Discussion Papers In Economics
And Business

The different effects of risk preferences on the adoption ofagricultural technology: evidence from a rural area in Cambodia

Daichi Shimamoto, Hiroyuki Yamada, and Ayako Wakano

Discussion Paper 14-07

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANThe different effects of risk preferences on the adoption ofagricultural technology: evidence from a rural area in Cambodia

Daichi Shimamoto, Hiroyuki Yamada, and Ayako Wakano

Discussion Paper 14-07

February 2014

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANThe different effects of risk preferences on the adoption ofagricultural technology: evidence from a rural area in Cambodia
Daichi Shimamoto†‡, Hiroyuki Yamada§, and Ayako Wakano††

Abstract
This paper investigates how farmers’ risk attitudes affected the adoption of agricultural
technology in a rural area in Cambodia. We incorporated prospect theory to farmers’ utility functionand examined the effect of the risk attitude of farmers to the adoption of two technologies: adoptionof a moisture meter for measuring the moisture content of seeds, a recently introduced post-harvest
technology, and a modern rice variety that was introduced in the 1990s. The results indicated that
farmers overweighted a small probability and risk averse farmers adopted a moisture meter tomeasure the moisture contents of seeds significantly. With respect to the modern rice variety,farmers’ risk attitude did not affect the adoption. Our results and the results of a previous study
imply that the type of risk and uncertainty faced by farmers at the time of decision-making of its
adoption partly determine the effect of risk attitude on agricultural adoption.

JEL classification code: O14, O33
Keywords: technology adoption, risk preferences, prospect theory

Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, Japan. E-mail: d.shimamoto0407@gmail.com
Research Fellow, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan.
§ Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, Japan.
E-mail: hyamada@osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp†† Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, Japan. E-mail: ayakowakano@gmail.com* We are deeply grateful to Tsunehiro Otsuki and Masaru Sasaki, Hiromasa Matsuura, and the participants at the seminars at Osaka
University for their helpful comments and discussions. We would also like to thank Dr, Meas Pyseth and Vichet Sorn for providing
us with useful information on rice farming in Cambodia. All remaining errors are our own.
†
‡

1.

Introduction
One of the important roles of agricultural extension services and international aid

agencies in rural development is to make more efficient production technologies available to local
farmers through diffusion and adoption assistance. Despite the advantages of the newer technologies,
some farmers do not adopt these technologies. This is true even when the output (e.g. yield) tends tobe better compared with the output achieved by traditional technologies. Why do some farmers not
adopt new technology?

Previous studies have attempted to explain this phenomenon by credit constraints(Croppenstedt et al., 2003; Karlan et al., 2012), learning effects (Besely and Case, 1993; Conley andUdry, 2010; Foster and Rosenzweig, 1995; Munshi, 2004), accessibility of weather forecasting(Rosenzweig and Udry, 2013), lack of insurance markets and capital markets (Karlan et al., 2012)and heterogeneity in the cost and benefit of technologies (Suri, 2011). More recent studies haveattempted to answer the question through the position of behavioral economics. Duflo et al. (2011)
revealed that naïve farmers are unlikely to adopt fertilizers in Kenya because they cannot solve theproblem of self-commitment. Since external factors (e.g. weather, pest damage) influence the output
of agricultural production, agricultural production entails production risk. Farmers’ risk attitude is an
important determinant in the decision-making of technology adoption in the theoretical model (Feder,
sdeterminant of technological adoption (Koundouri et al., 2006; Liu, 2013; Liu and Huang, 2013).
However, the literature on how the risk attitude of farmers affects technological adoption is
insufficient.

We aimed to fill the gap in the empirical evidence in the literature by analyzing the effectof farmers’ risk attitude on decision-making regarding the adoption of different technologies. We
focused on two types of technologies. The first is a new technology entailing high risk anduncertainty in its function at the initial stage of introduction (Technology A in Fig. [1]). For example,
a new seed variety is categorized in Technology A. While external factors (e.g. weather, soil
conditions) determine its yield, farmers do not know the exact distribution of outcome in their own
farming land at the time of its introduction due to a lack of experience of agricultural production
using the new seed variety. Owing to the process of learning from their own experience and that ofother farmers, the risk and uncertainty decreases over time (Technology A’ in Fig. [1]). The second
is a new technology involving low risk and uncertainty in its function at the time of introduction(Technology B in Fig. [1]) since external factors do not affect its function. Because of limited data,1

we analyzed the effect of farmers’ risk attitude on the adoption of Technology A’ and Technology B.
Thus, we refer to the result of Liu (2013), which reveals how risk attitude affects the timing ofadoption of a technology such as Technology A in Fig. [1], using data on cotton farmers in China.

Why do we need to analyze the effect of farmers’ risk attitude on the decision to adopt
different technologies? There are two answers. One is that several technologies entail different typesof uncertainty and risk. Thus, the effect of farmers’ risk attitude might vary across technologies andthe timing of their introduction. For example, in the case of a new rice variety, both exogenous
factors such as the weather and the characteristics of the farming land (e.g. irrigation system and soil
quality) determine its yield. In addition, owing to lack of experience of agricultural production using
the new rice variety, farmers cannot accurately predict the yield (how the new rice variety seeds
grow on their own farming land) at the time of its introduction. In other words, farmers faceexogenous risk and uncertainty such as the weather as well as risk and uncertainty in the variety’s
yield. Farmers learn to predict the yield from their own experience as well as that of other farmers.
Risk and uncertainty in the function of a new technology decrease over time. In contrast with such a
new variety seed, measuring machines (e.g. thermometer, moisture meter) are technologies whosefunction is not affected by external factors and circumstances. Farmers know the exact function of
the technology before they decide whether to adopt it. Since types of risk and uncertainty faced by
farmers at the time of decision-making on technological adoption vary across different technologies
and the timing of their introduction, the effect of farmers’ risk attitude may also vary across different
technologies and their timing of introduction.

Second, farmers’ risk attitude correlates with other farmers’ characteristics. For example,
Tanaka et al. (2010) showed that risk attitude correlated with educational level and age in a ruralarea in Vietnam. The evidence indicates that we cannot separately identify the effects of othervariables from the effect of preferences without controlling these preferences in estimated equations.

