IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Improving technology adoption in agriculture through extension services: evidence from Uruguay

Listed author(s):
  • Alessandro Maffioli
  • Diego Ubfal
  • Gonzalo Vazquez-Bare
  • Pedro Cerdan-Infantes

This article evaluates whether cost-sharing public interventions are successful in promoting agricultural technology uptake by small and medium farmers, and whether these changes can affect yields. Our article contributes to the debate by providing empirical evidence, which is scarce in the literature, from a programme offering extension services to fruit producers in Uruguay. Using a unique panel data set, we estimate a fixed effects model for the impact of extension services on technology adoption and yields. We find evidence that the programme increased density of plantation. Once we address small sample issues, we also find some evidence of impact on the adoption of improved varieties. However, we find no evidence of impact on yields for the period under study. Although this lack of effects on yields could be due to the limited time frame of the evaluation and does not rule out effects on other measures of productivity, it may also indicate that the practices promoted by the programme are insufficient to induce a detectable impact on productivity and, consequently, sustainable benefits for the farmers. The study, therefore, confirms the need of including the design of impact evaluations in the policy design in order to properly consider the timing of all the potential effects and produce conclusive findings and precise recommendations.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/19439342.2013.764917
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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Development Effectiveness.

Volume (Year): 5 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
Pages: 64-81

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:jdevef:v:5:y:2013:i:1:p:64-81
DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2013.764917
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJDE20

Order Information: Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RJDE20

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Evenson, Robert E., 1994. "Efficiency in agricultural production: the case of peasant farmers in eastern Paraguay," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(1), January.
  2. 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.
  3. Birkhaeuser, Dean & Evenson, Robert E & Feder, Gershon, 1991. "The Economic Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Review," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 607-650, April.
  4. James C. Hanson & Richard E. Just, 2001. "The Potential for Transition to Paid Extension: Some Guiding Economic Principles," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 777-784.
  5. repec:spr:portec:v:1:y:2002:i:2:d:10.1007_s10258-002-0010-3 is not listed on IDEAS
  6. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2009. "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 44(3).
  7. Evenson, Robert E., 2001. "Economic impacts of agricultural research and extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics,in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 573-628 Elsevier.
  8. repec:oup:revage:v:26:y:2004:i:3:p:361-372. is not listed on IDEAS
  9. Praneetvatakul, Suwanna & Waibel, Hermann, 2006. "The Impact Of Farmer Field Schools On Pesticide Use And Environment In Thailand," 46th Annual Conference, Giessen, Germany, October 4-6, 2006 14950, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
  10. Alston, Julian M. & Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Wyatt, T.J., 2000. "Research returns redux: a meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), June.
  11. Godtland, Erin M & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & De Janvry, Alain & Murgai, Rinku & Ortiz, Oscar, 2004. "The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Knowledge and Productivity: A Study of Potato Farmers in the Peruvian Andes," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 63-92, October.
  12. Ebere Akobundu & Jeffrey Alwang & Albert Essel & George W. Norton & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Does Extension Work? Impacts of a Program to Assist Limited-Resource Farmers in Virginia," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 361-372.
  13. Ariel Dinar & Giannis Karagiannis & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2002. "Evaluating the Impact of Public and Private Agricultural Extension on Farms Performance: A Non-Neutral Stochastic Frontier Approach," Working Papers 0205, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
  14. Owens, Trudy & Hoddinott, John & Kinsey, Bill, 2003. "The Impact of Agricultural Extension on Farm Production in Resettlement Areas of Zimbabwe," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(2), pages 337-357, January.
  15. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
  16. Kumbhakar,Subal C. & Lovell,C. A. Knox, 2003. "Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521666633.
  17. O'Neill, S. & Matthews, A. & Leavy, A, 1999. "Farm Technical Efficiency and Extension," Trinity Economics Papers 9912, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jdevef:v:5:y:2013:i:1:p:64-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.