International Journal of Mathematics Trends and Technology
Volume 26 | Number 2 | Year 2015 | Article Id. IJMTT-V26P514 | DOI : https://doi.org/10.14445/22315373/IJMTT-V26P514
This study has an aim to identify the factor affecting the adoption and non-adoption of promising varieties of rice production technologies. Promising varieties are a popular genotype and being cultivated widely. In Raipur district at arang block, Out of 219 villages, 15 villages selected for the study. The independent variables i.e., Age, education, caste, size of family, social participation, occupation, size of land holding, Contact with extension agencies, Sources of information, Level of knowledge and annual income were considered as traits of the respondents. Using the Logit model, the factors that influence farm households’ decisions to adopt modern agricultural production technologies were estimated. The result reveals that, out of 12 independent variables, the two variables viz. social participation and level of knowledge contributed positively and highly significantly toward extent of adoption at 0.01 per cent level of probability. Whereas, education, caste, occupation, size of land holding, annual income, credit acquisition, contact with extension agencies and sources of information contributed positively and significantly toward extent of adoption at 0.05 per cent level of probability. The variables age and size of family had no significant contribution in extent of adoption of recommended rice production technologies.
1) Alston, J. M., Norton, G.W. & Pardey, P. G.. (1995). Science under Scarcity: Principles and practice of agricultural research evaluation and priority setting. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
2) Datt, G., & Ravallion, M. (1998a). Farm productivity and rural poverty in India. Journal of Development Studies, 34(4), 62-85.
3) Datt, G., & Ravallion, M. (1998b). Why have some Indian states done better than others at reducing rural poverty. Economica, 65, 17-38.
4) David, C. C., & Otsuka, K. (1994). Modern rice technology and income distribution in Asia, Boulder: Lynne Riener Publishers.
5) Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change Econometrica, 25, 501-522.
6) Hill, L. & Kau, P. (1973). Application of multivariate probit to a threshold model of grain dryer purchasing decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55, 19-27.
7) Lionberger, H.F. (1960). Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. Iowa State: University Press.
8) Mapila, M. A. T. J. (2011). Rural livelihoods and agricultural policy changes in Malawi. Agricultural Innovations for Sustainable Development. In: Manners, G.and Sweetmore, A., (Editors). Accra- Ghana, CTA and FARA, 3, 190-195.
9) Minten, B., & Barrett, C. B. (2008). Agricultural technology, productivity, and poverty in Madagascar. World Development, 36(5), 797–822.
10) Moser, C., & Barrett, C. B. (2003). "The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield increasing, low external input technology: The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Systems, 76(3), 1085-1100.
11) Nin, A., Arndt, C., & Precktel, P. (2003). Is agricultural productivity in developing countries really shrinking? New evidence using a modified nonparametric approach. Journal of Development Economics, 71, 395-415.
12) Pindyck, S. R. & Rubinfeld, L. D. (1998). Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13) Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations 3rd Edition. New York: The Free Press.
Roshan Kumar Bhardwaj, S.S. Gautam, R.R. Saxena, "Statistical Evaluation to Identify the Factors Affecting of the Adoption and Non-Adaption of Technology by Farmers under Rice Production Technologies," International Journal of Mathematics Trends and Technology (IJMTT), vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 63-68, 2015. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22315373/IJMTT-V26P514
PDF 
Abstract 
Keywords 
References 
Citation