The Role of Neighborhood Effects on Agricultural Technology Diffusion: The Case of Crossbred “Aigamo” Duck Farming Technology in Japan

There is recent evidence to demonstrate that the adoption of agricultural technology varies significantly across space and time. Agricultural technologies for farmers are usually introduced either through a farmers' own experience or through neighborhood farmers and social learning seems to encourage diffusion. Given the significance of the socioeconomic impact of the diffusion of agricultural technology, many papers have examined empirical issues associated with the adoption and diffusion of new technologies. However, for agricultural technology diffusion, there are few studies that incorporate social learning in Japan. In this study, we investigated the neighborhood effects on the diffusion of agricultural technology. We constructed a duration model of agricultural technology diffusion that incorporates the neighborhood effect as one social interaction. The model was applied to data on the diffusion of farming technology using crossbred “Aigamo” ducks in Japan. The data is self-reported historical data on the time of adoption for rural households. The results show that (i) a farmer's adoption of agricultural technology depends positively on the number of previous adopters and the proximity of his farm to other farms, providing evidence for the existence of the neighborhood effect; (ii) neighborhood effects promoting the adoption of agricultural technology seem to be stronger in the later stages of diffusion; and (iii) organizations created by farmers play important roles in facilitating technology diffusion in the early stages. From these results, we conclude that the models for adoption of agricultural technology should be estimated by taking into account social interactions and, in particular, the existence of neighborhood farmers. The failure to control the neighborhood effect may bias the estimation of parameters. These results have some policy implications. First, in the early stages of new agricultural technology diffusion, supporting the voluntary activities organized by farmers contributes to facilitating the agricultural technology diffusion. Second, in the later stages of new agricultural technology diffusion, it is important to support the creation of communication opportunities with innovators. Finally, neighborhood farmers may have unequal influence on other farmers. Nearby leaders may influence later adopters (followers), but small farmers may have little influence on followers. The analysis needs to be extended in these directions in future work.