Understanding inconsistencies in risk attitude elicitation games: Evidence from smallholder farmers in five African countries

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1016/j.socec.2024.102307
Haftom Bayray Kahsay , Simone Piras , Laure Kuhfuss , Marco Setti , Valentino Marini Govigli
{"title":"Understanding inconsistencies in risk attitude elicitation games: Evidence from smallholder farmers in five African countries","authors":"Haftom Bayray Kahsay ,&nbsp;Simone Piras ,&nbsp;Laure Kuhfuss ,&nbsp;Marco Setti ,&nbsp;Valentino Marini Govigli","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent empirical studies eliciting farmers’ risk attitudes through lab-in-the-field experiments have reported high levels of inconsistency in responses. We investigate inconsistencies in risk attitudes elicitation games using data from incentivized lotteries involving 2,319 smallholder farmers from Eastern Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania) and Northern Africa (Tunisia, Morocco). Our sample demonstrates high levels of inconsistent behavior, with 48 % of the farmers exhibiting some type of inconsistency. Depending on the country, inconsistencies are explained by poverty, gender, and/or the interaction of gender and level of education. We find no significant impact (negative or positive) of education alone in all but one country model. Furthermore, we find session fixed effects to significantly explain inconsistencies in many cases, suggesting that session-specific circumstances, including inconsistencies across enumerators, play a crucial role in the successful implementation of these experiments. Our findings suggest that using risk attitude parameters without accounting for the presence and the potential causes of inconsistency may lead to unreliable results. This study may guide practitioners in identifying farmer typologies more prone to inconsistent decisions and inform policymakers about factors influencing operators’ choices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324001447","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent empirical studies eliciting farmers’ risk attitudes through lab-in-the-field experiments have reported high levels of inconsistency in responses. We investigate inconsistencies in risk attitudes elicitation games using data from incentivized lotteries involving 2,319 smallholder farmers from Eastern Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania) and Northern Africa (Tunisia, Morocco). Our sample demonstrates high levels of inconsistent behavior, with 48 % of the farmers exhibiting some type of inconsistency. Depending on the country, inconsistencies are explained by poverty, gender, and/or the interaction of gender and level of education. We find no significant impact (negative or positive) of education alone in all but one country model. Furthermore, we find session fixed effects to significantly explain inconsistencies in many cases, suggesting that session-specific circumstances, including inconsistencies across enumerators, play a crucial role in the successful implementation of these experiments. Our findings suggest that using risk attitude parameters without accounting for the presence and the potential causes of inconsistency may lead to unreliable results. This study may guide practitioners in identifying farmer typologies more prone to inconsistent decisions and inform policymakers about factors influencing operators’ choices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
了解风险态度诱导游戏中的不一致性:来自五个非洲国家小农的证据
最近通过田间实验室实验激发农民风险态度的实证研究报告称,农民的回答存在高度不一致性。我们利用来自东非(肯尼亚、乌干达、坦桑尼亚)和北非(突尼斯、摩洛哥)2,319 名小农参与的激励彩票数据,调查了风险态度诱导游戏中的不一致性。我们的样本显示出高度的行为不一致性,48% 的农民表现出某种类型的不一致性。根据国家的不同,贫困、性别和/或性别与教育水平的交互作用是造成不一致的原因。除一个国家模型外,我们在其他所有国家模型中均未发现教育本身的重大影响(消极或积极影响)。此外,我们发现在许多情况下,会话固定效应对不一致性有显著的解释作用,这表明会话的具体情况,包括不同调查员之间的不一致性,对这些实验的成功实施起着至关重要的作用。我们的研究结果表明,使用风险态度参数而不考虑不一致性的存在和潜在原因,可能会导致不可靠的结果。这项研究可以指导从业人员识别更容易出现决策不一致的农民类型,并让政策制定者了解影响经营者选择的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
期刊最新文献
Privacy during pandemics: Attitudes to public use of personal data Understanding inconsistencies in risk attitude elicitation games: Evidence from smallholder farmers in five African countries Inflation expectations in the wake of the war in Ukraine Asking for a friend: Reminders and incentives for crowdfunding college savings ‘Update Bias’: Manipulating past information based on the existing circumstances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1