IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/vfsc16/145786.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Introducing Cattle Producer to the Hardin s World- Can Monopolies in Seed Markets Be Welfare Enhancing?

Author

Listed:
  • Bialek, Sylwia

Abstract

The paper investigates markets ridden by problems of common pool resources and asks how monopoly rights for inputs into those markets affect the welfare. The analysis rests upon the example of anit-pest innovations. The quintessential feature of such innovations is the possibility of them losing their effectiveness. Their application exerts evolutionary pressure on pests that eventually leads to them devoloping resistance to the innovation. The ensuing perishability of the innovation makes its common pool resource character visible. The paper develops a model of agricultural markets and discusses how monopolies, despite their underprovision of output may lead to increased welfare compared to generic industries. In this context, the optimal patent length is investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Bialek, Sylwia, 2016. "Introducing Cattle Producer to the Hardin s World- Can Monopolies in Seed Markets Be Welfare Enhancing?," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145786, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc16:145786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/145786/1/VfS_2016_pid_6817.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herrmann, Markus & Nkuiya, Bruno & Dussault, Anne-Renée, 2013. "Innovation and antibiotic use within antibiotic classes: Market incentives and economic instruments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 582-598.
    2. Fischer, Carolyn & Laxminarayan, Ramanan, 2005. "Sequential development and exploitation of an exhaustible resource: do monopoly rights promote conservation?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 500-515, May.
    3. Barnett, A H, 1980. "The Pigouvian Tax Rule under Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1037-1041, December.
    4. William A. Brock & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2003. "Valuing Biodiversity from an Economic Perspective: A Unified Economic, Ecological, and Genetic Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1597-1614, December.
    5. Herrmann, Markus & Gaudet, Gérard, 2009. "The economic dynamics of antibiotic efficacy under open access," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 334-350, May.
    6. Timo Goeschl & Timothy Swanson, 2003. "Pests, Plagues, and Patents," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(2-3), pages 561-575, 04/05.
    7. C. Gonsalves & D. R. Lee & D. Gonsalves, 2007. "The Adoption of genetically modified papaya in Hawaii and its implications for developing countries," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 177-191.
    8. Edward E. Schlee, 2013. "Surplus Maximization and Optimality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2585-2611, October.
    9. Stéphane Mechoulan, 2007. "Market structure and communicable diseases," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 468-492, May.
    10. Heal, Geoffrey & Walker, Brian & Levin, Simon & Arrow, Kenneth & Dasgupta, Partha & Daily, Gretchen & Ehrlich, Paul & Maler, Karl-Goran & Kautsky, Nils & Lubchenco, Jane, 2004. "Genetic diversity and interdependent crop choices in agriculture," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 175-184, June.
    11. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
    12. Buchanan, James M, 1969. "External Diseconomies, Corrective Taxes, and Market Structure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 174-177, March.
    13. Herrmann, Markus, 2010. "Monopoly pricing of an antibiotic subject to bacterial resistance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 137-150, January.
    14. Lambert Schoonbeek & Frans Vries, 2009. "Environmental taxes and industry monopolization," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 94-106, August.
    15. Munro, Alistair, 2003. "Monopolization and the regulation of genetically modified crops: an economic model," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 167-186, February.
    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. Eswaran, Mukesh & Gallini, Nancy, 2017. "Can Competition Extend the Golden Age of Antibiotics?," Microeconomics.ca working papers -2017-9, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 19 Oct 2017.
    2. Eswaran, Mukesh & Gallini, Nancy, 2016. "Rescuing the Golden Age of Antibiotics: Can Economics Help Avert the Looming Crisis?," Economics working papers nancy_gallini-2016-9, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 04 Jul 2016.
    3. Herrmann, Markus & Nkuiya, Bruno & Dussault, Anne-Renée, 2013. "Innovation and antibiotic use within antibiotic classes: Market incentives and economic instruments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 582-598.
    4. Farasat A.S. Bokhari & Franco Mariuzzo & Weijie Yan, 2019. "Antibacterial resistance and the cost of affecting demand: the case of UK antibiotics," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2019-03, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    5. Jihad C. Elnaboulsi, 2015. "Environmental Regulation and Policy Design: The Impact of the Regulator?s Ecological Conscience on the Tax Setting Process," Working Papers 2015-11, CRESE.
    6. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe, 2013. "The monopolistic polluter under environmental liability law: incentives for abatement and R&D," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 753-770, March.
    7. Voss, Achim & Schopf, Mark, 2021. "Lobbying over exhaustible-resource extraction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Kurtyka, Oliwia & Mahenc, Philippe, 2011. "The switching effect of environmental taxation within Bertrand differentiated duopoly," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 267-277, September.
    9. Markus Herrmann & Bruno Nkuiya, 2017. "Inducing optimal substitution between antibiotics under open access to the resource of antibiotic susceptibility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 703-723, June.
    10. Herrmann, Markus, 2010. "Monopoly pricing of an antibiotic subject to bacterial resistance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 137-150, January.
    11. Abdul Baki, Ghina & Marrouch, Walid, 2022. "Environmental taxation in the Bertrand differentiated duopoly: New insights," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Albert, Jason, 2021. "Strategic dynamics of antibiotic use and the evolution of antibiotic-resistant infections," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    13. Espínola-Arredondo, Ana & Muñoz-García, Félix, 2013. "When does environmental regulation facilitate entry-deterring practices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 133-152.
    14. Heider, Florian & Inderst, Roman, 2021. "A Corporate Finance Perspective on Environmental Policy," EconStor Preprints 253669, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    15. Qianqian Shao & Thorsten Janus & Maarten J. Punt & Justus Wesseler, 2018. "The Conservation Effects of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Biased Policymakers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    16. Claudia Ranocchia & Luca Lambertini, 2021. "Porter Hypothesis vs Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Can There Be Environmental Policies Getting Two Eggs in One Basket?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(1), pages 177-199, January.
    17. Maia David & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2005. "Environmental Regulation and the Eco-Industry," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 141-155, September.
    18. Ángela García-Alaminos & Santiago J. Rubio, 2021. "Emission taxes and feed-in subsidies in the regulation of a polluting monopoly," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 255-279, June.
    19. Dieter Schmidtchen & Jenny Helstroffer & Christian Koboldt, 2021. "Regulatory failure and the polluter pays principle: why regulatory impact assessment dominates the polluter pays principle," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 109-144, January.
    20. Mahenc, Philippe & Podesta, Marion, 2012. "The monopolist is not the best environmentalist’s best friend: An example," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 379-382.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General

    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:zbw:vfsc16:145786. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfsocea.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.