IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/afjare/208919.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception and adoption of agricultural technical innovations in the cotton basin of Banikoara in Benin

Author

Listed:
  • Mounirou, Ichaou

Abstract

Agricultural production in the cotton basin of Banikoara in Benin depends on the variability of rainfall, which fluctuates between 800 and 1 200 mm per annum. The income of farm households and their food security are determined by the concomitant fluctuations in cotton and food production. Agricultural diversification based on a sound understanding of the process of adoption of technical innovations has the potential to provide a consistent income, improved agricultural productivity and, in the end, a substantial improvement in the well-being of the farmers. These technical and agricultural innovations are the subject of an economic analysis of the impact of technical progress on the technical and allocative efficiency of farmers in this region. The production of “white gold” in the Banikoara basin depends heavily on the use of chemicals, rather than on biological, agronomic and mechanical interventions. However, these four forms of agricultural innovations need to be combined. In some Asian countries, for example, a more judicious combination of different forms of innovations has resulted in better yields. As yields in Banikoara are low by global standards, technological development and the implementation of new technologies present a real opportunity for improving the well-being of these cotton farmers. However, although many cotton farmers in Banikoara understand that agricultural innovations could help to overcome the challenge of food security, the real question is how to give the cotton producers access to the right technical and agricultural innovations. To this end, this article attempts to describe the levels of adoption of technical and agricultural innovations by the farmers and then to explain the options available to them in order to clarify the mechanisms for sustainable management of cotton production in the Banikoara basin. In total, 1 000 cotton producers were interviewed during the harvest and post-harvest period from October 2010 to September 2012. Some 75% (750 farmers) of the collected responses were found to be reliable. The results show that farmers differ widely in their attitude to the adoption of innovations. A total of 64% of the cotton farmers were not sure about the impact of these innovations on their agricultural efforts, while 32% considered this impact as weak and insufficient. These results can be explained by a delay in decision making in the adoption of agricultural and technical innovations, the lack of information about the benefits of these, the non-reliability of previous results in other specific cases, and the conservative spirit of the endogenous cultural practices. Only 3,2% of farmers perceived these innovations to their right value, while the proportion of cotton producers who were totally in favour of the implementation of these innovations represents only 1,2% of all the farms. Generally speaking, the factors that prevent the adoption and diffusion of new innovations are sociodemographic, economic or institutional in nature. For example, on top of the real risks and uncertainties that threaten agricultural production in the basin there also is the ageing of the farmers and the weak level of education, which makes it difficult for them to adopt the technical innovations. This is reflected in the absence of modern technology. It also is essential that the government should implement specific programmes for the intensification of the technical training of farmers and that farmers should be grouped by means of cooperatives. These two factors would lead to a higher and better perception of the benefits of adopting technical and agricultural innovations not only for cotton, but also for other agricultural production.

Suggested Citation

  • Mounirou, Ichaou, 2015. "Perception and adoption of agricultural technical innovations in the cotton basin of Banikoara in Benin," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:afjare:208919
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.208919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/208919/files/1%20%20Mounirou.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.208919?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. Shapiro, Barry Ira & Brorsen, B. Wade & Doster, D. Howard, 1992. "Adoption Of Double-Cropping Soybeans And Wheat," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Sumberg, James, 2005. "Systems of innovation theory and the changing architecture of agricultural research in Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 21-41, February.
    3. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    4. Savadogo, Kimseyinga & Reardon, Thomas & Pietola, Kyosti, 1998. "Adoption of improved land use technologies to increase food security in Burkina Faso: relating animal traction, productivity, and non-farm income," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 441-464, November.
    5. Schmidt, Peter & Strauss, Robert P, 1975. "The Prediction of Occupation Using Multiple Logit Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 16(2), pages 471-486, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Boskin, Michael J, 1974. "A Conditional Logit Model of Occupational Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(2), pages 389-398, Part I, M.
    8. Theil, Henri, 1969. "A Multinomial Extension of the Linear Logit Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 10(3), pages 251-259, October.
    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. Silamana Barry, 2016. "The determinants of adoption of improved varieties of sesame in northern Burkina Faso," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 6(9), pages 163-174, September.

    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. Castro Campos, Bente, 2013. "Human capital differences or labor market discrimination? The occupational outcomes of ethnic minorities in rural Guizhou (China)," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 73, number 73.
    2. A Aggarwal & R Freguglia & G Johnes & G Spricigo, 2011. "Education and labour market outcomes : evidence from India," Working Papers 615663, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    3. G.S. Maddala & Forrest D. Nelson, 1974. "Analysis of Qualitative Variables," NBER Working Papers 0070, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. repec:lan:wpaper:4484 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Keyon Vafa & Emil Palikot & Tianyu Du & Ayush Kanodia & Susan Athey & David M. Blei, 2022. "CAREER: A Foundation Model for Labor Sequence Data," Papers 2202.08370, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    6. Eleonora Bertoni & Giorgio Ricchiuti, 2017. "A Multilevel Analysis of Unemployment in Egypt," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 31(4), pages 494-514, December.
    7. repec:lan:wpaper:4356 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Kettunen, Juha, 2002. "Labour mobility of unemployed workers," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 359-380, May.
    9. Larry L. Howard & Nishith Prakash, 2012. "Do employment quotas explain the occupational choices of disadvantaged minorities in India?," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 489-513, August.
    10. Daniel L. McFadden, 1976. "Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 363-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Anastasia Klimova, 2012. "Gender differences in determinants of occupational choice in Russia," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 39(9), pages 648-670, July.
    12. R Freguglia & G Spricigo & G Johnes & A Aggarwal, 2011. "Education and labour market outcomes: evidence from Brazil," Working Papers 615809, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    13. Constant, Amelie F. & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2003. "Occupational Choice Across Generations," IZA Discussion Papers 975, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Donald Jud & Daniel T. Winkler, 1999. "A Model of Real Estate Sales as a Career Choice," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 18(3), pages 481-490.
    15. Shaheena Bashir & Edward Carter, 2010. "Penalized multinomial mixture logit model," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 121-141, March.
    16. Ham, Roger & Junankar, Pramod N. (Raja) & Wells, Robert, 2009. "Occupational Choice: Personality Matters," IZA Discussion Papers 4105, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Katrin John & Stephan Thomsen, 2014. "Heterogeneous returns to personality: the role of occupational choice," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 553-592, September.
    18. Rico García-Amado, Luis & Ruiz Pérez, Manuel & Dahringer, Guillaume & Reyes Escutia, Felipe & Barrasa García, Sara & Contreras Mejía, Elsa, 2013. "From wild harvesting to agroforest cultivation: A Chamaedorea palm case study from Chiapas, Mexico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 44-51.
    19. Fok, D. & Paap, R., 2019. "New Misspecification Tests for Multinomial Logit Models," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2019-24, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    20. Brown, Sarah & Ortiz-Nuñez, Aurora & Taylor, Karl, 2011. "What will I be when I grow up? An analysis of childhood expectations and career outcomes," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 493-506, June.
    21. Juan Prieto Rodríguez & María José Suárez Fernández, 2006. "Like father like son? Intergenerational links within occupations and public employment," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 178(3), pages 81-111, September.
    22. Benjamin M. Gramig & Christopher A. Wolf & Frank Lupi, 2010. "Understanding Adoption of Livestock Health Management Practices: The Case of Bovine Leukosis Virus," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(3), pages 343-360, September.

    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:afjare:208919. 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/aaaeaea.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.