Once bitten, twice shy? Direct and indirect effects of weather shocks on fertilizer and improved seeds use

IF 6.8 1区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Kelvin Mulungu , Dale T. Manning , Martina Bozzola
{"title":"Once bitten, twice shy? Direct and indirect effects of weather shocks on fertilizer and improved seeds use","authors":"Kelvin Mulungu ,&nbsp;Dale T. Manning ,&nbsp;Martina Bozzola","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Evidence suggests that negative weather shocks, such as droughts, can influence input use in agriculture by reducing available income and shaping farmers’ behavioral responses. Yet, the relative importance of these two pathways remains unclear. This study proposes a method to disentangle the direct (behavioral) and indirect (income) effects of a drought shock on the use of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize seed. We employed a two-way fixed-effects regression combined with causal mediation analysis and entropy balancing to account for income endogeneity on a rich farm-level data from 6058 smallholder households in Zambia in 2012 and 2015. Our results show that farmers who experienced a drought in the previous growing season are less likely to use inorganic fertilizer but more likely to use improved seeds. The indirect income effect accounts for approximately 10% of the total effect for both inputs, amplifying the direct effect for inorganic fertilizer while diminishing it for improved seeds. The contribution of the indirect effect increases with the severity of drought shocks, although the direct effect remains the dominant channel. We also provide suggestive evidence that changes in risk aversion drive behavioral responses, while access to credit mitigates the income effect. These results highlight how drought shocks influence the timing and type of technology adopted in agriculture. Understanding the relative importance of these direct and indirect effects offers critical insights for policies aimed at enhancing climate change adaptation and agricultural productivity in the developing world.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 102852"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919225000569","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evidence suggests that negative weather shocks, such as droughts, can influence input use in agriculture by reducing available income and shaping farmers’ behavioral responses. Yet, the relative importance of these two pathways remains unclear. This study proposes a method to disentangle the direct (behavioral) and indirect (income) effects of a drought shock on the use of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize seed. We employed a two-way fixed-effects regression combined with causal mediation analysis and entropy balancing to account for income endogeneity on a rich farm-level data from 6058 smallholder households in Zambia in 2012 and 2015. Our results show that farmers who experienced a drought in the previous growing season are less likely to use inorganic fertilizer but more likely to use improved seeds. The indirect income effect accounts for approximately 10% of the total effect for both inputs, amplifying the direct effect for inorganic fertilizer while diminishing it for improved seeds. The contribution of the indirect effect increases with the severity of drought shocks, although the direct effect remains the dominant channel. We also provide suggestive evidence that changes in risk aversion drive behavioral responses, while access to credit mitigates the income effect. These results highlight how drought shocks influence the timing and type of technology adopted in agriculture. Understanding the relative importance of these direct and indirect effects offers critical insights for policies aimed at enhancing climate change adaptation and agricultural productivity in the developing world.
一朝被蛇咬,十年怕井绳?气候冲击对肥料和改良种子使用的直接和间接影响
有证据表明,干旱等负面天气冲击会减少可用收入并影响农民的行为反应,从而影响农业投入物的使用。然而,这两种途径的相对重要性仍不清楚。本研究提出了一种方法来理清干旱冲击对无机肥料和改良玉米种子使用的直接(行为)和间接(收入)影响。我们采用双向固定效应回归,结合因果中介分析和熵平衡来解释2012年和2015年赞比亚6058个小农家庭的丰富农场数据的收入内生性。我们的研究结果表明,在上一个生长季节经历过干旱的农民不太可能使用无机肥料,而更有可能使用改良种子。间接收入效应约占两种投入总效应的10%,对无机肥料的直接效应放大,而对改良种子的直接效应减弱。间接影响的贡献随着干旱冲击的严重程度而增加,尽管直接影响仍然是主要渠道。我们还提供了启发性的证据,表明风险厌恶的变化驱动了行为反应,而获得信贷则减轻了收入效应。这些结果突出了干旱冲击如何影响农业采用技术的时机和类型。了解这些直接和间接影响的相对重要性,可以为旨在加强发展中国家气候变化适应和农业生产力的政策提供关键见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food Policy
Food Policy 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.60%
发文量
128
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Food Policy is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original research and novel evidence on issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies for the food sector in developing, transition, and advanced economies. Our main focus is on the economic and social aspect of food policy, and we prioritize empirical studies informing international food policy debates. Provided that articles make a clear and explicit contribution to food policy debates of international interest, we consider papers from any of the social sciences. Papers from other disciplines (e.g., law) will be considered only if they provide a key policy contribution, and are written in a style which is accessible to a social science readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信