IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea22/344219.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Training Farmers on Multiple Technologies Deter Adoption? Evidence from a Farm Management Training Program in Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Das, Nandini
  • Gupta, Anubhab
  • Majumder, Binoy
  • Das, Mahamitra
  • Muniappan, Rangaswamy

Abstract

Farmers in low-income countries suffer from several challenges that prevent them from achieving higher yields and generating economic gains. Improved agricultural technology can help remove some of the existing obstacles to high agricultural productivity. This paper evaluates an agricultural intervention that provided groundnut farmers in rural Bangladesh with comprehensive recommendations on Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), and agronomical suggestions. Using reduced form econometric analyses, we assess the impact of the training program on input usage and yield. Our findings indicate that when farmers receive training on several technologies together, they tend to adopt only the lowcost ones, making such a training program less effective due to the non-adoption of the potentially more beneficial higher-cost technologies. We find significant changes (based on recommendations) in the usage of traditional inputs, but not in new ones. The adjustments in traditional inputs are easier to remember and cheaper to implement. We construct a simple model to show that the learning costs are high for new inputs, leading to selective adoption. Policy recommendations include simplifying complex training into manageable components and implementing strategies to reduce the learning costs associated with new inputs.

Suggested Citation

  • Das, Nandini & Gupta, Anubhab & Majumder, Binoy & Das, Mahamitra & Muniappan, Rangaswamy, 2024. "Does Training Farmers on Multiple Technologies Deter Adoption? Evidence from a Farm Management Training Program in Bangladesh," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 344219, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea22:344219
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.344219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/344219/files/Nandini%20Das.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.344219?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. Birthal, Pratap S. & Sharma, O.P. & Kumar, Sant, 2000. "Economics of Integrated Pest Management: Evidences and Issues," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 55(4), December.
    2. Kosuke Imai & Marc Ratkovic, 2014. "Covariate balancing propensity score," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 76(1), pages 243-263, January.
    3. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Norton, George W. & Reaves, Dixie Watts, 1997. "Economic Analysis Of Environmental Benefits Of Integrated Pest Management," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    5. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    6. Jean‐Paul Chavas & Céline Nauges, 2020. "Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 42-53, March.
    7. Rao, C.A. Rama & Rao, M. Srinivasa & Naraiah, P. & Malathi, B. & Reddy, Y.V.R., 2008. "An Economic Analysis of Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in Groundnut," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 63(01), pages 1-11.
    8. Makaiko G. Khonje & Julius Manda & Petros Mkandawire & Adane Hirpa Tufa & Arega D. Alene, 2018. "Adoption and welfare impacts of multiple agricultural technologies: evidence from eastern Zambia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(5), pages 599-609, September.
    9. Abadie, Alberto, 2003. "Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 231-263, April.
    10. Rada, Nicholas E. & Fuglie, Keith O., 2019. "New perspectives on farm size and productivity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 147-152.
    11. Tymon S{l}oczy'nski & S. Derya Uysal & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2023. "Covariate Balancing and the Equivalence of Weighting and Doubly Robust Estimators of Average Treatment Effects," Papers 2310.18563, arXiv.org.
    12. Jeremy R. Magruder, 2018. "An Assessment of Experimental Evidence on Agricultural Technology Adoption in Developing Countries," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 299-316, October.
    13. Anubhab Gupta & Justin Kagin & J Edward Taylor & Mateusz Filipski & Lindi Hlanze & James Foster, 2018. "Is technology change good for cotton farmers? A local-economy analysis from the Tanzania Lake Zone," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(1), pages 27-56.
    14. Binam, Joachim Nyemeck & Tonye, Jean & wandji, Njankoua & Nyambi, Gwendoline & Akoa, Mireille, 2004. "Factors affecting the technical efficiency among smallholder farmers in the slash and burn agriculture zone of Cameroon," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 531-545, October.
    15. Ruzzante, Sacha & Labarta, Ricardo & Bilton, Amy, 2021. "Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    16. Kyle Emerick & Manzoor H. Dar, 2021. "Farmer Field Days and Demonstrator Selection for Increasing Technology Adoption," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(4), pages 680-693, October.
    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. Das, Nandini & Gupta, Anubhab & Majumder, Binoy & Das, Mahamitra & Muniappan, Rangaswamy, 2024. "Does Training Farmers on Multiple Technologies Deter Adoption? Evidence from a Farm Management Training Program in Bangladesh," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343784, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Martin Huber, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," Papers 1910.00641, arXiv.org.
    3. Arslan, Cansın & Wollni, Meike & Oduol, Judith & Hughes, Karl, 2022. "Who communicates the information matters for technology adoption," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Tamara Bischof & Boris Kaiser, 2021. "Who cares when you close down? The effects of primary care practice closures on patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 2004-2025, September.
    5. Michael C. Knaus, 2024. "Treatment Effect Estimators as Weighted Outcomes," Papers 2411.11559, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    6. Phillip Heiler, 2020. "Efficient Covariate Balancing for the Local Average Treatment Effect," Papers 2007.04346, arXiv.org.
    7. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    8. Arne Henningsen & Guy Low & David Wuepper & Tobias Dalhaus & Hugo Storm & Dagim Belay & Stefan Hirsch, 2024. "Estimating Causal Effects with Observational Data: Guidelines for Agricultural and Applied Economists," IFRO Working Paper 2024/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    9. Crescioli, Tommaso & Martelli, Angelo, 2022. "Beyond the Great Reversal: Superstars, Unions, and the Euro," Single Market Economics Papers WP2022/8, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (European Commission), Chief Economist Team.
    10. Michelle Marcus & Pedro H. C. Sant’Anna, 2021. "The Role of Parallel Trends in Event Study Settings: An Application to Environmental Economics," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(2), pages 235-275.
    11. Godlonton, Susan & Okeke, Edward N., 2016. "Does a ban on informal health providers save lives? Evidence from Malawi," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 112-132.
    12. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    13. Maclean, J. Catherine & Pichler, Stefan & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2020. "Mandated Sick Pay: Coverage, Utilization, and Welfare Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 13132, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Tymon S{l}oczy'nski, 2020. "When Should We (Not) Interpret Linear IV Estimands as LATE?," Papers 2011.06695, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    15. Hibbard, Patrick F. & Chapman, Jason E., 2024. "Drug treatment courts and community-level crime," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Joshua D. Angrist, 2022. "Empirical Strategies in Economics: Illuminating the Path From Cause to Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2509-2539, November.
    17. Bahia, Kalvin & Castells, Pau & Cruz, Genaro & Masaki, Takaaki & Pedrós, Xavier & Pfutze, Tobias & Rodríguez-Castelán, Carlos & Winkler, Hernán, 2024. "The welfare effects of mobile broadband internet: Evidence from Nigeria," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    18. Carattini, Stefano & Sen, Suphi, 2019. "Carbon taxes and stranded assets: Evidence from Washington state," Economics Working Paper Series 1909, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    19. Ashesh Rambachan & Jonathan Roth, 2020. "Design-Based Uncertainty for Quasi-Experiments," Papers 2008.00602, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    20. Heidi Allen & Katherine Baicker, 2021. "The Effect of Medicaid on Care and Outcomes for Chronic Conditions: Evidence from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment," NBER Working Papers 29373, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea22:344219. 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/aaeaaea.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.