SELALE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTEMENT OF ECONOMICS

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTEMENT OF ECONOMICS

THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

AND PRODUCTIVITY CASE OF DEBRE LIBANOS
A Proposal research prepared in partial fulfillment for the award of Bachelor of Arts
(BA) Degree in Economics

By: Demoze Aschilgn

Advisor: Adamu Mulu (MSc)

December, 2022
Fitche, Ethiopia

Page | 1
 Abstract
Sustainable agricultural productivity, in as far as they rely on renewable local or farm resources, present
desirable options for enhancing agricultural productivity for resource-constrained farmers in developing
countries. In this paper, the researcher tries to investigate the impact or the role of technology in
agricultural production and productivity, with a particular focus on agricultural productivity between
technology user and non-user. The nature of the sets of data allows us to examine whether the
productivity of these technologies is conditioned by agricultural production. Interestingly, the analyzed
results revealed that adoption of technology like preside, fertilizer, improved seed and irrigation,
increase agriculture productivity than non-technology user. Further more the result showed that
households awareness towards technology adoption increase from year to year, thus the productivity
increase. Thus, the results underscore the need to understand the role of agricultural products
determining the profitability (in terms of productivity gains) of farm technologies. This has particular
importance in formulating policies that promote technology adoption. In this particular case, our results
support encouraging resource-constrained farmers to adopt sustainable agricultural technology,
especially since they enable farmers to reduce production costs, provide environmental benefits and as
results confirm enhance agricultural productivity

Page | 2
ACRONOMYS

DAP……………..Di-ammonium Phosphate

EEA……………..Ethiopian Economic Association

FAO……………..Food and Agricultural Organization
GDP……………..Gross Domestic product
MFP……………..Multi factor Productivity
OECD……………The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PADETES……….Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System
PASDEP………...Plan For Accelerated and Sustained To End Poverty
SLM…………….Small Land Management
TFP……………..Total Factor Productivity.

Table Contents
Contents Pages

Acronyms....................................................................................................................ii
Abstract......................................................................................................................iii
CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the study...................................................................................1
1.2. Background of the Organization........................................................................2
1.3. Statement of the problem.................................................................................2
1.4. Basic Research Questions..................................................................................3
1.5. Objective of the Study.......................................................................................3
1.5.1. General objectives......................................................................................................3
1.5.2. Specific objectives......................................................................................................3
1.6. Significance of the study....................................................................................3
1.7. Scope of the study.............................................................................................4
1.8. Definitions of key terms....................................................................................4

Page | 3
 1.9. Organization of the paper.................................................................................4
1.10. Limitation of the study...................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO...................................................................................................................................5
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..................................................................................................5
2.1. Theoretical literature........................................................................................5
2.1.1. Definition of supply chain management....................................................................5
2.1.2. The Evolving Structure of Supply Chains....................................................................7
2.1.3. Supply chain management age..................................................................................7
2.1.4. The scope of supply chain management....................................................................8
2.1.5. The objective of supply chain management...................................................8
2.1.6. Supply chain management enablers..........................................................................8
2.1.7. Software as supply chain management enablers:....................................................10
2.1.8. Old Supply Chains versus New.................................................................................11
2.2 Coordination in the Supply Chain.........................................................................12
2.2.1 Demand Forecasting.......................................................................................................12
2.2.2 Order Batching................................................................................................................13
2.2.3 Product Pricing.........................................................................................................13
2.3 Supply chain network structure.......................................................................13
2.3.1 Identifying supply chain management members............................................................14
2.4 Supply chain integrations................................................................................15
2.4.1 Supply chain Integration practice.............................................................................16
2.5 Supplier Relationship management.................................................................17
2.6 Designing customer relationship process.........................................................19
2.7 Selecting network design.................................................................................19
CHAPTER THREE...............................................................................................................................20
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY....................................................................................20
3.2. Research Design..............................................................................................20
3.2 Source of data......................................................................................................20
3.2.1 Primary source of data....................................................................................................20
3.2.2 Secondary source of data................................................................................................20
3.3 Data collection method......................................................................................................20
3.4 Sampling method, sampling size and Sampling Technique...................................21

