A test for complementarities among multiple technologies that avoids the curse of dimensionality
We propose a strategy to identify the complementarity or substitutability among technology bundles. Under the assumption that alternative technologies are independent, we develop a hypothetical distribution of multiple technology adoptions. Differences between the observed distribution of technology choices and the hypothetical distribution can be subjected to statistical tests. Combinations of technologies that occur with greater frequency than would occur under independence are complementary technologies. Combinations that occur with less frequency are substitute technologies. This method is easily applied to simultaneous decisions regarding many technologies. We use the strategy to evaluate multiple technology adoptions on U.S. hog farms. We find that some technologies used in pork production are substitutable for one another while others are complementary. However, as the number of bundled technologies increases, they are increasingly likely to be complementary with one another, even if subsets are substitutes when viewed in isolation. This finding suggests that farmers have an incentive to adopt many technologies at once. Larger farms and farms run by more educated operators are the most likely to adopt multiple technologies. The complementarity among technologies in large bundles is contributing to a form of returns to scale that contributes to growth in average farm size.
|Date of creation:||31 Jul 2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in Economics Letters, September 2012, vol. 116 no. 3, pp. 354-357|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Iowa State University, Dept. of Economics, 260 Heady Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1070|
Phone: +1 515.294.6741
Fax: +1 515.294.0221
Web page: http://www.econ.iastate.edu
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McBride, William D. & Key, Nigel D., 2003. "Economic And Structural Relationships In U.S. Hog Production," Agricultural Economics Reports 33971, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- Carree, Martin & Lokshin, Boris & Belderbos, René, 2010.
"A note on testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices,"
MERIT Working Papers
056, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
- Martin Carree & Boris Lokshin & René Belderbos, 2011. "A note on testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 263-269, June.
- 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.
- V. James Rhodes, 1995. "The Industrialization of Hog Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 107-118.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:isu:genres:12983. 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: (Curtis Balmer)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.