IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midasp/11768.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Economics Of Biosafety: Implications For Biotechnology In Developing Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Maredia, Mywish K.

Abstract

There is a growing body of literature on the safe use of biotechnology and the need for an international biosafety protocol and national regulations to facilitate the safe development and transfer of biotechnology. Most of these studies, however, address the issue of biosafety from a scientific, legal, environmental and organizational perspective. The purpose of this paper is to add to this discussion by providing an economic perspective on regulating products of agricultural biotechnology, with special emphasis on implications for developing countries who are under increasing pressure to put a biosafety framework in place. The paper provides a brief discussion on the economic rationale for biosafety regulations, explains the economic benefits and costs of biosafety, and discusses the appropriate form of biosafety policy and the effects of regulation on resource allocation. The benefits of biosafety discussed include - the reduction of possible human and environmental risks of biotechnology products and "accident" costs to the society; increased predictability for a research organization of the expected time and money to get a new product on the market; making the products of biotechnology accessible to a country; and the provision of certainty and stability to the social framework, necessary for the development of biotechnology research and development activities. Developing countries should balance these potential benefits with the tangible costs of biosafety regulation to the biotechnology organizations and the society. To a biotechnology organization, biosafety will increase the research lag, production costs, transaction costs and marketing costs. Given the scarcity of human and physical resources, setting up a biosafety system also poses opportunity costs to the society. The following issues need careful examination in designing a biosafety policy in a developing country: the goal of biosafety policy; the appropriate means of controlling risk; the impact of biosafety on scientific development and private investments; the impact of biosafety on the international transfer of technology and international trade; the incidence of biosafety costs; and the size of biosafety system.

Suggested Citation

  • Maredia, Mywish K., 1998. "The Economics Of Biosafety: Implications For Biotechnology In Developing Countries," Staff Paper Series 11768, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:11768
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.11768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/11768/files/sp98-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.11768?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathleen Segerson, 1986. "Risk Sharing in the Design of Environmental Policy," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(5), pages 1261-1265.
    2. Bruce A. Larson & Mary K. Knudson, 1991. "Public Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology Field Tests: Economic Implications of Alternative Approaches," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1074-1082.
    3. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    4. Larson, Bruce A. & Knudson, Mary K., 1991. "Public regulation of agricultural biotechnology field tests: economic implications of alternative approaches," Technical Bulletins 312325, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. My wish K. Maredia & Richard Ward & Derek Byerlee, 1996. "Econometric estimation of a global spillover matrix for wheat varietal technology," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 159-173, August.
    6. Warren J. Samuels, 1978. "Normative Premises in Regulatory Theory," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 100-114, October.
    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. Caswell, Margriet F. & Fuglie, Keith O. & Klotz, Cassandra A., 1994. "Agricultural Biotechnology: An Economic Perspective," Agricultural Economic Reports 262025, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Artuso, A., 2003. "Risk perceptions, endogenous demand and regulation of agricultural biotechnology," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 131-145, April.
    3. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Bjornson, Bruce, 1997. "Vertical And Horizontal Coordination In The Agro-Biotechnology Industry: Evidence And Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-11, July.
    4. Beckmann, Volker & Soregaroli, Claudio & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: governing the coexistence of GM crops," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 4, pages 1-33.
    5. Maurice Baslé, 1997. "Le changement institutionnel peut-il être analysé comme évolutionnaire ? quelques limites de l'approche économique standard et quelques voies ouvertes à l'approche évolutionnaire," Post-Print hal-02081216, HAL.
    6. Susanne Lohmann & Deborah M. Weiss, 2002. "Hidden Taxes and Representative Government: The Political Economy of the Ramsey Rule," Public Finance Review, , vol. 30(6), pages 579-611, November.
    7. Erica Bosio & Simeon Djankov & Edward Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2022. "Public Procurement in Law and Practice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(4), pages 1091-1117, April.
    8. Matt Pinnuck & Kevin Stevenson, 2021. "Enhancing the Interface between Standard‐setters and Academic Research," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(3), pages 169-185, September.
    9. Campbell, Colin D. & Fischel, William A., 1996. "Preferences for School Finance Systems: Voters Versus Judges," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Allen, Abigail & Ramanna, Karthik, 2013. "Towards an understanding of the role of standard setters in standard setting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 66-90.
    11. Rodrigo M. S. Moita & Claudio Paiva, 2013. "Political Price Cycles in Regulated Industries: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 94-121, February.
    12. Randal Heeb & M. Rebecca Kilburn, 2004. "The Effects of State Regulations on Childcare Prices and Choices," Working Papers WR-137-NICHD, RAND Corporation.
    13. Bel, Germà, 2020. "Public versus private water delivery, remunicipalization and water tariffs," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    14. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 2003. "Bureaucrats or Politicians?," Working Papers 238, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    15. Scott Gehlbach & Konstantin Sonin & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2010. "Businessman Candidates," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 718-736, July.
    16. Paul L. Joskow, 2010. "Market Imperfections versus Regulatory Imperfections," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 8(03), pages 3-7, October.
    17. Dennis, Christopher & Bishin, Benjamin & Nicolaou, Politimy, 2000. "Constituent diversity and congress: the case of NAFTA," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 349-360, July.
    18. Simeon Djankov & Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2002. "The Regulation of Entry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 1-37.
    19. David Lowery & Virginia Gray, 2004. "Bias in the Heavenly Chorus," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 5-29, January.
    20. Dixit, Avinash & Olson, Mancur, 2000. "Does voluntary participation undermine the Coase Theorem?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 309-335, June.

    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:midasp:11768. 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/damsuus.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.