Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is farmer-to-farmer extension effective? The impact of training on technology adoption and rice farming productivity in Tanzania

Open access
Nakano, Yuko, Tsusaka, Takuji W., Aida, Takeshi, Pede, Valerien O.·2018·World Development
DOI 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Agricultural training is a potentially effective method to diffuse relevant new technologies to increase productivity and alleviate rural poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, since it is prohibitively expensive to provide direct training to all the farmers in SSA, it is critically important to examine the extent to which technologies taught to a small number of farmers disseminate to non-trained farmers. This paper investigates the technology dissemination pathways among smallholder rice producers within a rural irrigation scheme in Tanzania. As an innovative feature, we compare the performance of three categories of farmers: key farmers, who receive intensive pre-season training at a local training center; intermediate farmers, who are trained by the key farmers; and other ordinary farmers. By collecting and analyzing a unique five-year household-level panel data set, we estimate difference-in-differences models to assess how the gap in performance evolve as the technologies spill over from the trained farmers to the ordinary farmers. To disentangle the technology spillover process, we also examine the extent to which social and geographical network with the key and intermediate farmers influences the adoption of technologies by the ordinary farmers, by incorporating social relationship variables into spatial econometric models. We found that the ordinary farmers who were a relative or residential neighbor of a key or intermediate farmer were more likely to adopt new technologies than those who were not. As a result, while the key farmers’ technology adoption rates rose immediately after the training, those of the non-trained ordinary farmers caught up belatedly. As the technologies disseminated, the paddy yield of the key farmers increased from 3.1 to 5.3 tons per hectare, while the yield of the ordinary farmers increased from 2.6 to 3.7 tons per hectare. Our results suggest the effectiveness and practical potential of farmer-to-farmer extension programs for smallholders in SSA as a cost effective alternative to the conventional farmer training approach.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.013

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
Nakano, Y., Tsusaka, T. W., Aida, T., & Pede, V. O.
Venue
World Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
105
Pages
336-351
ISSN
0305-750X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.013
OpenAlex
W2781601264
Cited by
305
References
57
FWCI
50.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.