Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
1998
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Grete StokstadAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Klaus MittenzweiAbstract
This paper discusses arguments to justify active income redistribution by governments based on the assumption that the redistribution of income is the only government objective. Other (legal) governmental objectives like providing public goods or correcting for externalities are neglected. There exist sound economic arguments to justify active income redistribution by governments (e.g. risk averse behavior, preferences for equality, and concerns for the poor). These arguments, however, do not seem to confirm that policies aimed to redistribute income only should be eligible for special interest groups. The choice of policy instruments should be based on the concept of transfer efficiency. This concept ranks policy instruments according to their costs of transferring a given amount of income between individuals in the economy. Economic theory is biased in the understanding of the role government plays in the decision making process. Neo-classical theory holds the view that governments act as if they represented the aggregated preferences of the individuals in the economy. Public choice theory assumes instead that governments are made up by individuals who pursue their own interests (but do not necessarily act egoistically). According to this theory, governments can be induced to implement policies that redistribute income as a result of lobbying and rent-seeking behavior. Norway is characterized by a relatively equal distribution of income compared to other countries. The more or less equal distribution of total household income of Norwegian farmers is to a greater extent a result of part-time farming than a result of domestic agricultural policies that aim to equalize (agricultural) income among farmers. This picture may change considerably when agricultural income per man-year is concerned but further research is needed to answer this question.
Abstract
The seasonal variations in volume of the milk in Norwegian goat dairyfarming, complicate production of brand goat cheeses. In the specialised goat dairy farming system most kids are culled shortly after birth without utilising the meat. In this paper the farm economics of an alternative system with altered period of kidding (currently in theperiod from January to March) combined with production of meat and cashmere fibre, is examined. May kidding combined with raising the kids for 8 or 20 months yielded the m ost promising economical return. Raising the kids one year is also profitable when kidding takes place in February while December kidding seems to perform best with thepresent system of culling the kids right after birth. Cashmere fibre production seems to be profitable on Norwegian dairy goat farms and fibre and meat could become an optio n in countries seeking to improve incomes on dairy goat farms. Compared to the present system the changes also would be favourable from an animal welfare point of view.
Authors
J.F.G. Lancho J.A.E. Rodriguez M.I.G. Hernandez C.Q. Gonzalo A.V. Esteban F.I. SanchezAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Alf BakkeAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Edward Tipping C. Woof B.M. Simon S. Lofts A.J. Lawlor Charlotte Bryant D.D. HarknessAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
M.J. Latkowska Harald Kvaalen M. AppelgrenAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Bengt Ehnström Erkki Annila Øystein Austarå Susanne Harding Jon Gunnar OttossonAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Oddvar Skre Frans-Emil Wielgolaski Bjørn MoeAbstract
No abstract has been registered