The Experts below are selected from a list of 810 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Damon J Phillips - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
why pseudonyms deception as Identity Preservation among jazz record companies 1920 1929
Organization Science, 2009Co-Authors: Damon J PhillipsAbstract:This paper theoretically and empirically engages the relationship between organizational Identity and deception using the market for early jazz recordings as a setting. In this setting, pseudonyms (where a recording is reissued under a fictitious name) were used deceptively as a way to preserve a firm's Identity while selling profitable but Identity-threatening products to the mass market. Firms founded in the Victorian Era actively sought alignment with the cultural elite and used pseudonyms to deceive observers into believing that their production of cultural products was consistent with their Victorian Era Identity. In effect, pseudonyms allowed these firms to decouple their position in Identity space from their position in product space by inflating production of Identity-preserving products. Using product data from jazz discographies, record company directories, and record advertisements in major U.S. newspapers, we provide strong empirical evidence that Victorian Era firms were active in using pseudonyms to preserve their identities.
Marion Desquilbet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who pays the costs of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009Co-Authors: Marion Desquilbet, David S. BullockAbstract:Our aim is to explore who pays the costs and who reaps the benefits of maintaining a dual-market system of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and non-GMOs. We analyze the welfare effects of the introduction of consumer “hatred” given GMO technology and the introduction of GMO technology given hatred. Making alternative assumptions of competitive and then monopolistic supply, we recognize that Identity Preservation (IP) of non-GMOs creates costs for IP and non-IP producers. We model these costs as depending on the sizes of the two supply channels. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.
-
Welfare effects of non-GMO Identity Preservation: the case of potential coexistence of GM and non-GM rapeseed in the EU
2003Co-Authors: Marion Desquilbet, D.s. BullockAbstract:The paper presents a theoretical framework to analyze the welfare effects of non-GMO segregation and Identity Preservation (IP) on different types of consumers and producers. Our framework recognizes that IP may create some costs both producers of IP goods and non-IP goods because of flexibility losses in the production system. We illustrate our results using a simulation model of the rapeseed market in the EU and the rest of the world. The simulations show the effects of GMO adoption in the EU, given various levels of rejection of GMOs by domestic consumers. Our main objective is to examine how the simulation results are affected by the assumption of the presence or absence of flexibility losses in the production system due to the coexistence of regular and IP rapeseed.
-
who pays the costs of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation and who is to blame
2003 Annual meeting July 27-30 Montreal Canada, 2003Co-Authors: Marion Desquilbet, David S. BullockAbstract:The paper analyzes the welfare effects of the introduction of GMO technology into a market in which a fraction of consumers refuses to buy GMOs. Our theoretical model recognizes that segregation and Identity Preservation (IP) of non-GMOs may create costs for both IP producers and non-IP producers. Our results show how GMO-hating consumers may win or lose from the introduction of GMO technology. If IP creates costs for non-IP producers, indifferent consumers and GMO producers may be made worse off because others refuse to consume GMOs. If GMO rejection is strong, IP producers win when GMOs are introduced, even though they do not produce GMOs.
-
the economics of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation
Food Policy, 2002Co-Authors: David S. Bullock, Marion DesquilbetAbstract:Rejection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by some consumers worldwide has led to the creation of market signals encouraging the segregation and Identity Preservation (IP) of non-genetically modified grain from genetically modified (GM) grain. This article examines the costs of non-GMO segregation and IP for seed producers, farmers and grain handlers in the United States. We find that a small fraction of farmers’ total costs of segregation and IP actually come from the steps farmers take to clean planting and harvesting equipment. Costs appear to come mainly from the production process itself (i.e. from foregoing planting of cost-reducing GM varieties). We argue that a major cost for handlers comes from a flexibility loss due to the necessity of dedicating equipment to one of two handling channels (one for GMOs and one for non-GMOs). For maize, an additional major cost comes from the necessity of preventing pollination of non-GM varieties by GM pollen at the seed and farm production stages. Tolerance levels are a key element of costs of segregation, and zero-tolerance levels may be impossible to obtain without major organisational and economic costs.
