Delovni zvezek 78 - Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja

AGRICULTURAL
SUSTAINABILITY
INDEX OF SLOVENIA
Renata Slabe Erker
Irena Mrak
Maja Klun
Matej Bedrač
Barbara Lampič
Tomaž Cunder
WORKING PAPER No. 78, 2013
November, 2013
Agricultural Sustainability of Slovenia
Renata Slabe Erker1, Irena Mrak2, Maja Klun3, Matej Bedrač4, Barbara Lampič5, Tomaž Cunder6
AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX OF SLOVENIA
Printed by Institute for Economic Research – IER
Copyright © Institute for Economic Research, Ljubljana
Published by Institute for Economic Research in November, 2013
Number of copies - 50 pieces
WORKING PAPER No. 78, 2013
Editor of the WP series: Boris Majcen
CIP ‐ Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 502.131.1:63 AGRICULTURAL sustainability index of Slovenia / Renata Slabe Erker ... [et al.]. ‐ Ljubljana : Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja = Institute for Economic Research, 2013. ‐ (Working paper / Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja, ISSN 1581‐8063 ; no. 78) ISBN 978‐961‐6906‐25‐8 1. Slabe Erker, Renata 270257152 1
Institute for Economic Research, Ljubljana. e-mail: [email protected]
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. e-mail: [email protected]
3
Faculty of Administration, University of Ljubljana. e-mail: [email protected]
4
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia. e-mail: [email protected]
5
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. e-mail: [email protected]
6
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia. e-mail: [email protected]
2
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to make the concept of agricultural sustainability operational
through the elaboration of agriculture sustainability index (ASI). ASI can be seen as an
attempt to assess empirically which countries are most likely to possess favourable economic,
environmental and social conditions for developing long term sustainable agriculture. First,
the conceptual model was developed using 34 indicators, based mostly on OECD data for 16
EU countries. Then, the indicators were normalised and weighted by AHP procedure, and
lastly aggregated to obtain indices of parameters (9) and indices of aspects (3) and of course
the highest aggregated index of agricultural sustainability. Results for Slovenia show that our
countryside is facing a difficult period in terms of economic and demographic viability of the
agricultural community. Besides, the lack of governance and resource depletion threaten the
ecological balance.
JEL classification: Q010
Keywords: agriculture sustainability index, economic
sustainability, social sustainability, indicators sustainability,
environmental
1. Introduction Sustainable development, of which sustainable agriculture constitutes a key part, is one of the main long‐term priority objectives of the European Union in its focus on enhancing the quality of life of people. Through its economic, environmental and social role, the European Union is addressing the challenges laid out in the Lisbon Strategy (2000). In a diverse country such as Slovenia, the fundamental objective of the Strategy – new, quality jobs and enhanced competitiveness – can be fulfilled through the development of the countryside. In this sense, sustainable development not only creates, directly and indirectly, employment on the local level and beyond in synergy with other economic activities, but is also a source of healthy, safe food, a basic condition of the preservation of landscape diversity, a counter‐weight to population decline in rural areas, a corner stone of agricultural tourism, and a factor that enables the implementation of other environmental and social functions of space which enhance the quality of life, such as ecosystem functions, aesthetic functions, cultural functions and recreational functions. In spite of the evident importance of sustainable role of agriculture scientific and strategic studies which would indicate specific strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats to which the policy decision makers should pay more attention are rare. The main purposes of this study are therefore: (i) to reduce the deficit in quantitative evidence regarding sustainable development of Slovenian agriculture and the policy application; and (ii) to provide the possibility of results’ interpretation for other European countries, through the proposed model. The results of the study can therefore serve as a valuable expert background for policymakers wishing to enhance sustainability of agriculture through the specific measures targeting the problems which the study reveals. To achieve this we suggest an empirical model for continuous quantitative monitoring and evaluation of agriculture sustainability in Slovenia or/and in other EU countries. Additionally, the model employed enables the estimation of the extent to which the elements of sustainable agriculture pursue the goals of agricultural policy. After defining the scope in conceptual terms, namely division of three sustainability aspects, economic, environmental and social, into nine parameters and thirty‐
four indicators, the model for evaluation was set. The model is a combination of benchmarking and AHP weighting. Finally, the results are presented for individual countries and interpreted in detail for Slovenia. The paper concludes with discussion and implications for policy and practice. 2. Theoretical Background The heterogeneity of human activities, their rapid development as well as their negative, mainly environmental impacts together with the rising awareness that the natural resources are limited, lead to the formation of a new development concept which should equally encounter environmental, social and economic component of sustainability. In past few decades numerous definitions of sustainable development are in use. Therefore, White (2013) suggests distinguishing between two groups: the first one focuses on the sustainable development and the second one on the sustainable science. The latest attempts to understand connections and interaction of natural and social systems. The scholars particularly expose the challenge of sustainability which lies in confrontation of the 1 needs of the present and future society with the main goal to reduce poverty on one side and protect and preserve limited global resources on the other (White, 2013; Hagget, 2001; WCED, 1987). For decades agriculture on the global level as well as in the EU is losing its economic role on behalf of the development of industry and services (this is also evident in the GDP composition) but it is preserving its spatial and social dimension. Recently its basic function (production) gained the importance and the food became a strategic priority. Beside the economic role, agriculture holds other social and environmental functions, i.e. impact on the social equilibrium, preservation of cultural landscape and cultural heritage, maintenance of ecosystem functions, maintenance of biodiversity, preservation of natural values etc. (Klemenčič, Lampič, Potočnik Slavič, 2008). Therefore agriculture became multifunctional and is as such tightly connected to the concept of sustainable farming although the two terms should not be equated. Multifunctionality of agriculture is based on the fact that agriculture is not only the production of food and therefore the other two roles need to be considered as well: (i) environmental role, which includes numerous landscape characteristics and environmental values and therefore contributes to formation of agricultural heritage; (ii) social – economic role – agriculture contributes to the settlement of rural areas as well as to the balanced spatial development, it provides the jobs in farming and food industry. The importance of agriculture is also in maintenance of farming infrastructure which in remote rural areas usually represents the main economic activity (EC, 2001). The understanding and definition of sustainable agriculture differs among the countries, sometimes even between the regions (Bavec et al., 2009). At present there is no stable definition of sustainable agriculture which would include the list of well‐defined criteria. Often sustainable agriculture is more a philosophy then the farming practice and the life style. Therefore the definition of sustainable agriculture is needed and it should include comparable standards as well as understanding and implementation of farming which can highly contribute to overall sustainable development of an area as well as on the global level. Sustainable agriculture needs to encounter all the aspects of sustainability (environmental, social and economic) but the minimum negative impacts on the environment need to be emphasized. Defining the sustainable agriculture the environmental friendliness and sustainable use of natural resources need to be exposed, followed by economic benefits, and social support (Ikerd, 1993). One of the most holistic definitions of sustainable agriculture is the one of the American government from 1990 (Public Law 101‐624, Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1683). The sustainable agriculture is defined as integral system of growing plants and breeding animals, according to the geographic characteristic of the farming area which in the long term enables the sufficient amounts of food for humans and animals, the enhanced environment and natural resources which are crucial for agriculture, most optimal use of non‐renewable resources and the resources on farms, natural biological processes, economic vivacity of farming and it improves the quality of life of farmers and the overall society. These conceptual issues of sustainability are reflected in its measuring. Studies on measuring agriculture sustainability are mostly partial in terms of geographical areas and products (e.g. Hatai and Sen, 2008, Sands and Podmore, 2000 Koeijer et al., 2002; Gomez‐Limon, 2010; Lopez‐Baldovin, 2006). 