A Behavioural Economic Analysis of Agricultural Investment Decisions in Uganda
Lead Research Organisation:
University of East Anglia
Department Name: International Development
Abstract
Farmers in developing countries operate in extraordinarily hazardous environments. Policies that aim to increase agricultural productivity in such environments - policies on agricultural lending, research and extension, rural infrastructure, crop insurance, and so forth - need to take into account how farmers take agricultural investment decisions. However, crucial elements of their decision-making habits that relate to risky choices remain ill-understood. Here we propose to use behavioural economic research methods to advance our understanding in a number of important ways.
The research we propose here is new, and has potentially far-reaching implications for understanding the behavioural constraints on inclusive agricultural growth in hazardous environments, and thus for an effective policy response. In order to demonstrate this potential we have selected a case study country, Uganda, where (a) such growth due to remarkable farmer investment behaviour has been achieved, and (b) despite this, unrealised potential for productivity growth still characterises most of the agricultural sector, related to low adoption rates of new technologies, 'thin' and isolated rural markets, the failure of farmer cooperatives, among many other factors.
In order to elucidate the motivation of farmers' investment behaviour, we will use economic experiments, in which participants respond to real monetary incentives. The use of economic experiments is increasing in development economics; both applicants are well-versed in their use in a development context, as are the institutions at which they are based (the School of International Development and the Centre for the Behavioural and Experimental Social Sciences (CBESS) at the University of East Anglia). The experiments proposed here contain a number of novel design features, which will be piloted in order to ensure that participants understand the instructions.
In the experiments, participants are asked to make choices from among lotteries; the ones they choose are implemented with the use of a random device (e.g. a bag with coloured balls), after which earnings are calculated and paid out. Probabilities and possible outcomes of the lotteries are systematically varied, in order to measure whether certain risks tend to be exaggerated (or alternatively, downplayed) in participants' minds.
Several variants will be implemented. First, in contrast to the standard approach where money can only be earned (not lost), we would hand over money for use in the experiments several weeks before (possibly in a bank account that subjects cannot access before game day), so that we observe risky choice behaviour that relates to losses of money that subjects have come to regard as their own. Second, in order to test whether a probability threshold exists below which risks are ignored, we would offer subjects control over the amount of risk they take through allowing them (at a price) to manipulate the probabilities of outcomes. Third, to study the influence of social interaction on risky choice behaviour, random pairs of participants are formed whose earnings are pooled and participants are asked to determine how the total earnings should be redistributed.
We will also investigate whether farmers are biased when they consider making an investment. To do so, we have in mind to use existing data for the research area about the distribution of yields given soil type, agricultural inputs, and so forth, which can be converted into easily understood probabilistic statements ("yield will exceed X per acre, Y out of Z times"). We would describe to respondents a number of scenarios, and invite them to come up with such a statement, knowing that their reward will be greater, the more accurate the statement is. This allows us to detect any bias in decision-making that can then be related to the data on actual investment behaviour obtained in a socio-economic survey that we conduct after the experiments.
The research we propose here is new, and has potentially far-reaching implications for understanding the behavioural constraints on inclusive agricultural growth in hazardous environments, and thus for an effective policy response. In order to demonstrate this potential we have selected a case study country, Uganda, where (a) such growth due to remarkable farmer investment behaviour has been achieved, and (b) despite this, unrealised potential for productivity growth still characterises most of the agricultural sector, related to low adoption rates of new technologies, 'thin' and isolated rural markets, the failure of farmer cooperatives, among many other factors.
In order to elucidate the motivation of farmers' investment behaviour, we will use economic experiments, in which participants respond to real monetary incentives. The use of economic experiments is increasing in development economics; both applicants are well-versed in their use in a development context, as are the institutions at which they are based (the School of International Development and the Centre for the Behavioural and Experimental Social Sciences (CBESS) at the University of East Anglia). The experiments proposed here contain a number of novel design features, which will be piloted in order to ensure that participants understand the instructions.
In the experiments, participants are asked to make choices from among lotteries; the ones they choose are implemented with the use of a random device (e.g. a bag with coloured balls), after which earnings are calculated and paid out. Probabilities and possible outcomes of the lotteries are systematically varied, in order to measure whether certain risks tend to be exaggerated (or alternatively, downplayed) in participants' minds.
