The Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton and Poverty Reduction in Pakistan

By Akhter Ali, Awudu Abdulai. 2010

367 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Molecular Biology, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dff54f97efb3c5924843ac052146abb51f1cda42

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. M. Kassie
2. B. Shiferaw
3. M. Qaim
4. Leslie Lipper
5. S. Asfaw
6. G. Kohlin
7. John Pender
8. Mekbib G. Haile

In Molecular Biology

1. S. Kouser
2. S. Asfaw
3. M. Qaim
4. Wilhelm Klümper
5. G. Kohlin
6. John Pender
7. M. Kassie
8. P. Zikhali

In Plant Science

1. S. Asfaw
2. S. Kouser
3. Wilhelm Klümper
4. M. Qaim
5. F. Simtowe
6. Mekbib G. Haile
7. G. Kohlin
8. John Pender

Citations in the corpus

• Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia (2012, background): “(2010), Becerril and Abdulai (2010), Ali and Abdulai (2010), the adoption decision can be modeled in a random utility framework.”
• Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis (2011, background): “Empirical evidence from various countries confirms that Bt cotton has allowed remarkable pesticide savings (Ali and Abdulai, 2010; Bennett et al., 2005; Falck-Zepeda et al., 2000; Morse et al., 2004; Pray et al., 2002; Qaim and de Janvry, 2005; Qaim et al., 2006; Traxler and Godoy-Avila, 2004).”
• The Economics of Sustainable Land Management Practices in the Ethiopian Highlands (2010, positive): “The balancing test is normally required after matching to ascertain whether the differences in covariates in the two groups in the matched sample have been eliminated, in which case the matched comparison group can be considered as a plausible counterfactual (Ali and Abdulai, 2010).”
• The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia (2013, background): “However, in reality the treatment effects can vary from one socioeconomic group to another within the same treatment group (see e.g., Abebaw et al., 2010; Ali and Abdulai, 2010; Cunguara and Darnhofer, 2011).”
• A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops (2014, positive): “There are also plenty of studies showing that GM crops cause benefits in terms of higher yields and cost savings in agricultural production [8–12], and welfare gains among adopting farm households [13–15].”