Our study is based on a survey of rice farmers conducted in Cambodia. The International
Rice Research Institution (IRRI) has implemented this survey aimed at improving living standards inrural areas in Cambodia since 2005. We conducted a survey of the rice farmers in 20 villages in four
provinces (Battambang, Prey Veng, Pursat, and Takeo) from December 2012 to January 2013 as apart of an assessment of the post-harvest technologies interventions of IRRI. Thus, we collected
information of usage conditions of technologies that IRRI provided lately as well as that on rice2

farming activities during the past one year.

In this study, we considered two types of technologies: moisture meter and a modern
variety of rice seed. A moisture meter is a post-harvest technology recently introduced by IRRI andcorresponds to Technology B in Fig. [1]. The moisture meter allows farmers to know the moisture
content of rice accurately. External factors (e.g. weather, humidity) do not affect its function. The
moisture content of seeds affects their germination rate (IRRI, 2008). Before its introduction,
farmers measured the moisture content by themselves. They checked the moisture content by biting
the seeds or feeling by hand. However, with these manual methods, risk and uncertainty exist
because the farmers might measure the moisture content inaccurately. The moisture meter resolves
the risk and uncertainty regarding the moisture contents of seeds. Modern varieties of rice seeds(compared to traditional varieties) were introduced in Cambodia in the 1990s. The modern variety ofrice seed has a higher tolerance compared to the traditional variety of seed. Farmers can sow themodern variety of seed in all three agricultural seasons (dry, early wet and wet seasons). Since
agricultural production is affected by external factors (e.g. weather, soil quality) and farmers cannot
predict its yield at the time of its introduction, the modern variety of seed entails risk and uncertainty
for farmers at the time of its introduction. Owing to the process of learning from their own
experience and that of other farmers, risk and uncertainty regarding its yield are reduced over time.
Thus, the modern variety of rice seed corresponds to Technology A’ in Fig. [1].

We incorporated prospect theory (PT) into the utility function of farmers. In the utility
function, risk aversion (concavity of agents’ value function), loss aversion (degree of agents’sensitivity to loss compared to gain) and nonlinear probability weighting (how an agent
overestimates a small (large) probability and underestimates a large (small) probability) determine
the shape of the utility function (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). The utility function, thus, is distinct
from the expected utility (EU), which parameterizes the risk aversion of the utility function as risk
attitude. Why do we need to incorporate PT into the utility function of farmers? One possible answer
is that the degree of risk aversion alone is not sufficient to express the effect of risk attitude ontechnological adoption since agricultural activities entail several types of risk and uncertainty. In
addition, farmers implicitly set a target income1 for earning subsistence income under the risk anduncertainty. In fact, Liu (2013) showed that loss aversion, nonlinear probability weighing and risk
aversion affected the timing of adoption of a new cotton variety seed (Bacillus thuringiensis cotton:
BT cotton, which has the same quality as the traditional cotton variety and controls pest damage

3

without the use of pesticides).

Following the method of Tanaka et al. (2010), we asked virtual questions regarding thepreference of lotteries to elicit the farmers’ risk preferences in the interviews. Applying this method,
we estimated three components of utility function: risk aversion, loss aversion and nonlinear
probability weighting. Since Liu (2013) also applied this method, we could compare the effect offarmers’ risk preferences across technologies.

As expected, the effects of risk preferences on technological adoption varied across thesetechnologies. Risk averse farmers and farmers who overestimate a small probability used the
moisture meter for measuring the moisture contents of seeds. However, with respect to the modern
variety, there was no effect of farmers’ risk preferences. Rather, the choice of variety was largely
determined by other household characteristics and type of irrigation. Our results imply the types ofrisk and uncertainty faced by farmers at the time of decision-making on technological adoption
partly influence the outcomes of risk preferences.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews in detail the agricultural
technologies on which we focused. Section 3 explains the survey design and the experiment in the
study. Section 4 presents econometric analysis using household level data. Section 5 discusses our
results and compares them with the results of previous studies. The last section provides
conclusions.

2.
2.1

Background
Moisture Meter
IRRI has provided post-harvest technologies2 for improving farmer’s living standards inrural areas in Cambodia. In Battambang and Prey Veng, the first (or old) moisture meters were
provided in February 2008. These moisture meters were made by IRRI (low cost, unreliable and did
not last long). New moisture meters were introduced to these two villages in January 2012 and thesame type of moisture meter was simultaneously introduced to two other provinces: Pursat andTakeo. This newer moisture meter is digital and is made in Japan or South Korea (accurate but
relatively expensive). Therefore, the timing of introduction of the technology varied acrossprovinces. One set of moisture meters was distributed to two representatives of farmers in each4

treatment village and one of the representative farmers kept the moisture meter in each village. They
were required to set up an inception meeting to teach farmers how to use the post-harvest
technologies, and to lend each item to farmers if required.

Fig. [2] shows a photo of the moisture meter provided by IRRI in January 2012. Farmers
can measure the accurate moisture content of rice easily by using the moisture meter. Owing to thesimplicity of its function and the explanation given at the inception meeting, farmers could learn
how to use it easily. Moisture is one of the most important indicators for checking whether the seeds
are being appropriately managed; the germination rate of seeds greatly depends on the moisture
content (IRRI, 2008). In fact, 42.7% of farmers used a moisture meter to measure the moisture
content of seeds in our sample (Table [1]). Since farmers measured the moisture content by biting orby hand before its introduction, risk and uncertainty existed in measuring the moisture content. The
moisture meter contributed to reducing the risk and uncertainty.

2.2

Modern Variety of RiceBroadly speaking, there are two varieties of rice seed: the traditional variety of seed

(hereafter TV) and the modern variety of seed (hereafter MV). TV is an indigenous variety of seedthat farmers have used for a long time. MV is a hybrid variety of seed introduced in the 1990s (FAO,
2002). The function of MV differs from that of TV. In particular, owing to the difference oftolerance between MV and TV, farmers can plant MV in a rainless season with appropriate water
management. In Cambodia, there are three farming seasons: dry season, early wet season and wet
season. While farmers can grow MV in all seasons, farmers can grow TV in only the wet season
each year. According to our data collected in four provinces in Cambodia, few farmers planted TV
in the dry and early wet season (Table [2]).

