Innovation at Rural Enterprises: Results from a Survey of German Organic and Conventional Farmers

Unay Gailhard, ilkay and Bavorova, Miroslava (2014): Innovation at Rural Enterprises: Results from a Survey of German Organic and Conventional Farmers. Published in: Technology and Innovation , Vol. 16, (April 2014): pp. 3-17.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of interpersonal networks and other information sources on the innovativeness of farmers. This understanding can be useful for organizations that are involved in extension work that aims to increase the farmers’ innovativeness and for farmers who aim to be more innovative. The study focuses on two types of farmers’ network ties: friendship ties (ties to other farmers) and affiliation ties (ties to associations). Additionally, the importance of information gathered by farmers from interpersonal sources and from media is compared. We collected data within the European Union (EU)-funded Food Industry Dynamics and Methodological Advances (FOODIMA) Project using face-to-face interviews. Our sample, which consists of 72 farmers (organic and conventional) in Germany, was used to map farmers’ innovativeness (number of innovations adopted). We analyzed the data to determine if the structure and strength of network ties can be used as predictors of innovativeness for organic and conventional farmers. When considering both the friendship and affiliation ties, the main results show that organic farmers who communicate more frequently with other farmers are more likely to be highly innovative. The large network size indicates low innovativeness on the part of organic farmers. Membership in at least one association is positively interconnected with high innovativeness of conventional farmers. Regarding information sources, the results indicate that the highly innovative farmers appreciate information from research institutes more and information from agricultural organization less than the less innovative farmers.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Innovativeness; Social network ties; Communication frequency; Information sources; Organic and conventional farmers
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q55 - Technological Innovation; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q57 - Ecological Economics: Ecosystem Services ; Biodiversity Conservation ; Bioeconomics ; Industrial Ecology; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R14 - Land Use Patterns

References

References Article 1. Albronda, B.; Langen, F.D.; Huizing B. The influence of communication on the process of innovation adoption. Innovative Managment Journal 4; 2011.

2. Bandiera, O.; Rasul, I. Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. Economic Journal 116:869–902; 2006.

3. Berger, C.; Calabrese, R. Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research 1:99-112; 1975.

4. Chassagnon, V.; Audran; M. The Impact of Interpersonal Networks on the Innovativeness of Inventors: From Theory to Empirical Evidence. International Journal of Innovation Management 15:931-958; 2011.

5. Conley, T.G.; Udry, C.R. Social learning through networks: The adoption of new agricultural technologies in Ghana. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83:668-673; 2001.

6. Coleman, J. S. The American Journal of Sociology, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure. The American Journal of Sociology 94:95-120; 1988.

7. Diederen P. van MEIJL, H.;Wolters, A.;Bijak, K. Innovation Adoption in Agriculture : Innovators, Early Adopters and Laggards. Cahiers d’ ́economie et sociologie rurales 67; 2003.

8. Friedkin, N. E. A. Test of Structural Features of Granovetter's Strength of Weak Ties Theory. Social Networks 2:411–422; 1980.

9. Gloy, B. A.; Akridge, J. T.; Whipker, L. D. Sources of information for commercial farms: usefulness of media and personal sources. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 3:245-260; 2000.

10. Granovetter, M. The Strength Of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78:1360-1380; 1973.

11. Granovetter, M. The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory 1:201-233; 1983.

12. Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management J.17 109–122; 1996.

13. Harhoff, D.; Narin, F.; Scherer, F.M.; Vopel, K. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics 81:511-515; 1999.

14. Hartwich, F.; Fromm, I.; Romero, G. Innovation Trajectories in Honduras' Coffee Value Chain? How the Public and the Private influence the use of new knowledge. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 1:237-251; 2010.

15. Hurley, R.F.; Hult, G.T.M. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing 62:42-54; 1998.

16. Jensen, M. C.; Meckling W. H.. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 3:305-360; 1976.

17. Matuschke, I.;Qaim, M. The Impact of Social Networks on Hybrid Seed Adoption in India. Agricultural Economics 40:493-505; 2009.

18. Morris, C.; Potter, C. Recruiting the new conservationists: adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11:51-63; 1995.

19. Padel, S. Conversion to Organic Farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation. Sociologia Ruralis 40:40-61; 2001.

20. Paruchuri, S. Intraorganizational networks, interorganizational networks, and the impact of central inventors: A longitudinal study of pharmaceutical firms. Organization Science 21:63-80; 2010.

21. Polman, N.B.P.; Slangen, L.H.G. Institutional design of agri-environmental contracts in the European Union: the role of trust and social capital. NJAS Wageningen journal of life sciences 55:413-430; 2008.

22. Pompelli, G.; Morfaw, C.; English, B.C.; Bowling, R.G.; Bullen, G.S.; Tegegne, F. Farm operators’ preferences for soil conservation service information: results from three Tennessee watersheds. Journal of Production Agriculture 10:472-476; 1997.

