers pass the final decision to the European Council and when CAP reform is defined as a separate issue the European Council avoids involvement.

Food choice in an interdisciplinary context

Reform of agricultural policies, notably the continuing elimination of production-enhancing subsidies, makes it possible for policies to respond to social issues such as the rural environment and health in future. In this paper, we draw on a Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) research project which is examining the potential for the development of healthy food chains and the implications for human health and the environment. One of the key issues to be addressed is consumers' willingness to pay for the nutritionally enhanced food products from these new chains, but it is evident that only a partial understanding can be gained from a traditional economics approach. In the paper, we discuss how economists are beginning to incorporate views from other disciplines into their models of consumer choice.

Models, mathematics and meaning in interdisciplinary research

Interdisciplinary research presents particular challenges for unambiguous communication. Frequently, the meanings of words differ markedly between disciplines, leading to apparent consensus masking fundamental misunderstandings. Researchers can agree on the need for models, but conceive of models fundamentally differently. While mathematics is frequently seen as an elitist language reinforcing disciplinary distinctions, both mathematics and modelling can also offer scope to bridge disciplinary epistemological divisions and create common ground on which very different disciplines can meet. This paper reflects on the role and scope for mathematics and modelling to present a common epistemological space in interdisciplinary research spanning the social, natural and engineering sciences.