Advertisement

Technological Change in Agriculture and Poverty Reduction: The Potential Role of Biotechnology

  • Alain de Janvry
  • Gregory Graff
  • Elisabeth Sadoulet
  • David Zilberman
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 27)

Abstract

Technological change in agriculture has historically been a powerful force for poverty reduction. We explore in this chapter how biotechnology, as a potentially important new source of technological changes in agriculture, could also be made to fulfill this role. We distinguish between direct effects of technology and poverty that affect adopters and indirect effects that affect others through employment, growth, and consumer price effects. We show that agbio-technology has the potential of providing crops with new traits beneficial to the poor through direct and indirect effects. The poor may not benefit from biotechnology for several reasons including exclusion as a consequence of intellectual property rights, concentration of ownership in the industry, research gaps for traits desired by the poor, and unexplored environmental risks. We conclude that agbiotechnology has potential as a tool for poverty reduction, but that it needs complementary institutional innovations that are lagging relative to current scientific progress. These institutional lags affect the generation, transfer, and adoption of agbiotechnology benefiting the poor. We give an inventory of the institutional innovations needed to reduce these lags and to capture the promise of agbiotechnology for poverty reduction.

Key words

agriculture biotechnology poverty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashby, J., and Sperling, L., 1995, Institutionalizing participatory, client-driven research and technology development in agriculture, Dev. and Change 26:753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Byerlee, D., 1996, Modern varieties, productivity, and sustainability, World Dev. 24:697–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byerlee, D., and Moya, P., 1993, Impact of International Wheat Breeding Research in the Developing World, 1966–90, CIMMYT, Mexico City.Google Scholar
  4. CIMMYT, 2001, People and Partnerships: Medium Term Plan of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, 2001-2003+, CIMMYT, Mexico.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen-Vogel, D. R., Osgood, D. E., Parker, D. D., and Zilberman, D., 1998, The California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS): Intended and unanticipated impacts of public investment, Choices (Third Quarter):20–21.Google Scholar
  6. FAO, 2000, The State of Food Insecurity in the World: 2000, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  7. Graff, G., Rausser G., and Small, A., 2003, Agricultural biotechnology’s complementary intellectual assets, Rev. of Econ. and Statistics 85:349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griliches, Z., 1957, Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technical change, Econometrica 25:501–522.Google Scholar
  9. Harwood, R., 1998, Sustainability in agricultural systems in transition: At what cost, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  10. Herdt, R., 1998, Enclosing the Global Plant Genetic Commons, The Rockefeller Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Hubbell, B., Carlson, G., and Marra, M., 2000, Estimating the demand for a new technology: Bt cotton and insecticide policies, Amer. J. Agri. Econ. 82:118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. James, C, 1998, Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1998, ISAAA Brief No.8, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotechnology Applications, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  13. James, C, 2000, Preview. Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000, ISAAA Brief No. 21, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotechnology Applications, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Klotz-Ingram, C, Jans, S., Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and McBride, W., 1999, Farm-level production effects related to the adoption of genetically modified cotton for pest management, AgBioForum 2:73–84.Google Scholar
  15. Koo, B., and Wright, B., 2000, The optimal timing of evaluation of genebank accessions and the effects of biotechnology, Amer. J. Agri. Econ. 82:797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krattinger, A., 2000, An Overview of ISAAA from 1992 to 2000, The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Kremer, M., 2001, Spurring technical change in tropical agriculture, Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Nuffield Foundation (The), 1999, Genetically modified crops: The ethical and social issues, http://www.nuffield.org/bioethics/publication/modifiedcrops.Google Scholar
  19. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Pandya-Lorch, R., and Rosegrant, M., 1999, World Food Prospects: Critical Issues for the Early Twenty-First Century. Food Policy Report, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  20. Pray, C, Courtmanche, A., and Brennan, M., 1999, The importance of policies and regulations in the international spread of plant biotechnology research, Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  21. Pray, C. E., Ma, D., Huang, J., and Qiao, F., 2000, Impact of Bt cotton in China, paper presented at 4th International Conference on the Economics of Agricultural Biotechnology, Ravello, Italy (August 24–28, 2000).Google Scholar
  22. Qaim, M, 1998, Transgenic Virus Resistant Potatoes in Mexico: Potential Socioeconomic Implications of North-South Biotechnology Transfer, The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Rausser, G., Simon, L., and Ameden, H., 2000, Public-private alliances in biotechnology: Can they narrow the knowledge gap between rich and poor? Food Policy 25:499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sadoulet, E., and de Janvry, A., 1992, Agricultural trade liberalization and low income countries: A general equilibrium-multimarket approach, Amer. J. Agri. Econ. 74:268–280.Google Scholar
  25. Scobie, G., and Posada, R., 1978, The impact of technical change on income distribution: The case of rice in Colombia, Amer. J. Agri. Econ. 60:85–91.Google Scholar
  26. Traxler, G., and Falck-Zepeda, J., 1999, The distribution of benefits from the introduction of transgenic cotton varieties, AgBioForum 2:73–84.Google Scholar
  27. Wolf, S., and Buttel, F., 1996, The political economy of precision farming, Amer. J. Agri. Econ. 78:1269–1274.Google Scholar
  28. World Bank, 2001, Attacking Poverty: World Development Report 2000/2001, The World Bank, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  29. Wright, B., 1998, Public germplasm development at a crossroads: Biotechnology and intellectual property, CA Agri. 52:8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain de Janvry
    • 1
  • Gregory Graff
    • 2
  • Elisabeth Sadoulet
    • 1
  • David Zilberman
    • 1
  1. 1.Professor Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics 207 Giannini HallUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Visiting Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 207 Giannini HallUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations