How do Agricultural Programmes Alter Crop Production? Evidence from Ecuador

被引:19
作者
Cavatassi, Romina [1 ]
Salazar, Lina [2 ]
Gonzalez-Flores, Mario [3 ]
Winters, Paul [3 ]
机构
[1] Wageningen Univ, Environm Econ & Nat Resource Grp, Wageningen, Netherlands
[2] Inter Amer Dev Bank, Strategy Dev Div, Washington, DC USA
[3] American Univ, Dept Econ, Washington, DC 20016 USA
关键词
Damage abatement; Ecuador; Farmers Field School; impact evaluation; production function; smallholders; FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS; DAMAGE CONTROL; BT COTTON; ECONOMETRICS;
D O I
10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00279.x
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
Evaluating agricultural programmes requires considering not only the programmes' influence on input and output indicators, but also considering the relationship between these indicators as embodied in the production technology. This article examines the impact on production of an intervention in the Ecuadorian Sierra designed to improve returns to potato production through training and through linking smallholders to high-value markets. Critical to identifying the impact of the programme is the careful construction of a counterfactual and meticulous data collection. To assess the impact of the programme on production, a weighted estimation, where weights are constructed through propensity score matching, is employed to estimate a production function within a damage abatement framework. The function incorporates a series of interaction terms to assess the impact of the programme on the production technology. The findings provide evidence that the programme enhances yields both through a general shift in technology as well as increased input use. The results suggest that the use of effective farming techniques that are learned through the programme induce this technological shift.
引用
收藏
页码:403 / 428
页数:26
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
BAUMGARTNER S, 2002, HEALTH EC HEALTH PEO
[2]  
CAVATASSI R, 2009, 0906 ESA
[3]   SIMPLE ECONOMETRICS OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTIVITY [J].
CHAMBERS, RG ;
LICHTENBERG, E .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1994, 76 (03) :407-417
[4]  
CIP, 2008, WORLD POT ATL
[5]   Using inverse probability-weighted estimators in comparative effectiveness analyses with observational databases [J].
Curtis, Lesley H. ;
Hammill, Bradley G. ;
Eisenstein, Eric L. ;
Kramer, Judith M. ;
Anstrom, Kevin J. .
MEDICAL CARE, 2007, 45 (10) :S103-S107
[6]   Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes [J].
Devaux, Andre ;
Horton, Douglas ;
Velasco, Claudio ;
Thiele, Graharn ;
Lopez, Gaston ;
Bernet, Thomas ;
Reinoso, Ivan ;
Ordinola, Miguel .
FOOD POLICY, 2009, 34 (01) :31-38
[7]   Sending farmers back to school: The impact of farmer field schools in Indonesia [J].
Feder, G ;
Murgai, R ;
Quizon, JB .
REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2004, 26 (01) :45-62
[8]   Damage control inputs: a comparison of conventional and organic farming systems [J].
Guan, ZF ;
Lansink, AO ;
Wossink, A ;
Huirne, R .
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2005, 32 (02) :167-189
[9]   Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator [J].
Heckman, JJ ;
Ichimura, H ;
Todd, P .
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 1998, 65 (02) :261-294
[10]  
Hirano K., 2001, Health Services and Out-comes Research Methodology, V2, P259, DOI [DOI 10.1023/A:1020371312283, 10.1023/A:1020371312283]