The Experts below are selected from a list of 14214 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David Zilberman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
economics of Agricultural Biotechnology
The Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 2018Co-Authors: David Zilberman, Justus Wesseler, Andrew Schmitz, Ben GordonAbstract:This chapter surveys the economics of the impact of genetic engineering (GE) in agriculture. Research shows that adoption of these technologies has increased crop yields and farm income, while reducing pesticide, input use, and greenhouse gas emissons from agriculture. The adoption of GE has been impeded by heavy regulatory constraints resulting from political economic considerations. The underutilization of GE in agriculture has negative impacts on ecnomic welfare, especially the poor in developing countries.
-
the impacts and acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology an introduction to the special issue
Environment and Development Economics, 2014Co-Authors: David Zilberman, Justus WesselerAbstract:Attitudes towards and acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology, which involves inserting genes that carry new traits into existing varieties, has been subject to much debate. This special issue aims to address several gaps in the literature on genetically modified (GM) technology in agriculture. Some of the papers in the issue address the economic and health aspects of genetic modification in agriculture while others examine consumers’ attitudes towards GM products, and the marketing and labeling of GM products.
-
Agricultural Biotechnology the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2014Co-Authors: Geoffrey Barrows, Steven Sexton, David ZilbermanAbstract:For millennia, humans have modified plant genes in order to develop crops best suited for food, fiber, feed, and energy production. The earliest efforts, far predating Gregor Mendel’s 19th-century discoveries on trait inheritance, involved the selective breeding of plants with desirable characteristics, but the recombination of DNA in offspring was random. Consequently, plant breeding often took decades and frequently yielded crop varieties with unforeseen and undesirable properties. Today, conventional plant breeding remains inherently random and slow, constrained by the availability of desirable traits in closely related plant species. In contrast, Agricultural Biotechnology employs the modern tools of genetic engineering to reduce uncertainty and breeding time and to transfer traits from more distantly related plants. Arguments in support of and in opposition to the use of genetically engineered seeds have changed little since the technology emerged in the 1980s. On one side, critics express concerns that the technology imposes negative environmental effects and jeopardizes the health of those who consume the “frankenfoods.” On the other side, supporters emphasize potential gains from boosting output and lowering food prices for consumers. They argue that such gains are achieved contemporaneous with the adoption of farming practices that lower agrochemical use and lessen soil
-
Agricultural Biotechnology economics environment ethics and the future
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2013Co-Authors: Alan B Bennett, Cecilia L Chiham, Geoffrey Barrows, Steven Sexton, David ZilbermanAbstract:Agricultural Biotechnology and, specifically, the development of genetically modified (GM) crops have been controversial for several reasons, including concerns that the technology poses potential negative environmental or health effects, that the technology would lead to the (further) corporatization of agriculture, and that it is simply unethical to manipulate life in the laboratory. GM crops have been part of the Agricultural landscape for more than 15 years and have now been adopted on more than 170 million hectares (ha) in both developed countries (48%) and developing countries (52%). On the basis of this substantial history and data spanning many years, the economic and environmental impacts of GM crops can now be summarized with some certainty, and the analysis indicates that, on balance, many benefits have accrued from the adoption of GM crops. There continue to be many ethical issues that are being debated, and many are being resolved through institutional interventions. The future of agricultura...
-
land for food and fuel production the role of Agricultural Biotechnology
NBER Chapters, 2011Co-Authors: Steven E Sexton, David ZilbermanAbstract:First-generation Agricultural Biotechnology is promoted as a tool to improve control of Agricultural pests that damage crops and reduce yields. A number of studies have empirically tested the extent to which genetically engineered crops boost farm output by reducing crop damage. They have been limited in size and scope and have generated a wide-range of estimates that vary by country and crop. This paper exploits spatial and temporal variation in the adoption Agricultural Biotechnology across countries in order to estimate the impact of adoption on food supply. Genetically engineered crops are shown to significantly increase yields on adopting farms at a time when demand for farm output is growing dramatically and traditional sources of yield growth are largely depleted. Econometric estimates are used to paramterize a simple multi-market model to simulate the food price effects of GE seed during the food crisis in 2008. Food prices would have been considerably higher absent the increased supply from Agricultural bitoechnology adoption. Demand for new farm land would have also been higher, as would have been the consequent greenhouse gas emissions from land conversion.
