The Influence of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy on the Socio-Economic Sustainability of Farms (the Case of Poland)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewed paper focuses on the influence of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy on the socio-economic sustainability of farms. Authors made some efforts to determine the influence of the CAP on the level of socio-economic sustainability of farms in Poland. They formulated a hypothesis that the existing solutions serve the achievement of economic sustainability (determined by the agricultural to non-agricultural income ratio), yet they do not provide sustainability of farms in terms of the social element (taking income disparities into consideration). They assessed i.e. the ratio of agricultural income of FADN farms to non-agricultural income in Poland in the years 215 2004-2017 (in percent), impact of individual groups of subsidies on farm income in the years 2004-2017 in light of panel regression, agricultural to non-agricultural income ratio for various economic size classes (SO) of FADN farms in Poland – average values for 2004-2017. Authors confirmed that Common Agricultural Policy subsidies improve the general level of economic sustainability of the agricultural sector, but they are not an instrument serving the income sustainability (as a social element of sustainability) of the farms themselves.
The paper concerns significant issue – the influence of the European Union’s policy on the sustainability. It is very important to measure the real and side effects of the policies, especially those using public funds and subsidies.
The keywords are selected properly (however, I would suggest to reject the word “Poland”) and the main body of the article is constructed in a quite good manner.
However, there are some suggestions:
The issue should be presented more on the international background. This journal has got an international readers, thus the presented papers should be interesting for them. CAP influences not only Poland, what should be better explained and described in the introduction part. In this form it seems to be a little bit too local.Minor suggestions:
References should be in the square brackets. Otherwise they are not clear enough. Methodology is the science concerning scientific methods. Therefore, this part should be named “materials and methods”. Lines 74-122 better fit the materials and methods part, not introduction. Results could be divided into few smaller subparts. It would improve their structure. Authors should decide if the use third person (Authors…line 13, It was found…line 19) or first person (We adopted…line 129). It would be more consistent.Generally, the paper is clear and well organised. The references cited are correct and adequate to reflect other work. Paper also is coherent with aims and scope of the journal Sustainability. However, it is important to explain, how these results can be applied to other European countries and therefore used by non-Polish scientists.
Author Response
Response to review (in red), comments and suggestions of the Reviewer 1 (in black)
The keywords are selected properly (however, I would suggest to reject the word “Poland”) and the main body of the article is constructed in a quite good manner.
The word “Poland” was rejected from the keywords.
The issue should be presented more on the international background. This journal has got an international readers, thus the presented papers should be interesting for them. CAP influences not only Poland, what should be better explained and described in the introduction part. In this form it seems to be a little bit too local. However, it is important to explain, how these results can be applied to other European countries and therefore used by non-Polish scientists
To better present the international background of the manuscript the title was changed to: “The Influence of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy on the Socio-Economic Sustainability of Farms (the case of Poland)”.
In introduction was added (in red):
In the literature is accented that the achievement of sustainable development of EU agriculture is supported by reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2000 [54,55]. Therefore the purpose (…). Analyzes using similar research methods should also be carried out in relation to agriculture in other EU countries. This will determine whether the instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) also increase economic and social sustainability in other EU countries, which is a strategic goal in the EU common agricultural policy. Comparative analysis of research results would allow verification of the statement that the sustainable development of EU agriculture is supported by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsides.
In references were added:
Gillis, M., Some Neglected Aspects of Sustainable Development, [In:] Asefa S. (ed.), Economics of Sustainable Development, Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, 2005. Hulse, J. H., Sustainable Development at Risk : Ignoring the Past, Cambridge Univrsity Press India Pvt. Ltd., Kundli, 2007.References should be in the square brackets.
The References were changed to square brackets.
Otherwise they are not clear enough. Methodology is the science concerning scientific methods. Therefore, this part should be named “materials and methods”.
“Methodology” has been replaced by the word “methods”
Lines 74-122 better fit the materials and methods part, not introduction. Results could be divided into few smaller subparts. It would improve their structure.
A subpart called literature review was introduced. This section is provided after the introduction and before the description of the methods used in the study. Lines 74-122 are in this section because this section reviews the measures used by other Authors to determine sustainability of farms. In the subpart called methods and materials, information about measures used directly in these analyzes has been posted.
