Adoption of New Sorghum Varieties in Mali Through a Participatory Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Traditional Determinants of Adoption
2.2. Participation, Sustainability, and Varietal Adoption
3. Methods
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Econometric Strategy
3.3. Variables of the Model
3.3.1. Participation Intensity
3.3.2. Plot Manager and Household Characteristics
3.3.3. Plot Characteristics
3.3.4. Market Characteristics
3.3.5. Instrumental Variables
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Analysis
4.2. Regressions Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Chi, T.T.N.; Yamada, R. Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of technologies in farming system: A case study in Omon district, Can Tho province, Mekong Delta. Omonrice 2002, 10, 94–100. [Google Scholar]
- Feder, G.; Just, R.E.; Zilberman, D. Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 1985, 33, 255–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feder, G.; Umali, D.L. The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1993, 43, 215–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazile, D. State-farmer partnerships for seed diversity in Mali. Gatekeeper Ser. 2006, 127, 22. [Google Scholar]
- Matlon, P.J. Improving Productivity in Sorghum and Pearl Millet in Semi-Arid Africa; Working Paper; Food Research Institute Studies, Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 1990; pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
- Rattunde, H.F.W.; Weltzien, E.; Diallo, B.; Diallo, A.G.; Sidibe, M.; Touré, A.O.; Rathore, A.; Das, R.R.; Leiser, W.L.; Touré, A. Yield of Photoperiod-sensitive Sorghum Hybrids Based on Guinea-race Germplasm under Farmers’ Field Conditions in Mali. Crop Sci. 2013, 53, 2454–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abakemal, D.; Hussein, S.; Derera, J.; Laing, M. Farmers’ Perceptions of Maize Production Systems and Breeding Priorities, and Their Implications for the Adoption of New Varieties in Selected Areas of the Highland Agro-Ecology of Ethiopia. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 5, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulibaly, H.; Bazile, D.; Sidibe, A. Modelling Seed System Networks in Mali to Improve Farmers Seed Supply. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2014, 3, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO; ICRISAT. L’économie Mondiale du Sorgho et du Mil: Faits, Tendances et Perspectives. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/W1808F/W1808F00.htm (accessed on 4 October 2016).
- Kergna, A.; Smale, M.; Assima, A.; Diallo, A.; Weltzien, E.; Rattunde, F. The potential economic impact of Guinea-race sorghum hybrids in Mali: A comparison of research and development paradigms. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2017, 12, 17–34. [Google Scholar]
- Smale, M.; Assima, A.; Kergna, A.; Theriault, V.; Weltzien, E. Farm family effects of adopting improved and hybrid sorghum seed in the Sudan Savanna of West Africa. Food Policy 2018, 74, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yapi, A.; Kergna, A.; Debrah, S.; Sidibe, A.; Sanogo, O. Analysis of the Economic Impact of Sorghum and Millet Research in Mali; International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics: Andhra Pradesh, India, 2000; p. 60. [Google Scholar]
- Ashby, J.A.; Lilja, N. Participatory Research: Does it Work? Evidence from Participatory Plant Breeding. In Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 September–1 October 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Chiffoleau, Y.; Desclaux, D. Participatory plant breeding: The best way to breed for sustainable agriculture? Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2006, 4, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhoades, R.; Booth, R. Farmer-Back-To-Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable Agricultural Technology. Agric. Adm. 1982, 11, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weltzien, R.; Eva, S.; Margaret, E.; Meitzner, L.S.; Sperling, L. Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding-from the Perspective of Formal Plant Breeding: A Global Analysis of Issues, Results, and Current Experience; Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Program (PRGA): Cali, CO, USA, 2003; p. 208. [Google Scholar]
- Witcombe, J.R.; Joshi, A.; Joshi, K.D.; Sthapit, B.R. Farmer Participatory Crop Improvement. I. Varietal Selection and Breeding Methods and Their Impact on Biodiversity. Exp. Agric. 1996, 32, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeweld, W.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Tesfay, G.; Speelman, S. Smallholder farmers’ behavioural intentions towards sustainable agricultural practices. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 187, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christinck, A.; Rattunde, F.; Mulinge, W.; Weltzien, E. Identifying Options for the Development of Sustainable Seed Systems: Insights from Kenya and Mali; ZEF Working Paper Series No. 165; University of Bonn: Bonn, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Weltzien, E.; Sidibe, M.; Diallo, B.; Traore, Y.; Coulibaly, M.; vom Brocke, K.; Jones, K.; Ehret, M.; Niccoleau, A.; Somé, H.; et al. Seed Systems II: Sustaining Farmer Managed Seed Initiatives for Sorghum and Pearl Millet in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso; Project Report; ICRISAT: Patancheru, India, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Barro-Kondombo, C.P.; Vom Brocke, K.; Chantereau, J.; Sagnard, F.; Zongo, J.-D. Variabilité phénotypique des sorghos locaux de deux régions du Burkina Faso: La Boucle du Mouhoun et le Centre-Ouest. Cah. Agric. 2008, 17, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haussmann, B.I.G.; Fred Rattunde, H.; Weltzien-Rattunde, E.; Traoré, P.S.C.; vom Brocke, K.; Parzies, H.K. Breeding Strategies for Adaptation of Pearl Millet and Sorghum to Climate Variability and Change in West Africa. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2012, 198, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Touré, A.; Traoré, K.; Bengaly, A.; Scheuring, J.; Rosenow, D.; Rooney, L. The potential of local cultivars in sorghum improvement in Mali. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 1998, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folkertsma, R.T.; Rattunde, H.F.W.; Chandra, S.; Raju, G.S.; Hash, C.T. The pattern of genetic diversity of Guinea-race Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench landraces as revealed with SSR markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2005, 111, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doss, C.R.; Morris, M.L. How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. Agric. Econ. 2001, 25, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nuijten, H.; Temudo, M.; Richards, P.; Okry, F.; Teeken, B.; Mokuwa, G.; Struik, P. Towards a new approach for understanding interactions of technology with environment and society in small-scale rice farming. In Realizing Africa’s Rice Promise; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2013; pp. 355–366. [Google Scholar]
- Smale, M.; Just, R.; Leathers, H. Land allocation in HYV adoption models: An investigation of alternative explanations. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76, 534–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camara, Y.; Bantilan, M.; Ndjeunga, J. Impacts of sorghum and millet research in West and Central Africa (WCA): A synthesis and lessons learnt. J. SAT Agric. Res. 2006, 2, 1–39. [Google Scholar]
- Sanogo, O.; Teme, B. Impact Assessment of On-farm Trials Conducted at the Cinzana Research Station. In Proceedings of the Partners in Impact Assessment: Summary Proceedings of the ICRISAT/NARS Workshop on Methods and Joint Impact Targets in Western and Central Africa, Samanko, Mali, 11–12 May 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Ndjeunga, J.; Mausch, K.; Simtowe, F. Assessing the Effectiveness of Agricultural R&D for Groundnut, Pearl Millet, Pigeonpea, and Sorghum in West and Central Africa and Eastern and Southern Africa. In Crop Improvement, Adoption, and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa; Walker, T.S., Alwang, J., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ndjeunga, J.; Bantilan, M.C.S. Uptake of Improved Technologies in the Semi-arid Tropics of West Africa: Why is Agricultural Transformation Lagging Behind? eJADE 2005, 2, 85–102. [Google Scholar]
- Bandiera, O.; Rasul, I. Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique. Econ. J. 2006, 116, 869–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Besley, T.; Case, A. Diffusion as a Learning Process: Evidence from HYV Cotton; Working Paper No. 174; Research Program in Development Studies; Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Conley, T.G.; Udry, C.R. Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 35–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munshi, K. Social learning in a heterogeneous population: Technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution. J. Dev. Econ. 2004, 73, 185–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Souza, A.; Mishra, A.K. Adoption and Abandonment of Partial Conservation Technologies in Developing Economies: The Case of South Asia. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alademerin, E.A. Rural Innovations and knowledge systems development and dissemination among cassava cooperative farmers in Southern Nigeria. In Science, Technology and Innovation: For Sustainable Future in the Global South; Muchie, M., Desta, A., Mengesha, M., Eds.; Africa World Press: Trenton, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 27–47. [Google Scholar]
