Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Determinants of Comparative Advantage in GMO Intensive Industries

  • PAMELA J. SMITH (a1), BOLORMAA JAMIYANSUREN (a1), AKINORI KITSUKI (a2), JOOYOUNG YANG (a3) and JAESEOK LEE (a1)...
Abstract
Abstract

This paper examines the supply-side determinants of international trade in crops that are intensive in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The theoretical framework is a variant of the Heckscher–Ohlin model, which we estimate using cross-country data for 1995 and 2010 to examine soybeans, maize, and cotton trade. The data include measures of country land endowments, which we disaggregate into GMO and non-GMO components, as well as recently released measures of GMO regulations. Findings show land endowments are a primary source of comparative advantage in GMO intensive industries before and after the advent of GMOs. Further, an increase in a country's allocation of land to GMO crops has a positive effect on her net exports in GMO intensive industries. This positive effect occurs both across countries and time. Finally, a country's GMO regulations have a negligible effect as a supply-side determinant of comparative advantage. However, a country's decision about whether to adopt GMO technologies does matter to trade. These findings are robust with respect to a variety of considerations.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Email: psmith@umn.edu (corresponding author)
Footnotes
Hide All

The authors extend thanks to Derya Eryilmaz and Harshada Karnik for their research assistance during early stages of this paper. The authors also thank Robert Kudrle and other participants in the Seminar Series of the Freeman Center for International Economic Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota (October 2013) for their comments.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
K. Anderson (2010), ‘Economic Impacts of Policies Affecting Crop Biotechnology and Trade’, New Biotechnology, 27(5): 558564.

K. Anderson , L. A. Jackson , and C. P. Nielsen (2005), ‘Genetically modified rice adoption: implications for welfare and poverty alleviation’, Journal of Economic Integration, 20(4): 771788.

K. Anderson , E. Valenzuela , and L. A. Jackson (2008), ‘Recent and prospective adoption of genetically modified cotton: a global computable general equilibrium analysis of economic impacts’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 56(2): 265296.

V. Beckmann , C. Soregaroli , and J. Wesseler (2006), ‘Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(5): 11931199.

E. K. Choi (2010), ‘International trade in genetically modified products’, International Review of Economics and Finance, 19(3): 383391.

M. Demont and Y. Devos (2008), ‘Regulating the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives’, Trends in Biotechnology, 26(7): 353358.

M. Desquilbet and D. S. Bullock (2009), ‘Who pays the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(3): 656672.

A.-C. Disdier and L. Fontagne (2010), ‘Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO Panel’, Review of World Economics, 146(3): 495514.

J. D. Gaisford , J. E. Hobbs , and W. A. Kerr (2007), ‘Will the TRIPS agreement foster appropriate biotechnologies for developing countries?’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58(2): 199217.

E. Heckscher (1919), ‘The effects of foreign trade on the distribution of income’, Ekonomisk Tidskrift, 21(2): 132.

R. E. Just , J. M. Alston , and D. Zilberman (eds.) (2006), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics And Policy, New York: Springer.

N. Kalaitzandonakes , J. M. Alston , and K. J. Bradford (2007), ‘Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops’, Nature Biotechnology, 25: 509–11.

S. H. Lence and D. J. Hayes (2005), ‘Genetically modified crops: their market and welfare impacts’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(4): 931950.

O. Perez (2007), ‘Anomalies at the precautionary kingdom: Reflections on the GMO panel's decision’, World Trade Review, 6(2): 265280.

C. E. Pray , B. Ramaswami , J. K. Huang , P. Bengali , R. Hu , and H. Zhang (2006), ‘Costs and enforcement of biosafety regulation in India and China’, International Journal of Technology Globalization, 2(1/2): 137157.

M. Qaim (2009), ‘The economics of genetically modified crops’, Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1(June): 665694.

T. M. Rybczynski (1955), ‘Factor endowments and relative commodity prices’, Economica, 22(88): 336341.

J. F. M. Swinnen and T. Vandemoortele (2011), ‘Trade and the political economy of food standards’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(2): 259280.

M. Tothova and J. F. Oehmke (2004), ‘Genetically modified food standards as trade barriers: harmonization, compromise and sub-global agreements’, Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 2(2): 116.

J. Vanek (1968), ‘The factor proportions theory: the N-factor case’, Kyklos, 21(4): 749756.

L. Veyssiere (2007), ‘Strategic response to GMOs by GM-free countries’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 34(3): 365392.

M. Vigani , V. Raimondi , and A. Olper (2012), ‘International trade and endogenous standards: the case of GMO regulations’, World Trade Review, 11(3): 415437.

M. Vigani and A. Olper (2013), ‘GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information’, Food Policy, 43: 3243.

A. R. Young (2011), ‘Of executive preference and societal constraints: the domestic politics of the transatlantic GMO dispute’, Review of International Political Economy, 18(4): 506529.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

World Trade Review
  • ISSN: 1474-7456
  • EISSN: 1475-3138
  • URL: /core/journals/world-trade-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Smith supplementary material
Smith supplementary material 1

 PDF (239 KB)
239 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 23 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 270 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th July 2017 - 16th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.