IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v10y2019i2d10.1007_s13132-017-0494-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Potential and Economic Impacts of Food Nanotechnology Innovations

Author

Listed:
  • Van Tran

    (University of Massachusetts Amherst)

  • Amalia Yiannaka

    (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

  • Konstantinos Giannakas

    (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

Abstract

The study develops an analytical framework of heterogeneous consumers and imperfectly competitive suppliers to (a) examine the determinants of the market acceptance of a food nanotechnology innovation; (b) identify the exact conditions under which the innovation will be ineffective, nondrastic, and drastic; and (c) determine the effects of this technology on the interest groups involved. Analytical results show that high consumer valuations of the enhanced attributes enabled by nanotechnology can lead to consumer acceptance of nanofoods even when consumers are more averse to nanotechnology than conventional food technology. In most cases, the introduction of food nanotechnology leads to reduced quantities and prices of conventional and organic products, which result, in turn, in losses for nonadopting suppliers and benefits for all consumers. The greater is the degree of market power of food suppliers, the greater the reduction in the prices of conventional and organic products and the greater the losses of these suppliers due to the introduction of the food nanotechnology innovation. While all consumers can benefit from the introduction of nanofood innovations, the effect of these innovations on consumer welfare is asymmetric, with the group of consumers benefiting the most being case-specific and dependent on the relative quality ranking of the nanofoods and their conventional counterparts.

Suggested Citation

  • Van Tran & Amalia Yiannaka & Konstantinos Giannakas, 2019. "Market Potential and Economic Impacts of Food Nanotechnology Innovations," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(2), pages 776-811, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:10:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-017-0494-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-017-0494-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-017-0494-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-017-0494-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elias Carayannis & Igor Dubina, 2014. "Thinking Beyond The Box: Game-Theoretic and Living Lab Approaches to Innovation Policy and Practice Improvement," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(3), pages 427-439, September.
    2. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    3. Andrea Bieberstein & Jutta Roosen & Stéphan Marette & Sandrine Blanchemanche & Frederic Vandermoere, 2013. "Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(1), pages 73-94, February.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Shogren, Jason (ed.), 2011. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199569441, Decembrie.
    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. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    2. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Tran, Van T. & Yiannaka, Amalia & Giannakas, Konstantinos, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes, Labeling Regimes and the Market Success of Food Nanotechnology," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151262, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Bemile, Esther & Anders, Sven M., 2014. "Linking Diet-Health Behaviour and Obesity using Propensity Score Matching," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182832, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Ibrahim Alnafrah & Sulaiman Mouselli, 2019. "The Knowledge Society Vis-à-vis the Knowledge Economy and Their Potential Development Impacts in Russia," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 205-220, March.
    6. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    7. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    8. Paul A. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2020. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Working Papers 20-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    9. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    10. Chen, Xianwen & Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre, 2014. "Consumer Preferences, Ecolabels, and the Effects of Negative Environmental Information," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 168094, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Matthias Staudigel & Aleksej Trubnikov, 2022. "High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 309-334, April.
    12. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    13. Aaron Smith-Walter & Michael D. Jones & Elizabeth A. Shanahan & Holly Peterson, 2020. "The stories groups tell: campaign finance reform and the narrative networks of cultural cognition," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 645-684, April.
    14. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    16. Roland Herrmann & Rebecca Schröck, 2012. "Unternehmerische Anreize zur Teilnahme an Labelling- und Qualitätssicherungsprogrammen auf heterogenen Lebensmittelmärkten," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(4), pages 123-146.
    17. Shapiro, Matthew A., 2020. "Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    18. Etile, Fabrice, 2014. "Education policies and health inequalities: Evidence from changes in the distribution of Body Mass Index in France, 1981–2003," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 46-65.
    19. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    20. Birkelund, Johan & Cherry, Todd L. & McEvoy, David M., 2022. "A culture of cheating: The role of worldviews in preferences for honesty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food nanotechnology; Coexistence; Ineffective; nondrastic; and drastic innovations; Consumer heterogeneity; Consumer and producer welfare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:spr:jknowl:v:10:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-017-0494-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.