IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/jms111/v10y2019i5p1-11.html

The Adoption Drivers of New Technology: The Case of Genetically Modified Crop Adoption by French Farmers

Author

Listed:
  • Agnes Fargue-Lelievre
  • Mourad Hannachi
  • Francois-Christophe Coleno

Abstract

This work is the first study of adoption of GM crops by French farmers. The GM crop technology case was a fertile field for the study of technology adoption but existing literature mainly focuses on studies of these issues in USA, Africa and Asia. In France, main production area of maize in Europe, the agricultural sector is very atypical compared to the agricultural sector investigated in the existing literature on the GMO adoption. By a study of the GM crop adoption in the French context and within the main production area, the south-west region of France, this study reveals 4 determinant factors that shape the choice of GM or NGM maize cropping. Some of the factors pointed by this study are in line with the existing literature on technology adoption and output uncertainty and input uncertainty (uncertainty on the expected marginal benefits and costs to sustain the new technology). Other factors identified under the atypical French agriculture sector distinctive features are particularly novel. These new factors are linked to the implementation of the UE regulation on GM/NGM coexistence in the context of small fragmented farms (need of coordination between farmers to prevent GM dispersal) and importance of the market outlets proximity to federate farmers. These novel results pinpoint that in the French context there is a need of both vertical coordination (farmers with the operators downstream the supply chain as the outlet industrial) and horizontal coordination (among farmers in neighbourhood situation) to foster the technology adoption in such industry context.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnes Fargue-Lelievre & Mourad Hannachi & Francois-Christophe Coleno, 2019. "The Adoption Drivers of New Technology: The Case of Genetically Modified Crop Adoption by French Farmers," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:jms111:v:10:y:2019:i:5:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.5430/jms.v10n5p1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/16016/10112
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/16016
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5430/jms.v10n5p1?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. Dillon, John L., 1971. "An Expository Review of Bernoullian Decision Theory in Agriculture: Is Utility Futility?," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(01), pages 1-78, March.
    2. repec:ags:agsaem:288652 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Anderson, Jock R. & Dillon, John L. & Hardaker, Brian, 1977. "Agricultural Decision Analysis," Monographs: Applied Economics, AgEcon Search, number 288652.
    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. Young, Douglas & Lin, William & Pope, Rulon & Robison, Lindon & Selley, Roger, 1979. "Risk Preferences Of Agricultual Producers:Their Measurement And Use," Risk Management in Agriculture: Behavioral, Managerial, and Policy Issues, January 25-26, 1979, San Francisco, California 271459, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    2. Gomez-Limon, Jose A. & Arriaza, Manuel & Riesgo, Laura, 2003. "An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 569-585, December.
    3. Walker, Odell L. & Nelson, A. Gene, "undated". "Dealing With Risks In The Management Agricultural Firms: An Extension/Teaching Viewpoint," Risk Analysis in Agriculture: Research and Educational Developments, January 16-18, 1980, Tucson, Arizona 271561, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    4. de Koeijer, T. J. & Wossink, G. A. A. & van Ittersum, M. K. & Struik, P. C. & Renkema, J. A., 1999. "A conceptual model for analysing input-output coefficients in arable farming systems: from diagnosis towards design," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 33-44, July.
    5. Ramaratnam, S. Sri & Rister, M. Edward & Bessler, David A. & Novak, James, 1986. "Risk Attitudes and Farm/Producer Attributes: A Case Study of Texas Coastal Bend Grain Sorghum Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 85-96, December.
    6. Runge, C. Ford, 2006. "Agricultural Economics: A Brief Intellectual History," Staff Papers 13649, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    7. Hardaker, J. B., 1982. "Fundamental Aspects Of Risk And Uncertainty In Agriculture," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 21(2), October.
    8. Zhanwen Shi & Erbao Cao, 2020. "Contract farming problems and games under yield uncertainty," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1210-1238, October.
    9. Hurley, Terrance M., "undated". "A review of agricultural production risk in the developing world," Working Papers 188476, HarvestChoice.
    10. repec:ags:rrsr94:307863 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. So Pyay Thar & Robert J. Farquharson & Thiagarajah Ramilan & Sam Coggins & Deli Chen, 2021. "Recommended vs. Practice: Smallholder Fertilizer Decisions in Central Myanmar," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Zhanwen Shi & Erbao Cao, 2021. "Risk pooling cooperative games in contract farming," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 69(1), pages 117-139, March.
    13. Shi, Zhanwen & Cao, Erbao, 2020. "Contract farming problems and games under yield uncertainty," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(04), January.
    14. Anderson, Kim B. & Mapp, Harry P., Jr., 1996. "Risk Management Programs In Extension," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(01), pages 1-8, July.
    15. Doppler, Werner & Salman, Amer Z. & Al-Karablieh, Emad K. & Wolff, Heinz-Peter, 2002. "The impact of water price strategies on the allocation of irrigation water: the case of the Jordan Valley," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 171-182, June.
    16. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Sheahan, Megan & Black, Roy & Jayne, T.S., 2013. "Are Kenyan farmers under-utilizing fertilizer? Implications for input intensification strategies and research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-52.
    18. Sheahan, Megan & Black, Roy & Jayne, Thomas S., 2012. "Are Farmers Under-Utilizing Fertilizer? Evidence from Kenya," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126739, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    20. Zuhair, Sugu M. M. & Taylor, Daniel B. & Kramer, Randall A., 1992. "Choice of utility function form: its effect on classification of risk preferences and the prediction of farmer decisions," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 333-344, April.
    21. Randall Jones & Oscar Cacho & Jack Sinden, 2006. "The importance of seasonal variability and tactical responses to risk on estimating the economic benefits of integrated weed management," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 245-256, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:jfr:jms111:v:10:y:2019:i:5:p:1-11. 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: Jenny Zhang (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://jms.sciedupress.com .

    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.