- Arslan, A.; Belotti, F.; Lipper, L. Smallholder productivity and weather shocks: Adoption and impact of widely promoted agricultural practices in Tanzania. Food Policy 2017, 69, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walisinghe, B.; Ratnasiri, S.; Rohde, N.; Guest, R. Does agricultural extension promote technology adoption in Sri Lanka. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2017, 44, 2173–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theriault, V.; Smale, M.; Haider, H. How Does Gender Affect Sustainable Intensification of Cereal Production in the West African Sahel? Evidence from Burkina Faso. World Dev. 2017, 92, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katungi, E.; Edmeades, S.; Smale, M. Gender, social capital and information exchange in rural Uganda. J. Int. Dev. 2008, 20, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Angarawai, I.I.; Bukar, B.; Olabanji, O.G.; Iro, N.; Haussmann, B.G.; Weltzien, E.V.; Gwadi, K.W.; Gubio, T.; Yahaya, Y. Farmer participatory varietal selection in pearl millet: Experience across some states of Northern Nigeria. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 1421–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Almekinders, C.J.M.; Thiele, G.; Danial, D.L. Can cultivars from participatory plant breeding improve seed provision to small-scale farmers? Euphytica 2007, 153, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weltzien, E.; Kanouté, M.; Toure, A.; Rattunde, F.; Diallo, B.; Sissoko, I.; Sangare, A.; Siart, S. Sélection participative des variétés de sorgho à l’aide d’essais multilocaux dans deux zones cibles. Cah. Agric. 2008, 17, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiulele, R.; Mwangi, G.; Tongoona, P.; Ehlers, J.; Ndeve, A. Assessment of farmers’ perceptions and preferences of cowpea in Mozambique. In Proceedings of the 10th African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, Maputo, Mozambique, 10–13 October 2011; pp. 311–318. [Google Scholar]
- Haugerud, A.; Collinson, M.P. Plants, Genes and People: Improving the Relevance of Plant Breeding in Africa. Exp. Agric. 1990, 26, 341–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amane, M.; Dias, D.; Chirwa, R.; Rubyogo, J.; Tembo, F. Using innovative approaches in selecting and disseminating bean varieties in Mozambique: Lessons learnt. In Proceedings of the 10th African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, Maputo, Mozambique, 10–13 October 2011; pp. 283–286. [Google Scholar]
- Adesina, A.A.; Baidu-Forson, J. Farmers’ Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural Technology: Evidence from Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agric. Econ. 1995, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diagne, A. Diffusion and Adoption of Nerica Rice Varieties in Côte D’ivoire. Dev. Econ. 2006, 44, 208–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiiza, B.; Kisembo, L.G.; Mwanga, R.O.M. Participatory plant breeding and selection impact on adoption of improved sweetpotato varieties in Uganda. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2012, A2, 673–681. [Google Scholar]
- Umar, S.; Musa, M.W.; Kamsang, L. Determinants of Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties among Resource-Poor Households in Kano and Katsina States, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. 2014, 18, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Röling, N. Pathways for impact: scientists’ different perspectives on agricultural innovation. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2009, 7, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, A.; Kristjanson, P. A Catalyst toward Sustainability? Exploring Social Learning and Social Differentiation Approaches with the Agricultural Poor. Sustainability 2014, 6, 2685–2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ashby, J.A. The impact of participatory plant breeding. In Plant Breeding and Farmer Participation; Ceccarelli, S., Guimaraes, E.P., Weltzien, E., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009; pp. 649–671. [Google Scholar]
- Soleri, D.; Cleveland, D.A. Breeding for quantitative variables. Part 1: Farmers’ and scientists’ knowledge and practice in variety choice and plant selection. In Plant Breeding and Farmer Participation; Ceccarelli, S., Guimaraes, E.P., Weltzien, E., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009; pp. 323–366. [Google Scholar]
- vom Brocke, K.; Trouche, G.; Weltzien, E.; Barro-Kondombo, C.P.; Gozé, E.; Chantereau, J. Participatory variety development for sorghum in Burkina Faso: Farmers’ selection and farmers’ criteria. Field Crop. Res. 2010, 119, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceccarelli, S.; Grando, S. Decentralized-participatory plant breeding: An example of demand driven research. Euphytica 2007, 155, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paris, T.R.; Singh, A.; Cueno, A.D.; Singh, V.N. Assessing the Impact of Participatory Research in Rice Breeding on Women Farmers: A Case Study in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Exp. Agric. 2008, 44, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.R. Agricultural Sustainability and Technology Adoption: Issues and Policies for Developing Countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87, 1325–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angrist, J.D.; Imbens, G.W.; Rubin, D.B. Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1996, 91, 444–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wooldridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; p. 752. [Google Scholar]