Several variants will be implemented. First, in contrast to the standard approach where money can only be earned (not lost), we would hand over money for use in the experiments several weeks before (possibly in a bank account that subjects cannot access before game day), so that we observe risky choice behaviour that relates to losses of money that subjects have come to regard as their own. Second, in order to test whether a probability threshold exists below which risks are ignored, we would offer subjects control over the amount of risk they take through allowing them (at a price) to manipulate the probabilities of outcomes. Third, to study the influence of social interaction on risky choice behaviour, random pairs of participants are formed whose earnings are pooled and participants are asked to determine how the total earnings should be redistributed.
We will also investigate whether farmers are biased when they consider making an investment. To do so, we have in mind to use existing data for the research area about the distribution of yields given soil type, agricultural inputs, and so forth, which can be converted into easily understood probabilistic statements ("yield will exceed X per acre, Y out of Z times"). We would describe to respondents a number of scenarios, and invite them to come up with such a statement, knowing that their reward will be greater, the more accurate the statement is. This allows us to detect any bias in decision-making that can then be related to the data on actual investment behaviour obtained in a socio-economic survey that we conduct after the experiments.
Planned Impact
One important way in which this research may have future positive effects is through the building of research capacity in a developing country in an area that is fast-growing, but in which expertise is still very limited: behavioural development economics. To this end, we will thoroughly train a group of young Ugandan researchers, sourced through IFPRI-Kampala, in the use of experimental economic methods.
In addition, we envisage five groups of beneficiaries from the findings of this research.
1. Academics in development studies and behavioural economics generally, and social scientists working on agricultural productivity specifically, for the reasons given in the section Academic Beneficiaries.
2. Agricultural policy makers in Uganda. Our partner, IFPRI-Kampala, is intensively engaged in research on farm productivity, and the quality of agricultural extension services. Our proposed research, through elucidating farmer motivation to invest, directly complements IFPRI's research and can lead to the improved design of policies to raise agricultural productivity. IFPRI-Kampala recognises our research as directly useful for its policy advocacy and is ideally placed for making good use of our research findings, as their work under the Uganda Strategy Support Program (USSP) entails a close collaboration with the pivotal advisory bodies to policy makers (see IFPRI's attached Letter of Support).
3. Transnational development agencies involved in research and advocacy for stimulating agricultural growth and equity such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the centres it supports: the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) among them. Our research on farmer investment behaviour should help predict responses to policy interventions that these organisations recommend, and could therefore help modify/sharpen their recommendations.
4. Bi-lateral donors such as the UK's DFID, multi-lateral donors such as the World Bank, and charitable foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that have recently shown a renewed interest in agriculture for development. The insights from our research in farmer response to policies for raising agricultural productivity should help these organisations think through effective policy design and to be strategic in their funding priorities.
5. Farmers in developing countries. We expect our research to identify key principles that guide livelihoods strategies in the rural areas of the semi-arid tropics, which accommodates over 2 billion people, 644 million of whom classified as extremely poor. If policies improve because we understand their behaviour better, then they will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
The communication and engagement activities we have planned with each of these groups are described in our Pathways to Impact.
In addition, we envisage five groups of beneficiaries from the findings of this research.
1. Academics in development studies and behavioural economics generally, and social scientists working on agricultural productivity specifically, for the reasons given in the section Academic Beneficiaries.
2. Agricultural policy makers in Uganda. Our partner, IFPRI-Kampala, is intensively engaged in research on farm productivity, and the quality of agricultural extension services. Our proposed research, through elucidating farmer motivation to invest, directly complements IFPRI's research and can lead to the improved design of policies to raise agricultural productivity. IFPRI-Kampala recognises our research as directly useful for its policy advocacy and is ideally placed for making good use of our research findings, as their work under the Uganda Strategy Support Program (USSP) entails a close collaboration with the pivotal advisory bodies to policy makers (see IFPRI's attached Letter of Support).
3. Transnational development agencies involved in research and advocacy for stimulating agricultural growth and equity such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the centres it supports: the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) among them. Our research on farmer investment behaviour should help predict responses to policy interventions that these organisations recommend, and could therefore help modify/sharpen their recommendations.
4. Bi-lateral donors such as the UK's DFID, multi-lateral donors such as the World Bank, and charitable foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that have recently shown a renewed interest in agriculture for development. The insights from our research in farmer response to policies for raising agricultural productivity should help these organisations think through effective policy design and to be strategic in their funding priorities.
5. Farmers in developing countries. We expect our research to identify key principles that guide livelihoods strategies in the rural areas of the semi-arid tropics, which accommodates over 2 billion people, 644 million of whom classified as extremely poor. If policies improve because we understand their behaviour better, then they will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
The communication and engagement activities we have planned with each of these groups are described in our Pathways to Impact.
Publications
D'Exelle B
(2015)
Investment Behaviour, Risk Sharing and Social Distance
in The Economic Journal
Lahno A
(2015)
Conflicting risk attitudes
in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Verschoor A
(2016)
Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?
in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Verschoor A
(2020)
Probability weighting for losses and for gains among smallholder farmers in Uganda
in Theory and Decision
| Description | Finding 1: Risk aversion matters for investment in fertiliser but not for growing cash crops We consulted agricultural experts in the study area to help us understand what risk-taking agricultural investment means in practice. They supplied us with two measures. The first is the simple, one-dimensional measure of buying fertiliser, which can be combined with traditional agriculture to raise yields. This leads to large extra profits on average, but in seasons in which the price or yield are too low, the investment cannot be recouped, leading to the selling of assets, depletion of savings, increasing indebtedness and/or subsistence being at risk. The second measure they supplied us with is the growing of coffee, cabbages, tomatoes or onions as cash crops, using appropriate purchased inputs, usually fertiliser, pesticides and improved seeds, and sometimes also the hiring of labour. We classified farmers as risk-takers according to these two measures and examined the link with their behaviour in the experiments. We controlled in the analysis for well-established determinants of agricultural investment such as access to credit and wealth, which indeed turned out to be highly significant. We find that farmers who are risk averse according to our experiments are less inclined than others to invest in fertiliser, but not in cash crops (Verschoor, D'Exelle and Perez-Viana Martinez, 2015). Finding 2: People take less risk if losses may be shared In certain variations of the game, we allowed experimental subjects to share profits and/or losses of their risky investment. For example, in one particular experimental treatment, two farmers would be matched and one of them would be invited to state beforehand what proportion of the losses s/he would be willing to share in case the other's investment went wrong. One might expect this to act as an informal insurance mechanism, so that investment would increase, but paradoxically, when losses may be shared, investment goes down, as if investors don't want to burden others with the consequences of their risk-taking. This effect was especially strong if matched subjects are close in real life; we interpret this as a manifestation of norms against excessive risk-taking (D'Exelle and Verschoor, 2015). Finding 3: If anything, people take more risk if profits may be shared In the same experiment, we allowed profit sharing. This does not lead to less risk taking (as might have been expected, on the argument that profit sharing dampens incentives) but to a (marginally significant) increase in the amount of risk people take. This could reflect magnanimous considerations (wanting others to share in one's good fortune) and more generally is contrary to the common perception that profit sharing in rural Africa of necessity dampens incentives (D'Exelle and Verschoor, 2015). Finding 4: Divergent risk attitudes are associated with interpersonal conflict In a social network survey (SNS) we collected data on the nature of the social links between those individuals in our sample who live in the same village. As is known from previous ethnographic research, interpersonal conflict is common in this part of Uganda, often over land; 21.5% of the 917 ties we investigated are conflictual. Strikingly, when risk attitudes differ between connected individuals, they are more likely to be in conflict; a simulation analysis suggests that the direction of causation runs from the former to the latter. This effect is especially strong for males and among kin. The difference in risk attitudes is measured on a 6-point scale: for each point difference, kin are 5 percentage points more likely to be in conflict. Relatives are often tied together in informal risk-sharing arrangements (IRSAs) and joint economic ventures; when their risk attitudes differ, they want different things for their common endeavours, which may give rise to conflict (Lahno, Serra-Garcia, D'Exelle and Verschoor, 2015). Finding 5: People take more risk when risk-taking is naturally expected In some treatments, we subtly suggested investment decisions for subjects. They had two baskets in front of them, one "safe", the other "risky". Coins placed in the safe basket would be theirs to keep, whatever happened; the coins in the risky basket would be doubled with a likelihood of 80% and vanish with a likelihood of 20%. In one treatment we first placed almost all of the coins - the money subjects were endowed with - in the safe basket, in another in the risky basket: subjects were next free to move as many coins as they wanted from one basket to the other. In reality, the safe and risky treatment represent exactly the same investment decision. However, when coins were already placed in the risky basket, subjects invested 28% more (about 64% instead of 50% of their endowment). When new investment opportunities are introduced, risk-taking is not (yet) naturally expected, which may help explain inertia in uptake. Finding 6: The social mode has a very strong pull on risk-taking In the experimental