IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sag/seajad/v14y2017i1p17-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Gender, Risk, and Time Preferences in Farmers' Rice Variety Selection in Eastern India

Author

Listed:
  • Mamta Mehar

    (Athena Infonomics, India)

  • Takashi Yamano
  • Architesh Panda

Abstract

Using data from 5,601 rice farmers in Eastern India, this study examined the role of gender, risk, and time preferences in farmers' rice variety selection in Eastern India. The determinants of the following were estimated: farmers' rice variety selection according to variety type (i.e., modern [non-hybrid], stress-tolerant, hybrid, and traditional), and farmers' main reasons (i.e., yield potential, taste/cooking quality, marketability/affordability, and stress tolerance) for choosing a rice variety. A multivariate probit model was employed to identify the factors that influence farmers' decision-making, since some farmers choose to mix rice varieties from multiple categories. The results revealed that female farmers, who are more risk-averse, usually choose rice varieties based on cooking quality (e.g., good taste, high cooking quality, and good straw quality) and stress tolerance. They are less likely to select hybrid rice, and also less likely to base their decision on market-oriented reasons, compared to male farmers. Certain rice varieties released many decades ago remain popular among farmers because of multiple preferred attributes. The preference model is useful in understanding why some varieties are more popular than others, among female and male farmers.Â

Suggested Citation

  • Mamta Mehar & Takashi Yamano & Architesh Panda, 2017. "The Role of Gender, Risk, and Time Preferences in Farmers' Rice Variety Selection in Eastern India," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 14(1), pages 17-36, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sag:seajad:v:14:y:2017:i:1:p:17-36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ajad.searca.org/article?p=582
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michela Nardo & Michaela Saisana & Andrea Saltelli & Stefano Tarantola & Anders Hoffman & Enrico Giovannini, 2005. "Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2005/3, OECD Publishing.
    2. 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.
    3. Juan Camilo Cardenas & Jeffrey Carpenter, 2008. "Behavioural Development Economics: Lessons from Field Labs in the Developing World," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 311-338.
    4. Jenkins, Amanda & Velandia, Margarita & Lambert, Dayton M. & Roberts, Roland K. & Larson, James A. & English, Burton C. & Martin, Steven W., 2011. "Factors Influencing the Selection of Precision Farming Information Sources by Cotton Producers," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 307-320, September.
    5. Ghimire, Subash & Mehar, Mamta & Mittal, Surabhi, 2012. "Influence of Sources of Seed on Varietal Adoption Behavior of Wheat Farmers in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 25(Conferenc).
    6. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    7. Gladwin, Christina H & McMillan, Della, 1989. "Is a Turnaround in Africa Possible without Helping African Women to Farm?," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 345-369, January.
    8. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Quisumbing, Agnes & Behrman, Julia & Biermayr-Jenzano, Patricia & Wilde, Vicki & Noordeloos, Marco & Ragasa, Catherine & Beintema, Nienke, 2011. "Engendering agricultural research, development, and extension:," Research reports ruthmeinzen-dick, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. E. Krishna Rao, 2006. "Role of Women in Agriculture: A Micro Level Study," Journal of Global Economy, Research Centre for Social Sciences,Mumbai, India, vol. 2(2), pages 107-118, June.
    10. Jonna P. ESTUDILLO & Keijiro OTSUKA, 2006. "Lessons From Three Decades Of Green Revolution In The Philippines," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 44(2), pages 123-148, June.
    11. Pender, John & Jagger, Pamela & Nkonya, Ephraim & Sserunkuuma, Dick, 2004. "Development Pathways and Land Management in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 767-792, May.
    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. Sonia Akter & William Erskine & Luc Spyckerelle & Lucia Viana Branco & Julie Imron, 2020. "The impact of women’s access to agricultural extension on cropping practices in Timor-Leste," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(2), pages 449-463, April.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:335530 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Bacud, Eva Salve Tino & Gerullis, Maria Katharina & Puskur, Ranjitha & Heckelei, Thomas, 2024. "Looking at gender is not enough—How diversity of farmers’ marginalization relates to varietal trait preferences," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    4. Takashi Yamano & Maria Luz Malabayabas & Md. Ashraful Habib & Subrata Kumar Das, 2018. "Neighbors follow early adopters under stress: panel data analysis of submergence†tolerant rice in northern Bangladesh," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 313-323, May.
    5. Malabayabas, Maria Luz L. & Mishra, Ashok K. & Pede, Valerien O., 2023. "Joint decision-making, technology adoption and food security: Evidence from rice varieties in eastern India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).

    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. Higgins, Daniel & Arslan, Aslihan & Winters, Paul, 2021. "What role can small-scale irrigation play in promoting inclusive rural transformation? Evidence from smallholder rice farmers in the Philippines," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    2. Hira Channa & Jacob Ricker‐Gilbert & Hugo De Groote & Jonathan Bauchet, 2021. "Willingness to pay for a new farm technology given risk preferences: Evidence from an experimental auction in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 733-748, September.
    3. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Magnus Moglia & Kim S. Alexander & Silva Larson & Anne (Giger)-Dray & Garry Greenhalgh & Phommath Thammavong & Manithaythip Thephavanh & Peter Case, 2020. "Gendered Roles in Agrarian Transition: A Study of Lowland Rice Farming in Lao PDR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Lata Gangadharan & Tarun Jain & Pushkar Maitra & Joe Vecci, 2022. "Lab-in-the-field experiments: perspectives from research on gender," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 31-59, January.
    6. Jia, Xiangping, 2009. "Synergistic Green and White Revolution: Evidence from Kenya and Uganda," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Gloede, Oliver & Menkhoff, Lukas & Waibel, Hermann, 2015. "Shocks, Individual Risk Attitude, and Vulnerability to Poverty among Rural Households in Thailand and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 54-78.
    8. Aniseh S. Bro, 2020. "Climate Change Adaptation, Food Security, and Attitudes toward Risk among Smallholder Coffee Farmers in Nicaragua," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Pender, John & Nkonya, Ephraim & Jagger, Pamela & Sserunkuuma, Dick & Ssali, Henry, 2004. "Strategies to increase agricultural productivity and reduce land degradation: evidence from Uganda," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 181-195, December.
    10. Alexis H. Villacis & Jeffrey R. Alwang & Victor Barrera, 2021. "Linking risk preferences and risk perceptions of climate change: A prospect theory approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 863-877, September.
    11. Gars, Jared & Ward, Patrick S., 2019. "Can differences in individual learning explain patterns of technology adoption? Evidence on heterogeneous learning patterns and hybrid rice adoption in Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 178-189.
    12. Giovanni Di Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2019. "The Effects of Physical Activity on Social Interactions: The Case of Trust and Trustworthiness," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(1), pages 50-71, January.
    13. Martin Eling & Shailee Pradhan & Joan T Schmit, 2014. "The Determinants of Microinsurance Demand," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 39(2), pages 224-263, April.
    14. Bernd Hardeweg & Lukas Menkhoff & Hermann Waibel, 2013. "Experimentally Validated Survey Evidence on Individual Risk Attitudes in Rural Thailand," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(4), pages 859-888.
    15. 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.
    16. Yi Cai & Wene Qi & Famin Yi, 2023. "Smartphone use and willingness to adopt digital pest and disease management: Evidence from litchi growers in rural China," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 131-147, January.
    17. 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.
    18. Mariano, Marc Jim & Villano, Renato & Fleming, Euan, 2012. "Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 41-53.
    19. 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.
    20. Kirui, Oliver & Mrzabaev, Alisher, 2015. "Costs of landj degradation in Eastern Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212007, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Variety Selection; Rice; Preference; India; Gender;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sag:seajad:v:14:y:2017:i:1:p:17-36. 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: Benedict A. Juliano (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/searcph.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.