IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mcl/mclwop/2007-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ambiguity Aversion As A Predictor Of Technology Choice: Experimental Evidence From Peru

Author

Listed:
  • Jim Engle-Warnick

    ()

  • Javier Escobal

    ()

  • Sonia Laszlo

    ()

Abstract

The lack of adoption of new farming technologies despite known benefits is a well-documented phenomenon in development economics. In addition to a number of market constraints, risk aversion predominates the discussion of behavioral determinants of technology adoption. We hypothesize that ambiguity aversion may also be a determinant, since farmers may have less information about the distribution of yield outcomes from new technologies compared with traditional technologies. We test this hypothesis with a laboratory experiment in the field in which we measure risk and ambiguity preferences. We combine our experiment with a survey in which we collect information on farm decisions and identify market constraints. We find that ambiguity aversion does indeed predict actual technology choices on the farm.

Suggested Citation

  • Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2007. "Ambiguity Aversion As A Predictor Of Technology Choice: Experimental Evidence From Peru," Departmental Working Papers 2007-04, McGill University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:mcl:mclwop:2007-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mcgill.ca/files/economics/ambuiguityaversionas.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jovanovic, Boyan & Nyarko, Yaw, 1996. "Learning by Doing and the Choice of Technology," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1299-1310, November.
    2. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    3. 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.
    4. Antle, John M & Crissman, Charles C, 1990. "Risk, Efficiency, and the Adoption of Modern Crop Varieties: Evidence from the Philippines," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(3), pages 517-537, April.
    5. Jim Engle-Warnick & Sonia Laszlo, 2017. "Learning-by-doing in an ambiguous environment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 71-94, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Rigotti, Luca & Ryan, Matthew & Vaithianathan, Rema, 2001. "Entrepreneurial Innovation," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt508109h4, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    8. 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.
    9. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2010. "Portfolio Choice And Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 133-146, January.
    10. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    11. Besley, Timothy & Case, Anne, 1993. "Modeling Technology Adoption in Developing Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 396-402, May.
    12. Shahabuddin, Quazi & Mestelman, Stuart & Feeny, David, 1986. "Peasant Behaviour towards Risk and Socio-Economic and Structural Characteristics of Farm Households in Bangladesh," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 122-130, March.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    16. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2005. "The Effect of an Additional Alternative on Measured Risk Preferences in a Field Experiment," Experimental 0511003, EconWPA.
    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. Brick, Kerri & Visser, Martine, 2015. "Risk preferences, technology adoption and insurance uptake: A framed experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 383-396.
    2. Jim Engle-Warnick & Sonia Laszlo, 2017. "Learning-by-doing in an ambiguous environment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 71-94, August.
    3. Juan Camilo Cardenas & Jeffrey Carpenter, 2008. "Behavioural Development Economics: Lessons from Field Labs in the Developing World," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 311-338.
    4. Peterson, Hikaru & Yamaura, Koichi, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion and Preferences for Food Origin Post Fukushima Nuclear Disaster," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170552, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Juan Camilo Cárdenas, 2009. "Experiments in Environment and Development," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 157-182, September.
    7. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Naranjo, Maria A., 2011. "The effect of ambiguous risk, and coordination on farmers' adaptation to climate change — A framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2317-2326.
    8. Alpízar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Naranjo, Maria A., 2010. "Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change: A Framed Field Experiment," Discussion Papers dp-09-18-rev-efd, Resources For the Future.
    9. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    10. Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Naranjo, Maria, 2009. "The effect of risk, ambiguity, and coordination on farmers’ adaptation to climate change: A framed field experiment," Working Papers in Economics 382, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    12. Elaine M. 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..
    13. Ross, Nicholas & Santos, Paulo & Capon, Timothy, 2012. "Risk, ambiguity and the adoption of new technologies: experimental evidence from a developing economy," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126492, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Sheremenko, Ganna & Magnan, Nicholas, 2015. "Gender-specific Risk Preferences and Fertilizer Use in Kenyan Farming Households," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205766, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association;Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Moser, Stefan & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Comparing the use of risk-influencing production inputs and experimentally measured risk attitude: Do decisions of Indonesian small-scale rubber farmers match?," EFForTS Discussion Paper Series 14, University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 990 "EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)".
    16. Hurley, Terrance M., 2010. "A review of agricultural production risk in the developing world," Working Papers 188476, HarvestChoice.
    17. Elizabeth Potamites & Bei Zhang, 2012. "Heterogeneous ambiguity attitudes: a field experiment among small-scale stock investors in China," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(2), pages 193-213, September.
    18. 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..
    19. repec:wsi:ccexxx:v:03:y:2012:i:02:n:s2010007812500078 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:mcl:mclwop:2007-04. 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: (Shama Rangwala). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/demcgca.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.