IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v66y2022i2p424-446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CRISPR Rice vs conventional rice dilemma of a Chinese farmer

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Jin
  • Dušan Drabik

Abstract

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology for rice, which makes rice resistant to its two most destructive insect pests, is an alternative to insect‐resistant genetically modified (GM) rice. We advance an economic framework to determine ex ante the planting share of CRISPR rice in China under uncertainty about pest severity and analyse its most significant factors. Using our baseline data and an assumption that yields of CRISPR rice are 10 per cent lower than conventional rice, we estimate the planting share of CRISPR rice to be 37.9 per cent. The mean of the annual benefit of growing CRISPR rice and conventional rice together over conventional rice alone is 2.32 billion US dollars.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Jin & Dušan Drabik, 2022. "CRISPR Rice vs conventional rice dilemma of a Chinese farmer," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 424-446, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:66:y:2022:i:2:p:424-446
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8489.12465
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12465
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-8489.12465?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pray, Carl & Ma, Danmeng & Huang, Jikun & Qiao, Fangbin, 2001. "Impact of Bt Cotton in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 813-825, May.
    2. Zuhair, Sugu M. M. & Taylor, Daniel B. & Kramer, Randall A., 1992. "Choice of utility function form: its effect on classification of risk preferences and the prediction of farmer decisions," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 333-344, April.
    3. Xinjian Chen & Di Zeng & Ying Xu & Xiaojun Fan, 2018. "Perceptions, Risk Attitude and Organic Fertilizer Investment: Evidence from Rice and Banana Farmers in Guangxi, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    4. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    5. Erik Lichtenberg & David Zilberman, 1986. "The Econometrics of Damage Control: Why Specification Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 261-273.
    6. Graham Brookes & Tun-Hsiang (Edward) Yu & Simla Tokgoz & Amani Elobeid, 2010. "Production and Price Impact of Biotech Crops, The," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 10-wp503, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. Ceddia, Michele Graziano & Bartlett, Mark & Lucia, Caterina De & Perrings, Charles, 2011. "On the regulation of spatial externalities: coexistence between GM and conventional crops in the EU and the ‘newcomer principle’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(01), pages 1-18.
    8. Ron Davis, 2008. "Teaching Note ---Teaching Project Simulation in Excel Using PERT- Beta Distributions," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 139-148, May.
    9. Quaas, Martin F. & Baumgärtner, Stefan, 2008. "Natural vs. financial insurance in the management of public-good ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 397-406, April.
    10. Taras Bodnar & Yarema Okhrin & Valdemar Vitlinskyy & Taras Zabolotskyy, 2018. "Determination and estimation of risk aversion coefficients," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 297-317, June.
    11. Michele Graziano Ceddia & Mark Bartlett & Caterina De Lucia & Charles Perrings, 2011. "On the regulation of spatial externalities: coexistence between GM and conventional crops in the EU and the ‘newcomer principle’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(1), pages 126-143, January.
    12. Stefan Baumgärtner & Martin F. Quaas, 2010. "Managing increasing environmental risks through agrobiodiversity and agrienvironmental policies," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(5), pages 483-496, September.
    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. Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Wesseler, Justus & Berentsen, Paul B.M., 2013. "Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-116.
    2. Qiao, Fangbin, 2015. "Fifteen Years of Bt Cotton in China: The Economic Impact and its Dynamics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-185.
    3. Hu, Ruifa & Pray, Carl & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott & Fan, Cunhui & Zhang, Caiping, 2009. "Reforming intellectual property rights and the Bt cotton seed industry in China: Who benefits from policy reform?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 793-801, June.
    4. Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Müller-Scheeßel, Jörg, 2013. "Impact of alternative information requirements on the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM oilseed rape in the EU," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 104-115.
    5. Emmanuelle Augeraud-Véron & Giorgio Fabbri & Katheline Schubert, 2019. "The Value of Biodiversity as an Insurance Device," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1068-1081.
    6. Augeraud-Véron, Emmanuelle & Fabbri, Giorgio & Schubert, Katheline, 2021. "Volatility-reducing biodiversity conservation under strategic interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    7. Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Termansen, Mette & Pascual, Unai, 2020. "Natural insurance as condition for market insurance: Climate change adaptation in agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Paavola, Jouni & Primmer, Eeva, 2019. "Governing the Provision of Insurance Value From Ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Ceddia, M.G. & Heikkil, J. & Peltola, J., 2009. "Managing invasive alien species with professional and hobby farmers: Insights from ecological-economic modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1366-1374, March.
    10. Waibel, Hermann & Pemsl, Diemuth E. & Gutierrez, Andrew P., 2005. "Institutional Constraints for the Success of Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: The Case of Bt-Cotton in Shandong Province, China," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Kiel 2005 25, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    11. Faure, Jérôme & Mouysset, Lauriane, 2025. "Natural insurance as a green alternative for farmers? Empirical evidence for semi-natural habitats and methodological bias," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    12. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    13. Cai, Rong & Ma, Jie & Wang, shujuan & Cai, Shukai, 2024. "Can crop insurance help optimize farmers’ decisions on pesticides use? Evidence from family farms in East China," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    14. Bjørnåvold, Amalie & David, Maia & Bohan, David A. & Gibert, Caroline & Rousselle, Jean-Marc & Van Passel, Steven, 2022. "Why does France not meet its pesticide reduction targets? Farmers' socio-economic trade-offs when adopting agro-ecological practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    15. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    16. Sidibé, Yoro & Foudi, Sébastien & Pascual, Unai & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Adaptation to Climate Change in Rainfed Agriculture in the Global South: Soil Biodiversity as Natural Insurance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 588-596.
    17. Qaim, Matin, 2003. "Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 2115-2127, December.
    18. Kristina Hubbard & Neva Hassanein, 2013. "Confronting coexistence in the United States: organic agriculture, genetic engineering, and the case of Roundup Ready ® alfalfa," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(3), pages 325-335, September.
    19. Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Shuoyan He, 2024. "How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18361-18384, July.
    20. Serra, Teresa & Zilberman, David & Goodwin, Barry K. & Featherstone, Allen M., 2005. "Effects of Decoupling on the Average and the Variability of Output," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24601, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:bla:ajarec:v:66:y:2022:i:2:p:424-446. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.