IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/2020dp/33.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Governing the GM crop revolution: policy choices for developing countries

Author

Listed:
  • Paarlberg, Robert L.

Abstract

Will developing countries adopt policies that promote the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops, or will they select policies that slow the spread of the GM crop revolution? The evidence so far is mixed. In some prominent countries such as China, policies are in place that encourage the independent development and planting of GM crops. Yet in a number of other equally prominent countries the planting of GM crops is not yet officially approved. The inclination of developing countries to promote or block the spread of GM crops can be judged by the policy choices they make in five separate areas: intellectual property rights (IPR) policy, biosafety policy, trade policy, food safety policy, and public research investments. Paarlberg discusses various policy options related to GM crops: (1) Intellectual Property Rights; (2) Biosafety; (3) Trade; (4) Food Safety and Consumer Choice; and (5) Public Research Investments. The appropriate policies for each of these must be adopted by developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Paarlberg, Robert L., 2000. "Governing the GM crop revolution: policy choices for developing countries," 2020 vision discussion papers 33, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:2020dp:33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/2020dp33.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Regulations," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 377-405, September.
    2. Mruthyunjaya & Ranjitha, P., 1998. "The Indian agricultural research system: Structure, current policy issues, and future orientation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1089-1101, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Wafula & Norman Clark, 2005. "Science and governance of modern biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa-the case of Uganda," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 679-694.
    2. De Groote, Hugo & Overholt, William & Ouma, James Okuro & Mugo, Stephen, 2003. "Assessing The Potential Impact Of Bt Maize In Kenya Using A Gis Based Model," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25854, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Leong, Ching Ching & Jarvis, Darryl & Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea, 2011. "Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 128-136.
    4. Watson, Robert & Crawford, Michael & Farley, Sara, 2003. "Strategic approaches to science and technology in development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3026, The World Bank.
    5. Julius T. Mugwagwa, 2013. "Revealing the footprint: Supranational organizations and transnational governance of biotechnology in southern Africa," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 135-148, March.
    6. Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea Riccardo, 2010. "The Canadian biotechnology regulatory regime: The role of participation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 280-287.
    7. Kynda R. Curtis & Klaus Moeltner, 2006. "Genetically Modified Food Market Participation and Consumer Risk Perceptions: A Cross‐Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(2), pages 289-310, June.
    8. Gal Hochman & Gordon C. Rausser & David Zilberman, 2011. "US versus EU Biotechnology Regulations and Comparative Advantage: Implications for Future Conflicts and Trade," Chapters, in: David Vogel & Johan Swinnen (ed.), Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Jennifer Kuzma & Todd Tanji, 2010. "Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 92-112, March.
    10. De Groote, Hugo & Gitonga, Zachary & Kimenju, Simon & Keter, Fredric & Ngigi, Obadiah, 2015. "But what do rural consumers in Africa think about GM food?," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211565, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Unnevehr, Laurian J., 2000. "Food safety issues and fresh food product exports from LDCs," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 231-240, September.
    2. Dixit, Praveen M. & Josling, Timothy E. & Blandford, David, 2001. "The Current Wto Agricultural Negotiations: Options For Progress; Synthesis," Commissioned Papers 14623, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Spencer Henson & Rupert Loader, 1999. "Impact of sanitary and phytosanitary standards on developing countries and the role of the SPS Agreement," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 355-369.
    4. Tangermann, Stefan, 2001. "Has The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture Worked Well?," Working Papers 14586, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Inaba, Masaru & Nutahara, Kengo, 2009. "The role of investment wedges in the Carlstrom-Fuerst economy and business cycle accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 200-203, December.
    6. Lynch, Lori, 2001. "Migration Of Exotic Pests: Phytosanitary Regulations And Cooperative Policies To Protect U.S. Ecosystems And Agricultural Interests," Working Papers 28548, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Unknown, 2004. "U.S. Agriculture And The Free Trade Area Of The Americas," Agricultural Economic Reports 33995, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Thornsbury, Suzanne, 1999. "Political Economy Determinants Of Technical Barriers To U.S. Agricultural Exports," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21499, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Lichtenberg, Erik & Lynch, Lori, 2006. "Exotic Pests and Trade: When Is Pest-Free Status Certification Worthwhile?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 52-62, April.
    10. Donna Roberts, 1999. "Analyzing technical trade barriers in agricultural markets: Challenges and priorities," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 335-354.
    11. JINJI Naoto, 2009. "An Economic Theory of the SPS Agreement," Discussion papers 09033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. Thornsbury, Suzanne & Roberts, Donna & Orden, David, 2004. "Measurement and Political Economy of Disputed Technical Regulations," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 559-574, December.
    13. Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2007. "Normentwicklung durch WTO-Gremien am Beispiel von Handel und Gesundheitsschutz: der SPS-Ausschuss," TranState Working Papers 68, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    14. Pal, Suresh & Byerlee, Derek R., 2003. "The Funding And Organization Of Agricultural Research In India: Evolution And Emerging Issues," Policy Papers 11870, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP).
    15. William A. Kerr, 2010. "What is New in Protectionism? Consumers, Cranks, and Captives," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(1), pages 5-22, March.
    16. Sheldon, Ian M. & Josling, Timothy E., 2002. "Biotechnology Regulations And The Wto," Working Papers 14594, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    17. Julie A. Caswell, 2000. "An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology (with a case study of gmo labeling)," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 115-123.
    18. Kerr, William A. & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2000. "The Biosafety Protocol And International Trade In Genetically Modified Organisms," CATRN Papers 12893, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Research Network.
    19. Byerlee, Derek, 1998. "The search for a new paradigm for the development of national agricultural research systems," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1049-1055, June.
    20. Christophe Charlier & Michel Rainelli, 2002. "Hormones, Risk Management, Precaution and Protectionism: An Analysis of the Dispute on Hormone-Treated Beef between the European Union and the United States," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 83-97, September.

    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:fpr:2020dp:33. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.