Gregory D Graff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the political economy of Agricultural Biotechnology policies
AgBioForum, 2009Co-Authors: Gregory D Graff, Gal Hochman, David ZilbermanAbstract:This article develops a political-economy framework to analyze the formation of Agricultural Biotechnology policies. Going beyond accounts that largely attribute differences between US and European regulatory environments to consumer attitudes, we consider the impact of what amounts to a Schmpeterian process of “creative destruction” across the entire range of relevant economic sectors and interests. The analysis suggests that in Europe and in some developing countries a “strange bedfellows” constellation of concentrated economic interests (including incumbent agrochemical manufacturers, certain farm groups, and environmental protest activists) act in rational selfinterest to negatively characterize GM technology in the public arena and to seek regulations that block or slow its introduction. In contrast, those interests most likely to experience welfare gains from Biotechnology are the more diffused and less informed—including consumers and small farmers. The most profound implications of overregulation of Agricultural Biotechnology are (1) delays in the global diffusion of proven technologies, resulting in a lower rate of growth in the global food supply and higher food prices, and (2) disincentives for investing in further R&D, resulting in a slowdown in innovation of second generation technologies anticipated to introduce broad consumer and environmental benefits.
-
Agricultural Biotechnology s complementary intellectual assets
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2003Co-Authors: Gregory D Graff, Gordon C Rausser, Arthur A SmallAbstract:We formulate and test a hypothesis for the dramatic restructur- ing that the plant breeding and seed industry has recently undergone: the reorganization can be explained in part by the desire to exploit comple- mentarities between intellectual assets needed to create genetically mod- ified organisms. This hypothesis is tested using data on Agricultural Biotechnology patents, notices for field tests of genetically modified organisms, and firm characteristics. The presence of complementarities is identified with a positive covariance in the unexplained variation of asset holdings. Results indicate that coordination of complementary assets has increased under the consolidation of the industry. NE of the central problems in the economics of inno- vation concerns how industries change as they absorb fundamental research breakthroughs. Rarely has change been more pronounced than in agriculture following the introduction of recombinant DNA technology and affiliated techniques of genetic engineering. By offering breeders the ability to alter plant traits by directly manipulating se- quences of genetic code, tools of Agricultural Biotechnology change the possibilities for crop improvement profoundly. The new techniques enhance the speed and precision of Agricultural research and development (R&D), while ex- panding the space of potential new products. Seed firms now offer farmers crop varieties embodying new ap- proaches for controlling pests, managing physical stresses on plants, increasing crop yields, and growing differenti- ated, quality-enhanced crops. Concurrent with these technical changes in the R&D process, the Agricultural inputs industry has over the past two decades witnessed a comprehensive restructuring. Sev- eral large chemical firms, including Monsanto, Dow, and DuPont, moved aggressively into plant Biotechnology, mak- ing huge investments in the life sciences. As newly minted "agronomic systems" companies, these firms acquired all of the large, national seed firms in North America, including Pioneer, DeKalb, Asgrow, Garst, and others. Meanwhile, the research-intensive Agricultural Biotechnology sector, from its appearance in the 1980s as a large set of small startup firms, had by the end of the 1990s already reached a second stage, with most of the startups either folded or acquired by the new agronomic systems giants. The industry's consoli- dation was surprising not only for its rapid pace and com- prehensive scope, but also for the extremely high valuations at which some firms were acquired. In 1997, for example, Monsanto acquired Holdens' Foundation Seeds of Wil- liamsburg, Iowa, together with two marketing subsidiaries, for $1.02 billion—25 times the annual sales of the mature, privately held firm whose revenues derived entirely from the breeding and distribution of corn seed. The emergent industry structure—with a relatively small number of tightly woven alliances, each organized around a major life-sciences firm, each vertically integrated from basic R&D through to marketing—stands in contrast to the more diffuse structure of twenty years ago. This structure is likewise noteworthy when one considers trends in other research-intensive fields. The pharmaceutical Biotechnology industry, for example, maintains a large number of free- standing firms specializing in R&D and earning revenues through various licensing agreements (Majewski, 1998). Hall and Ziedonis (2001) observe that the U.S. semiconduc-
-
an intellectual property clearinghouse for Agricultural Biotechnology
Nature Biotechnology, 2001Co-Authors: Gregory D Graff, David ZilbermanAbstract:Combining the best features of IP informatics services and online patent exchanges in an industry-specific collective rights organization could free up Agricultural research by creating paths through the growing thickets of competing property claims.
