Who catches the biotech train? Understanding diverging political responses to GMOs in Southeast Asia

References

• Abinales, P.N., and D.J. Amoroso. 2005. State and society in the Philippines. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Agence France-Presse. 2001. Greenpeace welcomes new Philippine approach to GM crops, February 16.
   Google Scholar
• Aguiba, M.M. 2013. PH to export corn grains for the first time on record harvest. Manila Bulletin, October 22.
   Google Scholar
• Akiyama, T., and D.F. Larson. 2004. Growth of the agricultural sector: Are there peculiarities with Southeast Asia? In Rural development and agricultural growth in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, ed. Takamasa Akiyama and Donald F. Larson, 49–73. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andrée, P. 2007. Genetically modified diplomacy: the global politics of agricultural biotechnology and the environment. Vancouver: UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bacigalupi, P. 2010. The windup girl. London: Orbis.
   Google Scholar
• Baconguis, B. 2001. A plea to president Gloria: Please do not change your stated policy position on GMOs. BusinessWorld, March 15.
   Google Scholar
• Bamford, C.C., and A. Bamford, eds. 2005. Free trade agreement: Impact in Thailand. Nonthaburi: FTA Watch.
   Google Scholar
• Bangkok Post. 2001a. Villagers set to end protests. Bangkok Post, April 4.
   Google Scholar
• Bangkok Post. 2001b. Protesters want amnesty for PM. Bangkok Post, April 13.
   Google Scholar
• Bello, W.F., M. de Guzman, M.L. Malig, and H. Docena. 2005. The anti-development state: The political economy of permanent crisis in the Philippines. London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Bertrand, J. 2013. Political change in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biothai. 2007. Khwam ching reuang chi em oo [the truth about GMOs], September 10. http://www.biothai.net/node/180.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, A. 1999. Initial conditions and miraculous growth: Why is South East Asia different from Taiwan and South Korea? World Development 27, no. 2: 301–21. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00126-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowie, A., and D. Unger. 1997. The politics of open economies: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bownas, R.A. 2012. Transnational romantics: The case of opposition to genetically modified crops in India and Its implications for transnational activism. PhD dissertation. Ithaca: Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Brass, T. 2000. Peasants, populism and postmodernism: The return of the Agrarian myth. London: Frank Cass.
   Google Scholar
• Brookes, G. 2014. GM crops: Global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2012. Dorchester: PG Economics Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Brunk, C.G., and H. Coward, eds. 2009. Acceptable genes? Religious traditions and genetically modified foods. Albany: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• BusinessWorld. 2001. Farmers want gov’t to rethink stand on GMOs. BusinessWorld, March 7.
   Google Scholar
• Cabanilla, L.S. 2007. Socio-economic and political concerns for GM foods and biotechnology adoption in the Philippines. AgBioForum 10, no. 3: 178–83.
   Google Scholar
• Callahan, W.A. 2003. Beyond cosmopolitanism and nationalism: Diasporic Chinese and neo-nationalism in China and Thailand. International Organization 57, no. 3: 481–517. doi: 10.1017/S0020818303573027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo, E.W.B. 2001. Pesticide firms, scientists urge review of policy on GMO field experiments. BusinessWorld, April 9.
   Google Scholar
• Castillo, E.W.B., and C.D. Fiel. 2001. Food basket goal pushed. BusinessWorld, February 21.
   Google Scholar
• Ciorciari, J.D. 2010 . The limits of alignment: Southeast Asia and the Great Powers since 1975. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clapp, J. 2006. Unplanned exposure to genetically modified organisms: divergent responses in the global south. The Journal of Environment & Development 15, no. 1: 3–21. doi: 10.1177/1070496505285443
   Google Scholar
• Connors, M.K. 2005. Democracy and the mainstreaming of localism in Thailand. In Southeast Asian responses to globalization: Restructuring governance and deepening democracy, 259–86. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R.W. 1983. Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 12, no. 2: 162–75. doi: 10.1177/03058298830120020701
   Google Scholar
• David, C., P. Intal, and A.M. Balisacan. 2009. The Philippines. In Distortions to agricultural incentives in Asia, ed. K. Anderson and W. Martin, 223–54. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, S.N. 2008. Forbidden fruit: Transgenic papaya in Thailand. Plant Physiology 147, no. 2: 487–93. doi: 10.1104/pp.108.116913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayley, R. 2008. Imagined futures: Sufficiency economy and other visions of rural Thailand. Paper presented at the 10th International Thai Studies Conference, Thammasat University, January 9–11.
   Google Scholar
• Dayley, R. 2011. Thailand’s agrarian myth and its proponents. Journal of Asian and African Studies 46, no. 4: 342–60. doi: 10.1177/0021909611400547
   Google Scholar
• Doner, R.F. 2009. The politics of uneven development: Thailand’s economic growth in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doner, R.F., B.K. Ritchie, and D. Slater. 2005. Systemic vulnerability and the origins of developmental states: Northeast and Southeast Asia in comparative perspective. International Organization 59, no. 2: 327–61. doi: 10.1017/S0020818305050113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durant, R.F. 2007. Globalization, regulatory regimes, and administrative modernization in developing nations: Towards a theoretical framework. In Handbook of globalization, governance, and public administration, ed. A. Farazmand and J. Pinkowski, 407–37. New York: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estremera, S.A. 2013. Bt Talong decision elates green groups. Sun Star Davao, May 26.
   Google Scholar
• Ewing, J.J. 2013. Supermarkets, iron buffalos and agrarian myths: Exploring the drivers and impediments to food systems modernisation in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review 26, no. 5: 481–503. doi: 10.1080/09512748.2013.842309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAOSTAT. 2015. FAOSTAT database. http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E. Accessed 18 April 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez, R.A. 2011. Anti-GMO activists destroy Bt eggplants. The Philippine Star, February 20.
   Google Scholar
• FiBL. 2015. Data on organic agriculture, 2005-2013. Frick: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). http://www.organic-world.net/statistics/. Accessed 18 April 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, C. 2007. Cell of cells: The global race to capture and control the stem cell. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Franco, J.C. 2004. The Philippines: Fractured civil society and competing visions of democracy. In Civil society and political change in Asia: Expanding and contracting democratic space, ed. M. Alagappa, 97–137. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzales, I.C.M. 2003. Environment groups issue strong appeal versus Bt corn. BusinessWorld, May 23.
   Google Scholar
• GRAIN. 2001. Bt cotton through the back door. Seedling 18, no. 4. https://www.grain.org/article/entries/314-bt-cotton-through-the-back-door.
   Google Scholar
• Halos, S.C. 2000. Agricultural biotechnology research and development in the Philippines: The need for a strategic approach. Makati City: Philipine Institute for Development Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, I. 1991. How environmentalist is Buddhism? Religion 21, no. 2: 101–14. doi: 10.1016/0048-721X(91)90058-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikkilä-Horn, M.-L. 2010. Santi Asoke Buddhism and the occupation of Bangkok international airport. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies 3, no. 1: 31–47.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2007. Stealth seeds: Bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics. Journal of Development Studies 43, no. 1: 130–57. doi: 10.1080/00220380601055601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2015. State science, risk and agricultural biotechnology: Bt cotton to Bt Brinjal in India. Journal of Peasant Studies 42, no. 1: 159–86. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2014.951835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewison, K. 2000. Resisting globalization: A study of localism in Thailand. The Pacific Review 13, no. 2: 279–96. doi: 10.1080/095127400363596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewison, K. 2005. Neo-Liberalism and domestic capital: The political outcomes of the economic crisis in Thailand. Journal of Development Studies 41, no. 2: 310–30. doi: 10.1080/0022038042000309269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicken, A. 2006. Party fabrication: Constitutional reform and the rise of Thai Rak Thai. Journal of East Asian Studies 6, no. 3: 381–407. doi: 10.1017/S159824080000463X
   Google Scholar
• Hicken, A. 2008. Politics of economic recovery in Thailand and the Philippines. In Crisis as catalyst: Asia’s dynamic political economy, ed. A.J. MacIntyre, T.J. Pempel, and J. Ravenhill, 206–30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hicken, A. 2009. Building party systems in developing democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchcroft, P. 1999. After the fall: Prospects for political and institutional reform in post-crisis Thailand and the Philippines. Government and Opposition 34, no. 4: 473–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.1999.tb00166.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchcroft, P., and J. Rocamora. 2012. Patronage-based parties and the democratic deficit in the Philippines, In Routledge handbook of Southeast Asian politics, ed. R. Robison, 97–119. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Inoguchi, T, et al. (2004). AsiaBarometer survey data 2004. AsiaBarometer Project. https://www.asiabarometer.org/en/findings/General%20findings/2004.
   Google Scholar
• Interaksyon.com. 2015. Supreme court bans development of genetically engineered products. Interaksyon.com, December 13.
   Google Scholar
• International Trade Center. Trademap: Trade statistics for international business development. http://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx. Accessed 18 April 2015.
   Google Scholar
• James, C. 2014. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2014. Ithaca: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/default.asp.
   Google Scholar
• Jikkham, P., P. Jitcharoenkul, and A. Wipatayotin. 2015. Prayut kills ‘unnecessary’ GMO bill. Bangkok Post, December 15.
   Google Scholar
• Joint Foreign Chambers of the Philippines. 2013. JFC statement on the writ of Kalikasan case on Bt Eggplant. Joint Foreign Chambers of the Philippines.
   Google Scholar
• Kittiampon, A. 2014. Prachaya khong setthakit phophiang kap lokaphiwat [sufficiency economy philosophy and globalization]. So Lo Kho San [Newsletter of the Office of the Cabinet Secretary] 22, no. 4: 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Koetsawang, A. 1998. Thai bid to up cotton production seen facing problems. Reuters, March 11.
   Google Scholar
• Kurzer, P., and A. Cooper. 2007. What’s for dinner? European farming and food traditions confront American biotechnology. Comparative Political Studies 40, no. 9: 1035–58. doi: 10.1177/0010414006288975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• la Cruz, de R.E. 2002. Philippines. In Agricultural biotechnology: Country case studies: A decade of development, ed. G.J. Persley and R.L. MacIntyre, 105–12. Cary: CABI Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Landé, C.H. 2001. The return of ‘people power’ in the Philippines. Journal of Democracy 12, no. 2: 88–102. doi: 10.1353/jod.2001.0029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Lange, W.A., and E.W.B. Castillo. 1999. Farmers oppose, biotech firms back GM corn tests. BusinessWorld, June 17.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, T. 2012. Land and loyalty: Security and the development of property rights in Thailand. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, T. 2013. The strong and the weak: Ups and downs of state capacity in Southeast Asia. Asian Politics and Policy 5, no. 3: 337–58. doi: 10.1111/aspp.12040
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, T. 2015a. The rise of the organic foods movement as a transnational phenomenon. In Oxford handbook of food, politics, and society, ed. R.J. Herring, 739–54. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, T. 2015b. Agricultural biotechnology in Southeast Asia. Patterns of inclusion and exclusion. SEATIDE Online Paper 7.
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman, R.C. 2002. Ideas, institutions, and political order: Explaining political change. American Political Science Review 96 (4): 697–712. doi: 10.1017/S0003055402000394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lugo, L.M.T. 1997. Malacanang ok’s seven new laws. BusinessWorld, December 23.
   Google Scholar
• MacIntyre, A. 2001. Institutions and investors: The politics of the economic crisis in Southeast Asia. International Organization 55 (1): 81–122. doi: 10.1162/002081801551423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manila Bulletin. 2003a. CBCP asks arroyo to defer widespread use of BT-Corn. Manila Bulletin, February 7.
   Google Scholar
• Manila Bulletin. 2003b. CBCP’s solidarity with strikers. Manila Bulletin, May 14.
   Google Scholar
• McGrath, M. 2013. ‘Golden Rice’ GM trial vandalised in the Philippines. BBC News, August 9.
   Google Scholar
• Missingham, B.D. 2003. The Assembly of the Poor in Thailand: From local struggles to national protest movement. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
   Google Scholar
• Moises, E.L. 2001. Gov’t set to issue policy on GMO food products. BusinessWorld, June 27.
   Google Scholar
• MST Business. 2013. Javier leads academe, scientists in backing genetically-engineered crops. Manila Standard Today, October 7.
   Google Scholar
• National Science and Technology Development Agency. 2005. Thailand's national biotechnology policy framework 2004–2009. National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, National Science and Technology Development Agency: Pathumthani.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, M.G. 2001. Firm to file case vs farmers on destruction of gene-test plants in s cotabato site. BusinessWorld, September 3.
   Google Scholar
• Oo, S.S. 2010. New cotton strain could yield exports. Myanmar Times, October 11.
   Google Scholar
• Paarlberg, R.L. 2001. The politics of precaution: Genetically modified crops in developing countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pamugas, L.M. 2011. Bohol: striving toward sustainable and sovereign food system. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 26 (1-2): 442–46.
   Google Scholar
• Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2013. Biotech sector gets boost. Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 13.
   Google Scholar
• Philippine News Agency. 2013. Farmers’ groups underscore benefits of ‘BT Talong’. Interaksyon.com, November 7.
   Google Scholar
• Phongpaichit, P. 2004. Developing social alternatives: Walking backwards into a khlong. In Thailand beyond the crisis, ed. Peter Warr, 161–84. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Phongpaichit, P., and C. Baker. 1998. Thailand’s boom and bust. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
   Google Scholar
• Phuchatkan raiwan. 2004. ‘Thaksin’ sang doen saiklang ko to khwang chi em oo phanit [Thaksin orders walk on middle way, Ministry of Foreign Affairs obstructs GMO commerce], September 2.
   Google Scholar
• Pinkaew, T. 2004. GM multinationals exploiting loopholes. Bangkok Post, September 24.
   Google Scholar
• Prachathai. 2015. Baiothai kangwon nak rang pho ro bo ji em o phan khwam hen chop kho ro mo laew [Biothai very worried as draft GMO act is approved by cabinet], Prachathai, 24 November, http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2015/11/62616.
   Google Scholar
• Purugganan, M. 2015. The SC kills Bt talong, and takes down Philippine science as well. Rappler, December 9.
   Google Scholar
• Pye, O., and W. Schaffar. 2008. The 2006 anti-Thaksin movement in Thailand: An analysis. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38, no. 1: 38–61. doi: 10.1080/00472330701651945
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. 2015. RASFF Portal. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/. Accessed 15 April 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Raquiza, A.R. 2013. State structure, policy formation, and economic development in Southeast Asia: The political economy of Thailand and the Philippines. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Republic of the Philippines. 1997 . Republic Act No. 8435 [Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act]. Metro Manila: Congress of the Philippines. http://nafc.da.gov.ph/afma/ra8435-1.php.
   Google Scholar
• Republic of the Philippines. 2001 . Philippine National Policy Statement on Modern Biotechnology. http://www.ncbp.dost.gov.ph/19-guidelines/28-philippine-national-policy-statement-on-modern-biotechnology.
   Google Scholar
• Requejo, R.E. 2014. Farmers reject CA ruling on Bt crops. Manila Standard, April 3.
   Google Scholar
• Samabuddhi, K. 2004. GM crops win major concession: PM gives green light to open-field trial. Bangkok Post, August 21.
   Google Scholar
• Sankham, V. 2015. Farmers protest against bill on GMO farming. The Nation, December 10.
   Google Scholar
• Santimatanedol, A. 2004. Opposition to GM crops Grow. Bangkok Post, June 11.
   Google Scholar
• Sarnsamak, P. 2012. Genetically modified papaya found in Kanchanaburi: Chula researcher. The Nation, May 17.
