IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v8y2009i2p44-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forecasting the Adoption of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape Prognosen hinsichtlich der Einführung von gentechnisch verändertem Raps Prévisions sur l’adoption de colza transgénique

Author

Listed:
  • Gunnar Breustedt
  • Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann
  • Jörg Müller‐Scheeßel

Abstract

Forecasting the Adoption of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape We explore farmers’ willingness to adopt genetically modified oilseed rape prior to its commercial release and estimate the ‘demand’ for the new technology. The analysis is based upon experiments with arable farmers in Germany who were asked to choose among conventional and GM rapeseed varieties with different characteristics. Our analysis has shown that ex ante GM adoption decisions are driven by profit expectations and personal as well as farm characteristics. Monetary and technological determinants such as the gross margin advantage of GM oilseed rape varieties, expected liability from cross pollination and restricted flexibility in returning to conventional oilseed rape growing affect the willingness to adopt GM rape in the expected directions. The results further indicate that neighbourhood effects and public attitudes matter a lot, such that individual farmers may not feel entirely free in their technology choice. Our demand simulations suggest that monopolistic seed prices would be set at between €50 and €100 per hectare, leaving farmers with a small share of the GM rent. This raises the question as to whether the farmers surveyed would actually benefit from the approval of GM rape varieties if the technology were to be provided by a single firm. Nous explorons le consentement des agriculteurs à utiliser du colza transgénique avant sa mise en marché et estimons la demande de cette nouvelle technologie. L’analyse se fonde sur des expériences menées auprès de cultivateurs allemands à qui l’on a demandé de choisir entre des variétés de colza conventionnelles et transgéniques aux caractéristiques différentes. Notre analyse a montré que les décisions a priori concernant l’adoption de variétés transgéniques sont fonction des profits attendus et des caractéristiques de l’agriculteur et de l’exploitation. Les facteurs financiers et technologiques comme les avantages des variétés de colza transgénique en termes de marge brute, ainsi que les risques possibles de fertilisation croisée et les contraintes relatives au retour vers des cultures de colza conventionnelles ont les effets attendus sur le consentement à adopter des variétés transgéniques. Les résultats montrent également que les effets de voisinage et l’attitude du public comptent beaucoup, de sorte que les agriculteurs individuels pourraient ne pas se sentir complètement libres de choisir leur technologie. Nos simulations sur la demande semblent indiquer que les prix des semences en situation de monopole seraient fixés entre 50 et 100 € par hectare, ce qui laisserait aux agriculteurs une faible part de la rente transgénique. Cela soulève la question de savoir si les agriculteurs de l’enquête tireraient vraiment avantage de l’approbation de variétés de colza transgéniques si la technologie n’était fournie que par une seule compagnie. Wir untersuchen die Bereitschaft von Landwirten, gentechnisch veränderten Raps einzuführen, bevor dieser auf den Markt gebracht wird, und schätzen die ‘Nachfrage’ nach dieser neuen Technologie ein. Unsere Analyse stützt sich auf Versuche mit Ackerbauern in Deutschland, bei denen sich die Landwirte zwischen herkömmlichen und gentechnisch veränderten Rapssorten mit verschiedenen Eigenschaften entscheiden mussten. Unsere Analyse zeigt, dass ex ante die Entscheidungen über die Einführung von gentechnisch verändertem Raps aufgrund von Gewinnerwartungen sowie von persönlichen und betrieblichen Charakteristika getroffen werden. Monetäre und technologische Bestimmungsgrößen wie z.B. der Vorsprung des gentechnisch veränderten Raps beim Deckungsbeitrag, die erwartete Haftbarkeit bei Fremdbestäubung sowie die nur eingeschränkte Flexibilität, zum herkömmlichen Rapsanbau zurückkehren zu können, beeinflussen erwartungsgemäß die Bereitschaft, gentechnisch veränderten Raps anzubauen. Desweiteren zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass Nachbarschaftseffekte und öffentliche Meinungen eine große Rolle spielen, so dass sich einige Landwirte womöglich bei der Wahl der Technologie in ihrer Entscheidungsfreiheit eingeschränkt fühlen. Unsere Nachfragesimulationen deuten darauf hin, dass sich monopolistische Saatgutpreise zwischen EUR 50 und EUR 100 pro Hektar bewegen würden, so dass den Landwirten ein kleiner Teil der ökonomischen Rente der GV‐Technologie verbliebe. Dies wirft die Frage auf, ob die betrachteten Landwirte überhaupt von der Zulassung der gentechnisch veränderten Rapssorten profitieren würden, wenn die Technologie nur von einem einzigen Unternehmen angeboten würde.

