See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303073456

Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder

farmers in developing countries

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

128 6,843

2 authors:

Margaret NJERI Mwangi Shawn Kariuki

Chuka University College Social Community Organization
3 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   128 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

social networks, contract farming and food security status among smallholder farmers in semi arid areas View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Margaret NJERI Mwangi on 17 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

Factors Determining Adoption of New Agricultural Technology

by Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries

Margaret Mwangi1* Samuel Kariuki2

1. Department of AGEC/ AGBM, Egerton University, P.O. Box, 536-20115, Egerton, Kenya
2. Department of AGEC/AGBM, Egerton University, P.O. Box, 536-20115, Egerton, Kenya

*
E-mail of Corresponding author [email protected]

Abstract
Agricultural technologies are seen as an important route out of poverty in most of the developing countries.
However the rate of adoption of these technologies has remained low in most of these countries. This study aim
at shedding some light on the potential factors that influence agricultural technology adoption in developing
countries. It does so by reviewing previous studies done on technology adoption. From the study technological,
economic, institutional factors and human specific factors are found to be the determinants of agricultural
technology adoption. The study recommend the future studies on adoption to widen the range of variables used
by including perception of farmers towards new technology.
Keywords: Technology, Adoption, smallholder

Introduction
Agriculture plays an important role in economic growth, enhancing food security, poverty reduction and rural
development. It is the main source of income for around 2.5 billion people in the developing world (FAO, 2003).
Smallholder agriculture is identified as a vital development tool for achieving Millennium Development Goals,
one of which is to halve the people suffering from extreme poverty and hunger by 2015 (World Bank, 2008).
However majority of smallholder farmers relies on traditional methods of production and this has lowered the
level of productivity. For instance Over 70% of the maize production in the majority of developing countries is
from smallholders who use traditional methods of production (Muzari et al., 2012). These farmers generally
obtain very low crop yields because the local varieties used by farmers have low potential yield, most of the
maize is grown under rain-fed conditions and irrigation is used only in limited areas, little or no fertilizers are
used and pest control is not adequate (Muzari et al., 2012; Shao, 1996). This has triggered much of discussion on
the need to increase productivity and sustainability in agriculture globally but much less information is available
on specific means to achieve this aim.
Increasing agricultural productivity is critical to meet expected rising demand and, as such, it is instructive to
examine recent performance in cases of modern agricultural technologies (Challa, 2013). Agricultural
technologies include all kinds of improved techniques and practices which affect the growth of agricultural
output (Jain et al., 2009). According to Loevinsohn et al. (2013) the most common areas of technology
development and promotion for crops include new varieties and management regimes; soil as well as soil
fertility management; weed and pest management; irrigation and water management. By virtue of improved
input/output relationships, new technology tends to raise output and reduces average cost of production which in
turn results in substantial gains in farm income (Challa, 2013).
Adopters of improved technologies increase their productions, leading to constant socio-economic development.
Adoption of improved agricultural technologies has been associated with: higher earnings and lower poverty;
improved nutritional status; lower staple food prices; increased employment opportunities as well as earnings for
landless laborers (Kasirye, 2010). Adoption of improved technologies is believed to be a major factor in the
success of the green revolution experienced by Asian countries (Ravallion and Chen, 2004; Kasirye, 2010).On
the other hand, non-adopters can hardly maintain their marginal livelihood with socio-economic stagnation
leading to deprivation (Jain et al., 2009).

A new agricultural technology that enhances sustainable production of food and fiber is therefore critical for
sustainable food security and economic development. This has made the dynamics of technical change in
agriculture to be an area of intense research since the early part of twentieth century (Loevinsohn et al., 2013).
These technologies are particularly relevant to smallholder farmers in developing countries because they are
constrained in many ways, which makes them a priority for development efforts. These farmers for instance, live
and farm in areas where rainfall is low and erratic, and soils tend to be infertile. In addition, infrastructure and

208
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

institutions such as irrigation, input and product markets, and credit as well as extension services tend to be
poorly developed (Muzari et al., 2012).
Over the years many studies have been conducted on innovation and uptake of new technologies in developing
countries. In addition the process of adoption and the impact of adopting new technology on smallholder farmers
have been studied. However new agricultural technologies are often adopted slowly and several aspects of
adoption remain poorly understood despite being seen as an important route out of poverty in most of the
developing countries (Bandiera and Rasul, 2010; Simtowe, 2011).
This paper therefore tries to review various studies done on adoption of new technology and factors that are
responsible for slow rate of technology adoption.

Literature Review
Technology adoption
Various authors define technology in different ways. Loevinsohn et al., 2013 define technology as the means and
methods of producing goods and services, including methods of organization as well as physical technique.
According to these authors new technology is new to a particular place or group of farmers, or represents a new
use of technology that is already in use within a particular place or amongst a group of farmers. Technology is
the knowledge/information that permits some tasks to be accomplished more easily, some service to be rendered
or the manufacture of a product (Lavison 2013). Technology itself is aimed at improving a given situation or
changing the status quo to a more desirable level. It assists the applicant to do work easier than he would have in
the absence of the technology hence it helps save time and labor (Bonabana-Wabbi 2002)

Adoption on the other hand is also defined in different ways by various authors. Loevinsohn et al., 2013 defines
adoption as the integration of a new technology into existing practice and is usually proceeded by a period of
‘trying’ and some degree of adaptation. Citing the work of Feder, Just and Zilberman (1985), Bonabana-Wabbi
defines adoption as a mental process an individual passes from first hearing about an innovation to final
utilization of it. Adoption is in two categories; rate of adoption and intensity of adoption. The former is the
relative speed with which farmers adopt an innovation, has as one of its pillars, the element of ‘time’. On the
other hand, intensity of adoption refers to the level of use of a given technology in any time period (Bonabana-
Wabbi 2002).

Defining technology adoption is a complicated task since it varies with the technology being adopted. For
instance the study by Doss (2003) showed that adoption of improved seed in a survey done by CIMMYT
classified farmers as adopters if they were using seeds that had been recycled for several generations from hybrid
ancestors. In other studies adoption was identified with following the extension service recommendations of
using only new certified seed (Doss, 2003; Bisanda 1998; Ouma 2002). Therefore in defining agricultural
technology adoption by the farmers, the first thing to consider is whether adoption is a discrete state with binary
response variables or not (Doss, 2003). That means definition depends on the fact that the farmer is an adopter of
the technologies or non-adopter taking values zero and one or the response is continuous variable (Challa, 2013).
The appropriateness of each approach depends on the particular context (Doss, 2003). Many researchers use a
simple dichotomous variable approach in the farmers’ decisions of new technology adoption. This approach
according to Jain et al. (2009) is necessary but not sufficient because the dichotomous response reflects the
status of awareness of improved technology rather than the actual adoption. Therefore researchers should clearly
state how they are defining this term (technology adoption) so that they can develop appropriate tool to measure
it.

Determinants of agricultural technology adoption

There exist vast literatures on factors that determine agricultural technology adoption. According to Loevinsohn
et al. (2013), farmers’ decisions about whether and how to adopt new technology are conditioned by the dynamic
interaction between characteristics of the technology itself and the array of conditions and circumstances.
Diffusion itself results from a series of individual decisions to begin using the new technology, decisions which
are often the result of a comparison of the uncertain benefits of the new invention with the uncertain costs of
adopting it (Hall and Khan, 2002). An understanding of the factors influencing this choice is essential both for
economists studying the determinants of growth and for the generators and disseminators of such technologies
(Hall and Khan, 2002).
Traditionally, economic analysis of technology adoption has sought to explain adoption behavior in relation to
personal characteristics and endowments, imperfect information, risk, uncertainty, institutional constraints, input
availability, and infrastructure (Feder et al. 1985; Koppel 1994; Foster & Rosenzweig 1996; Kohli & Singh
1997; Rogers, 2003 and Uaiene, 2009). A more recent strand of literature has included social networks and
learning in the categories of factors determining adoption of technology (Uaiene, 2009). Some studies classify
these factors into different categories. For example, Akudugu et al. (2012) grouped the determinant of
agricultural technology adoption into three categories namely; economic, social and institutional factors. Kebede

209
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

et al. (1990) as cited by Lavison (2013) broadly categorized the factors that influence adoption of technologies
into Social, Economic and physical categories, McNamara, Wetzstein and Douce (1991) categorized the factors
into, farmer characteristics, farm structure, institutional characteristics and managerial structure, Nowak (1987)
grouped them into informational, economic and ecological, while Wu and Babcock (1998) classified them under
human capital, production, policy and natural resource characteristics.
Although there are many categories for grouping determinants of technology adoption, there is no clear
distinguishing feature between variables in each category. Categorization is done to suit the current technology
being investigated, the location, and the researcher’s preference, or even to suit client needs (Bonabana- Wabbi
2002). For instance the level of education of a farmer has been classified as a human capital by some researchers
while others classifies it as a household specific factor. This study will review the factors determining adoption
of agricultural technology by categorizing them into technological factors, economic factors, institutional factors
and household specific factors. This will enable a depth review of how each factor influences adoption.

Technology factors
Characteristic of a technology is a precondition of adopting it. Trialability or a degree to which a potential
adopter can try something out on a small scale first before adopting it completely is a major determinant of
technology adoption (Doss, 2003). In studying determinants of adopting Imazapyr-Resistant maize (IRM)
technology in Western Kenya, Mignouna et al. (2011) stated that, the characteristic of the technology play a
critical role in adoption decision process. They argued that farmers who perceive the technology being consistent
with their needs and compatible to their environment are likely to adopt since they find it as a positive
investment. Farmers’ perception about the performance of the technologies significantly influences their decision
to adopt them. A study by adesina and Zinnah (1993) showed that farmers’ perception of characteristic of
modern rice variety significantly influenced their decision to adopt it. A similar result was reported by Wandji et
al. (2012) when studying perception of farmers towards adoption of Aquaculture technology in Cameroon. Their
study indicated that perception of farmers towards fish farming facilitated its uptake. It is therefore important
that for any new technology to be introduced to farmers, they should be involved in its evaluation to find its
suitability to their circumstances (Karugia et al., 2004).

Economic Factors
Farm size plays a critical role in adoption process of a new technology. Many authors have analyzed farm size as
one of important determinant of technology adoption. Farm size can affect and in turn be affected by the other
factors influencing adoption (Lavison 2013). Some technologies are termed as scale-dependant because of the
great importance of farm size in their adoption (Bonabana- Wabbi 2002).
Many studies have reported a positive relation between farm size and adoption of agricultural technology
(Kasenge, 1998; Gabre-Madhin and Haggblade, 2001 Ahmed, 2004; Uaiene et al., 2009; Mignouna et al, 2011).
Farmers with large farm size are likely to adopt a new technology as they can afford to devote part of their land
to try new technology unlike those with less farm size (Uaiene et al., 2009). In addition, lumpy technologies
such as mechanized equipment or animal traction require economies of size to ensure profitability (Feder, Just
and Zilberman, 1985).
Some studies have shown a negative influence of farm size on adoption of new agricultural technology. Small
farm size may provide an incentive to adopt a technology especially in the case of an input-intensive innovation
such as a labor-intensive or land-saving technology. Farmers with small land may adopt land-saving
technologies such as green house technology, zero grazing among others as an alternative to increased
agricultural production (Yaron, Dinar and Voet, 1992; Harper et al, 1990).
Other studies have reported insignificant or neutral relationship with adoption. For instance a study by Grieshop
et al. (1988), Ridgley and Brush (1992) Waller et al. (1998) Mugisa-Mutetikka et al., (2000), Bonabana- Wabbi
(2002) and Samiee et al. (2009) concluded that size of farm did not affect Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
adoption implying that IPM dissemination may take place regardless of farmers’ scale of operation. Kariyasa and
Dewi (2011) also found that extensive of land holdings had no significant effect on the degree of Integrated Crop
Management Farmer Field School (ICM-FFS) adoption probability.
The above mentioned studies consider total farm size and not crop acreage on which the new technology is
practiced. Since total farm size has an effect on overall adoption, considering the crop acreage with the new
technology may be a superior measure to predict the rate and extent of adoption of technology (Lowenberg-
DeBoer, 2000). Therefore in regard to farm size, technology adoption may best be explained by measuring the
proportion of total land area suitable to the new technology (Bonabana- Wabbi, 2002)
A key determinant of the adoption of a new technology is the net gain to the farmer from adoption, inclusive of
all costs of using the new technology (Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010). The cost of adopting agricultural
technology has been found to be a constraint to technology adoption. For instance, the elimination of subsidies
on prices of seed and fertilizers since the 1990s due to the World Bank-sponsored structural adjustment
programs in sub-Saharan Africa has widened this constraint (Muzari et al., 2013). Previous studies on
determinants of technology adoption have also reported high cost of technology as a hinderance to adoption. The
study done by Makokha et al. (2001) on determinants of fertilizer and manure use in maize production in

210
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

Kiambu county, Kenya reported high cost of labor and other inputs, unavailability of demanded packages and
untimely delivery as the main constraints to fertilizer adoption. Cost of hired labor was also reported by Ouma
et al. (2002) as one among other factors constraining adoption of fertilizer and hybrid seed in Embu county
Kenya. Wekesa et al. (2003) when analyzing determinants of adoption of improved maize variety in coastal
lowlands of Kenya found high cost and unavailability of seeds as one of factors responsible for low rate of
adoption.
Off farm income has been shown to have a positive impact on technology adoption. This is because off-farm
income acts as an important strategy for overcoming credit constraints faced by the rural households in many
developing countries (Reardon et al., 2007). Off-farm income is reported to act as a substitute for borrowed
capital in rural economies where credit markets are either missing or dysfunctional (Ellis and Freeman, 2004;
Diiro, 2013). According to Diiro (2013) off- farm income is expected to provide farmers with liquid capital for
purchasing productivity enhancing inputs such as improved seed and fertilizers. For instance, her study when
analyzing the impact of off-farm earnings on the intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties and the
productivity of maize farming in Uganda, Diiro reported a significantly higher adoption intensity and
expenditure on purchased inputs among households with off-farm income compared to their counterparts without
off- farm income. However not all technologies has shown positive relationship between off-farm income and
their adoption. Some studies on technologies that are labor intensive have shown negative relationship between
off-farm income and adoption. According to Goodwin and Mishra (2004) the pursuit of off-farm income by
farmers may undermine their adoption of modern technology by reducing the amount of household labor
allocated to farming enterprises.

