IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/02-wp319.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Genetically Modified Crop Innovations and Product Differentiation: Trade and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex

Author

Abstract

We develop a new partial equilibrium, four-region world trade model for the soybean complex comprising soybeans, soybean oil, and soybean meal. In the model, some consumers view genetically modified Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and products as weakly inferior to conventional ones; the RR seed is patented and sold worldwide by a U.S. firm; and producers employ a costly segregation technology to separate conventional and biotech products in the supply chain. The calibrated model is solved for equilibrium prices, quantities, production patterns, trade flows, and welfare changes under different assumptions regarding regional government's production and trade policies, differentiated consumer tastes, and several other demand and supply parameters. Incomplete adoption of RR technology naturally arises in the free trade equilibrium, with the United States producing both genetically modified and conventional soybeans. The United States, Argentina, Brazil and the Rest of the World all gain from the introduction of RR soybeans, although some groups of agents (producers or consumers) may lose. Compared to free trade with no domestic bans, a ban on RR production in the Rest of the World improves that region's welfare at some levels of segregation costs but hurts the United States. Introduction of the same ban in Brazil benefits its farmers but makes the region worse off, and an import ban on RR products significantly reduces welfare of all agents. Price support programs for U.S. farmers, despite hurting the United States, have the potential to further improve the world's efficiency. The distribution of welfare between consumers and producers appears to be sensitive to several parameters of the model, but region-level outcomes are robust with respect to most of them and are sensitive only to parameters defining the share of consumers conscious of genetically modified organisms and the elasticity of demand for conventional product varieties.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrei Sobolevsky & GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2002. "Genetically Modified Crop Innovations and Product Differentiation: Trade and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 02-wp319, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:02-wp319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/02wp319.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=405
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
    2. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    3. Jagdish N. Bhagwati, 1968. "Distortions and Immiserizing Growth: a Generalization," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 35(4), pages 481-485.
    4. Julian M. Alston & Will J. Martin, 1995. "Reversal of Fortune: Immiserizing Technical Change in Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 251-259.
    5. D.S. Bullock, 2001. "Who pays the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation ?," Post-Print hal-02283458, HAL.
    6. 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.
    7. D.S. Bullock & Marion Desquilbet, 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Post-Print hal-02364321, HAL.
    8. José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 360-369.
    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. Kaye-Blake, William & Saunders, Caroline M., 2006. "Estimated Contribution of Four Biotechnologies to New Zealand Agriculture," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21133, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Kaye-Blake, William & Saunders, Caroline M. & Fairweather, John, 2005. "Optimal uptake of second-generation genetically-modified crops," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137932, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Antonio Seccia & Antonio Stasi & Luigi Roselli, 2006. "Atteggiamento dei consumatori nei confronti dell'evoluzione del sistema agro-alimentare: l'introduzione di alimenti geneticamente modificati," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 10(1).

    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. 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.
    2. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "How do GM/non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 51-82, February.
    3. Mario F. Teisl & Julie A. Caswell, 2003. "Information Policy and Genetically Modified Food: Weighting the Benefits and Costs," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Baker, Andrew & Smyth, Stuart, 2010. "Managing Opportunism in Value-Added Supply Chains:," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 187979, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    6. 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.
    7. Harvey Lapan & GianCarlo Moschini, 2007. "Grading, Minimum Quality Standards, and the Labeling of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 769-783.
    8. GianCarlo Moschini, 2006. "Pharmaceutical and Industrial Traits in Genetically Modified Crops: Coexistence with Conventional Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1184-1192.
    9. Arthur P. J. Mol & Peter Oosterveer, 2015. "Certification of Markets, Markets of Certificates: Tracing Sustainability in Global Agro-Food Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-21, September.
    10. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Kaufman, James & Miller, Douglas, 2014. "Potential economic impacts of zero thresholds for unapproved GMOs: The EU case," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 146-157.
    11. Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné, 2010. "Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO panel," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(3), pages 495-514, September.
    12. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43650, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade in genetically modified food: A survey of empirical studies," TMD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    15. Goldsmith, Peter D. & Bender, Karen, 2003. "Ten Conversations about Identity Preservation: Implications for Cooperatives," 2003 Annual Meeting, October 29 31803, NCERA-194 Research on Cooperatives.
    16. Cadot, Olivier & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko & Traça, Daniel, 2003. "OGM et relations commerciales transatlantiques," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    17. Zhu, Manhong & Schmitz, Andrew & Schmtiz, Troy G., 2016. "Why Has not Genetically Modified Wheat Been Commercialized: A Game Theoretical Perspective," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230796, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Julia Jouan & Aude Ridier & Matthieu Carof, 2018. "SYNERGY: a bio economic model assessing the economic and environmental impacts of increased regional protein self-sufficiency," Post-Print hal-01937084, HAL.
    19. Consmuller, Nicola & Beckmann, Volker & Petrick, Martin, 2012. "Identifying driving factors for the establishment of cooperative GMO-free zones in Germany," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126531, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Bonny, Sylvie, 2009. "Issues, impacts, and prospects of the first transgenic crops tolerant to a herbicide. The case of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51449, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:ias:cpaper:02-wp319. 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/caiasus.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.