IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21139.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Role of Trust in Knowledge Acquisition: Results from Field Experiments in the Ecuadorian Amazon

Author

Listed:
  • Buck, Steven
  • Alwang, Jeffrey Roger

Abstract

Ecuadorian farmers do not play the investment game (Berg, Dickhaut and McCabe 1995) the same with community farmers as they do with agricultural technicians. Women exhibit a preference for trust in agricultural technicians (vertical trust). Using experimental and survey data from 191 farmers we examine factors associated with 1) farmer trust in community members, 2) farmer trust in agricultural technicians, and 3) differences between levels of trust in agricultural technicians and community farmers. Then we explore how our measures of trust correlate with pesticide knowledge. Farmers who place more trust in community farmers score lower on our pesticide knowledge exam. We find that farmers who exhibit a preference for trusting agricultural technicians score higher on our pesticide knowledge exam.

Suggested Citation

  • Buck, Steven & Alwang, Jeffrey Roger, 2006. "The Role of Trust in Knowledge Acquisition: Results from Field Experiments in the Ecuadorian Amazon," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21139, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/21139
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Edward L. Glaeser & David I. Laibson & José A. Scheinkman & Christine L. Soutter, 2000. "Measuring Trust," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 811-846.
      • Glaeser, Edward Ludwig & Laibson, David I. & Scheinkman, Jose A. & Soutter, Christine L., 2000. "Measuring Trust," Scholarly Articles 4481497, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    3. Dean S. Karlan, 2005. "Using Experimental Economics to Measure Social Capital and Predict Financial Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1688-1699, December.
    4. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Gangadharan, Lata, 2003. "Gender Differences in Trust and Reciprocity," Working Papers 136, Department of Economics, The University of Auckland.
    5. Steven N. Durlauf, 2002. "On the Empirics of Social Capital," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(483), pages 459-479, November.
    6. Schechter, Laura, 2007. "Traditional trust measurement and the risk confound: An experiment in rural Paraguay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 272-292, February.
    7. Miguel, Edward & Gertler, Paul & Levine, David I, 2006. "Does Industrialization Build or Destroy Social Networks?," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 287-317, January.
    8. Barr, Abigail, 2000. "Social Capital and Technical Information Flows in the Ghanaian Manufacturing Sector," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 539-559, July.
    9. Eckel, Catherine C. & Wilson, Rick K., 2004. "Is trust a risky decision?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 447-465, December.
    10. Abigail Barr, 2003. "Trust and expected trustworthiness: experimental evidence from zimbabwean villages," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(489), pages 614-630, July.
    11. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management;

    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:aaea06:21139. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.