The Impact of Agricultural Technologies on Poverty and Vulnerability of Smallholders in Ethiopia: A Panel Data Analysis
The Impact of Agricultural Technologies on Poverty and Vulnerability of Smallholders in Ethiopia: A Panel Data Analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11205-019-02166-0
复制
发表时间：
2020-01-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Loos, Tim K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Biru, Wubneshe Dessalegn;Zeller, Manfred;Loos, Tim K.
许多评估采用对福利的影响的研究都集中于单一技术的采用，而很少关注农业技术之间的互补性/替代性。然而，小农通常一次采用多种互补技术，他们的采用决策最好通过多元模型来表征。因此，本文探讨了多种互补技术的采用对埃塞俄比亚小农的消费、贫困和脆弱性的影响。该研究使用了从 2012 年、2014 年和 2016 年收集的 390 个农户调查中获得的平衡面板数据。采用两阶段多项式内生转换回归模型结合 Mundlak 方法和平衡面板数据来解释采用决策中未观察到的异质性以及家庭和农场特征的差异。使用有序概率模型来分析对贫困和脆弱性的影响。我们发现，采用改进的技术会显着增加消费支出，并且当农民结合多种互补技术时，会产生最大的影响。同样，随着不同补充技术的采用，家庭继续贫困或脆弱的可能性也随之降低。因此，我们得出的结论是，采用多种互补技术具有显着的动态效益，可以改善研究区域小农的福利，并且考虑到所观察到的采用率水平较低，我们建议有必要进行更多干预，特别关注贫困和弱势家庭，以确保小农获得改善其投入使用的支持。
Many studies evaluating the impact of adoption on welfare focused on adoption of a single technology giving little attention on the complementarity/substitutability among agricultural technologies. Yet, smallholders commonly adopt several complementary technologies at a time and their adoption decision is best characterized by multivariate models. This paper, therefore, examines the impact of multiple complementary technologies adoption on consumption, poverty and vulnerability of smallholders in Ethiopia. The study used a balanced panel data obtained from a survey of 390 farm households collected in 2012, 2014 and 2016. A two stage multinomial endogenous switching regression model combined with the Mundlak approach and balanced panel data is employed to account for unobserved heterogeneity for the adoption decision and differences in household and farm characteristics. An ordered probit model is used to analyze the impact on poverty and vulnerability. We find that the adoption of improved technologies increases consumption expenditure significantly and the greatest impact is attained when farmers combine multiple complementary technologies. Similarly, the likelihood of households to remain poor or vulnerable decreased with the adoption of different complementary technologies. We therefore conclude that the adoption of multiple complementary technologies has substantial dynamic benefits that improve the welfare of smallholders in the study area, and given the observed low level of adoption rates, we suggest that much more intervention is warranted, with a special focus on poorer and vulnerable households, to ensure smallholders get support to improve their input use.