IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/pseptp/halshs-04630515.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Studying inclusive innovation with the right data: An empirical illustration from Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Solomon Alemu

    (CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa)

  • Frederic Kosmowski

    (CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa)

  • James Stevenson

    (CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC)

  • Paola Mallia

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Lemi Taye

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Karen Macours

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

CONTEXT Agricultural innovations are inclusive when they are used by any member of society who wants to use them. Conversely, agricultural innovations that can only be used by a specific privileged group within society can be characterized as "exclusive". OBJECTIVE The first objective of this paper is to examine the inclusivity of agricultural innovations in Ethiopia, using national representative data and considering a wide portfolio of innovations resulting from the collaborative research between CGIAR and its national partners. Second, we also examine how measurement error may affect how we characterize the inclusivity of agricultural innovations. METHODS We use nationally-representative survey data from Ethiopia (collected in 2018/19) in which best-practice measures of the adoption of a large number of agricultural innovations were embedded, including the adoption of CGIAR-related improved maize varieties measured using two different approaches: subjective, self-reported survey data; and objective DNA fingerprinting of crop samples taken from the same farmers' plots. A rich set of household variables is also collected in the survey, which allows characterizing the types of farmers that are adopting different innovations, and the extent to which conclusions regarding the inclusivity of innovations depends on the measurement of the latter. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Many innovations are not disproportionately more likely to be adopted by male, larger, richer, or more connected farmers. When using self-reported data on adoption of improved maize varieties, adoption appears positively correlated with having larger landholdings and households with lower female participation in agriculture, and negatively correlated with poorer households (being among the bottom 40% of consumption distribution). Substituting survey responses with the results of DNA fingerprinting these correlations disappear, with farm size, gender and poverty status no longer predictive of adoption. SIGNIFICANCE The results suggest the potential value of offering a menu of innovations to farmers to increase inclusivity, as it allows each farmer to be a critical consumer of potential innovations and select those that best correspond to their own needs and constraints. We also highlight how important data quality is in ensuring we have correct information about inclusive innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Solomon Alemu & Frederic Kosmowski & James Stevenson & Paola Mallia & Lemi Taye & Karen Macours, 2024. "Studying inclusive innovation with the right data: An empirical illustration from Ethiopia," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-04630515, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:pseptp:halshs-04630515
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dercon, Stefan & Christiaensen, Luc, 2011. "Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 159-173, November.
    2. Tesfamicheal Wossen & Tahirou Abdoulaye & Arega Alene & Pierre Nguimkeu & Shiferaw Feleke & Ismail Y Rabbi & Mekbib G Haile & Victor Manyong, 2019. "Estimating the Productivity Impacts of Technology Adoption in the Presence of Misclassification," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(1), pages 1-16.
    3. Mekonnen, Dawit K. & Abate, Gashaw & Yimam, Seid & Benfica, Rui & Spielman, David J. & Place, Frank, 2021. "The Impact of Ethiopia's Direct Seed Marketing Approach on Smallholders' Access to Seeds, Productivity, and Commercialization," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 312925, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    5. Tavneet Suri, 2011. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 159-209, January.
    6. Sartas, Murat & Schut, Marc & Proietti, Claudio & Thiele, Graham & Leeuwis, Cees, 2020. "Scaling Readiness: Science and practice of an approach to enhance impact of research for development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    7. Hoffecker, Elizabeth, 2021. "Understanding inclusive innovation processes in agricultural systems: A middle-range conceptual model," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Imtiyaz Khanday & Debra Skinner & Bing Yang & Raphael Mercier & Venkatesan Sundaresan, 2019. "A male-expressed rice embryogenic trigger redirected for asexual propagation through seeds," Nature, Nature, vol. 565(7737), pages 91-95, January.
    10. Carletto,Calogero & Dillon,Andrew S. & Zezza,Alberto, 2021. "Agricultural Data Collection to Minimize Measurement Error and Maximize Coverage," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9745, The World Bank.
    11. Shiferaw, Bekele & Kassie, Menale & Jaleta, Moti & Yirga, Chilot, 2014. "Adoption of improved wheat varieties and impacts on household food security in Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 272-284.
    12. Montes de Oca Munguia, Oscar & Pannell, David J. & Llewellyn, Rick & Stahlmann-Brown, Philip, 2021. "Adoption pathway analysis: Representing the dynamics and diversity of adoption for agricultural practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. James R. Stevenson & Karen Macours & Douglas Gollin, 2023. "The Rigor Revolution: New Standards of Evidence for Impact Assessment of International Agricultural Research," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 15(1), pages 495-515, October.
    14. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    15. 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.
    16. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 953-969, July.
    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. Tahirou Abdoulaye & Tesfamicheal Wossen & Bola Awotide, 2018. "Impacts of improved maize varieties in Nigeria: ex-post assessment of productivity and welfare outcomes," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(2), pages 369-379, April.
    2. Coromaldi, Manuela & Pallante, Giacomo & Savastano, Sara, 2015. "Adoption of modern varieties, farmers' welfare and crop biodiversity: Evidence from Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 346-358.
    3. Jourdain C. Lokossou & Hippolyte D. Affognon & Alphonse Singbo & Michel B. Vabi & Ayoni Ogunbayo & Paul Tanzubil & Alcade C. Segnon & Geoffrey Muricho & Haile Desmae & Hakeem Ajeigbe, 2022. "Welfare impacts of improved groundnut varieties adoption and food security implications in the semi-arid areas of West Africa," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(3), pages 709-728, June.
    4. Abebayehu Girma Geffersa & Frank W. Agbola & Amir Mahmood, 2022. "Improved maize adoption and impacts on farm household welfare: Evidence from rural Ethiopia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(4), pages 860-886, October.
    5. Wossen, Tesfamicheal & Alene, Arega & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Feleke, Shiferaw & Manyong, Victor, 2019. "Agricultural technology adoption and household welfare: Measurement and evidence," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Garbero, A. & Marion, P., 2018. "IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 28 - Understanding the dynamics of adoption decisions and their poverty impacts: the case of improved maize seeds in Uganda," IFAD Research Series 280077, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    7. Lambrecht, Isabel & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Merckx, Roel & Maertens, Miet, 2014. "Understanding the Process of Agricultural Technology Adoption: Mineral Fertilizer in Eastern DR Congo," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 132-146.
    8. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    9. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    10. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d’Hôtel & Raphael Soubeyran & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Linking Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Fertiliser Use in Burkina Faso," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 1991-2006, November.
    11. Kondylis, Florence & Mueller, Valerie, 2012. "Seeing is Believing? Evidence from a Demonstration Plot Experiment in Mozambique:," MSSP working papers 1, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    13. Brown, Brendan & Paudel, Gokul P. & Krupnik, Timothy J., 2021. "Visualising adoption processes through a stepwise framework: A case study of mechanisation on the Nepal Terai," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    14. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    15. Gebremariam, Gebrelibanos & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2018. "The heterogeneous effect of shocks on agricultural innovations adoption: Microeconometric evidence from rural Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 154-161.
    16. Prisca Koncy Fosso & Roger Tsafack Nanfosso, 2016. "Adoption of agricultural innovations in risky environment: the case of corn producers in the west of Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 51-62, June.
    17. Mekdim D. Regassa & Mohammed B. Degnet & Mequanint B. Melesse, 2023. "Access to credit and heterogeneous effects on agricultural technology adoption: Evidence from large rural surveys in Ethiopia," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(2), pages 231-253, June.
    18. Tesfay, M., 2018. "Adoption of diversified farm technology in a semi arid of northern Ethiopia: A Panel Data Analysis," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276008, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Kim S. Alexander & Garry Greenhalgh & Magnus Moglia & Manithaythip Thephavanh & Phonevilay Sinavong & Silva Larson & Tom Jovanovic & Peter Case, 2020. "What is technology adoption? Exploring the agricultural research value chain for smallholder farmers in Lao PDR," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 17-32, March.
    20. F. Vidogbéna & A. Adégbidi & R. Tossou & F. Assogba-Komlan & T. Martin & M. Ngouajio & S. Simon & L. Parrot & S. T. Garnett & K. K. Zander, 2016. "Exploring factors that shape small-scale farmers’ opinions on the adoption of eco-friendly nets for vegetable production," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1749-1770, December.

    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:hal:pseptp:halshs-04630515. 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: Caroline Bauer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.