IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/faoaes/289091.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biotechnology R&D: Policy options to ensure access and benefits for the poor

Author

Listed:
  • Pray, Carl E.
  • Naseem, Anwar

Abstract

The majority of biotech research and almost all of the commercialization of genetically engineered crops has been done by private firms based in industrialized countries. The dominance of the private sector in biotechnology research and product development has raised concern in developing countries that their farmers ' particularly poor farmers ' may not benefit from biotechnology either because it is not available or is too expensive. This paper examines the consequences of the emergence of a few large companies as the leaders in the commercialization of biotechnology and analyses a number of concerns about who benefits from biotech research. It reviews the status of crop biotechnology research worldwide and analyses the influence of intellectual property rights and market concentration on the development and diffusion of new technology. The paper explores the potential of public-private partnerships recommends policy measures and investments that could focus more biotechnology research on the problems of the poor and alleviate some of the concerns about the impacts of biotechnology. This paper was prepared as background material for the 2003 issue of The State of Food and Agriculture, which has the theme 'Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor?' Several companion papers are also available in the ESA Working Paper series.

Suggested Citation

  • Pray, Carl E. & Naseem, Anwar, 2003. "Biotechnology R&D: Policy options to ensure access and benefits for the poor," ESA Working Papers 289091, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:faoaes:289091
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.289091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/289091/files/a-ae041t.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.289091?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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).
    2. Pray, Carl E. & Fuglie, Keith O. & Johnson, Daniel K.N., 2007. "Private Agricultural Research," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 49, pages 2605-2640, Elsevier.
    3. Michael Lipton, 2001. "Reviving global poverty reduction: what role for genetically modified plants?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 823-846.
    4. Pray, Carl & Ma, Danmeng & Huang, Jikun & Qiao, Fangbin, 2001. "Impact of Bt Cotton in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 813-825, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Carl E. Pray & Anwar Naseem, 2003. "The Economics of Agricultural Biotechnology," Working Papers 03-07, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
    7. Timo Goeschl & Timothy Swanson, 2000. "Genetic use restriction technologies and the diffusion of yield gains to developing countries," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 1159-1178.
    8. Pingali, Prabhu L & Rozelle, Scott D & Gerpacio, Roberta V, 2001. "The Farmer's Voice in Priority Setting: A Cross-Country Experiment in Eliciting Technological Preferences," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(3), pages 591-609, April.
    9. Pray, Carl E. & Naseem, Anwar, 2003. "The economics of agricultural biotechnology research," ESA Working Papers 289092, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    10. 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).
    11. Pray, Carl E. & Ribeiro, Sharmila & Mueller, Rolf A. E. & Rao, P. Parthasarathy, 1991. "Private research and public benefit: The private seed industry for sorghum and pearl millet in India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 315-324, August.
    12. Carl E. Pray, 2001. "Public-Private Sector Linkages in Research and Development: Biotechnology and the Seed Industry in Brazil, China and India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 742-747.
    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. Spielman, David J., 2007. "Pro-poor agricultural biotechnology: Can the international research system deliver the goods?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 189-204, April.

    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. Spielman, David J., 2007. "Pro-poor agricultural biotechnology: Can the international research system deliver the goods?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 189-204, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Raney, Terri & Pingali, Prabhu L., 2004. "Private Research and Public Goods: Implications of Biotechnology for Biodiversity," ESA Working Papers 23805, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    4. Terri Raney & Prabhu Pingali, 2005. "Private Research and Public Goods: Implications of Biotechnology for Biodiversity," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Joseph Cooper & Leslie Marie Lipper & David Zilberman (ed.), Agricultural Biodiversity and Biotechnology in Economic Development, chapter 0, pages 39-59, Springer.
    5. Spielman, David J. & Zambrano, Patricia, 2013. "Policy, investment, and partnerships for agricultural biotechnology research in Africa: Emerging evidence," IFPRI book chapters, in: Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Gruère, Guillaume P. & Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara, chapter 7, pages 183-205, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Guiyan Wang & Yuhong Wu & Wangsheng Gao & Michel Fok & Weili Liang, 2008. "Impact of Bt Cotton on the Farmer's Livelihood System in China," Post-Print halshs-00324390, HAL.
    7. Prabhu Pingali, 2010. "Global agriculture R&D and the changing aid architecture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 145-153, November.
    8. Tripp, Robert & Louwaars, Niels & Eaton, Derek, 2007. "Plant variety protection in developing countries. A report from the field," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 354-371, June.
    9. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    10. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Qaim, Matin, 2007. "Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: Who Benefits from public-private partnership?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5-6), pages 523-543.
    11. Rousselière, Samira & Rousselière, Damien & Ramani, Shyama, 2016. "Innovation Led Alliances: Theory and application to the GM Plant Industry," 149th Seminar, October 27-28, 2016, Rennes, France 244949, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Spielman, David J. & Ma, Xingliang, 2014. "Intellectual property rights, technology diffusion, and agricultural development: Cross-country evidence:," IFPRI discussion papers 1345, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Dana G. Dalrymple, 2008. "International agricultural research as a global public good: concepts, the CGIAR experience and policy issues," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 347-379.
    14. Elbehri, Aziz & Macdonald, Steve, 2004. "Estimating the Impact of Transgenic Bt Cotton on West and Central Africa: A General Equilibrium Approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 2049-2064, December.
    15. Qaim, Matin, 2003. "Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 2115-2127, December.
    16. Khachaturyan, Marianna & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2006. "The market acceptance and welfare impacts of genetic use restriction technologies (GURTS)," 98th Seminar, June 29-July 2, 2006, Chania, Crete, Greece 10097, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Deepthi Kolady & William Lesser, 2012. "Genetically-engineered crops and their effects on varietal diversity: a case of Bt eggplant in India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 3-15, March.
    18. De Gorter, Harry & Tsur, Yacov, 2008. "Towards a Genuine Sustainability Standard for Biofuel Production," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188419, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    19. Sydorovych, Olha & Marra, Michele C., 2007. "A Genetically Engineered Crop's Impact on Pesticide Use: A Revealed-Preference Index Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Food Security and Poverty;

    JEL classification:

    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • 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:ags:faoaes:289091. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/faoooit.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.