In the wet season in 2012, approximately 90% of plots in our sample were planted with
TV3. The selling price of TV is higher than that of MV. For this reason, many farmers might plant
TV. Also, the planting period of MV is shorter than TV and MV is more tolerant to adverse weather
conditions than TV.

Since external factors (e.g. weather, soil quality) affect the yield of rice production andfarmers do not understand its function at the time of its introduction, risk and uncertainty in its
function are expected at the time of its introduction. However, over the long term (about 20 years),5the risk and uncertainty have reduced owing to the process of learning from their own experienceand that of other farmers.

3.
3.1

Data
IRRI Survey
We carried out a farmers’ survey in 20 villages in four provinces (Battambang, Prey

Veng, Pursat, and Takeo) to assess the post-harvest technologies interventions IRRI implemented for
improving living standards in rural areas in Cambodia. The survey was conducted from December
2012 to January 2013. This period corresponded to the period after the wet season when almost all
farmers in Cambodia are engaged in rice farming. We collected a variety of information: usage
conditions of post-harvest technologies, agricultural activities during the past year, social anddemographic characteristics, respondent preferences, and non-agricultural income sources.

In the survey, we invited farmers selected randomly in each village to a public place ofthe village and allocated an enumerator to each farmer. In the interview, each enumerator started theinterview at a distance from other enumerators to avoid the influence of another farmer’s answer.
Since we focused on the risk preferences of individuals who were involved in decision-making on
agricultural adoption, we requested that the selected farmers should be the household head or thehead’s wife. The enumerators basically asked the respondents each question orally to avoid
misunderstanding. The respondents received a gift at the end of the interview.

We did not collect information on rice production from the representatives of eachvillage. Instead, we interviewed the representatives and obtained information about the village indetail (e.g. experience of natural disasters).

There were two types of villages: treatment villages and control villages. While theformer villages received the post-harvest technological equipment from IRRI, the latter villages did
not. We collected the same information on input and output for rice-farming activities in both thetreatment village and the control village. On the other hand, information on the usage of the
post-harvest technology was collected at the treatment villages only. Thus, while we could use dataof both groups in the analysis of rice variety choice, we restricted the data to that collected in thetreatment villages in the analysis of adoption of a moisture meter4.

6

While not all farmers were engaged in rice farming during the dry season and the early
wet season, almost all of the farmers planted rice in the wet season. Farmers can choose whether toplant TV or MV in the wet season. Thus, we focused on rice farming in the wet season.

Although we surveyed 349 households, 19 households could not be used because therespondents were not a head of household or the head’s wife. In addition, because of missing dataand outliers, only 238 samples were used. Table [3] shows descriptive statistics of the sample. The
first three preference parameters are explained later in the subsection on how to measure risk
preferences. The average age of the head was 48.5 years old. A household head had finishedapproximately 5 years of education on average. 78.2% of the household heads were male. The
average maximum years of schooling was 9.2 years, which is approximately two times the average
years of schooling of the household head. This seems to reflect the recent growth in the number ofyears of schooling of young people owing to the introduction of free education after the collapse of
the Pol Pot regime. Approximately 16% of heads gained their income from non-agricultural workand the average total non-agricultural income in households in the past year was 4.4 million riel 5.
The average total earnings from rice farming in the dry and early wet season was 0.9 million riel.
The average total amount of rice in storage for selling in the dry and the early wet seasons and theaverage total amount for self-consumption in the dry and the early wet seasons were 114.3 kg and347.3 kg, respectively. Farmers who were engaged in rice farming in the dry or the early wet season
kept a larger amount of rice for self-consumption than for selling. With respect to the usage of amoisture meter, 42.7% of farmers adopted it to measure the moisture content of seeds in the wet
season. On average, the usage rate of the moisture meter by the other farmers in the same village inthe wet season in 2012 was around 37.8%6.

Since the characteristics of the plot might affect farmers’ crop choice, we used a sample plot
for analysis of crop choice to control for plot characteristics. The survey collected detailed
information on the plots such as area, type of soil, source of irrigation and elevation. Table [4]displays descriptive statistics of the plots. The average area of a plot was 0.8 hectare. Regarding thetype of soil, 77.8% of plots were loam, 21.5% of plots were clay, 2.5% of plots were sandy, and2.5% of plots were other. 82.8% of plots were located at a middle elevation, 6.6% of plots werelocated at a high elevation and 10.6% of plots were located at a low elevation. No irrigation system
was installed on 70.7% of plots. Few plots had irrigation systems (deep wall pumps/shallow tube

7

wells/pumped from rivers, canals, dams).

3.2

How to Measure Risk Preferences
To elicit farmers’ risk preferences, we asked hypothetical questions regarding

preferences at the beginning of each interview. Following the experiment of Tanaka et al. (2010), we
examined the attitude of respondents by using a pair-wise lottery of both risky and safer alternatives
as shown in Table [5]. For example, a farmer faces the following choice at row 1 in series 1: in
Lottery A which is a safer choice than B, the respondent can receive 40,000 riel with a probability of
70% and the respondent can receive 10,000 riel with a probability of 30%: in Lottery B, which is ariskier choice than A, the respondent can receive 68,000 riel with a probability of 10% and the
respondent can receive 5,000 riel with a probability of 90%. Although both the probability ofwinning and the amount of winning in Lottery A do not change, only the amount of winning in
Lottery B increases with the number of rows. However, in series 3, both the probability and theamount of winning change in Lottery A and Lottery B.

We requested the enumerators to ask each respondent to choose either Lottery A or
Lottery B for each row until the respondent switched from Lottery A to Lottery B in each series. For
example, if the respondent shifted from Lottery A to Lottery B at row 6 in series 1, the enumerator
started to ask series 2.

In this study, we assumed farmers have the following utility function. This utility
function was proposed by Tanaka et al. (2010).

