Should we internalise inter-temporal production spillovers in the case of pest resistance?

Martin, Elsa

doi:10.1093/erae/jbu034

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pesticide resistance has been widely considered as one of the major causes of pesticide dependence [1,9,25,[29][30][31][32][33][53][54][55][56]. Pesticide resistance represents a genetic mechanism whereby pests (including weeds) develop evolutional abilities to adapt to pesticides, and then the same variety and dosage of pesticides do not work on the adapted pests.…”

Section: Pesticide Resistance As An Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evolution of pesticide resistance by insect, pests and weeds has long been taken as the primary natural reason for pesticide dependence and various new varieties of pesticides have been constantly invented to combat the genetic evolutional process [25,[29][30][31][32][33]. However, overemphasizing the natural and technological processes, although important indeed, may conceal more deep-seated socio-economic and political factors in human society, as pesticide dependence 'is first and foremost a social question; technical fixes or regulatory changes will only acquire significance within the framework of serious social change' ( [34], p. 55).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Socio-Economic and Political Factors Lead to Global Pesticide Dependence? A Critical Review from a Social Science Perspective

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dependence on chemical pesticides has become one of the most pressing challenges to global environmental sustainability and public health. Considerable regulatory efforts have been taken to mitigate pesticide dependence, which however has resulted in a prevalent ‘managerial failure’. Massive pesticide application has generated severe genetic resistance from pests, which has in turn further aggravated pesticide dependence and thus induced agrochemical industries to develop new pesticide varieties. This review proposes to look beyond the resistance-dependence nexus and presents a comprehensive discussion about global pesticide dependence in a social science perspective, i.e., revealing the socio-economic and political factors that reinforce pesticide dependence. These factors are classified into five intertwined themes: (1) agricultural regime, (2) social process of pesticide application, (3) economic analysis, (4) politics and governance, and (5) promotional failure of alternatives. It is found that pesticide dependence is not just a technological issue in the sphere of natural sciences, but more a human-made issue, with deep-seated socio-economic and political reasons. Addressing contemporary trap of global pesticide dependence entails a full acknowledgement and comprehension of the complex and intertwined factors. Furthermore, this review identifies two major explanatory approaches underlying the extant social science literature: a structuralist approach that stresses macro-level structures such as institutions, policies and paradigms, and an individualist approach that focuses on the decision-making of farmers at the micro level. This review recognizes the limitations of the two approaches and calls for transcending the duality. This study advocates a policy framework that emphasizes alignment and coordination from multi-dimensions, multi-actors and multi-scales. For future research, collaborations between natural and social scientists, and more integrated and interdisciplinary approaches should be strengthened.

show abstract

Section: Pesticide Resistance As An Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Socio-Economic and Political Factors Lead to Global Pesticide Dependence? A Critical Review from a Social Science Perspective

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1983), Cornes et al. (2001), Ambec and Desquilbet (2012), Martin (2015), and Desquilbet and Herrmann (2016), we address the tension that farmers face between needing fungicide in production while also facing increased fungicide resistance in future periods as a result of its use. Along with Regev et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Along with Regev et al. (1983) and Martin (2015), we are mainly concerned with developing a tool that can facilitate the internalization of fungicide resistance, and negative intertemporal production externalities more generally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It belongs to the second of the two policy approaches discussed by Regev et al. (1983); namely, rather than examining a subsidy as in Martin (2015), we study a compensation mechanism that allows farmers to voluntarily restrict their fungicide use and receive compensation for their corresponding loss in profits. , Farmers who do not restrict their fungicide use provide the compensation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fungicide resistance and misinformation: A game theoretic approach

Pardini

Espínola‐Arredondo

2023

Canadian J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fungicide resistance is a serious problem for agriculture today. This analysis provides additional insight into the strategic behavior of farmers when their fungicide use generates a negative intertemporal production externality in the form of fungicide resistance. We find that when farmers encounter this type of externality, they choose fungicide levels that exacerbate fungicide resistance. We examine a compensation mechanism in which a farmer reduces fungicide use in exchange for a transfer. This mechanism reduces fungicide use; however, misinformation about the severity of fungicide resistance generates distortions. We find that one-sided misinformation could lead a farmer to choose socially optimal fungicide levels, which makes the compensation mechanism less necessary.In addition, we show that when both farmers are misinformed, the mechanism could lead farmers to choose fungicide levels below the socially optimal level depending on their pessimistic beliefs about the severity of fungicide resistance.

show abstract