IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v44y2014icp227-236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do decentralized innovation systems promote agricultural technology adoption? Experimental evidence from Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Pamuk, Haki
  • Bulte, Erwin
  • Adekunle, Adewale A.

Abstract

We use experimental data collected in 8 African countries to investigate whether a decentralized approach can promote the adoption of agricultural innovations. This participatory model is based on the creation of so-called ‘innovation platforms’ where local stakeholders meet and seek to identify problems and prioritize solutions. While we document evidence that the participatory model robustly promotes the adoption of crop management innovations across all research sites, we do not find significant effects for other domains of innovation. We also document considerable heterogeneity in terms of local priorities, and show that not all innovation platforms are equally successful. We present tentative evidence that the performance of these platforms depends on specific dimensions of ex ante social capital.

Suggested Citation

  • Pamuk, Haki & Bulte, Erwin & Adekunle, Adewale A., 2014. "Do decentralized innovation systems promote agricultural technology adoption? Experimental evidence from Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 227-236.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:44:y:2014:i:c:p:227-236
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919213001437
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.015?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2008. "How High Are Rates of Return to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field Experiments in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 482-488, May.
    2. Oriana Bandiera & Imran Rasul, 2006. "Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(514), pages 869-902, October.
    3. Tavneet Suri, 2011. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 159-209, January.
    4. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    5. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    6. Sunding, David & Zilberman, David, 2001. "The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 207-261, Elsevier.
    7. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    8. Khwaja, Asim Ijaz, 2009. "Can good projects succeed in bad communities?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(7-8), pages 899-916, August.
    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. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    2. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    3. Zhu, Jessica, 2018. "Understanding the Rationale of Heterogeneous Farmers' Agricultural Technology Adoption Decisions," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274233, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Kaywana Raeburn & Sonia Laszlo & Jim Warnick, 2023. "Resolving ambiguity as a public good: experimental evidence from Guyana," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 79-107, July.
    5. Tavneet Suri, 2009. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," NBER Working Papers 15346, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Schechter, Laura, 2018. "Receptiveness to advice, cognitive ability, and technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 239-268.
    7. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    8. Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Gulati, Kajal, 2015. "Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers' demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 223-251.
    9. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    10. Patrick S. Ward & Valerien O. Pede, 2015. "Capturing social network effects in technology adoption: the spatial diffusion of hybrid rice in Bangladesh," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), pages 225-241, April.
    11. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d’Hôtel & Raphael Soubeyran & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Linking Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Fertiliser Use in Burkina Faso," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 1991-2006, November.
    12. Kondylis, Florence & Mueller, Valerie, 2012. "Seeing is Believing? Evidence from a Demonstration Plot Experiment in Mozambique:," MSSP working papers 1, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Gobillon, Laurent & Wolff, François-Charles, 2020. "The local effects of an innovation: Evidence from the French fish market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    14. Harou, Aurélie P. & Madajewicz, Malgosia & Michelson, Hope & Palm, Cheryl A. & Amuri, Nyambilila & Magomba, Christopher & Semoka, Johnson M. & Tschirhart, Kevin & Weil, Ray, 2022. "The joint effects of information and financing constraints on technology adoption: Evidence from a field experiment in rural Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    15. Aklin, M. & Bayer, P. & Harish, S.P. & Urpelainen, J., 2018. "Economics of household technology adoption in developing countries: Evidence from solar technology adoption in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 35-46.
    16. Teno, Gabriel & Lehrer, Kim & Kone, Abdoulaye, 2018. "Les facteurs de l’adoption des nouvelles technologies en agriculture en Afrique Subsaharienne: une revue de la littérature," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(2), June.
    17. Tavneet Suri, 2006. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Working Papers 944, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    18. Abay, Kibrom A. & Berhane, Guush & Taffesse, Alemayehu Seyoum & Koru, Bethlehem & Abay, Kibrewossen, 2016. "Understanding farmers’ technology adoption decisions: Input complementarity and heterogeneity:," ESSP working papers 82, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Lim, Krisha & Wichmann, Bruno & Luckert, Martin, 2021. "Adaptation, spatial effects, and targeting: Evidence from Africa and Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    20. Villacis, Alexis H. & Bloem, Jeffrey R. & Mishra, Ashok K., 2023. "Aspirations, risk preferences, and investments in agricultural technologies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:44:y:2014:i:c:p:227-236. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.