-
Agricultural Biotechnology s complementary intellectual assets
Research Papers in Economics, 2001Co-Authors: Gregory D Graff, Gordon C Rausser, Arthur A SmallAbstract:We formulate and test a hypothesis for the dramatic restructuring that the plant breeding and seed industry has recently undergone: the reorganization can be explained in part by the desire to exploit complementarities between intellectual assets needed to create genetically modified organisms. This hypothesis is tested using data on Agricultural Biotechnology patents, notices for field tests of genetically modified organisms, and firm characteristics. The presence of complementarities is identified with a positive covariance in the unexplained variation of asset holdings. Results indicate that coordination of complementary assets has increased under the consolidation of the industry. © 2003 President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Arthur A Small - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Agricultural Biotechnology s complementary intellectual assets
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2003Co-Authors: Gregory D Graff, Gordon C Rausser, Arthur A SmallAbstract:We formulate and test a hypothesis for the dramatic restructur- ing that the plant breeding and seed industry has recently undergone: the reorganization can be explained in part by the desire to exploit comple- mentarities between intellectual assets needed to create genetically mod- ified organisms. This hypothesis is tested using data on Agricultural Biotechnology patents, notices for field tests of genetically modified organisms, and firm characteristics. The presence of complementarities is identified with a positive covariance in the unexplained variation of asset holdings. Results indicate that coordination of complementary assets has increased under the consolidation of the industry. NE of the central problems in the economics of inno- vation concerns how industries change as they absorb fundamental research breakthroughs. Rarely has change been more pronounced than in agriculture following the introduction of recombinant DNA technology and affiliated techniques of genetic engineering. By offering breeders the ability to alter plant traits by directly manipulating se- quences of genetic code, tools of Agricultural Biotechnology change the possibilities for crop improvement profoundly. The new techniques enhance the speed and precision of Agricultural research and development (R&D), while ex- panding the space of potential new products. Seed firms now offer farmers crop varieties embodying new ap- proaches for controlling pests, managing physical stresses on plants, increasing crop yields, and growing differenti- ated, quality-enhanced crops. Concurrent with these technical changes in the R&D process, the Agricultural inputs industry has over the past two decades witnessed a comprehensive restructuring. Sev- eral large chemical firms, including Monsanto, Dow, and DuPont, moved aggressively into plant Biotechnology, mak- ing huge investments in the life sciences. As newly minted "agronomic systems" companies, these firms acquired all of the large, national seed firms in North America, including Pioneer, DeKalb, Asgrow, Garst, and others. Meanwhile, the research-intensive Agricultural Biotechnology sector, from its appearance in the 1980s as a large set of small startup firms, had by the end of the 1990s already reached a second stage, with most of the startups either folded or acquired by the new agronomic systems giants. The industry's consoli- dation was surprising not only for its rapid pace and com- prehensive scope, but also for the extremely high valuations at which some firms were acquired. In 1997, for example, Monsanto acquired Holdens' Foundation Seeds of Wil- liamsburg, Iowa, together with two marketing subsidiaries, for $1.02 billion—25 times the annual sales of the mature, privately held firm whose revenues derived entirely from the breeding and distribution of corn seed. The emergent industry structure—with a relatively small number of tightly woven alliances, each organized around a major life-sciences firm, each vertically integrated from basic R&D through to marketing—stands in contrast to the more diffuse structure of twenty years ago. This structure is likewise noteworthy when one considers trends in other research-intensive fields. The pharmaceutical Biotechnology industry, for example, maintains a large number of free- standing firms specializing in R&D and earning revenues through various licensing agreements (Majewski, 1998). Hall and Ziedonis (2001) observe that the U.S. semiconduc-
-
Agricultural Biotechnology s complementary intellectual assets
Research Papers in Economics, 2001Co-Authors: Gregory D Graff, Gordon C Rausser, Arthur A SmallAbstract:We formulate and test a hypothesis for the dramatic restructuring that the plant breeding and seed industry has recently undergone: the reorganization can be explained in part by the desire to exploit complementarities between intellectual assets needed to create genetically modified organisms. This hypothesis is tested using data on Agricultural Biotechnology patents, notices for field tests of genetically modified organisms, and firm characteristics. The presence of complementarities is identified with a positive covariance in the unexplained variation of asset holdings. Results indicate that coordination of complementary assets has increased under the consolidation of the industry. © 2003 President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Stuart J Smyth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the quandary of Agricultural Biotechnology pure economic loss and non adopters comparing australia canada and the united states