-
who pays the costs of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation
2002 International Congress August 28-31 2002 Zaragoza Spain, 2002Co-Authors: Marion Desquilbet, David S. BullockAbstract:This paper proposes an analytical framework to examine the market and welfare impacts of GMOs, when some consumers refuse genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and when two supply channels are segregated (one for goods that containing GMOs and one for non-genetically-modified Identity-preserved goods). Our analytical framework begins at the level of individual farmers, handlers and consumers, to build up market supply and demand functions. This allows us to circumvent the difficulties of conducting supply and demand analysis in the different horizontally and vertically related markets concerned by GMOs and market segregation. We represent explicitly the costs of non-GMO segregation and Identity Preservation (IP) for both producers of non-GM IP goods and producers of non-IP goods, and how these costs vary depending on the relative sizes of the two production channels. We then illustrate our model by a simulation of potential adoption of GM rapeseed with non-GMO market segregation in the European Union (EU). We analyze how the costs of IP are distributed among heterogenous producers, handlers and consumers in this simulation.
David S. Bullock - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who pays the costs of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009Co-Authors: Marion Desquilbet, David S. BullockAbstract:Our aim is to explore who pays the costs and who reaps the benefits of maintaining a dual-market system of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and non-GMOs. We analyze the welfare effects of the introduction of consumer “hatred” given GMO technology and the introduction of GMO technology given hatred. Making alternative assumptions of competitive and then monopolistic supply, we recognize that Identity Preservation (IP) of non-GMOs creates costs for IP and non-IP producers. We model these costs as depending on the sizes of the two supply channels. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.
-
who pays the costs of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation and who is to blame
2003 Annual meeting July 27-30 Montreal Canada, 2003Co-Authors: Marion Desquilbet, David S. BullockAbstract:The paper analyzes the welfare effects of the introduction of GMO technology into a market in which a fraction of consumers refuses to buy GMOs. Our theoretical model recognizes that segregation and Identity Preservation (IP) of non-GMOs may create costs for both IP producers and non-IP producers. Our results show how GMO-hating consumers may win or lose from the introduction of GMO technology. If IP creates costs for non-IP producers, indifferent consumers and GMO producers may be made worse off because others refuse to consume GMOs. If GMO rejection is strong, IP producers win when GMOs are introduced, even though they do not produce GMOs.
-
the economics of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation
Food Policy, 2002Co-Authors: David S. Bullock, Marion DesquilbetAbstract:Rejection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by some consumers worldwide has led to the creation of market signals encouraging the segregation and Identity Preservation (IP) of non-genetically modified grain from genetically modified (GM) grain. This article examines the costs of non-GMO segregation and IP for seed producers, farmers and grain handlers in the United States. We find that a small fraction of farmers’ total costs of segregation and IP actually come from the steps farmers take to clean planting and harvesting equipment. Costs appear to come mainly from the production process itself (i.e. from foregoing planting of cost-reducing GM varieties). We argue that a major cost for handlers comes from a flexibility loss due to the necessity of dedicating equipment to one of two handling channels (one for GMOs and one for non-GMOs). For maize, an additional major cost comes from the necessity of preventing pollination of non-GM varieties by GM pollen at the seed and farm production stages. Tolerance levels are a key element of costs of segregation, and zero-tolerance levels may be impossible to obtain without major organisational and economic costs.
-
who pays the costs of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation
2002 International Congress August 28-31 2002 Zaragoza Spain, 2002Co-Authors: Marion Desquilbet, David S. BullockAbstract:This paper proposes an analytical framework to examine the market and welfare impacts of GMOs, when some consumers refuse genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and when two supply channels are segregated (one for goods that containing GMOs and one for non-genetically-modified Identity-preserved goods). Our analytical framework begins at the level of individual farmers, handlers and consumers, to build up market supply and demand functions. This allows us to circumvent the difficulties of conducting supply and demand analysis in the different horizontally and vertically related markets concerned by GMOs and market segregation. We represent explicitly the costs of non-GMO segregation and Identity Preservation (IP) for both producers of non-GM IP goods and producers of non-IP goods, and how these costs vary depending on the relative sizes of the two production channels. We then illustrate our model by a simulation of potential adoption of GM rapeseed with non-GMO market segregation in the European Union (EU). We analyze how the costs of IP are distributed among heterogenous producers, handlers and consumers in this simulation.
-
the economics of non gmo segregation and Identity Preservation
2000 Annual meeting July 30-August 2 Tampa FL, 2000Co-Authors: David S. Bullock, Marion Desquilbet, E. NitsiAbstract:We survey grain and soybean handlers and producers in the U.S. and EU to estimate costs of preserving the identities of GMO and non-GMO crops in marketing channels. We introduce our estimates into the IFPRI IMPACT model to simulate the effects of Identity Preservation on farm incomes and consumer well-being.