Institutional factors
Belonging to a social group enhances social capital allowing trust, idea and information exchange (Mignouna et
al., 2011). Farmers within a social group learn from each other the benefits and usage of a new technology.
Uaiene et al. (2009) suggests that social network effects are important for individual decisions, and that, in the
particular context of agricultural innovations, farmers share information and learn from each other. Studying the
effect of community based organization in adoption of corm-paired banana technology in Uganda, Katungi and
Akankwasa (2010) found that farmers who participated more in community-based organizations were likely to
engage in social learning about the technology hence raising their likelihood to adopt the technologies. Although
many researchers have reported a positive influence of social group on technology adoption, social groups may
also have a negative impact on technology adoption especially where free-riding behavior exists. Foster and
Rosenzweig (1995) when studying adoption of Green Revolution technologies in India found that learning
externalities within social networks increased the profitability of adoption, but also farmers appeared to be free-
riding on their neighbors’ costly experimentation with the new technology. Bandiera and Rasul (2002) as cited
by Hogset (2005) suggests that, learning externalities generate opposite effects, such that the more other people
engage in experimentation with a new technology, the more beneficial it is to join in, but also the more beneficial
it is to free-ride on the experimentation of others. As a result of these contradictory effects, Bandiera and Rasul
(2002) propose an inverted U-shaped individual adoption curve, implying that network effects are positive at low
rates of adoption, but negative at high rates of adoption.

Acquisition of information about a new technology is another factor that determines adoption of technology. It
enables farmers to learn the existence as well as the effective use of technology and this facilitates its adoption.
Farmers will only adopt the technology they are aware of or have heard about it. Access to information reduces
the uncertainty about a technology’s performance hence may change individual’s assessment from purely
subjective to objective over time (Caswell et al., 2001; Bonabana- Wabbi 2002). However access to information
about a technology does not necessarily mean it will be adopted by all farmers. This simply implies that farmers
may perceive the technology and subjectively evaluate it differently than scientists (Uaiene et al., 2009). Access
to information may also result to dis-adoption of the technology. For instance, where experience within the
general population about a specific technology is limited, more information induces negative attitudes towards
its adoption, probably because more information exposes an even bigger information vacuum hence increasing
the risk associated with it (Bonabana- Wabbi 2002). It is therefore important to ensure the information is
reliable, consistent and accurate. Farmers need to know the existence of technology, its beneficial, and its usage
for them to adopt it.

Access to extension services has also been found to be a key aspect in technology adoption. Farmers are usually
informed about the existence as well as the effective use and benefit of new technology through extension
agents. Extension agent acts as a link between the innovators (Researchers) of the technology and users of that
technology. This helps to reduce transaction cost incurred when passing the information on the new technology

211
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

to a large heterogeneous population of farmers (Genius et al., 2010). Extension agents usually target specific
farmers who are recognized as peers (farmers with whom a particular farmer interacts) exerting a direct or
indirect influence on the whole population of farmers in their respective areas (Genius et al., 2010).
Many authors have reported a positive relationship between extension services and technology adoption. A good
example include; Adoption of Imazapyr-Resistant Maize Technologies (IRM) by Mignouna et al. (2011);
Factors determining technology adoption among Nepalese Karki and Siegfried (2004); Uaiene et al., 2009;
Adoption of improved maize and land management in Uganda by Sserunkuuma (2005); adoption of modern
agricultural technologies in Ghana Akudugu et al. (2012) just to mention a few. This is because exposing
farmers to information based upon innovation-diffusion theory is expected to stimulate adoption (Uaiene et al.,
2009). In fact, the influence of extension agents can counter balance the negative effect of lack of years of formal
education in the overall decision to adopt some technologies (Yaron, Dinar and Voet, (1992); Bonabana- Wabbi
2002).

Access to credit has been reported to stimulate technology adoption (Mohamed & Temu, 2008). It is believed
that access to credit promotes the adoption of risky technologies through relaxation of the liquidity constraint as
well as through the boosting of household’s-risk bearing ability (Simtowe & Zeller, 2006). This is because with
an option of borrowing, a household can do away with risk reducing but inefficient income diversification
strategies and concentrate on more risky but efficient investments (Simtowe & Zeller, 2006). However access to
credit has been found to be gender biased in some countries where female-headed households are discriminated
against by credit institutions, and as such they are unable to finance yield-raising technologies, leading to low
adoption rates (Muzari et al., 2013). There is therefore need for policy makers to improve current smallholder
credit systems to ensure that a wider spectrum of smallholders are able to have access to credit, more especially
female-headed households (Mkandawire, 1993; Simtowe & Zeller, 2006). This may, in certain cases, necessitate
designing credit packages that are tailored to meet the needs of specific target groups (Muzari et al., 2013). For
instance in Kenya, the government has started a program that offer free interest loans to youths and women
(UWEZO fund). This will help empower women and enable them to adopt agricultural technologies hence
enhancing economic growth.

