This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Introducing a genetically modified banana in Uganda: Social benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Falck-Zepeda, José
Kilkuwe, Enoch
Wesseler, Justus

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

"Banana is a staple crop consumed by Ugandan households. The Uganda National Agricultural Research Organization has implemented conventional and biotechnology programs that seek improving bananas and address the crop's most important pest and disease problems. A major thrust is the development of genetically modified (GM) bananas. The purpose of this paper is to examine potential social welfare impacts of adopting a GM banana in Uganda. The study has three objectives. First, suggest and apply an approach to calculate reversible and irreversible benefits and costs of introducing a GM banana. The study applies a real option approach to estimate, ex ante, the maximum incremental social tolerable irreversible costs (MISTICs) that would justify immediate introduction of the technology. Second, suggest an approach for assessing producer/consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for introducing a GM banana. Finally, the paper discusses main implications for biosafety decision making for GM crops in Uganda. Results of MISTICs estimation for different scenarios indicate that in delaying the approval of a GM banana, Uganda foregoes potential annual benefits ranging approximately from US$179 million to US$365 million. Average annual MISTICs per household vary between US$34 and US$ 69. Results indicate that only if the average household is willing to give up at least US$38 per year to avoid introduction of a GM banana, should postponing an immediate release be considered. Results imply that although GM bananas promise vast benefits, realization of those benefits depends on consumers' perceptions and attitudes and the willingness to pay for the GM technology." from Author's Abstract

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00767.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in its series IFPRI discussion papers with number 767.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:767

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-862-5600
Fax: 202-467-4439
Email:
Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords: GM banana; Real option; Choice experiment; Biosafety; MISTICs;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. José Falck Zepeda, 2006. "Coexistence, Genetically Modified Biotechnologies and Biosafety: Implications for Developing Countries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1200-1208, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton, 2005. "Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press for the Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 269-288, June.
  4. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317.
  5. Jaffe, Gregory, 2006. "Comparative analysis of the national biosafety regulatory systems in East Africa:," EPTD discussion papers 146, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). [Downloadable!]
  6. Loureiro, Maria L. & Hine, Susan, 2002. "Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison Of Consumer Willingness To Pay For Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, And Gmo-Free Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(03), December. [Downloadable!]
  7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Beckmann, Volker & Soregaroli, Claudio & Wesseler, Justus, 2006. "Governing the Co-existence of GM Crops: Ex-Ante Regulation and Ex-Post Liability under Uncertainty and Irreversibility," Institutional Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources Discussion Papers 18845, Humboldt University Berlin, Institute for Agricultural Economic and Social Sciences. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  9. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Breffle, William S. & Morey, Edward R., 2000. "Investigating Preference Heterogeneity In A Repeated Discrete-Choice Recreation Demand Model Of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," Marine Resource Economics, Marine Resources Foundation, vol. 15(1). [Downloadable!]
  13. 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. [Downloadable!]
  14. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1983. "Marginal welfare measures for discrete choice models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 129-136. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press for the Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.
    Other versions:
  17. Arrow, Kenneth J & Fisher, Anthony C, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 88(2), pages 312-19, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1999. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: The Use of Latent Class Analysis," Staff Paper Series 24090, University of Alberta, Department of Rural Economy. [Downloadable!]
  19. Svetlana Edmeades & Melinda Smale, 2006. "A trait-based model of the potential demand for a genetically engineered food crop in a developing economy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 351-361, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-98, January.
  21. Henry, Claude, 1974. "Investment Decisions Under Uncertainty: The "Irreversibility Effect."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 1006-12, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You too can volunteer for RePEc, for example by providing information about publications in your institution.

This page was last updated on 2009-10-22.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.