Indian Journal of Economics and Development

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Role of Interest Groups in Technology Policy:A Case Study of Policies on Agricultural Biotechnology in India


Affiliations
1 Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics, Rutgers University, New Jersey, 08901, United States
 

Objectives: We identify various interest groups involved in the GM policy debate surrounding Bt brinjal in India,examine their interactions and interconnectedness, and quantify their role in the debate.

Methods/Statistical analysis: We use content analysis to review media coverage of the Bt brinjal debate in India and abroad, followed by a modified social network analysis (SNA) to identify the interconnectedness between these interest groups (actors) and quantify their role in the policy debate.

Findings: Although past literature provided comprehensive accounts of the events surrounding the biotech policy formation process in India, they lacked any complementary quantitative criteria to test such narratives. For instance, they have not quantitatively measured the importance of various interest groups in these debates. Using the Bt brinjal case in India, we identified several interest groups that were involved in the GM crop debate in India and quantified their interactions with each other and the government in the debate that shaped public policy. This exercise allows us to quantitatively confirm some of the existing findings and bring forward new ones. We find that anti-GM civil society interest groups played a more important role Bt brinjal policy debate compared to pro-GM industry groups. Additionally, unlike the Bt cotton debate where cotton farmers actively supported the technology, vegetable farmers were not active in the Bt brinjal debate and we provide some explanations. The science community's divided opinion on Bt brinjal also likely played a role in government's decision to put a moratorium.

Application/Improvements: This study shows the value of using content analysis and SNA in public policy research.


Keywords

Interest Groups, GM Crops, India, SNA.
User
Notifications

  • W. Klu¨mper, M. Qaim. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. Plos One. 2014; 9(11), 1-7.

  • J.B. Falck-Zepeda. Experiences and prospects of genetically engineered crops. Choices, 2nd quarter. 2016; 31(2).

  • S. Blancke. Why people oppose GMOs even though science says they are safe: Intuition can encourage opinions that are contrary to the facts. Scientific American. 2015.

  • J. Huang, B. Peng. Consumers’ perceptions on GM food safety in urban China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2015; 14(11), 2391–2400.

  • E. Masood. The GM debate - who decides? An analysis of decision-making about genetically modified crops in developing countries." Panos report No. 49, The Panos Institute, London. 2005.

  • I. Scoones. Regulatory manoeuvres: the Bt cotton controversy in India. IDS Working Paper 197, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, England. 2003.

  • R. Herring, R. Paarlberg. The political economy of biotechnology. Annual Review of Resource Economy. 2016; 8, 397-4.

  • The mysterious case of GM brinjal cultivation.https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-mysterious-case-of-gm-brinjal-cultivation/article27943344.ece. Date accessed: 15/06/2019.

  • A.M. Shelton, M.J. Hossain,V. Paranjape, A.K. Azad, M.L. Rahman, A.S.M.M.R. Khan, M.Z.H. Prodhan, M.A. Rashid, R. Majumder, M.A. Hossain, S.S. Hussain, J.E. Huesing,L. McCandless. Bt Eggplant Project in Bangladesh: History, Present Status, and Future Direction. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2018; 6, 106.

  • N.S. Rao, C.E. Pray, R.J. Herring. Biotechnology for a second Green Revolution in India: Socioeconomic, Political, and Public Policy Issues. AgBioForum. 2015; 18(2), 126-141.

  • X. Seuba, C. Correa. Biotechnology in India: its policy and normative framework." Digital Competitiveness Papers, Catalonia Competitiveness Agency, Ministry of Innovation, Universities and Enterprise, Government of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain. 2010.

  • J. Cohen. Poorer nations turn to publicly-developed GM crops.Nature Biotechnology. 2005; 23(1), 27-33.

  • L.V. Gidding, R.D. Atkinson, J.J. Wu. Supressing growth: how GMO opposition hurts developing nations. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. 2016.

  • S. Bhuyan. Corporate political activities and oligopoly welfare loss. Review of Industrial Organization. 2000; 17, 411-426.

  • H. Klüver. Lobbying as a collective enterprise: winners and losers of policy formulation in the European Union. Jr of European Public Policy. 2013; 20(1), 59-76.

  • N. Suresh. "Bt. Brinjal on the Horizon. Technology Review India. 2009; 97(12), 1-2.

  • E. Hallerman, E. Grabau. Crop biotechnology: a pivotal moment for gobal acceptance.Food and Energy Security. 2016; 5(1), 3-17.

  • Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices." Open Access Textbooks. University of Florida, Book 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3. Date accessed: 22/11/2011.

