Impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity: Evidence from North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia

Zegeye, Mesele Belay; Fikrie, Abebaw Hailu; Asefa, Anteneh Bizualem Article Impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity: Evidence from North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Zegeye, Mesele Belay; Fikrie, Abebaw Hailu; Asefa, Anteneh Bizualem (2022) : Impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity: Evidence from North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 10, Iss. 1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/303714 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaef20 Impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity: Evidence from North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia Mesele Belay Zegeye, Abebaw Hailu Fikrie & Anteneh Bizualem Asefa To cite this article: Mesele Belay Zegeye, Abebaw Hailu Fikrie & Anteneh Bizualem Asefa (2022) Impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity: Evidence from North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance, 10:1, 2101223, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 18 Jul 2022. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4091 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 10 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 GENERAL & APPLIED ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity: Evidence from North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia Mesele Belay Zegeye 1 *, Abebaw Hailu Fikrie 1 and Anteneh Bizualem Asefa 1 Abstract: Wheat is one of the most important cereal crops cultivated in wide range of agro-ecologies in Ethiopia. But, its productivity has remained low. Hence, this study intends to examine the impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity in north Shewa zone of the Amhara region, Ethiopia. The analysis is based on household level data covering 693 households collected in 2020. Multinomial logit model (MNL) and multinomial endogenous switching regression (MESR) models are used for analysis. The results reveal that agricultural technology adoptions are affected by the education level of the household head, off-farm employment, tropical livestock, access to credit, household saving, extension visit, and distance from the market. In addition, the study shows that the adoption of fertilizer and/or improved seed increases wheat productivity significantly. Furthermore, the adoption of a combined fertilizer and improved seed provides higher productivity than the adoption of single technologies. Therefore, this study recommends that government and other stakeholders should have to work in collaboration with rural farmers to increase rural technology generation; dissemination and adoption interventions to improve wheat productivity in the study area. Subjects: Economics; Microeconomics; Development Economics Keywords: Wheat; technology adoption; multinomial logit; multinomial endogenous switching regression; productivity ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mesele Belay Zegeye is a lecturer at Debre Berhan University, Ethiopia. His research interest includes the effect and effectiveness of policies, poverty, food security, technology adoption, and agricultural innovations and extensions, and agricultural productivity. Abebaw Hailu Fikrie is a lecturer at Debre Berhan University, Ethiopia. His current research interests are development issues like urban and rural development, agricultural economics, food security, microeconomic, and macroeconomics policy analysis. Anteneh Bizualem Asefa is a lecturer at Debre Berhan University. His research interest includes macroeconomics policy analysis and international trade. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Wheat is one of largest cereal crops produced for consumption and marketing purpose in Ethiopia. But its productivity is very low. Currently, Ethiopian government is applying different measures to improve the productivity including the expansion of the adoption of new or improved agricultural technologies. So, this study tried to examine the impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity in the north Shewa zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. The results revealed that the adoption of agricultural technology significantly increases wheat productivity. Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 1 of 16 Received: 20 August 2021 Accepted: 10 July 2022 *Corresponding author: Mesele Belay Zegeye, Department of Economics, College of Business and Economics, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Raoul Fani Djomo Choumbou, Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. 1. Introduction Majority of the poor in developing countries, particularly Sub-Sahara African countries, heavily depends on agriculture for survival; as a result, agriculture is considered as a key sector for stimulating economic growth, overcoming poverty, and enhancing food security. Agricultural productivity can be increased through the use of new technologies, and its increase will reduce poverty by increasing farmers’ income, reducing food prices, and thereby enhancing increments in consumption (Diagne et al., 2009). Correspondingly, agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopian economy. It accounts for about 34.1% of the GDP, employs 79% of the population, and accounts for 79% of foreign exchange earnings; it is the major source of raw material and capital for investment and provides large market (Diriba, 2020). However, the contribution of the sector to the country’s GDP is declining overtime. In addition, a rise in food demand and a subsequent hike in food prices, which were the main components of the consumer price index, have necessitated an improvement in productivity of the sector. Ethiopian government is applying different measures to improve the productivity including the expansion of the adoption of new or improved agricultural technologies. In the country, even though the adoptions of improved agricultural technology are intensely recommended to improve agricultural productivity, the adoption rate is remains very low (Admassie & Ayele, 2010; Mohammed, 2014). Even though the adoption of improved agricultural technologies has resulted in the improvement of the livelihood of the rural community and economic growth; lack of structural transformation, severe poverty, and food insecurity problems combined with instability and conflicts have made the road difficult. In this kind of scenario, the adoption of improved technologies especially for the production of staple crops is fundamental to the transformation of rural area, to achieve food security, and reduce poverty (Teklewold et al., 2013). One of the staple crops, where different improved technologies are being applied is wheat. Wheat is the second-most important crop, taking 14% of the total calorie intake in the country, which is preceded only by maize (19%) and is ahead of teff (10%), sorghum (11%), and enset (12%; Wakeyo & Lanos, 2019). The country has an enormous potential for wheat production, and it is the largest wheat producer in Sub-Saharan Africa (Tadesse et al., 2019), even though the country is net importer of wheat. Around 5 million farming households’ life is based on wheat, which they grew it on around 1.7–1.8 million ha, annually (CSA (Central Statistical Authority), 2021). Oromia region is the highest producer of wheat (56.8%), followed by Amhara (31.4%), Southern Nations and Nationalities (7.46%) and Tigray (3.87%) of the total wheat of the country. On the other hand, the productivity of wheat varies from 33 quintals per hectare in Oromia, to 29 quintals in SNNP, to 28.3 in Amhara and to 21.9 in Tigray. As the above data show, Amhara region is one of the major wheat producing regions in the country next to Oromia region, but its productivity is lower than both Oromia and Southern nation’s nationalities and peoples (SNNP) regions. The reasons for this low productivity in wheat are minimal application of agricultural technologies, traditional farming system, rain feed agriculture, and vulnerability to climate change. Similarly, North Shewa zone is one of the wheat producing zones of Amhara region, and the zone has a higher productivity than the regional average with 30.6 quintal per hectare (CSA (Central Statistical Authority), 2021). There are different studies that are conducted on the determinants of adoption and impacts of agricultural technology on productivity of wheat at national and regional level. The studies by Tamirat et al. (2020), Yirga et al. (2013), Demissie Zeleke et al. (2021), Wudu (2017), and Siyum et al. (2021) focus on the determinants of the adoption of improved wheat technologies in different parts of the country. While, other studies by Hagos (2016), Ketema and Kassa (2016), Abate et al. (2018), Daniel and Belay (2018), and Tesfaye et al. (2016) have examined the impact of technology adoption on the productivity of wheat and other crops. The results of these studies show that household, economic, and institutional factors (including household heads sex, level of education, active labour force members, total land holding size, access to credit, participation in training, exposure to mass media, and frequent contact of extension agents) were Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 2 of 16 the main determinants of adoption. In addition, the studies reveal that adoption of improved agricultural technology significantly improves the productivity of wheat and other crops. The contribution of this paper to the existing literature is three fold. One, many studies that were conducted in the area focused on other crops than wheat (for example; Ahmed, 2015; Natnael, 2019; Shako et al., 2021). Second, other studies examine the impact of single technology adoption on wheat productivity (for example; Hagos, 2016; Mulugeta & Hundie, 