IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/gdec05/3498.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Institutional Constraints for the Success of Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: The Case of Bt-Cotton in Shandong Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Waibel, Hermann
  • Pemsl, Diemuth E.
  • Gutierrez, Andrew P.

Abstract

The use of genetically engineered crop varieties has recently become one option to prevent pest damage in agriculture. The promoters of biotechnology stress the great potential for yield increase and pesticide reduction while the critics point out the potential risks for biodiversity and human health as well as institutional problems for implementation especially in developing countries. The objective of this paper is an in-depth economic analysis of Btcotton production in North East China under small-scale conditions and several years after technology introduction. Data were collected in 2002 (March - October) in Linqing County, a major cotton growing area of Shandong Province, China. Data collection comprised a seasonlong monitoring of Bt-cotton production with 150 farmers from five villages, and three complementary household interviews. In addition, plot-level biological testing was carried out to determine the actual Bt toxin concentration in the varieties that were used by the farmers. All farmers in the case study were growing insect resistant Bt-cotton varieties in 2002. Nevertheless, they sprayed high amounts of chemical pesticides that were almost entirely insecticides. A proportion of 40% of the pesticides applied belonged to the categories extremely or highly hazardous (WHO classes Ia and Ib). The paper reviews methodological issues inherent to impact assessment of crop biotechnology and identifies market and institutional failure as possible reasons for continued high pesticide use. The production function methodology with damage control function was applied and it was found that for both damage control inputs, i.e. Bt and insecticides the coefficients were not significantly different from zero. In contrast to studies that treat Bt varieties as dummy variable in economic models, in this research it was possible to specify Bt toxin concentration in cotton leaf samples as a continuous variable. The results of this study support the notion that introducing Biotechnology in developing countries without enabling institutions that assure proper use of the technology can considerably limit its benefits. Hence it is important to include institutional criteria in the evaluation of agricultural biotechnology especially in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Waibel, Hermann & Pemsl, Diemuth E. & Gutierrez, Andrew P., 2005. "Institutional Constraints for the Success of Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: The Case of Bt-Cotton in Shandong Province, China," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Kiel 2005 25, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:gdec05:3498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/19818/1/Pemsl.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alain Janvry & Gregory Graff & Elisabeth Sadoulet & David Zilberman, 2005. "Technological Change in Agriculture and Poverty Reduction: The Potential Role of Biotechnology," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Joseph Cooper & Leslie Marie Lipper & David Zilberman (ed.), Agricultural Biodiversity and Biotechnology in Economic Development, chapter 0, pages 361-386, Springer.
    2. John M. Antle & Susan M. Capalbo, 1994. "Pesticides, Productivity, and Farmer Health: Implications for Regulatory Policy and Agricultural Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 598-602.
    3. Yong-gong, Liu & Guo-jun, Qiu, 2001. "Socioeconomic Study on Farmers’ Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategies in Brassica Vegetable Crops in China," Working Papers 118381, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
    4. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & Pray, Carl & Qiao, Fangbin & Rozelle, Scott, 2003. "Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 55-67, July.
    5. Catalina Carrasco-Tauber & L. Joe Moffitt, 1992. "Damage Control Econometrics: Functional Specification and Pesticide Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(1), pages 158-162.
    6. Beckmann, Volker & Wesseler, Justus, 2003. "How labour organization may affect technology adoption: an analytical framework analysing the case of integrated pest management," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 437-450, July.
    7. Charles C. Crissman & Donald C. Cole & Fernando Carpio, 1994. "Pesticide Use and Farm Worker Health in Ecuadorian Potato Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 593-597.
    8. John M. Antle, 1983. "Incorporating Risk in Production Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(5), pages 1099-1106.
    9. 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.
    10. Joseph Cooper & Leslie Marie Lipper & David Zilberman (ed.), 2005. "Agricultural Biodiversity and Biotechnology in Economic Development," Natural Resource Management and Policy, Springer, number 978-0-387-25409-8, December.
    11. Antle, John M., 1983. "Incorporating Risk In Production Analysis," 1983 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 3, West Lafayette, Indiana 279106, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Erik Lichtenberg & David Zilberman, 1986. "The Econometrics of Damage Control: Why Specification Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 261-273.