The following subparts in the part Results and Discussion have been introduced:
4.1. Agricultural income against the non-agricultural income
4.2. Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on the level of sustainability of farms
4.3. Social sustainability in the agricultural sector
Authors should decide if the use third person (Authors…line 13, It was found…line 19) or first person (We adopted…line 129). It would be more consistent.
The document is written in the third person plural or singular perspective.
We hope that the article in a modified form can be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with a current and interesting topic, although already widely discussed. The article needs some methodological clarifications and explanations.
How many farms are examined (year by year)?
The FADN sample changes over the years: every year some farms leave the sample and some are included. If the sample has not constant it can be difficult to make comparisons over time. How does the research consider this issue?
The authors test the impact of CAP subsidies on the economic sustainability of Polish farms dividing them based on their economic output size (SO EUR). It might be useful to consider the classification according to the type of farming (TF8: field crops, horticulture, other permanent crops....). It must be remembered that subsidies for production change greatly from crop to crop, subsidies for investments are probably higher in capital intensive farms, subsidies for public good maybe affect farms classified on "other grazing livestock" more than others.
In the rows, 240-241 is written: "This deprivation is an immanent feature of the market mechanism and results from the peculiarities of agriculture". It would be desirable to clarify the meaning of the sentence.
Reference should be enriched with articles taken from international reviews
Author Response
Response to review (in red), comments and suggestions of the Reviewer 1 (in black)
The paper deals with a current and interesting topic, although already widely discussed. The article needs some methodological clarifications and explanations.
How many farms are examined (year by year)?
The FADN sample changes over the years: every year some farms leave the sample and some are included. If the sample has not constant it can be difficult to make comparisons over time. How does the research consider this issue?
Analyzed farms, depending on the year, represented from 725,570 to 735,200 farms located in Poland. The exact numbers of analyzed farms in each of the years 2004-2017 presents Table 1 and Table 2 in the appendix. The sample of analyzed farms was not characterized by stability in each year of the analysis. The main reason of the study wasn't however determine the trends over time, but a comparative analysis of the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on the economic sustainability of farms of different sizes in each of the years 2004-2017. Therefore, changes in the number of farms analyzed have a limited impact on the results of the analysis.
Table 1 and Table 2 in Appendix
Table 1.. The number of farms covered by the analysis in each of the years of the period 2004-2011.
|
Year |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
|
number of farms |
733,860 |
733,240 |
735,200 |
735,100 |
735,110 |
725,670 |
727,660 |
725,570 |
Source: own elaboration based on FADN data.
Table 2.. The number of farms covered by the analysis in each of the years of the period 2012-2017.
|
Year |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
number of farms |
738,170 |
705,440 |
734,950 |
735,170 |
737,890 |
738,540 |
Source: own elaboration based on FADN data.
The authors test the impact of CAP subsidies on the economic sustainability of Polish farms dividing them based on their economic output size (SO EUR). It might be useful to consider the classification according to the type of farming (TF8: field crops, horticulture, other permanent crops....). It must be remembered that subsidies for production change greatly from crop to crop, subsidies for investments are probably higher in capital intensive farms, subsidies for public good maybe affect farms classified on "other grazing livestock" more than others.
In manuscript was added:
It is worth adding here that the impact of the common agricultural policy on the sustainability of farms with different types of production in Poland and EU countries has been previously specified by a subject to many previous studies ee.g. Smędzik-Ambroży [39] and Guth and Smędzik-Ambroży [49].
In references was added item no. 49:
Guth,, M., Smędzik-Ambroży, K., Economic resources versus the efficiency of different types of agricultural production in regions of the European Union, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja (journal on line), 2019, p. 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2019.1585270.In references was added item no. 38:
In the rows, 240-241 is written: "This deprivation is an immanent feature of the market mechanism and results from the peculiarities of agriculture". It would be desirable to clarify the meaning of the sentence.
In manuscript was added (in red):
The results of the analyzes carried out reflect the view that the CAP is essential in reducing income deprivation of the agricultural sector. This deprivation is an immanent feature of the market mechanism and results from the peculiarities of agriculture. Agriculture is characterized by: seasonality, scale of risk and uncertainty resulting from weather conditions, variable work intensity and cyclicality of production which have destabilizing effects both on agricultural income and profitability of agricultural production [50, 51, 52]
In references were added items no. 50, 51 and 52:
Czyżewski, B., Poczta-Wajda, A. Effects of Policy and Market on Relative Income Deprivation of Agricultural Labour. Presentation for the conference „160th EAAE Seminar „Rural Jobs and the CAP”, Warsaw, 1-2 December 2016. Smędzik-Ambroży, K., Guth, M., Subsidies from the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU versus Agricultural Incomes in the European Union Countries in 2005-2015, Hradec Economic Days, 9(2), 2016. Smędzik-Ambroży, K., Sapa A. The European Union’s agricultural policy and income disparities, Social Inequalities and Economic Growth, (in press).Reference should be enriched with articles taken from international reviews.
Reference was enriched with articles from international reviews.
Argilés, J.M. Accounting information and the prediction of farm non-viability. The European Accounting Review, 10(1), 73-105, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713764592. Hennessy, T., Shresthra, S., Farrell, M. Quantifying the viability of farming in Ireland: can decoupling address the re-gional Irish Geography 41(1), 29-47, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00750770801909342. Vrolijk, C.J., De Bont, C.J., Blokland, P.W., Soboh, R.A. Farm Viability in the European Union: As-sessment of the Impact of changes in farm payments. Report 2010-011. Den Haag: LEI, Wageningen 2010. Gaviglio, A., Bertocchi, M., Demartini, E., 2017. A Tool for the Sustainability Assessment of Farms: Selection, Adaptation and Use of Indicators for an Italian Case Study, Resources, 6, 60, 2017. DOI: doi:10.3390/resources6040060. Peacock, W.G., Hoover, G.A., Kilian, C.D. Divergence and Convergence in International Development: A Decomposition Analysis of Inequality in the World System. American Sociological Review, 6, 843, 1988. Sen, A.K. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford Press, Oxford, 1992. Czyżewski, B., Guth, M., Matuszczak, A. The Impact of the CAP Green Programmes on Farm Productivity and its Social Contribution, Problems of Sustainable Development, 13, 1, 173-183, 2018. FLINT Project, https://www.flint-fp7.eu/index.html Polcyn, J., Czyżewski, B., Stępień, S. Payments for public goods under the common agricultural policy versus market failures, Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific Conference Rural Development 2017, Jelgava, 2017. DOI: http://doi.org/10.15544/RD.2017.007. Severini, S., Tantari, A., Di Tommaso, G. The effect of agricultural policies and farm characteristics on income variability. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 71(1), 171-181, 2016. DOI: 10.13128/REA-18637. Phimister, E., Roberts, D., Gilbert, A. The Dynamics of Farm Incomes: Panel data analysis using the Farm Accounts Survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55, 2, 197-220, 2004. Guth, M., Smędzik-Ambroży, K., Economic resources versus the efficiency of different types of agricultural production in regions of the European Union, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja (journal on line), 2019, 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2019.1585270. Czyżewski, , Poczta-Wajda, A. Effects of Policy and Market on Relative Income Deprivation of Agricultural Labour. Presentation for the conference „160th EAAE Seminar „Rural Jobs and the CAP”, Warsaw, 1-2 December 2016. Smędzik-Ambroży, K., Guth, M., Subsidies from the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU versus Agricultural Incomes in the European Union Countries in 2005-2015, Hradec Economic Days, 9(2), 2016. Smędzik-Ambroży, K., Sapa A. The European Union’s agricultural policy and income disparities, Social Inequalities and Economic Growth, (in press). Hayami, V., Ruttan W., Agricultural Development. An International Perspektive 2d ed., John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1985. Lipton, M., Accelerated Resource Degradation by Agriculture in Developing Countries? The Role of Population Change and Responses to It, [In:] J. M. Harris (ed.), T. Wise (ed.), K. Gallagher (ed.), N. R. Goodwin (ed.), Survey of Sustainable Development: Social and Economic Dimensions, Island Press, Washington-Covelo-London.
Changes were made on English in the manuscript.
We hope that the article in a modified form can be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic is interesting, relevant and meets the scope of journal
The manuscript has the potential to augment the existing knowledge in a researched field, but must be improved before publication.