2012). Thirdly, majority of previous studies have employed PSM, double-hurdle, ordered probit and OLS estimation techniques (for example; Hagos, 2016; Mulugeta & Hundie, 2012; Siyum et al., 2021; Tesfaye et al., 2016). But these models and estimation techniques are subject to self-selection bias, endogeneity problems and inadequate counterfactuals. For that reason, this study employs multinomial endogenous switching regression model, which has the potential in solving the above problems. In addition, the researchers use the adoption of fertilizer and/or improved seed adoptions because the adoption of these technologies is widely used and have higher adoption rate in the study area compared to other technology packages. Therefore, the study aims to examine the impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity taking North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, as a case study. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: part 2 provides a brief description of the methodology, part 3 presents results and discussions, and part 4 presents the conclusion and recommendation of the study. 2. Methodology 2.1. Study area description North Shewa zone is one of the 12 administrative zones of the Amhara region, and the capital city of the zone is Debre Berhan, which is found about 130 km north of Addis Ababa. The absolute location of the study area is latitude 80 43’ 06”—100 43’ 58” N and longitude 380 39’ 50’ “—400 06” 32’ ‘ E. The zone is bordered on the south and the west by the Oromia Region, on the north by South Wollo zone, on the northeast by the Oromo nationality special zone, and on the east by the Afar Region. Agriculture is the main economic activity and livelihood of people in the zone (North Shewa Zone Administration office, 2020). 2.2. Data and sampling description The study is based on cross-sectional data collected from farming households in the North Shewa Zone. This study used both primary and secondary data sources. Primary data were collected through structured questionnaires. Whereas, the secondary data were collected from documented and published sources such as books, journal articles, meeting minutes, and North Shewa Agricultural Office reports. The study used the multistage sampling technique so as to select sample households. Firstly, from the total districts of the zone, four districts specifically Minjar Shenkor, Angolela Tera, Moretna Jiru, and Menz Gera were selected purposively because they have high potential to agricultural practices including wheat production and topographical similarity. Following this, according to North Shewa Zone Administration office (2020), there are a total of 117,149 farming households in the selected districts. Taking this, Vogel (1986) and Malhotra (2012) advised that for a large homogenous population, which is between 35,001 and 150,000, the researcher can draw a maximum sample of 800 samples. As a result, 800 households were drawn as sample size in this study. We then randomly selected 30 kebeles from the entire kebeles in the selected districts and finally selected each sample respondent from each selected kebeles using a simple random sample. Due to lack of information, four observations have been deleted, and in addition, 103 sampled households were dropped because they don’t produce wheat. Therefore, 693 households were included in the analysis. 2.3. Methods of data analysis After the data collection, for data analysis, the researchers have employed both descriptive and econometric methods. The descriptive analysis includes mean and standard deviation and is mainly used to obtain a better understanding of the household demographic features, socioZegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 3 of 16 economic, and institutional features of the farmers. From the econometric methods, a multinomial endogenous switching regression model is employed to scrutinize the impact of adoption of alternative agricultural technologies on wheat productivity. 2.4. Conceptual framework Theoretically, it is supposed that farmers adopt improved agricultural technologies that can maximize their utility. This is to mean that farmers will only adopt a farm technology if it adds more to farm profit than farm operational cost, given resource constraints. Thus, adoption occurs if the net benefit (i.e. utility, productivity in this case) of the chosen package is higher than the benefit of the other alternatives. However, the utility that is gained from adopting agricultural technology is not observed, what is observed is only the farmers’ choice of technology, one can assume a random utility model which states conditional probability choice given farmers’ choice (Verbeek, 2008). In this study, the impact of farmers’ adoption of alternative agricultural technologies on wheat productivity is modelled using wheat farm yield as outcome variable. To estimate the impact, this study employed an endogenous switching regression model. Because the model has a potential in accounting impact evaluation estimation challenges like endogeneity problem, 1 sample selection bias, 2 and inadequate counterfactuals, 3 the model also allows interaction between adoption of the various packages and other covariates in the productivity functions. 