Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Nepal: Impact on Household Wellbeing

  • Full-Length Research Article
  • Published:
Agricultural Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the impact of improved rice varieties on household wellbeing measured by headcount poverty reduction and household total annual consumption across different agroecological regions of Nepal by using cross-sectional data of Nepal living standard survey III. The propensity score matching method was used to evaluate the impact on wellbeing of adopter and non-adopter farmers. The results indicate that adoption of improved rice varieties increased the adopter households’ annual agricultural earning and consumption expenditure by almost US$ 153–185 and US$ 643–907, respectively. Adoption of rice varieties has statistically significant and positive welfare effects on large and small farmers compared to the medium farmers. Large and small farmers on the other hand tend to have more impact on household expenditure and agricultural earning as compared to the medium farmers. Technological adoption has statistically significant and negative impact on poverty among the large farmers. We conclude that an investment on breeding research and wider dissemination of improved crop varieties will help to enhance household wellbeing and reduce poverty of the farmers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For detailed information on sampling procedure, refer to the Weblink: http://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Statistical_Report_Vol1.pdf).

  2. Source: Nepal Central Bank (Nepal Rastra Bank), exchange rate US$ 1 = Rs 73, date: January 22, 2011.

  3. Converting at the exchange rate of US$ 1 = NRs 73, date: January 22, 2011 of Nepal Central Bank (Nepal Rastra Bank).

  4. The common support is defined as 0 < p(D = 1|X) < 1. By the overlap condition, the propensity score is bounded away from 1 and 0, excluding the details of the distribution of p(x) [9].

References

  1. Adekambi SA, Diagne A, Simtowe FP, Biaou G (2009) The impact of agricultural technology adoption on poverty: the case of NERICA rice varieties in Benin. In: International Association of Agricultural Economists’ 2009 Conference, Beijing, China, vol 22, p 2009

  2. Adesina AA, Mbila D, Nkamleu GB, Endamana D (2000) Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agric Ecosyst Environ 80:255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Akudugu MA, Guo E, Dadzie SK (2012) Adoption of modern agricultural production technologies by farm households in ghana: What factors influence their decisions? J Biol Agric Healthc 2:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ali A, Abdulai A (2010) The adoption of genetically modified cotton and poverty reduction in Pakistan. J Agric Econ 6:175–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Amare M, Asfaw S, Shiferaw B (2012) Welfare impact of maize-pigeonpea intensification in Tanzania. Agric Econ 43:27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Asante BO, Wiredu AN, Martey E, Sarpong DB, Mensah-Bonsu A (2014) Nerica adoption and impacts on technical efficiency of rice producing households in Ghana: implications for research and development. Am J Exp Agric 4:244–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Asfaw A, Admassie A (2004) The role of education on the adoption of chemical fertiliser under different socioeconomic environments in Ethiopia. Agric Econ 30:215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Asfaw S, Kassie M, Simtowe F, Lipper L (2012) Poverty reduction effects of agricultural technology adoption: a micro-evidence from rural Tanzania. J Dev Stud 48:1288–1305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Becerril J, Abdulai A (2010) The impact of improved maize varieties on poverty in Mexico: a propensity score-matching approach. World Dev 38:1024–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhatta GD, Aggarwal PK (2015) Coping with weather adversity and adaptation to climate variability: a cross-country study of smallholder farmers in South Asia. Clim Dev 8(2):145–157. doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1050978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhatta GD, Doppler W (2011) Smallholder peri-urban farming in Nepal: a comparative analysis of farming systems. J Agric Food Syst Commun Dev 1:163–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bhatta GD, Ojha HR, Aggarwal PK, Suileman VR, Sultana P, Thapa D, Mittal N, Dahal KR, Thomson P, Ghimire L (2015) Agricultural innovation and adaptation to climate change: empirical evidence from diverse agro-ecologies in South Asia. Environ Dev Sustain. doi:10.1007/s10668-015-9743-x

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bhatta GD, Aggarwal PK, Shrivastava AK, Sproule S (2015) Is rainfall gradient a factor of livelihood diversification? Empirical evidence from around climatic hotspots in Indo-Gangetic Plains. Environ Dev Sustain. doi:10.1007/s10668-015-9710-6

    Google Scholar 

  14. CBS (2011) Nepal living standard survey III. Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  15. CBS (2014) Population monograph of Nepal volume III 2014. Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  16. Challa M, Tilahun U (2014) Determinants and impacts of modern agricultural technology adoption in west Wollega: the case of Gulliso district. J Biol Agric Healthc 4:63–77