Literature review section must be separated from introduction. Please specify to which scientific theories this research is being aimed. It would be worth expanding literature review by grouping different researches into prevailing theoretical streams and showing its contradictions.
The methodological part must be enriched by substantiation of selected research method. Maybe it would be worth showing different research approaches that are being used for solving problems, similar to authors' investigation and after that explain why this method is the most suitable? The selection of indicators researched (the value of single area payments, the value of subsidies for public goods and etc.) should be substantiated. Thy these and only these were selected and researched as there is abundance of indicators suitable for solving this scientific task.
Empirical part should be substantially improved. It is not enough to use one logarithmic regression equation to solve such a complex scientific problem. The usage of only this method may cause doubts about robustness of results. Try to update the data. The last year, which was included into a research is 2013. Maybe it is possible to use a data till 2018 or at least 2017?
Author Response
Response to review (in red), comments and suggestions of the Reviewer (in black)
Literature review section must be separated from introduction.
It was separated literature review from introduction. Due to the addition of a new section (literature review) the numbering of the other sections in the manuscript was changed.
Please specify to which scientific theories this research is being aimed. It would be worth expanding literature review by grouping different researches into prevailing theoretical streams and showing its contradictions.
Agriculture generates too weak internal forces to trigger a growth process and maintain in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Therefore development of agricultural sector requires external impulses. Repeating after Y. Hayami and V.W Ruttan [53] agricultural policy plays this role in this sector. According to many authors, the institutional conditions created by politics are crucial in creating conditions for sustainable agriculture development [56]. The policy implemented thanks to the institutions involves setting goals and desired directions of development, which then, through specific instruments of this policy, allow achieving the desired result. In the European Union, by the institution of the common agricultural policy and its instruments, agricultural development is created in a socially desirable direction. The manuscript thus refers to the trend of institutional economics. In addition, as the purpose of the study which was: to determine the influence of the Common Agricultural Policy on the level of socio-economic sustainability of farms in Poland the article refers to the economics of development, especially the economics of sustainable development. The economics of sustainable development has a much wider area of interest than just market aspects of the economy. It also deals with relations between the economy and the natural environment, relations between the economy and the social sphere, the institutional conditions of the economy, society and the environment, as well as economic, social and natural processes. One should notice the contradiction between classical and sustainable economics. According to the mainstream classical economics, the producer and consumer strive to maximize utility without taking into account environmental and social restrictions. Additional factors become apparent in the economics of sustainable development. According to the economics of sustainable development the criterion of maximizing utility must also take into account social requirements and the depletion of natural resources and other limitations of the natural environment. Therefore, the contradiction between the microeconomic understanding of rationality (naoclasical economic) and macroeconomic rationality (economics of sustainable development) is emphasized.
In references were added items:
Hayami, V., Ruttan W. Agricultural Development. An International Perspective 2d ed., John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1985. Lipton, M., Accelerated Resource Degradation by Agriculture in Developing Countries? The Role of Population Change and Responses to It, [In:] J. M. Harris (ed.), T. Wise (ed.), K. Gallagher (ed.), N. R. Goodwin (ed.), Survey of Sustainable Development: Social and Economic Dimensions, Island Press, Washington-Covelo-London, 2001.The methodological part must be enriched by substantiation of selected research method. Maybe it would be worth showing different research approaches that are being used for solving problems, similar to authors' investigation and after that explain why this method is the most suitable? The selection of indicators researched (the value of single area payments, the value of subsidies for public goods and etc.) should be substantiated. Thy these and only these were selected and researched as there is abundance of indicators suitable for solving this scientific task.
In manuscript was added (in red):
A special set of socio-economic sustainability indicators was developed for the assessment of the functioning of farms. It was preceded by a literature review, which was reflected in the final selection of variables in the study. (…)The economic dimension can also be equated with the concept of the viability of a farm, i.e. the ability to last in changeable market conditions for a long period of time and the capacity of a farm to be transferred to a successor [15]. It requires a sufficiently high agricultural income, both in nominal terms and in relation to non-agricultural income. As Argilés indicates [16], farm viability is defined as an ability to remunerate working time put in by family members over a long period at a comparable wage to that available from alternative work. Hennessy et.al [17] define an economically viable farm as one having the capacity to remunerate unpaid family labour at the average agricultural wage. A comparison of agricultural to non-agricultural incomes is also suggested by Vrolijk et al. [18].
