Temeljem rezultata prethodnih istraživanja domaćeg agrara, u ovo istraživanje se krenulo
od pretpostavke kako ciljevi agrarne politike u područjima samodostatnosti,
konkurentnosti, dohotka i ruralnog razvoja nisu ostvareni zbog nepoštivanja
standardiziranog procesa kreiranja javnih politika. Razvijen je model kombinacijom
prethodno razvijenih modela te testiran na odabranim ciljevima i mjerama razvojnih
dokumenata hrvatske poljoprivrede.
Razvijeni model se sastoji od pet razina istraživanja. Prva razina se odnosi na
komparativnu analizu domaćeg i međunarodnog konteksta kako bi se utvrdilo jesu li u
skladnom ili sukobljenom odnosu. Na drugoj razini je, mapiranjem ključnih
agrarnopolitičkih događaja međunarodnog i domaćeg konteksta s ishodima politika
(ciljevima i mjerama), utvrđen utjecaj konteksta. Propitano je i uvažavanje sugestija
znanstvenika. Na trećoj razini je utvrđeno zadovoljavaju li razvojni dokumenti uvjete
prema kojima se mogu okarakterizirati kao razvojni i nužne tehničke uvjete provedivosti.
Pri tome su, kao kriteriji uzeti uvjeti koje definira Mirošević (2012). Analizom dokumenata
kronološkim redom utvrđeno je jesu li tehničke manjkavosti ispravljene, što ukazuju na
postojanje učenja o politikama (policy learning). Logika intervencije je analizirana na
četvrtoj razini, a na petoj je primijenjen model ostvarenosti cilja (Vedung, 2009). Zadnje
dvije razine propituju jasnoću, preciznost i konkretnost postavljanja ciljeva.
Razdoblje istraživanja (1995.-2013.) je podijeljeno na četiri podrazdoblja: (1) 1995.-2000.;
(2) 2001.-2004.; (3) 2005.-2008. i (4) 2009.-2013. Analizirani razvojni dokumenti su
Strategija razvitka poljoprivrede Republike Hrvatske (1995.), Strategija poljoprivrede i
ribarstva RH (2002)., Nacionalni program za poljoprivredu i seoska područja (2003.2005.);
Programi SAPARD i IPARD, te Strategija ruralnog razvoja Republike Hrvatske
Rezultati ovog istraživanja pokazuju kako su međunarodni i domaći kontekst bili u sukobu
u razdoblju od 1995.-2008. U prva dva razdoblja (1995.-2004.) je postotak uvaženih
preporuka znanstvene zajednice iznad 50%. U ishodima politika u tri od četiri razdoblja
prevladava domaći kontekst, a međunarodni dominira samo u ishodima politika u
razdoblju 2005.-2008. Uvjete nužne tehničke provedivosti zadovoljavaju samo SAPARD i
IPARD Program. Sve elemente logike intervencije sadrže Strategije iz 1995. i 2002., a
ostali dokumenti nemaju definirane posrednike. Svi ciljevi se teško pretvaraju u mjerljive,
što znači da su nejasni, općeniti i nekonkretni. Međunarodni kontekst ima pozitivan utjecaj
samo na ciljeve samodostatnost i ruralni razvoj, a domaći kontekst negativan utjecaj na
ostvarenje sva četiri cilja. Rezultati politika su pozitivni samo u dohodovnom cilju.
Istraživanje ukazuje na nepoštivanje standardiziranog procesa kreiranja politika.
Public policy research in Croatia reveals lack of clear distinction between objectives and
goals, which is negatively reflected on setting policy measures and instruments (Petak,
2007; Franić i Mikuš, 2013). The weak role of public policy analysis has caused problems
of achieving all levels of coordination. There is no central agency or department in charge
of monitoring and evaluation (Petak, 2007, 2009). Evaluation is not a novelty and is
influenced by the European Commission (EC) Regulations (MRRFEU, 2012).
Research on strategic documents suggests that lack of their implementation is a
consequence of their (1) incompleteness and technical shortcomings; (2) insufficient state
administrative capacity, and (3) lack of political will. Recent analysis of the formal structure
of strategic documents indicates that only 11 out of 159 documents meet the necessary
technical feasibility conditions. Four agricultural policy documents were included in the
analysis, of which only the IPARD Program for Agriculture and Rural Development 20072013.
has met the technical feasibility conditions (defined carrier / implementer of
measures; incorporated implementation and financial plan; and specified sources of
funding) (Mirošević, 2012).
Problems in the Croatian agricultural policy are identical to the problems that generally
apply to public policies. In previous research, agricultural policy is not considered and
seen as public policy, but as an activity. This particular point of view reveals, both, the
problems that domestic agriculture faces, and the inefficiency of agrarian policy.
Based on the results of previous research of domestic agriculture, this research started
from the assumption that the agricultural policy goals in areas of self-sufficiency,
competitiveness, agricultural income and rural development have not been achieved due
to the non compliance with a standardized policy making process. The model was
developed according to Vedung (2009) and Mirošević (2012), and tested on selected
goals and measures of strategic documents of Croatian agriculture.
