IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05008165.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are less polluting and synergistic farming technologies complementary?

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Marc Blazy

    (ASTRO - Agrosystèmes tropicaux - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • M’hand Fares

    (UMR SELMET - Systèmes d'élevage méditerranéens et tropicaux - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement)

  • Alban Thomas

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

Abstract

The objective of our paper is to provide an explanation for the lack of joint adoption by farmers of cleaner technologies in banana production, specifically fallow period (FP) and disease-free seedlings (DFS). Our hypothesis is that while these technologies are synergistic from an agronomic and environmental perspective, and thus efficient from a social interest perspective, they are substitutable rather than complementary from a farmer's private interest perspective. In other words, farmers receive lower returns from adopting both technologies together than from adopting them in isolation. To test this hypothesis, we present a unified empirical framework for assessing complementarity. We estimate a structural model of complementarity that overcomes the unobservable heterogeneity bias found in previous models using a database of 607 banana farmers in the French West Indies. Our results support our hypothesis, showing a substitution effect between FP and DFS rather than a complementarity effect. Moreover, we observe a contrasting profile of adopting farmers: smallholders who are reluctant to change adopt FP, while more specialized farmers who anticipate a pesticide ban adopt DFS. A public policy that promotes joint adoption should compensate smallholders for the cost of the DFS technology, while compensating more productive farmers for leaving their land fallow.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Marc Blazy & M’hand Fares & Alban Thomas, 2025. "Are less polluting and synergistic farming technologies complementary?," Post-Print hal-05008165, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05008165
    DOI: 10.1017/age.2025.9
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05008165v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05008165v1/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1017/age.2025.9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Athey & Armin Schmutzler, 1995. "Product and Process Flexibility in an Innovative Environment," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(4), pages 557-574, Winter.
    2. Lori Beaman & Ariel BenYishay & Jeremy Magruder & Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, 2021. "Can Network Theory-Based Targeting Increase Technology Adoption?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1918-1943, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Oriana Bandiera & Imran Rasul, 2006. "Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(514), pages 869-902, October.
    5. Caffey, Rex H. & Kazmierczak, Richard F., Jr., 1994. "Factors Influencing Technology Adoption In A Louisiana Aquaculture System," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), pages 1-11, July.
    6. Arora, Ashish, 1996. "Testing for complementarities in reduced-form regressions: A note," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 51-55, January.
    7. Rauniyar, Ganesh P. & Goode, Frank M., 1992. "Technology adoption on small farms," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 275-282, February.
    8. Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Zinnah, Moses M., 1993. "Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 297-311, December.
    9. Kassie, Menale & Jaleta, Moti & Shiferaw, Bekele & Mmbando, Frank & Mekuria, Mulugetta, 2013. "Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 525-540.
    10. Jeremy D. Foltz & Hsiu-Hui Chang, 2002. "The Adoption and Profitability of rbST on Connecticut Dairy Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1021-1032.
    11. Boris Lokshin & René Belderbos & Martin Carree, 2008. "The Productivity Effects of Internal and External R&D: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Data Model," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(3), pages 399-413, June.
    12. Kazushi Takahashi & Rie Muraoka & Keijiro Otsuka, 2020. "Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 31-45, January.
    13. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
    14. Batz, F. -J. & Peters, K. J. & Janssen, W., 1999. "The influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 121-130, October.
    15. Feleke, Shiferaw & Zegeye, Tesfaye, 2006. "Adoption of improved maize varieties in Southern Ethiopia: Factors and strategy options," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 442-457, October.
    16. Margriet Caswell & David Zilberman, 1985. "The Choices of Irrigation Technologies in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(2), pages 224-234.
    17. Haluk Gedikoglu & Sansel Tandogan & Joseph Parcell, 2023. "Neighbor effects on adoption of conservation practices: cases of grass filter systems and injecting manure," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 70(3), pages 723-756, June.
    18. Jeffrey H. Dorfman, 1996. "Modeling Multiple Adoption Decisions in a Joint Framework," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 547-557.
    19. Godfrey Kamutando & Fiona Tregenna, 2024. "Complementarity between product and process innovation in small and micro-enterprises in Johannesburg, South Africa," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(6), pages 792-818, August.
    20. 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.
    21. Caffey, Rex H. & Kazmierczak, Richard F., 1994. "Factors Influencing Technology Adoption in a Louisiana Aquaculture System," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 264-274, July.
    22. Nathan D. DeLay & Nathanael M. Thompson & James R. Mintert, 2022. "Precision agriculture technology adoption and technical efficiency," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 195-219, February.
    23. Akinwumi A. Adesina & Moses M. Zinnah, 1993. "Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(4), pages 297-311, December.
