Microeconomics of Technology Adoption

Foster, Andrew D.; Rosenzweig, Mark R.

doi:10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124433

Cited by 749 publications

(484 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

462

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An increase in the formal education by one year increased the amount of land allocated to seed multiplication by 0.08ha. This is perhaps because education increases the individuals' ability to access and process information and might increase their profits from seed (Teklewold et al, 2006;Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010).…”

Section: Farmers' Participation In Cbsmementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, results indicate that when the household landholding increased by one hectare, the probability that the producer would choose the formal sources of bean seed for planting increased by 15.8 percent; while that of choosing informal seed source reduced by 23.1 percent (Table 4). Landholding is a surrogate for risk taking, access to information and credit, all of which are positively associated with adoption of new innovations (Feder et al, 1985;Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010).…”

Section: Farmers' Participation In Cbsmementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic performance of community based bean seed production and marketing in the central rift valley of Ethiopia

Tebeka¹,

Katungi²,

Rubyogo³

et al. 2017

Afr. Crop Sci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Farmers' Participation In Cbsmementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Farmers' Participation In Cbsmementioning

confidence: 99%

Economic performance of community based bean seed production and marketing in the central rift valley of Ethiopia

Tebeka¹,

Katungi²,

Rubyogo³

et al. 2017

Afr. Crop Sci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The process of technology adoption and diffusion has been shown to be driven by several factors beyond market mechanisms (Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010). Social interaction effects, comprising both peer and network effects, have been found to play a relevant role for the decision to adopt a technology, in several fields such as agriculture, health prevention and financial decisions (Foster and Rosenzweig, 1995;Conley and Udry, 2010;Kremer and Miguel, 2007;Oster and Thornton, 2012;Godlonton and Thornton, 2012;Duflo and Saez, 2003;Beshears et al, 2015;Bursztyn et al, 2014) 1 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Interaction and Technology Adoption: Experimental Evidence from Improved Cookstoves in Mali

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in SummaryWe investigate the role of social interaction in technology adoption by conducting a field experiment in neighborhoods of Bamako. We invited women to attend a training/marketing session, where information on a more efficient cooking stove was provided and the chance to purchase the product at market price was offered. We randomly provided an information nudge on a peer's willingness to buy an improved cookstove. We find that women purchase and use the product more when they receive information on a peer who purchased (or previously owned) the product, particularly if she is viewed as respected. In general, we find positive direct and spillover effects of attending the session. We also investigate whether social interaction plays a role in technology diffusion. We find that women who participated in the session, but did not buy during the intervention, are more likely to adopt the product when more women living around them own it. We investigate the mechanisms and provide evidence supporting imitation effects, rather than social learning or constraint interaction. AbstractWe investigate the role of social interaction in technology adoption by conducting a field experiment in neighborhoods of Bamako. We invited women to attend a training/marketing session, where information on a more efficient cooking stove was provided and the chance to purchase the product at market price was offered. We randomly provided an information nudge on a peer's willingness to buy an improved cookstove. We find that women purchase and use the product more when they receive information on a peer who purchased (or previously owned) the product, particularly if she is viewed as respected. In general, we find positive direct and spillover effects of attending the session. We also investigate whether social interaction plays a role in technology diffusion. We find that women who participated in the session, but did not buy during the intervention, are more likely to adopt the product when more women living around them own it. We investigate the mechanisms and provide evidence supporting imitation effects, rather than social learning or constraint interaction.

show abstract

“…Several recent studies in economics have shown that both imperfect information and poor institutions impede the adoption of new technologies. In particular, learning about a new crop takes time, and this slows its spread (Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010). Conley and Udry (2010) demonstrate that pineapple farmers in Ghana learn about proper fertilizer use by observing their neighbors' choices and outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Rubber will not keep in this country”: Failed development in Benin, 1897–1921

Fenske

2013

Explorations in Economic History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Nigeria's Benin region was a major rubber producer in 1960. In 1921, however, the government abandoned the industry as a failure. I explain why rubber did not take hold before 1921. British conquest was motivated in part by the region's wild rubber resources. The government was unable to protect Benin's rubber forests from over-exploitation. Expatriate firms were reticent to invest in plantations, and private African plantations remained small. The colonial government promoted the development of "communal" plantations, but these suffered from labor scarcity, a weak state, limited information, and global competition.

show abstract

Microeconomics of Technology Adoption

Cited by 749 publications

References 34 publications

Economic performance of community based bean seed production and marketing in the central rift valley of Ethiopia

Economic performance of community based bean seed production and marketing in the central rift valley of Ethiopia

Social Interaction and Technology Adoption: Experimental Evidence from Improved Cookstoves in Mali

“Rubber will not keep in this country”: Failed development in Benin, 1897–1921

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About