2 Measuring sustainability with indicators and their aggregation into indices is quite common method used by researchers. For example, Hatai and Sen (2008) have analyzed the usefulness of highly aggregated SLS index (Sustainable Livelihood Security Index) of agricultural sustainability in the thirty districts of Orissa. SLS index was composed of three indices: ecological security index, efficiency index, and index of social justice. The research has exposed that lack of governance and depletion of natural resources as well as rapid increase in population represent threat to the ecological balance and economic and social state of districts. Furthermore, big differences among the farming systems of districts, according to the individual aspects of sustainability imply a reallocation of agricultural investments. Likewise, Sands and Podmore (2000) presented the design and development of environmental sustainability index (ESI) for agricultural systems and confirmed its efficacy in practice. They used 15 indicators on the lower level, which refer to two dimensions of the agricultural system (i) soil fertility and access to groundwater, and (ii) the possibility of environmental degradation. Furthermore, Gomez‐Limon (2010) conducted an empirical evaluation of sustainability with composite indicators for two agricultural systems: the area of Castilla y Leon with a large quantity of rain and the river Duero Valley – countryside with irrigation. His methodology is based on calculation of 16 sustainability indicators and their aggregation into nine sustainability indices covering the three components (economic, social and environmental). The study demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of various methods for creation of composite indicators. Moreover, the sustainability at the farm level was evaluated by van der Werf and Petit (2002) through 12 indicators and 26 objectives. Vecchione (2010) has developed Agriculture sustainability index (ASI) and has tested it on the agricultural area Alta Val d'Agri in Italy. The model on measuring agricultural sustainability combines the analysis based on geographic system (GIS) and multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Vecchione uses 18 agricultural indicators that are allocated into three sustainability dimensions. Indicators are normalized with "fuzzy logic" function using weights, which are assigned by analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and aggregated. Comprehensive analysis in a broader geographical or spatial and thematic sense are less common (e.g. Walter and Stuetzel , 2009; Trisorio , A, 2004; Dumanski et al. , 1998; Yli ‐ Viikari , 2009; Ramos and Caeiro 2010). The most of European countries have their own national systems of indicators for monitoring agricultural development (e.g. Finland, Portugal, Ireland and France). However, further methods for indicators’ analysis are different across countries, for example IDEA, meta‐analysis, MCDA. For our study particularly relevant are findings of Walter and Stuetzel (2009) for Northwest Germany. They used the standardization process in which indicators are first normalized according to their contribution to sustainability, and then they are corrected by a factor that describes the significance of this impact in terms of exceeding the threshold. The process is conceptually similar to the LCA (Life Cycle Assessment), i.e. impact analysis and evaluation process that assesses the individual standardized indicators in terms of sustainability. The authors tested two types of weights and found that their effect is relatively small compared with the effect of standardization itself. The need for a comprehensive evaluation of sustainable development of agriculture has been shown in Slovenia, too, in both ‐ methodological and empirical level (Bedrač and Cunder, 2007; Lampič, 3 Potočnik Slavič, 2007; Slabe‐Erker et al., 2003; Slabe‐Erker, 2003; Slabe‐Erker and Kovacic, 2004; Slabe‐Erker and Filiplič, 2005). However, there is still a gap, which refers to a comprehensive, interdisciplinary research of the state and policy in the field of sustainable development of agriculture, which will be filled up with this research. 3. Data and Methods Many systems of sustainability indicators have been developed in recent years, including agri‐
environmental indicators and rural development indicators. The latter capture and measure various functions of agriculture, such as preservation of settlements, agricultural employment, environmental protection and landscape conservation, tourism and other non‐productive functions. But rural development indicators often focus on social and economic functions of agriculture and largely exclude the landscape and environmental functions. However, these functions are very important when considering a multifunctional agriculture. International organizations and agricultural national institutions around the world have proposed and developed a number of agriculture sustainability indicators, in order to evaluate a particular aspect of sustainability, especially at the national level. From the review of the available, fully or partly completed lists of indicators arises that in this moment the most relevant indicators are the ones of the following international institutions: EUROSTAT, EAA, OECD, WEF and IMD. In this study we mainly lean right on them. The first challenge in measuring agricultural sustainability is to define the scope in conceptual terms. As sustainability requires the reconciliation of environmental features, social equity and economic demands, these three aspects can be the starting point for further research. Each of the three aspects can be presented as a function of their own phenomena. In accordance with this a three‐
level system of indicators for monitoring and evaluating the sustainability of national agriculture was set. On the first level we followed the before mentioned three key aspects of sustainability (economic, environmental and social) which represent the first level of sustainability. On the second level a single aspect of sustainability was defined by three sustainability parameters, i.e. altogether nine sustainability parameters. A certain parameter was measured on the third level by several indicators. The selection of individual indicators has been adjusted to the political relevance of each indicator and to the existence of primary data with more or less regular periodicity of publishing. In particular, we consider the indicators possessing the following properties: statistical quantification, logicality, scientific defence and reliability. The level of agriculture sustainability is determined on the basis of data for 34 indicators, of which 14 measure economic aspect of sustainability, 11 environmental sustainability aspect and 9 social sustainability aspect. 4 Figure 1: The system
m of agricultu
ural stustainnability indicators 1. Level Aspects Economic sustainability
Sustainability of agriculture
2.Levvel Parame
eters Food production, security &
& safety
Indicators Agriculture incomes & marke
eting
Indicators Technical p
progress & producctivity
Indicators National rresource conservvation &ecologica
al balance
Indicators
Biodive
ersity conservvation
Indicators
Use of enviro
onmentally sound tech
hnologies
Indicators Employme
ent of the rural pop
pulation
Indicators Demographiic structure
Indicators
