IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v37y2020i2p201-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Firm‐Level Lobbying and Government Responsiveness in Agricultural Biotechnology in China

Author

Listed:
  • Haiyan Deng
  • Ruifa Hu
  • Carl Pray
  • Yanhong Jin
  • Zhonghua Li

Abstract

Understanding what stimulates agribusiness firms to lobby the government and what makes the government responsive to lobbying are the two issues that have been discussed extensively in the debates concerning determinants of biotechnology policy. This paper examines the factors influencing agribusiness firms' lobbying and government response using econometric modeling on a new data set of 160 leading agribusiness firms in the food, feed, chemical, and seed industries in China. The results show that approximately 10% of agribusiness firms lobbied the government about biotechnology policy and regulations and over half of those that lobbied received a verbal or written acknowledgment from government agencies. Seed and feed companies are more likely to engage in lobbying than chemical companies. Owning GM patents not only has a positive impact on firms' lobbying activities, but firms with these patents are more likely to receive a government response to their lobbying efforts. The experience of selling GM products does not significantly influence lobbying activities or response from the government. 中国农业生物技术中公司游说和政府响应的决定因素 有关生物技术政策决定因素的学术辩论一直在大量探讨两个问题，即是什么在激励农业综合企业游说政府，又是什么让政府响应游说。本文通过对一项有关中国食品、饲料、化工和种子产业中160家领先农业综合公司的新数据集进行计量经济模型研究，检验了影响农业综合企业游说和政府响应的影响因素。研究结果显示，几乎近百分之十的农业综合企业针对生物技术政策和监管向政府进行游说，而这部分公司中超过一半收到了政府机构的口头回复或书面回复。比起化工企业，种子和饲料企业更有可能参与游说。拥有转基因专利不仅对企业游说活动具有积极影响，同时这些公司还更可能因其游说行动而收到政府回应。拥有销售转基因产品的经历并不会对游说活动或政府响应产生显著影响。 Determinantes del cabildeo a nivel empresarial y la capacidad de respuesta del gobierno en biotecnología agrícola en China Comprender qué es lo que estimula a las empresas de agronegocios para presionar al gobierno y lo que hace que el gobierno responda al cabildeo son dos temas que se han discutido ampliamente en los debates sobre los determinantes de la política de biotecnología. Este documento examina los factores que influyen en el cabildeo de las empresas de agronegocios y la respuesta del gobierno utilizando modelos econométricos en un nuevo conjunto de datos de 160 empresas agroindustriales líderes en las industrias de alimentos, piensos, químicos y semillas en China. Los resultados muestran que aproximadamente el 10% de las empresas de agronegocios cabildearon al gobierno sobre políticas y regulaciones de biotecnología y más de la mitad de las que presionaron recibieron un reconocimiento verbal o escrito de las agencias gubernamentales. Las empresas de semillas y piensos tienen más probabilidades de participar en el cabildeo que las empresas químicas. Ser propietario de patentes de GM no solo tiene un impacto positivo en las actividades de cabildeo de las empresas, sino que las empresas con estas patentes tienen más probabilidades de recibir una respuesta del gobierno a sus esfuerzos de cabildeo. La experiencia en la venta de productos GM no influye significativamente en las actividades de cabildeo o en la respuesta del gobierno.

