IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/12263.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Innovation Adoption and Liquidity Constraints in the Presence of Grassroots Extension Agents: Evidence from the Peruvian Highla

Author

Listed:
  • Platteau, Jean-Philippe
  • Bonjean, Isabelle
  • Verardi, Vincenzo

Abstract

To analyze the role of the income constraint in slowing innovation adoption, this paper uses a technology diffusion program based on the work of business-oriented grassroots extension agents in the Peruvian Highlands. Taking advantage of a multiplicity of innovations with different characteristics and of information about innovation suppliers who can grant seller credit, we show that the income constraint operates in a limited manner. Moreover, due to higher trust associated with greater familiarity, households are better able to adopt costly and indivisible innovations when a supplier/lender resides in their own community. The story emerging from the program evokes the relatively egalitarian process underlying the Green Revolution as it has taken place in Asian agriculture, in particular. Overall, our conclusion goes against the pessimistic assessment of the impact of extension work in poor areas that emerges from the current literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Bonjean, Isabelle & Verardi, Vincenzo, 2017. "Innovation Adoption and Liquidity Constraints in the Presence of Grassroots Extension Agents: Evidence from the Peruvian Highla," CEPR Discussion Papers 12263, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:12263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP12263
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2008. "How High Are Rates of Return to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field Experiments in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 482-488, May.
    2. Bart Minten & Jean‐Claude Randrianarisoa & Christopher B. Barrett, 2007. "Productivity in Malagasy rice systems: wealth‐differentiated constraints and priorities," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 225-237, December.
    3. Dercon, Stefan & Christiaensen, Luc, 2011. "Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 159-173, November.
    4. Michael R. Carter & Rachid Laajaj & Dean Yang, 2014. "Subsidies and the Persistence of Technology Adoption: Field Experimental Evidence from Mozambique," NBER Working Papers 20465, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Emily Oster & Rebecca Thornton, 2009. "Determinants of Technology Adoption: Private Value and Peer Effects in Menstrual Cup Take-Up," NBER Working Papers 14828, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. 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.
    9. Adams, Richard H, Jr, 1995. "Agricultural Income, Cash Crops, and Inequality in Rural Pakistan," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(3), pages 467-491, April.
    10. Coady, David P, 1995. "An Empirical Analysis of Fertilizer Use in Pakistan," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 62(246), pages 213-234, May.
    11. Gin, Xavier & Yang, Dean, 2009. "Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidencefrom Malawi," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 1-11, May.
    12. Michael R. Carter & Rachid Laajaj & Dean Yang, 2013. "The Impact of Voucher Coupons on the Uptake of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Mozambique," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1345-1351.
    13. Gine, Xavier & Klonner, Stefan, 2005. "Credit constraints as a barrier to technology adoption by the poor : lessons from South Indian small-scale fishery," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3665, The World Bank.
    14. Christopher B. Barrett & Christine M. Moser & Oloro V. McHugh & Joeli Barison, 2004. "Better Technology, Better Plots, or Better Farmers? Identifying Changes in Productivity and Risk among Malagasy Rice Farmers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(4), pages 869-888.
    15. Rigby, D. & Caceres, D., 2001. "Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 21-40, April.
    16. Walter P. Falcon, 1970. "The Green Revolution: Generations of Problems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 52(5), pages 698-710.
    17. M. Ghaffar Chaudhry, 1982. "Green Revolution and Redistribution of Rural Incomes. Pakistan's Experience," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 21(3), pages 173-205.
    18. Munshi, Kaivan, 2004. "Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 185-213, February.
    19. Christine M. Moser & Christopher B. Barrett, 2006. "The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption: the case of SRI in Madagascar," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 373-388, November.
    20. Dimara, Efthalia & Skuras, Dimitris, 2003. "Adoption of agricultural innovations as a two-stage partial observability process," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 187-196, May.
    21. Lanjouw, Peter & Stern, Nicholas, 1998. "Economic Development in Palanpur over Five Decades," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198288329.
    22. Andre Croppenstedt & Mulat Demeke & Meloria M. Meschi, 2003. "Technology Adoption in the Presence of Constraints: the Case of Fertilizer Demand in Ethiopia," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 58-70, February.
    23. Adonis Yatchew, 1998. "Nonparametric Regression Techniques in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(2), pages 669-721, June.
    24. Cleaver, Harry M, Jr, 1972. "The Contradictions of the Green Revolution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 177-186, May.
    25. Bliss, C. J. & Stern, N. H., 1982. "Palanpur: The Economy of an Indian Village," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198284192.
    26. repec:fth:oxesaf:2000-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Bonjean, Isabelle, 2019. "Heterogeneous incentives for innovation adoption: The price effect on segmented markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bonjean, Isabelle, 2017. "Heterogeneous Gains From Agricultural Innovation Adoption: The Role Of The Price Effect In Peru," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260891, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Bonjean, Isabelle, 2018. "Heterogeneous Incentives to Innovation Adoption: the Price Effect on Segmented Market," Working Papers 279295, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    3. Bonjean, I., 2018. "Heterogeneous return from Agricultural Innovation Adoption: The Role of the price effect," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277257, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Bonjean, Isabelle, 2019. "Heterogeneous incentives for innovation adoption: The price effect on segmented markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    6. Lim, Krisha & Wichmann, Bruno & Luckert, Martin, 2021. "Adaptation, spatial effects, and targeting: Evidence from Africa and Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    7. Ayalew, Hailemariam & Chamberlin, Jordan & Newman, Carol, 2022. "Site-specific agronomic information and technology adoption: A field experiment from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    8. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    9. Abay, Kibrom A. & Berhane, Guush & Taffesse, Alemayehu Seyoum & Koru, Bethlehem & Abay, Kibrewossen, 2016. "Understanding farmers’ technology adoption decisions: Input complementarity and heterogeneity:," ESSP working papers 82, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Maolong Chen & Chaoran Hu & Robert J. Myers, 2022. "Understanding transient technology use among smallholder farmers in Africa: A dynamic programming approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(S1), pages 91-107, November.
    11. Estelle Koussoubé & Céline Nauges, 2017. "Returns to fertiliser use: Does it pay enough? Some new evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(2), pages 183-210.
    12. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    13. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2010. "Microeconomics of Technology Adoption," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 395-424, September.
    14. Tavneet Suri, 2006. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Working Papers 944, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    15. Zhu, Jessica, 2018. "Understanding the Rationale of Heterogeneous Farmers' Agricultural Technology Adoption Decisions," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274233, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Mukasa Adamon N., 2016. "Working Paper 233 - Technology Adoption and Risk Exposure among Smallholder Farmers: Panel Data Evidence from Tanzania and Uganda," Working Paper Series 2328, African Development Bank.
    17. Dominik Naeher, 2022. "Technology Adoption Under Costly Information Processing," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(2), pages 699-753, May.
    18. Mishra, Khushbu & Abdoul, Sam G. & Miranda, Mario J. & Diiro, Gracious M., 2015. "Gender and Dynamics of Technology Adoption: Evidence from Uganda," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 206550, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Tavneet Suri, 2009. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," NBER Working Papers 15346, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation adoption; Liquidity constraint; Trust; Credit;
    All these keywords.

    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:cpr:ceprdp:12263. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.