- Roodman, D. Fitting Fully Observed Recursive Mixed-Process Models with CMP. Stata J. 2011, 11, 159–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdhury, M.; Amin, S.; Farah, T. Access to Microcredit and Women’s Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Bangladesh; PEP Working Paper Series No. 13; Partnership Economic Policy: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Leathers, H.D.; Smale, M. A Bayesian Approach to Explaining Sequential Adoption of Components of a Technological Package. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1991, 73, 734–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghadim, A.K.A.; Pannell, D.J.; Burton, M.P. Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Agric. Econ. 2005, 33, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sissoko, M. Vers une Agriculture Durable au Mali à Travers L’innovation. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Namur, Namur, Belgique, 2019. in progress. [Google Scholar]
- Foster, A.D.; Rosenzweig, M.R. Microeconomics of Technology Adoption; Working Paper No. 984; Economic Growth Center, Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Mignouna, D.; Manyong, V.; Rusike, J.; Mutabazi, K.; Senkondo, E. Determinants of adopting imazapyr-resistant maize technologies and its impact on household income in Western Kenya. AgBioforum 2011, 14, 158–163. [Google Scholar]
- De Groote, H.; Coulibaly, N.G. Gender and generation: An intra-household analysis on access to resources in southern Mali. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 1998, 6, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smale, M.; Kergna, A.; Thériault, V.; Assima, A.; Keita, N. Gender, Generation and Agricultural Intensification: A Case of Two Cereals in the Sudanian Savanna of Mali; Working Paper No. 26; Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy, Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Aryal, J.P.; Jat, M.L.; Sapkota, T.B.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Kassie, M.; Rahut, D.B.; Maharjan, S. Adoption of multiple climate-smart agricultural practices in the Gangetic plains of Bihar, India. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 10, 407–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hailu, B.; Abrha, B.; Weldegiorgis, K. Adoption and impact of agricultural technologies on farm income: Evidence from Southern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Int. J. Food Agric. Econ. 2014, 2, 91–106. [Google Scholar]
- Smale, M.; Diakite, L.; Grum, M. When grain markets supply seed: Village markets for millet and sorghum in the Malian Sahel. In Seed Trade in Rural Markets: Implications for Crop Diversity and Agricultural Development; Lipper, L., Anderson, C.L., Dalton, T.J., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Van den Broek, E. Gender in Development: The Case Study of ICRISAT’s Development Initiatives for Female Sorghum Producers in Mali; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- ICRISAT. Sustaining Farmer-Managed Seed Initiatives for Sorghum and Pearl Millet in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso; Project Report; ICRISAT: Hyderabad, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Udry, C. The Economics of Agriculture in Africa: Notes toward a Research Program. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2010, 5, 284–299. [Google Scholar]
- Konare, K. Challenges to Agricultural Financing in Mali. Master‘s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, G.; Wampfler, B.; Benoit-Cattin, M.; Savadogo, K. Characteristics of household demand for financial services in highly uncertain economies: A review of evidence from Burkina Faso. In The Triangle of Microfinance; Zeller, M., Sharma, M., Eds.; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2002; pp. 46–68. [Google Scholar]