Page | 4
3.5 Method of data analysis..................................................................................21

Referernce.................................................................................................................36
APPENDIX..................................................................................................................37

CHAPTER ONE
Page | 5
 1. Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

Agriculture is the world most important industry which has many contributions in the economy.
It provides food, supplies raw materials for human basic need and industrial inputs of world
economy in Africa than does any other economy (world book, 1992).According to Gibbon and
Schroeder’s (2008) most of the time the numerous small scale farming families of rural areas are
seriously affected by low agricultural productivity and consequently suffer from food shortage.
As many research findings revered that the promise to improve life condition of rural people of
subsistence farm families is by increasing productivity through modern agricultural technological
innovations. High agricultural productivity is essential to induce a sustainable and accelerated
growth of the agricultural sector. It plays a central role in the transformation of agrarian based
economy to urban based economy. Evidence from countries that had successful experiences of
the green revolution indicates, the important role played by new technology in increasing
agricultural productivity.

This is through promoting pro-poor growth, especially in the early stages of development and
when productivity growth results in lower food prices (EEA, 2006/07).According to EEA in
2010, Agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopia’s economy. It accounts 48 percent of the national
GDP, almost 85 percent of foreign exchange from export and provides employment to 85 percent
of the population. Thus, the agricultural sector is crucial for the country’s food security and is the
major contributor to the overall economic growth and poverty reduction endeavors. The
agricultural sector is dominated by small scale subsistence farming characterized by traditional
farming practices. Thus it provides a significant employment to most of labor force. Farming
mainly depends on human and animal labor and farmers have few backward tools that cannot
increase production. However, nearly all the specific and scientific improvements in agriculture
had occurred in the industrialized nations. (Todaro, 2009).Before the invention and development
of agriculture people are hunter and gatherers. But for many centuries improvement of
agriculture does not show the required levels (Todaro, 2009).

Page | 6
1.2. The Statement of the Problem
Although farming methods in Ethiopia are still traditional. Farms in many areas do have an
option of using new, higher yielding crop varieties and some modern inputs, primarily chemical
fertilizer. Rates of such innovations vary widely from one part of country to another allowing us
to compare sites at different stages with the adoption and diffusion process. An understanding of
agricultural productivity growth and role played by education is particularly important to the
country like Ethiopia where food security is extremely low. Agriculture in Ethiopia is
increasingly characterized by new policy actors and relationship that influence the way in which
information and knowledge are accessed and used by small holder’s farmer, too little is known
about how these opportunities can effectively be leveraged to promote process of rural
innovation (Geda and Nega, 2009).Agriculture has many contributions to the economy, like
product contribution, market contribution and factor contribution. But, in Ethiopia those
contributions are less. Farmers do not go far from hand to mouth. Small scale farmers produce
manly for subsistence. They are to some extent unable to fulfill their family basic needs. The
farmers are not elastic to change price and technology. They are mostly found to be conservation
in their nature.

The Ethiopian farmers continued to practice essentially the farming methods with very little
improvements for so long and highly depend upon seasonal rainfall (EEA, 2006). Ethiopia is
predominantly an agrarian economy. The agricultural sector accounts for about 48 percent of
national GDP (Grade 12 text book). Although 85 percent of the population is engaged in
agriculture as a dominant activity, economic development of Ethiopia is very low. The
willingness of people to use technology is varies from place to place and also the same for Debre
Libanos woreda farmer. Few of them are use technology properly and improving their living
condition but majority of farmer are not use technology properly and there main are not use
totally. So I want realize this gab and give direction by comparing technology user and not user
in order to motivate majority of farmer to use modern agricultural input then improve their living
condition and also they contribute high contribution to our national GDP.

Page | 7
1.3. Objective of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective

The general objective of the study is to assess the role of technology in crop production and
productivity in case of Debre Libanos woreda.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

The following are the specific objectives of this study.
 To assess the extent of technology adoption.
 To examine causes of subsistence nature of agriculture production.
 To assess the relationship or level of education in relation to technology adoption.

1.4. Research question

 What is the extent to technology adoption?

 What is the cause of subsistence nature of agriculture production?

 What is the relationship of education in relation to technology adoption?

1.5. Significance of the Study

The rationale behind conducting is to assess extent of modern agricultural innovations and its
goal in productivity; it is expected to have the following significance;
It will act as an informational input to farmer as adoption of technology leads to agricultural
production and productivity increased as witnessed from parts of the world where technology has
been adopted.
A country can change from periodical shortages to net export if diffusion and dissemination of
new technological innovation takes place. This is possible if only the mass is enlightened.
The study will helpful for everyone who wants to know about the nature of crop production and
productivity and the role of technology in Debre Libanos woreda.

1.6. The Scope of the Study

The study is intended to conduct on Debre Libanos woreda around 105 km from Addis Ababa
to identifying the role of technology related to agricultural production and productivity and
acquiring commercialization by taking some model kebele from woreda. The core idea of the

Page | 8
study is to identify the role of technology on agricultural production and productivity and
identify the constraints and finding the solution related to the use of technology. It covers the
period from2016 to 2022G.C

1.7. Organization of the Study

The paper contains five chapters. Chapter one gives the introduction to the study which contains,
background of the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study, significance of the
study, scope of the study, and organization of the study by itself. Chapter two gives the
theoretical and empirical review of literature related to agriculture productivity. Chapter three of
the study contains research design and methodology.

Page | 9
 CHAPTER TWO

2. Literature review on agricultural productivity

2.1 Theoretical review literature

Agricultural productivity is measured as the ratio of agricultural outputs to agricultural inputs.
Its measures are subdivided into partial, multifactor and total. Partial factor productivity is the
amount of output per unit of a particular input. It only considers a single input in the ratio. For
example, it uses yields of crops to determine the productivity of field crops. Literature indicates
that it is easy to compute as it requires limited data, but it can be hard to identify factors that
cause productivity of field crops to change. Both Multi factor productivity (MFP) and Total
factor productivity (TFP) are defined as the ratio of total agricultural output to a subset of
agricultural inputs. They utilize more than a single factor. Their measures reflect the joint effects
of many factors including new technologies, economies of scale, managerial skill, and changes in
the organization of production to agricultural production. TFP is preferred to MFP due to that
fact that it captures the full extent of input use and output production. But due to the fact that it
has proved to be a difficult method to use (OECD productivity manual, 2001) MFP is thus used
as an approximation of TFP.

Although the definitions of both these methodologies reflect the use of output and input quantity,
in reality using general total amounts is not an option. This is mainly because it is hard to
aggregate different quantities of different measurements (mass vs. volume). And even if the
output and inputs can be aggregated with the hope of deflating them, this will lead to a situation
where relative price ratios to that of the base year are distorted. As a result the use of indices in
these methodologies are highly encouraged and preferred. There are various types of indices.
This includes the Laspeyres, Tornqvist-Theil, Paasche, Malmquist and Fisher indexing methods.
Laspeyres indexing method is a weighted base index and cannot be used in productivity analysis
as it distorts the relative price ratios. It is usually used for computing the consumer price index.
Tornqvist-Theil indexing method is a chained division index and uses spliced price and quantity
indices of Laspeyres type as a proxy for prices.

Page | 10
2.2 .Levels of agricultural productivity
Levels of agricultural productivity are subsistence level, mixed farming level and commercial
farming level
Subsistence level: - most outputs produced for family consumption, land and labor are the main
factors of production. While capital investment is minimum, it is threatened by the failure of the
rains, and the potential appropriation of the land by the money lender. Labor is under employed
most of the year, but highly occupied for planting, and harvesting. Farmers are often resistant to
technological innovation due to the limited access to credit insurance and information; here is a
lot of uncertainty and risk involved in subsistence farming. (Productivity manual, 2009)
Mixed Farming: - this is the second stage or level of farming and transition from subsistence to
mixed type of farming and it transit to commercial farming. A successful transition from
subsistence to diversified farming depends on availability of credit, fertilizers, crop information
and marketing facilities. Farmers need to feel secure that his family will benefit from the change
in order to guarantee successful transition. (IBID, 2009)
Commercial Farming: - this is specialized and modern farming activity that used to produce the
demand of the market and is helped by highly technological and modernized tools. Transition to
specialize; modern commercial farming can achieve highest level of agricultural transformation.
This type of farming usually emerges when other sectors of the economy such as the industrial
sector have already developed. It usually involves capital incentive and labor saving techniques
of production (IBID, 2009)

2.3. Agricultural Practice and Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia

The Ethiopian economy is supported by its agricultural sector, which is also a fundamental
instrument for poverty alleviation, food security, and economic growth. However, the sector
continues to be undermined by land degradation of soil organic matter, soil erosion, and lack of
adequate plant-nutrient supply (Grepperud 1996; Pender et al. 2006).There is, unfortunately,
plenty of evidence that these problems are getting worse in many parts of the country,
particularly in the highlands (Pender et al. 2001). Furthermore, climate change is anticipated to
accelerate the land degradation in Ethiopia. As a cumulative effect of land degradation,
increasing population pressure, and low agricultural productivity, Ethiopia has become
increasingly dependent on food aid. In most parts of the d Participatory demonstration and

Page | 11
training extension system (PADETES), is mainly financed and provided by the public sector, and
has emphasized the development and distribution of standard packages to farmers. These
packages typically include seeds and commercial fertilizer, credit to buy inputs, soil and water
conservation, livestock training and demonstration plots intended to facilitate adoption and use
of the inputs.
While the promotion of commercial fertilizers and improved seeds often includes extension
workers demonstrating their use to farmers, this is not the case with natural resource
management technologies, such as soil and water conservation technologies. Additionally,
efforts promoting other small land management (SLM) practices have tended to focus on
arresting soil erosion without considering the underlying socioeconomic causes of low soil
productivity. As a result there has been promotion of practices which are unprofitable, risky, or
ill-suited to Farmers’ resource constraints (pender et al. 2006). The rural credit market has also
been subject to extensive state intervention. To stimulate the uptake of agricultural technology
packages, all regional governments in Ethiopia initiated a 100 percent credit guarantee scheme in
1994. For instance, under this system, about 90 percent of fertilizer is delivered on credit at
below-market interest rates. In order to finance the Technology packages, credit is extended to
farmers by the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia (a state owned bank) through cooperatives, local
government offices, and more recently microfinance institutions. Because farmers cannot borrow
from banks due to collateral security problems, agricultural credit is guaranteed by the regional
governments (Kassa 2003; Spiel man et al.2010, forthcoming).Although there are a few private-
sector suppliers, the fertilizer market (importation and distribution) in all regions is mainly
controlled by regional holding companies that have strong ties to regional governments (Spiel
man et al. 2010, forthcoming).

The government gave these holding companies preferential treatment with the allocation of
foreign exchange for The World Food Program (2005) also noted that there is a growing
agreement in the area of land rehabilitation and soil and water conservation that profitability and
cost effectiveness has in the past been largely neglected. Importation and distribution of fertilizer
plus government-administered credit to farmers under its large-scale extension intervention
program. Despite claims by the Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty
(PASDEP) that all rural development interventions should take into account the specificities of

Page | 12
each agro ecosystem and area, the package-driven extension approach offers recommendations
that show little variation across different environments (i.e., blanket recommendations). The
packages are not site or household specific and are introduced through a “quota” system. To
date, a blanket recipe is the traditional approach for applying commercial fertilizers and other
natural resource management technologies, irrespective of factors that limit agricultural
Productivity.
The availability of water, soil types, and local socioeconomic and agro ecological Variations,
such as low- and high-agricultural potential areas (Kassaet al.2010).For our knowledge, except
for commercial fertilizer, there are no technical recommendations (packages) for other natural
resource management technologies. The standardized package approach and inflexible input
distribution systems, which is currently used in Ethiopia, means that farmers have little
opportunity to experiment, learn, and adapt technologies to their own needs (Spielman et al.
2010, forthcoming). This approach could make the technologies inappropriate to local conditions
and eventually unacceptable to the farmers. As Keeley and Scoones (2004) noted, the
conservation interventions in the country have been supported by simplistic, often unjustified,
claims, and these have potentially negative impacts on poor people’s livelihoods through their
blanket application. Research has also shown that in Ethiopia the economic returns on physical
soil and water conservation investments, as well as their impacts on productivity, are greater in
areas with low-moisture and low-agricultural potential than in areas with high-moisture and
high-agricultural potential (Gebremedhin et al.2008).

In wet areas, investment in soil and water conservation may not be profitable at the farm level,
although there are positive social benefits from controlling runoff and soil erosion (Nyssen et al.
2004). A blanket recommendation of 100 kg of di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) and 100 kg of
urea per hectare is promoted by PADETES.The Ethiopian Disaster Prevention and Preparedness
Commission classified the country into drought-prone versus no drought-prone districts.
Drought-prone districts are referred to as low agricultural potential districts and no drought-
prone districts as high-agricultural potential district. To ensure sustainable adoption of
technologies (including SLM practices) and beneficial impacts on productivity and other
outcomes, rigorous empirical research is needed on what determines adoption and where
particular SLM interventions are likely to be successful. Although there is substantial evidence

Page | 13
on the adoption and productivity impacts of soil and water conservation measures in Ethiopia
(Gebremedhin et al. 1999). The evidence of adoption and productivity impacts of other land
management practices, including minimum tillage and commercial fertilizer use, is thin.
Particularly, information is lacking on the relative contribution of these practices to agricultural
productivity in low- versus high-agricultural-potential areas. This paper takes a step toward
filling this gap by systematically exploring the productivity gains associated with adoption of
minimum tillage and commercial fertilizer in the high- and low-agricultural potential areas of the
Ethiopian highlands. (Benin 2006).

2.4. International studies

There exists quite good literature on the trends of agricultural productivity, factors affecting
agricultural productivity and ways to improve agricultural productivity in both developed and
developing countries. However, there is dearth of work on the level of agricultural productivity
at regional and enterprise level in these countries. Studies on enterprise level productivity
specifically are mostly limited to Asian and Central Asian countries. Literature reviewed showed
that agricultural productivity increases more in developed countries compared to less developed
countries. This is due to high investment in research and development, labor, land and capital
and improvement in the use of inputs such as fertilizer, machinery increases and others use of
inputs such as fertilizer, machinery increases and others

2.5. Developed Countries

Grant (2002) estimated agricultural productivity from regional accounts for twenty one regions
in 1880/4, 1893/7 and 1905/9 in Germany. The estimates are derived from regional accounts for
agricultural production and costs. Results indicated that productivity in East-Elbian agriculture is
growing rapidly in the period, and tending to converge on the German average. Productivity in
Southern region is not growing so fast, which showed that yield improvements are not limited to
large farms and estates, but that smaller holdings also had access to new technology and
improved husbandry methods .
The main conclusion to emerge from this analysis was that there is a strong process of
convergence which brought productivity up in the rural east to level equal to or the national
average. This convergence mechanism is associated with the spread of more advance agricultural

Page | 14
techniques. Determined how to promote agricultural productivity growth to achieve sustainable
food security most efficiently in Asia and the Pacific. The study looked at the role of investment,
both in physical and human capital, in maintaining and increasing agricultural productivity. In
order to achieve the objectives the study used TFP and partial factor productivity functions.
Results indicate that agricultural output growth has remained positive from 1961 to 1994 with
only one exception, Japan, compared to a slowdown during 1975-1987 in output and labor
productivity growth in Australia and the United States Changet al (2009)

2.6. Developing Countries

Zepeda (2001) examined agricultural investment and productivity in the context of developing
countries. The study used number of models of production growth (index numbers or growth
accounting techniques) to measure the change in output, to identity the relative contribution of
different inputs to output growth and to identify the Solow residual or output growth not due to
increases in inputs.

