The importance of efficient use in the adoption of technology: A micro panel data analysis
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Kalirajan (1991) found that technical efficiency across the sample farms ranged from 53% to 95% with a mean of 69.3%.
“technical efficiency across the sample farms ranged from 53% to 95% with a mean of 69.3%”
From Efficiency Analysis of Developing Country Agriculture: A Review of the Frontier Function Literature (1993) · cites this paper as Kalirajan (1991)
Kalirajan (1991) found that access to extension services and confidence in the technology were the major determinants of technical efficiency at the farm level.
“access to extension services and confidence in the technology (technical advice) were the major determinants of technical efficiency at the farm level”
From Efficiency Analysis of Developing Country Agriculture: A Review of the Frontier Function Literature (1993) · cites this paper as Kalirajan (1991)
Kalirajan (1991) found that TE measures for a given firm did not change significantly over time.
“TE measures for a given firm did not change significantly over time”
From Efficiency Analysis of Developing Country Agriculture: A Review of the Frontier Function Literature (1993) · cites this paper as Kalirajan (1991)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Efficiency Analysis of Developing Country Agriculture: A Review of the Frontier Function Literature
Bravo-Ureta, B. E., & Pinheiro, A. E. (1993) · Agricultural and Resource Economics Review · doi:10.1017/s1068280500000320 · Cited by 486 · see citing works
Technical efficiency in developing country agriculture: a meta‐analysis
Thiam, A., Bravo‐Ureta, B. E., & Rivas, T. E. (2001) · Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb00204.x · Cited by 297 · see citing works
“Battese and Coelli (1995) India Whole farm 15 82 Battese et al. (1986) Pakistan Wheat 499 68 Battese and Tessema (1993) India Crops 35 84 Dawson et al. (1991) Philippines Rice 22 89 Kalirajan (1991) India Rice 30 69 Kalirajan and Shand (1989) India Rice 34 70 Average 77”
BackgroundAhmad, M., & Bravo-Ureta, B. E. (1996) · Journal of Productivity Analysis · doi:10.1007/bf00162049 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kalirajan, K. P.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Kalirajan, K. P.
- ORCID
- Kalirajan, K. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Productivity Analysis
- Published
- 1991-07
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 113-126
- ISSN
- 0895-562X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0441
- OpenAlex
- W2060270413
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 11.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Productivity Analysis (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Economics and Practices
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Development and Management
- Keywords
- technology adoption, rice technology, Green Revolution, agricultural productivity, agricultural extension, farmer education, food shortages, South India
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