Household-specific factors
Human capital of the farmer is assumed to have a significant influence on farmers’ decision to adopt new
technologies. Most adoption studies have attempted to measure human capital through the farmer’s Education,
age, Gender, and household size (Fernandez-Cornejo & Daberkow, 1994; Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2007;
Mignouna et al, 2011; Keelan et al., 2014). Education of the farmer has been assumed to have a positive
influence on farmers’ decision to adopt new technology. Education level of a farmer increases his ability to
obtain; process and use information relevant to adoption of a new technology (Mignouna et al., 2011; Lavison
2013; Namara et al., 2013). For instance a study by Okunlola et al. (2011) on adoption of new technologies by
fish farmers and Ajewole (2010) on adoption of organic fertilizers found that the level of education had a
positive and significant influence on adoption of the technology. This is because higher education influences
respondents’ attitudes and thoughts making them more open, rational and able to analyze the benefits of the new
technology (Waller et al., 1998). This eases the introduction of a new innovation which ultimately affects the
adoption process (Adebiyi & Okunlola, 2010). Other studies that have reported a positive relationship between
education and adoption as cited by Uematsu and Mishra (2010) include; Goodwin and Schroeder (1994) on
forward pricing methods, Huffman and Mercier (1991); Putler and Zilberman (1988) on adoption of
microcomputers in agriculture, Mishra and Park (2005); Mishra et al. (2009) on use of internet on use of internet,
Rahm and Huffman (1984) on reduced tillage, Roberts et al. (2004) on precision farming and Traore, et al.
(1998) on on-farm adoption of conservation tillage.

On the other hand, some authors have reported insignificant or negative effect of education on the rate of
technology adoption (Grieshop et al., 1988; Khanna, 2001; Banerjee, et al., 2008; Samiee et al., 2009; Ishak and
Afrizon, 2011). Studying the effect of education on technology adoption, Uematsu and Mishra (2010) reported a
negative influence of formal education towards adopting genetically modified crops. Since the above empirical
evidence have shown mixed results on the influence of education and adoption of new technology, more study
need to be done in order to come up with a more consistent result.

Age is also assumed to be a determinant of adoption of new technology. Older farmers are assumed to have
gained knowledge and experience over time and are better able to evaluate technology information than younger
farmers (Mignouna et al, 2011; Kariyasa and Dewi 2011). On contrary age has been found to have a negative
relationship with adoption of technology. This relationship is explained by Mauceri et al. (2005) and Adesina &

212
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

Zinnah (1993) that as farmers grow older, there is an increase in risk aversion and a decreased interest in long-
term investment in the farm. On the other hand younger farmers are typically less risk-averse and are more
willing to try new technologies. For instance, Alexander and Van Mellor (2005) found that adoption of
genetically modified maize increased with age for younger farmers as they gain experience and increase their
stock of human capital but declines with age for those farmers closer to retirement.

Gender issues in agricultural technology adoption have been investigated for a long time and most studies have
reported mixed evidence regarding the different roles men and women play in technology adoption (Bonabana-
Wabbi 2002). In analyzing the impact of gender on technology adoption, Morris and Doss (1999) had found no
significant association between gender and probability to adopt improved maize in Ghana. They concluded that
technology adoption decisions depend primarily on access to resources, rather than on gender and if adoption of
improved maize depends on access to land, labor, or other resources, and if in a particular context men tend to
have better access to these resources than women, then in that context the technologies will not benefit men and
women equally. On the other hand gender may have a significant influence on some technologies. Gender affects
technology adoption since the head of the household is the primary decision maker and men have more access to
and control over vital production resources than women due to socio-cultural values and norms (Tesfaye et al.,
2001; Mesfin, 2005; Omonona et al., 2006; Mignouna et al., 2011). For instance, a study by Obisesan (2014) on
adoption of technology found that, gender had a significant and positive influence on adoption of improved
cassava production in Nigeria. His result conquered with that of Lavison (2013) which indicated male farmers
were more likely to adopt organic fertilizer unlike their female counterparts.

Household size is simply used as a measure of labor availability. It determines adoption process in that, a larger
household have the capacity to relax the labor constraints required during introduction of new technology
(Mignouna et al, 2011; Bonabana- Wabbi 2002)

Conclusion
This study has reviewed past studies on the factors influencing adoption of agricultural technology. Perception of
farmers towards a new technology is a key precondition for adoption to occur. Other factors that have been
shown to determine adoption of agricultural technology include human specific factors, economic factors,
technological and institutional factors. From the review, the determinant of agricultural technology adoption
does not always have the same effect on adoption rather the effect varies depending on the type of technology
being introduced. For example, farm size as a determinant of technology adoption has been found to have mixed
effect. Large farm size may have positive effect on adoption of a certain technology and it may also reveal a
negative impact on adoption of another technology such as zero grazing technology.
Understanding the factors that influence or hinder adoption of agricultural technology is essential in planning
and executing technology related programmes for meeting the challenges of food production in developing
countries. Therefore to enhance technology adoption by farmers, it’s important for policy makers and developers
of new technology to understand farmers need as well as their ability to adopt technology in order to come up
with technology that will suit them.

