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 , Simone Piras , Laure Kuhfuss , Marco Setti , 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.
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.