set-up just described, when we gave information about the most popular option in other experimental sessions, people quickly adjusted their risky choice towards what they now understood as the most popular choice, so much so that the effect of our initial framing practically vanished (Clist, D'Exelle and Verschoor, 2015). Although higher profits require taking risks, risk avoidance is not bound to keep small farmers poor. We summarise the implications of our findings as follows: • Risk aversion among small farmers affects singular but not complex investment decisions (Finding 1) • In small-scale rural societies, norms against excessive risk-taking may suppress agricultural investment (Finding 2); variation in risk preferences around that norm may be a source of interpersonal conflict (Finding 4) • Although expectations of low risk-taking may suppress investment (Finding 5), individuals rapidly adjust to new social norms (Finding 6) In addition to the six findings mentioned, we have intruiging findings that we are still reflecting on, as well as testing the robustness of, related to subjective probabilities (Finding 7) and probability weighting (Finding 8): Finding 7: Learned helplessness reduces persistence in investment behaviour Finding 8: Heterogeneity exists in how farmers evaluate probabilities; in particular, traditional farmers are more likely to evaluate according to an inverse S-shaped probability weighting function, entrepreneurial farmers more likely according to an S-shaped probability weighting function Between them these two findings suggest that some farmers have "learned" to distrust the amount of influence they have on the success of an investment and/or are excessively fearful of relatively small probabilities of failure, which holds them back in their investment behaviour. |
| Exploitation Route | Key insights around which we have formulated policy recommendations: The research that our policy-relevant insights derive from is in the form of economic experiments, social network surveys and household surveys among thousands of small-scale farmers in Uganda, Ethiopia and India. The key insights are the following: 1. The vast majority of smallholders do want to engage in risk-taking agricultural investment, but the investment opportunities are often not available on a sufficiently small scale. 2. When investment opportunities are framed as natural risk taking, farmers take much more risk than when they are framed as deviating from safety. 3. Social norms on risk taking exert a very strong pull: when these change, individuals rapidly adjust to new social norms. 4. Diverse risk attitudes in farmer organisations are a major reason hindering their effectiveness in securing collective benefits (e.g. pemiums for good-quality agricultural produce; intertemporal arbitrage that good storage facilities make possible; etc.). 5. Loss sharing in informal risk sharing networks reduces incentives to invest, which suggests complementary design features of formal weather insurance that (a) make them more attractive for individual farmers, and (b) encourages investment among insured farmers. Anticipated impact of key findings: Much of global poverty arises from low-productivity agriculture by smallholders in the semi-arid tropics. Encouraging agricultural investment (such as fertiliser purchase, growing cash crops and market orientation more broadly) is vital for helping the rural poor escape from low-productivity poverty traps. Our research focused on understanding the conditions under which uptake of such investment opportunities could take place, specifically on individual farmer motivation as regards risk taking. Together with a broad range of representatives from stakeholder organisations, we have identified several policy recommendations that have generated considerable interest among key policy actors (more on this below). These recommendations are in the following broad areas (the numbering corresponds with the five key research insights above): 1. Making agricultural inputs available in sufficiently small quantities. For example, fertiliser is now sold in bags of 50kg. Agro-dealers will sell smaller amounts, but the farmers fear adulteration of the product once a bag has been opened. AT Uganda (one of our partners) piloted a scheme in our study area of selling fertiliser in packs of 2, 5 and 10kg - pre-packed and from a reputable supplier in Kenya - which led to overwhelming uptake. A small-pack approach resonates with the cautious approach to investing that we find in our research: we therefore have evidence of a policy intervention that will lead to investment among small-scale farmers, as well as on the reasons why this will be the case. 2. Framing investment opportunities in terms of opportunities foregone: i.e. emphasise losses associated with not investing. Our research shows that this increases farmers' investment by about 30 percent relative to a scenario in which losses associated with investing are emphasised. Our partners in Uganda recommend the development of teaching materials on the risk/profitability relationship in various plausible scenarios (with realistic and to farmers well-known price and yield data), in which investment opportunities are framed along the lines that our research suggests will be effective. Teaching farmers about this can take place in farmer field schools, radio campaigns, etc. 3. Influence the social norm on risk-taking agricultural investment: through the same channels as just listed disseminate information to farmers about adoption rates elsewhere and the risk/return profile inherent in these. We found in our research very strong effects of influencing the social norm on individual investment. 4. Reconciling divergent risk attitudes in farmer organisations: insight (4) above suggests the development of new financial instruments that allow individual claims on collectively deposited agricultural produce. 