Paper · 2008 · Applied Economics

Production risk, pesticide use and GM crop technology in South Africa

Bhavani Shankar; Richard Bennett; Stephen Morse

2
claims
8
verbatim quotes
33
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · other-oa

Abstract

Technology involving genetic modification of crops has the potential to make a contribution to rural poverty reduction in many developing countries. Thus far, pesticide-producing Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) varieties of cotton have been the main GM crops under cultivation in developing nations. Several studies have evaluated the farm-level performance of Bt varieties in comparison to conventional ones by estimating production technology, and have mostly found Bt technology to be very successful in raising output and/or reducing pesticide input. However, the production risk properties of this technology have not been studied, although they are likely to be important to risk-averse smallholders. This study investigates the output risk aspects of Bt technology by estimating two ‘flexible risk’ production function models allowing technology to independently affect the mean and higher moments of output. The first is the popular Just-Pope model and the second is a more general ‘damage control’ flexible risk model. The models are applied to cross-sectional data on South African smallholders, some of whom used Bt varieties. The results show no evidence that a ‘risk-reduction’ claim can be made for Bt technology. Indeed, there is some evidence to support the notion that the technology increases output risk, implying that simple (expected) profit computations used in past evaluations may overstate true benefits.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt cotton technology showed no evidence of reducing output risk in South African smallholder production

Treatment
Bt technologye1
Outcome
output riske3
Direction
no_changeinferrede2
Setting
South Africat0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“pesticide-producing Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) varieties of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 159–225 · show in text ↑
e1

“This study investigates the output risk aspects of Bt technology”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–766 · show in text ↑
e2

“The results show no evidence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1161 · show in text ↑
e3

“the technology increases output risk”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1281–1317 · show in text ↑
t0

“GM crop technology in South Africa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt technology increased output risk in South African cotton production

Treatment
Bt technologye1
Outcome
output riske3
Direction
increasese3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“pesticide-producing Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) varieties of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 159–225 · show in text ↑
e1

“This study investigates the output risk aspects of Bt technology”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–766 · show in text ↑
e3

“the technology increases output risk”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1281–1317 · show in text ↑

transgenic · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

78 papers: 74 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 74 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

74 papers more in this group

See all 78 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.