IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/20-wp603.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the Value of Innovation and Extension Information: SCNResistant Soybean Varieties

Author

Abstract

This paper presents direct evidence on the impact of a specific extension program that is aimed at promoting the adoption of varieties resistant to the soybean cyst nematode (SCN), specifically the Iowa State University SCN-Resistant Soybean Variety Trials (ISU-SCN). We use two data sources: the ISU-SCN experimental data, and a rich proprietary dataset on farmers' seed purchases. Combining these data, we estimate the value of SCN-resistant variety availability, and the associated variety trials that provide information on their performance, to farmers and seed companies. Given the scope and diffusion of this extension program, the focus of the analysis is on Iowa and Illinois over the period 2011-2016. Farmers' seed choices are modeled in a discrete choice framework, specifically a one-level nested logit model. Using the estimated demand model, we find farmers' marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for SCN-resistant varieties to be $0.81/acre. Also, the additional WTP for extension information related to these varieties is about $0.75/acre. Using counterfactual analyses, over the period and region of the study, the total surplus associated with the existence of, and information about, the SCN resistance trait is estimated to be about $140 million. About two thirds of this surplus is captured by seed suppliers and one third is held by farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Seungki Lee & GianCarlo Moschini, 2020. "Estimating the Value of Innovation and Extension Information: SCNResistant Soybean Varieties," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 20-wp603, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:20-wp603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/20wp603.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=1305
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonas Björnerstedt & Frank Verboven, 2016. "Does Merger Simulation Work? Evidence from the Swedish Analgesics Market," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 125-164, July.
    2. repec:bla:jindec:v:50:y:2002:i:3:p:237-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    4. Magnier, Alexandre & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Miller, Douglas J., 2010. "Product Life Cycles and Innovation in the US Seed Corn Industry," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61779, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    6. Yu Jin & Wallace E. Huffman, 2016. "Measuring public agricultural research and extension and estimating their impacts on agricultural productivity: new insights from U.S. evidence," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 15-31, January.
    7. Ariel Dinar & Giannis Karagiannis & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2007. "Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension on farms' performance in Crete: a nonneutral stochastic frontier approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(2), pages 135-146, March.
    8. Ariel Pakes, 2003. "A Reconsideration of Hedonic Price Indexes with an Application to PC's," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1578-1596, December.
    9. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    10. Jean-Francois Houde, 2012. "Spatial Differentiation and Vertical Mergers in Retail Markets for Gasoline," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2147-2182, August.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    12. Xingliang Ma & Guanming Shi, 2015. "A dynamic adoption model with Bayesian learning: an application to U.S. soybean farmers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 25-38, January.
    13. Amil Petrin, 2002. "Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 705-729, August.
    14. Timothy Richards & Celine Bonnet, 2018. "New empirical models in consumer demand," Post-Print hal-01985357, HAL.
    15. Margarita Genius & Phoebe Koundouri & Céline Nauges & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2014. "Information Transmission in Irrigation Technology Adoption and Diffusion: Social Learning, Extension Services, and Spatial Effects," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(1), pages 328-344.
    16. Cardell, N. Scott, 1997. "Variance Components Structures for the Extreme-Value and Logistic Distributions with Application to Models of Heterogeneity," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 185-213, April.
    17. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Livingston, Michael J. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Wechsler, Seth, 2014. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," Economic Research Report 164263, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    18. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    19. Alessandro Maffioli & Diego Ubfal & Gonzalo Vázquez Baré & Pedro Cerdán‐Infantes, 2011. "Extension services, product quality and yields: the case of grapes in Argentina," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(6), pages 727-734, November.
    20. Jerry A Hausman & Gregory K Leonard, 2002. "The Competitive Effects of a New Product Introduction: A Case Study," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 237-263, September.
    21. Magnier, Alexandre & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Miller, Douglas J., 2010. "Product Life Cycles and Innovation in the US Seed Corn Industry," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, September.
    22. Bresnahan, Timothy F, 1987. "Competition and Collusion in the American Automobile Industry: The 1955 Price War," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 457-482, June.
    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. Seungki Lee & GianCarlo Moschini, 2022. "On the value of innovation and extension information: SCN‐resistant soybean varieties," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1177-1202, August.
    2. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    3. Bokhari, Farasat A.S. & Mariuzzo, Franco, 2018. "Demand estimation and merger simulations for drugs: Logits v. AIDS," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 653-685.
    4. Mariuzzo, Franco & Walsh, Patrick Paul & Whelan, Ciara, 2010. "Coverage of retail stores and discrete choice models of demand: Estimating price elasticities and welfare effects," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 555-578, September.
    5. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    6. Laura Grigolon, 2021. "Blurred boundaries: A flexible approach for segmentation applied to the car market," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(4), pages 1273-1305, November.
    7. Victor Aguirregabiria & Margaret Slade, 2017. "Empirical models of firms and industries," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(5), pages 1445-1488, December.
    8. Mogens Fosgerau & Julien Monardo & André de Palma, 2019. "The Inverse Product Differentiation Logit Model," Working Papers hal-02183411, HAL.
    9. Luis Aguiar & Joel Waldfogel, 2018. "Quality Predictability and the Welfare Benefits from New Products: Evidence from the Digitization of Recorded Music," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 492-524.
    10. Jorge Tovar, 2004. "The Welfare Effects Of Trade Liberalization: Evidence From The Car Industry In Colombia," Documentos CEDE 3638, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    11. Malina, Christiane, 2016. "The environmental impact of vehicle circulation tax reform in Germany," CAWM Discussion Papers 86, University of Münster, Münster Center for Economic Policy (MEP).
    12. Lee Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew J. Higgins, 2016. "Regulation and welfare: evidence from paragraph IV generic entry in the pharmaceutical industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 857-890, November.
    13. Philip G. Gayle & Ying Lin, 2022. "Market effects of new product introduction: Evidence from the brew‐at‐home coffee market," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 525-557, August.
    14. Chen, Jiawei & Esteban, Susanna & Shum, Matthew, 2008. "Demand and supply estimation biases due to omission of durability," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 247-257, December.
    15. Luo, Jinjing & Moschini, GianCarlo & Perry, Edward D., 2023. "Switching costs in the US seed industry: Technology adoption and welfare impacts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    16. Leheyda, Nina, 2008. "Private Incentives to Innovate: Interplay of New Products and Brand-Name Reputation," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-120, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Christos Genakos & Andreas Lamprinidis & James Walker, 2023. "Evaluating merger effects," CEP Discussion Papers dp1921, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    18. Erica L. Groshen & Brian C. Moyer & Ana M. Aizcorbe & Ralph Bradley & David M. Friedman, 2017. "How Government Statistics Adjust for Potential Biases from Quality Change and New Goods in an Age of Digital Technologies: A View from the Trenches," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 187-210, Spring.
    19. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2021. "Foundations of Demand Estimation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2301, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    20. Rachel Griffith & Lars Nesheim & Martin O'Connell, 2018. "Income effects and the welfare consequences of tax in differentiated product oligopoly," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), pages 305-341, March.

    More about this item

    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:ias:cpaper:20-wp603. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.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.