Manageme
ent of rural areas & viab
bility of the countrryside
Indicators
Environmental sustainability
Social sustainabilitty
3.Level Indicators Economiic aspect off agricultura
al sustainabiility is defined by three
e parameterrs: Food pro
oduction, security & safety (in
ncluding 5 in
ndicators), A
Agriculture in
ncomes & marketing of agricultural products ng 5 indicators) and Te
echnical proogress & pro
oductivity in
ncrease (inc luding 4 ind
dicators). (includin
Environm
mental aspecct of agriculttural sustainnability is defined by three parameteers: Natural resource conservaation and eccological balance (includding 4 indicaators), Biodivversity conseervation (inccluding 2 indicators) and Use of environm
mentally sounnd technologies (including 4 indicatoors). Social a
aspect of agricultu
ural sustaina
ability is deefined by thhree parameeters: raising
g the emplooyment of the t
rural population (including 3 indicato
ors), Improveement of de
emographic structure s
(inncluding 3 in
ndicators) mprovement of the counttryside’s viab
bility (includi ng 3 indicato
ors). Management of ruraal areas & im
p
i.e. the devel opment of the highest aggregatted ASI (aggriculture The agggregation process, sustainability index o
of Slovenia) and ASIs agggregated at llower levels (3 aspects oof sustainabillity and 9 pressed in th
he same unitts. For this p
purpose it sustainability parameters) demands that all data are exp
is necesssary to choosse a method of standarddization. Before aaggregation, the decisio
on about thhe importancce of individ
dual indicatoor for achie
eving the overall ssustainabilityy, namely th
he weights aassigned to individual in
ndicators, shhould be rea
ached. To determin
ne the weigghts, the An
nalytic Hieraarchy Processs (AHP metthod) was uused, as it has h been employeed previouslyy in studies referring to aagricultural ssustainabilityy measuremeent (e.g. Vecchione). 3.1 Stan
ndardisation and weightiing Method For consstructing thee partial agricultural suustainability indices (by 9 parameteers and 3 asspects of sustainability) as weell as the highest aggregaated index o
of agricultura
al sustainabillity, the convventional standard
dization tech
hnique was used, i.e. coonversion off indicators’ raw scores into standa
ardised z‐
scores. ZZ‐scores ran
nges betwee
en ‐2.5 and +2.5, which
h means tha
at 99.38 % oof values (scores) of 5 normally distributed variables should be found in the intervals 2.5 and 2.5 . For determining the sustainability threshold, we took a model of World Economic Forum (WEF) used in The Global Report of Environmental Performance Measurement. When aggregating indicators into indices the weights of indicators are assigned by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980, 1992). Similar method has been used also by other scholars (e.g. Tam et al., 2002; Nardo et al., 2005; Gomez‐Limon in Riesgo, 2008; Vecchione, 2010). The weights of individual sustainability aspects (economic, environmental and social) were already assigned in literature (e.g. Vecchione, 2010) and is approaching the following ratios: 0.3: 0.3 : 0.4. Partial indices of agricultural sustainability are calculated as an average of weighted indicators which build individual sustainability parameters and as an average of weighted parameters which build a certain sustainability aspect. An average of aspects represents the highest aggregated index of agricultural sustainability. The pith of the AHP method is to compare pairs of indicators within each parameter in terms of which of them contributes more to sustainable development of agriculture. The team of experts assesses the importance of indicators on a 9‐point scale. So, each of the experts’ judgements or preference values is assigned a number on a scale (Coyle, 2004). The preference values of pairwise comparisons are then logged in a positive reciprocal matrix. Having a matrix, the eigenvalues can be computed by means of the determinant. The eigenvalues are the roots of the polynomial of the matrix A: det
0 In case where three indicators are compared a matrix size 3 x 3 and third‐degree polynomial, which has three solutions ( , , ) is dealt with. In the second phase, eigenvectors that correspond to eigenvalues are calculated ( , ,
. Eigenvectors are vectors, which keep their direction when they are transformed A ⋅ ω = λ ⋅ ω. In our case, eigenvectors measure the level of importance of parameter, which is actually the goal of the whole procedure: ⋅
0. Normalized principal eigenvector or a priority vector represents the weights of parameters. Since the most important part of this procedure is assessing the importance of the parameters, the consistency of decision makers must be ensured. To this end, we follow the procedure proposed by Saaty (1988). Saaty proved that for consistent reciprocal matrix the largest eigenvalue is equal to the size of the matrix
. He proposed the measure of consistency, called Consistency Index: 1
6 Calculated Consistency Index (CI) can be compared with the Random Consistency Index (RI). Further, Saaty proposes to calculate the Consistency Ratio (CR), which is the quotient between CI and RI. If the value of CR is less than or equal to 10 %, the inconsistency is acceptable, if it is higher, the subjective judgements need a revision. 4. Results Indices of parameters were derived from weighting and aggregation of individual indicators, while the indices of a certain agriculture sustainability aspect (economic ‐EcASI, environmental –EnASI and social ‐ SoASI) were derived from indices of parameters. Positive value of index can be interpreted as a sustainable achievement, whereas negative value as an unsustainable achievement, with the scale ranging from ‐2.5 to +2.5 standard deviation. 4.1 Economic Sustainability of Agriculture International comparison of economic sustainability of agriculture is derived from the three indices at the level of parameters: (1) index of food production, food security and food safety, (2) index of agricultural income and marketing, and (3) index of technological progress and productivity. They include indicators from the above described sustainability monitoring system. In the process of aggregation indicators and parameters were weighted according to AHP (Table 3). Table 1: AHP weights assigned to economic parameters and indicators PARAMETERS Food Production, Security & Safety (CI = 0.00) Income & Marketing (CI = 0.00) Technical Progress & Productivity (CI = 0,03) INDICATORS Volume changes of agriculture output (index: 1999=100) VA in agriculture, % in total GVA Rate of self‐sufficiency in cereals Rate of self‐sufficiency in meat Government expenditure on R&D projects related to food safety (% of GDP) % of CAP support Income/Expenditure ratio Incomes of factors in agriculture Price indices of agriculture goods (producer prices) Products registered, published or applied as PDO, PGI or TSG (cumulative/million inhabitants) Labour productivity (agriculture output/AWU) Land productivity Investment activity Energy intensity Weight 0.6000 0.2000 0.2000 0.1800 0.1800 0.1000 0.0200 0.1200 0.0214 0.0643 0.0643 0.0125 0.0375 0.0950 0.0317 0.0521 0.0212 In 2007 Spain scored the highest outcome in the field of food production and food security. Slovenia is in unsustainable position (‐0.40), mainly due to its poor self‐sufficiency in cereals. Concerning the income position of agriculture and marketing activities, Greece, Germany and Spain gain the advantage over the other countries. Slovenian placement here again reflects unsustainability (‐0.41), which is mainly the result of the fact that wages in agriculture were lagging behind wages in the economy, which largely entails a worsening income situation and a drop in value of the index. 7 Technological progress and productivity represents the third economic parameter which has been studied in the framework of economic sustainability. Countries of Northern Europe (Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium) scored the highest outcome, but Slovenia is again ranking below the sustainability threshold (‐0.59). Table 2: Economic sustainability of agriculture by parameters, indices 2007. Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Germany The Netherlands Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Food Production & Security 0,01 ‐0,55 0,16 0,09 0,22 ‐1,51 ‐0,53 ‐0,45 ‐0,04 ‐0,12 ‐0,02 ‐0,70 ‐0,40 0,27 0,25 ‐0,79 Income & Marketing ‐0,07
0,32
‐0,41
‐0,38
‐0,02
0,67
‐0,17
‐0,08
‐0,02
0,98
‐0,49
0,60
‐0,41
0,42
‐0,35
‐0,58
Technical Progress & Productivity ‐0,31 0,52 1,62 0,04 ‐0,07 ‐0,78 ‐0,28 ‐0,41 0,50 0,18 1,14 ‐0,85 ‐0,59 ‐0,76 0,04 0,03 Economic Sustainability ‐0,07
‐0,16
0,34
‐0,02
0,11
‐0,93
‐0,41
‐0,37
