Welfare impacts of maize–pigeonpea intensification in Tanzania

By Mulubrhan Amare, S. Asfaw, B. Shiferaw. 2012

240 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/90f95a4709c5f1566820674cb518fb2dfac92a5f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

Impact of metal silos on households’ maize storage, storage losses and food security: An application of a propensity score matching (2013, methodology): “The method was also used to evaluate the welfare impact of pigeonpea-maize intensification in Tanzania (Amare et al., 2012); the adoption of improved pigeonpea and chickpea varieties in Ethiopia and Tanzania (Asfaw et al., 2012); and rural poverty in Bangladesh (Mendola, 2007).”
Smallholder productivity and weather shocks: Adoption and impact of widely promoted agricultural practices in Tanzania (2017, background): “…implications in Tanzania mostly rely on cross-sectional data from small-samples that do not control for the effects of long-term changes in rainfall and temperature patterns (Mbaga Semgalawe and Folmer, 2000; Amare et al., 2012; Kassie et al., 2013; Bullock et al., 2014; Kassie et al., 2015).”
Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia (2012, background): “This effort resulted in development of two fusarium-resistant improved pigeonpea among 21 varieties that were successfully tested on-station and these are becoming popular in Tanzania (Shiferaw et al., 2008; Amare et al., 2012).”
Analysis of Adoption and Impacts of Improved Maize Varieties in Eastern Zambia (2015, unknown): “However, adoption is not randomly distributed to the two groups of households (as adopters and non-adopters), but rather to the household itself deciding to adopt given the information it has, therefore adopters and non-adopters may be systematically diﬀerent (Amare et al ., 2012).”
Adoption of improved wheat varieties and impacts on household food security in Ethiopia (2014, background): “…crops (maize, groundnuts, pigeonpeas, rice) on agricultural productivity and household welfare (e.g. Mendola, 2007; Minten and Barrett, 2008; Alene et al., 2009; Shiferaw et al., 2008; Asfaw et al., 2012; Becerril and Abdulai, 2010; Kijima et al., 2011; Kassie et al., 2011; Amare et al., 2012).”
Effects of social network factors on information acquisition and adoption of improved groundnut varieties: the case of Uganda and Kenya (2014, methodology): “Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) is employed as the estimation method consistent with Amare et al. (2012). In both the SUBP and RBP models, we have four possible outcomes (Chang and Mishra 2008):”