IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v36y2004i03p705-718_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Monsanto Leaving Money on the Table? Monopoly Pricing and Bt Cotton Value with Heterogeneous Adopters

Author

Listed:
  • Oehmke, James F.
  • Wolf, Christopher A.

Abstract

We examine the allocation of technology rents between a price-setting, innovating monopolist and heterogeneous technology adopters. A model of monopoly pricing in the presence of heterogeneous adopters is used to examine conditions under which greater producer (farmer) heterogeneity leads to greater producer benefit from innovation in noncompetitive markets. An application to Bt cotton determines the profit-maximizing price of Bt cotton seed and reveals that Monsanto and Delta and Pine Land are indeed leaving money on the table in the form of unexploited profit opportunities. However, we estimate that the presence of heterogeneous adopters explains over 80% of the rents that accrue to the farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Oehmke, James F. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2004. "Is Monsanto Leaving Money on the Table? Monopoly Pricing and Bt Cotton Value with Heterogeneous Adopters," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 705-718, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:36:y:2004:i:03:p:705-718_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800026961/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Choi, E. Kwan & Menezes, Carmen F., 1992. "Is relative risk aversion greater than one?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 43-54.
    2. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan, 1997. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Welfare Effects of Agricultural R&D," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1229-1242.
    3. repec:bla:econom:v:67:y:2000:i:268:p:525-42 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Campbell, John Y, 1996. "Understanding Risk and Return," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(2), pages 298-345, April.
    5. Marra, Michele C. & Hubbell, Bryan J. & Carlson, Gerald A., 2001. "Information Quality, Technology Depreciation, And Bt Cotton Adoption In The Southeast," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Hayne E. Leland & Robert A. Meyer, 1976. "Monopoly Pricing Structures with Imperfect Discrimination," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(2), pages 449-462, Autumn.
    7. Hubbell, Bryan J. & Marra, Michele C. & Carlson, Gerald A., 2000. "Estimating The Demand For A New Technology: Bt Cotton And Insecticide Policies In The Southeast," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 26016, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    8. Bryan J. Hubbell & Michele C. Marra & Gerald A. Carlson, 2000. "Estimating the Demand for a New Technology: Bt Cotton and Insecticide Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 118-132.
    9. José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 360-369.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jeffrey Vitale & Marc Ouattarra & Gaspard Vognan, 2011. "Enhancing Sustainability of Cotton Production Systems in West Africa: A Summary of Empirical Evidence from Burkina Faso," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-34, July.
    2. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    4. Oehmke James F & Wolf Christopher A & Raper Kellie Curry, 2005. "On Cyclical Industry Evolution in Agricultural Biotechnology R&D," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-27, March.

    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. Hareau, Guy G. & Mills, Bradford F. & Norton, George W., 2006. "The potential benefits of herbicide-resistant transgenic rice in Uruguay: Lessons for small developing countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 162-179, April.
    2. Hareau, Guy Gaston & Mills, Bradford F. & Norton, George W., 2005. "Arroz Transgénico en Uruguay: un modelo de simulación para estimar los beneficios económicos potenciales," Serie Tecnica 121683, Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).
    3. Traxler, Greg, 2004. "The Economic Impacts of Biotechnology-Based Technological Innovations," ESA Working Papers 23806, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    4. Sydorovych, Olha & Marra, Michele C., 2005. "Towards a Generalizable Measure of the Value of a Change in Pesticide Use," 2005 Annual Meeting, February 5-9, 2005, Little Rock, Arkansas 35513, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Matty Demont & Marie Cerovska & Wim Daems & Koen Dillen & József Fogarasi & Erik Mathijs & František Muška & Josef Soukup & Eric Tollens, 2008. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 463-486, September.
    6. Dillen, Koen & Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity to estimate the ex ante value of biotechnology innovations," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43945, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Hareau, Guy Gaston & Mills, Bradford F. & Norton, George W. & Bosch, Darrell J., 2002. "The Economic Impact Of Genetically Modified Organisms In Small Developing Countries," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19891, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Sadashivappa, Prakash & Qaim, Matin, 2009. "Effects of Bt Cotton in India During the First Five Years of Adoption," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 49947, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Frisvold, George B. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2008. "The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: The case of Bt cotton," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 87-97, March.
    10. Naseem, Anwar & Singla, Rohit, 2013. "Ex Ante Economic Impact Analysis of Novel Traits in Canola," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Qaim, Matin & de Janvry, Alain, 2002. "Bt Cotton In Argentina: Analyzing Adoption And Farmers' Willingness To Pay," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19710, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    13. Falck-Zepeda, José B. & Horna, Daniela & Smale, Melinda, 2007. "The economic impact and the distribution of benefits and risk from the adoption of insect resistant (Bt) cotton in West Africa," IFPRI discussion papers 718, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Perry, Edward D. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2020. "Neonicotinoids in U.S. maize: Insecticide substitution effects and environmental risk," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    15. Lemarié Stéphane & Baghdasaryan Delia & Campens Etienne, 2017. "The Product Line Strategy of a Company Selling Seed with a Licensed GM Trait," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2005. "Labeling Regulations and Segregation of First- and Second-Generation Genetically Modified Products: Innovation Incentives and Welfare Effects," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-wp391, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    17. 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.
    18. Bellemare, Marc F., 2012. "As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: The Welfare Impacts of Contract Farming," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 1418-1434.
    19. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    20. Seon-Ae Kim & Jeffrey M. Gillespie & Krishna P. Paudel, 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 235-252, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture

    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:cup:jagaec:v:36:y:2004:i:03:p:705-718_02. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.