IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04695507.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farm‐saved seed, royalty rates, and innovation in plant breeding

Author

Listed:
  • Adrien Hervouet

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

  • Stéphane Lemarié

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

Abstract

Seed innovation is one major factor for improving agricultural productivity. For some self‐pollinated varieties, such as wheat, farmers have the option to buy certified seed from seed dealers or to use their own farm‐saved seed. Historically, farmers could use farm‐saved seeds for free, which led to reduced incentives to innovate for private breeding companies. In recent decades, several countries have established different royalty systems for farm‐saved seeds to favor research investment. We developed a theoretical model to compare these different systems. We compared six stylized systems by analyzing their impact on incentives to innovate, as well as production efficiencies at both the seed and agricultural production levels. Our findings indicate that royalty systems allowing for a certain proportion of farm‐saved seeds result in improved welfare. The systems that lead to the highest total welfare levels are those in which the royalty level on farm‐saved seeds is regulated. This includes systems where the royalty is either directly defined by a regulator (as in the French or UK systems) or imposed to match the royalty level of the certified seeds (as in the Australian system). The Australian system performs better under high research costs. Conversely, under low research costs, the best system is either the French or the UK system, depending on the relative cost of producing farm‐saved seeds versus certified seeds. In conclusion, it is possible to design efficient royalty systems to create and produce innovation, in a context where farmers can self‐produce this innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrien Hervouet & Stéphane Lemarié, 2024. "Farm‐saved seed, royalty rates, and innovation in plant breeding," Post-Print hal-04695507, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04695507
    DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khachaturyan, Marianna & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2006. "The market acceptance and welfare impacts of genetic use restriction technologies (GURTS)," 98th Seminar, June 29-July 2, 2006, Chania, Crete, Greece 10097, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Richard S. Gray, 2021. "In defense of farmer saved seeds," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 451-460, December.
    3. Matthew S. Clancy & GianCarlo Moschini, 2013. "Incentives for Innovation: Patents, Prizes, and Research Contracts," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 206-241.
    4. Hervouet, Adrien & Langinier, Corinne, 2018. "Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(01), January.
    5. Stefan Ambec & Corinne Langinier & Stéphane Lemarié, 2008. "Incentives to Reduce Crop Trait Durability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 379-391.
    6. GianCarlo Moschini & Oleg Yerokhin, 2008. "Patents, Research Exemption, and the Incentive for Sequential Innovation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 379-412, June.
    7. Richard S. Gray & Ross Stephen Kingwell & Viktoriya Galushko & Katarzyna Bolek, 2017. "Intellectual Property Rights and Canadian Wheat Breeding for the 21st Century," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 65(4), pages 667-691, December.
    8. Peitz, Martin & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2006. "Why the music industry may gain from free downloading -- The role of sampling," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 907-913, September.
    9. Liebowitz, S J, 1985. "Copying and Indirect Appropriability: Photocopying of Journals," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 945-957, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Paul Belleflamme, 2003. "Pricing information goods in the presence of copying," Chapters, in: Wendy J. Gordon & Richard Watt (ed.), The Economics of Copyright, chapter 2, pages 26-54, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Sekine, Hisako, 2021. "Wheat Grower Payments for Varietal Use:Comparison between Japan, Germany, and Australia," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 23.
    13. Xavier Vives, 2008. "Innovation And Competitive Pressure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 419-469, December.
    14. Stavroula Malla & Richard Gray, 2005. "The Crowding Effects of Basic and Applied Research: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of an Agricultural Biotech Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 423-438.
    15. Kathleen Reavis Conner & Richard P. Rumelt, 1991. "Software Piracy: An Analysis of Protection Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 125-139, February.
    16. Novos, Ian E & Waldman, Michael, 1984. "The Effects of Increased Copyright Protection: An Analytic Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(2), pages 236-246, April.
    17. Peitz, Martin & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2006. "Piracy of digital products: A critical review of the theoretical literature," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 449-476, November.
    18. Ambec, Stefan & Langinier, Corinne & Lemarie, Stephane, 2008. "AJAE Appendix: Incentives to Reduce Crop Trait Durability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 1-11.
    19. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    20. Kingwell, Ross S., 2001. "Charging for the use of plant varieties," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-15.
    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. Adrien Hervouet & Stéphane Lemarié, 2021. "The Economics of Royalty Rate in Plant Breeding," Post-Print hal-03837325, HAL.
    2. Cho, Won-Young & Ahn, Byong-Hun, 2010. "Versioning of information goods under the threat of piracy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 332-340, December.
    3. Xinyu Hua & Kathryn E. Spier, 2023. "Settling Lawsuits With Pirates," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(2), pages 543-575, May.
    4. Jens Hougaard & Mich Tvede, 2010. "Selling digital music: business models for public goods," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 85-102, April.
    5. Tunay I. Tunca & Qiong Wu, 2013. "Fighting Fire with Fire: Commercial Piracy and the Role of File Sharing on Copyright Protection Policy for Digital Goods," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 436-453, June.
    6. Hervouet, Adrien & Langinier, Corinne, 2018. "Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(01), January.
    7. Chang, Yang-Ming & Walter, Jason, 2015. "Digital piracy: Price-quality competition between legal firms and P2P network hosts," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 22-32.
    8. Ming Chang & Chiu Lin & Dachrahn Wu, 2008. "Piracy and limited liability," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 25-53, October.
    9. Jean-Jacques Herings, P. & Peeters, Ronald & Yang, Michael S., 2010. "Competition against peer-to-peer networks," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 315-331, December.
    10. Stan J. Liebowitz & Richard Watt, 2006. "How To Best Ensure Remuneration For Creators In The Market For Music? Copyright And Its Alternatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 513-545, September.
    11. Carlos M. Fernández‐Márquez & Francisco J. Vázquez & Richard Watt, 2020. "Social influence on software piracy," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(7), pages 1211-1224, October.
    12. Takeyama, Lisa N., 2009. "Copyright enforcement and product quality signaling in markets for computer software," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 291-296, November.
    13. Bae Sang Hoo & Yoo Kyeongwon, 2021. "Is Imitation Bad for the Production of Creative Works?," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 115-144, January.
    14. Tsai, Ming-Fang & Chiou, Jiunn-Rong & Lin, Chun-Hung A., 2012. "A model of counterfeiting: A duopoly approach," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 283-291.
    15. Martin Peitz & Patrick Waelbroeck, 2005. "An Economist's Guide to Digital Music," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 51(2-3), pages 359-428.
    16. Banerjee, Dyuti & Chatterjee, Ishita, 2010. "The impact of piracy on innovation in the presence of technological and market uncertainty," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 391-397, December.
    17. Oz Shy & Jacques‐Françlois Thisse, 1999. "A Strategic Approach to Software Protection," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 163-190, June.
    18. Jin-Hyuk Kim, 2013. "A simple model of copyright levies: implications for harmonization," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(6), pages 992-1013, December.
    19. Arun Sundararajan, 2003. "Managing Digital Piracy: Pricing, Protection and Welfare," Law and Economics 0307001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Rasch, Alexander & Wenzel, Tobias, 2013. "Piracy in a two-sided software market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 78-89.

    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:hal:journl:hal-04695507. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.