Cited by 213Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural Innovations and PracticesEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Genetically Modified Crops, Corporate Pricing Strategies, and Farmers' Adoption: The Case of Bt Cotton in Argentina

Qaim, Matin, de Janvry, Alain·2003·American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Abstract

This article analyzes adoption and impacts of Bt cotton in Argentina against the background of monopoly pricing. Based on survey data, it is shown that the technology significantly reduces insecticide applications and increases yields; however, these advantages are curbed by the high price charged for genetically modified seeds. Using the contingent valuation method, it is shown that farmers' average willingness to pay is less than half the actual technology price. A lower price would not only increase benefits for growers, but could also multiply company profits, thus, resulting in a Pareto improvement. Implications of the sub‐optimal pricing strategy are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-8276.00490

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These companies hold intellectual property rights to 95% of cotton and corn varieties and 84% of soybean varieties.

    “These companies hold intellectual property rights to 95% of cotton and corn varieties and 84% of soybean varieties ( 29 ).”

    From Environmental impacts of genetically modified crops (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

  • In 2020, four companies controlled over half of the world's seed market.

    “In 2020, four companies controlled over half of the world's seed market.”

    From Environmental impacts of genetically modified crops (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qaim, M., & de Janvry, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • University of California at Berkeley
Venue
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-11
Volume
85
Issue
4
Pages
814-828
ISSN
  • 0002-9092 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8276
OpenAlex
W2149923608
Cited by
212
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
19.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Agricultural Economics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Rockefeller Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
Bt cotton, genetically modified crops, seed pricing, monopoly pricing, technology adoption, willingness to pay, insecticide application, crop yield, Pareto improvement, Argentina

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review