Assessing government subsidies for reducing pesticide use: A meta-analysis

Gaëlle Leduc (), Douadia Bougherara (), Thi Ha and Laure Latruffe ()
Additional contact information
Gaëlle Leduc: D-MTEC - Department of Management, Technology, and Economics [ETH Zürich] - ETH Zürich - Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology [Zürich]
Douadia Bougherara: CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier
Laure Latruffe: BSE - Bordeaux sciences économiques - UB - Université de Bordeaux - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: In the efforts being made by governments to reduce pesticide use, subsidies are an important instrument to encourage farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. Yet, their effectiveness remains uncertain due to diverse designs and contexts. To date, there are no study that provide systematic synthesized evidence on the potentially heterogeneous effects of subsidies on pesticide use. The present study addresses this gap by conducting a meta-analysis of 39 empirical studies (208 models) from the EU and other developed countries that examine the effects of subsidies on (i) direct measurement of pesticide use and (ii) indirect measurement of pesticide use based on the adoption of pesticide-reducing practices. Using probit meta-regressions and qualitative appraisal, we find two key results. First, for EU studies, Pillar I and Pillar II subsidies have opposite effects on pesticide use: Pillar II subsidies are more likely than Pillar I subsidies to reduce pesticide use. Second, if we consider studies from both the EU and the US, subsidies that target adoption of whole-farm systems or bundles of practices outperform those targeting a single practice in reducing pesticide use. We provide some policy recommendations for policy design and highlight future research priorities.

Keywords: H50 Implementing pro-environmental farming practices; Q18; farm | meta-analysis | pesticides | risk of bias | subsidies JEL Classification: Q12; farm | meta-analysis | pesticides | risk of bias | subsidies JEL Classification: Q12 Q18 H50 Implementing pro-environmental farming practices; Risk of bias; Meta-analysis; Pesticides; Farms; Subsidies (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05738301v1
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, In press, ⟨10.1002/aepp.70116⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05738301v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05738301

DOI: 10.1002/aepp.70116

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().