Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:05:20.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of Comparative Advantage in GMO Intensive Industries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2017

PAMELA J. SMITH ,
BOLORMAA JAMIYANSUREN ,
AKINORI KITSUKI ,
JOOYOUNG YANG  and
JAESEOK LEE
PAMELA J. SMITH*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota
BOLORMAA JAMIYANSUREN
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota
AKINORI KITSUKI
Affiliation:
Kyusyu University
JOOYOUNG YANG
Affiliation:
Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade
JAESEOK LEE
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota
*
*Email: psmith@umn.edu (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the supply-side determinants of international trade in crops that are intensive in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The theoretical framework is a variant of the Heckscher–Ohlin model, which we estimate using cross-country data for 1995 and 2010 to examine soybeans, maize, and cotton trade. The data include measures of country land endowments, which we disaggregate into GMO and non-GMO components, as well as recently released measures of GMO regulations. Findings show land endowments are a primary source of comparative advantage in GMO intensive industries before and after the advent of GMOs. Further, an increase in a country's allocation of land to GMO crops has a positive effect on her net exports in GMO intensive industries. This positive effect occurs both across countries and time. Finally, a country's GMO regulations have a negligible effect as a supply-side determinant of comparative advantage. However, a country's decision about whether to adopt GMO technologies does matter to trade. These findings are robust with respect to a variety of considerations.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 427 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © Pamela J. Smith et al. 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors extend thanks to Derya Eryilmaz and Harshada Karnik for their research assistance during early stages of this paper. The authors also thank Robert Kudrle and other participants in the Seminar Series of the Freeman Center for International Economic Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota (October 2013) for their comments.