   Google Scholar
• Sato, K. 2013. Genetically modified food in France: Symbolic transformation and the policy paradigm shift. Theory and Society 42 (5): 477–507. doi: 10.1007/s11186-013-9198-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sato, K. 2015. Cultural politics of food safety: Genetically modified food in France, Japan, and the United States. In Oxford handbook of food, politics, and society, ed. R.J. Herring, 562–86. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J.C. 1985. Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Secretariat of the Cabinet. 2001. Mati khana ratthamontri reuang naewthang kankaekhai panha khong samatcha khonchon [Government resolution on guidelines for solving the problems of the Assembly of the Poor]. Bangkok: Secretariat of the Cabinet.
   Google Scholar
• Silver, L.M. 2007. Challenging nature: The clash between biotechnology and spirituality. New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Sirisunthorn, S. 2004. Day of reckoning for GMO crops. The Nation, August 20.
   Google Scholar
• Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51, no. 2: 273–86. doi: 10.2307/2095521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tantiwithayaphithak, W. 2001. Tam ha phuet chi em oo baep thai thai [Looking for Thai-Style GMOs]. Sarakadee Feature Magazine, February.
   Google Scholar
• Tejapira, K. 2002. Post-crisis economic impasse and political recovery in Thailand: The resurgence of economic nationalism. Critical Asian Studies 34, no. 3: 323–56. doi: 10.1080/1467271022000008929
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thai News Service. 2010. Concerns raised as genetically-modified chilli and soybean were found growing in farms in North and central plains, February 10.
   Google Scholar
• Thanh Nien News. 2015. Vietnam approves commercial crops of GMO corn to cut imports, March 19.
   Google Scholar
• The Nation. 2004. Santi Asoke: No to GMOs. The Nation, June 10.
   Google Scholar
• Tiberghien, Y. 2006. The battle for the global governance of genetically modified organisms: the roles of the European Union, Japan, Korea, and China in a comparative context. Working paper in the series Les Études Du CERI, 1–49. Paris: Centre d’études et de recherces internationales, Sciences Po.
   Google Scholar
• Torres, C.S., E.G. Centeno, R.A. Daya, M.T.B. Osalla, and J.N. Gopela. 2012. Adoption and uptake pathways of biotechnology crops: The case of biotech corn farmers in selected provinces of Luzon, Philippines. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: College of Development Communication, International Service of the Acquisition of Agro-biotech Applications SEAsiaCenter, and SEAMEO Southeast Asia Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• Tosun, J. 2014. Agricultural biotechnology in central and Eastern Europe: Determinants of cultivation bans. Sociologia Ruralis 54, no. 3: 362–81. doi: 10.1111/soru.12046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ufen, A. 2012. Party systems, critical junctures, and cleavages in Southeast Asia. Asian Survey 52, no. 3: 441–64. doi: 10.1525/as.2012.52.3.441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unger, D. 2009. Sufficiency economy and the bourgeois virtues. Asian Affairs: an American Review 36, no. 3: 139–56. doi: 10.1080/00927670903259897
   Google Scholar
• Vandergeest, P. 2009. Opening the green box: How organic became the standard for alternative agriculture in Thailand. Paper presented at the Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics.
   Google Scholar
• Wahab, A.G. 2014. Malaysia: Agricultural biotechnology annual, 2014. GAIN Report Number MY4014. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, A. 2009. ‘Now the companies have come’: Local values and contract farming in Northern Thailand. In Agrarian angst and rural resistance in contemporary Southeast Asia, ed. D. Caouette and S. Turner, 61–81. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, A. 2010. Royal sufficicency and elite misrepresentations of rural livelihoods. In Saying the unsayable: monarchy and democracy in Thailand, ed. S. Ivarsson and L. Isager, 241–65. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, E. 2014. Beating the heat. Nature Biotechnology 32 (7): 610–13. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2948
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warr, P., and A. Kohpaiboon. 2009. Thailand. In Distortions to agricultural incentives in Asia, ed. K. Anderson and W. Martin, 255–79. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
   Google Scholar