CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Agricultural Innovations and PracticesAgricultural Development and ManagementAgricultural economics and policies

Social learning to reduce pesticides: Evidence from a French agricultural extension programme

Open access
Deperrois, Rose, Fadhuile, Adélaïde, Subervie, Julie·2026·European Review of Agricultural Economics
DOI 10.1093/erae/jbaf050
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Social learning is likely to play a crucial role in disseminating new agricultural technologies and driving the agroecological transition in European countries. We evaluated a French pesticide reduction programme designed to train farmers and promote practices through demonstration days on participating farms. Using pseudo-panel data from surveys conducted before and after the programme’s launch, we found evidence of decreased pesticide use among cohorts linked to farms attending demonstration days. Our analysis, supported by a placebo test and various robustness checks, suggests that peer-sharing in training programmes can scale up effectively at no additional cost.

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 · 10.1093/erae/jbaf050

Cites

Statistics

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.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Albizua, A., E. M. Bennett, G. Larocque, R. W. Krause, and U. Pascual (2021). Social networks influence farming practices and agrarian sustainability. PloS one 16(1), e0244619.
  2. Bareille, F., R. Chakir, and D. Keles (2024, June). Weather shocks and pesticide purchases. European Review of Agricultural Economics 51(2), 309-353.
  3. Bartolini, F. and D. Vergamini (2019). Understanding the spatial agglomeration of participation in agri- environmental schemes: The case of the tuscany region. Sustainability 11(10), 2753.
  4. Beaman, L., A. BenYishay, J. Magruder, and A. M. Mobarak (2021). Can network theory-based targeting increase technology adoption? American Economic Review 111(6), 1918-1943.
  5. Beaman, L. and A. Dillon (2018). Diffusion of agricultural information within social networks: Evidence on gender inequalities from mali. Journal of Development Economics 133, 147-161.
  6. Beketov, M. A., B. J. Kefford, R. B. Schäfer, and M. Liess (2013). Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(27), 11039-11043.
  7. Bellemare, M. F. and C. J. Wichman (2020). Elasticities and the inverse hyperbolic sine transformation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 82(1), 50-61.
  8. Benyishay, A. and A. M. Mobarak (2019). Social learning and incentives for experimentation and communica- tion. The Review of Economic Studies 86(3), 976-1009.
  9. Brunelle, T., R. Chakir, A. Carpentier, B. Dorin, D. Goll, N. Guilpart, F. Maggi, D. Makowski, T. Nesme, J. Roosen, et al. (2024). Reducing chemical inputs in agriculture requires a system change. Communications Earth & Environment 5(1), 369.
  10. Chabé-Ferret, S., P. Le Coent, V. David-Legleye, and V. Delannoy (2023). Non-monetary incentives to increase enrollment in payments for environmental services. European Review of Agricultural Economics 50(4), 1401- 1427.
  11. Chantre, E. and A. Cardona (2014). Trajectories of french field crop farmers moving toward sustainable farm- ing practices: change, learning, and links with the advisory services. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(5), 573-602.
  12. Chen, J. and J. Roth (2024). Logs with zeros? some problems and solutions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 139(2), 891-936.
  13. Conley, T. G. and C. R. Udry (2010). Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. American Economic Review 100(1), 35-69.
  14. Crane-Droesch, A. (2018). Technology diffusion, outcome variability, and social learning: evidence from a field experiment in Kenya. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100(3), 955-974.
  15. Damalas, C. A. (2021). Farmers' intention to reduce pesticide use: The role of perceived risk of loss in the model of the planned behavior theory. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28(26), 35278-35285.
  16. Deaton, A. (1985). Panel data from time series of cross-sections. Journal of Econometrics 30, 109-126.
  17. Di Falco, S., A. Doku, and A. Mahajan (2020, 1). Peer effects and the choice of adaptation strategies. Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom) 51(1), 17-30.
  18. Dias, M., R. Rocha, and R. R. Soares (2023). Down the river: Glyphosate use in agriculture and birth outcomes of surrounding populations. Review of Economic Studies 90(6), 2943-2981.
  19. Fletcher, J. and H. Noghanibehambari (2024). The siren song of cicadas: early-life pesticide exposure and later-life male mortality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 123, 102903.
  20. Foster, A. D. and M. R. Rosenzweig (1995). Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and technical change in agriculture. Journal of political Economy 103(6), 1176-1209.
  21. Foster, A. D. and M. R. Rosenzweig (2010). Microeconomics of technology adoption. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2(1), 395-424.
  22. Gardes, F., G. J. Duncan, P. Gaubert, M. Gurgand, and C. Starzec (2005). Panel and pseudo-panel estimation of cross-sectional and time series elasticities of food consumption: The case of US and Polish data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 23(2), 242-253.
  23. Genius, M., P. Koundouri, C. Nauges, and V. Tzouvelekas (2014). Information transmission in irrigation technology adoption and diffusion: Social learning, extension services, and spatial effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96(1), 328-344.
  24. Guichard, L., F. Dedieu, M.-H. Jeuffroy, J. M. Meynard, R. Reau, and I. Savini (2017). Le plan eco- phyto de réduction d'usage des pesticides en france: décryptage d'un échec et raisons d'espérer. Cahiers Agricultures 26(1), 1-12.
  25. Guillerm, M. (2017). Pseudo-panel methods and an example of application to household wealth data. Economie et Statistique 491(1), 109-130.
  26. Jacquet, F., J.-P. Butault, and L. Guichard (2011). An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in french field crops. Ecological economics 70(9), 1638-1648.
  27. Krishnan, P. and M. Patnam (2014). Neighbors and extension agents in Ethiopia: Who matters more for technology adoption? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96(1), 308-327.
  28. Läpple, D. and H. Kelley (2015). Spatial dependence in the adoption of organic drystock farming in Ireland. European Review of Agricultural Economics 42(2), 315-337.
  29. Lewis, D. J., B. L. Barham, and B. Robinson (2011). Are there spatial spillovers in the adoption of clean technology? The case of organic dairy farming. Land Economics 87(2), 250-267.
  30. Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies.
  31. Mobius, M. and T. Rosenblat (2014). Social learning in economics. Annual Review of Economics 6(Volume 6, 2014), 827-847.
  32. Moffitt, R. (1993). Identification and estimation of dynamic models with a time series of repeated cross-sections. Journal of Econometrics 59(1-2), 99-123.
  33. Morgan, S. L. (2011). Social learning among organic farmers and the application of the communities of practice framework. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 17(1), 99-112.
  34. Paroissien, E., L. Latruffe, and L. Piet (2021, November). Early exit from business, performance and neighbours' influence: a study of farmers in France. European Review of Agricultural Economics 48(5), 1132-1161.
  35. Sampson, G. S. and E. D. Perry (2019). Peer effects in the diffusion of water-saving agricultural technologies. Agricultural Economics 50(6), 693-706.
  36. Schmidtner, E., C. Lippert, B. Engler, A. M. Häring, J. Aurbacher, and S. Dabbert (2012). Spatial distri- bution of organic farming in Germany: does neighbourhood matter? European Review of Agricultural Economics 39(4), 661-683.
  37. Schmidtner, E., C. Lippert, B. Engler, A. M. Häring, J. Aurbacher, and S. Dabbert (2012, September). Spatial distribution of organic farming in Germany: does neighbourhood matter? European Review of Agricultural Economics 39(4), 661-683.
  38. Verbeek, M. (1996). Pseudo panel data. In The econometrics of panel data, pp. 280-292. Springer.
  39. Yoder, L., A. S. Ward, K. Dalrymple, S. Spak, and R. Lave (2019). An analysis of conservation practice adoption studies in agricultural human-natural systems. Journal of environmental management 236, 490-498.
  40. Zhang, Y., L. Bedoussac, C. Zhang, W.-F. Cong, M. Guinet, R. Nandillon, and N. Munier-Jolain (2024). Pesticide use is affected more by crop species than by crop diversity at the cropping system level. European Journal of Agronomy 159, 127263. Data reference: Enquête PKGC 2021 (http://doi.org/10.34724/CASD.56.5275.V1) Enquête PKGC 2017 (https://doi.org/10.34724/CASD.56.3033.V1) Enquête PhytoGC 2014 (https://doi.org/10.34724/CASD.162.1639.V1) Enquête PKGC 2011 (https://doi.org/10.34724/CASD.56.310.V1) Enquête PKGC 2006 (https://doi.org/10.34724/CASD.56.309.V1) · DOI

Related

Authors
Deperrois, R., Fadhuile, A., & Subervie, J.
Affiliations
  • Institut polytechnique de Grenoble (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Deperrois, Rose
ORCID
Venue
European Review of Agricultural Economics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2025-10-29
Volume
52
Issue
5
Pages
1089-1141
ISSN
  • 0165-1587 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3618
DOI
10.1093/erae/jbaf050
OpenAlex
W4407393808
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Review of Agricultural Economics (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • ANR
  • French National Research Agency
  • FAST (20-PCPA-0005)
  • Investissements d’avenir’ programme (ANR-15-IDEX-0002)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
Keywords
social learning, pesticide reduction, agricultural extension, farmer training, agroecological transition, peer learning, technology diffusion, placebo tests, French agricultural policy

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