IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02278977.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops

Author

Listed:
  • Marion Desquilbet

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • David S. Bullock

    (UIUC - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [Urbana] - University of Illinois System)

  • Filippo Maria d'Arcangelo

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Weed control in the U.S. Midwest has become increasingly herbicide-centric due to the adoption of herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops in the 1990s. That integrated weed management (IWM) practices, including ecological and mechanical controls, are scarcely used is concerning. IWM would be a more sustainable form of farming for two reasons. First, it would reduce the negative health and environmental externalities associated with herbicide use. Second, it would reduce the selection pressure on weed populations and the development of weed resistance to some herbicides, thereby reducing the uncertainty of the long-term effectiveness of herbicidal weed control. In this context, we develop an economic framework to clarify the interplay among the different market failures that either contribute to the herbicidal ‘lock-in' or make it problematic. We then analyse the evidence for and perceptions of these market failures based on twenty-four semi-structured interviews with farmers and experts conducted in 2017, as well as on discussions in the academic literature. To this end, we put into perspective the possible selfreinforcing effects in the adoption path of HT crops, such as increasing farm size, changes in farm equipment, increasing incentives for simplified crop rotations, and the loss of practical knowledge of IWM practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Marion Desquilbet & David S. Bullock & Filippo Maria d'Arcangelo, 2019. "A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops," Post-Print hal-02278977, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02278977
    DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2019.1655191
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02278977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02278977/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14735903.2019.1655191?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan & Andrei Sobolevsky, 2000. "Roundup ready® soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 33-55.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    3. Edward D. Perry & GianCarlo Moschini & David A. Hennessy, 2016. "Testing for Complementarity: Glyphosate Tolerant Soybeans and Conservation Tillage," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 765-784.
    4. Regev, Uri & Shalit, Haim & Gutierrez, A. P., 1983. "On the optimal allocation of pesticides with increasing resistance: The case of alfalfa weevil," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 86-100, March.
    5. Paul Klemperer, 1995. "Competition when Consumers have Switching Costs: An Overview with Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 62(4), pages 515-539.
    6. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    7. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.
    8. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Hendricks, Chad & Mishra, Ashok K., 2005. "Technology Adoption and Off-Farm Household Income: The Case of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Marion Desquilbet & David S. Bullock, 2003. "Who Pays the Costs of Non-GMO Segregation and Identity Preservation?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 656-672.
    10. Harvey E. Lapan & Giancarlo Moschini, 2004. "Innovation and Trade with Endogenous Market Failure: The Case of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 634-648.
    11. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan, 1997. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Welfare Effects of Agricultural R&D," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1229-1242.
    12. Farrell, Joseph & Klemperer, Paul, 2007. "Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1967-2072, Elsevier.
    13. Stephen Morris & Stephen Coate, 1999. "Policy Persistence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1327-1336, December.
    14. Price, Gregory K. & Lin, William W. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, 2003. "Size And Distribution Of Market Benefits From Adopting Biotech Crops," Technical Bulletins 33562, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-542, May.
    16. Marion Desquilbet & Markus Herrmann, 2016. "The Dynamics of Pest Resistance Management: The Case of Refuge Fields for Bt Crops," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 253-288, June.
    17. Andrew R. Kniss, 2017. "Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, April.
    18. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    19. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & McBride, William D., 2002. "Adoption Of Bioengineered Crops," Agricultural Economic Reports 33957, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    20. Stefan Ambec & Marion Desquilbet, 2012. "Regulation of a Spatial Externality: Refuges versus Tax for Managing Pest Resistance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 79-104, January.
    21. Philip G. Pardey & Connie Chan-Kang & Steven P. Dehmer & Jason M. Beddow, 2016. "Agricultural R&D is on the move," Nature, Nature, vol. 537(7620), pages 301-303, September.
    22. Jackson, Lee Ann & Anderson, Kym, 2003. "WHY ARE US AND EU POLICIES TOWARD GMOs SO DIFFERENT?," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57898, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    23. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2008. "Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural 'lock-in' case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 436-446, June.
    24. D. Hueth & U. Regev, 1974. "Optimal Agricultural Pest Management with Increasing Pest Resistance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(3), pages 543-552.
    25. MacDonald, James M. & Korb, Penni & Hoppe, Robert A., 2013. "Farm Size and the Organization of U.S. Crop Farming," Economic Research Report 262221, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    26. Bullock, David S. & D'Arcangelo, Filippo Maria & Desquilbet, Marion, 2018. "A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops," TSE Working Papers 18-959, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2019.
    27. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    28. David Popp, 2002. "Induced Innovation and Energy Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 160-180, March.
    29. Andrei Sobolevsky & GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan, 2005. "Genetically Modified Crops and Product Differentiation: Trade and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(3), pages 621-644.
    30. Jose B. Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Rent creation and distribution from biotechnology innovations: The case of bt cotton and Herbicide-Tolerant soybeans in 1997," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 21-32.
    31. Miranowski, John & Carlson, G., 1986. "Economic Issues in Public and Private Approaches to Preserving Pest Susceptibility," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10726, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    32. Christopher Marcoux & Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Special Interests, Regulatory Quality, and the Pesticides Overload," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 28(6), pages 585-612, November.
    33. Matin Qaim & Greg Traxler, 2005. "Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 73-86, January.
    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. Bullock, David S. & D'Arcangelo, Filippo Maria & Desquilbet, Marion, 2018. "A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops," TSE Working Papers 18-959, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2019.