𝑈 𝑥, 𝑝; 𝑦, 𝑞 =𝑣 𝑦 +𝜋 𝑝 𝑣 𝑥 −𝑣 𝑦𝑣 𝑦 +𝜋 𝑝 𝑣 𝑥 +𝜋 𝑞 𝑣 𝑦𝑓𝑜𝑟  𝑥𝑦 > 0  𝑎𝑛𝑑   𝑥 > 𝑦              (1)  𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

where p and q are the probability of outcomes x and y, respectively; the value function is defined as𝑣 𝑧 = 𝑧 ! for 𝑧 > 0 , 𝑣 𝑧 = 𝜆𝑧 ! for 𝑧<0, where 𝑧 = 𝑥, 𝑦 ; the probability weighting function
is given by 𝜋 𝑝 = 1/exp  [ln  (1/p)]! .  Parameters 𝜎 and  𝜆  are the measure of risk-aversion andthe measure of loss aversion. A lower 𝜎 means a more risk-averse individual. If 𝜆 > 1, theindividual feels more sensitive to a loss. If 𝛼 < 1, the weighting function is inverse S-shaped, whichmeans that the individual esteems a small probability and devalues a high probability. If 𝛼 > 1, theweighing function is S-shaped, which means that the individual devalues a small probability and8esteems a high probability. In the case of 𝜆 = 1 and 𝛼   = 1, the utility function equals the standard
expected utility function. We computed three parameters 𝜆, 𝜎 and 𝛼 using the switching points of
respondents in the three series in Table [5]. Following the previous studies, we did not use thesample of respondents who did not switch from Lottery A to Lottery B. Descriptive statistics ofthese parameters are listed in Table [3]. We tested the null hypothesis that 𝜆 = 1 and 𝛼 = 1 using
the computed parameters of each of the farmers, and rejected the hypothesis at the 1% significancelevel.

4.

Econometric frameworks and regression results

4.1

Use of the Moisture Meter for Seeds
First, we considered the decision-making on adoption of a moisture meter to measure themoisture content of seeds. Since almost all the farmers were engaged in rice farming in the wet
season, we focused on the adoption of a moisture meter in the wet season. As explained in Section
2.1, the use of a moisture meter reduces the risk and uncertainty in measuring the moisture contentsof seeds. When farmers borrow a moisture meter from the representative in each village, the farmers
must bear any cost of borrowing (e.g. contact, transplantation). How farmers evaluate the occasionof measuring the moisture contents inaccurately will determine the effects of farmers’ risk
preference on its adoption. Our hypothesis is that farmers who fear the occasion, farmers whooverestimate the occasion and farmers who care about the loss of mismeasuring the moisture
contents (e.g. low germinant rate) tend to adopt the moisture meter.

To test the hypothesis, we first estimated the following model by applying a linear
probability model,
Moisture∗!" = 𝛿! + 𝛿! 𝜎!" + 𝛿! 𝜆!" + 𝛿! 𝛼!" + 𝜇! + 𝜀!"                 (2)∗where i denotes farmer, and v denotes village; 𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒!"takes 1 if farmer i in village v uses the

moisture meter in the wet season and takes 0 if farmer i in village v does not use the moisture meter.
𝜎!" is the degree of risk aversion of farmer i in village v and 𝜆!" is the degree of loss aversion of
farmer i in village v. 𝛼!" is the degree of probability weighting of farmer i in village v and 𝜇! is aprovince fixed effect. 𝜀!" is the unobservable error term. If our hypothesis is correct, the signs of
𝛿! and 𝛿! will be negative and the sign of 𝛿! will be positive.

9

We did not control for the village fixed effects in Eq.(2) since unobservablecharacteristics (e.g. weather, quality of soil) are unlikely to affect whether farmers used the moisture
meter for seeds. However, as mentioned above, the timing of introduction of post-harvest
technologies differed across provinces. To control for the effect, we added province fixed effects inthe equation.

The results of the estimation using Eq.(2) are presented in Column(1) in Table [6]. The
coefficients of province fixed effect are not shown in the table due to space limitations. As expected,
a farmer who esteems a small probability and who is more risk averse is more likely to use themoisture meter for seeds, and these are statistically significant at the 5 percent level. However, theparameter of loss aversion does not affect the adoption significantly. The results imply that risk
averse farmers who fear measuring the moisture content accurately and farmers who overweight theprobability of measuring the moisture contents inaccurately adopted the moisture meter. Thus, howfarmers worry about measuring the moisture content of seed inappropriately is closely related to theadoption of the moisture meter for seeds.

However, other factors might affect not only the use of the moisture meter, but also
farmers’ risk preferences. In that case, we cannot distinguish the effect of risk preferences from theeffect of other factors. Tanaka et al. (2010) showed that the degree of risk aversion was negatively
correlated with educational level in a rural area in Vietnam. Then, if educational level werecorrelated with the adoption of the moisture meter, parameters of risk preferences would be biased.
In addition, other farmers’ decisions regarding the adoption of the moisture meter would affect thedecision-making. To control for these effects, we considered the following linear probability model.
∗
𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒!"= 𝛿! + 𝛿! 𝜎!" + 𝛿! 𝜆!" + 𝛿! 𝛼!" + 𝜉𝑋!" + 𝜇! + 𝑢!"                 (3)where 𝑋!" is a vector of the characteristics of farmer i in village v; such as the characteristics of thehead (age, education, sex), maximum education in household, earning from non-agricultural work,and moisture meter usage rate of other farmers in village v; 𝑢!" is the unobservable error term.

The moisture meter usage rate of other farmers allows us to control for not only the effectof accessibility to a moisture meter in each village but also the effect of the externality from other10

farmers. As explained by Besely and Case (1993), we cannot identify the effect of the externality
from other farmers accurately by using cross sectional data since its estimator is influenced by theeffects of both accessibility and externality at the same time.

Column (2) shows the results of estimation by Eq.(3). The effect of risk preferences is
consistent with the results of estimation by Eq.(2). Educated heads are more likely to use themoisture meter to measure the moisture content of seeds, and the coefficient of this variable isstatistically significant at the 1 percent level. Farmers who earn more non-agricultural income areless likely to use the moisture meter for seeds and that is statistically significant at the 10 percent
level. We found that the amount of rice saved for seed does not affect the decision of whether to use
the moisture meter. This implies that the amount of seed is not an important factor in determining
the use of the moisture meter. The coefficient of the moisture meter usage rate of other farmers is
positive, implying the presence of externality or learning from others, but it is not statisticallysignificant.

