IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ler/wpaper/25077.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Spatial Efficiency of Genetically Modified and Organic Crops

Author

Listed:
  • Ambec, Stefan
  • Langinier, Corinne
  • Marcoul, Philippe

Abstract

We analyze the spatial distribution of genetically modified (GM) and organic crops. Because some organic crops will likely be contaminated by GM crops, not all of the non- GM crops can be sold as organic. Therefore, the choice of producing organic crops will depend on the surrounding crops. When producers follow individual strategies, many spatial configurations arise in equilibrium, some being more efficient than others. We examine how coordination among producers has an impact on the spatial distribution of crop varieties. We show that coordination among only a small number of producers can greatly improve efficiency. For instance, an organic producer who has two GM neighbors needs to coordinate only with one of them to reduce spatial externality and improve efficiency.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Ambec, Stefan & Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Philippe, 2011. "Spatial Efficiency of Genetically Modified and Organic Crops," LERNA Working Papers 11.18.352, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    • Handle: RePEc:ler:wpaper:25077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.toulouse.inra.fr/lerna/travaux/cahiers2011/11.18.352.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beckmann, Volker & Soregaroli, Claudio & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: governing the coexistence of GM crops," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 4, pages 1-33.
    2. David J. Lewis & Andrew J. Plantinga & JunJie Wu, 2009. "Targeting Incentives to Reduce Habitat Fragmentation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1080-1096.
    3. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    4. Volker Beckmann & Justus Wesseler, 2007. "Spatial Dimension of Externalities and the Coase Theorem: Implications for Co-existence of Transgenic Crops," Springer Books, in: Wim Heijman (ed.), Regional Externalities, chapter 11, pages 223-242, Springer.
    5. Michele Graziano Ceddia & Mark Bartlett & Caterina De Lucia & Charles Perrings, 2011. "On the regulation of spatial externalities: coexistence between GM and conventional crops in the EU and the ‘newcomer principle’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(1), pages 126-143, January.
    6. Skevas, Theodoros & Fevereiro, Pedro & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Coexistence regulations and agriculture production: A case study of five Bt maize producers in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2402-2408, October.
    7. Munro, Alistair, 2008. "The spatial impact of genetically modified crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 658-666, November.
    8. Alexander E. Saak & David A. Hennessy, 2002. "Planting Decisions and Uncertain Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Crop Varieties," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 308-319.
    9. Derek Berwald & Colin A. Carter & Guillaume P. Gruère, 2006. "Rejecting New Technology: The Case of Genetically Modified Wheat," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 432-447.
    10. Parkhurst, Gregory M. & Shogren, Jason F., 2007. "Spatial incentives to coordinate contiguous habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 344-355, December.
    11. Alexander E. Saak, 2004. "Equilibrium and Efficient Land-Use Arrangements under Spatial Externality on a Lattice," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-wp376, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    12. Volker Beckmann & Claudio Soregaroli & Justus Wesseler, 2006. "Coexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1193-1199.
    13. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, January.
    15. Belcher, Ken & Nolan, James & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2005. "Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 387-401, May.
    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. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Wesseler, Justus & Berentsen, Paul B.M., 2013. "Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-116.
    3. Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Müller-Scheeßel, Jörg, 2013. "Impact of alternative information requirements on the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM oilseed rape in the EU," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 104-115.
    4. Gray, Emily & Ancev, Tihomir & Drynan, Ross, 2011. "Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops with endogenously determined separation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2486-2493.
    5. Rolf A. Groeneveld & Erik Ansink & Clemens C.M. Van de Wiel & Justus Wesseler, 2011. "Benefits and Costs of Biologically Contained Genetically Modified Tomatoes and Eggplants in Italy and Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "How do GM/non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 51-82, February.
    7. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    8. Wesseler, Justus, 2014. "Biotechnologies and agrifood strategies: opportunities, threats and economic implications," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(3), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Are EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations proportional?," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44191, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    11. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2015. "How do GM / non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," Working Papers hal-00956039, HAL.
    12. Lewis, David J. & Barham, Bradford L. & Zimmerer, Karl S., 2008. "Spatial Externalities in Agriculture: Empirical Analysis, Statistical Identification, and Policy Implications," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1813-1829, October.
    13. GianCarlo Moschini, 2015. "In medio stat virtus: coexistence policies for GM and non-GM production in spatial equilibrium," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 42(5), pages 851-874.
    14. Skevas, Theodoros & Fevereiro, Pedro & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Coexistence regulations and agriculture production: A case study of five Bt maize producers in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2402-2408, October.
    15. Olivier Bonroy & Christos Constantatos, 2015. "On the Economics of Labels: How Their Introduction Affects the Functioning of Markets and the Welfare of All Participants," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 239-259.
    16. Thomas J. Venus & Koen Dillen & Maarten J. Punt & Justus H. H. Wesseler, 2017. "The Costs of Coexistence Measures for Genetically Modified Maize in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 407-426, June.
    17. Ceddia, Michele Graziano & Bartlett, Mark & Lucia, Caterina De & Perrings, Charles, 2011. "On the regulation of spatial externalities: coexistence between GM and conventional crops in the EU and the ‘newcomer principle’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(1), pages 1-18.
    18. Bchir, Mohamed Hedi & Bouet, Antoine, 2009. "Which tariff aggregator for trade modelers?," Conference papers 331888, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. H. Eggert & M. Greaker, 2011. "Trade, GMOs and Environmental Risk: Are Current Policies Likely to Improve Welfare?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 587-608, April.
    20. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms

    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:ler:wpaper:25077. 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: Maxime MARTY (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lrtlsfr.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.