Skip to main content

Adoption of Cotton Biotechnology in the United States: Implications for Impact Assessment

  • Chapter
The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech

Abstract

By most measures, adoption of first-generation crop agrobiotechnologies in the United States and elsewhere has been extremely fast (James, 2001). Yet, only modest research effort has been devoted to understanding why producers in different parts of the world have adopted these technologies at such rapid rates. Indeed, one can find only a handful of published studies that have formally modelled and tested producer behavior in the adoption of first-generation crop biotechnologies (as in Marra et al., 2001). Instead, there has been more interest in measuring the impacts of agrobiotechnologies and their distribution both at the farm-level (e.g., see Marra, 2001, for a review of farm-level impact assessment studies) and at an aggregate level (Falck-Zepeda et al., 2000; Traxler & Falck-Zepeda, 1999; Moschini et al., 2000; Frisvold & Tronstad, chapter 14 in this volume).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abadi Ghadim, A., & Pannell, D.J. (1999). A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation. Agricultural Economics, 21, 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, L.A. (1999). The importance of learning in the adoption of high-yielding variety seeds. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfman, J.H. (1996). Modeling multiple adoption decisions in a joint framework. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78, 547–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edge, J., Benedict, J., Carroll, J., & Reding, K. (2001). Bollgard cotton: An assessment of global economic, environmental and social benefits. Journal of Cotton Science, 5, 121–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falck-Zepeda, J.E., Traxler, G., & Nelson, R.G. (2000). Surplus distribution from the introduction of a biotechnology innovation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(2), 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gianessi, L.P., & Carpenter, J.E. (1999). Agricultural biotechnology: Insect control benefits. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimlich, R.E., Fernandez-Cornejo, J., McBride, W., Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S., & Brooks, N. (2000). Adoption of genetically engineered seed in U.S. agriculture: Implications for pesticide use. Presented at the 6th International Symposium on Biosafety, Saskatoon, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husman S.H., McCloskey, W.B., Teegerstrom, T., Clay, P.A., & Wegener, R. J. (2001). Agronomic and economic evaluation of ultra narrow row cotton production in Arizona 1999–2000. 2001 Arizona Cotton Report. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, C. (2001). Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2001. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA Briefs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Boggess W. (1993). A dynamic decision-theoretic model of technology adoption for the competitive firm. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 44, 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S., Fernadez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W. (1999). Farm-level production effects related to the adoption of genetically modified cotton for pest management. AgBioForum, 2(2), 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marra, M. (2001, January). Economic impacts of transgenic crops: A critical review of the evidence to date. Paper presented at Agricultural Biotechnology: Markets, and Policies in an International Setting Workshop, International Food Policy Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marra, M., Hubbell, B., & Carlson, G. (2001). Information quality, technology depreciation and Bt cotton adoption in the Southeast. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26, 158–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscini, G., Lapan, H., & Sobolevsky, A. (2000). Roundup Ready® soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex. Agribusiness, 16, 33–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ReJesus, R.M., Greene, J.K., Hamming, M.D., & Curtis, C.E. (1997). Economic analysis of insect management strategies for transgenic Bollgard cotton production in South Carolina. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, 247–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, G., & Falck-Zepeda, J.E. (1999). Rent creation and distribution from transgenic cotton in the U.S. AgBioForum, 2(2), 94–98.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kalaitzandonakes, N., Suntornpithug, P. (2003). Adoption of Cotton Biotechnology in the United States: Implications for Impact Assessment. In: Kalaitzandonakes, N. (eds) The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0177-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0177-0_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-4954-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-0177-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics