ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Determinants of Improved Agricultural Technology Adoption in Ethiopia Feiruz Yimer and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse

IFPRI ESSP

Ethiopian Economics Association 13th International Conference on the Ethiopian EconomyJuly 23-25, 2015Addis Ababa

1

2

Introduction

• Adoption of improved and modern agricultural technologies is the most common method for achieving higher agricultural production (driver for ‘Green Revolution’)

• Use of fertilizer and improved seed are the most commonly used modern agricultural technologies in Ethiopia

• Use of fertilizer covers 52.6 percent while improved seed is applied on only 7.3 percent of the cultivated area (CSA, 2014)

3

Literature• Use of chemical fertilizer and the intensity of

use (Croppenstedt et. al., 2003; Yu and Nin-pratt, 2014; and Beshir et. al., 2012)

• The factors that determine the practice of land management (Wossen et. al., 2015 and Gebremedhin and Swinton, 2003)

• These studies focus on a single agricultural technology.

• So, it is important to look at the use the technologies in package form or the inter-linkage between the technologies adopted.

4

Research Questions

1. What determines the use of improved agricultural technologies?

2. Are improved agricultural technologies complementary or substitutes?

3. What determines farmer’s adoption of a given improved technology or a combination of technologies?

5

Data and Methodology

Feed the Future baseline data set (2013)• 7011 households but used only 5904

households• Five regions: Tigray, Amhara, Oromiya,

SNNP and Somalia• 84 weredas• 244 enumeration areas

Descriptive analysis Econometrics• Multivariate probit analysis• Ordered probit analysis

Dependent variables are improved technology adoption variables: Use of fertilizer, improved seed, soil and water conservation, chemicals and row planting

Explanatory variables:1. Demographic variables: age, gender,

household size, education …2. Wealth status: Households classified into

five wealth quintiles3. Other: Extension service, distance to

market, distance to land, …

Synthesis of variables

Technology use by gender of household head

Fertilizer Improved seed

Soil and water conser

Row planting Chemical0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Female Male

CategoryFertilize

rImproved

seed

Soil & water

conservation

Chemical

Row Plantin

g

Age of head

Youth 52.2 22.0 44.6 24.6 52.8

Matured 52.7 21.5 42.1 24.4 55.3

test     *   *

Literate

No 48.0 19.0 40.2 21.5 51.9

Yes 60.0 26.1 47.7 29.4 58.5

test *** *** *** *** ***

Market Access

No 37.4 11.2 46.1 12.4 38.8

Yes 55.7 23.4 42.7 27.5 56.5

test *** *** * *** ***

Extension

No 45.0 16.3 40.4 48.8 22.0

Yes 62.3 28.8 46.4 61.6 27.6

test *** *** *** *** ***

Cont. Descriptive

• The proportion of women that use improved technologies is lower compared to men.

• Higher proportion of young household heads implement soil and water conservation technologies

• Larger proportion of literate households adopt the technologies

• Market access and extension service are associated with higher proportion of households adopting the technologies

Discussion

10

Cont.Improved technology use by wealth quintile and gender of the headTechnologie

s UseWealth Quintile

1 2 3 4 5

Fertilizer use

Female 31.5 50.6 49.3 57.3 63.3Male 40.6 53.1 53.8 57.1 64.6 test ***        

Improved seed

Female 13.6 20.3 22.6 25.9 30.6Male 15.3 15.4 19.7 25.2 31.2 test   **      

Soil and water

conservation

Female 28.8 30.3 39.2 39.2 50.6Male 29.7 41.1 48.3 49.6 55.5 test   ** *** ***  

Row Planting

Female 49.4 53.9 50.3 57.3 67.2Male 52.4 54.0 51.3 56.9 57.3 test         **

Chemical

Female 10.7 28.4 18.2 29.8 36.7Male 15.1 23.0 23.0 25.4 36.7test ** * *    

Discussion

• Association of wealth with the adoption of improved agricultural technologies

• Share of households who use the improved technologies increases as wealth increases