Results show a relatively weak relationship between physical capital and growth, as compared
to investment in technology and human capital. Other factors found to be stimulants to growth
included; the policy environment, political stability and natural resources degradation. Various
authors support the findings of Zepeda (2001). Fulginitiet al (1998) examined changes in
agricultural productivity in eighteen developing countries over the period 1961–1985. The study
used the malmquist index and Cobb-Douglas production function to examine, whether declining
agricultural productivity in less developed countries is due to use of inputs. Chaves (2001)
analyzed international agricultural productivity using nonparametric methods to estimate
productivity indices.
The analysis used FAO annual data on agricultural inputs and outputs for twelve developing
countries between 1960 and 1994. Technical efficiency indices for time series analysis results
suggested that in general the technology of the early 1990s is similar to the one in the early
1960s. This showed that the improvement in agricultural production is not because of technology
but because of other inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides. The general empirical results
indicated only weak evidence of agricultural technical change and productivity growth both over
time and across countries. There was much evidence of strong productivity growth in agriculture

Page | 15
over the last few decades corresponding to changes in inputs In Asia; Chang et al (2001)
determined how to promote agricultural productivity growth to achieve sustainable food security.
The study looked at the role of investment, both in physical and human capital, in maintaining
and increasing agricultural productivity. In order to achieve the objectives the study used TFP
and partial factor productivity functions. Results indicated that the only way to promote
agricultural productivity is through improving labor productivity. The improvement in labor
productivity in China was 0.68% per annum during 1961 to 1975, 4.37% per annum during 1975
to 1987 and 4.13% per annum during 1987 to 1994. The per annum improvement in labor
productivity in India during the same periods is 0.2%, 1.07% and 2.04% respectively. The per
annum improvement in labor productivity over the period 1961 to 1994 was 7.41% and 7.16%
for Japan and Korea respectively. Due to the improvement in labor productivity, the agricultural
output growth for these countries, with the exception of Japan, has remained positive from 1961
to 1994. The total factor productivity for China surprisingly remained negative despite its growth
in output and partial factor productivity of labor and land. This is because output growth is
generated primarily from the expansion of inputs, rather than productivity increases.

It is generally accepted that there are ample room for productivity improvements in the less
developed countries. Tripathiet al (2008), however, argued that an improvement in not only labor
but also capital and land productivity can improve agricultural productivity.
They studied agricultural productivity growth in India and the impact of labor, capital and land
on agricultural productivity growth from 1967-70 to 2005-06. A Cobb-Douglas production
function is used to analyze data and the results indicated that output elasticity of land is 1.98,
labor 1.06 and capital 0.15 and when added up they gave a sum greater than one. This meant all
inputs have positive and significant influence on agricultural productivity growth Velazco (2001)
examined trends in agricultural production growth for the period 1950-1995, identified factors
that affect agricultural growth and investigated underlying constraints.

The study looked at how changes in land, labor and fertilizer, the role of public and private
investment, technological change, policy and political violence influenced Peru’s agricultural
sector. A specific outcome of the agricultural growth estimation of the aggregate production
function for 1970-1995 indicated that increasing agricultural employment will have the greatest

Page | 16
impact on the output, followed by land, fertilizer and tractors. The general conclusion is that
public and private investment is required to increase agricultural production. There is a
relationship between public and private investment with the latter responding to increases in the
former. However, it must be noted that land is still concentrated in larger holdings. Only few
people have large farms, while a large group of the population has small holdings and little or no
education. The implication is that investment in human capital appears to be an obstacle to the
effectiveness of extension programmers and technological change. Improved inputs are only
used in the coastal region where the large holdings are concentrated. The demand for tractors and
agricultural machinery is also concentrated in the coastal region. A specific observation is that
agricultural investment has been adversely affected by high inflation, the external debt crisis and
hence lower availability of funds, as well as political violence.