Suggested Citation

  • Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann & Jörg Müller‐Scheeßel, 2009. "Forecasting the Adoption of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape Prognosen hinsichtlich der Einführung von gentechnisch verändertem Raps Prévisions sur l’adoption de colza transgénique," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 8(2), pages 44-50, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:8:y:2009:i:2:p:44-50
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-692X.2009.00132.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2009.00132.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2009.00132.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matin Qaim & Alain de Janvry, 2003. "Genetically Modified Crops, Corporate Pricing Strategies, and Farmers' Adoption: The Case of Bt Cotton in Argentina," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 814-828.
    2. Matty Demont & Koen Dillen & Erik Mathijs & Eric Tollens, 2007. "GM Crops in Europe: How Much Value and for Whom? Les cultures génétiquement modifiées en Europe : quels avantages et pour qui? Genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in Europa: Welcher Wert und für wen?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 6(3), pages 46-53, December.
    3. Breustedt, Gunnar & Muller-Scheessel, Jorg & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36771, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. Gunnar Breustedt & Jörg Müller‐Scheeßel & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 237-256, June.
    5. Volker Beckmann & Claudio Soregaroli & Justus Wesseler, 2006. "Coexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1193-1199.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Jorg MŸller-Scheesel, 2009. "Forecasting the Adoption of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 8(SpecialIs), pages 44-50, August.
    2. Thomas J. Venus & Koen Dillen & Maarten J. Punt & Justus H. H. Wesseler, 2017. "The Costs of Coexistence Measures for Genetically Modified Maize in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 407-426, June.
    3. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    4. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gomez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodriguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2011. "Adoption of GMHT Crops: Coexistence Policy Consequences in the European Union," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114227, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    6. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Beckmann, Volker & Soregaroli, Claudio & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: governing the coexistence of GM crops," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 4, pages 1-33.
    8. Chinedu, Obi & Sanou, Edouard & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Bartolini, Fabio & Gheysen, Godelieve & Speelman, Stijn, 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of transgenic biofortified sorghum for nutritional improvement in Burkina Faso: A latent class approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 132-140.
    9. Skevas, Theodoros & Wesseler, Justus & Fevereiro, Pedro, 2009. "Coping with ex-ante regulations for planting Bt maize: the Portuguese experience," MPRA Paper 25609, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schulz, Norbert & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept "Greening": Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Gremany," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170560, Agricultural Economics Society.
    11. Matty Demont & Marie Cerovska & Wim Daems & Koen Dillen & József Fogarasi & Erik Mathijs & František Muška & Josef Soukup & Eric Tollens, 2008. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 463-486, September.
    12. Schreiner, Julia A., 2014. "Farmers’ Valuation of Incentives to Produce GMO-free Milk: A Discrete Choice Experiment," 2014 International European Forum, February 17-21, 2014, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 199373, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    13. Rattiya Suddeephong Lippe & Ulrike Grote, 2017. "Determinants Affecting Adoption of GLOBALG.A.P. Standards: A Choice Experiment in Thai Horticulture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 242-256, April.
    14. Cardona, Tur J. & Speelman, S. & Sanou, E., 2018. "Farmers attitudes towards GMO crops: comparison of attitudes towards first and second generation crops in Burkina Faso," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276968, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gómez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2012. "Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 401-411.
    16. Linda Ferrari, 2022. "Farmers' attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 175-194, January.
    17. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    18. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Ermittlung der Teilnahmebereitschaft an Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen und der dafür notwendigen Ausgleichszahlungen mit Hilfe eines Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(04), pages 1-15, November.
    19. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Kasten, P., 2016. "Analysing Farmers’ Preferences fo Collaborative Arrangements: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 51, March.
    20. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:8:y:2009:i:2:p:44-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.