2.5. Multinomial endogenous switching regression (MESR) In measuring the impact of adoption of alternative agricultural technology adoptions on wheat productivity, the study applied multinomial endogenous switching regression model. The specification of the model used here is adapted from the works of Teklewold et al. (2013), Danso-Abbeam and Baiyegunhi (2018), Kassie et al. (2018), and Belay and Mengiste (2021). The multinomial endogenous switching regression model is estimated in two stages. In the first stage, multinomial logit model (MNL) is used to model farmers’ adoption of the alternative technologies. In the second stage, the impact of each technology packages on wheat productivity is estimated using the ordinary least square (OLS) with selectivity correction computed from the first stage, as the technique proposed by (Dubin & McFadden, 1984). The study employed the inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) as robustness check in the setting of the propensity score framework to compute the effect of each alternative technology packages on the outcome variables. Suppose that a rational farm household i with the primary objective of maximizing productivity, Qi by comparing the benefits s/he enjoys from adopting z alternative alternatives. The rational farmer will choose package j, over any alternative package z if the net benefit is positive, implies Q ij > Q iz , j ≠ z. The adoption equation for the farm households multiple choices can be stated as: Q� ij ¼βkXiþμij (1) Where Q� ij is the latent variable defining the expected net benefits a farmer derives from adopting package k, X i represents observed covariates (demographic, socioeconomic, institutional, and farm-specific, among others) and μij is an error term accounting for unobserved characteristics. Let A be an index that indicates the choice the farmer has made, such that: A¼ 1if : : : k if 8 > > > > < > > > > : Q� i1>0 max Qiz ð Þor : for all z�k : Q� iJ >0 maxðQ� izÞor εi1<0 : : : εiJ<0 (2) Where ηij is the expected difference in productivity between alternative technology packages j and z. Hence, ith farm household will adopt alternative technology package j if and only if package k gives the greatest expected benefit than any other packages. Thus, if ηij ¼maxz�jðQ� ij Q� izÞ>0. Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 4 of 16 If the error term, μij has an identical and Gumbel distribution (i.e. under the assumption independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) hypothesis), then the probability that an i th farm household will select package k can be expressed by multinomial logit model and specified as: Pik ¼Prðεij<0Xi j Þ ¼ exp Xiβk ð Þ ∑k z¼1exp Xiβz ð Þ (3) Table 1 presents farmers’ choice of alternative technology package. The adoption in this study is defined as adoption of fertilizer and/or improved seed by the farm household’s’ in their crop land. It equals choice 2 if a farmer has adopted the fertilizer, equals 3 if a farmer has adopted the improved seed, equals 4 if the farmer has adopted a combination of fertilizer and improved seed technology, and 1 if a farm household’s’ didn’t adopt any of the above technologies. Table 1 shows that, from the total 693 sampled farm households, about 23.38% are non-adopters (F 0 I 0 ), whereas 26.55% and 6.35% of them adopted fertilizer (F 1 I 0 ) and improved seed (F 0 I 1 ), respectively, and finally, about 43.72% of them have adopted a combination of fertilizer and improved seed (F 1 I 1 ) simultaneously. After the specification of the selection equation, the outcome equation which is the impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat productivity 4 is estimated by using multinomial endogenous switching regression model. As depicted in Table 1, the base category, non-adoption (F 0 I 0 ) is represented by k = 1, while the remaining combination alternatives are represented by k = 2; 3 & 4 where at least one option is adopted. The outcome equation for each possible regime is specified as: Regime 1: : : : Regime k : 8 > > > > < > > > > : Qi1¼β1Ziþψi1if j ¼1 : : : Qik ¼βkZiþψik if j ¼k (4) Where Q i’ s are the outcome variables, which represent wheat productivity for non-adopter and adopters, Zi denote a set of explanatory variables that influence wheat productivity; βi0s are vectors of parameter to be estimated, and ψ0 is represents error terms with zero mean and constant variance assumptions. If the error terms of equations (1) and (4) are not independent and identically distributed, a consistent OLS estimate of parameters needs the addition of the selection correction terms of the alternative choices in equation (4). Given this, consistent estimates can be found by adding