Agriculture, Development, and Urban Bias

Bezemer, Dirk; Headey, Derek

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.07.001

Cited by 230 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, the presence of a bias in developing countries towards policies supporting urban development in preference to rural development has been frequently argued (Bezemer and Headey 2008), which may manifest itself in provision of far better facilities than in rural areas. Thus, it may be less costly for companies to obtain internet connection.…”

Section: Capital Citymentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Initial Technology Adoption and Intensification: Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean

Waters

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we examine determinants of initial adoption and subsequent intensification of commercial use of the internet. In contrast to previous examinations that have looked at initial adoption and intensification in the highest income countries, we study companies in Latin America and the Caribbean and so contribute to empirical understanding of the two types of adoption. Many variables such as company size and industry intensification previously identified as influential in high income regions continue to be important determinants. Novel determinants are also found, including informal sector competition and regional influence. There are sharp differences in determinants between the two adoption types.

show abstract

Section: Capital Citymentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Initial Technology Adoption and Intensification: Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean

Waters

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notwithstanding urban bias in developing countries, both classic (Bates, 1981;Varshney, 1995) and recent studies (Bezemer and Headey, 2008;Wallace, 2013;Kim and Urpelainen, 2015) show that this bias is much more severe in autocracies than in democracies.…”

Section: Variation Among Democracies: Rural Constituencies and Feed-imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not only do they value the public good of clean energy less, but they also have fewer incentives to redistribute profits from incumbent utilities to a larger group of small producers. At the same time, autocracies favor urban constituencies (Bates, 1981;Bezemer and Headey, 2008), so that the benefits of FIT adoption for rural constituencies carry less weight than under democratic political institutions. Therefore, even though democratic political institutions also have their pathologies and give plenty of access to special interests under "regulatory capture" (Stigler, 1971), the typical autocratic ruler stands to gain much less from an FIT than a democratic government.…”

Section: Democracy and Feed-in Tariffsmentioning

confidence: 99%

It Is All about Political Incentives: Democracy and the Renewable Feed-in Tariff

Bayer

Urpelainen

2016

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demand for renewable energy is booming. Scholars often attribute this success to feed-in tariffs (FITs), which mandate that energy utilities pay a premium to renewable electricity producers and guarantee grid access for them. Why have so many countries, including least developed ones, adopted these policies? We hypothesize that democratic governments have political incentives to adopt the FIT because it improves environmental quality, promotes rural development, and distributes electricity generation profits from large utilities to independent producers. We analyze global data on FIT adoption, 1990FIT adoption, -2012, and find that the association between democratic regime type and FIT adoption overwhelms all other covariates. The effect is specific to the FIT and does not exist for renewable portfolio standards or public competitive bidding for renewable energy contracts. Consistent with theories of distributive politics, among democracies, institutional malapportionment in favor of rural political constituencies favors FIT adoption.

show abstract

“…As urban population growth continues, poverty is also increasingly urbanized while the globalised economy means that urban poverty is tied to rising global food prices (see also Bezemer and Headey 2008). The distinction between rural and urban is blurred by increasing mobility and livelihoods that span a number of different places in what are called multi-local livelihoods (Andersson Djurfeldt 2012;Foeken and Owuor 2008;Mberu, et al 2013;Potts 2010;Tacoli 2008).…”

Section: Urban Bias Perspectives Mobility and Multi-localitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Urbanization and linkages to smallholder farming in sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for food security

Djurfeldt

2015

Global Food Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture, Development, and Urban Bias

Cited by 230 publications

References 44 publications

Determinants of Initial Technology Adoption and Intensification: Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean

Determinants of Initial Technology Adoption and Intensification: Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean

It Is All about Political Incentives: Democracy and the Renewable Feed-in Tariff

Urbanization and linkages to smallholder farming in sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for food security

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About