4.7 Article

Disruptive innovation in agriculture: Socio-cultural factors in technology adoption in the developing world

Journal

JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES
Volume 88, Issue -, Pages 422-431

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.022

Keywords

Technology adoption; Disruptive innovation; Social innovation; Household decision-making; Export cash cropping; Rural livelihoods; SDG 2

Funding

  1. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The low rate of technology adoption in developing countries is influenced by socio-cultural barriers, land pressure, past agricultural practices, and gender relations. Four case studies highlight the impact of these factors on technology adoption, showing how they can either facilitate or constrain the adoption process.
The low rate of technology adoption has long been a key constraint on improving productivity, income and yields in farming, particularly in developing countries where market-based systems of production are not well developed, the subsistence economy remains strong, land is held under communal tenure and family labour is the backbone of production. We examine four case studies of technology adoption to explore key socio-economic factors facilitating or constraining adoption. Our case studies cover an array of adoption situations from different parts of the developing world: 1. The socio-cultural barriers to the adoption of new technologies to control Cocoa Pod Borer in Papua New Guinea; 2. The role of land pressure on differential adoption rates of cocoassie yams amongst ethnic groups in Ivory Coast; 3. Past agricultural practices and their influence on adoption of a new planting pattern and selected oil palm planting material in Cameroon; 4. Taking account of gender relations to facilitate successful adoption of a new oil palm initiative for women smallholders in Papua New Guinea.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available