IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iffpr5/42323.html

Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda: Social Benefits, Costs, and Consumer Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Kikulwe, Enoch M.
  • Wesseler, Justus
  • Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin

Abstract

Banana is a staple crop consumed by Ugandan households. The Uganda National Agricultural Research Organization has implemented conventional and biotechnology programs that seek improving bananas and address the crop’s most important pest and disease problems. A major thrust is the development of genetically modified (GM) bananas. The purpose of this paper is to examine potential social welfare impacts of adopting a GM banana in Uganda. The study has three objectives. First, suggest and apply an approach to calculate reversible and irreversible benefits and costs of introducing a GM banana. The study applies a real option approach to estimate, ex ante, the maximum incremental social tolerable irreversible costs (MISTICs) that would justify immediate introduction of the technology. Second, suggest an approach for assessing producer/consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for introducing a GM banana. Finally, the paper discusses main implications for biosafety decision making for GM crops in Uganda. Results of MISTICs estimation for different scenarios indicate that in delaying the approval of a GM banana, Uganda foregoes potential annual benefits ranging approximately from US$179 million to US$365 million. Average annual MISTICs per household vary between US$34 and US$ 69. Results indicate that only if the average household is willing to give up at least US$38 per year to avoid introduction of a GM banana, should postponing an immediate release be considered. Results imply that although GM bananas promise vast benefits, realization of those benefits depends on consumers’ perceptions and attitudes and the willingness to pay for the GM technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Kikulwe, Enoch M. & Wesseler, Justus & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin, 2008. "Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda: Social Benefits, Costs, and Consumer Perceptions," IFPRI Discussion Papers 42323, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iffpr5:42323
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.42323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/42323/files/ifpridp00767.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.42323?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. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Avinash K. Dixit & Robert S. Pindyck, 1994. "Investment under Uncertainty," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 5474, December.
    3. Beckmann, Volker & Soregaroli, Claudio & Wesseler, Justus, 2006. "Governing the Co-existence of GM Crops: Ex-Ante Regulation and Ex-Post Liability under Uncertainty and Irreversibility," Institutional Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources Discussion Papers 18845, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    5. Fisher, Anthony C & Krutilla, John V & Cicchetti, Charles J, 1974. "The Economics of Environmental Preservation: Further Discussion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 1030-1039, December.
    6. Julian M. Alston & Richard E. Just & David Zilberman, 2006. "What Have We Learned, and Where Do We Go from Here?," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Richard E. Just & Julian M. Alston & David Zilberman (ed.), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy, chapter 0, pages 701-722, Springer.
    7. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    8. Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    10. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    11. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    12. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple‐format, stated‐preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317, June.
    13. Jaffe, Gregory, 2006. "Comparative analysis of the national biosafety regulatory systems in East Africa:," EPTD discussion papers 146, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1999. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: The Use of Latent Class Analysis," Staff Paper Series 24090, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    15. Kenneth J. Arrow & Anthony C. Fisher, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 88(2), pages 312-319.
    16. Smale, Melinda & Tushemereirwe, Wilbeforce K., 2007. "An economic assessment of banana genetic improvement and innovation in the Lake Victoria Region of Uganda and Tanzania," Research reports 155, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Henry, Claude, 1974. "Investment Decisions Under Uncertainty: The "Irreversibility Effect."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 1006-1012, December.
    18. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton, 2005. "Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(2), pages 269-288, June.
    19. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    20. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu, 2005. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for GM Food Benefits: Pay-off or Empty Promise? Implications for the Food Industry," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1-4.
    21. David Wafula & Norman Clark, 2005. "Science and governance of modern biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa-the case of Uganda," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 679-694.
    22. Svetlana Edmeades & Melinda Smale, 2006. "A trait‐based model of the potential demand for a genetically engineered food crop in a developing economy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 351-361, November.
    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. Falck-Zepeda, José B. & Kilkuwe, Enoch M. & Wesseler, Justus, 2008. "Introducing a genetically modified banana in Uganda: Social benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions," IFPRI discussion papers 767, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Birol, Ekin & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Kikulwe, Enoch M. & Wesseler, Justus, 2013. "Benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions of the potential introduction of a fungus-resistant banana in Uganda and policy implications," IFPRI book chapters, in: Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin; Gruère, Guillaume P.; Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara, chapter 4, pages 99-141, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Narain, Urvashi & Hanemann, W. Michael & Fisher, Anthony C, 2007. "The irreversibility effect in environmental decisionmaking," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7bc5t8cf, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    6. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    7. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    8. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    9. S. Ceolotto & E. Denny, 2024. "Putting a New ‘Spin’ on Energy Information: Measuring the Impact of Reframing Energy Efficiency Information on Tumble Dryer Choices in a Multi-country Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 51-108, March.
    10. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2017. "Environmental and resource economics: A Canadian retrospective," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(5), pages 1381-1413, December.
    11. Teratanavat, Ratapol P. & Hooker, Neal H., 2005. "Exploring Consumer Valuation and Preference Heterogeneity for Functional Foods Using a Choice Experiment: A Case Study of Tomato Juice Containing Soy in Ohio," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19556, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Birol, Ekin & Falck-Zepeda, José & Kikulwe, Enoch & Wesseler, Justus, 2009. "A latent class approach to investigating consumer demand for genetically modified staple food in a developing country: The case of GM bananas in Uganda," IFPRI discussion papers 938, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Jinhua Zhao & Catherine L. Kling, 1998. "Real Options and the WTP/WTA Disparity," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 99-wp206, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    14. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Wesseler, Justus, 2009. "The Santaniello theorem of irreversible benefits," MPRA Paper 25602, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    17. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    18. Zhao, Jinhua, 2003. "Irreversible abatement investment under cost uncertainties: tradable emission permits and emissions charges," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(12), pages 2765-2789, December.
    19. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    20. Feld, Brian & Nagy, AbdelRahman & Osman, Adam, 2022. "What do jobseekers want? Comparing methods to estimate reservation wages and the value of job attributes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).

    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:iffpr5:42323. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.