The controversy and the future of Common Agricultural Policy of European Union

Agriculture is a toughened argona in every essential country. Free market rescue that allows direct competition of boorish products can often cause a surplus or shortage of reliable products, and quality changes. In secernate to ensure reliable supply of food member states of the atomic number 63an totality decided to cooperate and transferred the authority over agriculture policy to European level. Common Agricultural Policy was set in 1961 and its objectives were to improve drudgery and solve existing problems in agriculture all over EU member states.The previous successes of cooperation with coal and steel, and the fact that most states had difficulties to produce certain goods logically led to deeper cooperation in agriculture, and to pileus. Today, CAP is regarded as the most developed of the European Unions policies and covers almost 90% of all pastoral products (reader). But, also it is regarded as the most controversial and has been responsible for some negative co nsequences on the industry, and it had to go under many reforms. This essay will explain why CAP has been both celebrated and criticized. Also, it will include the challenges that will be swan in front of it by the future enlargement of European Union.At the time CAP was make, national agricultures had all common problems. Although the different level of culture, and different level on dependence on this industry betwixt member states of EC, there were some immense troubles to be solved by Cap deficits of certain goods, inefficient production practices, poorness of people busy in agriculture, rapidly dynamic prices, substantial variations in quality of products etcetera The goals of policy defined in Maastricht Treaty, article 39(a) to increase agricultural productiveness by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilization of the factors of production, in particular diligence(b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons active in agriculture(c) to stabilize markets(d) to assure the availability of supplies(e) to ensure that supplies make water the consumers at reasonable prices. (TEU)Since its foundation CAP has improved the agriculture of Europe in a great sense, but critics would say that costs of the successes are considerably high for all. Some of the goals were fulfilled with little negative consequences, turn others were solved with controversial methods that became a huge burden for the budget and had many counter-effects.The changes in Europes agricultural structure and productivity since 1961 caused by CAP were enormous. give thanks to the investment in technology, there was a growth in productivity of farms, decrease in people occupied in agriculture, rapid urbanization and therefore prosperity in other sectors of economy. Statistics show that the workforce employed in a griculture declined from 11.3% in 1973 to 9.4% in 1980 and only 5.7% in the all in all of the EU in 1992. (Hitiris, 190)Productivity growth was rapid, and we can say that the aim of CAP to restructure the farming to make it more efficient is universe fulfilled. The growth of the efficiency of the labor can be noticed on the fact that In 1960 over 15 million people in the original six had worked on the land. In the mid-1970s the agricultural population of the increase EC was only 14 million, falling to 10 million by the mid-1980s (Urwin, 187)Second goal of CAP is a social mission to cooperate the quality of life of the people in agriculture. This went little against the economic productivity and caused many negative consequences on it, especially by huge costs.The interventions that were made were not only subsidizing the farmers, that is a huge burden for EU budget but artificial manipulations with prices and setting of standards. These two were criticized by many large(p) eco nomists as standardization brought prices up, and artificial price setting caused surpluses and deficits.