IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/soudev/v16y2021i2p171-193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Farmers’ Risk Tolerance to Explain Variations in Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Toritseju Begho

Abstract

Rice is the leading cereal crop in Nepal and an important source of calories and plant protein. Despite the importance of rice, there are reports of widespread cultivation of older varieties with considerably large adoption lags. This warrants further investigation into the factors that influence rice farmers’ adoption decisions. Risk attitude is reported to be an important determinant of farmers’ decisions. However, in Nepal, evidence of the effect of risk attitude on the adoption of improved crop varieties is limited because this important factor is not considered in adoption studies. This article, therefore, connects field experiment, theoretical understanding of farmers’ risk attitudes and empirical models with the aim of investigating determinants of farmers adoption of improved rice varieties in Nepal. The results show that majority of farmers currently grow old varieties. The top four varieties—Sona Mahsuri, Sarju-52, Samba Mahsuri and Radha-4—have an average varietal release age of 27 years. By estimating a binary response regression model, this article shows that risk attitude is a significant determinant of rice farmers’ adoption decision. Specifically, the results show that risk-tolerant farmers have the lowest propensity to adopt new improved rice varieties. This article, therefore, highlights the importance of promoting holistic benefits over making risk-reducing attributes salient when new crop varieties are developed and disseminated to farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Toritseju Begho, 2021. "Using Farmers’ Risk Tolerance to Explain Variations in Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Nepal," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 16(2), pages 171-193, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:soudev:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:171-193
    DOI: 10.1177/09731741211023636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09731741211023636
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09731741211023636?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. Daichi Shimamoto & Hiroyuki Yamada & Ayako Wakano, 2014. "The different effects of risk preferences on the adoption of agricultural technology: evidence from a rural area in Cambodia," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 14-07, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    2. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    3. Ngokkuen, Chuthaporn & Grote, Ulrike, 2012. "Geographical Indication for Jasmine Rice: Applying a Logit Model to Predict Adoption Behavior of Thai Farm Households," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 51(2), pages 1-29, May.
    4. Thuo, Mary & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Hathie, Ibrahima & Obeng-Asiedu, Patrick, 2011. "Adoption of chemical fertilizer by smallholder farmers in the peanut basin of Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 1-17, March.
    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. Uri Gneezy & Alex Imas & John List, 2015. "Estimating Individual Ambiguity Aversion: A Simple Approach," Artefactual Field Experiments 00588, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. 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.
    9. Wiseman, David B. & Levin, Irwin P., 1996. "Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 241-250, June.
    10. Ganesh Thapa & Anjani Kumar & P.K. Joshi (ed.), 2019. "Agricultural Transformation in Nepal," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-981-32-9648-0, December.
    11. David J. Freeman & Yoram Halevy & Terri Kneeland, 2019. "Eliciting risk preferences using choice lists," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(1), pages 217-237, January.
    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. Fadare, Olusegun Ayodeji & Akerele, Dare & Toritseju, Begho, 2014. "Factors Influencing Adoption Decisions Of Maize Farmers In Nigeria," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 2(3), pages 1-10, July.
    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. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2005. "Individual Risk Attitudes: New Evidence from a Large, Representative, Experimentally-Validated Survey," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 511, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    17. Blanca Isabel Sánchez-Toledano & Zein Kallas & Oscar Palmeros Rojas & José M. Gil, 2018. "Determinant Factors of the Adoption of Improved Maize Seeds in Southern Mexico: A Survival Analysis Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    18. Canales, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2015. "Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205640, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Kitae Sohn, 2017. "The Risk Preferences Of Entrepreneurs In Indonesia," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 271-287, July.
    20. Ram Rana & Chris Garforth & Bhuwon Sthapit & Devra Jarvis, 2007. "Influence of socio-economic and cultural factors in rice varietal diversity management on-farm in Nepal," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(4), pages 461-472, December.
    21. Richard Kofi Asravor, 2019. "Farmers’ risk preference and the adoption of risk management strategies in Northern Ghana," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(5), pages 881-900, April.
    22. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Elias G. Carayannis & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Stelios Rozakis (ed.), 2018. "From Agriscience to Agribusiness," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, Springer, number 978-3-319-67958-7, March.
    23. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    24. Daichi Shimamoto & Hiroyuki Yamada & Ayako Wakano, 2018. "The Effects of Risk Preferences on the Adoption of Post-Harvest Technology: Evidence from Rural Cambodia," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(10), pages 1819-1837, October.
    25. Kuehne, Geoff & Llewellyn, Rick & Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger & Dolling, Perry & Ouzman, Jackie & Ewing, Mike, 2017. "Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 115-125.
    26. Mahmud Yesuf & Randall A. Bluffstone, 2009. "Poverty, Risk Aversion, and Path Dependence in Low-Income Countries: Experimental Evidence from Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1022-1037.
    27. Fufa, B. & Hassan, Rashid M., 2006. "Determinants of fertilizer use on maize in Eastern Ethiopia: A weighted endogenous sampling analysis of the extent and intensity of adoption," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 45(1), pages 1-12, March.
    28. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    29. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    30. 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.
    31. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Measuring Individual Risk Attitudes when Preferences are Imprecise," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(576), pages 569-593, May.
    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. Toritseju Begho & Kelvin Balcombe, 2023. "Attitudes to Risk and Uncertainty: New Insights From an Experiment Using Interval Prospects," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    2. Yanqi Xie & Apurbo Sarkar & Md. Shakhawat Hossain & Ahmed Khairul Hasan & Xianli Xia, 2021. "Determinants of Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery during the Early Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    3. Mohan, Sarah, 2020. "Risk aversion and certification: Evidence from the Nepali tea fields," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    5. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Toritseju Begho & Kelvin Balcombe, 2023. "Attitudes to Risk and Uncertainty: New Insights From an Experiment Using Interval Prospects," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    7. Simone Cerroni, 2020. "Eliciting farmers’ subjective probabilities, risk, and uncertainty preferences using contextualized field experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 707-724, September.
    8. Sauter, Philipp & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Risk attitudes of foresters, farmers and students: An experimental multimethod comparison," DARE Discussion Papers 1514, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    9. Golo-Friedrich Bauermeister & Daniel Hermann & Oliver Musshoff, 2018. "Consistency of determined risk attitudes and probability weightings across different elicitation methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 627-644, June.
    10. Sauter, Philipp A. & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Are foresters really risk-averse? A multi-method analysis and a cross-occupational comparison," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 37-45.
    11. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    12. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    13. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences: Firefighting in the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 9765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. 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).
    15. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    16. Eriksen, Kristoffer W. & Kvaløy, Ola & Luzuriaga, Miguel, 2020. "Risk-taking on behalf of others," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    17. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    18. Friedman, Daniel & Habib, Sameh & James, Duncan & Crockett, Sean, 2018. "Varieties of risk elicitation," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship Market Design: Theory and Pragmatics SP II 2018-501, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    19. Marielle Brunette & Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun, 2022. "Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures? A field experiment in Congo basin countries," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 47(1), pages 122-140, March.
    20. 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).

    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:sae:soudev:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:171-193. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.