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

net/publication/321253372

Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-67958-7_17

CITATIONS READS

60 20,268

2 authors:

Albert Ugochukwu Peter WB Phillips

University of Saskatchewan University of Saskatchewan
29 PUBLICATIONS 216 CITATIONS 268 PUBLICATIONS 2,805 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Albert Ugochukwu on 12 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management

Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes
Elias G. Carayannis
Evangelos Grigoroudis
Stelios Rozakis Editors

From
Agriscience to
Agribusiness
Theories, Policies and Practices
in Technology Transfer and
Commercialization
Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge
Management

Series editor:
Elias G. Carayannis
George Washington University
Washington, DC, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8124
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes • Elias G. Carayannis
Evangelos Grigoroudis • Stelios Rozakis
Editors

From Agriscience to
Agribusiness
Theories, Policies and Practices in
Technology Transfer and Commercialization
Editors
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes Elias G. Carayannis
Department of Agricultural and Applied Department of Information Systems and
Economics Technology Management
University of Missouri GWU School of Business
Columbia, MO, USA Washington, DC, USA

Evangelos Grigoroudis Stelios Rozakis

School of Production Engineering & Institute of Soil Science and Plant
Management Cultivation
Technical University of Crete IUNG-PIB
Chania, Crete, Greece Pulawy, Poland

ISSN 2197-5698     ISSN 2197-5701 (electronic)

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management
ISBN 978-3-319-67957-0    ISBN 978-3-319-67958-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67958-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017955375

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Series Foreword

The Springer book series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management was
launched in March 2008 as a forum and intellectual, scholarly “podium” for global/
local, transdisciplinary, transsectoral, public–private, and leading/“bleeding”-edge
ideas, theories, and perspectives on these topics.
The book series is accompanied by the Springer Journal of the Knowledge
Economy, which was launched in 2009 with the same editorial leadership.
The series showcases provocative views that diverge from the current “conven-
tional wisdom,” that are properly grounded in theory and practice, and that consider
the concepts of robust competitiveness,1 sustainable entrepreneurship,2 and demo-
cratic capitalism3 central to its philosophy and objectives. More specifically, the
aim of this series is to highlight emerging research and practice at the dynamic
intersection of these fields, where individuals, organizations, industries, regions,
and nations are harnessing creativity and invention to achieve and sustain growth.

1
We define sustainable entrepreneurship as the creation of viable, profitable, and scalable firms.
Such firms engender the formation of self-replicating and mutually enhancing innovation networks
and knowledge clusters (innovation ecosystems), leading toward robust competitiveness
(E.G. Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3), 235–254,
2009).
2
We understand robust competitiveness to be a state of economic being and becoming that avails
systematic and defensible “unfair advantages” to the entities that are part of the economy. Such
competitiveness is built on mutually complementary and reinforcing low-, medium-, and hightech-
nology and public and private sector entities (government agencies, private firms, universities, and
nongovernmental organizations) (E.G. Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and
Regional Development 1(3), 235–254. 2009).
3
The concepts of robust competitiveness and sustainable entrepreneurship are pillars of a regime
that we call democratic capitalism (as opposed to “popular or casino capitalism”), in which real
opportunities for education and economic prosperity are available to all, especially—but not
only—younger people. These are the direct derivative of a collection of top-down policies as well
as bottom-up initiatives (including strong research and development policies and funding, but
going beyond these to include the development of innovation networks and knowledge clusters
across regions and sectors) (E.G. Carayannis and A. Kaloudis, Japan Economic Currents, pp. 6–10,
January 2009).

v
vi Series Foreword

Books that are part of the series explore the impact of innovation at the “macro”
(economies, markets), “meso” (industries, firms), and “micro” levels (teams, indi-
viduals), drawing from such related disciplines as finance, organizational psychol-
ogy, research and development, science policy, information systems, and strategy,
with the underlying theme that for innovation to be useful, it must involve the shar-
ing and application of knowledge.
Some of the key anchoring concepts of the series are outlined in the figure below
and the definitions that follow (all definitions are from E.G. Carayannis and
D.F.J. Campbell, International Journal of Technology Management, 46, 3–4, 2009).

Global
Systemic Mode 3 Quadruple Democracy Democratic
macro level helix of capitalism
knowledge

Structural and
organizational Knowledge Innovation Entrepreneurial Academic
meso level clusters networks university firm Global/local

Sustainable
entrepreneurship

Individual Creative Entrepreneur/

micro level milieus employee
matrix
Local

Conceptual profile of the series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge

Management:
• The “Mode 3” Systems Approach for Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use:
“Mode 3” is a multilateral, multinodal, multimodal, and multilevel systems
approach to the conceptualization, design, and management of real and virtual,
“knowledge-stock” and “knowledge-flow,” modalities that catalyze, accelerate,
and support the creation, diffusion, sharing, absorption, and use of cospecialized
knowledge assets. “Mode 3” is based on a system-theoretic perspective of socio-
economic, political, technological, and cultural trends and conditions that shape
the coevolution of knowledge with the “knowledge-based and knowledge-driven,
global/local economy and society.”
• Quadruple Helix: Quadruple helix, in this context, means to add to the triple
helix of government, university, and industry a “fourth helix” that we identify as
the “media-based and culture-based public.” This fourth helix associates with
“media,” “creative industries,” “culture,” “values,” “lifestyles,” “art,” and per-
haps also the notion of the “creative class.”
Series Foreword vii

• Innovation Networks: Innovation networks are real and virtual infrastructures

and infratechnologies that serve to nurture creativity, trigger invention, and cata-
lyze innovation in a public and/or private domain context (for instance, govern-
ment–university–industry public–private research and technology development
coopetitive partnerships).
• Knowledge Clusters: Knowledge clusters are agglomerations of cospecialized,
mutually complementary, and reinforcing knowledge assets in the form of
“knowledge stocks” and “knowledge flows” that exhibit self-organizing,
learning-­driven, dynamically adaptive competences and trends in the context of
an open systems perspective.
• Twenty-First-Century Innovation Ecosystem: A twenty-first-century innovation
ecosystem is a multilevel, multimodal, multinodal, and multiagent system of sys-
tems. The constituent systems consist of innovation metanetworks (networks of
innovation networks and knowledge clusters) and knowledge metaclusters (clus-
ters of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) as building blocks and orga-
nized in a self-referential or chaotic fractal knowledge and innovation architecture
(Carayannis 2001), which in turn constitute agglomerations of human, social,
intellectual, and financial capital stocks and flows as well as cultural and techno-
logical artifacts and modalities, continually coevolving, cospecializing, and
cooperating. These innovation networks and knowledge clusters also form,
reform, and dissolve within diverse institutional, political, technological, and
socioeconomic domains, including government, university, industry, and non-
governmental organizations and involving information and communication tech-
nologies, biotechnologies, advanced materials, nanotechnologies, and
next-generation energy technologies.
Who is this book series published for? The book series addresses a diversity of
audiences in different settings:
1. Academic communities: Academic communities worldwide represent a core
group of readers. This follows from the theoretical/conceptual interest of the
book series to influence academic discourses in the fields of knowledge, also
carried by the claim of a certain saturation of academia with the current concepts
and the postulate of a window of opportunity for new or at least additional
concepts.
2. Thus, it represents a key challenge for the series to exercise a certain impact on
discourses in academia. In principle, all academic communities that are inter-
ested in knowledge (knowledge and innovation) could be tackled by the book
series. The interdisciplinary (transdisciplinary) nature of the book series under-
scores that the scope of the book series is not limited a priori to a specific basket
of disciplines. From a radical viewpoint, one could create the hypothesis that
there is no discipline where knowledge is of no importance.
3. Decision-makers—private/academic entrepreneurs and public (governmental,
subgovernmental) actors: Two different groups of decision-makers are being
addressed simultaneously: (1) private entrepreneurs (firms, commercial firms,
academic firms) and academic entrepreneurs (universities), interested in
viii Series Foreword

o­ ptimizing knowledge management and in developing heterogeneously com-

posed knowledge-based research networks, and (2) public (governmental, sub-
governmental) actors that are interested in optimizing and further developing
their policies and policy strategies that target knowledge and innovation. One
purpose of public knowledge and innovation policy is to enhance the perfor-
mance and competitiveness of advanced economies.
4. Decision-makers in general: Decision-makers are systematically being supplied
with crucial information, for how to optimize knowledge-referring and knowl-
edge-enhancing decision-making. The nature of this “crucial information” is
conceptual as well as empirical (case study-based). Empirical information high-
lights practical examples and points toward practical solutions (perhaps reme-
dies); conceptual information offers the advantage of further-driving and
further-carrying tools of understanding. Different groups of addressed decision-
makers could be decision-makers in private firms and multinational corpora-
tions, responsible for the knowledge portfolio of companies; knowledge and
knowledge management consultants; globalization experts, focusing on the
internationalization of research and development, science and technology, and
innovation; experts in university/business research networks; and political scien-
tists, economists, and business professionals.
5. Interested global readership: Finally, the Springer book series addresses a whole
global readership, composed of members who are generally interested in knowl-
edge and innovation. The global readership could partially coincide with the
communities as described above (“academic communities,” “decision-makers”),
but could also refer to other constituencies and groups.

Washington, DC, USA Elias G. Carayannis

Contents

Introduction: Innovation and Technology Transfer in Agriculture............ 1

Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Elias G. Carayannis, Evangelos Grigoroudis,
and Stelios Rozakis

Part I R&D Spending and Agricultural Innovation: Organization

and Emerging Trends
 he Shifting Structure of Agricultural R&D: Worldwide
T
Investment Patterns and Payoffs.................................................................... 13
Philip G. Pardey, Julian M. Alston, Connie Chan-Kang,
Terrance M. Hurley, Robert S. Andrade, Steven P. Dehmer,
Kyuseon Lee, and Xudong Rao
Private-Sector Research and Development................................................... 41
Keith O. Fuglie, Matthew Clancy, and Paul W. Heisey
 tructural Change and Innovation in the Global Agricultural
S
Input Sector...................................................................................................... 75
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes and Kenneth A. Zahringer
 rivate-Public R&D in the Development of the Canola
P
Industry in Canada.......................................................................................... 101
Peter W.B. Phillips

Part II Institutional Incentives for Agricultural Innovation

 hy Do US Corn Yields Increase? The Contributions of Genetics,
W
Agronomy, and Policy Instruments................................................................ 119
Stephen Smith and Brad Kurtz
Whither the Research Anticommons?........................................................... 131
William Lesser

ix
x Contents

 atent Characteristics and Patent Ownership Change

P
in Agricultural Biotechnology......................................................................... 145
Etleva Gjonça and Amalia Yiannaka
I nnovation and Technology Transfer Among Firms
in the Agricultural Input Sector..................................................................... 169
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Alexandre Magnier,
and Christos Kolympiris
 and-Grant University Research as a Driver of Progress
L
in Agriscience................................................................................................... 189
Simon Tripp, Martin Grueber, Alyssa Yetter, and Dylan Yetter
 griscience Innovation at Land-Grant Universities, Measured
A
by Patents and Plant Variety Protection Certificates as Proxies................. 223
Simon Tripp, Joseph Simkins, Alyssa Yetter, and Dylan Yetter

Part III Technology Transfer from the Public to the Private Sector
 ransfer and Licensing of University Research and Technology
T
in Canadian Agriculture.................................................................................. 239
Stuart J. Smyth
 echnology Transfer in Agriculture: The Case of
T
Wageningen University.................................................................................... 257
Sebastian Hoenen, Christos Kolympiris, Emiel Wubben,
and Onno Omta
 he Evaluation Process of Research Commercialization Proposals
T
and its Links to University Technology Transfer (TT) Strategy:
A Case Study.................................................................................................... 277
Odysseas Cartalos, Alexander N. Svoronos, and Elias G. Carayannis
The Technology Cycle and Technology Transfer Strategies......................... 317
Kenneth A. Zahringer, Christos Kolympiris,
and Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes

Part IV Technology Transfer to Agricultural Producers

 ole of Extension in Agricultural Technology Transfer:
R
A Critical Review............................................................................................. 337
Alex Koutsouris
 echnology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review
T
of the Literature............................................................................................... 361
Albert I. Ugochukwu and Peter W.B. Phillips
Commercialization Mechanisms for New Plant Varieties............................ 379
Sherzod B. Akhundjanov, R. Karina Gallardo, Jill J. McCluskey,
and Bradley J. Rickard
Contents xi

Water Efficient Maize for Africa: A Public-­Private Partnership

in Technology Transfer to Smallholder Farmers
in Sub-Saharan Africa..................................................................................... 391
Mark Edge, Sylvester O. Oikeh, Denis Kyetere, Stephen Mugo,
and Kingstone Mashingaidze

Part V Benefits from Agricultural Research and Innovation

 ublic Research and Technology Transfer in US Agriculture:
P
The Role of USDA............................................................................................ 415
Steven R. Shafer and Michael S. Strauss
 he Role and Impact of Public Research and Technology Transfer
T
in Brazilian Agriculture................................................................................... 429
Geraldo B. Martha Jr and Eliseu Alves
 ublic Agricultural Research and Its Contributions to Agricultural
P
Productivity...................................................................................................... 445
Wallace E. Huffman
A Bayesian Measure of Research Productivity............................................. 465
Lin Qin and Steven T. Buccola
I nnovation and Technology Transfer in Agriculture: Concluding
Comments......................................................................................................... 483
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Elias G. Carayannis,
Evangelos Grigoroudis, and Stelios Rozakis
Technology Adoption by Agricultural
Producers: A Review of the Literature

Albert I. Ugochukwu and Peter W.B. Phillips

Abstract The increasing rate of technological advancement across various disci-

plines, and in particular the agricultural sector, has resulted in increased efficiency
and productivity. Recent advances in biotechnology research and development offer
new prospects for increased food production and security in various jurisdictions.
However, adoption and commercialization of existing and emerging technologies
both at the farm and industry levels have been of great concern to governments and
the food industry. This chapter provides a review existing literature on technology
adoption in agriculture, explores different dimensions of technologies and factors
influencing their adoption, and examines returns on investment in technological
research and development.

Introduction

Technology plays a pivotal role as a vehicle for change in many disciplines. While
development economists advocate for technology transfer from developed to devel-
oping economies to achieve economic growth (Feder et al. 1985), agriculture and
food economists are interested in how emerging technologies could improve food
production and enhance food safety and authenticity. On the other hand, natural and
environmental economists are concerned with how new technologies could be
employed for efficient resource and environmental management (Tietenberg 2000),
while firms and industries advocate for technologies that will reduce production
costs and enhance overall efficiency, effectiveness, and individual and collective
reputations.
In past decades, considerable progress has been made in technological innovation
globally. Development of a new technology occurs at a particular point in time, while

This work was undertaken as part of the research in two Genome Canada projects administered by
Genome Prairie: Application of Genomics to Innovation in the Lentil Economy (AGILE) and
Reverse Vaccinology Approach for the Prevention of Mycobacterial Disease in Cattle (MyVAMP).
A.I. Ugochukwu • P.W.B. Phillips (*)
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 361

N. Kalaitzandonakes et al. (eds.), From Agriscience to Agribusiness, Innovation,
Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67958-7_17
362 A.I. Ugochukwu and P.W.B. Phillips

the awareness and use of the technology takes place over a long period of time. The
impact or intended purpose (e.g. productivity growth) of a new technology can only be
felt after adoption and use by the target end users (e.g. individuals, firms, industries).
However, the magnitude of the impact is determined by the rate of adoption, following
the diffusion and learning about the technology or innovation over time. Several stud-
ies using different models of technology diffusion and adoption in different fields,
including agriculture, information technology, and medicine, among others, have
investigated factors influencing the acceptance and/or rejection of new technologies.
Of these studies and models, Everett Rogers’ model of diffusion of innovations is the
most widely used to date. Rogers’ model became more popular and widely applied as
he used the concept of innovation, which he described not only as technology but any
idea, object, or practice that is absolutely new, thereby bringing commonality and
encompassing diverse fields. However, the newness of an innovation depends on the
time it gets to a particular place or population. For example, a new plant cultivar already
in use in North America may be new in Africa some years after its development.
Adoption of a new technology follows diffusion, which Rogers (1983, p.5)
described as the “process by which an innovation is communicated through certain
channels over time among the members of the social system”. This also involves
individual valuation of the undetermined benefits of the innovation relative to the
costs (Hall and Khan 2002). Rogers (2003, p.172) describes the adoption decision
process as “an information-seeking and information-processing activity, where an
individual is motivated to reduce uncertainty about the advantages and disadvan-
tages of an innovation”. Upon introduction of a new technology, it can either be
adopted if found to be beneficial and profitable relative to existing alternatives or
rejected if found unprofitable (Dinar and Yaron 1992).
A growing number of studies that cut across many disciplines have identified
several factors, including personal, cultural, social, and economic attributes, as well
as characteristics of the technology, which influence technology adoption (Pannell
et al. 2006). For example, while Sunding and Zilberman (2001) emphasize personal
characteristics such as human capital, age, or risk preferences of potential adopters,
Miller and Tolley (1989) found that market intervention by regulators, through a
price support programme for example, could enhance the adoption of new technolo-
gies. In the social science literature, several adoption studies focus on the influence
of social norms, values, and beliefs on technology adoption. In the area of agricul-
tural production, for example, scale of operation, education, specialization, social
networks, peer group influence, extension services, complexity, and the cost of
acquiring the technology, among others, have been found to affect technology adop-
tion (Batz et al. 1999; El-Osta and Morehart 2002; Garforth et al. 2003; Saurer and
Zilberman 2010; Millar 2010).
One important consideration in technology adoption, which previous studies
have not explored in modelling adoption decision processes, is the issue of transac-
tion costs. Standard economic theories are based on the assumption of perfect infor-
mation, which is essential for efficiency in resource allocation, making informed
choices, full employment of resources, and uniform commodity prices. Looking at
this presumption from the lens of technology adoption, perfect information may not
Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature 363

be a reality in practice, as access to available information concerning a new technol-

ogy is associated with transaction costs. Information asymmetry problems have
affected peoples’ perception of risks; hence, some potential adopters may not rely
on available information, particularly concerning the benefits of a new technology,
and therefore would prefer to test and confirm the results themselves in order to
make informed decisions or optimal choices.
Development of new innovations or technologies requires huge investments in
research and development (R&D) activities. However, intellectual property rights
(IPRs) have been a contentious issue regarding incentives for technology innovation
development. IPRs give innovators and technology developers the opportunity to
appropriate a sizable part of the returns arising from their R&D investment or activi-
ties. It also grants innovators the exclusive right to sell the products of their R&D
above marginal cost, thereby increasing their return on investment (Légér 2007).
However, the inability of innovators to capture the gains of their research output has
been a disincentive for private investment in R&D (Gray and Malla 2007). The call
for stronger IPRs for inventors increased following the establishment of the Trade-­
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, which came into
force on January 1, 1995. Although weak IPRs could enhance knowledge spillover,
Falvey et al. (2006) argue that strong IPRs have potential implications in terms of
both costs and benefits for technology development, diffusion, and adoption, particu-
larly in developing countries with insufficient innovative capacity and factor endow-
ments; this suggests a need for a balance in policy choices. Cohen and Levinthal
(1989) argue that excessively strong IPR protection negatively affects technology
innovation development as it will not be possible for researchers, in most cases, to
improve an existing technology without violating the rights of patent holders on the
technology. Several studies (e.g. Scherer et al. 1959; Taylor and Silberston 1973;
Mansfield et al. 1981; Cohen et al. 1997) conclude that patent protection is a major
determinant of the introduction of new technological innovations. A prime example is
the establishment of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants (UPOV 78). Ratification of UPOV by Canada in 1991 is believed to have
enhanced plant breeding in Canada (e.g. the pulse industry).
In the adoption literature, several studies list factors that influence the adoption
of new technologies. However, an important element that affects adoption, con-
sumer resistance, has not been widely explored. This was recognized in the uptake
of agricultural biotechnology (GM foods) by Anderson et al. (2001), Barkeley
(2002), and Haggui (2004) and was identified to have impacted the acceptance of
GM food in Europe and Japan over food safety and environmental concerns.
Consumer perception of GM food was adduced as the reason for the low rates of
diffusion and adoption of GM crops in Europe, Japan, and other parts of the world
in 2000 (Hanf and Bocker 2002). Many consumers, particularly in developing coun-
tries, despite the benefits of biotechnology, perceive GM products to have some
health risks and negative effects on the environment following media reports. This
would serve as a disincentive to adopt GM crops by farmers, which would affect
food production, especially in developing countries with a weak technological base
and high population growth.
364 A.I. Ugochukwu and P.W.B. Phillips

This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature on technology adoption

and introduces other important influencing factors into the existing standard model
of technology adoption developed by Everett Rogers. Several studies are reviewed
to ascertain factors that influence adoption of different technological innovations.
Given the scope of this chapter, technology is examined from the general perspec-
tive, with emphasis on the adoption of agricultural technologies.