4.2

Variety Choice
Secondly, we focused on the decision concerning the choice of rice variety. Since almost

all of the farmers are engaged in rice farming in the wet season, we also focused on the decision
regarding the choice of rice variety in the wet season. The risk and uncertainty in the function of MV
is expected to be low. We assumed that farmers know the function and profitability of each variety
in their plots. However, farmers might face exogenous risk (e.g. drought) and uncertainty in riceproduction. Thus, how farmers evaluate the occasion of exogenous risk (e.g. drought) will determine
the effects of farmers’ risk preference in deciding which variety of rice to choose. Our hypothesis isthat farmers who fear drought, and who overestimate the possibility of drought, and who care about
the loss caused by drought would tend to adopt MV, which has higher tolerance compared to TV.

To test this hypothesis, we estimated the following model by applying the linear
probability model,∗
𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛  𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦!"#= 𝛽! + 𝛽! 𝜎!" + 𝛽! 𝜆!" + 𝛽! 𝛼!" + 𝛾𝑋!" + 𝜇! + 𝜀!"#                 (4)∗where i denotes farmer, j denotes plot, and v denotes village;  𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛  𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦!"#takes 1 if farmer iin village v adopts MV in plot j in the wet season, and takes 0 if farmer i in village v adopts TV in

11plot j in the wet season otherwise.   𝜎!" is the degree of risk aversion of farmer i in village v and 𝜆!"is the degree of loss aversion of farmer i in village v. 𝛼!" is the degree of probability weighting of
farmer i in village v and 𝑋!" is a vector of the characteristics of farmer i in village v, such as thecharacteristics of the head (e.g. age, education, sex), maximum education in household member ofhousehold i, whether the head earns from non-agricultural income, total earning from
non-agricultural work, whether farmer i borrowed money for rice farming during the past year andearning/harvesting from rice farming in dry/early wet season. 𝜇! captures the village fixed effects
and 𝜀!"# is the unobservable error term. If our hypothesis is correct, the signs of 𝛽! and 𝛽! shouldbe negative and the sign of 𝛽! should be positive.

Previous studies have shown a significant effect of the externality from other farmers on
the adoption of a new technology (Conley and Udry, 2010; Foster and Rosenzweig, 1995; Munshi,
2004). However, this is not necessarily the case for the choice of rice crop in Cambodia. Cambodian
farmers may have sufficient knowledge about the crop varieties because they have been growing
them for a long time in Cambodia.

Another possible channel would be that farmers are likely to choose the same cropvariety as other farmers. For example, the agricultural union in each village encourages farmers to
use MV. According to our interviews of village leaders in selected villages, however, the agriculturalunions may not be functioning effectively in Cambodia for historical reasons7. Thus, the influence ofunions may be limited.

The weather is thought to influence the choices. According to our interview with thevillage leaders in the selected villages, several farmers switched from TV to MV after an incidenceof drought. In our estimation, we tried to control the effects of natural disaster by adding village
fixed effects.

As mentioned in Section 2.2, the selling price of TV is higher than that of MV. Thus,
farmers planning to sell their harvest may prefer to plant TV. While we cannot test the effect of theselling price on the rice variety choice in our analysis, the village fixed effects allow us to control theeffect of the selling price8.

Column (1) in Table [7] shows the results of estimation by Eq.(3). Due to space12

limitations, we omitted the coefficients of the village fixed effect from the table. Except for theestimator of loss aversion, the signs of risk preferences are consistent with our hypothesis. The signsof the estimated parameter imply that farmers who worry about drought, farmers who overweight theincidence of drought tend to use MV and loss averse farmers tend to adopt TV. However, ourhypothesis is not supported statistically. In other words, the decision-making on crop choice is notdetermined by farmers’ risk preferences. Male heads are more likely to adopt MV than female heads.
While total earnings from rice farming in the dry season and the early wet season are significantly
negatively correlated with the probability of adoption of MV, the total amount of rice stored for self
consumption in the dry and the early wet seasons significantly increases the probability. It implies
that farmers change their choice of variety based on the harvest in the previous seasons.

In our sample, some farmers plant different varieties in different plots. This implies that
farmers flexibly adjust to the characteristics of their plot (e.g. quality of soil, the irrigation systemand elevation). To control these possibilities, we modified Eq.(4) as follows:∗
𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛  𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦!"#
   = 𝛽! + 𝛽! 𝜎!" + 𝛽! 𝜆!" + 𝛽! 𝛼!" + 𝛾𝑋!" +    𝛿𝑍!"# + 𝜇! + 𝑢!"#           (5)where 𝑍!"# is a vector of characteristics of a plot. 𝑢!"# is the unobservable error term. The resultsof estimation by Eq.(5) are shown in column (2) in Table [7]. We omit the coefficients of the village
fixed effects from the table due to space limitations.

The sign of estimator of loss aversion switches from negative to positive in Eq.(5). Thisis consistent with our hypothesis. The sign implies that loss averse farmers tend to use MV.
However, no estimated parameters of risk preferences significantly affect the probability in Eq.(5)along with the result of the estimation of Eq.(4). Thus, our hypothesis is also rejected. By
considering the plot characteristics in the analysis, the effects of some variables became significant.
Farmers who earn more income from non-agricultural work are more likely to adopt TV, and thecoefficient of this variable is statistically significant at the 10 percent level. Among thecharacteristics of plot, the crop choice decision is not affected by soil quality and elevation. In
contrast, farmers choose MV significantly in the plots that have access to water for agriculture
pumped from rivers/canals/dams.

Robustness check13

As mentioned above, some farmers adopted both MV and TV in their plots. In those who
adopted both MV and TV, some farmers dispersed the yield risk (e.g. drought) by adopting multiple
varieties. However, this means we cannot identify the effect of farmers’ risk preference on the
adoption of MV from the effect of farmers’ risk preference on risk diversification through crop
diversification. To remove the latter effect, we ignored samples of farmers who adopted both MV
and TV in their plot, and used Eq.(5) to re-estimate. We show the results of estimation in column (3)in Table [7]. The results have not changed dramatically although some control variables such as thecharacteristics of farmers became insignificant. This confirms that our main arguments still hold.

5.