    Google Scholar 

  17. D’Souza G, Cyphers D, Phipps T (1993) Factors affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Agric Resour Econ Rev 22:159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2002) World poverty and the role of agricultural technology: direct and indirect effects. J Dev Stud 38:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. De Janvry A, Dustan A, Sadoulet E (2011) Recent advances in impact analysis methods for ex-post impact assessments of agricultural technology: options for the CGIAR. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score-matching methods for non-experimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 84:151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dontsop-Nguezet PM, Diagne A, Okoruwa VO, Ojehomon V (2011) Impact of improved rice technology on income and poverty among rice farming household in Nigeria: a local average treatment effect (LATE) approach. In: Contributed paper prepared for the 25th conference of the Centre for the Studies of African Economies (CSAE), St. Catherine College, University of Oxford, UK, pp 1–31

  22. Foster J, Greer J, Thorbecke E (2010) The Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures: 25 years later. J Econ Inequal 8:491–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghimire R, Huang WC, Shrestha RB (2014) Factors affecting adoption of improved rice varieties among rural farm households in central Nepal. Rice Sci 22:1

    Google Scholar 

  24. Grosh M, Glewwe P (2000) Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries: lessons from 15 years of the living standards measurement study. World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  25. Heinrich C, Maffioli A, Vazquez G (2010) A primer for applying propensity-score matching. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  26. Joshi KD, Conroy C, Witcombe JR (2012) Agriculture, seed, and innovation in Nepal: industry and policy issues for the future. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kansiime MK, Wambugu SK (2014) Determinants of farmers’ decisions to adopt adaptation technologies in eastern Uganda. J Econ Sustain Dev 5:189–199

    Google Scholar 

  28. La Rovere R, Mathema S, Dixon J, Aquino-Mercado P, Gurung KJ, Hodson D, Flores D (2008) Economic and livelihood impacts of maize research in hill regions in Mexico and Nepal: including a method of collecting and analyzing spatial data using google earth. CIMMYT, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mendola M (2007) Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: a propensity-score matching analysis for rural Bangladesh. Food Policy 32:372–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meyer BD, Sullivan JX (2003) Measuring the well-being of the poor using income and consumption (No. w9760). National Bureau of Economic Research

  31. MoAD (2012) Statistical information on Nepalese agriculture. Ministry of Agricultural Development, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mukhopadhyay SK (1994) Adapting household behavior to agricultural technology in West Bengal, India: wage labor, fertility, and child schooling determinants. Econ Dev Cult Change 43(1):91–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mulugeta T, Hundie B (2012) Impacts of adoption of improved wheat technologies on households’ food consumption in southeastern Ethiopia. In: 2012 Conference, August 18–24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil (No. 126766) International Association of Agricultural Economists

  34. Pant KP, Aryal M (2014) Varietal effects on price-spread and milling recovery of rice in Nepal. J Agric Environ 15:18–29

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shiferaw B, Kassie M, Jaleta M, Yirga C (2014) Adoption of improved wheat varieties and impacts on household food security in Ethiopia. Food Policy 44:272–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Simtowe F, Kassie M, Asfaw S, Shiferaw B, Monyo E, Siambi M (2012) Welfare effects of agricultural technology adoption: the case of improved groundnut varieties in rural Malawi. In: International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) triennial conference, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, pp 18–24

  37. Smale M, Mason N (2014) Hybrid seed and the economic well-being of smallholder maize farmers in Zambia. J Dev Stud 50:680–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wu H, Ding S, Pandey S, Tao D (2010) Assessing the impact of agricultural technology adoption on farmers’ well-being using propensity-score matching analysis in rural china. Asian Econ J 24:141–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are highly indebted to Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) of Nepal for providing and allowing us to use data for analysis. We also would like to express our gratitude to Binod Shrestha for his technical assistance. Finally, we also thank the anonymous referees and the journal editor for their comments and suggestions that substantially improved the article quality.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS), P.O. BOX: 2254, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Nandakaji Budhathoki

  2. Research and Strategy, Community and Neighbourhood Services, The City of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Gopal D. Bhatta

Authors
  1. Nandakaji Budhathoki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gopal D. Bhatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nandakaji Budhathoki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Budhathoki, N., Bhatta, G.D. Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Nepal: Impact on Household Wellbeing. Agric Res 5, 420–432 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-016-0220-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-016-0220-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation