Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Consequences of Biotechnology Policy for Competitiveness and Trade of Southern U.S. Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Curtis Jolly
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Kenrett Y. Jefferson-Moore
Affiliation:
Department of Agribusiness, Applied Economics and Agriscience Education, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, North Carolina
Greg Traxler
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Get access

Abstract

The effect of policy decisions on the competitiveness of genetically modified (GM) crops was examined. The United States has been an early innovator in the development and use of biotechnology crops and has expanded its export market share of the three major GM crops: soybeans, cotton, and corn. Cotton, soybeans, and corn are all grown in the southern states, but these states have an apparent comparative advantage only in the production of cotton, which may be strengthened with the adoption of genetically modified cotton. The influence of biotechnology on the competitiveness of soybeans and corn for the southern states through the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is not clear but is probably negligible.

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Acquaye, A., and Traxler, G.. “Price Discrimination and Access to Improved Technology.” Paper presented at the Symposium: Innovation and Dynamic Efficiency in Agricultural Biotechnology, Washington, DC, October 14-15, 2004.Google Scholar
Alston, J.M., Norton, G.W., and Pardey, P.G.. “Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Belson, N.A.U.S. Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology: An Overview.AgBioForum 3,4(2000):200212.Google Scholar
Cadot, O., Suwa-Eisenmann, A., and Traga, D.. “Trade-Related Issues in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms.” Paper prepared for the workshop on European and American Perspectives on Regulating Genetically Engineered Food, June 7-8, 2001, INSEAD Fontainebleau, France.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J.E., and Gianessi, L.P.. “Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefits Estimates.” National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, DC, January 2001.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.I., ed. “Managing Agricultural Biotechnology: Addressing Research Program Needs and Policy Implications.” Biotechnology in Agriculture Series, No. 23. Oxon, UK: CABI in association with the International Service for National Agricultural Research, 1999.Google Scholar
Council of Biotechnology Information. Researchers Are Making Progress on Drought-Tolerant Crops: New Varieties of Rice and Wheat Could Help Ease Global Water Shortages. Internet site: www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=2967 (Accessed February 2005a).Google Scholar
Council of Biotechnology Information. Products in the Pipeline: New Biotech Products Hold Great Promise for Consumers and Farmers. Internet site: www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?%20id=2095 (Accessed February 2005b).Google Scholar
Diaz-Bonilla, E., and Robinson, S.. “Biotechnology, Trade and Hunger.IFPR1 Annual Report 2000-2001, pp. 710, 2001.Google Scholar
Dohlman, L., Osborne, S., and Lohmar, B.. “Dynamics of Agricultural Competitiveness: Policy Lessons from Abroad.” Amber Waves: The Economics of Food Farming, Natural Resources and Rural America, Volume 1, No. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2003. Internet site: www.ers.usda.gov/Amber.Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J.B., Traxler, G., and Nelson, R.G.. “Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82,2(May 2000):360–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Klotz-Ingram, C., Heimlich, R., Soule, M., McBride, W., and Jans, S.. “Economic and Environmental Impacts of Herbicide Tolerant and Insect Resistant Crops in the United States.” The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech: A Global Perspective. Kalaitzandonakes, N.G., ed., pp. 6388. New York: Kluwer Academic, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisvold, G., Tronstad, R., and Mortensen, J.. “Effects of Bt Cotton Adoption: Regional Differences and Commodity Program Effects.” Paper presented at the Western Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, June 30, 2000.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M., and Helpman, E.. Innovation and Growth in the World Economy. Boston: MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
James, C.Preview: Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops:2002. ISAAA Briefs No. 27. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, 2002.Google Scholar
James, C.Preview: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:2004. ISAAA Briefs No. 32. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, 2004.Google Scholar
Josling, T., and Patterson, L.A.. “Biotechnology Regulatory Policy in the United States and European Union: Source of Transatlantic Trade Conflict or Opportunity for Cooperation.” Paper presented at the 76th Annual Conference of the Western Economic Association International, San Francisco, July 4-8, 2001.Google Scholar
Kalaitzandonakes, N.Biology and Competitiveness.” Competition in Agriculture: The United States in the World Market. Colyer, D., Kennedy, P.L., Amponsah, W.A., Fletcher, S.M., and Jolly, C.M., eds., pp. 293306. New York: Haworth Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P.L.Agricultural Competitiveness Issues and Concepts.” Competition in Agriculture: The United States in the World Market; ed. Colyer, D., Kennedy, P.L., Amponsah, W.A., Fletcher, S.M., and Jolly, C.M., eds., pp. 1124. New York: Haworth Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Larson, A.Trade and Development Dimensions of U.S. International Biotechnology Policy.Economic Perspective: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 8,3 (2003):89.Google Scholar
Lavoie, B.F., and Sheldon, I.M.. “The Comparative Advantage of Real Options: An Explanation for the U.S. Specialization in Biotechnology.AgBioForum 3,1(2000):4752.Google Scholar
Marchant, M.A., and Song, B.Assessment of Biotechnology Policy and Trade in Key Markets for U.S. Agriculture.” Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Little Rock, Arkansas, 2005.Google Scholar
Moschini, G.C.Agricultural Biotechnology and Trade: The Unresolved Issues.” Policy Brief (IAR 9:4:8-9), pp. 50011–1070. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, 2003.Google Scholar
Oehmke, J.The Effects of Biotechnology Policy on Trade and Growth.Easterly Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 2,2(2001):283306.Google Scholar
Pinstrup-Andersen, P.Agricultural Biotechnology, Trade, and The developing Countries.AgBioForum 2,3-4(1999):215–17.Google Scholar
Qaim, M., and Traxler, G.. “Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina: Farm Level, Environmental, and Welfare Effect.Agricultural Economics 32(2005):7386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, I., and Josling, T.. “Biotechnology Regulation and the WTO.” Working Paper No. 02-2, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, Development Economics, Ohio State University, 2002.Google Scholar
Sheldon, I.M.Regulation of Biotechnology: Will We Ever “Freely” Trade GMOs?” 77th EAAE Seminar/NJF Seminar No. 325, Helinski, August 17-18, 2001.Google Scholar
Thompson, H.International Economics: A Micro-economic Approach. New York: Longman, 1993.Google Scholar
Williams, M.R. Department of Entomology, Mississippi State University. Internet site: www.msstate.edu/Entomology/ENTPLP.html (Accessed March 10, 2005).Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 12 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-2qp9q Total loading time: 0.633 Render date: 2021-01-25T20:43:58.305Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Consequences of Biotechnology Policy for Competitiveness and Trade of Southern U.S. Agriculture
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Consequences of Biotechnology Policy for Competitiveness and Trade of Southern U.S. Agriculture
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Consequences of Biotechnology Policy for Competitiveness and Trade of Southern U.S. Agriculture
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *