IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v38y2016i1p113-131..html

Big Constraints or Small Returns? Explaining Nonadoption of Hybrid Maize in Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Jonas Kathage
  • Menale Kassie
  • Bekele Shiferaw
  • Matin Qaim

Abstract

New technologies are often not widely adopted by farmers in Africa. Several adoption constraints have been discussed in the literature, including limited access to information. Using data from maize farmers in Tanzania, we challenge the hypothesis that limited information is an important constraint for hybrid seed adoption. While we find an adoption gap from lack of hybrid awareness, this gap is sizeable only in regions where productivity gains of hybrids are small. Hence, awareness of a new technology may be a function of expected returns. Other constraints related to assets and credit are not significant. We conclude that not adopting a technology is not always a sign of constraints but may also indicate low benefits from its use.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonas Kathage & Menale Kassie & Bekele Shiferaw & Matin Qaim, 2016. "Big Constraints or Small Returns? Explaining Nonadoption of Hybrid Maize in Tanzania," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 113-131.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:38:y:2016:i:1:p:113-131.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppv009
    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 below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Krishna, Vijesh & Euler, Michael & Siregar, Hermanto & Qaim, Matin, 2016. "Farmer heterogeneity and differential livelihood impacts of oil palm expansion in Sumatra, Indonesia," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235218, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Priscilla Wainaina & Songporne Tongruksawattana & Matin Qaim, 2016. "Tradeoffs and complementarities in the adoption of improved seeds, fertilizer, and natural resource management technologies in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 351-362, May.
    3. Gazali Issahaku & Awudu Abdulai, 2020. "Can Farm Households Improve Food and Nutrition Security through Adoption of Climate‐smart Practices? Empirical Evidence from Northern Ghana," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 559-579, September.
    4. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    5. Brown, Brendan & Nuberg, Ian & Llewellyn, Rick, 2017. "Stepwise frameworks for understanding the utilisation of conservation agriculture in Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 11-22.
    6. Wilckyster Nyateko Nyarindo & Amin Mugera & Atakelty Hailu & Gideon Aiko Obare, 2024. "Do combined sustainable agricultural intensification practices improve smallholder farmers welfare? Evidence from eastern and western Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 296-312, March.
    7. Kenneth W. Sibiko & Matin Qaim, 2020. "Weather index insurance, agricultural input use, and crop productivity in Kenya," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(1), pages 151-167, February.
    8. Oumer, Ali M. & Burton, Michael, "undated". "Drivers and Synergies in the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Practices: A Dynamic Perspective," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273871, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Raghu, Prabhakaran T. & Erenstein, Olaf & Böber, Christian & Krishna, Vijesh V., 2015. "Adoption and Outcomes of Hybrid Maize in the Marginal Areas of India," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 54(2), pages 1-26, May.
    10. Rida Akzar & Wendy Umberger & Alexandra Peralta, 2023. "Understanding heterogeneity in technology adoption among Indonesian smallholder dairy farmers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 347-370, March.
    11. Hannah Briony Thorne & Jenna Axtens & Talitha Best, 2022. "Perceptual Factors Influencing the Adoption of Innovative Tissue Culture Technology by the Australian Avocado Industry," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, August.
    12. Nicholas Magnan & Abby M. Love & Fulgence J. Mishili & Ganna Sheremenko, 2020. "Husbands’ and wives’ risk preferences and improved maize adoption in Tanzania," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 743-758, September.
    13. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Euler, Michael & Siregar, Hermanto & Fathoni, Zakky & Qaim, Matin, 2015. "Farmer heterogeneity and differential livelihood impacts of oil palm expansion among smallholders in Sumatra, Indonesia," EFForTS Discussion Paper Series 13, University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 990 "EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)".
    14. Zeng, Di & Alwang, Jeffrey & Norton, George & Jaleta, Moti & Shiferaw, Bekele & Yirga, Chilot, 2018. "Land ownership and technology adoption revisited: Improved maize varieties in Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 270-279.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    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:oup:apecpp:v:38:y:2016:i:1:p:113-131.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.