Abstract
We estimate higher order risk preferences of farmers from a water scarce region in West Bengal, India. We then examine correlations across risk aversion, prudence and temperance attitudes of farmers, and explore associations of these preferences with household characteristics. Our experimental findings indicate risk seeking behaviour of farmers. We find that farmers took more prudent and temperate decisions. Risk aversion and prudence have a significant negative correlation, whereas prudence and temperance have a significant positive correlation. Individual characteristics such as age, education, and entrepreneurship, income and value of assets are also correlated with various risk preferences. Increased stated drought resilience of farmers is positively correlated with prudence. Farmers affected by water scarcity in the Kharif make imprudent choices. Farmers with higher cropping intensities exhibit high levels of prudence and temperance. These findings have important theoretical and policy implications which we discuss in the paper.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
LA is a tendency to overweigh losses compared to gains of the same amount.
AA is an attitude of preferring outcomes with a known probability distribution than those with an unknown probability distribution.
PR is an individual’s preference for adding unavoidable risks and losses to their risk profile at a higher income level rather than at a lower income level. PR is linked with precautionary savings, that is, individuals save more whenever background risks increase (Noussair et al. 2014). It is a third order risk preference represented by positive third derivative of the utility function.
TE is defined as an individual’s inclination towards exercising self-restraint while accepting independent risks, and is a negative fourth order derivative of the utility function. Eeckhoudt and Schlesinger (2006) defined temperate individuals as those who preferred lottery options that allocated two risks of negative outcomes by placing them in two different choice sets rather than aggregating both outcomes in a single set. Alternatively explained, a temperate individual (as opposed to an intemperate one) will be less willing to take on another risky choice involving a significant negative outcome when faced with a background risk that could also yield a negative outcome.
- $$\text{Water scarcity index for each crop}=\frac{\left(\text{optimal irrigation-Applied irrigation}\right)}{\text{Optimal irrigation}}$$
Water scarcity index (WSI) is measured as a ratio of the difference between optimal and applied irrigation to optimal irrigation. The WSI is zero if irrigation applied is equal to or larger than stated optimal irrigation, whereas WSI takes a value greater than zero at applied irrigation of less than optimal.
Experimental procedures and instructions are available as supplementary material.
Participants were rewarded with a fixed monetary payoff as compensation for participating in these experiments. They were also awarded with a payoff that varied depending on the winnings from the decision choices made. Participants were told that all the choices numbered 1 to 35 would be rolled inside the bingo cage and the numbers that rolled out from the bingo cage would determine their payoff. To avoid a high negative payoff, the numbers corresponding to the payoff from the game ‘RA with small probability of large losses’ were not kept inside the bingo cage. Also, the numbers corresponding to the AA choices were not put inside the bingo cage.
The wage rate fixed by the Government of West Bengal was INR 225 per day exclusive of food, and INR 209 per day with food for the agricultural labourers (Government of West Bengal, 2016). 1 INR is equivalent to 0.014 US dollar .
The amount of monetary payoff affects the decision effort of the individuals in experimental games, which is also termed as incentive effect (Smith and Walker, 1993). In the risk aversion series of our game, the maximum incentive was INR 60 and minimum incentive was INR 10, which is relatively lesser than the half day wages of the farmers and also lesser as compared to the incentives in the rest of the series. Relatively low incentive, and lack of very high difference between higher and lower payoff in the task could have made farmers risk seekers.
In three sessions covering 50 participants (N=191), prudent choice was kept as option A and imprudent as option B whereas, in rest of the sessions, we kept imprudent choice as option A and prudent as option B. In two sessions for TE series (23 participants; N = 191), we kept temperate choices as option A. In all other sessions, we kept temperate choices as option B and intemperate choices as option A. In OLS regression, ordering did not affect results.
- $$\text{Water scarcity index for each crop}=\frac{\left(\text{optimal irrigation-Applied irrigation}\right)}{\text{Optimal irrigation}}$$
Water scarcity index (WSI) is measured as a ratio of the difference between optimal and applied irrigation to optimal irrigation. The WSI is zero if irrigation applied is equal to or larger than stated optimal irrigation, whereas WSI takes a value greater than zero at applied irrigation of less than optimal.
Cropping intensity is measured as the ratio of net sown area to gross cropped area multiplied by 100.