The developed model consists of five research levels. The first level refers to a
comparative analysis of domestic and international contexts in order to determine if they
are in a harmonious or conflicting relationship. At the second level, the impact of contexts
on agricultural policy outputs has been determined by mapping the key agricultural policy
events of the international and domestic context to Croatian agricultural policy outputs
(goals and measures). This level also examines taking into account the scientists'
suggestion. Third level establishes whether strategic documents meet the conditions
under which they can be characterized as strategic and necessary technical feasibility
conditions. The documents are analyzed by criteria defined in Mirošević (2012). Analyzing
the documents in chronological order reveals whether the technical deficiencies were
corrected, indicating the existence of policy learning. The intervention logic was analyzed
on the fourth level, and on the fifth level the Goal Attainment Model is applied (Vedung,
2009). The last two levels examine for clarity and precision in setting agricultural policy
goals and objectives.
The research period is divided into four sub-periods: (1) : (1) 1995-2000; (2) 2001-2004;
(3) 2005-2008 and (4) 2009-2013. The developed model is tested on six strategic
documents: Agriculture Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia (1995), Strategy
of Agriculture and Fisheries (2002), National Plan for Agriculture and Rural Areas (2003),
SAPARD Program Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development 2005-2006, IPARD
Program Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development 2007-2013, and Strategy for Rural
Development of the Republic of Croatia (2008).
The aim of this research is not to quantify to what extent the agricultural policy goals and
objectives have been achieved. Nevertheless, for research it is important to examine their
achievement. Therefore, the first step, pre-research, is content analysis of the scientific
papers and studies by foreign experts. Pre-research showed that goals set by agricultural
policy have not been achieved. After Croatia’s independence, agricultural policy is based
on the agricultural policy from the former Yugoslavia. The transition to the market
economy and the transitional shock, liberalization and war destruction resulted in
"reduction of agricultural output and employment, debt, technological downturn,
deteriorating trade balance and illiquidity" (Franić and Žimbrek, 2003: 162). The
Agriculture Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia was adopted in 1995, and
until the adoption of the Agriculture Act (2001) is the only document that regulates
agricultural policy. Domestic agriculture is uncompetitive due to lower production value
than the value of domestic resources. Croatia's agriculture is characterized by structural
problems, small and fragmented agricultural areas and unfavorable production structure
(dominated by plant production). Agricultural income is by 40% lower than nonagricultural.
Self-sufficiency has been achieved in certain years for wheat, eggs, corn and
wine. The rural area of Croatia is characterized by a demographic breakdown, i.e. aging
and emigration of the population. Residents are dissatisfied with the quality of life, i.e. lack
of physical, social and cultural infrastructure.
The first level of research reveals that in three of the four sub-periods (1995- 2008) the
domestic and international contexts were in conflict. The international context is
characterized by trade liberalization and the reduction of the agriculture protection. The
domestic context is characterized by need for renewal in the war-torn agricultural
production. By acquiring the status of a candidate country for EU membership and
adapting to the standards of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the contexts move
into a harmonious relationship (2009-2013).
Mapping key events of domestic and international context (the second level of research)
with policy outputs reveals that domestic context prevailed in three of the four sub-periods
(1995-2000, 2001-2004, and 2009-2013). In the documents of the first two sub-periods,
more than 50% of the scientific community's suggestions were taken into account. In the
pre-EU accession period the international context is beginning to prevail in policy outputs,
while the scientific community's suggestions are less respected.
Only SAPRD and IPARD programs (written under EC supervision) meet the necessary
technical feasibility conditions (the third level of research). The same documents meet the
highest percentage (76%) of the conditions in which the document is characterized as
Imprecise goals and merging multiple goals into one disable analyzing the intervention
logic (fourth level of research). Intervention logic (the fourth level of research) interferes
with imprecise goals and merges multiple goals into one, and does not define
intermediaries. In addition, the measures matrix and description of the problems that
facilitate understanding of policy makers intentions are given only in the first two strategic
documents (Agriculture Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia and Agricultural
and Fisheries Strategy 2002).
The fifth level of research additionally emphasizes vague, imprecise and general goals.
For most goals, it is difficult to determine the criteria for measuring their accomplishment.
The domestic context prevails in the area of agriculture income, but the impact of the
international context is also evident. Differences between contexts complicated the
achievement of the goals. Because the domestic context prevails in policy measures, the
international context (liberalization) makes difficult to increase competitiveness. Only in
the area of rural development is the domestic agricultural policy in line with the
Conflict of international and domestic context negatively affects achievement of
agricultural policy goals. International context (pre-accession funds and administrative
capacity building requirements) has a positive impact on self-sufficiency (modernization of
farms and expert service in agriculture). Unavailability of statistical data (self-employed
farmers' salaries) makes difficult the application of the Goal Attainment Model in the area
of agricultural income. Previous research reveal to income inequality - income from
agricultural activities amounts to 60% of income from non-agricultural activities, and its
increase is possible only by increasing exports of agricultural and food products.
In conclusion, the existence of public policy learning is established, because the strategic
documents adopted in later periods meet larger number of necessary technical feasibility
conditions compared to those adopted in earlier periods. The recommendations of the
scientific community are taken into account, though not entirely. Learning is the result of
an international context, i.e. the process of EU accession. SAPARD and IPARD programs
meet all necessary technical feasibility conditions. Although there are elements of learning
and evidence-based policy making, research, however, indicates non compliance with a
standardized policy making process.
The greatest limitation of this research is the large period of time it encompassed. That is
why it is difficult, almost impossible, to get the actors involved in the development of the
first strategic documents and to carry out a more detailed analysis of the domestic
context. It is also impossible to conduct research among farmers and other interested
actors and involved stakeholders. Due to the long time period, their answers would not
reflect the actual situation.