IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jdevst/v55y2019i6p1285-1306.html

Do Beliefs About Herbicide Quality Correspond with Actual Quality in Local Markets? Evidence from Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Maha Ashour
  • Daniel Orth Gilligan
  • Jessica Blumer Hoel
  • Naureen Iqbal Karachiwalla

Abstract

Adoption of modern agricultural inputs in Africa remains low, restraining agricultural productivity and poverty reduction. Low quality agricultural inputs may in part explain low adoption rates, but only if farmers are aware that some inputs are low quality. We report the results of laboratory tests of the quality of glyphosate herbicide in Uganda and investigate whether farmers’ beliefs about the prevalence of counterfeiting and adulteration are consistent with the prevalence of low quality in their local market. We find that the average bottle in our sample is missing 15 per cent of the active ingredient and 31 per cent of samples contain less than 75 per cent of the ingredient advertised. Farmers believe 41 per cent of herbicide is counterfeit or adulterated. Beliefs are significantly correlated with quality at the local market level, but beliefs remain inaccurate, adjusting for only a fraction of actual differences in quality. Price is also significantly correlated with quality in local markets, but prices also adjust for only a fraction of quality differences. Although, like fertiliser and hybrid maize seed, herbicide in Uganda is low quality, herbicide use is substantially higher.

Suggested Citation

  • Maha Ashour & Daniel Orth Gilligan & Jessica Blumer Hoel & Naureen Iqbal Karachiwalla, 2019. "Do Beliefs About Herbicide Quality Correspond with Actual Quality in Local Markets? Evidence from Uganda," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(6), pages 1285-1306, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jdevst:v:55:y:2019:i:6:p:1285-1306
    DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2018.1464143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00220388.2018.1464143
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00220388.2018.1464143?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jdevst:v:55:y:2019:i:6:p:1285-1306. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/FJDS20 .

    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.