• Within each wealth quintile, the proportion of women who adopt improved technologies is mostly lower than the men

12

Result: Estimated covariance matrix of multivariate probit

  FertilizerImproved seed

Soil & water

conservation

Row planting

Improved seed

0.396      

***      

Soil & water conservation

0.135 0.200    

*** ***    

Row planting0.152 0.402 0.153  

*** *** ***  

Chemical0.353 0.309 0.044 0.061

*** ***  

Likelihood ratio test chi2(15) = 781.04 Prob > chi2 = 0.000

13

Result: Multivariate probit model

VariablesFertilizer

Improved seed

Soil & water conservation

Row planting

Chemical

ln(land) 2.338*** 1.034** 1.603*** 1.087*** 0.875*

ln(land sq.)-1.008*** -0.478** -0.791***

-0.648***  

Good(lem) soil prop -0.418**   -0.874***    medium(lemtef)soil prop     -0.514***    Extension 0.639*** 0.736*** 0.223* 0.496***  Distance to land -0.003**     -0.003*  Dist. Periodic market -0.014***   -0.008*   -0.021***Wealth quintile 2 0.234*** 0.146*     0.312***Wealth quintile 3 0.259*** 0.245*** 0.323*** 0.146* 0.297***Wealth quintile 4 0.451*** 0.436*** 0.342*** 0.281*** 0.485***Wealth quintile 5 0.526*** 0.610*** 0.510*** 0.378*** 0.693***Cereal land prop.   0.472** -0.353**    Off farm   0.500***   0.426** 0.377*Non-farm 0.284***        

Discussion

• The improved agricultural technologies are complementary.

• The larger the farm land size the lower the probability in adopting improved technologies.

• Extension service contributes positively• Distance of the periodic market discourages

the use of the technologies• Wealth of the households is associated with

positive likelihood of using the improved technologies

• The households in the highest quintile have higher probability in use of the improved technologies.

Variables Coefficient

Marginal Effects

Prob(Y=0|XProb(Y=1|X  

Prob(Y=4|X

Prob(Y=5|X

Illitetate -0.192*** 0.029*** 0.044*** -0.026*** -0.008***No. working members 0.059*** -0.009*** -0.013*** 0.008*** 0.002***ln(land size) 1.572*** -0.247*** -0.353*** 0.205*** 0.063***ln(land squared) -0.735*** 0.115*** 0.165*** -0.096*** -0.030***Good(lem) land prop. -0.304** 0.048* 0.068** -0.040* -0.012*Extension 0.390*** -0.061*** -0.087*** 0.051*** 0.017***Dist. Peroidic market -0.014*** 0.002*** 0.003*** -0.002*** -0.001**Wealth quintile 2 0.292*** -0.041*** -0.067*** 0.041*** 0.014**Wealth quintile 3 0.326*** -0.045*** -0.075*** 0.047*** 0.016***Wealth quintile 4 0.483*** -0.062*** -0.111*** 0.072*** 0.027***Wealth quintile 5 0.646*** -0.079*** -0.147*** 0.099*** 0.040***Cereal land prop. 0.349* -0.055* -0.078* 0.045* 0.014*Root crop land prop. 0.662** -0.104** -0.149** 0.086** 0.027**Off-farm 0.289* -0.037* -0.067* 0.043 0.016Storm 0.314*** -0.042*** -0.073*** 0.046*** 0.016**Plant damage 0.227*** -0.034*** -0.051*** 0.031*** 0.010**

Result: Ordered probit model

Discussion

• Being illiterate decreases the probability of adopting four technologies

• There is a threshold for which probability of adopting combination of technologies decline with land size

• Distance to market and good quality (‘lem’) soil land proportion decreases the probability of adopting more technologies

• With wealth the probability of using more technologies increases

17

• There is strong complementarity between improved agricultural technologies

• Female headed households adopt less• with wealth the likelihood of adopting a

given technology and a package of technologies increases

• The further households are destined from the market, the lower the likelihood of adopting a group of technologies

Conclusion