IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/hebarc/18413.html

Economic Benefits and Costs of Biotechnology Innovations in Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Moschini, GianCarlo

Abstract

The conceptual model necessary for an assessment of biotechnology's economic benefits and costs is outlined, emphasizing the need to account for the proprietary nature of biotechnology innovations. The model is illustrated with an application to Roundup Ready soybeans. The estimated value of this innovation is sizeable, with consumers and innovators claiming the larger share of net benefits. Also, disparities in intellectual property rights protection across countries affect the distribution of benefits. Consumer resistance toward genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the issues of labeling and market segregation complicate the economic evaluation of biotechnology innovations, and a number of related regulation and public policy issues are discussed. Emerging output-trait GMOs are potentially less controversial and may bring more benefits to all participants in the agri-food sector, but this outcome depends crucially on the development of an effective, credible, and internationally harmonized regulatory system.

Suggested Citation

  • Moschini, GianCarlo, 2001. "Economic Benefits and Costs of Biotechnology Innovations in Agriculture," Hebrew University of Jerusalem Archive 18413, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:hebarc:18413
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.18413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/18413/files/wp010264.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.18413?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. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan, 1997. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Welfare Effects of Agricultural R&D," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1229-1242.
    2. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Fulton, Murray, 2002. "Consumption effects of genetic modification: what if consumers are right?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 97-109, August.
    3. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan & Andrei Sobolevsky, 2000. "Roundup ready® soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 33-55.
    4. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Fulton, Murray E., 2000. "Consumption Effects Of Genetic Modification: What If Consumers Are Right?," EPTD Discussion Papers 16042, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Alston, Julian M. & Chan-Kang, Connie & Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Wyatt, T.J., 2000. "A Meta-Analysis Of Rates Of Return To Agricultural R & D: Ex Pede Herculem?," Research Reports 16535, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Stanley M. Besen & Leo J. Raskind, 1991. "An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 3-27, Winter.
    7. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. 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.
    9. Alan Swinbank, 1999. "The role of the WTO and the international agencies in SPS standard setting," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 323-333.
    10. Huffman, Wallace E. & Evenson, Robert E., 1993. "Science for Agriculture: A Long Term Perspective," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10997, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    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. Lapan, Harvey E. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2002. "Innovation And Trade With Endogenous Market Failure: The Case Of Genetically Modified Products," Hebrew University of Jerusalem Archive 18555, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    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. Moschini, GianCarlo, 2001. "Biotech--Who Wins? Economic Benefits and Costs of Biotechnology Innovations in Agriculture," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 2(01), pages 1-25.
    2. Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. & Nottenburg, Carol & Koo, Bonwoo, 2007. "Agricultural Innovation: Investments and Incentives," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 48, pages 2533-2603, Elsevier.
    3. Huffman, Wallace E., 2009. "Measuring public agricultural research capital and its contribution to state agricultural productivity," ISU General Staff Papers 200903160700001147, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Moschini, GianCarlo & Lapan, Harvey E. & Sobolevsky, Andrei, 2000. "Trading Technology As Well As Final Products: Roundup Ready Soybean and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5317, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Thirtle, Colin G. & Srinivasan, Chittur S. & Heisey, Paul W., 2001. "Public Sector Plant Breeding In A Privatizing World," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33775, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Chang, Ching-Cheng & Hsu, Shih-Hsun & Wu, Chia-Hsuan, 2004. "An Economy-Wide Analysis Of Gm Food Labeling Policies In Taiwan," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19929, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2001. "Reshaping The Conventional Welfare Economics Framework For Estimating The Economic Impact Of Agricultural Biotechnology In The European Union," Working Papers 31835, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    9. Nahuis, Richard & Smulders, Sjak, 2002. "The Skill Premium, Technological Change and Appropriability," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 137-156, June.
    10. Saurav Roychoudhury & Anuj Bhowmik & Srobonti Chattopadhyay, 2024. "Innovation and governance," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 48(1), pages 78-106, March.
    11. Hareau, Guy Gaston & Norton, George W. & Mills, Bradford F. & Peterson, Everett B., 2004. "Potential Benefits Of Transgenic Rice In Asia: A General Equilibrium Approach," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20334, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Gray, Richard S. & Malla, Stavroula & Tran, Kien C., 2005. "Pecuniary, Non-Pecuniary, and Downstream Research Spillovers: The Case of Canola," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24776, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Esposti, Roberto, . "Knowledge, Technology and Innovations for a Bio-based Economy: Lessons from the Past, Challenges for the Future," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(3), pages 1-34.
    14. Arega D. Alene, 2010. "Productivity growth and the effects of R&D in African agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(3‐4), pages 223-238, May.
    15. International Food Policy Research Institute, 2002. "Trade in genetically modified food: a survey of empirical studies," TMD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Davis, Lee N. & Meyer, Klaus E., 2004. "Subsidiary research and development, and the local environment," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 359-382, June.
    17. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Falck-Zepeda, José B. & Horna, Daniela & Smale, Melinda, 2007. "The economic impact and the distribution of benefits and risk from the adoption of insect resistant (Bt) cotton in West Africa," IFPRI discussion papers 718, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Luc, Veyssiere, 2006. "Best Response to GMOs in Developing Countries," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21075, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 1999. "The Economics Of Agricultural Biotechnology: Historical And Analytical Framework," Working Papers 31845, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:hebarc:18413. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.