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. 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.
    2. 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(1), pages 1-11.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    9. 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.
    10. Abadie, Alberto, 2003. "Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 231-263, April.
    11. Rada, Nicholas E. & Fuglie, Keith O., 2019. "New perspectives on farm size and productivity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 147-152.
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. 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. Huber, Martin, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," FSES Working Papers 504, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    3. 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.
    4. Phillip Heiler, 2020. "Efficient Covariate Balancing for the Local Average Treatment Effect," Papers 2007.04346, arXiv.org.
    5. Arslan, Cansın & Wollni, Meike & Oduol, Judith & Hughes, Karl, 2022. "Who communicates the information matters for technology adoption," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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).
    10. Ashesh Rambachan & Jonathan Roth, 2020. "Design-Based Uncertainty for Quasi-Experiments," Papers 2008.00602, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    11. 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.
    12. Chy, Mahfuz & Kyung, Hoyoun, 2023. "The effect of bond market transparency on bank loan contracting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2).
    13. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2018. "A General Weighted Average Representation of the Ordinary and Two-Stage Least Squares Estimands," IZA Discussion Papers 11866, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Hao, Shiming, 2021. "True structure change, spurious treatment effect? A novel approach to disentangle treatment effects from structure changes," MPRA Paper 108679, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Li, Tongxia & Ang, Tze Chuan ‘Chewie’ & Lu, Chun, 2023. "Employment protection and the provision of trade credit," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    16. Rahman Md. Mostafizur & Khatun Mst. Asma & Moinul Islam & Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Koji Kotani, 2024. "Does future design induce people to make a persistent change to sustainable food consumption?," Working Papers SDES-2024-4, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2024.
    17. McLaughlin, Joanne Song, 2017. "Does Communist party membership pay? Estimating the economic returns to party membership in the labor market in China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 963-983.
    18. Hugo Bodory & Martin Huber & Michael Lechner, 2024. "The Finite Sample Performance of Instrumental Variable-Based Estimators of the Local Average Treatment Effect When Controlling for Covariates," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 64(4), pages 2053-2078, October.
    19. Tymon Sloczynski & S. Derya Uysal & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge & Derya Uysal, 2022. "Abadie's Kappa and Weighting Estimators of the Local Average Treatment Effect," CESifo Working Paper Series 9715, CESifo.
    20. Eva Deuchert & Martin Huber, 2017. "A Cautionary Tale About Control Variables in IV Estimation," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(3), pages 411-425, June.

    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.