[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can Information Help Reduce Imbalanced Application of Fertilizers in India? Experimental Evidence from Bihar

Author

Listed:
  • Fishman, Ram
  • Kishore, Avinash
  • Rothler, Yoav
  • Ward, Patrick
Abstract
The imbalanced application of chemical fertilizers in India is widely blamed for low yields, poor soil health, pollution of water resources, and large public expenditures on subsidies, amounting to about 1 percent of India’s gross domestic product. To address the issue, the government of India is investing in a large-scale, expensive program of individualized soil testing and customized fertilizer recommendations, with the hope that scientific information will lead farmers to optimize the fertilizer mix. We conducted a randomized controlled trial in the Indian state of Bihar in what we believe to be the first evaluation of the effectiveness of the program as currently implemented. We did not find evidence of a statistically significant impact of customized fertilizer recommendations on fertilizer use. The lack of impact can be attributed to several factors, including a lack of understanding, lack of confidence in the information’s reliability, or other factors such as fertilizer costs that inhibit farmers from optimizing fertilizer application ratios even if the information shifts their underlying preferences. We provide evidence that suggests lack of confidence is the main factor inhibiting farmers’ response.

Suggested Citation

  • Fishman, Ram & Kishore, Avinash & Rothler, Yoav & Ward, Patrick, 2016. "Can Information Help Reduce Imbalanced Application of Fertilizers in India? Experimental Evidence from Bihar," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235705, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235705
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235705/files/SHC_AAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235705?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2008. "How High Are Rates of Return to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field Experiments in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 482-488, May.
    2. Patrick S. Ward & Vartika Singh, 2015. "Using Field Experiments to Elicit Risk and Ambiguity Preferences: Behavioural Factors and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies in Rural India," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 707-724, June.
    3. Mullainatha, Sendhil & Hanna, Rema N. & Schwartzstein, Joshua, 2012. "Learning Through Noticing: Theory and Experimental Evidence in Farming," Scholarly Articles 9804491, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    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. Rami Rawashdeh, 2023. "Estimating short-run (SR) and long-run (LR) demand elasticities of phosphate," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 36(2), pages 239-253, June.
    2. Kishore, Avinash & Singh, Vartika, 2021. "Seeds, Water, and Markets to Increase Wheat Productivity in Bihar, India," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315022, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Susan Godlonton & Manuel A Hernandez & Mike Murphy, 2018. "Anchoring Bias in Recall Data: Evidence from Central America," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(2), pages 479-501.
    4. Berazneva, Julia & Maertens, Annemie & Mhango, Wezi & Michelson, Hope, 2023. "Paying for agricultural information in Malawi: The role of soil heterogeneity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    5. Panneerselvam Peramaiyan & Peter Craufurd & Virender Kumar & Lavanya P. Seelan & Andrew J. McDonald & Balwinder-Singh & Avinash Kishore & Sudhanshu Singh, 2022. "Agronomic Biofortification of Zinc in Rice for Diminishing Malnutrition in South Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    6. David M.A. Murphy & Dries Roobroeck & David R. Lee & Janice Thies, 2020. "Underground Knowledge: Estimating the Impacts of Soil Information Transfers Through Experimental Auctions†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1468-1493, October.
    7. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Tahirou Abdoulaye & Miet Maertens, 2022. "Digital extension, price risk, and farm performance: experimental evidence from Nigeria," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 831-852, March.
    8. Kishore, A & Pala, BD & Joshia, K & Aggarwal, PK, 2018. "Unfolding government policies towards the development of climate smart agriculture in India," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 31(2).

    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. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    2. Pace, Noemi & Daidone, Silvio, 2024. "Impact of development interventions on individual risk preferences: Evidence from a field-lab experiment and survey data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Norton, Benjamin P. & Hoel, Jessica B. & Michelson, Hope, 2020. "The demand for (fake?) fertilizer: Using an experimental auction to examine the role of beliefs on agricultural input demand in Tanzania," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304444, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Gars, Jared & Ward, Patrick S., 2016. "The role of learning in technology adoption: Evidence on hybrid rice adoption in Bihar, India," IFPRI discussion papers 1591, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Dercon, Stefan & Orkin, Kate & Bernard, Tanguy & Taffesse, Alemayehu, 2014. "The Future in Mind: Aspirations and Forward-Looking Behaviour in Rural Ethiopia," CEPR Discussion Papers 10224, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Feng, Yao, 2011. "Local spillovers and learning from neighbors: Evidence from durable adoptions in rural China," MPRA Paper 33924, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Mbassi, Christophe Martial & Messono, Omang Ombolo, 2023. "Historical technology and current economic development: Reassessing the nature of the relationship," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    8. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    9. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Sheahan, Megan & Black, Roy & Jayne, T.S., 2013. "Are Kenyan farmers under-utilizing fertilizer? Implications for input intensification strategies and research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-52.
    11. Martin Nordin & Sören Höjgård, 2017. "An evaluation of extension services in Sweden," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 51-60, January.
    12. Anne Case & Alicia Menendez, 2011. "Requiescat in Pace? The Consequences of High-Priced Funerals in South Africa," NBER Chapters, in: Explorations in the Economics of Aging, pages 351-373, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Sheahan, Megan & Black, Roy & Jayne, Thomas S., 2012. "Are Farmers Under-Utilizing Fertilizer? Evidence from Kenya," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126739, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. 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.
    15. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    16. Nagisa Shiiba & Hide-Fumi Yokoo & Voravee Saengavut & Siraprapa Bumrungkit, 2023. "Ambiguity Aversion And Individual Adaptation To Climate Change: Evidence From A Farmer Survey In Northeastern Thailand," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(01), pages 1-29, February.
    17. Dalton, Patricio & Pamuk, Haki & Ramrattan, R. & van Soest, Daan & Uras, Burak, 2018. "Payment Technology Adoption and Finance : A Randomized-Controlled-Trial with SMEs," Other publications TiSEM 82d89846-b515-41c7-b431-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Shawn Cole & Xavier Giné & James Vickery, 2017. "How Does Risk Management Influence Production Decisions? Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1935-1970.
    19. Berazneva, Julia & McBride, Linden & Sheahan, Megan & Güereña, David, 2018. "Empirical assessment of subjective and objective soil fertility metrics in east Africa: Implications for researchers and policy makers," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 367-382.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; International Development; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;
    All these keywords.

    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:aaea16:235705. 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.