4.4 Article

Sooner rather than later: Social networks and technology adoption

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 466-482

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.011

关键词

Social networks; Social connections; Agricultural technology adoption; Kenya

资金

  1. East Africa Market De-velopment Association
  2. Kenyan National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation [2015/618]
  3. University of Sydney [0002579]
  4. [NACOSTI/P/18/40784/24851]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using data from a randomised experiment in Kenya, the causal effect of social networks on technology adoption was estimated. The study found that having an additional social connection with a treated farmer increased the likelihood of an untreated farmer adopting the technology within 6-18 months after intervention, but not in the longer term. The adoption of the technology by treated connections was identified as the main driving factor of this effect. Additionally, the study observed indirect social network effects influencing adoption at both the village level and the farmer level.
Using data from a randomised experiment in Kenya, we estimate the causal effect of social networks on technology adoption. In this experiment, farmers were invited to information sessions about the use of Tissue Culture Banana (TCB), an in vitro banana cultivation technology. We find that an additional social connection with a treated farmer is associated with an untreated farmer being 2.25 pp more likely to adopt TCB 6-18 months post-intervention, but not in the longer term. Evidence from a qualitative survey points out that the adoption of TCB by those social connections is the main channel driving the effect, suggesting that treated connections are significant because treated farmers are more likely to adopt. We also find that indirect social network effects, proxied for by eigenvector centrality, influence adoption at both the village level and the farmer level.(c) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据