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Karinne Ludlow, Stuart J SmythAbstract:Innovations impact societies in a variety of ways. Successful innovations are utility enhancing, in that they create a higher degree of benefits that offset any of the potential disadvantages of the innovation. Unsuccessful innovations suffer from the reverse, in that they result in more disadvantages than benefits and therefore, are ultimately rejected by society. The innovation of Agricultural Biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) crops has triggered substantial discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. Numerous financial and economic benefits are starting to be recognized by adopters, but some non-adopters are growing increasingly concerned about their ability to profit given the high levels of GM crop adoption. While some might argue that non-adopters of GM crops are the conventional economic losers of this innovation, the reality is that demand for non-GM products is higher, in large part, because of consumer desires to avoid GM food products. The concept of pure economic loss in relation to innovation posits that those negatively impacted by the innovation of GM crops are entitled to compensation that offsets the externality. In undertaking a thorough assessment of pure economic loss and GM crops, this article evaluates the logic for, and efficiencies of, having compensation funded via the use of courts versus government regulations. This article considers whether non-adopter rights are developing in the case of GM crops and what governance response mechanism is best suited to those claims. It is concluded that the decision over whether to support or reject an innovation is too important to the larger society as a whole to be decided by the courts.
-
the quandary of Agricultural Biotechnology pure economic loss and non adopters comparing australia canada and the united states
Jurimetrics, 2011Co-Authors: Karinne Ludlow, Stuart J SmythAbstract:Innovations impact societies in a variety of ways. Successful innova tions are utility enhancing, in that they create a higher degree of benefits that offset any of the potential disadvantages of the innovation. Unsuccessful innovations suffer from the reverse, in that they result in more disadvantages than benefits and therefore, are ultimately rejected by society. The innovation of Agricultural Biotechnology and geneti cally modified (GM) crops has triggered substantial discussion regarding the advan tages and disadvantages of the technology. Numerous financial and economic benefits are starting to be recognized by adopters, but some non-adopters are growing increa singly concerned about their ability to profit given the high levels of GM crop adoption. While some might argue that non-adopters of GM crops are the conventional economic losers of this innovation, the reality is that demand for non-GM products is higher, in large part, because of consumer desires to avoid GM food products. The concept of pure economic loss in relation to innovation posits that those negatively impacted by the innovation of GM crops are entitled to compensation that offsets the externality. In undertaking a thorough assessment of pure economic loss and GM crops, this article evaluates the logic for, and efficiencies of, having compensation funded via the use of courts versus government regulations. This article considers whether non-adopter rights are developing in the case of GM crops and what governance response mechanism is best suited to those claims. It is concluded that the decision over whether to support or reject an innovation is too important to the larger society as a whole to be decided by the courts. *B.Sc., LL.B. (Hons), Ph.D.; Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria; Faculty of Law, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, email: karinne.ludlow@monash.edu. The authors' re search was supported by a grant from the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and The Australian Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research. **B.A., Ph.D.; Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, email: stuart.smyth@usask.ca. Smyth's research is supported by VALGEN (Value Addition through Genomics and GE3LS), a project sponsored by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and Genome Prairie.
-
regulating the liabilities of Agricultural Biotechnology
2004Co-Authors: Stuart J Smyth, Peter W B Phillips, William A Kerr, George G KhachatouriansAbstract:Liability and transformative technology Consumer responses to GM foods Social amplification of risk Regulating transformative technologies International Governance of liabilities Biological mechanisms to control GM liabilties Supply chain responses to liability Product differentiation strategies Liability of plant made pharmaceuticals Handling liabilities from transformative technologies
Matin Qaim - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
village wide effects of Agricultural Biotechnology the case of bt cotton in india
World Development, 2009Co-Authors: Arjunan Subramanian, Matin QaimAbstract:Previous studies on impacts of Agricultural Biotechnology have mostly focused on direct effects. We suggest an economy-wide framework to analyze income distribution aspects more carefully. For a village in India, a micro-social accounting matrix (SAM) is developed and used to simulate the effects of Bt cotton adoption. Overall, the technology is employment generating, although family labor in cotton production is saved. While substantial benefits are observed for small and large farmers, total household income effects are bigger for larger farms. This is mostly due to differential opportunity incomes of saved family labor. Some research and policy implications are discussed.