the selection correction terms (mills ratio) generated from the selection equation as follows: Regime 1: : : : Regime k : 8 > > > > < > > > > : Qi1¼β1Ziþγ1λ1þ#i1if j¼1 : : : Qik ¼βkZiþγkλkþ#ik if j¼k (5) Where γi is the covariance between the error terms μ of equation (1) and ψ of equation (4), and λk is the inverse Mills ratio that is computed from the multinomial logit model in equation (3) as follows: λk¼∑ K z�k ρk ^ Pizln ^ Piz � � 1^ Piz þln ^ Pik � � 0 @1 A(6) Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 5 of 16 Where ρ is the correlation coefficient of the three error terms μ;ψ and #. The error terms have expected mean value of zero. Practically, there is a possibility of heteroscedasticity in generating the regressor in the model, hence; standard errors are bootstrapped to account the problem. According to Chamberlain and Griliches (1975), a system of equations does not necessarily require instrumental variables for identification. However, for consistent estimates of the parameters, Teklewold et al. (2013) suggested the significance of including selection instruments in the alternative choice model, which is specified in equation (4). According to Di Falco et al. (2011), for the ESR model to be adequately identified, it is recommended to use exclusion restriction test. This test is conducted by excluding variables that directly influence the adoption equation but not the outcome equation. Accordingly, this study used variables of extension visit, farmers’ cooperative, distance from the road, and from the market for selection instruments. 2.5.1. Conditional expectations and treatment effects of adoption The multinomial endogenous switching regression model is used to compute both the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and the untreated (ATU). This can be done by a simple comparison of the expected values of the outcome of the treated (adopters) and untreated (nonadopters) in actual and counterfactual situations. Following, Teklewold et al. (2013), Danso-Abbeam and Baiyegunhi (2018), and Kassie et al. (2018); the conditional expectations for the outcome variables in both the observed and their counterfactual scenarios can be specified as follows: Actual expectations observed in the sample: E Qik=j¼kð Þ ¼ βkZki þσkλk(7a) E Qi1=j¼1ð Þ ¼ β1Z1iþσ1λ1(7b) Counterfactual expected outcomes (not observed in the sample): E Qik=j¼1ð Þ ¼ β1Zki þσ1λk(7c) E Qi1=j¼kð Þ ¼ βkZ1iþσkλ1(7d) The average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) is calculated as the difference between eq. (7a) and eq. (7c); and specified as: ATT ¼E Qik=j¼kð Þ E Qik=j¼1ð Þ ¼ Zkiðβkβ1Þþλkσkσ1 ð Þ (8) Table 1. Farmers’ choice of alternative technology package and their frequency Choice Binary package Fertilizer Improved seed Frequency Percentage F o F 1 I o I 1 1 F 0 I 0 √ √ 162 23.38 2 F 1 I 0 √ √ 184 26.55 3 F 0 I 1 √ √ 44 6.35 4 F 1 I 1 √ √ 303 43.72 Note. Each element in the combination is a binary variable and for fertilizer (F) and improved seed adoption (I), and the subscripts represent 1 = adoption and 0 = non-adoption. Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 6 of 16 Similarly, the average treatment effect on the untreated (ATU) is the difference between equation (7b) and equation (7d) and can be specified as: ATU ¼E Qi1=j¼1ð Þ E Qi1=j¼kð Þ ¼ Z1iðβkβ1Þþλkσkσ1 ð Þ (9) The difference between eq. (8) and eq. (9) provides in transitional heterogeneity (TH) that shows whether the effect of adoption is higher or lower for the adopters than the non-adopters. 3. Empirical results and discussion 3.1. Descriptive statistics The descriptive statistics of the explanatory variables for the four alternative technology packages considered in this study are presented in Table 2. The explanatory variables’ mean value of nonadopters (F 0 I 0 ) is used as a base category to compare with mean values of alternative adopters (F 1 I 0, F 0 I 1 and F 1 I 1 ). The summary shows that the average mean comparison test between adopters and non-adopters is significantly higher for adopters. The mean values of explanatory variables are also significantly different crosswise the different adopters. For instance, the summary shows that most of the adopters are male headed households, have higher access to credit service, extension visit, off-farm activities, and membership to farmer cooperatives, which are very important for agricultural technology adoption. Moreover, the average family size and livestock asset are higher for adopters. In addition, on average, the adopter households are located near to the market and urban centers than their counterparts significantly. 