- Abate, G.T.; Rashid, S.; Borzaga, C.; Getnet, K. Rural Finance and Agricultural Technology Adoption in Ethiopia: Does the Institutional Design of Lending Organizations Matter? World Dev. 2016, 84, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foltz, J.D. Opportunities and Investment Strategies to Improve Food Security and Reduce Poverty in Mali through the Diffusion of Improved Agricultural Technologies; Working Paper No. 97141; Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Smale, M.; Kaunda, Z.; Makina, H.; Mkandawire, M.; Msowoya, M.; Mwale, D.; Heisey, P. Chimanga Cha Makolo, Hybrids and Composites: An Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Maize Technology in Malawi, 1989–1991; CIMMYT Economics Working Paper No. 91/04; CIMMYT: Mexico City, Mexico, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Stock, J.; Yogo, M. Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression. In Identification and Inference for Econometric Models; Andrews, D.W.K., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 80–108. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Haggblade, S.; Diallo, B.; Smale, M.; Diakité, L.; Témé, B. Revue du Système Semencier au Mali; Working Paper No. Mali-2015-3; Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security, Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Elsheikh, S.E. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Varieties of Sorghum, Millet, Groundnut and Sesame in North Kordofan State. Agric. Res. Technol. Open Access J. 2018, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mangione, D.; Senni, S.; Puccioni, M.; Grando, S.; Ceccarelli, S. The cost of participatory barley breeding. Euphytica 2006, 150, 289–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, M.; Bellon, M. Participatory plant breeding research: Opportunities and challenges for the international crop improvement system. Euphytica 2004, 136, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Definition | Mean or % |
---|---|---|
Adoption | The currently used sorghum variety in the plot is either hybrid/improved (= 1), or local (= 0) | 43.1% |
Participation intensity | Participation part of the household in the village = number of participants from the household/total number of participants in the village | 0.063 |
Plot manager characteristics | ||
Spouse | The plot manager is a spouse of the head of household (=1) or not (=0) | 21.8% |
Son | The plot manager is a son of the head of household (= 1) or not (= 0) | 11.5% |
Education | The plot manager received primary school education (=1) or not (=0) | 15.9% |
Household characteristics | ||
Labor supply | Number of active persons (12–55 year old) per hectare in the household | 0.991 |
Farm assets | Value of the household assets (cattle excluded) by household member (in CFA francs) | 14.0 |
Plot characteristics | ||
Location | Time to go from the homestead to the plot (in minutes) | 20.5 |
Access to local market | ||
Market | There is a weekly market in the village (=1) or not (=0) | 24.4% |
Instrumental variables | ||
Financial services | The village has access to decentralized financial services (=1) or not (=0) | 17.6% |
Participating women | Number of women participants within the household | 0.093 |
Simple Probit | Conditional Mixed Process (CMP) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption | Adoption (Second Step) | Participation Intensity (First Step) | Adoption Marginal Effects (dy/dx) | |
Participation intensity | 0.122 (0.257) | 0.936 * (0.523) | 0.345 * (0.188) | |
Spouse | 0.242 ** (0.119) | 0.216 * (0.120) | 0.0155 (0.0148) | 0.0796 * (0.0440) |
Son | 0.322 ** (0.155) | 0.3006 * (0.156) | −0.00493 (0.0193) | 0.111 * (0.0570) |
Education | 0.458 *** (0.132) | 0.419 *** (0.134) | 0.0125 (0.0164) | 0.154 *** (0.0488) |
Labor supply | 0.220 *** (0.0736) | 0.205 *** (0.0739) | 0.00629 (0.00916) | 0.0757 *** (0.0269) |
Farm assets | 0.177 *** (0.0519) | 0.170 *** (0.0519) | 0.00796 (0.00631) | 0.0624 *** (0.0188) |
Location | 0.00245 (0.00257) | 0.00229 (0.00256) | 0.000337 (0.000322) | 0.000843 (0.00942) |
Market | 0.00863 (0.114) | −0.0222 (0.115) | 0.0321 ** (0.0141) | −0.00809 (0.0424) |
Instrumental variables | ||||
Financial services | −0.0291 * (0.0160) | |||
Participating women | 0.194 *** (0.0117) | |||
Constant | −3.096 *** (0.742) | −2.996 *** (0.743) | −0.0873 (0.0898) | |
LR chi2 | 45.82 | 307.76 | ||
p-value | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
−0.177 * (0.0995) | ||||
−0.175 (0.965) | ||||
Log likelihood | −463.00075 | −156.25325 | ||
Number obs. | 711 | 711 | ||
Tests | Coefficient | p-value | ||
Durbin | 3.781 | 0.0519 | ||
Wu-Hausman | 3.533 | 0.0606 | ||
Fisher (2, 701) | 40.905 | 0.0000 | ||
Sargan | 0.688 | 0.407 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sissoko, M.; Smale, M.; Castiaux, A.; Theriault, V. Adoption of New Sorghum Varieties in Mali Through a Participatory Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174780
Sissoko M, Smale M, Castiaux A, Theriault V. Adoption of New Sorghum Varieties in Mali Through a Participatory Approach. Sustainability. 2019; 11(17):4780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174780
Chicago/Turabian StyleSissoko, Mamadou, Melinda Smale, Annick Castiaux, and Veronique Theriault. 2019. "Adoption of New Sorghum Varieties in Mali Through a Participatory Approach" Sustainability 11, no. 17: 4780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174780
APA StyleSissoko, M., Smale, M., Castiaux, A., & Theriault, V. (2019). Adoption of New Sorghum Varieties in Mali Through a Participatory Approach. Sustainability, 11(17), 4780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174780