IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/343068.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do grassroots interventions relax behavioural constraints and improve adoption of nutrition-sensitive food production systems?

Author

Listed:
  • Alvi, Muzna
  • Ward, Patrick
  • Makhija, Simrin
  • Spielman, David J.

Abstract

In most developing countries, agricultural policies and programs are designed to promote productivity growth with modern inputs and technologies, and the success of these policies is measured primarily along the dimensions of technology adoption, with limited reference to the ancillary impacts on behavioural outcomes that may be a prerequisite to adoption. We test whether grassroots programs can additionally relax behavioural constraints, potentially enhancing the adoption of diversified production systems. In Odisha, India, using a series of laboratory-infield experiments and survey instruments to elicit farmers' preferences for risk, agency and aspirations for themselves and their children, we find that respondents in villages where grassroots interventions were promoted showed significantly lower levels of risk aversion and higher aspirations for themselves and their children, along with improvements in production and consumption diversity. However, we do not find a mediating role of reduced risk aversion in improving direct program outcomes. Our results show that grassroots approaches are effective in inducing a shift towards changing production systems, and relaxing behavioural constraints, that can be leveraged over time to strengthen impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Alvi, Muzna & Ward, Patrick & Makhija, Simrin & Spielman, David J., 2023. "Do grassroots interventions relax behavioural constraints and improve adoption of nutrition-sensitive food production systems?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 68(01), September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:343068
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.343068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/343068/files/Do%20grassroots%20interventions%20relax.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.343068?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ambler, Kate & De Brauw,Alan, 2017. "The impacts of cash transfers on women?s empowerment : learning from Pakistan?s BISP program," Policy Research Working Paper Series 113161, The World Bank.
    2. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boggio, Cecilia & Coda Moscarola, Flavia & Gallice, Andrea, 2020. "What is good for the goose is good for the gander?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    2. Sophie Clot & Charlotte Y. Stanton & Marc Willinger, 2017. "Are impatient farmers more risk-averse? Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in rural Uganda," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 156-169, January.
    3. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    4. Owen, Ann L. & Temesvary, Judit, 2018. "The performance effects of gender diversity on bank boards," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 50-63.
    5. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    6. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    7. Bhargava, Palaash & Chen, Daniel L. & Sutter, Matthias & Terrier, Camille, 2022. "Homophily and Transmission of Behavioral Traits in Social Networks," IZA Discussion Papers 15840, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Matthias Doepke & Michèle Tertilt, 2019. "Does female empowerment promote economic development?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 309-343, December.
    9. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Silva Larson & Anne (Giger)-Dray & Tina Cornioley & Manithaythip Thephavanh & Phomma Thammavong & Sisavan Vorlasan & John G. Connell & Magnus Moglia & Peter Case & Kim S. Alexander & Pascal Perez, 2020. "A Game-Based Approach to Exploring Gender Differences in Smallholder Decisions to Change Farming Practices: White Rice Production in Laos," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Marie-Laure Cabon-Dhersin & Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2013. "Cooperation: The Power Of A Single Word? Some Experimental Evidence On Wording And Gender Effects In A Game Of Chicken," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 43-64, January.
    12. Marco Caliendo & Frank M. Fossen & Alexander Kritikos & Miriam Wetter, 2015. "The Gender Gap in Entrepreneurship: Not just a Matter of Personality," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 202-238.
    13. José de Sousa & Guillaume Hollard, 2021. "From Micro to Macro Gender Differences: Evidence from Field Tournaments," Post-Print hal-03389151, HAL.
    14. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    15. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    16. Bjorvatn, Kjetil & Falch, Ranveig & Hernæs, Ulrikke, 2016. "Gender, context and competition: Experimental evidence from rural and urban Uganda," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 31-37.
    17. SeEun Jung & Radu Vranceanu, 2017. "Gender Interaction in Teams: Experimental Evidence on Performance and Punishment Behavior," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 33, pages 95-126.
    18. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    19. Christopher Roth & Sonja Settele & Johannes Wohlfart, 2022. "Risk Exposure and Acquisition of Macroeconomic Information," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 34-53, March.
    20. Matteo Migheli, 2021. "Green purchasing: the effect of parenthood and gender," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10576-10600, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:343068. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.