The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk preferences, production contracts and technology adoption by broiler farmers in China
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“The positive regression and correlations between education and technology use and adoption hypothesized and proposed in previous studies [72-74].”
From A Study of the Adoption and Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): Identification of Moderators and Mediator (2020) · cites this paper as [74]
In the citing paper
“The results are not consistent with the thoughts of earlier studies [72-74].”
From A Study of the Adoption and Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): Identification of Moderators and Mediator (2020) · cites this paper as [74]
Citations
Cites
Agricultural Development: An International Perspective.
Hallett, G., Hayami, Y., & Rutton, V. W. (1972) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2230054 · Cited by 2,316
Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana
Conley, T. G., & Udry, C. R. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.35 · Cited by 2,180
Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India
Binswanger, H. P. D. (1980) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.2307/1240194 · Cited by 1,645
Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.557 · Cited by 1,079
Investment and Wages in the Absence of Binding Contracts: A Nash Bargaining Approach
Grout, P. A. (1984) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911498 · Cited by 969
Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_1 · Cited by 746
Liu, E. M. (2012) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00295 · Cited by 607
Attitudes Toward Risk Among Peasants: An Econometric Approach
Moscardi, E., & de Janvry, A. (1977) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.2307/1239398 · Cited by 334
The Diffusion of New Agricultural Technologies: The Case of Crossbred‐Cow Technology in Tanzania
Abdulai, A., & Huffman, W. E. (2005) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00753.x · Cited by 325
The Transition to Modern Agriculture: Contract Farming in Developing Economies
Wang, H. H., Wang, Y., & Delgado, M. S. (2014) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/ajae/aau036 · Cited by 265
Miranda, A., & Rabe‐Hesketh, S. (2006) · The Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0600600301 · Cited by 259
The role of education in facilitating risk-taking and innovation in agriculture
Knight, J., Weir, S., & Woldehanna, T. (2003) · The Journal of Development Studies · doi:10.1080/00220380312331293567 · Cited by 233
An analysis of contract farming in East Java, Bali, and Lombok, Indonesia
Simmons, P., Winters, P., & Patrick, I. (2005) · Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1574-0864.2005.00096.x · Cited by 217
Risk Preferences and the Economics of Contracts
Allen, D. W., & Lueck, D. (1995) · American Economic Review · Cited by 194
Risk preferences, technology adoption and insurance uptake: A framed experiment
Brick, K., & Visser, M. (2015) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2015.02.010 · Cited by 171
“Don't Count Your Chickens...”: Risk and Risk Shifting in the Broiler Industry
Knoeber, C. R., & Thurman, W. N. (1995) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.2307/1243218 · Cited by 162
Hao, J., Bijman, J., Gardebroek, C., Heerink, N., Heijman, W., & Huo, X. (2017) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.11.004 · Cited by 159
Stochastic Technology, Risk Preferences, and Adoption of Site‐Specific Technologies
Işık, M., & Khanna, M. (2003) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00121 · Cited by 155
Duration Analysis of Technological Adoption in Ethiopian Agriculture
Dadi, L., Burton, M. P., & Ozanne, A. (2004) · Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2004.tb00117.x · Cited by 144
Production Contracts and Productivity in the U.S. Hog Sector
Key, N., & McBride, W. D. (2003) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00107 · Cited by 137
Coordination of channel members’ efforts and utilities in contract farming operations
Niu, B., Jin, D., & Pu, X. (2016) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.05.064 · Cited by 124
Toward an Understanding of Technology Adoption: Risk, Learning, and Neighborhood Effects
Baerenklau, K. A. (2005) · Land Economics · doi:10.3368/le.81.1.1 · Cited by 111
Is contract farming a risk management instrument for Chinese farmers?
Wang, H. H., Zhang, Y., & Wu, L. (2011) · China Agricultural Economic Review · doi:10.1108/17561371111192347 · Cited by 82
Simtowe, F. P., ., J. M., ., A. P., et al. (2006) · Journal of Applied Sciences · doi:10.3923/jas.2006.1490.1498 · Cited by 75
FARMERS' PREFERENCES FOR CROP CONTRACTS
Lajili, K., Barry, P. J., Sonka, S. T., et al. (1997) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.30859 · Cited by 66
Oligopsony Power, Asset Specificity, and Hold‐Up: Evidence from the Broiler Industry
Vukina, T., & Leegomonchai, P. (2006) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00881.x · Cited by 61
Marenya, P., Smith, V. H., & Nkonya, E. M. (2014) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/ajae/aat117 · Cited by 59
Risk Preferences and Contracting In the U.S. Hog Industry
Johnson, C. S., & Foster, K. A. (1994) · Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics · doi:10.1017/s1074070800026328 · Cited by 51
Ross, N., Santos, P., & Capon, T. (2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.126492 · Cited by 38
The development of trust and social capital in rural Uganda: An experimental approachPreprint
Mosley, P., & Verschoor, A. (2005) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 21
On the (Mis)Use of Wealth as a Proxy for Risk Aversion
Bellemare, M. F., & Brown, Z. S. (2010) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/ajae/aap006 · Cited by 20
The adoption of new technology by the farmers in Taiwan
Chang, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-H. (2015) · Applied Economics · doi:10.1080/00036846.2015.1019035 · Cited by 18
Production Contracts and Farm Business Growth and Survival
Key, N. (2013) · Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics · doi:10.1017/s1074070800004740 · Cited by 18
Hobbs, J. E., & Young, L. M. (1999) · Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7976.1999.tb00460.x · Cited by 16
Optimal risk in agricultural contracts
Ligon, E. A. (2003) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(02)00069-0 · Cited by 16
Competitive Pressure and Technology Adoption: Evidence from a Policy Reform in Western Canada
Ferguson, S., & Olfert, M. R. (2015) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/ajae/aav018 · Cited by 14
Hobbs, J. E., Young, L. M., Hobbs, J. E., et al. (1999) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.29166 · Cited by 12
Haji, J. (2010) · Journal of African Economies · doi:10.1093/jae/ejq012 · Cited by 11
Values, Institutions and Governance: Global, National and Local
Hedley, D. D. (1999) · Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7976.1999.tb00469.x · Cited by 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Uddin, M. A., Alam, M. S., Mamun, A. A., Khan, T.-U.-Z., & Akter, A. (2020) · Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc6010002 · Cited by 98
“Accordingly, the education of ERP users might influence their choices to use and adoption of technology [74].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Mao, H., Zhou, L., Ifft, J., & Ying, R.
- Affiliations
- Nanjing Agricultural University (CN)
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zhou, Li
- Venue
- China Economic Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-04
- Volume
- 54
- Pages
- 147-159
- ISSN
- 1043-951X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2898525746
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 12.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- China Economic Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (71573130, 71203094)
- The Qing Lan Project
- The Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)
- China Center for Food Security Studies
- Nanjing Agricultural University
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Agricultural risk and resilience
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Development and Management
- Keywords
- farmer risk preferences, risk aversion, production contracts, technology adoption, broiler farmers, poultry farming, contract terms, cost sharing, credit constraints, technology investment
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