23. Potter, C.; Gasson, R. Farmer participation in voluntary land diversion schemes: some predictions from a survey. Journal of Rural Studies 4:365-375; 1998.

24. Rogers, E.M.; Beal, G.M. The importance of personal influence in the adoption of technological changes. Social Forces 36:329-334; 1958.

25. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of innovations, New York: Free Press; 2003.

26. Ronneringen, M. Innovative processes in a nature-based tourism case: the role of a tour-operator as the driver of innovation. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10: 190-206; 2010.

27. Sobels, J.; Curtis, A.; Lockie, S. The role of land care group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. Journal of Rural Studies 17:265–276; 2001.

28. Verhees, F.J.H.M.; Meulenberg, M.T.G. arket orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms. Journal of Small Business Management 42:134-154; 2004.

29. Valente, T.W.; Rogers, E.M. The origins and development of the diffusion of innovations paradigm as an example of scientific growth. Science Communication: An Interdisciplinary Social Science Journal 16:238-269; 1995.

30. Von der Ploeg J.D. The New peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of Empire and Globalization. London, Sterling, Earthscan, 356p; 2008.

31.Warriner, G. K.; Moul, T. M. Kinship and personal communication network influences on the adoption of agriculture conservation technology. Journal of Rural Studies 8:279-291; 1992.

32.Wilson, G.A.; Hart, K. Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning 32:2161-2185; 2000.

Book 33. Cobbenhagen J. Successful Innovation: Towards a New Theory for the Management of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: New Horizons in the Economics of Innovation. Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2000.

34. Hocking, R.R. The Analysis of Linear Models. Monterey: Brooks/Cole; 1985.

35. Leeuwis, C. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2004.

36. Menard, S. Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage Univ Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences series no. 07-106. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1995.

37. Menard, S. Applied logistic regression analysis. Second edition. London: Sage Publications; 2005.

38. Rogers, E.; Kincaid, D. Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York, NY: Free Press; 1981.

39. Valente, T.W. Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations, Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press; 1995.

40. West, R.; Turner, H.L. Understanding Interpersonal Communication: Making Choices in Changing Times. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2004.

Report 41. Akgüngör, S.; Barbaros, R. F.; Kumral, N. Sustainable Competitiveness of Turkish Fruit and Vegetable Industry. Agricultural Economics Research Institute Project Report 2001-3; 2001.

42. Bokelmann, W., Doernberg, A., Schwerdtner, W., Kuntosch, A., Kuntosch, A., Busse, M., König, B., Siebert, R., Koschatzky, K., Stahlecker, T. Sektorstudie zur Untersuchung des Innovationssystems der deutschen Landwirtschaft; 2012.

43. Statistical Office of the European Communities (OECD). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2005

44. University of Applied Sciences of Südwestfalen. Volkswirtschaftliche Neubewertung des gesamten Agrarsektors und seiner Netzwerkstrukturen. Soest; 2011.

Book Chapter 45. Cartwright, D. Influence, leadership, control. In: March, J.G., ed. Handbook of organizations. Chicago, Rand McNally;1965:1-47.

46. Lewicki, R.J.; Bunker, B. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In: Kramer, R.; Tyler,T., ed. Trust in organizations. Newbury Park CA: Sage; 1996:114-140.

Reflection paper 47. EU SCAR. Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition – a reflection paper, Brussels; 2012.

48. Jagger, P.; Pender, J. Impacts of programs and organizations on the adoption of sustainable land management technologies in Uganda. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 101, IFPRI, Washington, DC; 2003.

49. Monge M.; Hartwich, F.;Halgin, D. How Change Agents and Social Capital Influence the.Adoption of Innovations among Small Farmers. Evidence from Social Networks in Rural Bolivia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00761; April 2008.

Working Paper 50. Gilbert, E.; Karahalios, K. The Network in the Garden: An Empirical Analysis of Social Media in Rural Life. Proc. CHI: 1603–1612;. 2008.

51. Grieco, D. Degree of innovativeness and market structure: A model. Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconii. CESPRI WP n. 178; 2006,

52. Nutley, S.; Davies, H.; Walter, I. Conceptual Synthesis 1: Learning from the Diffusion of Innovations. University of St. Andrews. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice; 2002.

Dissertation 53. Beugelsdijk, S. Culture and economic development in Europe. PhD diss., Tilburg University; 2000.

54. Weiligmann, B. Information exchange in networks: analysis of individual communication behavior and communication structure. PhD diss., University of Kiel: Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk KG; 1999.

Electronic/Online Sources 55. ADAS 2008. An Investigation into the Role and Effectiveness of Scottish Monitor Farms. Report produced for the Scottish Government Rural Directorate. Retrieved December 2013 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/10/29093936/0.

56. Boyle, G., 2012. An Introduction to the Teagasc Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). Presentation at the Conference on Innovations and Knowledge Transfer Challenges for Farm Advisory Systems 2014 – 2020 programming period, Vilnius, Lithuania. Retrieved December 2013 from http://www.teagasc.ie/aboutus/director/LithAdvTalk2013.pdf.