5. Ensuring complementarity between formal and informal insurance: we are helping design new insurance instruments that would appeal to smallholders as they take into account the nature of the informal risk sharing arrangements already present among them. Through persistent lobbying and dissemination, we expect these to modify policy interventions in Uganda and the policy thinking of the relevant international development agencies. Ultimately, modified policy interventions in this area may benefit the hundreds of millions of poor farmers in the semi-arid tropics: the reach of this research impact is therefore potentially very large. Potential beneficiaries and how we are engaging with them: 1. Local policy makers. District Agricultural Officers and National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) officials. 2. National policy makers. Cross-sector coordination among the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), the private sector, civil society and development partners is provided by the National Agriculture Sector Secretariat (NASSEC). A pivotal organisation in this network is IFPRI-Kampala, our local partner. 3. Ugandan civil society organisations and development partners with an interest in agriculture. Through an extensive stakeholder consultation exercise (see below), we have a good overview of them. 4. International development agencies, international agriculture organisations and agricultural research institutes that influence Ugandan and international policy on agricultural development (e.g. the FAO, IFAD and the 15 research centres united in the CGIAR consortium, the World Bank, DFID). 5. Poor farmers in the semi-arid tropics Our policy recommendations, listed in outline above, have resulted from an extensive stakeholder consultation exercise. First, we consulted about 30 representatives from local stakeholder organisations in individual and small-group (twos and threes) brainstorms about the policy relevance of our findings. This resulted in four small-scale workshops in the study area in eastern Uganda and a policy brief. Next, we consulted about the same number of national stakeholders (individually), which resulted in a revised policy brief, containing our up-to-date policy recommendations that have broad backing of the stakeholders consulted. Our immediate plan is to organise a multi-stakeholder workshop in Kampala (to be held on the 12th of June 2015) to consolidate on the considerable interest in our policy recommendations. After that, we wish to target key policy makers, making use of the personal networks of the workshop participants, and visit these individually with tailor-made oral policy briefs. We also aim to write a policy brief for international stakeholders - the international development agencies and others with an interest in agriculture for development - and initiate a dialogue with them, which we plan to follow up with presentations in person. In previous work (also ESRC-funded), we followed a similar approach, which led to invitations to present our findings and discuss their policy relevance to the World Bank, IFPRI-Washington, DFID (in their Chief Economist's Office) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Finally, with a local partner AT Uganda, we have planned policy experiments (which also can be thought of as intervention studies) to measure and understand the uptake of the investment opportunities generated by the policy recommendations we suggest. Non-academic organisations, stakeholders or influential individuals that can contribute to the potential impact: The following have all expressed willingness to be involved in actively promoting the uptake of the policy recommendations that follow from our research insights: (a) International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) - Kampala. They are a pivotal organisation in the agricultural policy dialogue in Uganda; and through them we will have access both to national and international (via IFPRI-Washington) policy makers; (b) Policy experts hired by IFPRI on their PASIC project (Policy Action for Sustainable Intensification of Ugandan Cropping Systems); these are typically former government officials who maintain good contacts with Ugandan ministries; (c) Appropriate Technology (AT) Uganda, an NGO with an impressive track record in promoting agricultural innovation in Uganda. This new partner will collaborate with us on translating our findings into policy recommendations; (d) Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London. ODI manages the DFID-ESRC Growth Research Programme (DEGRP) Directorate, which facilitates, monitors and stimulates the non-academic impact of the ESRC programme that our research project was part of. ODI's contribution is to provide the international perspective: to relate and suggest modifications to our recommendations in the light of what has been tried and learned in other countries. |
| Sectors | Agriculture, Food and Drink |
| URL | http://degrp.squarespace.com/project-highlights/2016/1/4/co-producing-policy-recommendations-lessons-from-uganda |
| Description | Changes were made in two strategic policy documents of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Uganda: the Agricultural Strategic Plan 2015/16-2019/20, and the Agricultural Sector Development Plan 2015/16-2019/20. The changes relate to the management of agricultural risk and follow our research recommendations. We have testimonial evidence that attributes the changes to our research. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2015 |
| Sector | Agriculture, Food and Drink |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |
| Description | Engagement with stakeholders in the study area (eastern Uganda) |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | In order to help us to become aware of locally available investment opportunities and understand the policy relevance of our findings we consulted 27 local experts in the study area in eastern Uganda: district agricultural officers, agricultural extension workers, agro-input dealers and chairpersons and members of farmers' fora. These were first consulted in twos and sometimes threes in the months of July and August 2014 and next in three workshops in Mbale in September 2014. Our key findings were translated into policy recommendations with the help of the local experts mentioned. These policy recommendations will be disseminated in Kampala (Uganda's capital) to policy makers and other stakeholders in the months October - December 2014. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Main project findings presented at IFPRI, Kampala |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Arjan Verschoor presented the main project findings to date at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Kampala, September 3, 2014. This was an invited presentation in which Verschoor presented a project overview, its main findings, and policy implications. Stakeholders became aware of our project findings and reflected on their policy implications. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Major workshop organised in Kampala |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | A policy dialogue was organised in the capital of Uganda, Kampala, among major stakeholders in the sector agriculture. The findings of our research relevant for policy making were intensively discussed, and policy implications drawn out. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Paper on investment behaviour at UEA staff seminar |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Ben D'Exelle presented our paper "Investment Behaviour, Risk Pooling and Social Distance" authored by Ben D'Exelle and Arjan Verschoor at the Centre for Behavioural and Economic Social Science (CBESS)/Behavioural and Experimental Development Economics Research Group (BEDERG) seminar, University of East Anglia (UEA), Tuesday 11/02/2014. Peers became aware of our findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Paper on investment behaviour at the Centre for the Study of African Economies 2014 Conference |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Ben D'Exelle presented our paper "Investment Behavior, Risk Pooling and Social Distance", authored by Ben D'Exelle and Arjan Verschoor at CSAE, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, Centre for the Study of African Economies 2014 Conference 23-25 March 2014. Peers became aware of our findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Paper on reference lotteries at UEA staff seminar |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Paul Clist presented our paper "Nature's Frames and Reference Lotteries", authored by Paul Clist, Ben D'Exelle and Arjan Verschoor at a Centre for Behavioural and Economic Social Science (CBESS)/Behavioural and Experimental Development Economics Research Group (BEDERG) seminar, University of East Anglia (UEA), Tuesday 18/02/2014. Peers became aware of our findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Paper presentation at IFPRI, Kampala |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Kampala, Feb 2, 2014, "Investment Behaviour, Risk Pooling and Social Distance: Experimental Evidence from rural Uganda," Ben D'Exelle and Arjan Verschoor (Ben presented). People in the audience included Per Hartmann (senior advisor for the ministry of agriculture, animal industry and fisheries, agricultural planning department; ), Piet van Asten (Country Representative of IITA, also part of CGIAR), some junior researchers from the International Growth Centre, and IFPRI researchers based in Kampala. Professional practitioners reflected on the policy implications of our findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Paper presented at BVS Holzhausen/Ammersee, Workshop on Natural Experiments and Controlled Field Studies |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Stimulating academic discussion of our findings Peers became aware of our findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Paper presented at CERDI (Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches sur le Développement International), based at the Université d'Auvergnein Clermont-Ferrand |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Paul Clist presented on Tuesday 17/09/2013, "Nature's Frames, Reference Lotteries and Risky Choice: Evidence From Uganda", authored by Paul Clist, Ben D'Exelle and Arjan Verschoor (invited presentation) Peers became aware of our findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Paper presented at School of Economics, University of Nottingham |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Paul Clist was invited to present our paper "Nature's Frames, Reference Lotteries and Truly Risky Choice: Evidence from a Ugandan Field Lab", authored by Paul Clist, B D'Exelle and Arjan Verschoor at the School of Economics, University of Nottingham, CREDIT Development Seminar Series 2013/14, on Wednesday 20/11/2013. Peers became aware of our findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Paper presented at School of Management, UC San Diego, staff seminar |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Marta Serra-Garcia presented our paper "Social Ties and Risk Attitudes: Experimental Evidence from rural Uganda", authored Ben D'Exelle, Amrei Lahno, Marta Serra-Garcia and Arjan Verschoor at a staff seminar at the School of Management, UC San Diego, on Monday 14/10/2013. Peers became aware of our findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Presented paper at LMU Munich |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Stimulating academic discussion of our findings Peers became aware of new research findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Presented paper at insurance workshop at University of Hohenheim |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | A stimulating discussion of our research findings Awareness among participants that differences in risk attitudes may contribute to conflict in small, rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |