IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/soudev/v16y2021i2p171-193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Farmers’ Risk Tolerance to Explain Variations in Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Toritseju Begho

Abstract

Rice is the leading cereal crop in Nepal and an important source of calories and plant protein. Despite the importance of rice, there are reports of widespread cultivation of older varieties with considerably large adoption lags. This warrants further investigation into the factors that influence rice farmers’ adoption decisions. Risk attitude is reported to be an important determinant of farmers’ decisions. However, in Nepal, evidence of the effect of risk attitude on the adoption of improved crop varieties is limited because this important factor is not considered in adoption studies. This article, therefore, connects field experiment, theoretical understanding of farmers’ risk attitudes and empirical models with the aim of investigating determinants of farmers adoption of improved rice varieties in Nepal. The results show that majority of farmers currently grow old varieties. The top four varieties—Sona Mahsuri, Sarju-52, Samba Mahsuri and Radha-4—have an average varietal release age of 27 years. By estimating a binary response regression model, this article shows that risk attitude is a significant determinant of rice farmers’ adoption decision. Specifically, the results show that risk-tolerant farmers have the lowest propensity to adopt new improved rice varieties. This article, therefore, highlights the importance of promoting holistic benefits over making risk-reducing attributes salient when new crop varieties are developed and disseminated to farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Toritseju Begho, 2021. "Using Farmers’ Risk Tolerance to Explain Variations in Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Nepal," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 16(2), pages 171-193, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:soudev:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:171-193
    DOI: 10.1177/09731741211023636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09731741211023636
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09731741211023636?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. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. Thuo, Mary & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Hathie, Ibrahima & Obeng-Asiedu, Patrick, 2011. "Adoption of chemical fertilizer by smallholder farmers in the peanut basin of Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 6(01), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    4. Wiseman, David B. & Levin, Irwin P., 1996. "Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 241-250, June.
    5. Ganesh Thapa & Anjani Kumar & P.K. Joshi (ed.), 2019. "Agricultural Transformation in Nepal," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-981-32-9648-0, December.
    6. David J. Freeman & Yoram Halevy & Terri Kneeland, 2019. "Eliciting risk preferences using choice lists," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(1), pages 217-237, January.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2005. "Individual Risk Attitudes: New Evidence from a Large, Representative, Experimentally-Validated Survey," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 511, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    9. Kitae Sohn, 2017. "The Risk Preferences Of Entrepreneurs In Indonesia," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 271-287, July.
    10. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    11. Uri Gneezy & Alex Imas & John List, 2015. "Estimating Individual Ambiguity Aversion: A Simple Approach," Artefactual Field Experiments 00588, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Mahmud Yesuf & Randall A. Bluffstone, 2009. "Poverty, Risk Aversion, and Path Dependence in Low-Income Countries: Experimental Evidence from Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1022-1037.
    13. Fufa, B. & Hassan, Rashid M., 2006. "Determinants of fertilizer use on maize in Eastern Ethiopia: A weighted endogenous sampling analysis of the extent and intensity of adoption," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 45(01), pages 1-12, March.
    14. Daichi Shimamoto & Hiroyuki Yamada & Ayako Wakano, 2014. "The different effects of risk preferences on the adoption of agricultural technology: evidence from a rural area in Cambodia," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 14-07, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    15. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    16. Blanca Isabel Sánchez-Toledano & Zein Kallas & Oscar Palmeros Rojas & José M. Gil, 2018. "Determinant Factors of the Adoption of Improved Maize Seeds in Southern Mexico: A Survival Analysis Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    17. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Elias G. Carayannis & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Stelios Rozakis (ed.), 2018. "From Agriscience to Agribusiness," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, Springer, number 978-3-319-67958-7, December.
    18. Kuehne, Geoff & Llewellyn, Rick & Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger & Dolling, Perry & Ouzman, Jackie & Ewing, Mike, 2017. "Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 115-125.
    19. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2010. "Microeconomics of Technology Adoption," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 395-424, September.
    20. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    21. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    22. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Measuring Individual Risk Attitudes when Preferences are Imprecise," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(576), pages 569-593, May.
    23. Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    24. Ngokkuen, Chuthaporn & Grote, Ulrike, 2012. "Geographical Indication for Jasmine Rice: Applying a Logit Model to Predict Adoption Behavior of Thai Farm Households," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 51(2), pages 1-29, May.
    25. Fadare, Olusegun Ayodeji & Akerele, Dare & Toritseju, Begho, 2014. "Factors Influencing Adoption Decisions Of Maize Farmers In Nigeria," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 2(3), pages 1-10, July.
    26. Canales, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2015. "Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205640, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    27. Elaine M. Liu, 2008. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," Working Papers 1064, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    28. Takashi Yamano & Srinivasulu Rajendran & Maria Malabayabas, 2015. "Farmers’ self-perception toward agricultural technology adoption: evidence on adoption of submergence-tolerant rice in Eastern India," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 17(2), pages 260-274, October.
    29. 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.
    30. Ram Rana & Chris Garforth & Bhuwon Sthapit & Devra Jarvis, 2007. "Influence of socio-economic and cultural factors in rice varietal diversity management on-farm in Nepal," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(4), pages 461-472, December.
    31. Richard Kofi Asravor, 2019. "Farmers’ risk preference and the adoption of risk management strategies in Northern Ghana," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(5), pages 881-900, April.
    32. Daichi Shimamoto & Hiroyuki Yamada & Ayako Wakano, 2018. "The Effects of Risk Preferences on the Adoption of Post-Harvest Technology: Evidence from Rural Cambodia," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(10), pages 1819-1837, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Toritseju Begho & Kelvin Balcombe, 2023. "Attitudes to Risk and Uncertainty: New Insights From an Experiment Using Interval Prospects," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    2. Yanqi Xie & Apurbo Sarkar & Md. Shakhawat Hossain & Ahmed Khairul Hasan & Xianli Xia, 2021. "Determinants of Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery during the Early Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, October.

    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. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    2. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    3. Mohan, Sarah, 2020. "Risk aversion and certification: Evidence from the Nepali tea fields," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Toritseju Begho & Kelvin Balcombe, 2023. "Attitudes to Risk and Uncertainty: New Insights From an Experiment Using Interval Prospects," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    5. Simone Cerroni, 2020. "Eliciting farmers’ subjective probabilities, risk, and uncertainty preferences using contextualized field experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 707-724, September.
    6. Golo-Friedrich Bauermeister & Daniel Hermann & Oliver Musshoff, 2018. "Consistency of determined risk attitudes and probability weightings across different elicitation methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 627-644, June.
    7. Pace, Noemi & Daidone, Silvio, 2024. "Impact of development interventions on individual risk preferences: Evidence from a field-lab experiment and survey data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    8. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    9. Marielle Brunette & Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun, 2022. "Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures? A field experiment in Congo basin countries," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 47(1), pages 122-140, March.
    10. Marielle Brunette & Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun, 2021. "Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures? A field experiment in Congo basin countries," Post-Print hal-03132834, HAL.
    11. Freudenreich, H., 2018. "Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277410, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    13. Camille Tevenart & Marielle Brunette, 2021. "Role of Farmers’ Risk and Ambiguity Preferences on Fertilization Decisions: An Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-27, August.
    14. Arnaud Reynaud & Cécile Aubert, 2020. "Does flood experience modify risk preferences? Evidence from an artefactual field experiment in Vietnam," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 45(1), pages 36-74, March.
    15. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    16. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    17. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    18. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    19. 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.
    20. Bruns, Selina JK & Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Is gamification a curse or blessing for the design of risk elicitation methods in the field? Experimental evidence from Cambodian smallholder farmers," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322263, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:sae:soudev:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:171-193. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.