IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/anr/reseco/v8y2016p397-416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Political Economy of Biotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald Herring

    (Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853)

  • Robert Paarlberg

    (Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138)

Abstract

The political economy of agricultural biotechnology is addressed in this review through three puzzles. First, why were new crop technologies of the Green Revolution readily accepted, versus today's considerable blockage of genetically engineered crops? Second, why has genetic engineering in medicine and pharmaceuticals been normalized, whereas recombinant DNA technology in agriculture is highly restricted? Finally, why is there greater political acceptance of agricultural biotechnology in some countries versus others, for some crops versus others, and for some crop traits versus others? Explanation requires an extended theoretical framework of regulation that goes beyond a vector sum of weighted material interests. Consideration must also be given to the social construction of risk, political structure, and social psychology. A full political economy of agricultural biotechnology must consider not only costs and benefits to multiple actors in different societies within the classic interest-group and regulator model but also the transnational diffusion of ideologies, with attendant costs to poorer farmers and countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald Herring & Robert Paarlberg, 2016. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 397-416, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:anr:reseco:v:8:y:2016:p:397-416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095506
    Download Restriction: Full text downloads are only available to subscribers. Visit the abstract page for more information.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shao, Qianqian & Drabik, Dusan & Gouse, Marnus & Wesseler, Justus, 2019. "Food self-sufficiency and GM regulation under conflicting interests: the case of GM maize in South Africa," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 59(1), October.
    2. David Zilberman & Tim G. Holland & Itai Trilnick, 2018. "Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    3. Lytvynchuk, Iryna, 2017. "Рефреймінг Моделей Специфікації Прав Інтелектуальної Власності В Агробіоекономіці (Інституціональний Аналіз)," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 3(3), September.
    4. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    5. Ulrich Hartung & Simon Schaub, 2018. "The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms on a Local Level: Exploring the Determinants of Cultivation Bans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Wenjing Zhang & Jianhong Xue & Henk Folmer & Khadim Hussain, 2019. "Perceived Risk of Genetically Modified Foods Among Residents in Xi’an, China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, February.
    7. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Davide Viaggi & Matteo Zavalloni, 2021. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: Implications for Economic Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 1257-1269, December.
    9. Christopher B. Barrett, 2021. "Overcoming Global Food Security Challenges through Science and Solidarity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 422-447, March.
    10. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Jale Tosun & Herman Lelieveldt & Trevelyan S. Wing, 2019. "A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    12. Bharat Ramaswami & Milind Murugkar & N. Lalitha & Carl E. Pray, 2022. "The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology: Farmers, Media and Opinion in India," Working Papers 75, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    13. Shahzad Kouser & David J Spielman & Matin Qaim, 2019. "Transgenic cotton and farmers’ health in Pakistan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, October.
    14. Jale Tosun, 2017. "On the sustained importance of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits in policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 563-572, December.
    15. Artem Anyshchenko & Jennifer Yarnold, 2021. "From ‘mad cow’ crisis to synthetic biology: challenges to EU regulation of GMOs beyond the European context," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 391-404, September.
    16. Scott Kaplan & Ben Gordon & Feras El Zarwi & Joan L. Walker & David Zilberman, 2019. "The Future of Autonomous Vehicles: Lessons from the Literature on Technology Adoption," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(4), pages 583-597, December.
    17. Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky & Michael K Adjemian, 2021. "Not All Thin Markets Are Alike: The Case of Organic and Non‐genetically Engineered Corn and Soybeans," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 117-133, February.
    18. Zilberman, David & Kaplan, Scott & Gordon, Ben, 2018. "The political economy of labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 6-13.
    19. Jonathan Symons & Thomas A. Dixon & Jacqueline Dalziell & Natalie Curach & Ian T. Paulsen & Anthony Wiskich & Isak S. Pretorius, 2024. "Engineering biology and climate change mitigation: Policy considerations," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Castellari, Elena & Soregaroli, Claudio & Venus, Thomas J. & Wesseler, Justus, 2018. "Food processor and retailer non-GMO standards in the US and EU and the driving role of regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-37.
    21. Hefferon, Kathleen L. & Herring, Ronald J., 2017. "The End of the GMO? Genome Editing, Gene Drives and New Frontiers of Plant Technology," Review of Agrarian Studies, Foundation for Agrarian Studies, vol. 7(1), July.
    22. Paarlberg, Robert, 2022. "The trans-Atlantic conflict over “green” farming," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    23. Ulrich Hartung, 2020. "Inside Lobbying on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in the European Union: Determinants of Venue Choices," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 92-114, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    GMOs; risk; regulation; crop technology; social movements; genetic engineering; agriculture; seeds; farmers; consumers; food safety; biosafety;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:anr:reseco:v:8:y:2016:p:397-416. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.annualreviews.org (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.annualreviews.org .

    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.