IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare09/48159.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Non adoption of improved maize varieties in East Timor

Author

Listed:
  • Gregg, Daniel

Abstract

East Timor formally obtained its independence in 2002 following a protracted period of occupation by Indonesia which ended in 1999. It was initially faced with a series of issues such as a low level of infrastructure, poor quality germplasm for the major staple crops, and being one of the world’s poorest nations (Piggin and Palmer, 2003). Many East Timorese experience annual periods of food shortage, sometimes exacerbated by droughts and pest damage (Piggin and Palmer, 2003). In response to a shortage of suitably adapted varieties for the major staple crops of East Timor, a project called Seeds of Life was developed in 2000 to locate and test local and international crop varieties with the aim of improving the germplasm stock in the country (Piggin and Palmer, 2003). Seeds of Life recruited willing farmers to participate in On-Farm Demonstration Trials (OFDTs) in 2006 which was hoped to result in independent replanting and seed dissemination by these participants to neighbouring farmers. Two international maize varieties were extended to participating farmers for trial – these were LYDMR (Late Yellow with Downy Mildew Resistance) and Suwan 5 (a popular Thai variety with Downy Mildew Resistance). Given the reported potential for the new varieties to increase farm maize yields, the self-selection of participants in the Seeds of Life program, and that the adoption process was only in its first phase, a significant proportion of non-adoption following OFDTs was observed (approximately 32% of participants). A survey conducted in 2007 provided data for the estimation of a binary probit regression model to assess the reasons for non-adoption. Results obtained corroborated the findings of Seeds of Life researchers prior to variety extension; yet initial testing of varieties did not explicitly involve the inclusion of factors that were considered likely to affect the utility of prospective adopters. Non-inclusion of factors relevant to household utility when assessing new crop varieties may lead to the selection of less than optimal varieties. Stochastic dominance methods are a potential solution to this issue allowing researchers to consider the impact of new crop varieties on household utility and thus adoption decisions prior to their extension. Stochastic dominance methods can be derived from the same utility maximisation framework as the probit regression model and easily incorporate non-normal distributions of returns. Their capabilities in assessing high numbers of potential innovations and their similarity in ease of application to existing methods such as mean-variance dominance analysis are also advantages. In this paper tests for stochastic dominance are retrospectively applied to the two introduced and the local maize varieties to demonstrate their application as a competitive and relevant ex ante technology assessment tool in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregg, Daniel, 2009. "Non adoption of improved maize varieties in East Timor," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48159, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:48159
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.48159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/48159/files/Gregg.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.48159?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. Fox, Stephen, 2008. "Evaluating potential investments in new technologies: Balancing assessments of potential benefits with assessments of potential disbenefits, reliability and utilization," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 19(8), pages 1197-1218.
    2. Graves, Samuel B. & Ringuest, Jeffrey L., 2009. "Probabilistic dominance criteria for comparing uncertain alternatives: A tutorial," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 346-357, April.
    3. Neill, Sean P & Lee, David R, 2001. "Explaining the Adoption and Disadoption of Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Cover Crops in Northern Honduras," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(4), pages 793-820, July.
    4. Claessens, L. & Stoorvogel, J.J. & Antle, J.M., 2008. "Ex ante assessment of dual-purpose sweet potato in the crop-livestock system of western Kenya: A minimum-data approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 13-22, December.
    5. Lapar, Ma. Lucila A. & Ehui, Simeon K., 2004. "Factors affecting adoption of dual-purpose forages in the Philippine uplands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 95-114, August.
    6. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    7. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Colman,David & Young,Trevor, 1989. "Principles of Agricultural Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521336642.
    10. Derek Byerlee & Edith Hesse de Polanco, 1986. "Farmers' Stepwise Adoption of Technological Packages: Evidence from the Mexican Altiplano," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(3), pages 519-527.
    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. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2009. "Modern Supply Chains and Product Innovation: How Can Smallholder Farmers Benefit?," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51046, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Lambrecht, Isabel & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Merckx, Roel & Maertens, Miet, 2014. "Understanding the Process of Agricultural Technology Adoption: Mineral Fertilizer in Eastern DR Congo," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 132-146.
    2. Varshney, Deepak & Mishra, Ashok K. & Joshi, Pramod K. & Roy, Devesh, 2022. "Social networks, heterogeneity, and adoption of technologies: Evidence from India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    3. Caffey, Rex H. & Kazmierczak, Richard F., Jr., 1994. "Factors Influencing Technology Adoption In A Louisiana Aquaculture System," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-11, July.
    4. Madhu Khanna, 2001. "Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and its Implications for Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 35-51.
    5. Arellanes, Peter & Lee, David R., 2003. "The Determinants Of Adoption Of Sustainable Agriculture Technologies: Evidence From The Hillsides Of Honduras," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25826, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Davis, K. & Nkonya, E. & Kato, E. & Mekonnen, D.A. & Odendo, M. & Miiro, R. & Nkuba, J., 2012. "Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 402-413.
    7. Gregory Amacher & Jeffrey Alwang, 2004. "Productivity and Land Enhancing Technologies in Northern Ethiopia: Health, Public Investments, and Sequential Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 321-331.
    8. 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.
    9. Kondylis, Florence & Mueller, Valerie & Zhu, Jessica, 2017. "Seeing is believing? Evidence from an extension network experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-20.
    10. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & José M. Gil, 2008. "Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 219-229, September.
    11. Christin Schipmann & Matin Qaim, 2010. "Spillovers from modern supply chains to traditional markets: product innovation and adoption by smallholders," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(3‐4), pages 361-371, May.
    12. Christine M. Moser & Christopher B. Barrett, 2006. "The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption: the case of SRI in Madagascar," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 373-388, November.
    13. Carletto, Calogero & Kirk, Angeli & Winters, Paul C. & Davis, Benjamin, 2010. "Globalization and Smallholders: The Adoption, Diffusion, and Welfare Impact of Non-Traditional Export Crops in Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 814-827, June.
    14. Ira Matuschke & Matin Qaim, 2009. "The impact of social networks on hybrid seed adoption in India," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(5), pages 493-505, September.
    15. Pokhrel, Bijay & Krishna, Paudel & Eduardo, Segarra, 2016. "Factors Affecting the Choice, Intensity, and Allocation of Irrigation Technologies by U.S. Cotton Farmers," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230199, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Goundan, Anatole & Sall, Moussa & Henning, Christian H. C. A., 2020. "Modeling interrelated inputs adoption in rainfed agriculture in Senegal," Working Papers of Agricultural Policy WP2020-05, University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chair of Agricultural Policy.
    17. Kim S. Alexander & Garry Greenhalgh & Magnus Moglia & Manithaythip Thephavanh & Phonevilay Sinavong & Silva Larson & Tom Jovanovic & Peter Case, 2020. "What is technology adoption? Exploring the agricultural research value chain for smallholder farmers in Lao PDR," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 17-32, March.
    18. Makate, Clifton & Mango, Nelson & Makate, Marshall, 2019. "Socioeconomic status connected imbalances in arable land size holding and utilization in smallholder farming in Zimbabwe: Implications for a sustainable rural development," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. Boris Bravo & Horacio Cocchi & Daniel Solís, 2006. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis," OVE Working Papers 1806, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    20. Marsh, Sally P. & Pannell, David J., 2000. "Agricultural extension policy in Australia: the good, the bad, and the misguided," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(4), pages 1-23.

    More about this item

    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:aare09:48159. 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/aaresea.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.