IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v34y2006i7p1287-1300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of opinion leaders in the diffusion of new knowledge: The case of integrated pest management

Author

Listed:
  • Feder, Gershon
  • Savastano, Sara

Abstract

The paper reviews the literature on the characteristics and impact of opinion leaders on the diffusion of new knowledge, concluding that there is no clear evidence on whether opinion leaders are more effective if they are similar in socioeconomic attributes to the other farmers rather than superior to would be followers. A multivariate analysis of the changes in integrated pest management knowledge in Indonesia among follower farmers over the period 1991-98 indicates that opinion leaders who are superior to followers, but not excessively so, are more effective in transmitting knowledge. Excessive socioeconomic distance is shown to reduce the effectiveness of diffusion. The paper then derives operational implications of the empirical results.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Feder, Gershon & Savastano, Sara, 2006. "The role of opinion leaders in the diffusion of new knowledge: The case of integrated pest management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1287-1300, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:34:y:2006:i:7:p:1287-1300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-750X(06)00065-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brock, William A. & Durlauf, Steven N., 2001. "Interactions-based models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 54, pages 3297-3380, Elsevier.
    2. Lockheed, Marlaine E & Jamison, Dean T & Lau, Lawrence J, 1987. "Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency: Reply," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(3), pages 643-644, April.
    3. Wiebers, U.C., 1993. "Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Regulation in Developing Asia," Papers 211, World Bank - Technical Papers.
    4. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    5. Gershon Feder & Roger Slade, 1984. "The Acquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 312-320.
    6. Sunding, David & Zilberman, David, 2001. "The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 207-261, Elsevier.
    7. Gershon Feder & Rinku Murgai & Jaime B. Quizon, 2004. "The Acquisition and Diffusion of Knowledge: The Case of Pest Management Training in Farmer Field Schools, Indonesia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 221-243, 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. Huanxiu Guo & Sébastien Marchand, 2013. "Is participatory social learning a performance driver for Chinese smallholder farmers?," Working Papers halshs-00878886, HAL.
    2. Ghadir Asadi & Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooei, 2022. "The Role of Learning in Adaptation to Technology: The Case of Groundwater Extraction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-37, June.
    3. Huanxiu Guo & Sébastien Marchand, 2013. "Is participatory social learning a performance driver for Chinese smallholder farmers?," CERDI Working papers halshs-00878886, HAL.
    4. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    5. Sauer, Johannes & Zilberman, David, 2009. "Innovation Behaviour At Farm Level – Selection And Identification," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51073, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Ximena Rueda & Andrea Paz & Theodora Gibbs‐Plessl & Ronald Leon & Byron Moyano & Eric F Lambin, 2018. "Smallholders at a Crossroad: Intensify or Fall behind? Exploring Alternative Livelihood Strategies in a Globalized World," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 215-229, February.
    7. Coronese, Matteo & Occelli, Martina & Lamperti, Francesco & Roventini, Andrea, 2023. "AgriLOVE: Agriculture, land-use and technical change in an evolutionary, agent-based model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    8. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. Sylvain Dessy & Jacques Ewoudou & Isabelle Ouellet, 2006. "Understanding the Persistent Low Performance of African Agriculture," Cahiers de recherche 0622, CIRPEE.
    10. Tsusaka, Takuji W. & Kajisa, Kei & Pede, Valerien O. & Aoyagi, Keitaro, 2015. "Neighborhood effects and social behavior: The case of irrigated and rainfed farmers in Bohol, the Philippines," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 227-246.
    11. Ram Fishman & Stephen C. Smith & Vida Bobic & Munshi Sulaiman, 2022. "Can Agricultural Extension and Input Support Be Discontinued? Evidence from a Randomized Phaseout in Uganda," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1273-1288, November.
    12. Oriana Bandiera & Imran Rasul, 2006. "Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(514), pages 869-902, October.
    13. Tavneet Suri, 2006. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Working Papers 944, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    14. 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.
    15. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2010. "Adoption Curves and Social Interactions," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(1), pages 232-251, March.
    16. Sauer, Johannes & Zilberman, David D., 2009. "Innovation behaviour at micro level - selection and identification," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt6t49r0fh, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    17. Franklin Simtowe & Solomon Asfaw & Tsedeke Abate, 2016. "Determinants of agricultural technology adoption under partial population awareness: the case of pigeonpea in Malawi," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Gershon Feder & Rinku Murgai & Jaime B. Quizon, 2004. "Sending Farmers Back to School: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools in Indonesia," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 45-62.
    19. Margherita Comola & Carla Inguaggiato & Mariapia Mendola, 2021. "Learning about Farming: Innovation and Social Networks in a Resettled Community in Brazil," Development Working Papers 468, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    20. Aloyce R Kaliba & Kizito Mazvimavi & Theresia L Gregory & Frida M Mgonja & Mary Mgonja, 2018. "Factors affecting adoption of improved sorghum varieties in Tanzania under information and capital constraints," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-21, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation

    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:eee:wdevel:v:34:y:2006:i:7:p:1287-1300. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    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.