-
Agricultural Biotechnology adoption in developing countries
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2005Co-Authors: Matin QaimAbstract:Over the last ten years, modern Agricultural Biotechnology has been adopted rapidly at the global level, including in several developing countries. This trend has been most apparent for genetically modified (GM) crops. While the first GM crops were officially commercialized in the United States in 1995, in 2004 GM crops were already grown by more than 8 million farmers in seventeen countries on a total area of 81 million hectares (James). This is the fastest diffusion of any new crop technology in the history of humankind. The most widely used GM technologies involve herbicide tolerance (HT) applied in soybean and canola, and insect resistance, based on genes isolated from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), applied in maize and cotton. Recent studies about the agronomic and economic impacts demonstrate that on average adopting farmers benefit from income increases through reduced pest control costs and higher effective yields (Carpenter et al.; Traxler et al.; Pray et al.; Morse, Bennett, and Ismael, Thirtle et al.; Qaim and Zilberman, Qaim and de Janvry 2005; Qaim and Traxler). These studies even suggest that the farm-level benefits tend to be bigger in developing than in developed countries.
-
Agricultural Biotechnology in developing countries towards optimizing the benefits for the poor
2000Co-Authors: Matin Qaim, A F Krattiger, J Von BraunAbstract:Preface. 1. Introduction M. Qaim, A.F. Krattiger, J. von Braun. Part I: The General Framework. Overview E.Q. Javier. 2. Trangenic Crops Worldwide: Current Situation and Future Outlook C. James. 3. Molecular Tools for Plat Breeding C. Jung. 4. Managing biosafety Capacity Development: Technical and Political Aspects A. de Kathen. Part II: Regional Outlook. Overview U. Barwale Zehr. 5. The Situation of Agricultural Biotechnology Capacities and Exploitation in Latin America and the Caribbean E.J. Trigo. 6. The Current and Future Situation of Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities F. Wambugu. 7. Biotechnology Research in Rice for Asia: Priorities, Focus and Direction M. Hossain, J. Bennett, S. Datta, Hei Leung, G. Khush. Part III: Expected Impacts. Overview M.A. Fernandez. 8. The Roles of Economic Research in the Evolution of International Agricultural Biotechnology G. Graff, D. Zilberman, C. Yarkin. 9. Welfare Prospects of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries M. Qaim. 10. Institutional Issues in Biotechnology Applications: Concepts and Empirical Evidence from Kenya M. Karembu, M. Njuguna. 11. The Role of Biotechnology for Food Consumers in Developing Countries H.E. Bouis. 12. Biotechnology and Global Food Security: A private Sector View W. Dannigkeit. 13. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Seed Industry: Some Implications for Food Production and Security S. Sehgal. 14. A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineeringand the Economic Interests of the Life-Science Industry C. Then. 15. Of Terminator Genes and Developing Countries: What Are the Impacts of Appropriation Technologies on Technological Diffusion? T. Goeschl, T. Swanson. Part IV: Intellectual Property Rights. Overview P. Pinstrup-Andersen. 16. The Economics of Intellectual Property Rights in the Agricultural Biotechnology Sector P.W.B. Phillips, D. Stovin. 17. Intellectual Property Rights Issues and Developing Countries: A Private Sector Perspective A. Beadle. 18. Intellectual Property Rights Challenges and International Research Collaborations in Agricultural Biotechnology B.D. Wright. Part V: The Role of Different Players. Overview R.W. Herdt. 19. The Role of the Private Sector in Providing Biotechnology Access to the Poor B. Convent. 20. Bringing the Benefits of Biotechnology to the Poor: The Role of the CGIAR Centers M.L. Morris, D. Hoisington. 21. The Role of National Agricultural Research Systems in Providing Biotechnology Access to the Poor: Grassroots for an Ivory Tower? W. Janssen, C. Falconi, J. Komen. 22. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: The Role of Development Assistance Agencies G. Horstkotte-Wesseler, D. Byerlee. 23. Conclusions A.F. Krattiger,M. Qaim, J. von Braun. Contributing Authors. Subject Index.