4.3 Article

The Role of Information in Agricultural Technology Adoption: Experimental Evidence from Rice Farmers in Uganda

Journal

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL CHANGE
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages 1239-1272

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/703868

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Uganda through the Policy Action for Sustainable Intensification of Cropping Systems (PASIC) project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper investigates the role of information in the decision-making process of rice farmers in Uganda, finding that interventions providing technical information and changing perceptions can lead to increased adoption of modern agricultural practices. Peer effects were found to be important in enhancing the effectiveness of information for technology adoption.
Optimal decision-making among the poor is often hampered by insufficient knowledge, false beliefs, or wrong perceptions. This paper investigates the role of information in the decision to use modern inputs and adopt recommended agronomic practices among rice farmers in Uganda. Using field experiments, I tested whether the provision of technical information about the correct use of modern inputs and practices affects adoption of these technologies and subsequent rice production. In addition, I assessed whether providing information aimed at changing the perception of the expected returns on such intensification investments led to different outcomes. In both experiments, the treatments took the form of short agricultural extension information videos shown to individual farmers using tablet computers. I found that both interventions resulted in increased intensification of rice cultivation but only after accounting for the possibility of interference between farmers. These results confirm the importance of peer effects in increasing the effectiveness of information for technology adoption.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available