Reference
Adebiyi, S., Okunlola, J. (2010). Factors affecting Adoption of Cocoa Rehabilitation Techniques in Oyo State of
Nigeria; Proceedings The 18TH Annual Congress of the Nigerian Rural Sociological Association of
Nigeria. FUTA. Akure, Nigeria
Adesina, A., & Zinnah, M. (1993). Technology characteristics, farmers’ perceptions and adoption decisions: a
Tobit model analysis in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics, 9
Agbamu J.U (2006). Essentials of Agricultural Communication in Nigeria. Malthouse Ltd. Pp 65-73.
Ahmed S. (2004). Factors and Constraints for Adopting New Agricultural Technology in Assam With Special
Reference to Nalbari District: An Empirical Study: Journal of Contemporary Indian Policy.
Akudugu, M., Guo, E., Dadzie, S. (2012) Adoption of Modern Agricultural Production Technologies by Farm
Households in Ghana: What Factors Influence their Decisions? Journal of Biology, Agriculture and
Healthcare 2(3)
Alexander, C., & Van Mellor, T. (2005). Determinants of corn rootworm resistant corn adoption in Indiana.
AgBioForum, 8(4), 197-204
Bandiera, O., and Rasul, I. (2002). Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique.
Discussion Paper Series. London, UK, Centre for Economic Policy Research CEPR. April 2002.

213
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

Banerjee, B., Martin, S., Roberts, R., Larkin, S., Larson, J., Paxton, K., English, B., Marra, M., and Reeves, J.
(2008). A Binary logit estimation of factors affecting adoption of GPS guidance systems by cotton
producers; Journal of agricultural and applied economics 40(1): 345-355
Bisanda, S., W. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, A.J. Moshi, and P. Anadajayasekeram. (1998). Adoption of maize
production technologies in Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Mexico, D.F.: International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), The United Republic of Tanzania, and The Southern
African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR). p. 38.
Bonabana-Wabbi J. (2002). Assessing Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural Technologies: The Case of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Kumi District, Msc. Thesis Eastern Uganda
Challa, Merga (2013).Determining Factors and Impacts of Modern Agricultural Technology Adoption in West
Wollega, Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH, http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/280336/determining-
factors-and-impacts-of-modern-agricultural-technology-adoption.
Diiro, G. (2013). Impact of Off-farm Income on Technology Adoption Intensity and Productivity: Evidence
from Rural Maize Farmers in Uganda. International Food Policy Research Institute, Working Paper
11
Doss, C.R. (2003).Understanding Farm Level Technology Adoption: Lessons Learned from CIMMYT’s Micro-
surveys in Eastern Africa. CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 03-07. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
ELlis, F. and Freeman, H. Ade, H. (2004). “Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Strategies in Four African
Countries.” Journal of Development Studies 40(4):1-30
FAO (2003). Statement at the Ministerial Conference of the WTO - Circulated by H.E. Hartwig de Haen,
Assistant Director-General, Fifth Session, Cancun, 10-14 September, Doc No: WT/MIN (03)/ST/61.
Feder, G., E. R. Just and D. Zilberman. (1990). “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries:
A Survey.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 33 (1985):255-298.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Daberkow, S., & Huang, H. (1994). The adoption of IPM techniques by vegetable
growers in Florida, Michigan and Texas. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 26(1), 158-
172.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Mishra, A., Nehring, R., Hendricks, C., Southern, M., & Gregory, A. (2007). Off-farm
income, technology adoption, and farm economic performance (Agricultural Economics Report No.
36). Washington, DC: USDA ERS.
Foster, D., and Rosenzweig, M. (1995). "Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and
Technical Change in Agriculture." Journal of Political Economy 103 (6): pp. 1176-1209.
Gabre-Madhin, Z. and Haggblade, S. (2001). Success in African Agriculture: Results of an Expert Survey.
International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC. June 2001.
Genius, M., Koundouri, M., Nauges, C and Tzouvelekas, V. (2010). Information Transmission in Irrigation
Technology Adoption and Diffusion: Social Learning, Extension Services and Spatial Effects
Goodwin, B and Mishra, A. (2002). Farming Efficiency and the Determinants of Multiple Job Holding by Farm
Operators. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.86 (3): 722–729
Grieshop, I., Zalom, G., Miyao, G. (1988). Adoption and diffusion of integrated pest management innovations
in agriculture: Bulletin of Entomological society of America: 72-78
Harper, J., Rister, M., Mjelde, J., Drees, M., and Way M.(1990) “Factors influencing the adoption of insect
management technology.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(4): 997-1005.
Hogset, H. (2005). Social Networks and Technology Adoption; Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the
American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, July 24-
27, 2005
Huffman, E., and Mercier,S.(1991). "Joint Adoption of Microcomputer Technologies: An Analysis of Farmers'
Decisions." The Review of Economics and Statistics 73(3):541‐546.
Jain R. Arora A & Raju S. (2009). A Novel Adoption Index of Selected Agricultural Technologies:Linkages
with Infrastructure and Productivity: Agricultural Economics Research Review 22 ; pp 109-120
Kariyasa, K., Dewi, A. (2011).Analysis of Factors Affecting Adoption of Integrated Crop Management Farmer
Field School (Icm-Ffs) in Swampy Areas. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics
1(2): pp 29-38
Karki, B. & Siegfried, B. (2004). Technology Adoption and Household Food Security; analyzing factors
determining technology adoption and impact of project intervention: A case of smallholder peasants
in Nepal: Conference Paper in The Deutscher Tropentag held on 5 - 7 October, 2004, Humboldt-
University, Berlin.