  • E. Otte, R. Rousseau. Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for information sciences.Journal of Information Science. 2002; 28(6), 441-453.

  • D. Knoke, S. Yang. Social network analysis. 2nd ed. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 154, Los Angles, CA: SAGE Publications. 2008.

  • D.L. Hansen, B. Shneiderman, M.A. Smith. Analyzing social media networks with Node XL: insights from a connection world. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman (Elsevier). 2010; 304.

  • J.L. Domingo, J.G. Bordonaba. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants.Environment International. 2011; 37(4), 734-42.

  • ISAAA (International Service for the Acqusition of Agri-biotech Applications)."Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013." Brief 46-2013: Executive Summary. Source: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/. Date accessed: 2013.

  • B. Ramaswami, M. Murugkar, N. Lalitha, C.E. Pray. Agricultural biotechology debates in the rural and in the urban: media and the mobilization of opinion.Working paper, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, New Jersey. 2015.

  • C.K. Rao. Moratorium on bt brinjal: a review of the order of the minister of environment and forests, Government of India. Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE). 2010.

  • ESG (Environmental Support Group-Trust). "Say NO to Bt Brinjal: Say NO to Release of Genetically Modified Crops in India. http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/press/say-no-bt-brinjal-say-no-release-genetic.html. Date accessed: 06/02/2010.

  • The development and regulation of Bt Brinjal in India (Eggplant/Aubergine). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-development-and-regulation-of-Bt-Brinjal-in-Choudhary-Gaur/d0c35d73fc8f83efaf9e3a08b1b8179ef539523d. Date accessed: 2009.

  • K. Jayaraman. Bt brinjal splits indian cabinet.Nature Biotechnology. 2010; 28, 296.

  • Group hails PM's take on Bt Brinjal. http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/. Date accessed: 27/08/2019.

  • Navdayna. Annual narrative report for the year 2009-2010. Navdayna Trust, New Delhi. 2010.

  • K. Kuruganti, A. Madineni. Monsanto-ising Indian agriculture. Living Farms, Bhubaneswar, India. 2010.

  • J.R. Ramesh. Decision on Commercialization of Bt-Brinjal. Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India, New Delhi. 2010; 19.

  • M. Qaim, D. Zilberman. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science. 2003; 299, 900-902.

  • National Consultations on Bt Brinjal: A primer on concerns, issues and prospects. New Delhi, India: Centre for Environment Education, MoEF, Government of India. 2010; 1-26.

  • D. Glover. The corporate shaping of GM crops as a technology for the poor. Journal of Peasant Studies. 2010; 37(1), 67-90.

  • C. Benbrook. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. - the first sixteen years.Environmental Sciences Europe. 2012; 24, 24.

  • IANS. India needs a seed policy: Jairam Ramesh. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/india-needs-a-seed-policy-jairam-ramesh_100317570.html. Date accessed: 09/02/2010.


Abstract Views: 241

PDF Views: 184




  • Role of Interest Groups in Technology Policy:A Case Study of Policies on Agricultural Biotechnology in India

Abstract Views: 241  |  PDF Views: 184

Authors

Sanjib Bhuyan
Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics, Rutgers University, New Jersey, 08901, United States
Carl Pray
Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics, Rutgers University, New Jersey, 08901, United States

Abstract


Objectives: We identify various interest groups involved in the GM policy debate surrounding Bt brinjal in India,examine their interactions and interconnectedness, and quantify their role in the debate.

Methods/Statistical analysis: We use content analysis to review media coverage of the Bt brinjal debate in India and abroad, followed by a modified social network analysis (SNA) to identify the interconnectedness between these interest groups (actors) and quantify their role in the policy debate.

Findings: Although past literature provided comprehensive accounts of the events surrounding the biotech policy formation process in India, they lacked any complementary quantitative criteria to test such narratives. For instance, they have not quantitatively measured the importance of various interest groups in these debates. Using the Bt brinjal case in India, we identified several interest groups that were involved in the GM crop debate in India and quantified their interactions with each other and the government in the debate that shaped public policy. This exercise allows us to quantitatively confirm some of the existing findings and bring forward new ones. We find that anti-GM civil society interest groups played a more important role Bt brinjal policy debate compared to pro-GM industry groups. Additionally, unlike the Bt cotton debate where cotton farmers actively supported the technology, vegetable farmers were not active in the Bt brinjal debate and we provide some explanations. The science community's divided opinion on Bt brinjal also likely played a role in government's decision to put a moratorium.

Application/Improvements: This study shows the value of using content analysis and SNA in public policy research.


Keywords


Interest Groups, GM Crops, India, SNA.

References