Discussion
Our results contrast with those of Liu (2013). Liu (2013) focused on the relationshipbetween the farmers’ risk preferences and the timing of adoption of Bacillus thuringiensis (BT)cotton in a rural area in China. BT cotton, which is a new cotton variety with the same quality as the
traditional cotton variety, allows farmers to control pest damage without pesticides. However, risk
averse farmers who used BT cotton continued to use pesticides (Liu and Huang, 2013). This isbecause the farmers did not fully understand the function of the new technology. Furthermore, risk
averse farmers were concerned about the possibility of pest damage. Following Tanaka et al. (2010),
she also conducted an experiment to elicit the farmers’ risk preferences and revealed that farmers
who feared yield loss or yield risk adopted BT cotton later since the farmers did not have sufficientknowledge of BT cotton while farmers who overweight the probability of pest damage adopted BT
cotton earlier. Although agricultural production is affected by external factors (e.g. weather, pests) as
well as the characteristics of the plot (e.g. soil quality, irrigation system), farmers cannot accessexact information on how a new variety seed such as BT cotton will grow in their plot at the initialstage of introduction. The production of new variety seed entails not only exogenous risk anduncertainty but also risk and uncertainty in its function at the stage of introduction. Thus, BT cotton
corresponds to Technology A in Fig. [1]. Liu’s (2013) results are concerned with the implications ofrisk preference on new technology when mixing two types of risk and uncertainty at the time ofdecision-making.

Why do farmers’ risk preferences affect agricultural choices differently? One possible
answer is the different type of risk and uncertainty that farmers face at the time of decision-making
on technological adoption. A moisture meter does not entail risk and uncertainty in its function since14the moisture meter allows farmers to measure the moisture content of seeds accurately at any time.
In fact, the surveyed farmers learned its function from the representative in each village at the
inception meeting. A moisture meter is equivalent to Technology B in Fig. [1]. However, farmers
still face risk and uncertainty in the accuracy of measuring the moisture content when they measure
the moisture content of seeds by themselves. We found that risk averse farmers and farmers whooverestimate a small probability tended to adopt the moisture meter since they were afraid of
mismeasuring the moisture content of seeds. The different effect of risk preference on the
agricultural technological adoption might be caused by the type of risk and uncertainty that farmers
face when they make a decision on technological adoption.

This interpretation is supported by our analysis of choice of rice variety. Risk anduncertainty in the function of MV are high at the time of introduction like BT cotton in China
because external factors affect its function and farmers cannot access information on the function of
MV in their plot. One of the differences between MV and BT cottons is its timing of introduction.
Since farmers can learn about new technology from their own experience as well as that of otherfarmers, the degree of risk and uncertainty of MV became lower over time. In addition, since wefocused on the wet season, natural disasters such as drought are unlikely to occur. Exogenous risk
and uncertainty is expected to be low. In contrast to Liu (2013), we found that risk preferences did
not determine the adoption of MV statistically. Since farmers know the function of MV and there are
no exogenous risk and uncertainty, they make the optimal choice on variety based on other factors(e.g. characteristics of plot, function of technology).

6.

Conclusion and Policy Implications
In this paper, we investigated the effect of farmers’ risk preferences on the adoption

decision across various types of technology. We conducted virtual questions following Tanaka et al.
(2010) in order to elicit the farmers’ risk preferences, which cannot be observed directly. We
considered the adoption of two types of agricultural technology: the use of a moisture meter and amodern rice variety (compared to the traditional variety). The moisture meter is a new technology
introduced lately by IRRI and allows farmers to know the exact moisture content of rice at any time.
The modern rice variety is a technology that has been prevailing widely for a long time. Risk anduncertainty in the function of MV existed at the time of its introduction and decreased over time. We
found that risk averse farmers and farmers who overestimate small probabilities tended to use the15moisture meter to measure the moisture contents of seeds. In contrast, we found that farmers’ risk
preferences were not important factors in the choice of rice variety. The effects of farmers’ risk
attitude on technological adoption varied across different technologies and the timing of theirintroduction because types of risk and uncertainty differ at the time of decision-making ontechnological adoption.

There are two policy implications. First, if the timing of technology adoption differs
among people depending on their preferences, a quick assessment of a project using standard
empirical program evaluation methodologies might miss the full impact of the project. For instancein our context, risk averse farmers initially start using a moisture meter and the appropriate moisture
content of seeds improves the germination rate. However, over time, less risk averse people would
start using a moisture meter. Thus, the timing of assessment of such a project apparently affects theestimated outcome, hence the evaluation of the project. Many studies that evaluate programs
measure the relatively short-run effects of a project. But, our results suggest that people really needto know the relatively long-run effects of a project. Second, if policymakers plan to diffuse atechnology that does not entail risk and uncertainty in its function (MV corresponds to this case in
our context), it would be more productive to remove obstacles and bottlenecks that farmers routinely
face such as improvement of the irrigation system.

Footnotes
1.

The existence of a target income in the agricultural context has not been tested formally. However,many studies have shown evidence of a target income in various scenarios (Cameror et al., 1997;
Farber, 2008; Fehr and Goette, 2007).
2.

The post-harvest technologies provided in the project included: Combine harvesting services,mechanical dryers, hermetic storage systems (especially, 50 kg Super bags (SB)), granary
improvements, rice milling improvements, moisture meter, weighing scales, cleaner andthermometer.
3.

According to our interview with agricultural experts during our inception trip to the study area,

Cambodians prefer to eat TV rice rather than MV rice because TV rice is tastier than MV rice.
4.

The averages of some variables differ significantly between treatment villages and control villages.

However, this does not affect our analysis because we do not compare the treatment villages with thecontrol villages in our analysis.
5.

As of 31 December 2012, US$1 was equivalent to 3,909.4 Cambodian Riel.

16

6.

𝑡ℎ𝑒  𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟  𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑠 ′ 𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒  𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒  𝑜𝑓  𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒  𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟!" =!!
!!! 𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒  𝑜𝑓  𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒  𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟! /𝑁! ,where 𝑖  is farmer i; v is village v; 𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒  𝑜𝑓  𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒  𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟! is a variable, which indicates
whether farmer j adopted the moisture meter to measure the moisture content of seeds; 𝑁! is thenumber of samples in a village.
7.

Anecdotally, some agricultural unions are said to have contributed to the mass killings during the

Pol Pot administration.
8.