    24. Gomez, Jaime & Vargas, Pilar, 2009. "The effect of financial constraints, absorptive capacity and complementarities on the adoption of multiple process technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 106-119, February.
    25. Svetlana Edmeades & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Melinda Smale & Mitch Renkow, 2008. "Modelling the Crop Variety Demand of Semi‐Subsistence Households: Bananas in Uganda," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 329-349, June.
    26. Daniel Hellerstein & Nathaniel Higgins & John Horowitz, 2013. "The predictive power of risk preference measures for farming decisions -super-†," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(5), pages 807-833, December.
    27. Blazy, Jean-Marc & Ozier-Lafontaine, Harry & Doré, Thierry & Thomas, Alban & Wery, Jacques, 2009. "A methodological framework that accounts for farm diversity in the prototyping of crop management systems. Application to banana-based systems in Guadeloupe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 30-41, June.
    28. Ichniowski, Casey & Shaw, Kathryn & Prennushi, Giovanna, 1997. "The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 291-313, June.
    29. Miravete, Eugenio J. & Pernías, José C., 2010. "Testing for complementarity when strategies are dichotomous," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 28-31, January.
    30. Muhammad Ayaz & Mazhar Mughal, 2024. "Farm Size and Productivity: The Role of Family Labor," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(2), pages 959-995.
    31. F.‐J. Batz & K.J. Peters & W. Janssen, 1999. "The influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(2), pages 121-130, October.
    32. Bartel, Ann P & Lichtenberg, Frank R, 1987. "The Comparative Advantage of Educated Workers in Implementing New Technology," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-11, February.
    33. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1990. "Complementarity and External Linkages: The Strategies of the Large Firms in Biotechnology," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 361-379, June.
    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. Jean‐Paul Chavas & Céline Nauges, 2020. "Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 42-53, March.
    2. Gilli, Marianna & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2014. "Innovation complementarity and environmental productivity effects: Reality or delusion? Evidence from the EU," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 56-67.
    3. Azhari, Mohamed El & Hamadi, Youssef El & Boughlala, Mohamed & Hattab, Samia, 2024. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Recommended Fertilizer Doses by Wheat Farmers in the Casablanca-Settat Region of Morocco," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 16(2), June.
    4. Kazushi Takahashi & Rie Muraoka & Keijiro Otsuka, 2020. "Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 31-45, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Raju Ghimire & Wen-Chi Huang, 2015. "Household wealth and adoption of improved maize varieties in Nepal: a double-hurdle approach," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 7(6), pages 1321-1335, December.
    7. Aklin, M. & Bayer, P. & Harish, S.P. & Urpelainen, J., 2018. "Economics of household technology adoption in developing countries: Evidence from solar technology adoption in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 35-46.
    8. Josephson, Anna & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob, 2020. "Preferences and crop choice during Zimbabwe’s macroeconomic crisis," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(3), September.
    9. Blazy, Jean-Marc & Carpentier, Alain & Thomas, Alban, 2011. "The willingness to adopt agro-ecological innovations: Application of choice modelling to Caribbean banana planters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 140-150.
    10. Suprehatin, By & Umberger, Wendy J. & Yi, Dale & Stringer, Randy & Minot, Nicholas, 2015. "Can Understanding Indonesian Farmers’ Preferences for Crop Attributes Encourage their Adoption of High Value Crops?," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212057, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Mansaray, B. & Jin, S. & Yuan, R. & Li, H., 2018. "Farmers Preferences for Attributes of Seed Rice in Sierra Leone: A Best-Worst Scaling Approach," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277552, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    13. Fafchamps, Marcel & Islam, Asad & Malek, Mohammad Abdul & Pakrashi, Debayan, 2020. "Can referral improve targeting? Evidence from an agricultural training experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    14. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    15. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    16. Wongnaa, Camillus Abawiera & Kyei, Afrane Baffour & Apike, Isaac Akurugu & Awunyo-Vitor, Dadson & Dziwornu, Raymond K., 2021. "Perception and Adoption of Artificial Pollination Technology in Cocoa Production: Evidence from Ghana," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314939, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-488 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Wubeneh, Nega Gebreselassie & Sanders, J.H., 2006. "Farm-level adoption of sorghum technologies in Tigray, Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 91(1-2), pages 122-134, November.
    19. L. Toma & A. P. Barnes & L.-A. Sutherland & S. Thomson & F. Burnett & K. Mathews, 2018. "Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 864-881, August.
    20. Gabriel S. Sampson & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Peer effects in the diffusion of water‐saving agricultural technologies," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(6), pages 693-706, November.
    21. Ram Fishman & Stephen C. Smith & Vida Bobic & Munshi Sulaiman, 2022. "Can Agricultural Extension and Input Support Be Discontinued? Evidence from a Randomized Phaseout in Uganda," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1273-1288, November.

    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-05008165. 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.