0,07
0,16
0,12
‐0,47
‐0,44
0,09
0,09
‐0,59
In the process of aggregation of all three indices of parameters the economic sustainability index of agriculture (EcASI) is obtained. The best results in terms of economic sustainability are achieved by Denmark. As expected, the EcASI for Slovenia has a negative sign. Given the availability of recent data in Slovenia especially problematic are the following topics: low value added in agriculture, small grants, reduced growth in agricultural prices and poor grain self‐sufficiency. In general, the conditions are improving; however, there is a need to interfere in these three areas. 4.2 Environmental Sustainability of Agriculture International comparison of environmental sustainability of agriculture is derived from the three indices at the level of parameters: (1) Index of natural resource conservation and ecological balance, (2) Index of biodiversity conservation and (3) Index of using environmentally sound technologies. They include the relevant indicators from sustainability monitoring system. In the process of aggregation indicators and parameters were weighted according to AHP (Table 5). 8 Table 3: AHP weights assigned to environmental parameters and indicators. PARAMETERS Natural resource conservation and ecological balance (CI = 0.00) Biodiversity conservation (CI = 0.00) Use of environmentally sound technologies (CI = 0.03) INDICATORS Share of UAA in total agricultural area Arable land‐grassland ratio Share of UAA on LFA Gross nitrogen balance GHGs from agriculture Share of Natura 2000 sites Organic Farming Mineral fertilisers consumption Total volume of pesticides sold per UAA Livestock density index Use of energy in agriculture Weight 0.6000 0.2000 0.2000 0.1929 0.0643 0.1929 0.1250 0.0250 0.1500 0.0500 0.0317 0.0950 0.0521 0.0212 In terms of environmental sustainability in 2007 Spain ranked best (0.57), followed by Portugal (0.53) and Austria (0.45). Only five countries are unsustainable in environmental aspect: The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and United Kingdom. The best result at natural resource conservation and ecological balance has Ireland (0.56), while Greece demonstrates the best situation in the field of environmentally sound technologies (1.05). Slovenia is the leading country at biodiversity conservation (1.44). To get further insight, let us interpret Slovenian agriculture from the viewpoint of environmental sustainability in detail. In spite of unsustainability in the field of natural resource conservation and ecological balance the overall achievement of Slovenia in this field is sustainable (0.23). The environmental conditions can be compared to those in Ireland (0.16). For minor unsustainability in the field of natural resource conservation and ecological balance low share of UAA in total agricultural area and only negligible reduction of agriculture GHG emissions are responsible. Data availability for calculation of biodiversity conservation index was very poor. Anyway, Slovenia reaches an outstanding sustainable state in terms of biodiversity conservation and records the highest index (1.44) among observed countries. Parameter index ‐ environmentally sound technologies ‐ shows slightly sustainable achievements (0.14). The positive result can be mainly attributed to the relatively lower energy intensity of agriculture (18% reduction in the use of energy vs. 11% reduction in the European sample) and to the lower sales of pesticides, i.e. below the sample´s average. 9 Table 4: Environmental sustainability of agriculture by parameters, indices 2007. Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Germany The Netherlands Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Natural resource conservation & ecological balance1 0,18 ‐0,44 ‐0,36 ‐0,16 0,09 0,14 0,56 0,16 0,39 ‐0,09 ‐0,83 0,50 ‐0,14 0,41 ‐0,50 ‐0,10 Biodiversity conservation 1,07 ‐0,34 ‐0,46 0,07 ‐0,25 0,60 ‐1,38 0,35 0,04 0,05 ‐0,75 1,23 1,44 0,86 0,29 ‐0,90 Use of environmentally sound technologies2 0,63 ‐1,68 0,10 0,39 ‐0,01 1,05 0,48 ‐0,49 0,50 0,50 ‐1,89 ‐0,05 0,14 0,78 0,58 0,86 Environmental Sustainability 0,45 ‐0,67 ‐0,29 0,00 0,00 0,41 0,16 0,07 0,34 0,06 ‐1,02 0,53 0,23 0,57 ‐0,13 ‐0,07 4.3 Social Sustainability of Agriculture International comparison of social sustainability of agriculture is derived from the three indices at the level of parameters: (1) Index of increasing the employment of the rural population, (2) Index of improvement of the demographic structure and (3) Index of managing the rural areas and improvement of the viability of the countryside. They include the relevant indicators from sustainability monitoring system. In the process of aggregation indicators and parameters were weighted according to AHP (Table 7). Table 5: AHP weights assigned to social parameters and indicators. PARAMETERS Employment of the rural population (CI = 0.00) Demographic structure (CI = 0.00) Planning and vitality of rural areas (CI = 0.03) INDICATORS Employment in agriculture – no. of AWU/ha Agricultural holdings with other gainful activity than agricultural production (% in total agricultural holdings) Employment in food industry (% in in total employment) Ageing Index of of agricultural holders on family farms (ratio: farmers >64/<35 years old) Population density in rural areas Share of agricultural holders with formal agricultural education Lifelong learning in the countryside Irrigated area ( % of UAA under irrigation) Share of partially semi‐subsistence farms smaller than 1 ESZ Weight 0.6000 0.2000 0.2000 0.3600 0.1200 0.1200 0.0667 0.0667 0.0667 0.0521 0.0212 0.1267 The best results in terms of social sustainability (SoASI) are achieved by Southern European countries (France, Italy and Spain) and Germany. In terms of employment of rural population again the most 1
2
Data on included indicator share of UAA refer to the year2005. Data on sales of pesticides refer to the year 2005. 10 successful are countries of Southern Europe (France, Italy and Spain). The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg successfully improve their demographic structure. On the other hand, Portugal, United Kingdom, Greece and Italy are far behind them. In terms of rural areas’ planning and vitality of the countryside, most successful countries are United Kingdom, Portugal and Sweden. On the contrary, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany are worse off than other countries. Let us focus now on Slovenian agriculture from the viewpoint of social sustainability. SoASI shows unsustainability for Slovenia (‐0.33). Slovenia demonstrates unsustainable situation in the field of employment (‐0.57), mainly due to low employment in agriculture, which is at the level of employment in the Nordic countries. Slovenia has also lagged behind in comparison with the progress in the other countries made in the field of other gainful activities than agricultural production (EUROSTAT data differ from the national register). This reflects in reduction of the index. We do not expect that this will change significantly in the future, as employment in agriculture is in principle conditional upon the country’s natural resources. Demographic structure is also unsustainable (‐0.16), due to high ageing index (ratio between the number of holders over 63 years and the number of holders younger than 35 years is 8.8; EU average is 6.3) and low share of agricultural holders with formal agricultural education. This share has been rising significantly in the last years, but it is still below the EU average (28% in Slovenia, 37% EU average). Only according to the third social parameter, namely managing of rural areas and viability of the countryside Slovenia shows sustainability (0.2). Despite the measures aimed at integration, the share of small semi‐
subsistence farms is very high (18%) and above the EU average (14%). Additionally, there is a slight advantage regarding to lifelong learning. However, the share of UAA under irrigation in Slovenia has always been way below average. Hence, problematic areas in terms of social sustainability are low agricultural employment, low share of farms with supplementary activities and low proportion of UAA under irrigation. Table 6: Social sustainability of agriculture by parameters, indices 2007. Employment of the rural population Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Germany The Netherlands Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Demographic structure3 ‐0,23 ‐0,60 ‐0,04 ‐0,33 1,25 0,27 ‐0,37 1,10 ‐0,95 0,64 ‐0,27 0,00 ‐0,57 0,90 ‐0,61 ‐0.18 0,43
0,61
0,44
‐0,08
0,40
‐0,60
‐0,07
‐0,59
0,50
1,20
1,48
‐1,50
‐0,16
‐0,84
‐0,39
‐0.96
Managing of rural Social Sustainability
