This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Is Environmentally Friendly Agriculture Less Profitable for Farmers? Evidence on Integrated Pest Management in Bangladesh

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Susmita Dasgupta
Craig Meisner
David Wheeler

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Concerns about the sustainability of conventional agriculture have prompted widespread introduction of integrated pest management (IPM), an ecologically based approach to control harmful insects and weeds. IPM is intended to reduce ecological and health damage from chemical pesticides by using natural parasites and predators to control pest populations. Since chemical pesticides are expensive for poor farmers, IPM offers the prospect of lower production costs and higher profitability. However, adoption of IPM may reduce profitability if it also lowers overall productivity or induces more intensive use of other production factors. On the other hand, IPM may actually promote more productive farming by encouraging more skillful use of available resources. Data scarcity has hindered a full accounting of IPM's impact on profitability, health, and local ecosystems. Using new survey data, this paper attempts such an accounting for rice farmers in Bangladesh. We compare outcomes for farming with IPM and conventional techniques, using input-use accounting and conventional production functions. All of our results suggest that the productivity of IPM rice farming is not significantly different from conventional farming. Since IPM reduces pesticide costs with no countervailing loss in production, it appears to be more profitable than conventional rice farming. Our interview results also suggest substantial health and ecological benefits. However, externality problems make it difficult for farmers to adopt IPM individually. Without collective adoption, neighbors' continued reliance on chemicals to eliminate pests will also kill helpful parasites and predators, as well as expose IPM farmers and local ecosystems to chemical spillovers from adjoining fields. Successful IPM adoption may therefore depend on institutional support for collective action. Copyright 2007 American Agricultural Economics Association

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showTOC&journalCode=raec&volume=29&issue=1&year=2007&part=null
File Format: text/html
File Function: link to full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by American Agricultural Economics Association in its journal Review of Agricultural Economics.

Volume (Year): 29 (2007)
Issue (Month): 1 (03)
Pages: 103-118
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:bla:ragrec:v:29:y:2007:i:1:p:103-118

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1058-7195

Order Information:
Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1058-7195

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Kodde, David A & Palm, Franz C, 1986. "Wald Criteria for Jointly Testing Equality and Inequality Restriction s," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(5), pages 1243-48, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Rahman, Sanzidur, 2003. "Profit efficiency among Bangladeshi rice farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 487-503. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Rasul, Golam & Thapa, Gopal B., 2003. "Sustainability Analysis of Ecological and Conventional Agricultural Systems in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 1721-1741, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-32.
  5. Tim Coelli & Sanzidur Rahman & Colin Thirtle, 2002. "Technical, Allocative, Cost and Scale Efficiencies in Bangladesh Rice Cultivation: A Non-parametric Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 53(3), pages 607-626. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About 2700 working paper series are listed on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-22.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.