The selection of data on social sustainability was particularly difficult. Compared to measuring environmental and economic sustainability, research in this area is still limited. The measurement of social indicators is challenging as they are often qualitative and may therefore be considered subjective. The social aspect of sustainability concerns the assessment of the way of life of the members of a farm and includes: education, working conditions (including working time), and the quality of life (the degree of social inclusion or exclusion) [19]. Van Cauwenbergh expands this list by health status, gender equality, and access to services and infrastructure in the countryside. In a broader context, we can also speak about the quality of life in rural areas (taking into consideration the cultural heritage, traditions, and aesthetic values), access to employment and eco-friendly services and healthy food [20]. These elements are derived from the level of wealth of the farm, and in the macroeconomic dimension it can be assumed that the higher the income of all farms and the more even their distribution, the higher the level of social sustainability. This approach is used by, inter alia, Gaviglio et.al. [21] while assessing the case study of the South Milan Agricultural Park, Italy. Among the variables describing social sustainability, the authors mention equality in terms of labor factor payment, which leads to resilience of farms and, in a broader aspect, rural development. At the same time, the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy mechanisms for creating the economic performances of farms is emphasized. Fair distribution of welfare and even distribution of income are also widely used to assess socio-economic development. Examples of such measures are given by Peacock et.al [22] and Sen [23], indicating that a high average level of income per capita is not synonymous with a high level of socio-economic development.
In references were added items:
Argilés, J.M. Accounting information and the prediction of farm non-viability. The European Accounting Review, 10(1), 73-105, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713764592. Hennessy, T., Shresthra, S., Farrell, M. Quantifying the viability of farming in Ireland: can decoupling address the re-gional imbalances. Irish Geography 41(1), 29-47, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00750770801909342. Vrolijk, H.C.J., De Bont, C.J., Blokland, P.W., Soboh, R.A. Farm Viability in the European Union: As-sessment of the Impact of changes in farm payments. Report 2010-011. Den Haag: LEI, Wageningen 2010. Gaviglio, A., Bertocchi, M., Demartini, E., 2017. A Tool for the Sustainability Assessment of Farms: Selection, Adaptation and Use of Indicators for an Italian Case Study, Resources, 6, 60, 2017. DOI: doi:10.3390/resources6040060. Peacock, W.G., Hoover, G.A., Kilian, C.D. Divergence and Convergence in International Development: A Decomposition Analysis of Inequality in the World System. American Sociological Review, 6, 843, 1988. Sen, A.K. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford Press, Oxford, 1992.In analyzes, the impact of all CAP payments on farm sustainability was examined. A thorough discussion of this is provided in the section called Methods and Material:
“X1it – the value of subsidies for public goods (understood as the sum of payments on account of setting fields aside and agri-environmental payments, support for less-favoured areas, and other subsidies within the framework of rural area support programmes per FWU);
X2it – the value of subsidies for crop and livestock production (the sum of other subsidies for crop and livestock production, balances of subsidies and fines for milk producers, subsidies for other cattle, and subsidies for sheep and goats per FWU);
X3it – the value of single area payments (SAP) per FWU;
X4it – the value of subsidies for investments per FWU.”
Empirical part should be substantially improved. It is not enough to use one logarithmic regression equation to solve such a complex scientific problem. The usage of only this method may cause doubts about robustness of results.
The choice of panel regression model resulted from earlier analyzes of this type and used previously in similar studies. For example, Czyżewski et.al. [24] used it to assess the impact of selected CAP support programs on farm productivity and their social sustainability by EU-28 regions in 2007-2012. The impact of EU agricultural policy on the level of agricultural sustainability in EU countries is the subject of an advanced FLINT research project [25]. The authors of the project implement a set of panel data using the FADN database. FLINT provides a significant contribution to the field of policy assessment relevant to the CAP by showing the feasibility of collecting farm level sustainability data and illustrating the added value of these data in a number of cases. In turn, Polcyn et al. [26] address the question of whether CAP payments for public goods are a desirable systemic solution serving to reduce market failures related to such factors as food prices flexibility and, as a consequence, agricultural income instability. In the study, panel regression analysis was performed on three sets: the EU-15 countries, the EU-12 countries, and - within Poland - subsectors of farms from six standard output classes and covered the years 2004–2012. Similarly, the impact of CAP instruments on the level and variability of farm income is the subject of Severini's [27] and Phimister’s research [28]. In the first case study includes database of a constant sample of Italian farms during the decade 2003-2012. In the second case, farms in Scotland are analyzed in the years 1988-2000.
