Confidence and information usage: Evidence from soil testing in India

IF 4.9 2区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Jared Gars, Ram Fishman, Avinash Kishore, Yoav Rothler, Patrick S. Ward
{"title":"Confidence and information usage: Evidence from soil testing in India","authors":"Jared Gars,&nbsp;Ram Fishman,&nbsp;Avinash Kishore,&nbsp;Yoav Rothler,&nbsp;Patrick S. Ward","doi":"10.1111/ajae.12513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Informational barriers are often considered to be a major constraint to the adoption of improved farming practices, inputs, and technologies by smallholder farmers. In the Indian context, it is widely believed that farmers misapply chemical fertilizers because they lack scientific information on soil conditions and corresponding fertilizer recommendations, thus resulting in imbalanced and potentially detrimental fertilizer application. Policymakers are frequently interested in providing farmers with various streams of information to overcome these informational barriers to optimize farming activities. However, such informational interventions frequently fail either because generic recommendations may be ill-suited for decision makers in highly heterogeneous agricultural environments or because farmers' beliefs may be so entrenched as to make them unresponsive to new information. We implemented a field experiment in Bihar, India to test whether plot-specific fertilizer recommendations affect farmers' fertilizer use. We find little evidence for sizable impacts on fertilizer use in general, though impacts are more apparent for low cost or costless recommendations such as increasing the use of highly subsidized fertilizers or shifting the timing of application. Despite modest evidence of such effects, even those fall short of their potential magnitude. We show that treated farmers who are less confident in their subjective beliefs about optimal fertilizer application rates (i.e., with more disperse priors) are more responsive to the recommendations and have a higher ex ante willingness to pay for soil testing. These results suggest that heterogeneity in beliefs may constrain the overall effectiveness of information provision, even when the information is tailored to individual farms.</p>","PeriodicalId":55537,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"107 5","pages":"1406-1437"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajae.12513","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajae.12513","RegionNum":2,"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

Informational barriers are often considered to be a major constraint to the adoption of improved farming practices, inputs, and technologies by smallholder farmers. In the Indian context, it is widely believed that farmers misapply chemical fertilizers because they lack scientific information on soil conditions and corresponding fertilizer recommendations, thus resulting in imbalanced and potentially detrimental fertilizer application. Policymakers are frequently interested in providing farmers with various streams of information to overcome these informational barriers to optimize farming activities. However, such informational interventions frequently fail either because generic recommendations may be ill-suited for decision makers in highly heterogeneous agricultural environments or because farmers' beliefs may be so entrenched as to make them unresponsive to new information. We implemented a field experiment in Bihar, India to test whether plot-specific fertilizer recommendations affect farmers' fertilizer use. We find little evidence for sizable impacts on fertilizer use in general, though impacts are more apparent for low cost or costless recommendations such as increasing the use of highly subsidized fertilizers or shifting the timing of application. Despite modest evidence of such effects, even those fall short of their potential magnitude. We show that treated farmers who are less confident in their subjective beliefs about optimal fertilizer application rates (i.e., with more disperse priors) are more responsive to the recommendations and have a higher ex ante willingness to pay for soil testing. These results suggest that heterogeneity in beliefs may constrain the overall effectiveness of information provision, even when the information is tailored to individual farms.

Abstract Image

信心和信息使用:来自印度土壤测试的证据
信息障碍通常被认为是小农采用改良耕作方法、投入物和技术的主要制约因素。在印度,人们普遍认为农民滥用化肥是因为他们缺乏关于土壤条件和相应肥料建议的科学信息,从而导致化肥施用不平衡和潜在的有害。决策者往往有兴趣向农民提供各种信息流,以克服这些信息障碍,优化农业活动。然而,这种信息干预经常失败,要么是因为一般建议可能不适合高度异质的农业环境中的决策者,要么是因为农民的信念可能如此根深蒂固,使他们对新信息没有反应。我们在印度比哈尔邦实施了一项田间试验,以测试针对特定地块的肥料建议是否会影响农民的肥料使用。我们发现很少有证据表明总体上对肥料使用有相当大的影响,尽管低成本或无成本的建议,如增加高补贴肥料的使用或改变施用时间,影响更为明显。尽管这种影响的证据不多,但即使是这些影响也没有达到其潜在的程度。我们发现,那些对最佳肥料施用量的主观信念不太自信的农民(即,具有更分散的先验)对建议的反应更积极,并且有更高的事先支付土壤测试的意愿。这些结果表明,信念的异质性可能会限制信息提供的总体有效性,即使信息是针对个别农场量身定制的。
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
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
77
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Agricultural Economics provides a forum for creative and scholarly work on the economics of agriculture and food, natural resources and the environment, and rural and community development throughout the world. Papers should relate to one of these areas, should have a problem orientation, and should demonstrate originality and innovation in analysis, methods, or application. Analyses of problems pertinent to research, extension, and teaching are equally encouraged, as is interdisciplinary research with a significant economic component. Review articles that offer a comprehensive and insightful survey of a relevant subject, consistent with the scope of the Journal as discussed above, will also be considered. All articles published, regardless of their nature, will be held to the same set of scholarly standards.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书