IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277149.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why some inferior technologies succeed? Examining the diffusion and impacts of rotavator tillage in Nepal Terai

Author

Listed:
  • Paudel, G.
  • Krishna, V.
  • McDonald, A.

Abstract

We analyze the effects of rotavator tillage adoption on yield and profitability of wheat in the Nepalese small farm sector, using recent survey data and propensity score matching. Rotavator is a tractor-operated cultivating implement for shallow tillage, which operates by pulverizing soil with the help of rotating L or J -shaped blades. Rotavator tillage has been spreading rapidly in many parts of South Asia, despite having a large body of evidence on its negative consequences on soil quality and crop yield from the experimental research trials. A rigorous assessment of impacts of rotavator adoption on farmers fields has been impending. When we compared the mean yield and profit levels between rotavator adopters and non-adopters using propensity score matching algorithms, we found that the technology adoption clearly leads to inferior outcomes. Due to rotavator adoption, farmers lost about 284 309 kg of wheat grain yield and US$93-101 of profits per hectare on average, and the penalties were more pronounced for large farmers. Adoption of rotavator was driven by the cost-savings (US$11 15; 15 20% per hectare) at the time of land preparation, and the farmers with time and labor constraints adopt the technology. Against this backdrop, we suggest dissemination of zero-tillage as a sustainable alternative. Acknowledgement : This research was conducted as part of Cereal System Initiatives for South Asia (CSISA), Project in Nepal, which was funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and conducted at International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Nepal. Part of this research was also supported by Sustainable and Resilient Farming Systems Intensification (SRFSI) in the eastern Gangetic plains project, which was funded by Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, CIMMYT, CSISA, SRFSI or ACIAR.

Suggested Citation

  • Paudel, G. & Krishna, V. & McDonald, A., 2018. "Why some inferior technologies succeed? Examining the diffusion and impacts of rotavator tillage in Nepal Terai," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277149, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277149/files/1116.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mendola, Mariapia, 2007. "Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: A propensity-score matching analysis for rural Bangladesh," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 372-393, June.
    2. Tamer El-Shater & Yigezu A. Yigezu & Amin Mugera & Colin Piggin & Atef Haddad & Yaseen Khalil & Stephen Loss & A. Aw-Hassan, 2016. "Does Zero Tillage Improve the Livelihoods of Smallholder Cropping Farmers?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 154-172, February.
    3. Jalan, Jyotsna & Ravallion, Martin, 2003. "Does piped water reduce diarrhea for children in rural India?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 153-173, January.
    4. Nassul S. Kabunga & Thomas Dubois & Matin Qaim, 2012. "Yield Effects of Tissue Culture Bananas in Kenya: Accounting for Selection Bias and the Role of Complementary Inputs," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 444-464, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
    7. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    8. Mishra, Ashok K. & Kumar, Anjani & Joshi, Pramod K. & D'souza, Alwin, 2016. "Impact of contracts in high yielding varieties seed production on profits and yield: The case of Nepal," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 110-121.
    9. Mason, Nicole M. & Wineman, Ayala & Kirimi, Lilian & Mather, David, 2016. "The Effects of Kenya’s ‘Smarter’ Input Subsidy Program on Smallholder Behavior and Incomes: Do Different Quasi-Experimental Approaches Lead to the Same Conclusions?," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 232090, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    10. Barbara Sianesi, 2004. "An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 133-155, February.
    11. Aslihan Arslan & Nancy McCarthy & Leslie Lipper & Solomon Asfaw & Andrea Cattaneo & Misael Kokwe, 2015. "Climate Smart Agriculture? Assessing the Adaptation Implications in Zambia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 753-780, September.
    12. Hailemariam Teklewold & Menale Kassie & Bekele Shiferaw, 2013. "Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 597-623, September.
    13. Shiferaw, Bekele & Kassie, Menale & Jaleta, Moti & Yirga, Chilot, 2014. "Adoption of improved wheat varieties and impacts on household food security in Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 272-284.
    14. Hujer, Reinhard & Caliendo, Marco & Thomsen, Stephan L., 2004. "New evidence on the effects of job creation schemes in Germany--a matching approach with threefold heterogeneity," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 257-302, December.
    15. repec:eee:jfpoli:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:97-109 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Akhter Ali & Awudu Abdulai, 2010. "The Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton and Poverty Reduction in Pakistan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 175-192.
    17. Lobell, David B. & Ortiz-Monasterio, J. Ivan & Sibley, Adam M. & Sohu, V.S., 2013. "Satellite detection of earlier wheat sowing in India and implications for yield trends," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 137-143.
    18. Menale Kassie & Hailemariam Teklewold & Paswel Marenya & Moti Jaleta & Olaf Erenstein, 2015. "Production Risks and Food Security under Alternative Technology Choices in Malawi: Application of a Multinomial Endogenous Switching Regression," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 640-659, September.
    19. Dehejia, Rajeev, 2005. "Practical propensity score matching: a reply to Smith and Todd," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 355-364.
    20. repec:bla:agecon:v:48:y:2017:i:3:p:363-372 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Coventry, D.R. & Poswal, R.S. & Yadav, Ashok & Riar, Amritbir Singh & Zhou, Yi & Kumar, Anuj & Chand, Ramesh & Chhokar, R.S. & Sharma, R.K. & Yadav, V.K. & Gupta, R.K. & Mehta, Anil & Cummins, J.A., 2015. "A comparison of farming practices and performance for wheat production in Haryana, India," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 139-153.
    22. Rejesus, Roderick M. & Palis, Florencia G. & Rodriguez, Divina Gracia P. & Lampayan, Ruben M. & Bouman, Bas A.M., 2011. "Impact of the alternate wetting and drying (AWD) water-saving irrigation technique: Evidence from rice producers in the Philippines," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 280-288, April.
    23. Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele & Muricho, Geoffrey, 2011. "Agricultural Technology, Crop Income, and Poverty Alleviation in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1784-1795.
    24. repec:eee:jfpoli:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:10-18 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. repec:bla:jageco:v:68:y:2017:i:1:p:45-69 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    27. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, January.
    28. Sunding, David & Zilberman, David, 2001. "The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector," Handbook of Agricultural Economics,in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 207-261 Elsevier.
    29. repec:ags:stataj:116022 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Becker, Sascha O. & Ichino, Andrea, 2002. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 1-20.
    31. Wang-Sheng Lee, 2013. "Propensity score matching and variations on the balancing test," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 47-80, February.
    32. Feder, Gershon & O'Mara, Gerald T, 1981. "Farm Size and the Diffusion of Green Revolution Technology," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 59-76, October.
    33. Uematsu, Hiroki & Mishra, Ashok K., 2012. "Organic farmers or conventional farmers: Where's the money?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 55-62.
    34. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1524-:d:109945 is not listed on IDEAS
    35. Douthwaite, B. & Keatinge, J. D. H. & Park, J. R., 2001. "Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 819-836, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research and Development/ Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    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:iaae18:277149. 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/iaaeeea.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.