References
Al-Saidi, M., D. Birnbaum, R. Buriti, E. Diek, C. Hasselbring, A. Jimenez, and D. Woinowski. 2016. Water resources vulnerability assessment of MENA countries considering energy and virtual water interactions. Procedia Engineering 145: 900–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.117.
Balia, S., and A.M. Jones. 2008. Mortality, lifestyle and socio-economic status. Journal of Health Economics 27 (1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.03.001.
Ballivian, M.A., and R.C. Sickles. 1994. Product diversification and attitudes toward risk in agricultural production. Journal of Productivity Analysis 5 (3): 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01073911.
Barsky, R.B., F.T. Juster, M.S. Kimball, and M.D. Shapiro. 1997. Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2): 537–579. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555280.
Binswanger, H.P. 1980. Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 (3): 395–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240194.
Cappellari, L., and S.P. Jenkins. 2003. Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. Stata Journal 3: 278–294.
Carroll, C. D., M. S. Kimball. 2008. Precautionary saving and precautionary wealth. In N. S. Durlauf & L.E. Blume, (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, London: MacMillan.
Carter, M.R., P.D. Little, T. Mogues, and W. Negatu. 2007. Poverty traps and natural disasters in Ethiopia and Honduras. World Development 35 (5): 835–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.010.
Census of India. 2011. Census of India 2011 - West Bengal; District census handbook - Birbhum: Village and town wise primary census abstract (PCA). Series 20 - Part XII-B. West Bengal, India: Directorate of Census Operations.
Charness, G., A. Viceisza. 2011. Comprehension and risk elicitation in the field: Evidence from rural Senegal, IFPRI discussion paper 01135. Retrieved from http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/126750/filename/126961.pdf
Cohen, A., and L. Einav. 2007. Estimating risk preferences from deductible choice. American Economic Review 97 (3): 745–788.
Colasante, A., and L. Riccetti. 2020. Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: It is a matter of gap between moments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 25: 100262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.100262.
Crainich, D., L. Eeckhoudt, and A. Trannoy. 2013. Even (mixed) risk lovers are prudent. American Economic Review 103 (4): 1529–1535. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.4.1529.
Deck, C., and H. Schlesinger. 2010. Exploring higher order risk effects. The Review of Economic Studies 77 (4): 1403–1420.
Deck, C., and H. Schlesinger. 2014. Consistency of higher order risk preferences. Econometrica 82 (5): 1913–1943. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA11396.
Deck, C., H., Schlesinger. 2012. Consistency of higher order risk preferences (CESifo working paper no. 4047). Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/69558
Dercon, S. 2004. Growth and shocks: Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics 74 (2): 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.01.001.
Dercon, S., and L. Christiaensen. 2011. Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics 96 (2): 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.08.003.
Dillon, J.L., and P.L. Scandizzo. 1978. Risk attitudes of subsistence farmers in northeast Brazil: A sampling approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (3): 425–435. https://doi.org/10.2307/1239939.
Dong, D., and A. Saha. 1998. He came, he saw, (and) he waited: An empirical analysis of inertia in technology adoption”. Applied Economics 30 (7): 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368498325327.
Dora, M. 2018. Five ways India must help its farmers face the threat of climate change. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/five-ways-india-must-help-its-farmers-face-the-threat-of-climate-change-91587
Ebert, S., and D. Wiesen. 2011. Testing for prudence and skewness seeking. Management Science 57 (7): 1334–1349. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1354.
Ebert, S., and D. Wiesen. 2014. Joint measurement of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 48 (3): 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-014-9193-0.
Ebert, S., and D. Weisen. 2009. An experimental methodology testing for prudence and third-order preferences. Discussion paper 21, 2009. http://www.wiwi.uni-bonn.de/bgsepapers/bonedp/bgse21_2009.pdf.
Eeckhoudt, L., C. Gollier, and T. Schneider. 1995. Risk-aversion, prudence and temperance: A unified approach. Economic Letters 48: 331–336.
Eeckhoudt, L., and H. Schlesinger. 2006. Putting risk in its proper place. The American Economic Review 96 (1): 280–289.
Eeckhoudt, L., and H. Schlesinger. 2008. Changes in risk and the demand for saving. Journal of Monetary Economics 55 (7): 1329–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2008.08.004.
Eeckhoudt, L., H. Schlesinger, and I. Tsetlin. 2009. Apportioning of risks via stochastic dominance. Journal of Economic Theory 144 (3): 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2008.11.005.
Ehrenreich, B. 2014. It is expensive to be poor. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/it-is-expensive-to-be-poor/282979/
Franken, J.R.V., J.M.E. Pennings, and P. Garcia. 2014. Measuring the effect of risk attitude on marketing behavior. Agricultural Economics 45 (5): 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12104.
Friesen, L., and L. Gangadharan. 2013. Environmental markets: What do we learn from the lab? Journal of Economic Surveys 27 (3): 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12021.
Gomez, M.T. 2004. Are individuals prudent? An experimental approach using lottery choices. Toulouse, France: Laboratoire d’Economie des Ressources Naturelles.
Gong, Y., K. Baylis, and G. Bull. 2016. Farmers’ risk preferences and pesticide use decisions: Evidence from field experiments in China. Agricultural Economics 47: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12240.
Government of West Bengal. 2016. Circular No.: 148/Stat/2RW/16/94/LCS/JLC. Office of the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal. Retrieved from https://www.wblc.gov.in/sites/default/files/synopsys/01-01-2016/agriculture.pdf
Greene, W.H. 2008. Econometric analysis, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Gregg, D., and J. Rolfe. 2017. Risk behaviours and grazing land management: A framed field experiment and linkages to range land condition. Journal of Agricultural Economics 68 (3): 682–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12201.
Gregg, D., and J. Rolfe. 2018. Myopia and saliency in renewable resource management. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 62 (3): 394–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12256.
Haering, A., T. Heinrich, and T. Mayrhofer. 2017. Exploring the consistency of higher-order risk preferences. https://doi.org/10.4419/86788798.
Haering, A., T. Heinrich. 2017. Risk preferences in China - Results from Experimental Economics. ASIEN: The German Journal on Contemporary Asia, 142, p. 22.
Harrison, G.W., S.J. Humphrey, and A. Verschoor. 2010. Choice under uncertainty: Evidence from Ethiopia, India and Uganda. The Economic Journal 120 (543): 80–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02303.x.
Hayes, A.F., and L. Cai. 2007. Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods 39 (4): 709–722. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961.
Heinrich, T., and T. Mayrhofer. 2018. Higher-order risk preferences in social settings. Experimental Economics 21 (2): 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-017-9541-4.
Heinrich, T., T. Mayrhofer. 2014. High order risk preferences in social settings: An experimental analysis (Ruhr Economic Papers no. 508). Retrieved from http://www.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/ruhr-economic-papers/REP_14_508.pdf
Holt, C.A., and S.K. Laury. 2002. Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review 92 (5): 1644–1655.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39 (4): 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341.
Krieger, M., and T. Mayrhofer. 2016. Prudence and prevention: An economic laboratory experiment. Applied Economics Letters 24 (1): 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2016.1158909.
Li, M., P. Guo, V.P. Singh, and G. Yang. 2016. An uncertainty-based framework for agricultural water-land resources allocation and risk evaluation. Agricultural Water Management 177: 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.06.011.
Li, M., W. Xu, and M.W. Rosegrant. 2017. Irrigation, risk aversion, and water right priority under water supply uncertainty. Water Resources Research 53: 7885–7903. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019779.
Liu, E.M. 2013. Time to change what to sow: risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China. Review of Economics and Statistics 95 (4): 1386–1403. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00295.
Liu, E.M., and J. Huang. 2013. Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China. Journal of Development Economics 103: 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.12.005.
Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maier, J., M. Rüger. 2012. Experimental evidence on higher-order preferences with real monetary losses. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxqb2hhbm5lc2ttYWllcnxneDpmYjY1OTllZDYzMzViZmE
Mondal, P. 2014. Relief and human intervention are major reason for flood and drought: A case study of Birbhum. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal 4: 334–341.
Moscardi, E., and A. de Janvry. 1977. Attitudes toward risk among peasants: An econometric approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59 (4): 710–716.
Mullainathan, S., and E. Shafir. 2013. Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York, NY: Time Books.
Nath, S.K., D. Roy, and K.K.S. Thingbaijam. 2008. Disaster mitigation and management for West Bengal, India—an appraisal. Current Science 94 (7): 858–864.
