Of Terminator Genes and Developing Countries: What are the Impacts of Appropriation Technologies on Technological Diffusion?

  • Timo Goeschl
  • Timothy Swanson


This paper examines the potential impacts of genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) on various developing countries. The impact on any given country will depend on its existing biotechnology capability, the potential for developing biotechnology capability and the country’s suitability for growing GURT target crops (i.e., nonhybridized species). For a large group of countries, the outcome will depend on how GURTs influence the diffusion of innovations from developed to developing countries. This is necessarily an empirical question, as GURTs will affect both the general rate of innovation and the rate of diffusion between countries. A case study of hybrid maize indicates that hybridization as a use restriction technology has slowed the overall diffusion rate of innovations to many developing countries. When GURTs are introduced it will be important to increase public research spending and to restrict other plant-related intellectual property rights so that the diffusion of innovations can continue.


Public Sector Foreign Direct Investment Plant Variety Hybrid Maize Innovation Diffusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Conway, G., and G. Thoenissen (2000): Biotechnology, Food and Nutrition. Nature, Millenium Supplement, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  2. FAO (1999): FAOSTAT Online Database; Production Statistics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  3. Fuglie, K., N. Ballenger, K. Day, C. Klotz, M. 011inger, J. Reilly, U. Vasavada, and J. Yee (1996): Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions. AER-735, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Goeschl, T., and T. Swanson (2000): The Diffusion of Innovations: The Example of Hybrid Plant Varieties. Mimeo., Department of Economics, University College, London.Google Scholar
  5. James, C. (1998): Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1998. ISAAA Briefs, No. 8. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Johnson, B., and K. Holmes (1998): The 1999 Index of Economic Freedom. Dow Jones and Co., Heritage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Komen, J., and G.J. Persley (1993): Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: A Cross-Country Review. ISNAR Research Report, No. 2, International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague.Google Scholar
  8. Pardey, P, J. Roseboom, and J.R. Anderson. (eds.) (1991): Agricultural Research Policy; International Quantitative Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Srivastava, J, N. Smith, and D. Forno (1996): Biodiversity and Agriculture. Implications for Conservation and Development. Technical Paper, No. 321, The World Bank, Washington D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timo Goeschl
  • Timothy Swanson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations