[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277410.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Freudenreich, H.
Abstract
We study the process of farmer decision making, particularly the choice of productivity enhancing hybrid seed, of smallholder maize farmers in southern Mexico. Few studies regarding small-scale farming in developing countries have factored in social psychology together with economic dimensions in that context. While acknowledging the importance of risk preferences, there is still a lack of consensus on how these preferences influence the process of technology choice. We combine subjective beliefs derived from the Theory of Planned Behavior, with experimentally elicited risk and ambiguity preferences to predict the degree of farmers hybrid maize adoption in the coming season. Our results suggest that the higher farmers score on factors describing attitudes and subjective norms towards the use of hybrid seed, the higher is the degree of adoption. Farmers who are very risk averse score higher on attitudes towards the outcomes related to using hybrid seed, but intend to cultivate a smaller share of land with it. Ambiguity aversion is not significantly related to attitudes towards or the intended degree of adoption. Acknowledgement : This research was financially supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Suggested Citation

  • Freudenreich, H., 2018. "Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277410, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277410
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277410/files/2001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277410?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. Bellon, Mauricio R. & Adato, Michelle & Becerril, Javier & Mindek, Dubravka, 2006. "Poor farmers' perceived benefits from different types of maize germplasm: The case of creolization in lowland tropical Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 113-129, January.
    2. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    3. Läpple, Doris & Kelley, Hugh, 2013. "Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-19.
    4. Joseph Henrich & Richard McElreath, 2002. "Are peasants risk-averse decision makers?," Artefactual Field Experiments 00066, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2010. "Microeconomics of Technology Adoption," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 395-424, September.
    6. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    7. Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1983. "Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 307-328, July.
    8. Helena Hansson & Richard Ferguson & Christer Olofsson, 2012. "Psychological Constructs Underlying Farmers’ Decisions to Diversify or Specialise their Businesses – An Application of Theory of Planned Behaviour," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 465-482, June.
    9. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    10. Lynne, Gary D. & Franklin Casey, C. & Hodges, Alan & Rahmani, Mohammed, 1995. "Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 581-598, December.
    11. Feder, Gershon, 1980. "Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, July.
    12. Takashi Yamano & Srinivasulu Rajendran & Maria Malabayabas, 2015. "Farmers’ self-perception toward agricultural technology adoption: evidence on adoption of submergence-tolerant rice in Eastern India," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 17(2), pages 260-274, October.
    13. Becerril, Javier & Abdulai, Awudu, 2010. "The Impact of Improved Maize Varieties on Poverty in Mexico: A Propensity Score-Matching Approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1024-1035, July.
    14. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    15. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    16. Bellon, Mauricio R. & Hellin, Jon, 2011. "Planting Hybrids, Keeping Landraces: Agricultural Modernization and Tradition Among Small-Scale Maize Farmers in Chiapas, Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1434-1443, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    21. Engle Warnick James C. & Escobal Javier & Laszlo Sonia C., 2011. "Ambiguity Aversion and Portfolio Choice in Small-Scale Peruvian Farming," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-56, November.
    22. Richard E. Just & Rulon D. Pope, 1979. "Production Function Estimation and Related Risk Considerations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 276-284.
    23. Alpaslan Akay & Peter Martinsson & Haileselassie Medhin & Stefan Trautmann, 2012. "Attitudes toward uncertainty among the poor: an experiment in rural Ethiopia," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 453-464, September.
    24. Hallie Eakin & Hugo Perales & Kirsten Appendini & Stuart Sweeney, 2014. "Selling Maize in Mexico: The Persistence of Peasant Farming in an Era of Global Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 133-155, January.
    25. John Knight & Sharada Weir & Tassew Woldehanna, 2003. "The role of education in facilitating risk-taking and innovation in agriculture," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 1-22.
    26. Woldegebrial Zeweld & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Girmay Tesfay & Stijn Speelman, 2020. "Smallholder farmers' behavioural intentions towards sustainable agricultural practices," 2020 Papers pze115, Job Market Papers.
    27. Simtowe, Franklin, 2006. "Can Risk-aversion towards fertilizer explain part of the non-adoption puzzle for hybrid maize? Empirical evidence from Malawi," MPRA Paper 1241, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Dec 2006.
    28. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2013. "Risk Aversion, Subjective Beliefs, and Farmer Risk Management Strategies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 384-389.
    29. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    30. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    31. Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Baidu-Forson, Jojo, 1995. "Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, October.
    32. Melinda Smale & Richard E. Just & Howard D. Leathers, 1994. "Land Allocation in HYV Adoption Models: An Investigation of Alternative Explanations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 535-546.
    33. Ruth Vargas Hill, 2009. "Using Stated Preferences and Beliefs to Identify the Impact of Risk on Poor Households," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 151-171.
    34. Chavas, Jean-Paul, 2004. "Risk Analysis in Theory and Practice," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780121706210.
    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. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Mohan, Sarah, 2020. "Risk aversion and certification: Evidence from the Nepali tea fields," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    6. Stein T. Holden & John Quiggin, 2017. "Climate risk and state-contingent technology adoption: shocks, drought tolerance and preferences," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(2), pages 285-308.
    7. Omotuyole Isiaka Ambali & Francisco Jose Areal & Nikolaos Georgantzis, 2021. "Improved Rice Technology Adoption: The Role of Spatially-Dependent Risk Preference," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, July.
    8. Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Kaywana Raeburn & Sonia Laszlo & Jim Warnick, 2023. "Resolving ambiguity as a public good: experimental evidence from Guyana," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 79-107, July.
    10. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    11. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Truong, Nghi & Martinsson, Peter & Pham Khanh Nam & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Risk preferences and development revisited: A field experiment in Vietnam," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2013-403, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    12. 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.
    13. Pan He & Marcella Veronesi & Stefanie Engel, 2016. "Consistency of Risk Preference Measures and the Role of Ambiguity: An Artefactual Field Experiment from China," Working Papers 03/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    14. Hurley, Terrance M., 2010. "A review of agricultural production risk in the developing world," Working Papers 188476, HarvestChoice.
    15. Holden , Stein T. & Quiggin, John, 2015. "Climate risk and state-contingent technology adoption: The role of risk preferences and probability weighting," Working Paper Series 15-2015, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    16. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    17. Jim Engle-Warnick & Sonia Laszlo, 2017. "Learning-by-doing in an ambiguous environment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 71-94, August.
    18. Kanchan Joshi & Thiagu Ranganathan & Ram Ranjan, 2021. "Exploring Higher Order Risk Preferences of Farmers in a Water-Scarce Region: Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Bengal, India," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(2), pages 317-344, June.
    19. Naranjo, Maria A. & Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2019. "Alternatives for Risk Elicitation in the Field: Evidence from Coffee Farmers in Costa Rica," EfD Discussion Paper 19-21, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    20. Apurba Shee & Carlo Azzarri & Beliyou Haile, 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    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:iaae18:277410. 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/iaaeeea.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.