areas & viability of the countryside4 0,35 0,02
‐0,82 ‐0,40
‐0,16 0,03
‐0,39 ‐0,29
‐0,53 0,72
0,18 0,08
‐0,57 ‐0,35
0,28 0,60
‐0,78 ‐0,63
‐0,66 0,49
‐0,51 0,03
0,97 ‐0,10
0,20 ‐0,33
‐0,21 0,33
0,97 ‐0,25
1.63 0.03
3
4
Data on included indicator share of agricultural holders with formal agricultural education refer to 2005. Data on included indicator lifelong learning refer to 2004 and 2008. 11 4.4 Agriccultural Susttainability The oveerall agricultural sustainability of EU
U region is presented in
n Picture 2,, where a checkered pattern and slasheed solid lines indicate sustainable
e countries, while othher patternss denote unsustaiinable countries. Figure 2: Agriculturaal sustainability index, 20007. Accordin
ng to ASI Sp
pain (0.36) and a France ((0.25) are th
he most sustainable couuntries in EU
U region. These are followed by German
ny (0.22), Auustria (0.16), Portugal (0.11) and Ittaly (0.10). Northern weden, Irelan
nd, and Uniteed Kingdom), Greece European countries (Luxembourrg, Denmark,, Finland, Sw
ainable acco rding to ASI.. On the other hand, Bel gium (‐0.44)) and The and Slovvenia are sligghtly unsusta
Netherlaands (‐0.37) are the countries withh serious agricultural un
nsustainabilitty, above all due to environm
mental issuees. Among th
he observed European countries c
the
ere are only three counttries that demonsttrate sustain
nable results in all areas, i.e. France, G
Germany and
d Spain. Low pro
oductivity off labor and land as wel l as low reaal incomes of o factors inn agriculture
e are key elementts of the economic unsusstainability oof Slovenian agriculture. The situatioon is improviing but is still not satisfactoryy. In terms of o social susttainability above all low
w employmeent and low share of holdingss with other gainful acctivities is pproblematic. The only sustainable aspect of Slovenian s
S
agricultu
ure is enviro
onmental asp
pect. The m ain contribu
utors to this result are hhigh share of o UAA in Natura rregion and organic farmin
ng. 12 5. Conclusion Presented study determines agriculture sustainability indexes (ASI) for 16 European countries, including Slovenia, in 2007. In the paper we suggest an empirical model for continuous quantitative monitoring and evaluation of agriculture sustainability in Slovenia or/and in other EU countries. Measuring sustainability with indicators and their aggregation into index was used by several researchers (i.e. Hatai and Sen, 2008; Sands and Podmore, 2000; Gomez‐Limon, 2010; Vecchione, 2010), where authors attempted to fulfill a gap, which refers to a comprehensive, interdisciplinary research of the state and policy in the field of sustainable development of agriculture. The first goal of the model was to ‘define’ the scope of the agricultural sustainability in conceptual terms, since there is no stable definition of sustainable agriculture. As sustainability requires the reconciliation of environmental features, social equity and economic demands, all three aspects were included in the model. In accordance with this a three‐level system of indicators for monitoring and evaluating the sustainability of national agriculture was developed. On the first level we followed the before mentioned three key aspects of sustainability (economic, environmental and social) which represented the first level of sustainability. On the second level a single aspect of sustainability was defined by three sustainability parameters, i.e. altogether nine sustainability parameters. A certain parameter was measured on the third level by several indicators, all together on the basis of 34 indicators (14 measure economic aspect, 11 environmental and 9 social sustainability aspect). For aggregated index of agricultural sustainability, the conventional standardization technique was used, i.e. conversion of indicators’ raw scores into standardised z‐scores. These features enable avoiding distortions in aggregation arising from differences in the average scores of the variables. When aggregating indicators into indices the weights of indicators are assigned by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The method itself applies the assessment which is to some extent subjective by definition, but authors tried to make it at least partially objectified by experts’ judgements. Ultimately, the team of experts aligned itself with consensus about the judgements of individual indicator’s contribution to sustainable agriculture. The results of the ASIs in selected 16 European countries for 2007 show that Spain (0.36) and France (0.25) were the most sustainable countries in EU region. These were followed by Germany (0.22), Austria (0.16), Portugal (0.11) and Italy (0.10). Northern European countries (Luxembourg, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, and United Kingdom), Greece and Slovenia were slightly unsustainable according to ASI. Belgium (‐0.44) and The Netherlands (‐0.37) were the countries with the serious agricultural unsustainability, above all due to environmental issues. Results show that Slovenia was slightly unsustainable due to relatively high economic unsustainability (EcASI) and social unsustainability (SoACI). In both cases it was on fourth place regarding unsustainability (worse economic unsustainability was for Greece, United Kingdom and Portugal and worse social unsustainability in Luxemburg, Belgium and Ireland). Slovenia reached positive index at environmental sustainability (EnACI). As expected, the EcASI for Slovenia had a negative sign. Given the availability of recent data Slovenia remains problematic especially in the following topics: low value added in agriculture, small grants, reduced growth in agricultural prices and poor grain self‐
sufficiency. In general, the conditions are improving, despite the fact that economic issues in strategic goals of agriculture policy in the last decade lost their importance against other two issues of sustainability. However, there is a need to interfere in these three areas, since the trend in policy can negatively affect improvement. Agriculture policy in the last decade keeps the importance of 13 social issue at the same level, but results shows that policy must change since Slovenia is lagging behind in comparison with the progress in the other countries. Index shows unsustainability (SoASI reached ‐0.33). Problematic areas in terms of social sustainability are low agricultural employment, low share of farms with supplementary activities and low proportion of UAA under irrigation. Positive environmental sustainability was expected since great emphasis in agriculture policy was given to this part of sustainability in the last decade. In terms of biodiversity conservation Slovenia reached an outstanding sustainable state and recorded the highest index (1.44) among observed countries. The positive result can be mainly attributed to the relatively lower energy intensity of agriculture and lower sales of pesticides. On the other hand, unsustainability in the field of natural resource conservation and ecological balance shows that agriculture policy should put attention to improper use of natural resources, which can disturb ecological balance. We can conclude that rural Slovenia is experiencing a difficult period in terms of economic and demographic viability of the agricultural community. On the other hand, the lack of governance and resource depletion threat the ecological balance. 14 References 1. Bavec, M., Grobelnik Mlakar, S., Rozman, Č., Pažak, K., Bavec, F., 2009. Sustainable agriculture based on integrated and organic guidelines: understanding terms: The case of Slovenian development and strategy. V: Outlook on Agriculture, 38, 1. London, str. 89‐95. 2.
Bedrač M., Cunder T.: Vrednotenje elementov večnamenskosti kmetijstva v Sloveniji V: Kavčič S.(ur.). Slovensko kmetijstvo in podeželje v Evropi, ki se širi in spreminja. Ljubljana: DAES, 2007: 63‐75. 3. Coyle G.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), 2004 4.
Dumanski J., Terry E., Byerlee D., Pieri C.: Performance Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture, Discussion notes. Rural Development Sector. The World Bank, Washington DC, 1998, 1 : 17. 5. EC, 2001. A Framework for indicators for the Economic and Social Dimension of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. Brussels, European commission 39 str. 6. Gomez‐Limon J.A. in Riesgo L.: Alternative approaches on constructing a composite indicator to measure agricultural sustainability, 107th EAAE Seminar, Sevilla, 2008. 7. Gomez‐Limon, Jose A.: Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators: Ecological Economics, 2010, Zv. 69 št. 5. 8. Hagget, P., 2001. Geography. A Global Synthesis. Prentice Hall. 9.
