Access to credit and heterogeneous effects on agricultural technology adoption: Evidence from large rural surveys in Ethiopia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Modern agricultural technologies hold huge potential for increasing productivity and reducing poverty in developing countries. However, adoption levels of these technologies have remained disappointingly low in Africa. This paper analyzes the effect of access to credit on the likelihood of adoption and use intensity of chemical fertilizers using data from large rural surveys in Ethiopia. Using a heteroscedasticity‐based identification strategy to address the endogenous nature of access to credit, we find that access to credit has significant positive effects on adoption and intensity of use of chemical fertilizers. However, important heterogeneities are observed. Credit obtained from formal sources is more important for the intensity of use than for the decision to adopt chemical fertilizers. Credit taken with the primary purpose of financing agricultural inputs is more likely to promote adoption of chemical fertilizers than credit taken per se. Furthermore, reported credit effects are larger when estimated against the sample of credit‐constrained non‐users as compared with the pool of the whole sample of credit non‐users. The results remain robust to several sensitivity analyses. Our results yield useful implications for the design, promotion, and targeting of credit services to leverage their effect on adoption of agricultural technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it