No abstract

We examine the distribution of welfare from the introduction of Bt cotton in the United States in 1996. The welfare framework explicitly recognizes that research protected by intellectual property rights generates monopoly profits, and makes it possible to partition these rents among consumers, farmers, and the innovating input firms. We calculate a total increase in world surplus of $240.3 million for 1996. Of this total, the largest share (59%) went to U.S. farmers. The gene developer, Monsanto, received the next largest share (21%), followed by U.S. consumers (9%), the rest of the world (6%), and the germplasm supplier, Delta and Pine Land Company (5%). Copyright 2000, Oxford University Press.

A Just‐Pope production function is used to estimate the effect of genetic improvement on the first two moments of wheat yield for the period 1950–86. The model characterizes the green revolution as the culmination of an era in which wheat breeders achieved rapid increases in yield potential accompanied by higher yield variances. To date, the post‐green revolution has been an era of slower mean yield growth, but of relatively rapid improvement in yield stability. Overall, the analysis indicates steady progress in producing “better” varieties; successive releases have improved either stability, mean yield, or both.

Journal articleHarvestPlus; IFPRI3; ISI; HarvestPlus; PBSEPTD; HarvestPlusP

Genetically engineered crops have been grown for more than 20 years, resulting in widespread albeit variable benefits for farmers and consumers. We review current, likely, and potential genetic engineering (GE) applications for the development of disease-resistant crop cultivars. Gene editing, gene drives, and synthetic biology offer novel opportunities to control viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogens, parasitic weeds, and insect vectors of plant pathogens. We conclude that there will be no shortage of GE applications totackle disease resistance and other farmer and consumer priorities for agricultural crops. Beyond reviewing scientific prospects for genetically engineered crops, we address the social institutional forces that are commonly overlooked by biological scientists. Intellectual property regimes, technology regulatory frameworks, the balance of funding between public- and private-sector research, and advocacy by concerned civil society groups interact to define who uses which GE technologies, on which crops, and for the benefit of whom. Ensuring equitable access to the benefits of genetically engineered crops requires affirmative policies, targeted investments, and excellent science.