Peter D Goldsmith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
traceability and Identity Preservation policy private initiatives vs public intervention
2004 Annual meeting August 1-4 Denver CO, 2004Co-Authors: Peter D GoldsmithAbstract:Firms within the food supply chain must decide what information to provide and how to provide it. This applies to collecting information from upstream suppliers as well as to supplying information to downstream customers. Components of this vertical information situation include farmer supplier Identity Preservation to capture value and the buyer information needs concerning geographic location of production or seller Identity in order to manage risk. A policy question is raised as to how vertical information flow; in the form of segregation, traceability, or Identity Preservation, should be accomplished. This question has recently come to the policy forefront through European labeling/traceability issues, the Canadian BSE incident, Country of Origin Labeling legislation, and biosecurity concerns. The US food industry often contends that mandated macro government systems (e.g. full traceability systems, animal passports, ISO 9000) would be misplaced and ineffective. They point to the tremendous private quality control systems, already in place in the industry. Though the industry's quality systems may not be in the public domain as in Europe, they are nonetheless present. The argument continues that proprietary systems contribute to a firm's competitive advantage and mandating a system would distort investment and incentives. Within this classic debate about public policy versus private strategies is a fundamental question about the role of commodities in the economy. Are they an inferior form of market development whereby the natural and preferred tendency is for supply to differentiate? Put another way is the economy better off with differentiated or undifferentiated (commodity) basic inputs? This article contributes to the policy debate by discussing why and how commodities many times are preferred by end users and thereby a signal of a properly performing economy not a market "failure." The discussion will also shed light on why farmer premiums remain low and how greater value can be created at the production stage.
-
ten conversations about Identity Preservation implications for cooperatives
2003 Annual Meeting October 29, 2003Co-Authors: Peter D Goldsmith, Karen L BenderAbstract:Motivation: While it appears the modern economy demands ever increasing amounts of differentiation, opportunities for grain producers to create and capture significant new sources of value remains elusive. Opportunities appear to loom large to help remove risk and improve quality in the grain supply chain through Preservation of product Identity, producers, producer groups, and cooperatives are frustrated at the low level of value available to them from IP demand. Why do premiums remain low? And, what is the role of group action in these new differentiated markets? Objectives: This research report helps to explain this apparent paradox underlying the economics of the value proposition for IP grains. Methodology: Needs assessments were conducted on procurement executives using a semi-structured instrument. Results: The study demonstrates that understanding Identity Preservation business opportunities requires an understanding of the buy-side proposition. Respondents described how they balance the risk mitigation and market uplift features of a supply offering with the risks of narrowing the supply base. A model of the buyer's calculus is constructed. The results show how for producers and producer groups to drive value up the chain they need to shift away from solely a new product focus. Instead attention needs to be directed towards technologies, delivery systems, and organizational models that when bundled with new products make end-users more competitive. A second insight was the limited role of group action in meeting end-user needs. Where value markets existed, internalized groups rather than "arm's length" group transactions were the norm. Plan for Discussion: The cooperative movement was grounded in group action giving individual producers power in the market. The motivation to unite was very clear. In the post-industrial agrifood system though, why do buyers want to purchase from a group? What is the role of the group, from a buy-side perspective, in the modern economy? How should effective groups be structured? Key Words: Identity Preservation, supply chain management, value creation, group action
Kaden B. Koffler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Transgenic rice evaluated for risks to marketability
California Agriculture, 2011Co-Authors: Dustin Mulvaney, Timothy J. Krupnik, Kaden B. KofflerAbstract:The California Rice Certification Act mandates specific planting and handling protocols for rice varieties, including transgenic rice, that may pose economic risks to California rice growers. Based on a literature review and extensive interviews, we describe this policy's evolution as a system for Identity Preservation and explain how it shapes the potential commercialization of transgenic rice. Several studies suggest that transgenic rice would be profitable for California growers, but the challenges in assuring 100% Identity Preservation — especially when access to export markets is at risk — means that the commercial approval of transgenic rice in California is unlikely until there is widespread market acceptance and growers are assured of no sales interruptions.
-
Transgenic rice evaluated for risks to marketability - eScholarship
California Agriculture, 2011Co-Authors: Dustin Mulvaney, Timothy J. Krupnik, Kaden B. KofflerAbstract:The California Rice Certification Act mandates specific planting and handling protocols for rice varieties, including transgenic rice, that may pose economic risks to California rice growers. Based on a literature review and extensive interviews, we describe this policy's evolution as a system for Identity Preservation and explain how it shapes the potential commercialization of transgenic rice. Several studies suggest that transgenic rice would be profitable for California growers, but the challenges in assuring 100% Identity Preservation — especially when access to export markets is at risk — means that the commercial approval of transgenic rice in California is unlikely until there is widespread market acceptance and growers are assured of no sales interruptions.
