IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/150794.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India

Author

Listed:
  • Ward, Patrick S.
  • Singh, Vartika

Abstract

In this paper we conduct a series of field experiments in rural India in order to measure preferences related to risk, loss, and ambiguity. Disaggregating by data, we find that on average women are significantly more risk averse and loss averse than men, though the higher average risk aversion arises due to a greater share of women who are extremely risk averse. Through a series of two empirical examples, we demonstrate how these parameters affect decisions to adopt new agricultural technologies. By combining these results with a choice experiment over new and familiar rice seeds, we find that ambiguity averse individuals are far more likely to stick with seeds they are familiar with, while a greater degree of loss aversion generally suggests people are more willing to switch to a new variety.

Suggested Citation

  • Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/150794
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    2. Holt, Matthew T. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 1992. "Alternative Measures Of Risk In Commodity Supply Models: An Analysis Of Sow Farrowing Decisions In The United States," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), July.
    3. Foster, Andrew D & Rosenzweig, Mark R, 1996. "Technical Change and Human-Capital Returns and Investments: Evidence from the Green Revolution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 931-953, September.
    4. Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2009. "Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(2), pages 133-158, June.
    5. Sandmo, Agnar, 1971. "On the Theory of the Competitive Firm under Price Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 65-73, March.
    6. Foster, Andrew D & Rosenzweig, Mark R, 1995. "Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(6), pages 1176-1209, December.
    7. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    8. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    9. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2007. "Ambiguity Aversion as a Predictor of Technology Choice: Experimental Evidence from Peru," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-01, CIRANO.
    10. de Brauw, Alan & Eozenou, Patrick, 2014. "Measuring risk attitudes among Mozambican farmers," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 61-74.
    11. Rigotti, L. & Ryan, M. & Vaithianathan, R., 2001. "Entrepreneurial Innovation," Discussion Paper 2001-21, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    12. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
    13. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    14. Mette Wik & Tewodros Aragie Kebede & Olvar Bergland & Stein Holden, 2004. "On the measurement of risk aversion from experimental data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(21), pages 2443-2451.
    15. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    16. GlennW. Harrison & StevenJ. Humphrey & Arjan Verschoor, 2010. "Choice under Uncertainty: Evidence from Ethiopia, India and Uganda," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(543), pages 80-104, March.
    17. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    18. Feder, Gershon, 1980. "Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, July.
    19. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    20. Antle, John M, 1983. "Testing the Stochastic Structure of Production: A Flexible Moment-based Approach," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(3), pages 192-201, July.
    21. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    22. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    23. Charness, Gary & Viceisza, Angelino, 2011. "Comprehension and risk elicitation in the field: Evidence from rural Senegal," IFPRI discussion papers 1135, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    24. Chavas, Jean-Paul & Holt, Matthew T, 1996. "Economic Behavior under Uncertainty: A Joint Analysis of Risk Preferences and Technology," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 329-335, May.
    25. Lipton, Michael, 1976. "Agricultural finance and rural credit in poor countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 4(7), pages 543-553, July.
    26. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    27. Sachiko Miyata, 2003. "Household's risk attitudes in Indonesian villages," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(5), pages 573-583.
    28. Ruth Vargas Hill, 2009. "Using Stated Preferences and Beliefs to Identify the Impact of Risk on Poor Households," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 151-171.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Peterson, Hikaru & Yamaura, Koichi, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion and Preferences for Food Origin Post Fukushima Nuclear Disaster," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170552, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Suzuki, Aya, 2014. "Risk on Dynamic Behavior of Farmers in the Export Market: A Case from the Pineapple Industry in Ghana," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170665, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Kebede, Bereket & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2015. "Social Preferences and Agricultural Innovation: An Experimental Case Study from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 267-280.
    4. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika & Magnan, Nicholas, 2013. "Farmer Preferences for Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Hybrid versus Inbred Rice: Evidence from Bihar, India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150786, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    uncertainty; Prospect Theory; technology adoption; India; Community/Rural/Urban Development; Consumer/Household Economics; International Development; International Relations/Trade; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods; O13; O33; C93;

    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
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea13:150794. 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.