214
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

Karugia, S., Baltenweck, I., Waithaka, M., Miano, M., Nyikal, R., Romney, D (2004). Perception of Technology
and its Impact on Technology Uptake: The Case of Fodder Legume in Central Kenya Highlands. The
Role of Social Scientists Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium, 6 to 8 December 2004, Grand
Regency Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya
Kasenge, V. (1998). Socio-economic factors influencing the level of Soil Management Practices on Fragile
Land. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of Soil Science Society of East Africa (Eds.: Shayo-
Ngowi, A.J., G. Ley and F.B.R Rwehumbiza), 13th-19th, December 1998, Tanga, Tanzania pp.102-
112, 1998.
Katungi, E and Akankwasa, K. (2010). Community-Based Organizations and Their Effect on the Adoption of
Agricultural Technologies in Uganda: a Study of Banana (Musa spp.) Pest Management Technology
Keelan, C., Thorne, F., Flanagan, P., Newman, C. (2014). Predicted Willingness of Irish Farmers to Adopt GM
Technology. The journal of Agrobiotechnology management and Economics 12(3)
Khanna, M. (2001). "Sequential Adoption of Site‐Specific Technologies and Its Implications for Nitrogen Produ
ctivity: A Double Selectivity Model." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(1):35‐51.
Kohli, I., Singh, N. (1998). “Exports and Growth: Critical minimum effort and diminishing returns.” Journal of
Development Economics. 1 (30):391-400.
Koppel, B.M. (Ed), (1994). Induced Innovation Theory and International Agricultural Development: A
Reassessment the Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Lavison, R. (2013). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Organic Fertilizers in Vegetable Production in Accra,
Msc Thesis, Accra Ghana.
Loevinsohn M, Sumberg J, Diagne A (2012) under what circumstances and conditions does adoption of
technology result in increased agricultural productivity? Protocol. London: EPPI Centre, Social
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London
Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2000). Comments on Site-Specific Crop Management: Adoption Patterns and
Incentives. Review of Agricultural Economics, 22(1): 245-247.
Makokha, S., Kimani, S., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Musembi, F. (2001). Determinants of Fertilizer and
Manure Use for Maize Production in Kiambu District, Kenya. CIMMYT (International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center) Mexico
Mauceri, M., Alwang, J., Norton, G. Barrera, V. (2005). Adoption of Integrated Pest Management
Technologies: A Case Study of Potato Farmers in Carchi, Ecuador; Selected Paper prepared for
presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence,
Rhode Island, July 24-27, 2005
Mesfin A. (2005). “Analysis of factors Influencing Adoption of Triticale and its Impact.The Case Farta
Wereda”. Msc. Thesis (Unpublished) Presented to School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya
University.
Mignouna, B., Manyong, M., Rusike, J., Mutabazi, S., & Senkondo, M. (2011). Determinants of Adopting
Imazapyr-Resistant Maize Technology and its Impact on Household Income in Western Kenya:
AgBioforum, 14(3), 158-163. Hall, B. and Khan, B. (2002) Adoption of new technology. New
Economy Handbook.
Mishra, K., and Park, T.(2005). "An Empirical Analysis of Internet Use by U.S. Farmers." Agricultural
Resource Economics Review 34 (2): 253-264
Mishra, K., Williams, R., Detre, J. (2009). "Internet Access and Internet Purchasing
Patterns of Farm Households." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38(2):240‐257.
Mkandawire, R. (1993). Agrarian Change and Food Security among Smallholders in Malawi
Mohamed, K. and Temu, A. (2008). Access to credit and its effect on the adoption of agricultural technologies:
The case of Zanzibar. African Review of Money Finance and Banking: pp. 45-89
Morris, M., Doss, C. (1999). How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of
improved maize technology in Ghana: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting, American Agricultural
Economics Association (AAEA), Nashville, Tennessee, August 8-11
Muzari, W. Gatsi, W & Muvhunzi, S. (2012). The Impacts of Technology Adoption on Smallholder Agricultural
Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review, Journal of Sustainable Development; 5 (8)
Namara, E., Weligamage, P., Barker, R. (2003). Prospects for adopting system of rice intensification in Sri
Lanka: A socioeconomic assessment. Research Report 75.Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute.
Obisesan, A. (2014). Gender Differences in Technology Adoption and Welfare Impact among Nigerian Farming
Households, MPRA Paper No. 58920

215
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2015

Okunlola, O Oludare, O., Akinwalere, B.(2011). Adoption of new technologies by fish farmers in Akure, Ondo
state, Nigeria Journal of Agricultural Technology 7(6):1539-1548
Omonona, B., Oni, O., and Uwagboe, O. (2005) “Adoption of improved Cassava varieties and its impact on
Rural Farming Households in Edo State, Nigeria”. Journal of Agriculture and Food Information 7(1):
pp40-45
Ouma, J., Murithi,F., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Gethi M, De Groote, H. (2002) Adoption of Maize Seed and
Fertilizer Technologies in Embu District, Kenya. CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center), Mexico, D.F.
Putler, S., and Zilberman, D. (1998). Computer Use in Agriculture: Evidence from Tulare County, California.
American journal of Agricultural Economics 70(4): Pp 790-802
Rahm, R., & Huffman, W. (1984). The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other
Variables. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(4): 405-413
Ravallion, M., & Chen, S. (2004). “How have the world’s poorest fared since the early 1980s?” World Bank
Research Observer, 19 (2): Pp141-170.
Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K. and Pingali, P. (2007). “Rural Nonfarm Employment in Developing Countries in an
era of Globalization.” Agricultural Economics 37:173–183
Ridgley, M., Brush, B. (1992).Social factors and selective technology adoption: the case of integrated pest
management, Human org. 51: 367-378
Roberts, K., English,B., Larson, J Cochran, R., Goodman, W., Larkin, S., Marra, M., Martin, S., Shurley, W.,
and Reeves. M. (2004). "Adoption of Site‐Specific information and Variable-Rate Technologies
in Cotton Precision Farming." Journal of agricultural and applied economics 36(1): 143-158.
Samiee, A., Rezvanfar, A., Faham, E. (2009). Factors affecting adoption of integrated pest management by
wheat growers in Varamin County, Iran: African Journal of Agricultural Research 4(5); 491-497
Simtowe F. (2011).Determinants of Agricultural Technology adoption: the Case of Improved Pigeon pea
Varieties in Tanzania
Simtowe, F. & Zeller, M. (2006). The Impact of Access to Credit on the Adoption of hybrid maize in Malawi:
An Empirical test of an Agricultural Household Model under credit market failure. MPRA Paper No.
45
Sserunkuuma, D. (2005). The adoption and impact of improved maize and land management technologies in
Uganda
Traore, N., Landry, R., Amara, N. (1998). On-farm Adoption of Conservation Practices: The role of Farm and
Farmer Characteristic, Perception and Health Hazards. Land Economics 74(1): Pp114-127
Uaiene, R., Arndt, C., Masters, W. (2009) Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption in Mozambique.
Discussion papers No. 67E
Uematsu, H., Mishra, A., (2010). Can Education Be a Barrier to Technology Adoption? Selected Paper prepared
for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association 2010 AAEA,CAES, & WAEA
Joint Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 25-27
Waller, B., Hoy, W., Henderson, L., Stinner, B., Welty, C. (1998). Matching innovation with potential users: A
case study of potato IPM practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 70: 203-215
Wekesa, E., Mwangi,W., Verkuijl, H., Danda, K., De Groote,H. (2003) Adoption of Maize Technologies in the
Coastal Lowlands of Kenya. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F
World Bank (2008a). Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved on 22rd Nov, 2012 from
www.worldBank.org/mdgs/poverty-hunger.html
Yaron, D., Dinar, A., Voet, H. (1992). Innovations on Family farms: The Nazareth Region in Israel. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics: 361-370.
Zeder, G., Just and Zilberman, D. (1985)“Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A
Survey.” Economic Development and Cultural Change. 33 (1985):255-298.

216
 The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open-Access hosting service and academic event management.
The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the firm can be found on the homepage:

http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS

There are more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals hosted under the hosting platform.

Prospective authors of journals can find the submission instruction on the following
page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ All the journals articles are available online to the
readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those
inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Paper version of the journals is also
available upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES

Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/

Academic conference: http://www.iiste.org/conference/upcoming-conferences-call-for-paper/

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open

Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek
EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

View publication stats