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

被引:0
作者
Kahsay, Haftom Bayray [1 ,2 ]
Piras, Simone [3 ]
Kuhfuss, Laure [4 ]
Setti, Marco [5 ]
Govigli, Valentino Marini [5 ]
机构
[1] Mekelle Univ, Dept Econ, POB 451, Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia
[2] Aarhus Univ, Aarhus Inst Adv Studies, Hoegh Guldbergs Gade 6B, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark
[3] James Hutton Inst, Social Econ & Geog Sci, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland
[4] James Hutton Inst, Social Econ & Geog Sci, Dundee DD2 5DA, Scotland
[5] Alma Mater Studiorum Univ Bologna, Dept Agr & Food Sci, Viale G Fanin 50, I-40137 Bologna, Italy
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
Multiple price list; Risk attitude; Education; Poverty; Smallholder farmers; Lab-in-the-field experiment; COGNITIVE SKILLS; ELICITING RISK; PREFERENCES; AVERSION; POVERTY; TIME; DECISIONS; EDUCATION; CHOICES;
D O I
10.1016/j.socec.2024.102307
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 61 条
  • [1] Cognitive abilities and risk-taking: Errors, not preferences
    Amador-Hidalgo, Luis
    Branas-Garza, Pablo
    Espin, Antonio M.
    Garcia-Munoz, Teresa
    Hernandez-Roman, Ana
    [J]. EUROPEAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2021, 134
  • [2] Eliciting risk and time preferences
    Andersen, Steffen
    Harrison, Glenn W.
    Lau, Morten I.
    Rutstrom, E. Elisabet
    [J]. ECONOMETRICA, 2008, 76 (03) : 583 - 618
  • [3] Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure
    Anderson, Lisa R.
    Mellor, Jennifer M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2009, 39 (02) : 137 - 160
  • [4] RISK AVERSION RELATES TO COGNITIVE ABILITY: PREFERENCES OR NOISE?
    Andersson, Ola
    Holm, Hakan J.
    Tyran, Jean-Robert
    Wengstrom, Erik
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, 2016, 14 (05) : 1129 - 1154
  • [5] Baldi PL, 2013, STUD PSYCHOL, V55, P265
  • [6] The economic lives of the poor
    Banejee, Abhijit V.
    Duflo, Esther
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2007, 21 (01) : 141 - 167
  • [7] Banerjee A., 2011, Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty
  • [8] Education, cognitive skills and earnings in comparative perspective
    Barone, Carlo
    van de Werfhorst, Herman G.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL SOCIOLOGY, 2011, 26 (04) : 483 - 502
  • [9] Bejarano H., 2016, Working paper CIUP, DD1603
  • [10] Cognitive Skills, Gender and Risk Preferences
    Booth, Alison L.
    Katic, Pamela
    [J]. ECONOMIC RECORD, 2013, 89 (284) : 19 - 30