IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01201041.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Diederen
  • Hans Van Meijl
  • Arjan Wolters
  • Katarzyna Bijak

Abstract

This paper analyses the choice of a farmer to be an innovator, an early adopter or a laggard (an adopter of mature technologies or a non-adopter) in the adoption of innovations that are available on the market. We estimate a nested logit model with data from a large sample of Dutch farmers. We find that structural characteristics (farm size, market position, solvency, age of the farmer) explain the difference in adoption behaviour between innovators and early adopters on the one hand and laggards on the other. We also find that early adopters and innovators do not differ from each other regarding these structural characteristics. However, they appear to differ in behavioural characteristics : innovators make more use of external sources of information and they are more involved in the actual development of innovations.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Diederen & Hans Van Meijl & Arjan Wolters & Katarzyna Bijak, 2003. "Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards," Post-Print hal-01201041, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01201041
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01201041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01201041/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geoff Riddington & Colin Sinclair & Nicola Milne, 2000. "Modelling choice and switching behaviour between Scottish ski centres," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 1011-1018.
    2. McFadden, Daniel L., 1984. "Econometric analysis of qualitative response models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 24, pages 1395-1457, Elsevier.
    3. Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1983. "Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 307-328, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107, Elsevier.
    6. 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.
    7. Richard Perrin & Don Winkelmann, 1976. "Impediments to Technical Progress on Small versus Large Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 58(5), pages 888-894.
    8. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-951, July.
    9. Paul Diederen & Hans van Meijl & Arjan Wolters, 2003. "Modernisation in agriculture: what makes a farmer adopt an innovation?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(3/4), pages 328-342.
    10. Gary Schnitkey & Marvin Batte & Eugene Jones & Jean Botomogno, 1992. "Information Preferences of Ohio Commercial Farmers: Implications for Extension," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 486-496.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    12. Paul Diederen & Hans Meijl & Arjan Wolters, 2002. "Innovation and Farm Performance: The Case of Dutch Agriculture," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht & Pierre Mohnen (ed.), Innovation and Firm Performance, chapter 4, pages 73-85, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Geroski, P. A., 2000. "Models of technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 603-625, April.
    14. Olmstead, Alan L & Rhode, Paul, 1993. "Induced Innovation in American Agriculture: A Reconsideration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 100-118, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Kamien,Morton I. & Schwartz,Nancy L., 1982. "Market Structure and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293853, December.
    17. Massoud Karshenas & Paul L. Stoneman, 1993. "Rank, Stock, Order, and Epidemic Effects in the Diffusion of New Process Technologies: An Empirical Model," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(4), pages 503-528, Winter.
    18. Montgomery, Mark, 2002. "A nested logit model of the choice of a graduate business school," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 471-480, October.
    19. Alfred Kleinknecht & Pierre Mohnen (ed.), 2002. "Innovation and Firm Performance," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-59588-0, December.
    20. Bernard Hategekimana & Michael Trant, 2002. "Adoption and Diffusion of New Technology in Agriculture: Genetically Modified Corn and Soybeans," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(4), pages 357-371, December.
    21. Lipton, Michael, 1976. "Agricultural finance and rural credit in poor countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 4(7), pages 543-553, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lionel Richefort & Jean-Louis Fusillier, 2010. "Imitation, rationalité et adoption de technologies d'irrigation améliorées à l'île de la Réunion," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(2), pages 59-73.
    2. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    4. Worden, David & Hailu, Getu, 2020. "Do genomic innovations enable an economic and environmental win-win in dairy production?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Wang, Honglin & Yu, Fan & Reardon, Thomas & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott, 2013. "Social learning and parameter uncertainty in irreversible investments: Evidence from greenhouse adoption in northern China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 104-120.
    6. Elaine Meichen Liu, 2008. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," Working Papers 1064, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    7. Poppe, Krijn J. & van Meijl, Hans, 2004. "Adjustment and differences in farm performance; A farm management perspective from the Netherlands," Report Series 29136, Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
    8. Sirkka Schukat & Heinke Heise, 2021. "Towards an Understanding of the Behavioral Intentions and Actual Use of Smart Products among German Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    9. Fuentelsaz, Lucio & Gomez, Jaime & Polo, Yolanda, 2003. "Intrafirm diffusion of new technologies: an empirical application," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 533-551, April.
    10. Bellon, Mauricio R & Taylor, J Edward, 1993. ""Folk" Soil Taxonomy and the Partial Adoption of New Seed Varieties," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(4), pages 763-786, July.
    11. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Chatzimichael, Konstantinos & Genius, Margarita & Tzouvelekas, Vangelis, 2014. "Informational cascades and technology adoption: Evidence from Greek and German organic growers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 186-195.
    13. Kim, Tae-Kyun, 1989. "The factor bias of technical change and technology adoption under uncertainty," ISU General Staff Papers 1989010108000010138, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & van Meijl, Hans & van Tongeren, Frank, 2004. "Biotechnology boosts to crop productivity in China: trade and welfare implications," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 27-54, October.
    15. Adenle, Ademola A. & Wedig, Karin & Azadi, Hossein, 2019. "Sustainable agriculture and food security in Africa: The role of innovative technologies and international organizations," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    16. Michael L. Katz & Howard A. Shelanski, 2005. "Merger Policy and Innovation: Must Enforcement Change to Account for Technological Change?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 5, pages 109-165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Micheels, Eric T. & Nolan, James F., 2016. "Examining the effects of absorptive capacity and social capital on the adoption of agricultural innovations: A Canadian Prairie case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 127-138.
    18. Rode, Johannes & Müller, Sven, 2016. "Spatio-Temporal Variation in Peer Effects - The Case of Rooftop Photovoltaic Systems in Germany," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 84765, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    19. Frédérique Savignac, 2006. "The impact of financial constraints on innovation: evidence from french manufacturing firms," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v06042, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    20. Jia, Xiangping, 2009. "Synergistic Green and White Revolution: Evidence from Kenya and Uganda," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:hal:journl:hal-01201041. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.