3.2. Econometrics analysis 3.2.1. Determinants of adoption of agricultural technology The study applies a maximum likelihood estimation technique for the purpose of estimating the multinomial logit functions, and the results are presented in Table 3. For the purpose of effective estimation of the model, several diagnostics tests were conducted. The results of the Wald test accepts the alternative hypothesis that all regression coefficients are jointly different from zero (P > chi 2 = 0.000). The Hausman test result for test of IIA assumption displays that all the alternative packages are distinguishable with respect to the variables in the model, as presented in Appendix B. During the estimation, robust regression is used to control the problem of heteroskedasticity and non-normality. Table 3 shows that the educational level of the household head have a positive and significant effect on the adoption of all packages (F 1 I 0 , F0I 1 , and F 1 I 1 ), meaning that having an educated household head increases the chance of adopting the combination of improved wheat seed and/or inorganic fertilizer. This is because education enables to obtain, analyze, and appraise information on new or improved technologies, market opportunities and its implied benefit. This is consistent with Wudu (2017) and Tamirat et al. (2020). Tropical livestock unit (TLU) is also found to have a positive and significant influence on the adoption package of fertilizer (F 1 I 0 ) and improved seed (F 0 I 1 ), representing that households who have a livestock asset are more expected to adopt F 1 I 0 and F 0 I 1 than the non-adopters. Since farmers who own a flock of livestock helps to have an additional source of income and serve as a source of organic fertilizer input. This is in line with (Tesfaye et al., 2016). The coefficient of wheat farm size is positive and significant for the adoptions of package fertilizer (F 1 I 0 ), showing that having a large farm size increases the probability of adopting fertilizer technology than non-adopters. The possible explanation is that farm households who have large farm size can produce more than household consumption and the surplus amount of production is sold and this generates a certain amount of cash that can be used to purchase agricultural inputs. The finding is consistent with (Wudu, 2017). Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 7 of 16 117(1316–2016–102848), 162–168. https://doi.org/ 10.7896/j.1521 Belay, M., & Mengiste, M. (2021). The ex-post impact of agricultural technology adoption on poverty: Evidence from north Shewa zone of Amhara region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2479 Chamberlain, G., & Griliches, Z. (1975). Unobservables with a variance-components structure: Ability, schooling, and the economic success of brothers. International Economic Review, 16(2), 422–449. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525824 CSA (Central Statistical Authority). (2021). Agricultural sample survey report on area and production of major crops (Private peasant holdings, Meher season 2020/2021 (2013 E.C.)). The FDRE Statistical Bulletin, VII. Daniel, F., & Belay, B. (2018). Impact of improved wheat varieties & information’s adoption on productivity in Ethiopia. GRIN Verlag. Danso-Abbeam, G., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. (2018). Welfare impact of pesticides management practices among smallholder cocoa farmers in Ghana. Technology in Society, 54, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.011 Demissie Zeleke, B., Geleto, A. K., Komicha, H. H., Asefa, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Determinants of adopting improved bread wheat varieties in Arsi Highland, Oromia Region, Ethiopia: A Double-Hurdle Approach. Cogent Economics & Finance, 9(1), 1932040. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1932040 Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M., & Yesuf, M. (2011). Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(3), 829–846. https://doi. org/10.1093/ajae/aar006 Diagne, A., Adekambi, S. A., Simtowe, F. P., & Biaou, G. (2009). The impact of agricultural technology adoption on poverty: The case of Nerica rice varieties in Benin. A shorter Version of the Paper Is Being Presented as Contributed Paper at the 27th Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, Beijing. DiFalco, S., Veronesi, M., & Yesuf, M. Does Adaptation to Climate Change Provide Food Security? a MicroPerspective from Ethiopia. (2011). American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(3), 829–846. Change also the year from 2010 to 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/ aar006 Diriba, G. (2020). Agricultural and rural transformation in Ethiopia: Obstacles, triggers and reform considerations. Ethiopian Economics Association. Dubin, J. A., & McFadden, D. L. (1984). An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica, 52(2), 345–362. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1911493 Hagos, B. G. (2016). Impact of agricultural technology adoption of small holder farmers on wheat yield: Empirical evidence from Southern Tigray State of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 8(10), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.5897/JAERD2016.0786 Hagos, B. G., & Hadush, M. (2017). Does improved wheat seed adoption benefit farmers? Empirical evidence from Southern Tigrai, Ethiopia. J Agric Crops, 3 (change the year from 2016 to 2017), 1–11. Kassie, M., Marenya, P., Tessema, Y., Jaleta, M., Zeng, D., Erenstein, O., & Rahut, D. (2018). Measuring farm and market level economic impacts of improved maize production technologies in Ethiopia: Evidence from panel data. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12221 Ketema, M., & Kassa, B. (2016). Impact of technology on smallholder wheat production in bale highlands of Ethiopia: Application of output decomposition model. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 4(6), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.24925/ turjaf.v4i6.446-454.593 Malhotra, N. K. (2012). Basic marketing research: Integration of social media. Pearson. https://www. worldcat.org/title/basic-marketing-researchintegration-of-social-media/oclc/782199237 Mohammed, A. (2014). Adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices and its impact on household income: Evidence from maize-legumes cropping system of Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Agriculture, 4, 196–203. Mulugeta, T., & Hundie, B. (2012). Impacts of adoption of improved wheat technologies on households’ food consumption in southeastern Ethiopia (No. 10072016-79620). International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE). Natnael, A. B. (2019). Impact of technology adoption on agricultural productivity and income: A case study of improved teff variety adoption in north eastern Ethiopia. Agricultural Research & Technology Open Access Journal, 20(4), 556139 doi:10.19080/ ARTOAJ.2019.20.556139. North Shewa Zone Administration office. (2020). Geographical location, socio-economy and number of populations of the Zone. Shako, M., Dinku, A., & Mosisa, W. (2021). Constraints of adoption of agricultural extension package technologies on sorghum crop production at smallholder farm household level: Evidence from West Hararghe Zone 2021. Advances in Agriculture. Siyum, N., Giziew, A., & Abebe, A. (2021). Factors influencing adoption of improved bread wheat technologies in Ethiopia: Empirical evidence from Meket district. Heliyon, 8(2), e08876 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022. e08876. Tadesse, W., Bishaw, Z., & Assefa, S. (2019). Wheat production and breeding in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and opportunities in the face of climate change. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11(5), 696–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJCCSM-02-2018-0015 Tamirat, G., Deribe, K., & Berhanu, N. (2020). Determinants of adoption of improved bread wheat production technology in Southern Ethiopia. Food Science and Quality Management. 2224-6088 (Paper) 2225-0557 Vol.97, 2020. Teklewold, H., Kassie, M., Shiferaw, B., & Köhlin, G. (2013). Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor. Ecological Economics, 93, 85–93. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.002 Tesfaye, S., Bedada, B., & Mesay, Y. (2016). Impact of improved wheat technology adoption on productivity and income in Ethiopia. African Crop Science Journal, 24 (s1), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v24i1.14S Verbeek, M. (2008). A guide to modern econometrics. John Wiley & Sons. Vogel, F. A. (1986). Survey design and estimation for agricultural sample surveys Statistical Report Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Wakeyo, M., & Lanos, B. (2019). Analysis of price incentives for wheat in Ethiopia for the time period 2005-2012. Gates Open Res, 3(278), 278 https://doi. org/10.21955/gatesopenres.1115388.1. Wudu, B. (2017). Determinants of adoption of improved wheat technology: in case of Gozzamen district, East Gojjam in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia [Doctoral dissertation]. St. Mary’s University. Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 14 of 16 Appendix A. Falsification Test (OLS Regression) Linear regression Appendix B. Hausman IIA specification Test Productivity Coef. St.Err. t-value p-value [95% Conf Interval] Sig Distance from main road −.435 .257 −1.69 .092 −.943 .072 * Farm cooperative 1.945 3.758 0.52 .605 −5.471 9.361 Distance from market −.005 .238 −0.02 .984 −.473 .464 Extension −2.93 5.54 −0.53 .598 −13.862 8.002 Constant 33.743 6.747 5.00 0 20.429 47.058 *** Mean dependent var 30.371 SD dependent var 17.793 R-squared 0.023 Number of obs 184 F-test 1.059 Prob > F 0.378 Akaike crit. (AIC) 1586.254 Bayesian crit. (BIC) 1602.329 *** p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .1 Coef. Chi-square test value 0.000 P-value 1.000 Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 15 of 16 © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Economics & Finance (ISSN: 2332-2039) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Zegeye et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2022), 10: 2101223 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2101223 Page 16 of 16