The Adoption-Decision Process

The economic decision literature suggests that the decision to adopt a new technol-
ogy or innovation is determined by four important factors: the recognition of com-
petitive stance among firms in an industry, awareness of the existence of an
alternative innovation following market conditions, motivation and/or incentive to
explore alternatives, and the resource availability to implement the decision (Chen
1996). Following Rogers (2003), the decision to adopt a new technology involves
five stages including: knowledge (awareness); persuasion, potentially by gaining
sufficient information on the characteristics, benefits, and costs of a new technol-
ogy; decision; implementation; and confirmation. To better understand the role a
new technology plays, there is a need for an understanding of the adoption decision
process and the important factors that could affect adoption of the technology. The
process is shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1 describes the steps and/or process an individual, a farmer, a firm, or a
group passes through in making a technology adoption decision. The adoption
­process starts with getting information (awareness) about the new technology,
whether through media advertisement, extension agents, or social networks. This is
followed by a careful review of the perceived attributes of the technology and the
potential benefits and costs of acquiring the technology. After examining the char-
acteristics and weighing the benefits, costs, and trade-offs associated with the new
technology, the decision to either adopt or reject the technology, the most critical
stage, is made.
Some factors including opposition,1 the time of introducing the technology, loca-
tion of introduction, or social networks, in which the opinions of technical leaders
drive adoption in most cases, could trigger rejection. There could be continued
rejection of a technology over time or a decision to adopt later. If at first the poten-

1
These are people who would reject a new technology based on experience of others, presumably
early adopters, or perceived risks associated with the output of the technology. A prime example is
consumer rejection of GM food products arising from biotechnology in some parts of the world,
particularly developing countries. In addition, the Consumer Association of Canada (CAC) vehe-
mently opposed the food irradiation technology proposed by Health Canada as a food safety mea-
sure against E. coli, Salmonella, listeria, and other pathogens following an E. coli outbreak in
Europe that killed more than 42 people and left about 4000 sick in 2011 (Powell 2011). CAC
argued that irradiation removes essential nutrients in food, alters the molecular structure, and is
associated with uncertain health risks.
Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature 365

Knowledge
Subjective Judgement [access to information on

Characteristics of the
new technology
Relative Persuasion
advantage
the new technology is associated with

Compatibility
Evaluation of ex-ante
Complexity
benefits and costs Continued
Trialability
rejection
Divisibility
Decision Rejection

Opposition Adopt later

Interested Timing
Location
Social

Implementation Re-invention

Confirmation
Judgement
Objective

Continued
adoption Adoption Discontinuance

Fig. 1 Model of technology adoption decision process (Source: Adapted from Rogers (2003)
Diffusion of Innovation, 3rd Edition (p. 165), with some additions)

tial adopter develops interest in the new technology, he or she will put it into prac-
tice, potentially with the help of experts to reduce uncertainty about the full effects
of the technology. At this stage, there could be continued evaluation of the technol-
ogy to ensure that it meets expectations. This could lead to reinvention, a modifica-
tion of the technology to suit individual needs.2 It should be noted that from the
knowledge stage through implementation, the potential adopter continuously seeks
more information about the technology and therefore incurs transaction costs.
Adoption decisions made prior to the implementation stage of the adoption decision
process could be driven by subjective judgement. After implementation and rein-
vention, the implementer seeks factual evidence, considering attributes of the tech-
nology (objective judgement), to support his/her adoption decision. If the
implementer is satisfied, he/she would objectively adopt the technology.3

2
Reinvention may involve exploring uses of the technology outside its main purpose.
3
Rejection can also occur at this stage if the implementer does not have robust evidence to con-
vince him that the new technology would meet expectations.
366 A.I. Ugochukwu and P.W.B. Phillips

There could be continuous use of the technology depending on the outcome.

Alternatively, the technology may be discontinued if there is a newer version for
replacement or if the technology no longer meets expectations or has a perceived
relative disadvantage.

Adoption and Diffusion of Technological Innovations

Several technology adoption studies in the literature examine adoption at different

levels, such as household, firm, industry, or nation, using different methodologies
and sometimes with conflicting results. A common result of technology adoption
studies in the literature (e.g. Bohlen and Beal 1955; Griliches 1957; Hildebrand and
Partenheimer 1958; Mansfield 1961, 1963) is that adoption pathway follows an
S-shaped (sigmoid) curve, suggesting that adoption of a new technology starts
slowly at first with few adopters. The number of adopters increases as knowledge
about the technology spreads and then slows down as a greater proportion of poten-
tial end users adopt the technology. Figure 2 shows timing of adoption and diffusion
of innovations (i.e. the relationship between the number of users of a new technol-
ogy and the time of adoption).
However, despite the perceived benefits of a new technology, some agents will
not adopt, owing to reasons including: attributes of the technology, such as relative
advantage, complexity, compatibility, or divisibility; consumer opposition, as in the
case for agricultural biotechnology; farm size; costs relative to benefits; profitabil-
ity; socio-economic characteristics of decision-makers; and location, as the impact
of some technologies could vary from one region to another. Mansfield’s (1961)
adoption model attributed the S-shape to interfirm or interindustry differences and
hypothesized that “the probability that a firm will introduce a new technique is an

100
Market share %

75

50

25

0
Innovators Early Early Late Laggards
2.5% Adopters Majority Majority 16%
13.5% 34% 34%

Fig. 2 Timing of adoption of technological innovations (adopter categorization) (Source: Rogers’

diffusion of innovations theory (2003))
Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature 367

increasing function of the proportion of firms already using it, … but a decreasing
function of the size of the investment required” (p. 672–763). On the other hand,
Stoneman (1981) in his “Bayesian theory of learning” model of adoption interprets
the S-shape as an intrafirm diffusion path and hypothesized that a firm changes its
level or rate of adoption of a new technology as it learns more about it and accord-
ingly adjusts its expectations.
The size and distribution of the benefits from a new technology to the adopters
are determined by the timing of adoption (Rubas 2004). Potentially, early adopters
would have the greatest share of the benefits of a new technology relative to later
adopters. For some technologies, the incentive to adopt would be reduced as the
adoption rate increases and may go to zero shortly before everyone adopts. A prime
example is the adoption of diagnostic technologies, such as the DNA barcoding
technology used for fish species identification and authentication (see Ugochukwu
2015). For this technology, early adopters would enjoy the market benefit of a price
premium, while laggards may enjoy little or no profit.
As mentioned earlier, a number of previous studies in different fields identified
factors affecting the adoption of new technologies. Rogers and Stanfield (1968)
reviewed several empirical adoption studies in 14 disciplines and summarized the
relationships between the factors and adoption. These are shown in Table 1.
Some previous studies (e.g. Wozniak 1987; Lleras-Muney and Lichtenberg
2002) have shown that education and experience play positive roles in technology
adoption. Highly educated people could enhance diffusion of innovations and
potentially would adopt new technologies earlier than the less educated as they have
more knowledge and can easily access information necessary to make an early
adoption decision. For example, the results of the farm financial survey carried out
by Statistics Canada (AAFC 2016, p.59) show that 91% of farmers adopt and imple-
ment new technological innovation following their “own experience”, while about
68% make adoption decision based on information obtained from colleagues in a
networking effect. Results of the same study show the influence of “timing of adop-

Table 1 Factors influencing Factor Relationship

adoption of a new technology
Education +
Income +
Knowledge (awareness) about +
the technology
Attitude towards change +
Group participation (networks) +
Interpersonal communication +
Contact with change agencies +
Compatibility of the technology +
Opinion leadership +
Fulfilment of felt need +
Source: Rogers and Stanfield (1968, p. 249–250)
368 A.I. Ugochukwu and P.W.B. Phillips

tion” and “age” on the speed of technology adoption. It indicates that 32% of the
farmers usually wait until a new technology is properly tested before they adopt,
while 43% (out of which 51% are young farmers) often wait for a few farmers to try
the technology before deciding whether to adopt or not. This result confirms the
limitation of the perfect rationality and complete information assumptions of eco-
nomic theory and underscores that the cognitive attitude of potential adopters influ-
ences their behavioural decisions to adopt a new technology.

Adoption of Agricultural Technologies

The history and economics of diffusion and adoption of agricultural technologies

began with the pioneering study of Griliches (1957). The process and models of
adoption have been studied by different scholars, with the most popular and widely
used being that of Everett Rogers, titled diffusion of innovations (Sherry and Gibson
2002), which spans the disciplines of economics, technology, education, political
science, public health, history, and communications (Dooley 1999).
In the literature, technology and innovation are sometimes used interchangeably.
While the process by which a new technology or innovation is transmitted through
certain media over time to members of society is referred to as diffusion, the rate at
which a new or emerging technology is adopted depends on some important attri-
butes of the technology including the perceived advantages relative to existing ones
and its compatibility with existing needs and values of the society or potential
adopter, simplicity (ease of understanding and use), trialability for potential adjust-
ment, and observability (ease of visualizing the results) (Rogers 2003).
Adoption of improved agricultural technologies has been traced to the success of
the Green Revolution initiated by an American scientist, Norman Borlaug, in
Mexico in the 1940s (Dethier and Effenberger 2012). The Green Revolution
enhanced the adoption of high-yielding crop cultivars and inputs such as fertilizer
and irrigation, which resulted in increased food production. Improved high-yielding
crop varieties developed during the revolution produced high yields with the help of
fertilizers and irrigation systems, which provide water for farming in areas with
little or no rainfall, thereby putting more land to use for food production (Briney
2015).
In the context of agriculture, technology has been described as a:
…factor that changes the production function and regarding which there exists some uncer-
tainty, whether perceived or objection (or both). The uncertainty diminishes over time
through the acquisition of experience and information, and the production function itself
may change as adopters become more efficient in the application of the technology.
(Gershon and Umali 1993, p.216)

In agricultural production, given the different actors, sizes of technologies, timing,

and scale of operation, Feder et al. (1982) classified adoption into three categories
including: individual, farm-level versus aggregate-level adoption; single (e.g.
Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature 369

fertilizer) versus package (e.g. fertilizer + improved seed variety + good manage-
ment practices) adoption; and divisible (e.g. new crop cultivar) versus indivisible
(e.g. harvester) adoption. Several studies in the literature (e.g. Feder et al. 1982;
Belsey and Case 1993; Adesina and Baidu-Forson 1995; Zeller et al. 1997; Fuglie
and Kascak 2001; Arellanes and Lee 2003; Moser and Barrett 2003; among others)
examined adoption of agricultural technologies and found common factors that
influence adoption. These include farm size, land tenure arrangements, access to
credit and extension services, land and labour availability, human capital (educa-
tion, gender, demographics), and farmer attitude towards risks and uncertainty.
Notwithstanding the availability of these factors, adoption of improved agricultural
technologies usually increases at a slow rate initially and rapidly thereafter to a
maximum level resulting in increased productivity (Griliches 1957). Results of
some empirical studies (e.g. Marra et al. 2002; Moshini et al. 2000) underscore the
potential of improved agricultural technologies in enhancing productivity, income,
and overall economic growth.
The potential benefits of a new technology can only be realized when it is adopted
and used; the adoption decision involves a critical comparison of perceived benefits
and costs associated with the technology (Uaiene 2011). A better understanding of
the diffusion, adoption, and impact of improved technologies will guide producer
groups, research institutions, and policy makers in making prudent and informed
decisions about allocating resources for technology development.

Crop Production Technologies

Some studies that examine agricultural technology adoption have been carried out,
particularly in developing countries. Abera (2008) used xtprobit and random effect
models to examine the influence of farmer learning and risk on the likelihood and
intensity of adopting improved tef and wheat technologies in northern and western
Shewa zones of Ethiopia. The study underscores the importance of learning and
experience as drivers of continued technology adoption. Results indicate that aware-
ness, timely availability, and profitability of new tef and wheat varieties enhanced
farmers’ learning and experience. This positively influenced adoption of the new
technologies.
Dibba et al. (2012) employed an average treatment estimation (ATE) framework
to examine the adoption rate and determinants of adoption of new rice variety for
Africa (NERICA) in Gambia. Results of the study show that the adoption rate stood
at 40% against anticipated rate of 83% due to lack of information about and access
to NERICA, thereby suggesting the need for the supply and distribution of more
NERICA to farmers for easy access, experience, and adoption. In another study car-
ried out in Africa, Uaiene (2011) looked at the factors influencing agricultural tech-
nology adoption by rural households in Mozambique. The results of the study show
that rural farmers who have access to credit and extension advisory services,
370 A.I. Ugochukwu and P.W.B. Phillips

attended a higher level of education, and are members of agricultural associations

have a higher probability of adopting new agricultural technologies.
Learning through networks has been identified as a factor that influences tech-
nology adoption. For example, Bandiera and Rasul (2006) examined the role of
social networks and how the adoption choices of network members influence a
farmer’s adoption decision in Northern Mozambique. They found that farmers who
discuss and/or learn about new technologies within their social network have a
greater tendency to adopt. However, this result cannot be generalized. As stated
earlier, the technical opinion of social network leaders on a particular technology
affects adoption by members of the social network. If the leader’s opinion is not in
favour of the new technology, members may not adopt. Zavale et al. (2005) used a
probit model to show that level of education; access to credit, extension, and seed
stores; household size; and off-farm employment influence farmer adoption of
improved maize seed. While the result for off-farm income is consistent with that of
Feder et al. (1985), who opined that earned off-farm income will provide financial
resources used to acquire new technologies, Besley and Case (1993) argue that
farmers who have the financial resources to acquire new technologies, particularly
those in which the benefits are undetermined, must first learn about the technology
over time, examine the number of people in their networks who have adopted or
used the technology, and care about having first-mover advantage; these farmers are
more likely to adopt the technology.

Zero (no-till) Technology

Zero tillage (ZT) refers to a new resource conserving method of cultivation that
enhances efficient water and fertilizer use and reduces the cost of cultivation and
weed infestation (Malik and Singh 1995; Hobbs et al. 1997). Several studies have
reported the yield and cost-saving benefits of zero-tillage technology. For example,
Igbal et al. (2002) and Erentein et al. (2007) carried out studies on the effect of zero-­
tillage technology on farm profits of rice-wheat cropping system in Punjab. Results
of the studies show that ZT gave higher yield and reduced cost of production per
hectare, which resulted in widespread adoption of the technology.
Awada et al. (2015) studied adoption of ZT in the Canadian Prairies. The study
identified some economic factors that enhanced the adoption of ZT technology in
western Canada including reduction in the market price of glyphosate herbicide
relative to gasoline used in machines for tillage operations, increased yield of crops
under ZT technology system, reduction in interest rate from 13% in 1989 to 7% in
1999 and further to 5% in 2011 (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture 1990–2012),
and information dissemination on the benefits of ZT through extension services
(Lafond et al. 1996). In a related study, factors including neighbourhood effect;
farmer characteristics such as level of education, farm ownership, and size; and high
risk of soil erosion were identified to have a positive influence on ZT technology
adoption (Awada 2012).
Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature 371

Quality Verification and Authenticity Diagnosis Technologies

Several quality verification and authenticity technologies have recently emerged,

given the many avenues for food fraud. However, the incentive to adopt these tech-
nologies, particularly by the private sector, remains a big question. Underinvestment
in agricultural research and development by the private sector has been attributed to
their inability to capture the benefits of their research activities (Gray and Malla
2007). Therefore, the incentive for the private sector to adopt these technologies
depends on the size of private benefits relative to public benefits (Hobbs et al. 2009).
Several studies (e.g. Alston et al. 2008; Falck-Zepeda and Traxler 2000; Mensah
and Wohlgenant 2009) have shown that technology adoption in the agri-food sector
is associated with increased yield and social welfare benefits. Ugochukwu (2015)
identified the costs associated with a technology, the size of the private market ben-
efits relative to market opportunity costs, and the number of people using the tech-
nology at a particular point in time as important factors that affect adoption of
diagnostic technologies, such as the International Barcode of Life (DNA Barcoding)
technology. Processors and retailers would be willing to adopt this technology if the
perceived benefits exceed the costs and the profit margin with the technology is high
enough.

Livestock Health and Breeding Technologies

There have been an increasing number of technological innovations within the live-
stock industry globally. A number of studies have examined the factors that influ-
ence the adoption of technologies ranging from animal health, disease prevention,
and management practices to breeding, genetics, and genomics innovations due to
recent advances in computational biology and DNA sequencing. In the area of ani-
mal health, different types of vaccines have been produced to protect animals from
different diseases. Studies have examined the efficacy of these vaccines and levels
and determinants of adoption by livestock farmers. For instance, Ochieng and
Hobbs (2016) examined E. coli vaccine and the incentives for cattle producers to
adopt the vaccine in Canada. Results of the study show that there has been low level
of adoption of E. coli vaccines owing to absence of market premiums for E. coli-­
vaccinated cattle to offset the additional cost associated with vaccination. Farmers
argue that the benefits are enjoyed by other supply chain actors, primarily consum-
ers and beef processors. Other reasons for low adoption identified by the study
include scepticism regarding the efficacy of the vaccine; absence of regulatory and
market pressure to adopt the vaccine, which is consistent with the findings of Ellis-­
Iversen et al. (2010); absence of reputational and/or liability penalties if a farmer’s
herd is the source of spread; and uncertainty of adoption by downstream feedlots.
Adoption of animal breeding technologies such as artificial insemination, embryo
transplants, and sexed semen has been widely explored in the agricultural technol-
372 A.I. Ugochukwu and P.W.B. Phillips

ogy literature, given their economic benefits, in terms of productivity, to the live-
stock industry. Several factors have been identified to influence adoption of these
technologies. For example, Kaaya et al. (2005) showed that highly educated, young,
and specialized dairy farmers have a higher tendency to adopt animal breeding tech-
nologies in the United States. In addition, Khanal and Gillespie (2011) found that
herd size, farm-level costs, breed of animal, age of farmer, and quality of extension
services influence adoption of artificial insemination (AI) in the Ugandan dairy sec-
tor. The results of Howley et al. (2012) indicate that the type of farm system (i.e.
sheep, goat, cattle), experience with AI, and farm factors like gross margin and
stocking rate affect adoption of AI among dairy farmers in Ireland. The study fur-
ther shows that dairy farmers use AI more widely than sheep and goat farmers. This
is consistent with the findings of Vishwanath (2003), who opined that dairy herd
cows are usually confined, thereby making it possible to observe when they are in
oestrus for insemination.

Technology Adoption and Return on R&D Investment

Endogenous growth theory views technological innovation as a nonrival good

(Romer 1990). However, the theory fails to take into consideration non-R&D activi-
ties carried out sometimes by nontechnical personnel that are associated with some
costs (Clark and Fujimoto 1991; Alston et al. 2000). These activities, such as exten-
sion services that promote awareness and enhance implementation and adoption of
new technologies, are associated with some costs and time elements that are rele-
vant in accurately determining the return on R&D investments.4 Measurement of
adoption costs has not been widely explored in the literature; this would be relevant
for R&D policy analysis and investment optimization, particularly for private firms
(Jonanovic 1997; Bessen 2000). A review of previous studies that did not consider
adoption costs shows higher rates of return for R&D investment. For example, the
review by Nadiri (1993) showed rates of return on investment between 20 and 40%.
Alston et al. (2000) reviewed 294 studies that examined 1854 rates of return to R&D
investments. The results show an overall average rate of return of 64.6%.
Disaggregating the rates of return, research has an average return of 79.6%, and
extension shows an 80.1% return, while activities that combine extension and
research give an average 46.6% rate of return. This highlights the importance of
extension as a post-R&D activity.
An extension service is an important component of adoption that motivates
potential adopters to be profitable. Phillips McDougall (2011) estimated the time
and costs involved in the process of developing a new plant biotechnology from
discovery to authorization by regulatory authorities, fuelling the debate as to
whether the time and costs associated with the development of a new technology

4
For the purpose of this chapter, these costs are referred to as adoption costs, which should be a
component of R&D expenditures when calculating return on investment (ROI).
Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature 373

exceed that of post-R&D activities. In order to illuminate this issue, further studies
are needed to determine the magnitude of costs and duration of post-R&D activities
that involve extension services and adoption. Inclusion of adoption costs in the cal-
culation of return on investment (ROI) will give a robust estimate that will inform
policy decision and help determine the distributional effects of gains from research.

Conclusions

Technological advancement and adoption are relevant for improvements in every

sector. In recent years, there has been an increase in funding for agricultural research
and development in technological innovations, particularly by the private sector.
This has yielded positive returns on investment. However, significant adoption and
commercialization of emerging technologies has not been achieved, particularly in
less-developed countries, due to a combination of cultural beliefs, ethical concerns,
regulatory delays, and lack of information and understanding of the science and
technology being used. This has put consumers and producers in a dilemma.
Although significant improvements have been made in technological advancement,
more is needed to better understand the root causes of low adoption rates, especially
in developing countries. Greater understanding would serve as a guide for technol-
ogy developers to develop better strategies.

References

Abera, H.B. 2008. Adoption of Improved tef and Wheat Production Technologies in Crop-Livestock
Mixed Systems in Northern Shewa Zones of Ethiopia. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation,
University of Pretoria.
Adesina, A.A., and J. Baidu-Forson. 1995. Farmers’ Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural
Technology: Evidence from Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agricultural
Economics 13 (1): 1–9.
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC). 2016. An Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and
Agri-Food System. April 2016. Available at: https://caes.usask.ca/members/_pdf/Overview%20
2016-Final_eng.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2016.
Alston, J.M., M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and T.J. Wyatt. 2000. Research Returns Redux: A Meta-­
Analysis of the Returns to Agricultural R&D. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics 44 (2): 185–215.
Alston, J., G. Edwards, and J. Freebairn. 2008. Market Distortions and Benefits from Research.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70: 281–288.
Anderson, K., C.P. Nielson, S. Robinson, and K. Thierfelder. 2001. Estimating the Global Effects
of GMOs. In The Future of Food: Biotechnology Markets and Policies in an International
Setting, ed. P.G. Pardey, 49–74. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Institute.
Arellanes, P., and D.R. Lee. 2003. The Determinants of Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural
Technologies: Evidence from the Hillsides of Honduras. Paper Presented at XXV Conference
of International Association of Agricultural Economists, Durban, August 2003.
Awada, L. 2012. The Adoption of Conservation Tillage on the Canadian Prairies. Unpublished
Ph.D Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.
374 A.I. Ugochukwu and P.W.B. Phillips

Awada, L., S.R. Gray, and C. Nagy. 2015. The Benefits and Costs of Zero Tillage RD & E on the
Canadian Prairies. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (3): 417–438. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cjag.12080.
Bandiera, O., and I. Rasul. 2006. Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern
Mozambique. The Economic Journal 116 (514): 869–902.
Barkley, A.P. 2002. The Economic Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnology on International Trade,
Consumers and Producers: The Case of Corn and Soybeans in the U.S.A. 6th International
ICABR Conference, Ravello.
Bassen, J. 2000. Adoption Costs and the Rate of Return to Research and Development. Working
Paper 1/00, Research on Innovation, Wallingford. Available at: www.researchoninnovation.
org/rdadopt.pdf.
Batz, F.J., K.J. Peters, and W. Janssen. 1999. The Influence of Technology Characteristics on the
Rate and Speed of Adoption. Agricultural Economics 21 (4): 121–130.
Besley, T., and A. Case. 1993. Modelling Technology Adoption in Developing Countries. The
American Economic Review 83 (2): 396–402.
Bohlen, J., and G. Beal. 1955. How Farm People Accept New Ideas. Special Report No. 15,
Agricultural Extension Service, Iowa State College, Ames.
Briney, A. 2015. History and Development of Green Revolution. Available at: http://geography.
about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm. Accessed 5 May 2016.
Chen, M. 1996. Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration. The
Academy of Management Review 21 (1): 100–134.
Clark, K., and T. Fujimoto. 1991. Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and
Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and Learning: The Two faces of R&D. The
Economic Journal 99: 569–596.
Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J. (1997). Appropriability Conditions and Why Firms
Patent and Why They Do not in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector. Working Paper. Pittsburgh:
Carnegie Mellon University.
Dethier, J.-J., and A. Effenberger. 2012. Agriculture and Development: A Brief Review of the
Literature. Economic Systems 36: 175–205.
Dibba, L., S.C. Fialor, A. Diagne, and F. Nimoh. 2012. The Impact of NERICA Adoption on
Productivity and Poverty of the Small-Scale Rice Farmers in the Gambia. Food Security 4 (2):
253–265.
Dinar, A., and D. Yaron. 1992. Adoption and Abandonment of Irrigated Technologies. Agricultural
Economics 6: 315–332.
Dooley, K.E. 1999. Towards a Holistic Model for the Diffusion of Educational Technologies: An
Integrative Review of Educational Innovation Studies. Educational Technology & Society 2
(4): 35–45.
Ellis-Iversen, J., A.J.C. Cook, E. Watson, M. Nielen, L. Larkin, M. Wooldridge, and H. Hogeveen.
2010. Perceptions, Circumstances and Motivators that Influence Implementation of Zoonotic
Control Programs on Cattle Farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 93 (4): 276–285.
El-Osta, H.S., and M.J. Morehart. 2002. Technology Adoption and Its Impact on Production
Performance of Dairy Operations. Review of Agricultural Economics 22 (2): 477–498.
Erenstein, O., U. Farook, R.K. Malik, and M. Sharif. 2007. Adoption and Impacts of Zero Tillage
as a Resource Conserving Technology in the Irrigated Plains of South Asia. Comprehensive
Assessment Research Report No. 19, International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
Available at: www.impact.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/pdf/59.pdf.
Falck-Zepeda, J.B., and G. Traxler. 2000. Rent Creation and Distribution from Transgenic Cotton
in the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 360–369.
Feder, G., R.E. Just, and D. Zilberman. 1982. Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in Developing
Countries: A Survey. World Bank Staff Working Papers No. 542, 1982.
———. 1985. Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic
Development and Cultural Change 33: 255–298.
Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature 375

Felvey, R., N. Foster, and O. Memedovic. 2006. The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in
Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence. Vienna: United Nations
Industrial Development Organization.
Fuglie, K.O., and C.A. Kascak. 2001. Adoption and Diffusion of Natural-Resource-Conserving
Agricultural Technology. Review of Agricultural Economics 23 (2): 386–403.
Garforth, C., B. Angell, J. Archer, and K. Green. 2003. Fragmentation or Creative Diversity?
Options in the Provision of Land Management Advisory Services. Land Use Policy 20 (4):
323–333.
Gershon, F., and D.L. Umali. 1993. The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Review.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43 (3–4): 215–239.
Gray, R., and S. Malla. 2007. The Rate of Return to Agricultural Research in Canada. CAIRN
Policy Brief. Canadian Agricultural Innovation Research Network. Available at: www.ag-­
innovation.usask.ca/finalpolicybriefs/mallaGray_11.pdf.
Griliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technology Change.
Econometrica 25: 501–522.
Haggui, F. 2004. Cost of EU Opposition to Genetically Modified Wheat in Terms of Global Food
Security. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.
Hall, B.H., and B. Khan. 2002. Adoption of New Technology. New Economy Handbook, 38.
University of California Berkeley.
Hanf, C.H., and A. Bocker. 2002. Is European Consumers’ Refusal of GM Food a Serious
Obstacle or a Transient Fashion? In Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods, ed.
R.E. Evenson, V. Santaniello, and D. Zilberman, 49–52. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Hildebrand, P.E., and E.J. Partenheimer. 1958. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Innovators.
Journal of Farm Economics 40 (2): 446–449.
Hobbs, P.R., G.S. Giri, and P. Grace. 1997. Reduced and Zero Tillage Options for the Establishment
of Wheat After Rice in South Asia, Rice-Wheat Consortium Paper Series, vol. 2. New Delhi:
RWC.
Hobbs, J.E., W.A. Kerr, and M.T Yeung. 2009. Public and Private Goods: The Canadian Livestock
and Poultry Traceability Program. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, CAT: A34-13/2009E-­
PDF, 31 August, 39 pp. ISBN: 978-1-1000-14090-2.
Howley, P., C.O. Donoghue, and K. Heanue. 2012. Factors Affecting Farmers’ Adoption of
Agricultural Innovations: A Panel Data Analysis of the Use of Artificial Insemination Among
Dairy Farmers in Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Science 4 (6): 171–179.
Igbal, M., M.A. Khan, and M.Z. Anwar. 2002. Zero -Tillage Technology and Farm Profits: A Case
Study of Wheat Growers in the Rice Zone of Punjab. The Pakistan Development Review 41 (4
part II): 665–682.
Jonanovic, B. 1997. Learning and Growth. In Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory
and Applications, ed. Kreps and Wallis, vol. 2, 318. Econometric Society Monograph.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kaaya, H., B. Bashaasha, and D. Mutetikka. 2005. Determinants of Utilisation of Artificial
Insemination (AI) Services Among Ugandan Dairy Farmers. African Crop Science Conference
Proceedings 7: 561–567.
Khanal, A.R., and J.M. Gillespie. 2011. Adoption and Profitability of Breeding Technologies on
United States Dairy Farms, Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting,
Corpus Christi, TX, 5–8 Feb 2011.
Lafond, G.P., S.M. Boyetchko, S.A. Brandt, G.W. Clayton, and M.H. Entz. 1996. Influence
of Changing Tillage Practices on Crop Production. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76:
641–649.
Légér, A. 2007. Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation Around the World: Evidence from
Panel Data. Discussion Paper 696, German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin.
Lleras-Muney, Adriana, and Frank Lichtenberg. 2002. The Effect of Education on Medical
Technology Adoption: Are the More Educated More Likely to Use New Drugs? NBER
Working Paper #9185.
376 A.I. Ugochukwu and P.W.B. Phillips

Malik, R.K., and S. Singh. 1995. Littleseed Canarygrass Resistance to Isoproturon in India. Weed
Technology 9: 419–425.
Mansfield, E. 1961. Technical Change and the Rate of Imitation. Econometrica 29 (4): 741–766.
———. 1963. The Speed of Response of Firms to New Techniques. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 77 (2): 290–311.
Mansfield, E., M. Schwartz, and S. Wagner. 1981. Imitation Costs and Patenting: An Empirical
Study. The Economic Journal 91: 907–918.
Marra, M., Pardey, P.G. and Alston, J.M. (2002). The Payoffs to Agricultural Biotechnology: An
Assessment of Evidence. EPDT Discussion Paper No. 87, International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington, DC.
Mensah, C.C., and M.K. Wohlgenant. 2009. A Market Impact Analysis of Soybean Technology
Adoption. Research in Business and Economics Journal 2: 2009.
Millar, J. 2010. The Role of Extension for Improving Natural Resource Management: The
Australian Experience. In Shaping Change: Natural Resource Management, Agriculture and
the Role of Extension, ed. J. Jennings, R. Packham, and D. Woodside, 102–110. Wodonga:
Australasia-Pacific Extension Network (APEN).
Miller, T., and G. Tolley. 1989. Technology Adoption and Agricultural Price Policy. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (4): 847–857.
Moser, C.M., and C.B. Barrett. 2003. The Disappointing Adoption Dynamics of a Yield-Increasing,
Low External-Input Technology: The Case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Systems 76 (3):
1085–1100.
Moshini, G., H. Lapan, and A. Sobolevsky. 2000. Roundup Ready Soybeans and Welfare Effects
in the Soybean Complex. Agribusiness 16 (1): 33–55.
Nadiri, M.I. 1993. Innovation and Technological Spillovers. NBER Working Paper No. 4423.
Washington, DC: NBER.
Ochieng, B.J., and J.E. Hobbs. 2016. Incentives for Cattle Producers to Adopt an E.Coli Vaccine:
An Application of Best-Worst Scaling. Food Policy 59: 78–87.
Pannell, D.J., G.R. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay, and R. Wilkinson. 2006. Understanding
and Promoting Adoption of Conservation Practices by Rural Landholders. Australian Journal
of Experimental Agriculture 46 (11): 1407–1424.
Phillips-McDougall. 2011. The Cost and Time Involved In The Discovery, Development and
Authorization of a New Plant Biotechnology Derived Trait. A Consultancy Study for Crop Life
International, September 2011. Available at: https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf_files/
Getting-a-Biotech-Crop-to-Market-Phillips-McDougall-Study.pdf.
Powell, C. 2011. Irradiation is Back on the Table. Canadian Grocer. Available at: http://www.
canadiangrocer.com/top-stories/irradiation-is-back-on-the-table-12160. Accessed 9 June 2016.
Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovation. 3rd ed, 236. New York: The Free Press.
———. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E.M., and J.D. Stanfield. 1968. Adoption and Diffusion of New Products: Emerging
Generalizations and Hypotheses. In Applications of the Sciences in Marketing, ed. Frank
M. Bass, Charles W. King, and Edgar A. Pessemier, 227–250. New York: Wiley.
Romer, P. 1990. Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy 98: S71.
Rubas, D. 2004. Technology Adoption: Who is likely to Adopt and How Does the Timing Affect
Benefits. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of the
Texas A & M University, August 2004.
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 1990–2012. Farm Machinery Custom and Rental Rate
Guide, Published Yearly. Government of Saskatchewan.
Sauer, J., and D. Zilberman. 2010. Innovation Behaviour at Farm Level – Selection and
Identification, 114th EAAE Seminar ‘Structural Change in Agriculture’, Berlin, 15–16 April
2010.
Scherer, F.M., S.E. Herzstein, A.W. Dreyfoos, W.G. Whitney, O.J. Bachman, C.P. Pesek, C.J. Scott,
T.G. Kelly, and J.J. Galvin. 1959. Patents and the Corporation: A Report on Industrial
Technology Under Changing Public Policy. Cambridge: Harvard University.
 Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature 377

Sherry, L., and D. Gibson. 2002. The Path to Teacher Leadership in Educational
Technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online
serial] 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-2/issue-2-02/general/
the-path-to-teacher-leadership-ineducational-Technology.
Stoneman, P. 1981. Intra-Firm Diffusion, Bayesian Learning and Profitability. The Economic
Journal 91 (362): 375–388.
Sunding, D., and D. Zilberman. 2001. The Agricultural Innovation Process: Research and
Technology Adoption in a Changing Agricultural Sector. In Handbook of Agricultural
Economics, vol. 1, ed. B. Gardner and G. Rausser. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
Taylor, C.T., and Z.A. Silberston. 1973. The Economic Impact of the Patent System. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tietenberg, T.H. 2000. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. 5th ed. Reading:
Addison-Wesley.
Uaiene, R.N. 2011. Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption in Mozambique. Paper
Presented at “Dialogue on Promoting Agricultural Growth in Mozambique.” International
Food Policy Research Institute, July, 2011.
Ugochukwu, A.I. 2015. Essays on Collective Reputation and Authenticity in Agri-Food Markets.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.
Vishwanath, R. 2003. Artificial Insemination: The State of the Art. Theriogenology 59 (2):
571–584.
Wozniak, Gregory D. 1987. Human Capital, Information, and the Early Adoption of New
Technology. Journal of Human Resources 22 (1): 101–112.
Zavale, H., E. Mabaya, and R. Christy. 2005. Adoption of Improved Maize Seed by Smallholder
Farmers in Mozambique. Staff Papers, Department of Applied Economics and Management,
Cornell University, Ithaca.
Zeller, M., A. Diagne, and C. Mataya. 1997. Market Access by Smallholder Farmers in Malawi:
Implications for Technology Adoption, Agricultural Productivity, and Crop Income.
International Food Policy Research Institute: FCND Discussion Paper No. 35, September 1997.

View publication stats