World Poverty and the Role of Agricultural Technology: Direct and Indirect Effects

By A. de Janvry, E. Sadoulet. 2002

364 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Sociology and Political Science, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0d2e1274ea3511d090231d0fd75755bd5c251592

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Sociology and Political Science

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

Understanding and reducing persistent poverty in Africa: Introduction to a special issue (2006, background): “Ravallion 1998, de Janvry and Sadoulet 2002, Ravallion and Datt 2002, Evenson and”
Is Aquaculture Pro-Poor? Empirical Evidence of Impacts on Fish Consumption in Bangladesh (2014, background): “Kassam (2013) has also elaborated a similar typology of aquaculture’s potential to impact poverty, drawing on the work of de Janvry and Sadoulet (2002) on direct and indirect agriculture–poverty linkages.”
Recent Advances in Impact Analysis Methods for Ex-post Impact Assessments of Agricultural Technology: Options for the CGIAR (2010, background): “The paper by de Janvry and Sadoulet (2002) uses archetype CGEs to illustrate the different channels through which an agricultural technological change can affect the rest of the economy.”
The Impact of Bt Cotton on Poor Households in Rural India (2008, background): “…are also studies that have analysed welfare effects of Bt cotton and other GM crops for developing countries from a macroeconomic perspective, using computable general equilibrium (CGE) models (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 2002; Elbehri and Macdonald, 2004; Huang et al., 2004; Anderson et al., 2008).”
The economic and poverty impacts of maize research in West and Central Africa. (2009, methodology): “Given the key role of extension in realizing the gains from research, the sensitivity of the estimated ROR was evaluated by estimating the model with extension costs assumed to be double the research costs based on Evenson’s (1986) upper-bound estimate of extension– research cost ratio for Africa.”
Tradeoffs and Complementarities in the Adoption of Improved Seeds, Fertilizer, and Natural Resource Management Technologies in Kenya (2016, background): “In addition, agricultural technologies can contribute to poverty reduction, by raising the incomes of farm households and, in some cases, providing new employment opportunities for landless laborers (Winters et al., 1998; De Janvry and Sadoulet, 2001; Minten and Barrett, 2008; Noltze et al., 2013).”
The impact of agricultural research on productivity and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa (2009, background): “As much of agricultural output in SSA is consumed on farm, the direct effects of agricultural research—in terms of increased home consumption—are believed to be the most significant for the region (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 2002).”
Adoption of Modern Agricultural Production Technologies by Farm Households in Ghana: What Factors Influence their Decisions? (2012, methodology): “The Green Revolution in Asia as demonstrated in the empirical literature (see for instance David and Otsuka, 1994; Datt and Ravallion, 1998a, 1998b; DeJanvry and Sadoulet, 2002; Evenson and Gollin, 2003; Moser and Barrett, 2003; Minten and Barrett, 2008; among others) is an indication that improved…”
Is rainfed agriculture really a pathway from poverty (2014, background): “General equilibrium modelling for an ‘archetype’ African economy suggests that a 10% increase in food crop productivity would increase income on small and medium farms by 3.9%, of which only 28% would be indirect, compared to direct effects of 72% (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 2002).”