IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/295210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the impact of improved technology adoption in traditional poultry farming on potential outcomes of farmers: Evidence from rural Togo

Author

Listed:
  • Soviadan, Mawussi Kossivi
  • Ahmed, Osama
  • Kubik, Zaneta
  • Enete, Anselm Anibueze
  • Okoye, Chukwuemeka Uzoma
  • Glauben, Thomas

Abstract

Social programs are designed to reach beneficiaries and achieve expected objectives. There is a need to understand whether development programs work and their level of impact on the beneficiaries involved. Along these lines, the objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of Improved Technology adoption in Traditional Poultry Farming (ITTPF) on farmers’ potential outcomes in Togo. Baseline and follow-up data were collected from 400 farmers and analyzed using difference-in-differences models. The study reveals that five years after the implementation of the program, the annual gross profit increased on average by US$ 1294 for each program participant. The results of the heterogeneous impacts assessment indicate that participating in the program is a necessary condition for ITTPF adoption, but not sufficient for profit optimization. Overall, the program has a positive and significant impact on the potential outcomes of farmers in Togo. The government in its agricultural policy should mobilize more resources to enable considerably more farmers to adopt improved agricultural technologies. In addition, agricultural policymakers should implement the instruments of the chain planning, programming, budgeting, execution, monitoring and evaluation of all agricultural development programs and projects to make progressive adjustments for optimal results achievement and sustainable agricultural development.

Suggested Citation

  • Soviadan, Mawussi Kossivi & Ahmed, Osama & Kubik, Zaneta & Enete, Anselm Anibueze & Okoye, Chukwuemeka Uzoma & Glauben, Thomas, 2024. "Evaluating the impact of improved technology adoption in traditional poultry farming on potential outcomes of farmers: Evidence from rural Togo," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:295210
    DOI: 10.1080/23311932.2024.2341091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/295210/1/Soviadan_2024_poultry_farming_Togo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/23311932.2024.2341091?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. James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 669-738, May.
    2. Alem, Yonas & Ruhinduka, Remidius D., 2020. "Saving Africa's tropical forests through energy transition: A randomized controlled trial in Tanzania," Ruhr Economic Papers 885, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    3. James Heckman, 1997. "Instrumental Variables: A Study of Implicit Behavioral Assumptions Used in Making Program Evaluations," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 32(3), pages 441-462.
    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. Huber Martin & Wüthrich Kaspar, 2019. "Local Average and Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity: A Review," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, January.
    2. P. Lovaglio & S. Verzillo, 2016. "Heterogeneous economic returns to higher education: evidence from Italy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 791-822, March.
    3. H. Evans & A. Basu, 2011. "Exploring comparative effect heterogeneity with instrumental variables: prehospital intubation and mortality," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 11/26, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    4. Karim Chalak & Halbert White, 2011. "Viewpoint: An extended class of instrumental variables for the estimation of causal effects," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 1-51, February.
    5. Cornelissen, Thomas & Dustmann, Christian & Raute, Anna & Schönberg, Uta, 2016. "From LATE to MTE: Alternative methods for the evaluation of policy interventions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 47-60.
    6. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1133-1157.
    7. Basu, Anirban, 2015. "Welfare implications of learning through solicitation versus diversification in health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 165-173.
    8. Christian Belzil & J. Hansen, 2010. "The distinction between dictatorial and incentive policy interventions and its implication for IV estimation," Working Papers hal-00463877, HAL.
    9. Harry Patrinos & Chris Sakellariou, 2005. "Schooling and Labor Market Impacts of a Natural Policy Experiment," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 19(4), pages 705-719, December.
    10. James J. Heckman, 2008. "The Principles Underlying Evaluation Estimators with an Application to Matching," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 9-73.
    11. Zamarro, Gema, 2010. "Accounting for heterogeneous returns in sequential schooling decisions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 260-276, June.
    12. Kuckulenz Anja & Maier Michael, 2006. "Heterogeneous Returns to Training: An Analysis with German Data Using Local Instrumental Variables," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 226(1), pages 24-40, February.
    13. Karim Chalak & Halbert White, 2007. "An Extended Class of Instrumental Variables for the Estimation of Causal Effects," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 692, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 30 Nov 2009.
    14. Dionissi Aliprantis, 2017. "Assessing the evidence on neighborhood effects from Moving to Opportunity," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 925-954, May.
    15. Pedro Carneiro & James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2010. "Evaluating Marginal Policy Changes and the Average Effect of Treatment for Individuals at the Margin," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 377-394, January.
    16. Thomas Cornelissen & Christian Dustmann & Anna Raute & Uta Schönberg, 2018. "Who Benefits from Universal Child Care? Estimating Marginal Returns to Early Child Care Attendance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(6), pages 2356-2409.
    17. James J. Heckman, 2010. "Building Bridges between Structural and Program Evaluation Approaches to Evaluating Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 356-398, June.
    18. Shaibu Mellon Bedi & Carlo Azzarri & Bekele Hundie Kotu & Lukas Kornher & Joachim von Braun, 2022. "Scaling-up agricultural technologies: who should be targeted?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 857-875.
    19. Halbert White & Karim Chalak, 2008. "Identifying Structural Effects in Nonseparable Systems Using Covariates," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 734, Boston College Department of Economics.
    20. Gathmann, Christina & Vonnahme, Christina & Kim, Jongoh & Busse, Anna, 2021. "Marginal Returns to Citizenship and Educational Performance," CEPR Discussion Papers 16636, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    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:zbw:espost:295210. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.