In references was added items:
Czyżewski, B., Guth, M., Matuszczak, A. The Impact of the CAP Green Programmes on Farm Productivity and its Social Contribution, Problems of Sustainable Development, 13, 1, 173-183, 2018. FLINT Project, https://www.flint-fp7.eu/index.html. Polcyn, J., Czyżewski, B., Stępień, S. Payments for public goods under the common agricultural policy versus market failures, Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific Conference Rural Development 2017, Jelgava, 2017. DOI: http://doi.org/10.15544/RD.2017.007. Severini, S., Tantari, A., Di Tommaso, G. The effect of agricultural policies and farm characteristics on income variability. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 71(1), 171-181, 2016. DOI: 10.13128/REA-18637. Phimister, E., Roberts, D., Gilbert, A. The Dynamics of Farm Incomes: Panel data analysis using the Farm Accounts Survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55, 2, 197-220, 2004.Try to update the data. The last year, which was included into a research is 2013. Maybe it is possible to use a data till 2018 or at least 2017?
The analyzes covered the years 2004-2017. In some places it was made an error writing that the research period covered the years 2004-2013. This was changed in the manuscript.
We hope that the article in a modified form can be published.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors introduced adequate improvements to the text. In its current form, the paper is much more clear and understandable. I recommend it to be published in the Journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Text of the manuscript was readed and changed by the native speaker in English.
We hope that the article in a modified form can be published in Sustainability.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made a good job polishing this paper, taking account of almost all remarks and suggestions provided, although the robustness of a results still may cause some doubts.
It is obvious, that additional financial influx (doesn't matter in which form) to farms will have positive results on its economic indicators. You can state it without a research. It is a fact. But if You are researching sustainability (eventhough narrowing it to only economic perspective), You must check how these subsidies contributed to diversification of markets, diversification of crops planted, improved machinery, helped to make processes more efficient (at least through the lens of input-output model) and etc., as all these and much more other factors contribute to sustainable economic development of researched units.
I am not stating, that this paper cannot be published in a such highly valued scientific journal as Sustainability, but I put a question, will it be very interesting to readers and scientific community in a such form, so I leave the decision to the Editor.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We agree with the comment, that there is a clarity that CAP subsidies impact the incomes of farms in Poland. Our goal, however, was to check whether all specified groups of subsidies had a statistically significant impact on these revenues and whether the directions of this impact were positive. For this purpose, we used panel analysis. It is extremely reasonable and necessary to state whether these subsidies contributed to diversification of markets, diversification of crops planted, improved machinery. However, it requires detailed surveys. Such research is carried out by us as part of the grant called: “The role of small farms in sustainable development of the food sector in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe” supported by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange under International Academic Partnership Grant No. PPI/APM/2018/1/00011/U/001. The results of analyzes on this subject will appear in publications financed from this project in the future because it is in the initial phase. The presented analysis results, however, use publicly available FADN data in which there is no information on this topic. Therefore, the analyzes focused on assessing statistical significance and the direction of the impact of CAP subsidy groups on farm incomes.
In accordance to the reviewer’s comment in the text we added (in red):
Next, we used panel regression in order to determine which of the CAP subsidy and subvention groups had the biggest impact on the increase in the economic sustainability of agriculture in Poland in 2004-2017. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether all specified groups of subsidies of the CAP had a statistically significant impact on income of Polish farms and whether the direction of this impact was positive. The authors are aware that determining whether these subsidies contributed to diversification of markets, diversification of crops planted, improved machinery is justifiable and needed, however, requires detailed surveys, which is the direction of future research of the authors. In these analyzes, however, publicly available FADN data was used that did not contain information on this topic. Because the data analysed was combined cross-sectional data (for economic size classes) and data concerning the time series (2004-2017), was studied the dependence of net farm income per family work unit (FWU) on various groups of subsidies, with the use of panel regression.
We hope that the article in a modified form can be published in Sustainability.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