2.7. Empirical Review Literature

A number of empirical studies have examined the productivity impacts of different land
Management practices, especially in Ethiopia and in developing countries in general. Most of
these studies, however, have tended to have a bias towards soil conservation as a productivity
enhancing technology. In the case of Ethiopia, Bekele’s (2005) research showed that plots with
soil conservation bunds produce higher yields than those without. Results from other countries
also support the importance of land management practices and specifically soil conservation
measures in enhancing land productivity. Zikhali (2008) found that contour ridges have a
positive impact on land productivity in Zimbabwe. Shively (1998; 1999) reported a positive and
statistically significant impact from contour hedgerows on yield in the Philippines. Results by
Kaliba and Rabele (2004) also supported a positive and statistically significant association
between wheat yield and short- and long-term soil conservation measures in Lesotho.
Furthermore, some studies broadly generalize technologies without being specific about their
types.
For instance, although Byiringiro and Reardon (1996) demonstrated a positive impact of soil
conservation on farm-level productivity in Rwanda, the authors did not control for the type of
conservation. This weakens the policy relevance of their work, since it could be the case that not
all types of soil conversation enhance farm productivity; in other words, effective policy
formulation needs information about individual technologies and their specific impacts on
productivity. Policy recommendations resulting from such studies end up being characterized by
Page | 17
little variation across different agro ecologies. Further, the estimated productivity impacts of the
analyzed technologies will be biased if crucial factors, such as heterogeneity of environments,
are not controlled for. In this paper, we take into consideration the variations in the agricultural
entail of different areas when determining technology performance measured in terms of land
productivity. This makes it possible to craft well-informed policy recommendations that are not
based on generalizations. The importance of our analysis to the adoption literature is to highlight
the dangers of making blanket analyses and across-the-board policy recommendations that
disregard the heterogeneity of environments. As Keeley and Scoones (2004) argued, such
indiscriminate policy recommendations potentially have negative impacts on poor people’s
livelihoods.

Page | 18
 CHAPTER THREE

3. Methodology of study

3.1 Description of study Area

Debre Libanos Woreda is one of woreda in the Oromia region of Ethiopia. Part of North shewa
zone. Debre Libanos woreda is one of the small woreda in North shewa zone. Debre Libanos
bordered on the North West by Gerar Jarso, on the south west by Yaya Gulale, on the south and
south east by Wuchale and on the north east Amharic region. The 2007 national census reported
a total population for this woreda of 45,179, of whom 23,351 were men and 21,828 were women;
8,955 or 19.82% of its population were urban dwellers. This woreda is an Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo monastery, lying norhtwest of Addis Ababa in the north shewa zone of the oromia
region. It was founded in 1284 by Saint Tekle Haymanot as Debre Atsbo and was renamed as
Debre Libanos in the 15th C. He meditated in a cave above the current monastery for 29 years.
The monastery’s chief abbot, called Ichege, was the second most powerful official in the
Ethiopian Church after the Abuna.

3.2. TYPE AND SOURCE OF DATA

In order to achieve the stated objective the researcher will be used different data source. The
study will employed both primary and secondary source of data. The primary source of data from
primary field survey which will be focused data on the role of technology and agricultural
characteristics of the study area, and other related information that would have been essential to
research purpose are collected from resident of Debre Libanos woreda and official of the woreda
rural and agricultural development office by distributing questionnaire and asking interviews. .
The secondary data source will be collected from published and unpublished materials, which
includes books, journals, scientific research works and office records. Both qualitative and
quantitative data are used.

