Social capital, risk preference and adoption of improved farm land management practices in Ethiopia

Abstract

Many developing countries grapple with high rates of farmland degradation and low agricultural productivity amidst increasing climate variability. Considerable efforts have been exerted to promote the diffusion of improved farmland management to address these challenges. Despite these efforts, adoption rates, especially of soil conservation and water harvesting technologies, are still low, which has been the subject of investigation in several studies in Ethiopia and elsewhere. Most studies on the adoption of these technologies, however, tend to focus on economic incentives only, paying little attention to the role of social capital. This article provides evidence of the effects of different dimensions of social capital on innovation adoption across households holding different levels of risk aversion. We address this issue by using cross section and panel data from Ethiopia. Results show that social capital plays a significant role in enhancing the adoption of improved farmland management practices. We also find evidence that the effect of social capital across households with heterogeneous risk taking behavior is different. JEL classifications: C36, C93, D71, D81

Drivers for the Adoption of Different Eco-Innovation Types in the Fertilizer Sector: A Review

“…Only gender, age and education seem not as relevant as for disruptive process innovations. Therefore, the involvement in external groups [94,117,[120][121][122][123][124], the quality of support [70,93,94,117,121,125,126], the information access [70,85,93,94,117,[121][122][123][126][127][128][129], access to credit [85,120,122,124,125,127,130] and market [85][86][87]93,94,120,122,123,129] and the farm size [117,122,124,126,127,129,131] are most important (Table 7). …”

Social Capital and Agricultural Technology Adoption among Ethiopian Farmers

“…for cereal crops it is approximately 1.2 tons/ha [17]. Realizing the sector´s low productivity problems, research findings by Dadi et al [12], Wossen et al [39], or Teklewold et al [35,36] suggested that the adoption of agricultural technologies by smallholder farmers is a promising alternative to get out of the poverty trap. However, the level of technology adoption in the country is not going as fast as expected.…”

“…However, the level of technology adoption in the country is not going as fast as expected. For example, Wossen et al [39] found an adoption rate of 4.7% for land management practices (bunds), and Teklewold et al [36] reported less than 10% for the adoption of productivity enhancing technologies such as fertilizers.…”

“…However, almost all studies omitted the role of social capital in agricultural technology adoption. There are some exceptions such as Wossen et al [39] or Di Falco & Bulte [16]. For example in the case of Wossen et al [39], the study investigated the effects of social capital on adoption of land management practices under different risk scenarios.…”

“…There are some exceptions such as Wossen et al [39] or Di Falco & Bulte [16]. For example in the case of Wossen et al [39], the study investigated the effects of social capital on adoption of land management practices under different risk scenarios. The authors concluded that some social capital such as Ikkub and Debo influence adoption of the practices positively while social capital such as Iddir and kinship influence adoption negatively.…”