IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/10073.html

Insuring the Stewardship of Bt Corn: A Carrot Versus a Stick

Author

Listed:
  • Mitchell, Paul D.
  • Hurley, Terrance M.
  • Babcock, Bruce A.
  • Hellmich, Richard L.

Abstract

We compare subsidies and fines to voluntary and mandatory refuge insurance (insurance for pest damage on Bt corn refuge) as mechanisms for securing grower compliance with EPA refuge mandates. A conceptual model partially ranks mechanisms. We empirically quantify tradeoffs between mechanisms using grower welfare, payments to growers, and monitoring frequency. Grower welfare is lowest with mandatory insurance, since growers pay all costs, and highest with direct refuge subsidies, since public funds or companies subsidize all costs. Assuming typical premium loads and ignoring distribution considerations, we develop monitoring budgets for fines and subsidies, above which voluntary or mandatory insurance is better. Key words: biotechnology, European corn borer, refuge insurance, resistance management

Suggested Citation

  • Mitchell, Paul D. & Hurley, Terrance M. & Babcock, Bruce A. & Hellmich, Richard L., 2002. "Insuring the Stewardship of Bt Corn: A Carrot Versus a Stick," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10073, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:10073
    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
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ambec, Stefan & Desquilbet, Marion, 2006. "Pest Resistance Regulation and Pest Mobility," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21134, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Mitchell, Paul D. & Zhu, En (John), 2003. "Moral Hazard And Bt Corn Refuge," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22113, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Matty Demont & Marie Cerovska & Wim Daems & Koen Dillen & József Fogarasi & Erik Mathijs & František Muška & Josef Soukup & Eric Tollens, 2008. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 463-486, September.
    4. Yang, Juan & Mitchell, Paul D. & Gray, Michael & Steffey, Kevin, 2007. "Unbalanced Nested Component Error Model and the Value of Soil Insecticide and Bt Corn for Controlling Western Corn Rootworm," Staff Paper Series 510, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    5. František KOCOUREK & Jitka STARÁ, 2012. "Efficacy of Bt maize against European corn borer in Central Europe," Plant Protection Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 48(SpecialIs), pages 25-35.
    6. Marion Desquilbet & Markus Herrmann, 2016. "The Dynamics of Pest Resistance Management: The Case of Refuge Fields for Bt Crops," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 253-288, June.
    7. Paul D. Mitchell & Terrance M. Hurley, 2006. "Adverse Selection, Moral Hazard, and Grower Compliance with Bt Corn Refuge," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Richard E. Just & Julian M. Alston & David Zilberman (ed.), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy, chapter 0, pages 599-623, Springer.
    8. Stefan Ambec & Marion Desquilbet, 2012. "Regulation of a Spatial Externality: Refuges versus Tax for Managing Pest Resistance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 79-104, January.

    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:isu:genres:10073. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.