Hatai L.D. Sen C.: An economic analysis of agricultural sustainability in Orissa. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review., 2008, 21: 273‐282. 10. Ikerd, J., 1993. The need for a system approach to sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Volume 46, Issues 1‐4, Elsevier, str. 147‐160. 11. Klemenčič, M. M., Lampič, B., Potočnik Slavič, I. 2008. Življenjska (ne)moč obrobnih podeželskih območij v Sloveniji. GeograFF 3, Ljubljana, Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, 149 str. 12. Koeijer T.J., Wossink G. A. A., Struik P. C., Renkema J. A.: Measuring agricultural sustainability in terms of efficiency: the case of Dutch sugar beet growers. Journal of Environmental Management, 2002, Zv. 66, št. 1, 9 : 17. 13. Lampič B., Potočnik Slavič I.: Demographic vitality and human resources as important factors for rural areas development. Glas Srpskog Geografskog Društva, 2007, Zv. 87, št. 2, 103 : 11. 14. Lopez‐Baldovin, M. J. : Multicriteria and multiperiod programming for scenario analysis in Guadaiquivir river irrigated farming. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2006, Zv. 57 št. 5. 15. Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A., Tarantola S., Hoffnam A., Giovannini E., 2005. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: methodology and user Guide. OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2005/03. 16. Ramos, T. B., Caeiro S.: Meta‐performance evaluation of sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 2010, Zv. 10 št. 2. 17. Saaty, T.L. 1992. Multicriteria Decision Making, The Analytic Hierarchy Process : Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation.. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications. 18. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York, London: McGraw‐Hill International Book Co. 19. Saaty, T.L., 1988. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research. New York: Dover Publications. 20. Sands GR., Podmore TH.: A generalized environmental sustainability index for agricultural systems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2000, Zv. 79, št. 1. 15 21. Slabe Erker R. Kovačič A.: Soodvisnost komponent trajnostnega razvoja pri vključevanju Slovenije v EU, Ljubljana : IER, 2004. 22. Slabe Erker R., Filiplič J.: Oblikovanje kazalcev samovzdržnosti regije ter ocena regij glede na te kazalce v medsebojni medregionalni in mednarodni primerjavi, Ljubljana : IER, 2005. 23. Slabe Erker R., Hlad B. Juvančič L.: Biotska raznovrstnost kot vir ekonomskega razvoja, Ljubljana : IER, 2003. 24. Slabe Erker R: Ocenjevanje okoljske trajnosti za učvrstitev konkurenčnosti‐grožnje in priložnosti, Ljubljana : IER, 2003. 25. Tam C.M., Tong T.K.L., Leung A.W.T., in Chiu G.W.C.: Site planning using nonstructural fuzzy decision support system. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, maj/junij, 2002. 26. Trisorio, A, 2004: Measuring sustainability. Indicators for Italian Agriculture. INEA. Rome 27. van der Werf H.M.G., Petit J. : Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator‐based methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 131–145 28. Vecchione G.: EU rural policy: proposal and application of an agricultural sustainability index. MPRA Paper št. 27032, 2010. 29. Walter C., Stuetzel H.: A new method for assessing the sustainability of land‐use systems (II): Evaluating impact indicators. Ecological Economics, 2009, Zv. 68, št. 5. 30. WCED, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. UN. 31. White A.M., 2013. Sustainability: I know it when I see it. Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 213–
217. Elsevier. 32. Yli‐Viikari, A.: Confusing messages of sustainability indicators. Local Environment, 2009, Zv. 14 št. 10. 16 PUBLISHED PAPERS IN THE SERIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Lado Rupnik: THE NEW TAX SYSTEM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 16 p.
Franc Kuzmin: SOME DILEMMAS IN THE THEORY OF COST-PUSH INFLATION –
SLOVENIAN CASE, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 17 p.
Miroslav Glas: SLOVENE SMALL BUSINESS, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 26 p.
Tine Stanovnik: SOCIAL SECURITY IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 14 p.
Peter Stanovnik, Ivo Banič: THE ROLE OF FDIs IN SLOVENIA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 13 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SLOVENIAN MONETARY SYSTEM TO THE
EUROPEAN MONETARY INTEGRATION PROCESS, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 14 p.
Andrej Kumar: EUROPEAN INTEGRATION – REALITY OR A DREAM?, IER, Ljubljana, 1994,
20 p.
Frančiška Logar, Danica Zorko: UPSWING OF TOURISM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1994, 23 p.
Milena Bevc: EDUCATIONAL CAPITAL IN SLOVENIA IN THE EARLY 90s, IER, Ljubljana, 1994,
28 p.
Franc Kuzmin: THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF SLOVENE LABOUR MARKET DURING
TRANSITION PERIOD – THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT, IER, Ljubljana, 1994, 9 p.
Emil Erjavec, Miroslav Rednak, Jernej Turk: THE MAIN ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ECONOMIC
TRANSITION OF SLOVENE AGRICULTURE, IER, Ljubljana, 1994, 16 p.
Stanka Kukar: THE HIDDEN ECONOMY AND THE LABOUR MARKET IN SLOVENIA IN THE
PERIOD OF TRANSITION, IER, Ljubljana, 1994, 16 p.
Milan Lapornik, Peter Stanovnik: INDUSTRIAL AND ENTERPRISE RESTRUCTURING IN
SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1995, 24 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: COMMON CAPITAL MARKET OF CEFTA COUNTRIES – A POSSIBLE WAY
OF DEEPENING CEFTA, IER, Ljubljana, 1997, 15 p.
Valentina Prevolnik: HEALTH CARE REFORM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1997, 17 p.
Tine Stanovnik: THE TAX SYSTEM AND TAX REFORM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1997,
16 p.
WORKING PAPERS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Vladimir Lavrač: EXCHANGE RATE OF THE SLOVENIAN TOLAR IN THE CONTEXT OF
SLOVENIA'S INCLUSION IN THE EU AND IN THE EMU, IER, Ljubljana, 1999, 18 p.
Tine Stanovnik, Nada Stropnik: ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF THE ELDERLY AND PENSION
REFORM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1999, 34 p.
Marjan Simončič, Franc Kuzmin: MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE PENSION REFORM IN
SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1999, 26 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan: EFFICIENCY OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: DID THE REDUCTION
OF TRADE BARRIERS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON INCREASING TRADE BETWEEN
SLOVENIA AND THE CEFTA COUNTRIES?, IER, Ljubljana, 1999, 18 p.
Boris Majcen: SECTOR PERFORMANCE IN THE SLOVENE ECONOMY: WINNERS AND
LOSERS OF EU INTEGRATION, IER, Ljubljana, 2000, 37 p. + appendix
Peter Stanovnik, Art Kovačič: SOME QUESTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMPETITIVENESS OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES WITH EMPHASIS ON SLOVENIA, IER,
Ljubljana, 2000, 24 p.
Janez Bešter: TAKEOVER THEORIES AND PREDICTION MODELS – THE CASE OF
SLOVENIAN PRIVATISED COMPANIES, IER, Ljubljana, 2000, 16 p.
Jeffrey David Turk, Hedvika Usenik: BUYER SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS IN THE
ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES IN SLOVENIA AND COMPARISONS WITH HUNGARY, IER,
Ljubljana, 2000, 22 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Boris Majcen: TRADE REORIENTATION, FIRM PERFORMANCE AND
RESTRUCTURING OF SLOVENIAN MANUFACTURING SECTOR, IER, Ljubljana, 2001, 16 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Boris Majcen, Matija Rojec, Mark Knell: THE ROLE OF FDI, R&D
13.
ACCUMULATION AND TRADE IN TRANSFERRING TECHNOLOGY TO TRANSITION
COUNTRIES: EVIDENCE FROM FIRM PANEL DATA FOR EIGHT TRANSITION
COUNTRIES, IER, Ljubljana, 2001, 26 p.
Matija Rojec, Jože Pavlič Damijan, Boris Majcen: EXPORT PROPENSITY OF ESTONIAN AND
SLOVENIAN MANUFACTURING FIRMS: DOES FOREIGN OWNERSHIP MATTER?, IER,
Ljubljana 2001, 22 p.
Nevenka Hrovatin, Sonja Uršič: THE DETERMINANTS OF FIRM PERFORMANCE AFTER
OWNERSHIP TRANSFORMATION IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 2001, 21 p.
Vladimir Lavrač, Tina Žumer: EXCHANGE RATE ARRANGEMENTS OF ACCESSION
14.
