Search results

Constraints associated with public agricultural extension services imply that farmers increasingly rely on input providers for agricultural innovations and knowledge. Yet such providers are typically commercial profit-making agents and may have an incentive to suggest relatively costly inputs and/or high rates. The purpose of this paper is to look into the case of Bangladesh and the role of fertilizer traders in terms of farmers’ decisions on which fertilizer to apply and at what rate. Using primary data, the authors examine farmers’ chemical fertilizer use and the associated rice production efficiency, based on different information sources (fertilizer traders, government extension agents or own/peer experience).

Using primary data, the present study estimates an ordered probit model and production functions separately based on whether or not a farmer relied on information from fertilizer traders or own experience and government extension agents, and examines the efficiency score of each type of farmer.

The findings demonstrate that the resource-poor farmers rely more on traders’ suggestions for fertilizer application than public extension – but the actual fertilizer information source has no significant effect on the production efficiency of the rice farmers. This study, therefore, does not find exploitative behavior of fertilizer traders. Thus, this study concludes that small rural traders in Bangladesh are working as agricultural extension agents and provide necessary fertilizer application information to resource-poor farmers.

This is a case study based on Bangladesh – an emerging economy in South Asia. The findings of the study may not be generalized for other countries.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that confirms the role of agricultural input sellers as the extension agent in developing countries.

Brazil’s regional inequality is an important topic due to the large and persistent differences in development between states and the high levels of inequality in the country. These variations in development can potentially render survey data inaccurate since the significance of capital income varies across the states. Besides, previous studies incorporating tax and national accounts data globally have mainly focused on measuring the income distribution at the country-level. This approach can limit the understanding of inequality, especially when considering large countries such as Brazil.

The methodology used to construct these estimates follows the guidelines of the Distributional National Accounts, whose core goal is to provide income distribution measures consistent with macroeconomic aggregates and harmonized across countries and time. The procedure has three main steps: first, it corrects the survey’s underrepresentation of top incomes using tax data. Then, it accounts for national income items not included in the survey or tax data, such as imputed rents and undistributed profits. Finally, it ensures that all components match the national income.

Compared to survey-based estimations, the results reveal a new angle on the state-level inequality. This study indicates that Amazonas, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo have a more concentrated income distribution. The top 1\% of earners in these states receives around 28\% of total pre-tax income, while the top 10\% receive nearly 60\%. On the other end, Amapá (AP), Acre (AC), Rondônia (RO) and Santa Catarina (SC) are the states where the income distribution is less concentrated. There were no significant changes in the income distribution across the states during the period analyzed.

This study combines survey, tax and national accounts data to construct new estimates of Brazil’s state-level income distribution from 2006 to 2019. Previous results only considered income captured in surveys, which usually misses a significant part of capital incomes. This limitation may bias comparisons as capital income has different importance across the states. The new estimates represent the income of top groups more accurately, account for the entire national income and enable to compare regional inequality levels consistently with other countries.

Even if there is a wealth of research highlighting the key role of values and cultural significance for heritage management and, defining specific interventions on built heritage, seldom the relation to their leading values and values hierarchy have been researched. How do values and interventions relate? What values trigger most and least interventions on heritage? How do these values relate and characterize interventions? And what are the values hierarchy that make the interventions on built heritage differ?

This paper conducts a systematic content analysis of 69 international doctrinal documents – mainly adopted by Council of Europe, UNESCO, and ICOMOS, during 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the intervention concepts and their definitions, in relation to values. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and values is determined based on the frequency of mentioned values per intervention.

There were three key findings. First, historic, social, and aesthetical values were the most referenced values in international doctrinal documents. Second, while intervention concepts revealed similar definitions and shared common leading values, their secondary values and values hierarchy, e.g. aesthetical or social values, are the ones influencing the variation on their definitions. Third, certain values show contradictory roles in the same intervention concepts from different documents, e.g. political and age values.

This paper explores a novel comparison between different interventions concepts and definitions, and the role of values. The results can contribute to support further research and practice on clarifying the identified differences.