Farmers usually sell their surplus of harvested rice to grain traders at their village. The entry ofgrain traders is limited in the local market since the entry cost of buyers is high (e.g. They must bear
fixed costs such as those for storage facilities, vehicles for transportation as well as runningtransportation costs such as gas or access to credit to purchase agricultural goods.). Monopsony bygrain traders occurs in the local market. Since the selling price is partly determined by the degree ofthe monopsony power of grain traders in their villages, village fixed effects partly allow us to control
the monopsony power of buyers in the villages.

Acknowledgements
We are deeply grateful to Tsunehiro Otsuki, Fumio Ohtake, Masaru Sasaki, Yasuharu
Shimamura, Keiichiro Honda, Tomoharu Mori, Hirofumi Kurokawa, and other participants ofseminars at Osaka University for their helpful comments and discussions. We also thank Meas
Pyseth, Rica Joy Flor, and Vichet Sorn for providing us with useful information on the situation ofrice farming in Cambodia. Any errors are our own.

Reference
Besely, Timothy and Anne Case, 1993. Modeling Technology Adoption in Developing Countries.
American Economic Review 83(2), 396-402.
Camerer, Colin, Linda Babcock, George Loewenstein, and Richard Thaler, 1997. Labor Supply of
New York City Cabdrivers: One Day at a Time. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2), 407–
441.

17

Conley, Timothy G., and Christopher R. Udry, 2010. Learning About a New Technology: Pineapple
in Ghana. American Economic Review 100(1), 35-69.
Croppenstedt, Andre, Mulat Demeke, and Meloria M. Meschi, 2003. Technology Adoption in the
Presence of Constraints: the Case of Fertilizer Demand in Ethiopia. Review of Development
Economics 7(1), 58–70.
Duflo, Esther, Michael Kremer, and Jonathan Robinson, 2011. Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer:
Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya. American Economic Review 101(6), 2350-90.
FAO, 2002. FAO Rice information volume 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United
Nations. Rome, Italy.
Farber, Henry S., 2008. Reference-Dependent Preferences and Labor Supply: The Case of New
York City Taxi Drivers. American Economic Review 98(3), 1069–82.
Feder, Gershon, 1980. Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under
Uncertainty. Oxford Economic Papers 32(2), 263–83.
Feder, Gershon, Richard E. Just, and David Zilberman, 1985. Adoption of Agricultural Innovationsin Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2), 255–98.
Fehr, Ernst, and Lorenz Goette, 2007. Do Workers Work More if Wages Are High? Evidence from a
Randomized Field Experiment. American Economic Review 97(1), 298–317.
Foster, Andrew D. and Mark 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.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky, 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.
Econometrica 47(2), 263-92.
Karlan, Dean, Robert Darko Osei, Isaac Osei-Akoto and Christopher Udry, 2012. Agricultural
Decisions after Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints. National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorking Paper, 18463.

18

Koundouri, Phoebe, Céline Nauges and Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2006. Technology Adoption under
Production Uncertainty: Theory and Application to Irrigation Technology. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 88(3), 657-670.
Liu, Elaine M. and JiKun Huang, 2013. Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in
China. Journal of Development Economics 103, 202-15.
Liu, Elaine M., 2013. Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption
Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China. Review of Economics and Statistics 95(4), 1386-1403.
Munshi, Kaivan, 2004. Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the
Indian Green Revolution. Journal of Development Economics 73(1), 185-213.
Rosenzweig, Mark and Christoper R. Udry, 2013. Forecasting Profitability. National Bureau of
Economic Research Working paper, 18463.
Suri, Tavneet, 2011. Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption. Econometrica
79(1), 159–209.
Tanaka, Tomomi, Colin F. Camerer, Quang Nguyen, 2010. Risk and Time Preferences: Linking
Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam. American Economic Review 100(1), 557–
571.

Web Reference
IRRI, 2008. Grain moisture content and grain quality.
(http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/rkb/drying-basics/grain-moisture-content-and-grain-quality.htm), Accessed on Jan 21 2014.

19

Table 1. Usage of moisture meter in wet season in 2012
SampleWhether farmers use moisture meter in wet season in 2012
150
Purpose: to measure moisture content of
seeds
150
rice for sale150
rice for own consumption
150
rice for storage
150

20

usage rate
43.3%
42.7%
11.3%
15.3%
8.7%

Table 2. Number of usage of MV and TV in each season
Dry Season
Early Wet season
Wet season
Modern Variety
100
73
43
Traditional Variety
36353
Note: unit is plot.

21

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of household
Variable
Samplepreference parameters of respondent
σ (Value function curvature)238
λ (Loss aversion)238
α (Probability weighting)238
characteristics of household
age of head238
education of head (years)
238
maximum education in household (years)
238
sex of head (1=male, 0=female)238
number of family members
238
whether head earns from non-agricultural work
238
years of farming
238
total non-agricultural income (riel)238
agricutural activity
whether farmer borrows money for rice farming238
in the past year
total earning from rice farming in dry and early wet
238
season (riel)
total amount of rice kept for selling in dry and early238
wet season (kg)total amount of rice kept for self consumption in dry
238
and early wet season (kg)usage of moisture meter
whether farmer uses moisture meter for seed in wet
150
season in 2012 (Yes=1,No=0)
other farmers' usage rate of moisture meter for seed in
150
village in wet season in 2012

22

Mean

Std.Dev

0.994
1.715
0.652

0.428
1.600
0.214

48.534
5.025
9.155
0.782
5.395
0.160
27.6514389215

12.303
3.121
3.478
0.414
2.024
0.367
12.8195442374

0.282

0.451

9146282131897114.286

691.031347.252690.577

0.427

0.496

0.378

0.125

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of plot
Variable
Samplearea (ha)396
type of soil
clay
396
sandy
396
other
396
loam
396
elevation
high396
middle396
low396
type of irrigation system
deep wall pump
396
shallow tube well396
pumped from river/canal/dam
396
none/rainfall
396

23

Mean
0.796

Std.Dev
0.899

0.215
0.025
0.025
0.778

0.411
0.157
0.157
0.416

0.066
0.828
0.106

0.248
0.378
0.308

0.028
0.020
0.273
0.707

0.165
0.141
0.446
0.456

Table 5. Payoff of lottery
Lottery A

Lottery B

Series 1
1 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel

1 10% winning 68,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

2 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel
3 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel

2 10% winning 75,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
3 10% winning 83,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

4 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel
5 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel

4 10% winning 93,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
5 10% winning 106,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

6 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel
7 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel

6 10% winning 125,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
7 10% winning 150,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

8 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel
9 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel

8 10% winning 185,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
9 10% winning 220,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

10 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel
11 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel

10 10% winning 300,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
11 10% winning 400,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

12 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel
13 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel

12 10% winning 600,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
13 10% winning 1,000,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

14 70% winning 40,000 riel and 30% winning 10,000 riel

14 10% winning 1,700,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

Series 2
1 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel
2 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel

1 70% winning 54,000 riel and 30% winning 5,000 riel
2 70% winning 56,000 riel and 30% winning 5,000 riel

3 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel
4 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel

3 70% winning 58,000 riel and 30% winning 5,000 riel
4 70% winning 60,000 riel and 30% winning 5,000 riel

5 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel
6 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel

5 10% winning 62,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
6 10% winning 65,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

7 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel
8 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel

7 10% winning 68,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
8 10% winning 72,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

9 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel

9 10% winning 77,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

10 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel
11 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel
12 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel

10 10% winning 83,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
11 10% winning 90,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
12 10% winning 100,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

13 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel
14 90% winning 40,000 riel and 10% winning 30,000 riel

13 10% winning 110,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel
14 10% winning 130,000 riel and 90% winning 5,000 riel

Series 3
1 50% winning 25,000 riel and 50% losing 4,000 riel

1 50% winning 30,000 riel and 50% losing 20,000 riel

2 50% winning 4,000 riel and 50% losing 4,000 riel
3 50% winning 1,000 riel and 50% losing 4,000 riel

2 50% winning 30,000 riel and 50% losing 20,000 riel
3 50% winning 30,000 riel and 50% losing 20,000 riel

4 50% winning 1,000 riel and 50% losing 4,000 riel
5 50% winning 1,000 riel and 50% losing 8,000 riel

4 50% winning 30,000 riel and 50% losing 16,000 riel
5 50% winning 30,000 riel and 50% losing 16,000 riel

6 50% winning 1,000 riel and 50% losing 8,000 riel
7 50% winning 1,000 riel and 50% losing 8,000 riel

6 50% winning 30,000 riel and 50% losing 14,000 riel
7 50% winning 30,000 riel and 50% losing 11,000 riel

24

Table 6. OLS regression of moisture meter use for seeddependent variable: whether farmer uses moisture meter for measuring moisture contents of seed
Column (1)Coef.
Std. Err-0.240 **0.091-0.0190.035-0.414 **0.183

independent variables

Column (2)Coef.
Std. Err-0.234 **0.100-0.0260.036-0.373 *0.205-0.0040.008
0.011 *** 0.013-0.022
0.022
0.038
0.099
0.012
0.022
0.005
0.008
-0.219 *0.115-0.0040.028

σ (Value function curvature)λ (Loss aversion)α (Probability weighting)age of headeducation of head (years)
maximum education in household (years)
sex of head (1=male, 0=female)number of family members
years of farming
total non-agricultural income (log)
total amount of saving for seeds (log)moisture meter usage rate of other farmers
0.094
0.430
for seed in village
Sample size
150
146
Adjusted R squared
0.039
0.013
Note: 1. Standard error in parenthesis is clustered at village level. 2. All regressions include province
fixed effects. 3. The unit of observations for the regression is the original farmer.
* significant at the 10% level; ** significant at the 5% level; *** significant at the 1% level.

25

Table 7. Result for modern variety
dependent variable: whether farmer adopts a modern variety in wet season in 2012
Column(1)Column(2)Column(3)independent variables
Coef.
Std. Err
Coef.
Std. Err
Coef.
Std. Err
σ (Value function curvature)-0.0150.030-0.0340.043-0.0170.044
λ (Loss aversion)-0.004
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.009
0.010
α (Probability weighting)-0.041
0.082-0.0190.088-0.0160.078
age of head
0.002
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.003
education of head (year)
0.010
0.006
0.010 *
0.006
0.008
0.005
maximum education in household (year)-0.0050.004-0.011 *0.006-0.013 *0.007
sex of head (1=male, 0=female)
0.070 *** 0.024
0.066 *
0.034
0.054
0.035
number of family members
0.013
0.016
0.019
0.016
0.020
0.017
whether head earns from non-agricultural work
0.044
0.048
0.046
0.053
0.025
0.062
years of farming
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.003
-0.001
0.003
total non-agricultural income (log)-0.0190.013-0.020 *0.011-0.001
0.007
whether farmer borrows money for crop in the past year
0.063
0.052
0.053
0.050
0.050
0.056
total earning from rice farming-0.010 *** 0.003-0.008 **0.003-0.007 **0.004
in dry and early wet season (log)
total amount of rice kept for selling in dry and early wet-0.0120.009-0.0140.010-0.0060.010
season (log)
total amount of rice kept for self consumption in dry and0.015 **
0.007
0.012 *
0.006
0.008 *
0.007
early wet season (log)Characteristics of plot
area (ha)
0.012
0.013
0.013
0.017
type of soilclay
-0.0230.038-0.052
0.032
sandy
0.080
0.126
0.056
0.123
other
-0.2960.201-0.1250.130
elevation
high
0.126
0.085
0.135
0.099
middle
0.027
0.028
0.026
0.033
type of irrigation system
deep wall pump
-0.0880.054-0.0600.043
shallow tube well
0.070
0.080
0.044
0.068
pumped from river/canal/dam
0.149 **
0.062
0.138 **
0.064
Sample size
396
396
351
Adjusted R squared
0.259
0.311
0.204
Note: 1. Standard error in parenthesis is clustered at village level. 2. All regressions include village fixed effects. 3. The unit ofobservations for the regression is the plot. 4. Analysis is weighted by household level.
* significant at the 10% level; ** significant at the 5% level; *** significant at the 1% level.

26

Figure 1.
(a) Technology A(b) Technology B

27

Figure 2. Photo of moisture meter28