Farmers' Heterogeneous Valuation of Laser Land Leveling in Eastern Uttar Pradesh: An Experimental Auction Approach to Informing Segmentation & Subsidy Strategies

Demand heterogeneity often makes it profitable for firms to price and promote goods and services differently in different market segments. When private consumption brings public benefits, this same heterogeneity can be used to develop targeted public subsidies. We explore the design of public-private targeting and segmentation strategies in the case of a resource-conserving agricultural technology in India. To understand farmers’ heterogeneous demand for Laser Land Leveling (LLL), we conducted an experimental auction for LLL services with an integrated randomized control trial to estimate the private benefits of the technology. We use graphical and econometric approaches to characterize farmer demand for LLL. We then add detailed cost data from LLL providers to simulate and evaluate several potential targeted delivery strategies based on measures of cost effectiveness of expanded diffusion of LLL and market surplus in a welfare framework. These simulations demonstrate inherent tradeoffs between increasing the amount of land that is leveled and expanding the number of farmers adopting the technology. While segmenting and targeting are popular elements of many public-private partnerships to develop and disseminate agricultural technologies, formulating and implementing effective delivery strategies requires a rich understanding of costs, benefits and demand. Our experimental approach generates such an understanding and may be relevant in other contexts.

[1]  K. Rickertsen,et al.  European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets , 2003 .

[2]  W. Huffman,et al.  Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops , 1996 .

[3]  M. Degroot,et al.  Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. , 1964, Behavioral science.

[4]  Awudu Abdulai,et al.  The Diffusion of New Agricultural Technologies: The Case of Crossbred‐Cow Technology in Tanzania , 2005 .

[5]  Gershon Feder,et al.  Farm size, risk aversion, and the adoption of new technology under uncertainty. , 1980 .

[6]  Howard D. Leathers,et al.  A Bayesian approach to explaining sequential adoption of components of a technological package , 1991 .

[7]  J. Shogren,et al.  Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research , 2007 .

[8]  Howard D. Leathers,et al.  Land Allocation in HYV Adoption Models: An Investigation of Alternative Explanations , 1994 .

[9]  Bruce E. Lindsay,et al.  Use of the tobit model in contingent valuation : experimental evidence from the pemigewasset wilderness area , 1991 .

[10]  J. G. Cragg Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods , 1971 .

[11]  J. Tobin Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables , 1958 .

[12]  Anthony Willett,et al.  Agricultural Extension: Generic Challenges and Some Ingredients for Solutions , 1999 .

[13]  James Kliebenstein,et al.  Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets , 1995 .

[14]  S. Batie,et al.  Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis , 1987, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[15]  Ulrich B. Morawetz,et al.  Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya: H. De Groote et al. / Agricultural Economics xx (2010) 1-16 , 2010 .

[16]  Measuring rural homeowners' willingness to pay for land conservation easements , 2005 .

[17]  P. Dupas Short-Run Subsidies and Long-Run Adoption of New Health Products: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2010, Econometrica : journal of the Econometric Society.

[18]  Maria Emma Santos,et al.  Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A New Index for Developing Countries , 2010 .

[19]  P. Chandna,et al.  Laser Land Leveling: A Precursor Technology for Resource Conservation , 2006 .

[20]  J. Whitehead Combining willingness to pay and behavior data with limited information , 2005 .

[21]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Chapter 81 Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods , 2008 .

[22]  W. Masters,et al.  Welfare Gains from Quality Certification of Infant Foods: Results from a Market Experiment in Mali , 2002 .

[23]  C. Barrett,et al.  Do Free Goods Stick to Poor Households? Experimental Evidence on Insecticide Treated Bednets , 2009 .

[24]  Langche Zeng,et al.  Analyzing Censored and Sample-Selected Data with Tobit and Heckit Models , 1999, Political Analysis.