Noussair, C.N., S.T. Trautmann, and G. van de Kuilen. 2014. Higher order risk attitudes, demographics, and financial decisions. The Review of Economic Studies 81 (1): 325–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt032.
Rajarhat Prasari. 2011. Livelihood zones analysis in West Bengal: A scenario for AWM interventions. Retrieved from http://www.prasari.org/downloads/Livelihood%20Zones_West%20Bengal_Consultation%20Report.pdf
Roodman, D. 2011. Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp. Stata Journal 11 (2): 159–206.
Rosenzweig, M.R., and H.P. Binswanger. 1993. Wealth, weather risk and the composition and profitability of agricultural investments. The Economic Journal 103 (416): 56–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234337.
Schilbach, F., H. Schofield, and S. Mullainathan. 2016. The psychological lives of the poor. American Economic Review 106 (5): 435–400. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161101.
Simtowe, F., J. Mduma, A. Phiri, A. Thomas, and M. Zeller. 2006. Can risk-aversion towards fertilizer explain part of the non-adoption puzzle for hybrid maize? Empirical evidence from Malawi. Journal of Applied Sciences 6 (7): 1490–1498. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2006.1490.1498.
Smiley, S.L. 2016. Water availability and reliability in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The Journal of Development Studies 52 (9): 1320–1334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1146699.
Smith, V.L., and J.M. Walker. 1993. Monetary rewards and decision cost in Experimental Economics. Economic Inquiry 31 (2): 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1993.tb00881.x.
Startz, R. 2012. Bayesian heteroskedasticity - Robust standard errors. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of California Santa Barbara. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/69c4x8m9
Tanaka, T., C.F. Camerer, and Q. Nguyen. 2010. Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. The American Economic Review 100 (1): 557–571. https://doi.org/10.2307/27804941.
Trautmann, S.T., and G. van de Kuilen. 2018. Higher order risk attitudes: A review of experimental evidence. European Economic Review 103: 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.01.007.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (4): 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574.
Vieder, F. M., N. Truong, P. Martinsson, P. K. Nam. 2015. Risk preferences and development revisited. Retrieved from http://www.ferdinandvieider.com/Vietnam_risk.pdf
Wakker, P.P. 2010. Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, P.S., D.L. Ortega, D.J. Spielman, and V. Singh. 2014. Heterogeneous demand for drought-tolerant rice: Evidence from Bihar, India. World Development 64: 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.017.
Ward, P.S., and V. Singh. 2015. Using field experiments to elicit risk and ambiguity preferences: Behavioural factors and the adoption of new agricultural technologies in rural India. The Journal of Development Studies 51 (6): 707–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.989996.
Ward, P. S., & Singh, V. (2014). Risk and ambiguity preferences and the adoption of new agricultural technologies: Evidence from field experiments in rural India (IFPRI discussion paper 01324). doi: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2392762
Willock, J., I.J. Deary, G. Edwards-Jones, G.J. Gibson, M.J. McGregor, A. Sutherland, J.B. Dent, O. Morgan, and R. Grieve. 1999. The role of attitudes and objectives in farmer decision making: Business and environmentally-oriented behaviour in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50 (2): 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00814.x.
Acknowledgements
Kanchan Joshi would like to thank the Australian Government for providing her with the “Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship”. Authors are grateful for the generous financial support from the Department of Environmental Sciences, Macquarie University and partial funding from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. We thank Bolpur Manab Jamin team, West Bengal and Institute of Economic Growth, India for their support. We heartily thank all the farmers who voluntarily consented to take part in the experiments and surveys. Without their generous time and involvement, this research would not have been possible. We thank Professor Arjan Verschoor, Professor John Rolfe, Dr Simanti Banerjee, Professor Stephen Knowles, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments/suggestions that aided in improving this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KJ performed conceptualization, designed methodology, created model, conducted data analysis and wrote the original draft. TR and RR provided guidance in conceptualization, methodology design and implementation; reviewed statistical analysis; and reviewed and edited the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The manuscript has not been previously published, is not currently submitted for review to any other journal, and will not be submitted elsewhere before a decision is made by this journal.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Joshi, K., Ranganathan, T. & Ranjan, R. Exploring Higher Order Risk Preferences of Farmers in a Water-Scarce Region: Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Bengal, India. J. Quant. Econ. 19, 317–344 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-021-00232-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-021-00232-4