    13. Qaim, Matin, 2003. "Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 2115-2127, December.
    14. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & Rozelle, Scott & Qiao, Fangbin & Pray, Carl E., 2002. "Transgenic varieties and productivity of smallholder cotton farmers in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-21.
    15. Prabhu L. Pingali & Cynthia B. Marquez & Florencia G. Palis, 1994. "Pesticides and Philippine Rice Farmer Health: A Medical and Economic Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 587-592.
    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. Qiao, Fangbin, 2015. "Fifteen Years of Bt Cotton in China: The Economic Impact and its Dynamics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-185.
    2. Solomon Asfaw & Dagmar Mithöfer & Hermann Waibel, 2009. "EU Food Safety Standards, Pesticide Use and Farm‐level Productivity: The Case of High‐value Crops in Kenya," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 645-667, September.
    3. Qiao, Fangbin & Huang, Jikun & Wang, Xiaobing, 2017. "Fifteen Years of Bt Cotton in China: Results from Household Surveys," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 351-359.
    4. Hu, Ruifa & Pray, Carl & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott & Fan, Cunhui & Zhang, Caiping, 2009. "Reforming intellectual property rights and the Bt cotton seed industry in China: Who benefits from policy reform?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 793-801, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Fangbin Qiao & Jikun Huang & Caiping Zhang, 2016. "The Sustainability of the Farm-level Impact of Bt Cotton in China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 602-618, September.
    7. Konstantinos Chatzimichael & Margarita Genius & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2022. "Pesticide use, health impairments and economic losses under rational farmers behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 765-790, March.
    8. Huang, Jikun & Chen, Ruijian & Qiao, Fangbin & Wu, Kongming, 2015. "Biosafety management and pesticide use in China's Bt cotton production," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 67-75.
    9. Ayesh, Abubakr & Swinton, Scott M., 2020. "Does a Lemon Technology for Pest Control Act as a Substitute for Insecticides?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304535, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Matuschke, I. & Qaim, M., 2006. "Auswirkungen der Grünen Gentechnik in Entwicklungsländern: Ein Überblick," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 41, March.
    11. A. Myrick Freeman III, 2000. "The Valuation of Environmental Health Damages in Developing Countries: Some Observations," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp200011t1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Nov 2000.
    12. Asfaw, Solomon & Mithofer, Dagmar & Waibel, Hermann, 2008. "EU private agrifood standards in African high-value crops: pesticide use and farm-level productivity," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44145, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Wasantha Athukorala & Clevo Wilson & Tim Robinson, 2012. "Determinants of Health Costs due to Farmers’ Exposure to Pesticides: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 158-174, February.
    14. D. J. Pannell, 1990. "Responses To Risk In Weed Control Decisions Under Expected Profit Maximisation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 391-401, September.
    15. Terrance M. Hurley & James B. Kliebenstein & Peter F. Orazem, 2000. "An Analysis of Occupational Health in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 323-333.
    16. Sanglestsawai, Santi & Rodriguez, Divina Gracia P. & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Yorobe, Jose M., 2017. "Production Risk, Farmer Welfare, and Bt Corn in the Philippines," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 507-528, December.
    17. Seixas, Renato & Silveira, José Maria, 2014. "More of Less isn’t Less of More: Assessing Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified Seeds in Brazilian Agriculture," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170226, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Abedullah & Ali, Haseeb & Kouser, Shahzad, 2012. "Pesticide or Wastewater, Which One is Bigger Culprit for Acute Health Symptoms among Vegetable Growers in Pakistan’s Punjab," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126598, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Lan Tran & Theodoros Skevas & Laura McCann, 2023. "Measuring pesticide overuse and its determinants: Evidence from Vietnamese rice and fruit farms," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(3), pages 417-437, July.
    20. Michel Fok & Weili Liang & Guiyan Wang & Yuhong Wu, 2005. "Differentiated management of GM diffusion in China: Further hampering the self-sufficiency in cereal production?," Post-Print halshs-00008939, HAL.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:gdec05:3498. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfselea.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.