IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/01-wp264.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Benefits and Costs of Biotechnology Innovations in Agriculture

Author

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 ma y 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

  • GianCarlo Moschini, 2001. "Economic Benefits and Costs of Biotechnology Innovations in Agriculture," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 01-wp264, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:01-wp264
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/01wp264.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=321
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose B. Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Rent creation and distribution from biotechnology innovations: The case of bt cotton and Herbicide-Tolerant soybeans in 1997," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 21-32.
    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. Richard Carew & Stephen Devadoss, 2003. "Quantifying the Contribution of Plant Breeders’Rights and Transgenic Varieties to Canola Yields: Evidence from Manitoba," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 51(3), pages 371-395, November.
    2. Harvey E. Lapan & Giancarlo Moschini, 2004. "Innovation and Trade with Endogenous Market Failure: The Case of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 634-648.
    3. Mario F. Teisl & Julie A. Caswell, 2003. "Information Policy and Genetically Modified Food: Weighting the Benefits and Costs," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, March.
    4. Busdieker-Jesse, Nichole L. & Nogueira, Lia & Onal, Hayri & Bullock, David S., 2016. "The Economic Impact of New Technology Adoption on the U.S. Apple Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Taing, William & Ahmadi-Esfahani, Fredoun Z., 2009. "GM technology and the Australian canola," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48191, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Bruno Larue & Gale E. West & Carole Gendron & Rémy Lambert, 2004. "Consumer response to functional foods produced by conventional, organic, or genetic manipulation," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 155-166.
    7. Antonio Seccia & Antonio Stasi & Luigi Roselli, 2006. "Atteggiamento dei consumatori nei confronti dell'evoluzione del sistema agro-alimentare: l'introduzione di alimenti geneticamente modificati," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 10(1).
    8. Gil-Delgado, Maria De Los Reyes Corripio & Diez, Maria Del Carmen Fernandez, 2003. "Is Intellectual Property Right Legislation Constraining The Agrifood Biotechnology Sector In The European Union?," Working Papers 28563, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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. Frisvold, George B. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2008. "The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: The case of Bt cotton," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 87-97, March.
    2. Falck-Zepeda, Jose & 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M., 2002. "The payoffs to agricultural biotechnology: an assessment of the evidence," EPTD discussion papers 87, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Matin Qaim & Greg Traxler, 2005. "Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 73-86, January.
    6. Lemarie, Stephane & Ramani, Shyama, 2003. "Analysis Of The Vertical Relationships Between Seed And Biotech Companies," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22041, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Harrington, David H. & Jefferson-Moore, Kenrett Y., 2006. "The Distribution of Rents in Supply Chain Industries: The Case of High Oil Corn," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25579, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. 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(1), pages 1-25.
    9. Suntornpithug, Pasu & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G., 2009. "Understanding the Adoption of Cotton Biotechnologies in the US: Firm Level Evidence," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17.
    10. Bullock, David S. & D'Arcangelo, Filippo Maria & Desquilbet, Marion, 2018. "A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops," TSE Working Papers 18-959, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2019.
    11. Runge, C. Ford & Jackson, Lee Ann, 1999. "Labeling, Trade And Genetically Modified Organisms (Gmos): A Proposed Solution," Working Papers 14402, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    12. Cohen, Joel & Komen, John & Zepeda, Jose Falck, 2004. "National agricultural biotechnology research capacity in developing countries," ESA Working Papers 23790, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    13. Huffman, Wallace E., 2009. "Technology and innovation in world agriculture: prospects for 2010-2019," ISU General Staff Papers 200908310700001135, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. King, John L. & Klotz-Ingram, Cassandra, 2001. "Patent Protection And Project Management In The Development Of New Crop Varieties: Case Study Of The High Pectin Tomato," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20634, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Heisey, Paul W. & Morris, Michael L., 2002. "Practical Challenges To Estimating The Benefits Of Agricultural R&D: The Case Of Plant Breeding Research," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19828, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Matty Demont & Koen Dillen & Erik Mathijs & Eric Tollens, 2007. "GM Crops in Europe: How Much Value and for Whom? Les cultures génétiquement modifiées en Europe : quels avantages et pour qui? Genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in Europa: Welcher Wert und für wen?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 6(3), pages 46-53, December.
    17. Maupin, Jason & Norton, George W., 2010. "Pesticide Use and IPM Adoption: Does IPM Reduce Pesticide Use in the United States?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61306, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Pray, Carl & Ma, Danmeng & Huang, Jikun & Qiao, Fangbin, 2001. "Impact of Bt Cotton in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 813-825, May.
    19. Evita Pangaribowo & Nicolas Gerber & Pascal Tillie, 2013. "Assessing the FNS impacts of technological and institutional innovations and future innovation trends," FOODSECURE Working papers 11, LEI Wageningen UR.
    20. Traxler, Greg, 2004. "The Economic Impacts of Biotechnology-Based Technological Innovations," ESA Working Papers 23806, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).

    More about this item

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Technology Assessment

    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:ias:cpaper:01-wp264. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.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.