    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. Frisvold, George & Reeves, Jeanne, 2015. "Genetically Modified Crops: International Trade And Trade Policy Effects," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3(2), pages 1-13, April.
    2. GianCarlo Moschini & Harun Bulut & Luigi Cembalo, 2005. "On the Segregation of Genetically Modified, Conventional and Organic Products in European Agriculture: A Multi‐market Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 347-372, December.
    3. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Livingston, Michael J. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Wechsler, Seth, 2014. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," Economic Research Report 164263, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    5. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    6. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    7. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    8. William H. Kaye-Blake & Caroline M. Saunders & Selim Cagatay, 2008. "Genetic Modification Technology and Producer Returns: The Impacts of Productivity, Preferences, and Technology Uptake," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 692-710.
    9. Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2018. "Can Technology-Specific Deployment Policies Be Cost-Effective? The Case of Renewable Energy Support Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 475-505, October.
    10. Labarthe, Pierre & Coléno, François & Enjalbert, Jérôme & Fugeray-Scarbel, Aline & Hannachi, Mourad & Lemarié, Stéphane, 2021. "Exploration, exploitation and environmental innovation in agriculture. The case of variety mixture in France and Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    11. GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2005. "Labeling Regulations and Segregation of First- and Second-Generation Genetically Modified Products: Innovation Incentives and Welfare Effects," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-wp391, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    12. Meynard, Jean-Marc & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Le Bail, Marianne & Lefèvre, Amélie & Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Michon, Camille, 2017. "Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 330-339.
    13. 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.
    14. Smyth, Stuart J. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Ludlow, Karinne, 2016. "The Costs of Regulatory Delays for Genetically Modified Crops," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 17(2), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Dillen, Koen & Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity to estimate the ex ante value of biotechnology innovations," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43945, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Traxler, Greg, 2004. "The Economic Impacts of Biotechnology-Based Technological Innovations," ESA Working Papers 23806, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    17. Kevin Maréchal & Hélène Aubaret-Joachain & Jean-Paul Ledant, 2008. "The influence of Economics on agricultural systems: an evolutionary and ecological perspective," Working Papers CEB 08-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. Barbieri, Nicolò, 2016. "Fuel prices and the invention crowding out effect: Releasing the automotive industry from its dependence on fossil fuel," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 222-234.
    19. Nicolò Barbieri, 2015. "Environmental policy and invention crowding out. Unlocking the automotive industry from fossil fuel path dependence," SEEDS Working Papers 0615, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Mar 2015.
    20. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    herbicide-tolerant crops; integrated weed management; health and environmental externalities; weed resistance; lock-in;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-02278977. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.