References

Anderson, K. (2010), ‘Economic Impacts of Policies Affecting Crop Biotechnology and Trade’, New Biotechnology, 27(5): 558–564.Google Scholar
Anderson, K., Jackson, L. A., and Nielsen, C. P. (2005), ‘Genetically modified rice adoption: implications for welfare and poverty alleviation’, Journal of Economic Integration, 20(4): 771–788.Google Scholar
Anderson, K., Valenzuela, E., and Jackson, L. A. (2008), ‘Recent and prospective adoption of genetically modified cotton: a global computable general equilibrium analysis of economic impacts’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 56(2): 265–296.Google Scholar
Basu, A. K. and Qaim, M. (2007), ‘On the adoption of genetically modified seeds in developing countries and the optimal types of government intervention’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(3): 784–804.Google Scholar
Beckmann, V., Soregaroli, C., and Wesseler, J. (2006), ‘Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(5): 1193–1199.Google Scholar
Choi, E. K. (2010), ‘International trade in genetically modified products’, International Review of Economics and Finance, 19(3): 383–391.Google Scholar
Demont, M. and Devos, Y. (2008), ‘Regulating the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives’, Trends in Biotechnology, 26(7): 353–358.Google Scholar
Desquilbet, M. and Bullock, D. S. (2009), ‘Who pays the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(3): 656–672.Google Scholar
Disdier, A.-C. and Fontagne, L. (2010), ‘Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO Panel’, Review of World Economics, 146(3): 495–514.Google Scholar
Esty, D. C. and Porter, M. E. (2001), ‘Ranking national environmental regulations and performance: A leading indicator of future competitiveness?’, in Porter, M. E., Sachs, J., and Warner, A. M. (eds.), The Global Competitiveness Report 2001, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frisvold, G. B., Reeves, J. M., and Tronstad, R. (2006), ‘Bt cotton adoption in the United States and China: international trade and welfare effects’, AgBioForum, 9(2): 69–78.Google Scholar
Gaisford, J. D., Hobbs, J. E., and Kerr, W. A. (2007), ‘Will the TRIPS agreement foster appropriate biotechnologies for developing countries?’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58(2): 199–217.Google Scholar
Gruère, G. P., Carter, C. A., and Farzin, Y. H. (2009), ‘Explaining international differences in genetically modified food labeling policies’, Review of International Economics, 17(3): 393–408.Google Scholar
Hareau, G. G., Norton, G. W., Mills, B. F., and Peterson, E. (2005), ‘Potential benefits of transgenic rice in Asia: a general equilibrium analysis’, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 44(3): 229–246.Google Scholar
Heckscher, E. (1919), ‘The effects of foreign trade on the distribution of income’, Ekonomisk Tidskrift, 21(2): 1–32.Google Scholar
James, C. (2011), ‘Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2011’, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, ISAAA Brief No. 43, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
James, C. (2014), ‘Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2014’, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, ISAAA Brief No. 49, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
James, C. (2015), ‘20th Anniversary (1996–2015) of the Global Commercialization of Biotech Crops and Biotech Crop Highlights in 2015’, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, ISAAA Brief No. 51, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Just, R. E., Alston, J. M., and Zilberman, D. (eds.) (2006), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics And Policy, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kalaitzandonakes, N., Alston, J. M., and Bradford, K. J. (2007), ‘Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops’, Nature Biotechnology, 25: 509–511.Google Scholar
Leamer, E. E. (1984), Sources of International Comparative Advantage: Theory and Evidence, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lence, S. H. and Hayes, D. J. (2005), ‘Genetically modified crops: their market and welfare impacts’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(4): 931–950.Google Scholar
Ohlin, B. (1933), Interregional and International Trade, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perez, O. (2007), ‘Anomalies at the precautionary kingdom: Reflections on the GMO panel's decision’, World Trade Review, 6(2): 265–280.Google Scholar
Plastina, A. and Giannakas, K. (2007), ‘Market and welfare effects of GMO introduction in small open economies’, AgBioForum, 10(2): 104–123.Google Scholar
Pray, C. E., Bengali, P., and Ramaswami, B. (2005), ‘The cost of biosafety regulations: the Indian experience’, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 44(3): 267–289.Google Scholar
Pray, C. E., Ramaswami, B., Huang, J. K., Bengali, P., Hu, R., and Zhang, H. (2006), ‘Costs and enforcement of biosafety regulation in India and China’, International Journal of Technology Globalization, 2(1/2): 137–157.Google Scholar
Qaim, M. (2009), ‘The economics of genetically modified crops’, Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1(June): 665–694.Google Scholar
Rybczynski, T. M. (1955), ‘Factor endowments and relative commodity prices’, Economica, 22(88): 336–341.Google Scholar
Smith, P. J. (2014), Global Trade Policy: Questions and Answers, Chichester: John Wiley &Sons.Google Scholar
Smith, P. J. and Katovich, E. S. (2017), ‘Are GMO policies “trade related”?: Empirical analysis of Latin America’, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 39(2): 286–312.Google Scholar
Swinnen, J. F. M. and Vandemoortele, T. (2011), ‘Trade and the political economy of food standards’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(2): 259–280.Google Scholar
Tothova, M. and Oehmke, J. F. (2005), ‘Whom to join? The small-country dilemma in adopting GM crops in a fragmented trade environment’, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 44(3): 291–310.Google Scholar
Tothova, M. and Oehmke, J. F. (2004), ‘Genetically modified food standards as trade barriers: harmonization, compromise and sub-global agreements’, Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 2(2): 1–16.Google Scholar
Trefler, D. (1995), ‘The case of missing trade and other mysteries’, American Economic Review, 85(5): 1029–1046.Google Scholar
Trefler, D. (1993), ‘International factor price differences: Leontief was right!’, Journal of Political Economy, 11(2): 207–224.Google Scholar
Vanek, J. (1968), ‘The factor proportions theory: the N-factor case’, Kyklos, 21(4): 749–756.Google Scholar
Veyssiere, L. (2007), ‘Strategic response to GMOs by GM-free countries’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 34(3): 365–392.Google Scholar
Vigani, M., Raimondi, V., and Olper, A. (2012), ‘International trade and endogenous standards: the case of GMO regulations’, World Trade Review, 11(3): 415–437.Google Scholar
Vigani, M. and Olper, A. (2013), ‘GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information’, Food Policy, 43: 32–43.Google Scholar
Young, A. R. (2011), ‘Of executive preference and societal constraints: the domestic politics of the transatlantic GMO dispute’, Review of International Political Economy, 18(4): 506–529.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Smith supplementary material

Smith supplementary material 1

Download Smith supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 239 KB