Farmland tenure and transaction costs: Public and collectively owned land vs conventional coordination mechanisms in France
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To preserve farmland in industrialized countries, public initiatives or initiatives from nongovernmental organizations increasingly rely on Long‐term and Full Rights Acquisitions of land (LFRAs). The objective of this article is to help assess whether those actions provide profitable access to land use for lessee farms. We compare the economic implications for farms of this mode of access to land use with the two other main modes: conventional lease arrangements and purchasing transactions. The analysis focuses on the transaction costs relative to the cost of exchange, that is, including purchase/rental price, and to the financial benefits of the transaction. We use original data on costs provided by a survey of farmers within a French region. Our results suggest that the ex ante transaction costs incurred by farmers involved in LFRAs, as a percentage of the exchange cost of accessing land use, are lower than those in purchasing transactions and higher than those in conventional lease arrangements. The difference between the two types of lease arrangements is due to negotiation costs, which are doubled in LFRAs. In conclusion, making the involvement of tenant farmers in the construction of LFRAs more effective would allow these initiatives to better achieve their goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it