Suggested Citation

  • Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin & Zhonghua Li, 2020. "Determinants of Firm‐Level Lobbying and Government Responsiveness in Agricultural Biotechnology in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 201-220, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:2:p:201-220
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12363
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12363?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. Hanna Bäck & Marc Debus & Jale Tosun, 2015. "Partisanship, Ministers, and Biotechnology Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 32(5), pages 556-575, September.
    2. Maya Mitre & Bruno P. W. Reis, 2014. "Science and Politics in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms in Brazil," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(2), pages 125-147, March.
    3. William R. Kerr & William F. Lincoln & Prachi Mishra, 2014. "The Dynamics of Firm Lobbying," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 343-379, November.
    4. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    5. Jikun Huang & Jun Zhang & Scott Rozelle, 2013. "The Political Economy of Food Pricing Policy in China," Working Papers id:5317, eSocialSciences.
    6. Douglas Cumming & Jeffrey MacIntosh, 2000. "The Determinants of R & D Expenditures: A Study of the Canadian Biotechnology Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(4), pages 357-370, December.
    7. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Jikun Huang & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin & Zhonghua Li, 2017. "Attitudes toward GM foods, biotechnology R&D investment and lobbying activities among agribusiness firms in the food, feed, chemical and seed industries in China," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(3), pages 385-396, September.
    8. Jean-Michel Marcoux & Olga Carolina Cardenas Gomez & Lyne Létourneau, 2013. "The Inclusion of Nonsafety Criteria within the Regulatory Framework of Agricultural Biotechnology: Exploring Factors that Are Likely to Influence Policy Transfer," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(6), pages 657-684, November.
    9. Jidong Chen & Jennifer Pan & Yiqing Xu, 2016. "Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A Field Experiment in China," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(2), pages 383-400, April.
    10. Arora, Ashish, 1997. "Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 391-403, December.
    11. Hu, Ruifa & Liang, Qin & Pray, Carl E. & Huang, Jikun & Jin, Yanhong H., 2011. "Privatization, Public R&D Policy, and Private R&D Investment in China's Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-17, August.
    12. By Kishore Gawande & Pravin Krishna & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2012. "Lobbying Competition Over Trade Policy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(1), pages 115-132, February.
    13. Devashish Mitra, 2016. "Endogenous Lobby Formation and Endogenous Protection: A Long-Run Model of Trade Policy Determination," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Trade Policy Theory, Evidence and Applications, chapter 1, pages 3-21, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Alt, James E. & Carlsen, Fredrik & Heum, Per & Johansen, Kåre, 1999. "Asset Specificity and the Political Behavior of Firms: Lobbying for Subsidies in Norway," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 99-116, January.
    15. Jale Tosun & Simon Schaub, 2017. "Mobilization in the European Public Sphere: The Struggle Over Genetically Modified Organisms," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(3), pages 310-330, June.
    16. Bombardini, Matilde, 2008. "Firm heterogeneity and lobby participation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 329-348, July.
    17. S.S. Vickner, 2004. "Media Coverage of Biotech Foods and Influence on Consumer Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1238-1246.
    18. Georg Wenzelburger & Pascal D. König, 2017. "Different by Design? Analyzing How Governments Justify GMO Liberalization through the Lens of Strategic Communication," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(3), pages 331-356, June.
    19. Ann N. Kingiri & Andy Hall, 2012. "The Role of Policy Brokers: The Case of Biotechnology in Kenya," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(4), pages 492-522, July.
    20. Jikun Huang & Jun Zhang & Scott Rozelle, 2013. "The Political Economy of Food Pricing Policy in China," Working Papers id:5317, eSocialSciences.
    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. Kammerer, Hannes, 2013. "Lobbying for Subsidies with Heterogeneous Firms," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79767, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Saha, Amrita, 2019. "Trade policy & lobbying effectiveness: Theory and evidence for India," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 165-192.
    3. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Marvasi, Enrico, 2019. "Protection for sale under monopolistic competition: Beyond the CES," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Yuting Gao, 2022. "Lobbying for Trade Liberalization and its Policy Influence," CAEPR Working Papers 2022-006 Classification-D, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    5. William R. Kerr & William F. Lincoln & Prachi Mishra, 2014. "The Dynamics of Firm Lobbying," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 343-379, November.
    6. Enrico Marvasi, 2013. "Protection for Sale, Monopolistic Competition and Variable Markups," Working Papers - Economics wp2013_11.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    7. Nathan Nunn & Daniel Trefler, 2006. "Putting the Lid on Lobbying: Tariff Structure and Long-Term Growth when Protection is for Sale," NBER Working Papers 12164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Barbara Annicchiarico & Enrico Marvasi, 2018. "Protection for Sale with Price Interactions and Incomplete Pass-Through," Working Papers LuissLab 18141, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    9. Stefano Barbieri & Kai A. Konrad & David A. Malueg, 2020. "Preemption contests between groups," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(3), pages 934-961, September.
    10. Magee, Stephen & Lee, Hak Loh & Lee, Hongshik, 2017. "Simple measures of endogenous free-riding in protectionist lobbies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 324-333.
    11. Kim, Young-Han & Kim, Sang-Kee, 2012. "Welfare effects of competitive lobbying efforts in international oligopoly markets," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 614-620.
    12. Elena Paltseva, 2014. "Protection for Sale: The case of oligopolistic competition and interdependent sectors," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 1195-1216, November.
    13. Zudenkova, Galina, 2010. "Sincere Lobby Formation," Working Papers 2072/151545, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    14. Qasim, Ahmed Waqar & Itaya, Jun-ichi, 2019. "Trade Policy with Intermediate Inputs Trade," Discussion paper series. A 342, Graduate School of Economics and Business Administration, Hokkaido University.
    15. Jussila Hammes, Johanna, 2011. "Path dependence: Biofuels policy under uncertainty about greenhouse gas emissions," Working Papers 2011:1, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
    16. Imai, Susumu & Katayama, Hajime & Krishna, Kala, 2013. "A quantile-based test of protection for sale model," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 40-52.
    17. Mirabelle Muûls & Dimitra Petropoulou, 2013. "A swing state theory of trade protection in the Electoral College," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(2), pages 705-724, May.
    18. Daryna Grechyna, 2021. "Trade openness and political distortions," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 644-663, November.
    19. Vincent Rebeyrol & Julien Vauday, 2008. "Live or let die : intra-sectoral lobbying on entry," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne bla08036, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    20. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto & Maria Petrova & Ruben Enikolopov, 2008. "The Dracula effect: voter information and trade policy," Economics Working Papers 1296, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Oct 2020.

    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:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:2:p:201-220. 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/ipsonea.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.