COUNTRIES IN THEIR RUN-UP TO EMU: NOMINAL CONVERGENCE, REAL
CONVERGENCE AND OPTIMUM CURRENCY AREA CRITERIA, IER, Ljubljana, 2002, 35 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: MONETARY, FISCAL AND EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES FROM THE
11.
12.
15.
16.
17.
VIEWPOINT OF THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROZONE: SURVEY OF THE
LITERATURE, IER, Ljubljana, 2002, 21 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Črt Kostevc: THE EMERGING ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY IN SLOVENIA,
IER, Ljubljana 2002, 30 p.
Boris Majcen: THE EFFECTS OF FOREIGN TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND FINANCIAL
FLOWS BETWEEN SLOVENIA AND EU AFTER THE ACCESSION, IER, Ljubljana 2002, 33 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Mark Knell, Boris Majcen, Matija Rojec: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
THROUGH FDI IN TOP-10 TRANSITION COUNTRIES: HOW IMPORTANT ARE DIRECT
EFFECTS, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPILLOVERS?, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 23 p + appendix
18.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Črt Kostevc: THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION ON
19.
20.
ADJUSTMENT PATTERN OF REGIONAL WAGES IN TRANSITION COUNTRIES: TESTING
COMPETITIVE ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY MODELS, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 27 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: ERM 2 STRATEGY FOR ACCESSION COUNTRIES, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 21 p.
Renata Slabe Erker: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 2003,
25 p.
Tine Stanovnik, Miroslav Verbič: PERCEPTION OF INCOME SATISFACTION AND
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
SATISFACTION WITH THE QUALITY OF LIVING; AN ANALYSIS OF SLOVENIAN
HOUSEHOLDS, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 18 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: FULFILLMENT OF MAASTRICHT CONVERGENCE CRITERIA FOR
SLOVENIA AND OTHER ACCEDING COUNTRIES. IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 15 p.
Janez Bešter: ANATOMY OF A POST-MERGER INTEGRATION: THE CASE OF SLOVENIA.
IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 21 p.
Miroslav Verbič: ECONOMETRIC ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS OF PRESERVATION OF
PERISHABLE GOODS IN COLD LOGISTIC CHAINS. IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 33 p.
Egbert L. W. Jongen: AN ANALYSIS OF PAST AND FUTURE GDP GROWTH IN SLOVENIA.
IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 42 p.
26.
Egbert L. W. Jongen: FUTURE GDP GROWTH IN SLOVENIA: LOOKING FOR ROOM FOR
IMPROVEMENT. IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 37 p.
27.
Peter Stanovnik, Marko Kos: TECHNOLOGY FORESIGHT IN SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2005,
22 p.
28. Art Kovačič: COMPETITIVENESS AS A SOURCE OF DEVELOPMENT. IER, Ljubljana, 2005, 25 p.
29.
Miroslav Verbič, Boris Majcen, Renger van Nieuwkoop: SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SLOVENIAN
PENSION SYSTEM: An ayalysis with an overlapping-generations General Equilibrium Model. IER,
Ljubljana, 2005. 24 p.
30.
Miroslav Verbič: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SLOVENIAN ECONOMY WITH A QUARTERLY
ECONOMETRIC MODEL. IER, Ljubljana, 2006. 26 p.
31.
Vladimir Lavrač, Boris Majcen: ECONOMIC ISSUES OF SLOVENIA'S ACCESSION TO THE EU.
IER, Ljubljana, 2006. 37 p.
32.
Miroslav Verbič, Renata Slabe Erker: ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
OF THE LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION AREA OF VOLČJI POTOK. IER,
Ljubljana, 2007. 28.p.
33.
Boris Majcen, Miroslav Verbič. MODELLING THE PENSION SYSTEM IN AN OVERLAPINGGENERATIONS GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM FRAMEWORK. IER, Ljubljana, 2007. 37 p.
34.
Boris Majcen, Miroslav Verbič (corresponding author), Ali Bayar and Mitja Čok. THE INCOME TAX
REFORM IN SLOVENIA: SHOULD THE FLAT TAX HAVE PREVAILED? IER, Ljubljana, 2007.
29 p.
35.
Miroslav Verbič. VARYING THE PARAMETERS OF THE SLOVENIAN PENSION SYSTEM: AN
ANALYSIS WITH AN OVERLAPPING-GENERATIONS GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL.
IER, Ljubljana, 2007. 28 p.
36.
Miroslav Verbič, SUPPLEMENTARY PENSION INSURANCE IN SLOVENIA: AN ANALYSIS
WITH AN OVERLAPPING-GENERATIONS GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL. IER,
Ljubljana, 2007. 32 p.
37.
Matjaž Črnigoj: RISK AVERSE INSIDERS WITH SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE FUNCTION AND
CAPITAL STRUCTURE. IER, Ljubljana, 2007. 13 p.
38.
Renata Slabe Erker, Janez Filiplič: MONITORING SUSTAINABILITY FOR SLOVENIA’S
REGIONS. IER, Ljubljana, 2007, 22 p.
39.
Jože P. Damijan, Črt Kostevc: TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY IN
TRANSITION COUNTRIES: CAN FDI EXPLAIN THE ADJUSTMENT PATTERN OF
REGINAL WAGES? IER, Ljubljana, 2008, 40 p.
40.
Jože P. Damijan, Matija Rojec, Boris Majcen, Mark Knell: IMPACT OF FORM HETEROGENEITY
ON DIRECT AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF FDI: MICRO EVIDENCE FROM TEN
TRANSITION COUNTRIES. IER, Ljubljana, 2008, 25 p.
41.
Jože P. Damijan, Črt Kostevc, Matija Rojec. INNOVATION AND FIRMS’ PRODUCTIVITY
GROWTH IN SLOVENIA: SENSIVITY OF RESULTS TO SECTORAL HETEROGENEITY AND
TO ESTIMATION METHOD. IER, Ljubljana, 2008, 37 p.
42.
Jože P. Damijan, Jose de Sousa, Olivier Lamotte. DOES INTERNATIONAL OPENNESS AFFECT
PRODUCTIVITY OF LOCAL FORMS? EVIDENCE FROM SOUTHERN EUROPE. IER,
Ljubljana, 2008, 29 p.
43.
Jože P. Damijan, Črt Kostevc, Sašo Polanec. FROM INNOVATION TO EXPORTING OR VICE
VERSA? IER, Ljubljana, 2008, 28 p.
44. Milena Bevc. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONALLY
COMPARABLE INDICATORS OF FORMAL EDUCATION – CASE STUDY FOR A NON-OECD
COUNTRY. IER, Ljubljana, 2009, 27 p.
45.
Miroslav Verbič, Boris Majcen, Mitja Čok. EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN
SLOVENIA: A DYNAMIC GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH WITH ENDOGENOUS
GROWTH. IER, Ljubljana, 2009, 21 p.
46.
Miroslav Verbič, Boris Majcen, Mitja Čok. R&D AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN SLOVENIA: A
DYNAMIC GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH WITH ENDOGENOUS GROWTH. IER,
Ljubljana, 2009, 21 p.
47.
Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Marko Ogorevc. LONG TERM CARE SYSTEM IN SLOVENIA. IER,
Ljubljana, 2010, 34 p.
48.
Jože P. Damijan, Črt Kostevc. LEARNING FROM TRADE THROUGH INNOVATION: CAUSAL
LINK BETWEEN IMPORTS, EXPORTS AND INNOVATION IN SPANISH MICRODATA. IER,
Ljubljana, 2010, 30 p.
49.
