IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/alo/isipdp/06-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Liberalization, biotechnology and the private seed sector: The Case of India's cotton seed market

Author

Listed:
  • Milind Murugkar

    (Pragati Abhiyan, Nasik)

  • Bharat Ramaswami

    (Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi)

  • Mahesh Shelar

    (Pragati Abhiyan, Nasik)

Abstract

Liberalization, stronger intellectual property rights laws and the commercialization of biotechnology have led the private sector to become an important supplier of varietal technology in agriculture in developed and developing countries. The departure from the public sector driven Green Revolution model has given rise to new concerns about competition in the seed market. India's cotton seed market exemplifies these new developments. This study examines the evolution in its market structure and the factors that underlie the changes. The study finds that while the private sector has grown rapidly in the last decade (when these policies and technological developments were operative), their dominance of the market cannot be ascribed directly to any of the conventionally cited factors. Furthermore, despite more than a decade after the removal of FDI restrictions, the presence of foreign majors is limited. The rapid growth has been driven by domestic firms. The growth was not accompanied by greater consolidation in the industry. As the proprietary market has grown, more private players have come into the market eating away at the share of the market leaders. However, the leading brands do possess some market power which at the retail level is shared with the seed dealer. With Bt cotton, the seed industry encompasses a seed market as well as a technology market. To some extent, biosafety laws have protected the monopoly of the incumbent which has received a significant first mover advantage. However, the market structure is not frozen because of diffusion from illegal seeds, competition from alternative gene suppliers and changing regulatory practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Milind Murugkar & Bharat Ramaswami & Mahesh Shelar, 2006. "Liberalization, biotechnology and the private seed sector: The Case of India's cotton seed market," Discussion Papers 06-05, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
  • Handle: RePEc:alo:isipdp:06-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.isid.ac.in/~pu/dispapers/dp06-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    2. Pray, Carl E. & Ramaswami, Bharat & Kelley, Timothy, 2001. "The impact of economic reforms on R&D by the Indian seed industry," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 587-598, December.
    3. Pingali, P. L. & Traxler, G., 2002. "Changing locus of agricultural research: will the poor benefit from biotechnology and privatization trends?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 223-238, June.
    4. Robert Tripp & Suresh Pal, 2000. "Information and agricultural input markets: pearl millet seed in Rajasthan," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 133-144.
    5. Jaffee, Steven & Srivastava, Jitendra, 1994. "The Roles of the Private and Public Sectors in Enhancing the Performance of Seed Systems," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 9(1), pages 97-117, January.
    6. Birthal, Pratap S. & Sharma, O.P. & Kumar, Sant, 2000. "Economics of Integrated Pest Management: Evidences and Issues," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 55(4), December.
    7. Qaim, Matin, 2003. "Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 2115-2127, December.
    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. Hanjra, Munir A. & Qureshi, M. Ejaz, 2010. "Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 365-377, October.
    2. Spielman, David J. & Kolady, Deepthi E. & Cavalieri, Anthony & Rao, N. Chandrasekhara, 2014. "The seed and agricultural biotechnology industries in India: An analysis of industry structure, competition, and policy options," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 88-100.
    3. Anwar Naseem & David J. Spielman & Steven Were Omamo, 2010. "Private-sector investment in R&D: a review of policy options to promote its growth in developing-country agriculture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 143-173.
    4. Tripp, Robert, 2002. "Can the public sector meet the challenge of private research? Commentary on "Falcon and Fowler" and "Pingali and Traxler"," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 239-246, June.
    5. Tripp, Robert & Pal, Suresh, 2001. "The Private Delivery of Public Crop Varieties: Rice in Andhra Pradesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 103-117, January.
    6. Osiris J. Parcero, 2009. "Optimal country's policy towards multinationals when local regions can choose between firm-specific and non-firm-specific policies," Working Papers 2009/34, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    7. Oscar Gutiérrez & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2011. "Real options with unknown-date events," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 171-198, May.
    8. Dirk Schindler & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2006. "Company Tax Reform in Europe and its Effect on Collusive Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 1702, CESifo.
    9. christoph Engel, 2005. "Voice over IP. Competition Policy and Regulation," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2005_26, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    10. Di Comite, Francesco & Thisse, Jacques-François & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2014. "Verti-zontal differentiation in export markets," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 50-66.
    11. E. Villemeur & Helmuth Cremer & Bernard Roy & Joëlle Toledano, 2007. "Worksharing, access and bypass: the structure of prices in the postal sector," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 67-85, August.
    12. Aldaba, Rafaelita M., 2008. "Emerging Issues in Promoting Competition Policy in the APEC and ASEAN Countries," Discussion Papers DP 2008-02 (revised), Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    13. Jianqiang Zhang & Weijun Zhong & Shue Mei, 2012. "Competitive effects of informative advertising in distribution channels," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 561-584, September.
    14. Lawrence J. White & W. Scott Frame, 2004. "Emerging Competition and Risk-Taking Incentives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Working Papers 04-02, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    15. Donna, Javier D. & Pereira, Pedro & Trindade, Andre & Yoshida, Renan C., 2020. "Direct-to-Consumer Sales by Manufacturers and Bargaining," MPRA Paper 105773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Francisco B. Galarza & Gabriella Wong, 2017. "The Impact of Price Information on Consumer Behavior: An Experiment," Working Papers 106, Peruvian Economic Association.
    17. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    18. Kessing, Sebastian G. & Konrad, Kai A. & Kotsogiannis, Christos, 2006. "Federal tax autonomy and the limits of cooperation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 317-329, March.
    19. Etienne Billette de Villemeur & Kevin Guittet, 2004. "Optimal structure of air transport services when environnemental costs are taken into account," Post-Print hal-01022242, HAL.
    20. Franklin Mixon & Len Trevino & Taisa Minto, 2005. "Are legislative TV and campaign finance regulations complementary entry barriers? Evidence from the USA," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 387-396.

    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:alo:isipdp:06-05. 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: Debasis Mishra (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isindin.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.