Peter Stanovnik, Nika Murovec. TERRITORIAL ICT KNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS IN SLOVENIA.
IER; Ljubljana, 2010, 35 p.
50.
Nika Murovec, Peter Stanovnik. THE KNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS OF ICT IN SLOVENIA – Case
study. IER; Ljubljana, 2010, 59 p.
51.
Vladimir Lavrač. INCLUSION OF SLOVENIA IN THE EURO AREA AND PERSPECTIVES OF
ENLARGEMENT AFTER THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS. IER, Ljubljana, 2010. 15 p.
52.
Sašo Polanec, Aleš Ahčan, Miroslav Verbič. RETIREMENT DECISIONS IN TRANSITION:
MICROECONOMETRIC EVIDENCE FROM SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2010. 24 p.
53.
Tjaša Logaj, Sašo Polanec. COLLEGE MAJOR CHOICE AND ABILITY: WHY IS GENERAL
ABILITY NOT ENOUGH? IER, Ljubljana, 2011. 41 p.
54.
Marko Ogorevc, Sonja Šlander. SHAREHOLDERS AND WAGE DETERMINATION. IER, Ljubljana,
2011. 13 p.
55. Boris Majcen, Miroslav Verbič, Sašo Polanec. INNOVATIVENESS AND INTANGIBLES: THE CASE
OF SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2011. 31 p.
56. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Marko Ogorevc. QUALITY COUNTRY REPORT FOR SLOVENIA. IER,
Ljubljana, 2011. 13 p.
57. Mitja Čok, Jože Sambt, Marko Košak, Miroslav Verbič, Boris Majcen. DISTRIBUTION OF
PERSONAL INOCME TAX CHANGES IN SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2011. 13 p.
58. Miroslav Verbič, Rok Spruk, AGING POPULATION AND PUBLIC PENSIONS: THEORY AND
EVIDENCE. IER, Ljubljana, 2011. 35 p.
59. Boris
Majcen,
Mitja Čok, Jože Sambt, Nataša Kump. DEVELOPMENT OF PENSION
MICROSIMULATION MODEL. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 40 p.
60. Tine Stanovnik, Miroslav Verbič. THE DISTRIBUTION OF WAGES AND EMPLOYEE INCOMES
IN SLOVENIA, 1991-2009. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 20 p.
61. Mitja Čok, Ivica Urban, Miroslav Verbič. INCOME REDISTRIBUTION THROUGH TAX AND
SOCIAL BENEFITS: THE CASE OF SLOVENIA AND CROATIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 16 p.
62. Nika Murovec, Damjan Kavaš, Aidan Cerar. CLUSTERING, ANALYSIS AND CHALLENGES OF
THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES IN SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 18 p.
63. Mohammad Sharifi Tehrani, Miroslav Verbič, Jin Young Chung. ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF
ADOPTING DUAL PRICING FOR MUSEUMS: THE CASE OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF
IRAN. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 26 p.
64. Stefanie A. Haller, Jože Damijan, Ville Kaitila, Črt Kostevc, Mika Maliranta, Emmanuel Milet, Daniel
Mirza, Matija Rojec. A PORTRAIT OF TRADING FIRMS IN THE SERVICES SECTORSCOMPARABLE EVIDENCE FROM FOUR EU COUNTRIES. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 37 p.
65. Jože Damijan, Stefanie A. Haller, Ville Kaitila, Mika Maliranta, Emmanuel Milet, Matija Rojec, Daniel
Mirza. THE PERFORMANCE OF TRADING FIRMS IN THE SERVICES SECTORS –
COMPARABLE EVIDENCE FROM FOUR EU COUNTRIES. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 45 p.
66. Renata Slabe Erker, Simon Ličen. REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PREDICTORS AND
POPULATION GROUPS AT RISK OF POOR HEALTH. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 18 p.
67. Marina Tkalec, Miroslav Verbič. A NEW LOOK INTO THE PREVALENCE OF BALANCE SHEET
OR COMPETITIVENESS EFFECT OF EXCHANGE RATE DEPRECIATION IN A HIGHLY
EUROIZED ECONOMY. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 25 p.
68. Damjan Kavaš. POSSIBLE PPP MODELS FOR COOPERATION IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
LJUBLJANA. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 30 p.
69. Boris Majcen, Jože Sambt, Mitja Čok, Tomaž Turk, Gijs Dekkers, Vladimir Lavrač, Nataša Kump.
DEVELOPMENT OF MICRO-SIMULATION PENSION MODEL: LINKING THE MODULES
WITHIN GRAPHIC INTERFACE. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 68 p.
70. Nika Murovec, Damjan Kavaš. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES IN LJUBLJANA URBAN REGION. IER,
Ljubljana, 2012. 24 p.
71. Matjaž Črnigoj, Dušan Mramor. ALTERNATIVE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PARADIGM AND
CORPORATE FINANCING: CAPITAL STRUCTURE CHOICE IN EMPLOYEE-GOVERNED
FIRM. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 24 p.
72. Matjaž
Črnigoj,
Miroslav
Verbič.
FINANCIAL
CONSTRAINTS
AND
CORPORATE
INVESTMENTS: THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF SLOVENIAN
FIRMS. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 13 p.
73. Matjaž
Črnigoj,
Miroslav
Verbič.
FINANCIAL
CONSTRAINTS
AND
CORPORATE
INVESTMENTS: THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF SLOVENIAN
FIRMS. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 15 p.
74. Dorjan Marušič, Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Jakob Ceglar. DRG IMPLEMENTATION IN SLOVENIA
– LESSONS LEARNED. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 16 p.
75. Mitja Čok, Mateja Ana Grulja, Tomaž Turk, Miroslav Verbič. TAXATION OF WAGES IN THE ALPSADRIATIC REGION. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 18 p.
76. Mitja Čok, Miroslav Verbič, Darija Šinkovec. SOME EVIDENCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ENHANCED RELATIONSHIP. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 17 p.
77. Marina
Tkalec,
MIroslav
Verbič,
Maruška
Vizek.
LONG-RUN
AND
SHORT-RUN
DETERMINATIONS OF ORIGINAL SINNERS’ SOVOREIGN SPREADS. IER, Ljubljana, 2013.
20 p.
OCCASIONAL PAPERS
1.
Helen O'Neill: IRELAND'S ECONOMIC TRANSITION: THE ROLE OF EU REGIONAL FUNDS
– AND OTHER FACTORS, IER, Ljubljana, 2000, 16 p.
2.
Sanja Maleković: CROATIAN EXPERIENCE IN REGIONAL POLICY, IER, Ljubljana 2000, 13 p.
3.
Peter Backé, Cezary Wójcik: ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE MONETARY INTEGRATION
OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN EU ACCESSION COUNTRIES, IER, Ljubljana, 2002,
17 p.
4.
Andreas Freytag: CENTAL BANK INDEPENDENCE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE ON
THE EVE OF EU-ENLARGEMENT, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 29 p.
5.
Jasmina Osmanković: REGIONALIZATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA IN THE POST-WAR PERIOD, IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 16 p.
6.
Carlos Vieira, Isabel Vieira, Sofia Costa: MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES IN EMU: SOME
RELEVANT ISSUES, IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 36 p.
7.
Bojan Radej. THE FOUR CAPITAL MODEL, MATRIX AND ACCOUNTS. IER, Ljubljana, 2007.
25 p.
8.
Bojan Radej. APPLES AND ORANGES IN PUBLIC POLICIES. MESO-MATRICAL SYNTESIS
OF THE INCOMMENSURABLE. IER, Ljubljana, 2008. 23 p.