3.3. Sampling and Sampling techniques

Debre Libanos woreda has 10 rural kebeles and 1 towns administration totally 11 kebeles. Since
the woreda has 11 kebeles and difficult to touch all the kebeles from them researcher is selected

Page | 19
4 kebeles by used strata sample. I classified the kebeles by technology user and by size of
income. Therefore the total sample size selected is 60 from 19600 of the total population of four
kebeles. Where N=total number of households, sample size for the study is determined based on
the following formula (Glenna, 2009) sample determination formula.

Where, n = sample size

p = population proportion
e =level of significance (5%)
z = level of confidence for 95% is (1.96)
The three Kebeles has 19600 house hold heads. From these household heads 19065 house hold
heads are farmers in 2007/2008 E.C. From these first calculate p.
P = 19065/19600 = 0.97

Even though the sampling formula result shown that the total number of sample size is 60. I will
be used this sample size because of budget and time constraints and selected the respondents
from four Kebeles by stratified sampling formula as follows.

in = ( Ni / N ) * n N = total target population size, and

Ni = population size for i, Keble

n = total sample size

So by using the above stratified sampling formula the proportional number of respondent in each
Keble are calculated as follows.
5300
1. From Xuma ¿ ( 16900 )∗60=19
4225
From Wakene ¿ (
16900 )
2. ∗60=15

4000
From Hone=(
16900 )
3. ∗60=14

Page | 20
 3375
4. From Salee= ( 16900 )∗60=12

3.4. METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive technique or method is used to analyze data collected from the field of study or
respondents. Information is simplified in the form of tables, percentage and average in order to
collected data from the model farmers who use technology in Debre Libanos woreda.The
concerning method of data analysis has been descriptive method of data analysis for the collected
data from both primary and secondary data sources are first edited, classified and organized
heterogeneous classes in to substrata based on their common characteristics. Percentage is the
dominant tool for this study, since it is an ideal instrument to measure and analyze the
respondent, opinion and assumptions against each statement.

Page | 21
REFERENCE

 Chang, H. and Zepeda, L. (2001).Agricultural Productivity for Sustainable

Food Security in Asia and the Pacific: the Role of Investment.
 Chaves, J. (2001). An International Analysis of Agricultural Productivity.
 FAO Corporate Document Repository, Economic and Social development
Department, 2001
 FakaduDgefa and brehanuNega(1999\2000),Annual Reaport of Ethiopan
Economy Vol 1 E.E.Ethiopia
 Kibaara, B., Ariga, J., Olwande, J and Jayne, T. (2008).Trends in Kenyan agricultural
Productivity: 1997-2007. Egerton University, Tegemeo Institute ofagricultural Policy and
Development, Septem,
 Liebenberg, F. and Pardey, P.G. (2010).South Africa Agricultural Production
and Productivity Patterns.

Page | 22
  The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research andInformation Center, Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa, 2010
 Thirtle, C., Piesse, J. and Gousse, M (2005).Agricultural technology,productivity and
employment: policies for poverty reduction.
 Agrekon, Vol44, No1, March 2005, p 41-44leTripathi, A and Prasad, A.R. (2008).
 Agricultural Productivity Growth in India.Journal of Global Economy An International
journal, ISSN:0975-3931, 2008.
 Velazco, J. (2001).Agricultural Production in Peru (1950-1995):
 Zepeda, L. (2001).Agricultural Investment, Production Capacity andProductivity.
 Tiyoworedaagrecultural office document on agreculturalpruduction and productivity from
Year 2012/13 to 2017/2018 G.C.

Page | 23
 APPEDEX
SELALEUNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Research questionnaire to be filled by Debre Libanos woreda farmers and agricultural office

♠Dear sir/madam

This questioner is designed to assess the role of technology in agricultural production in Debre
Libanos woreda. The objective of the study is purely academic and hence the questionnaire is
prepared to secure relevant data which is believed to come up with valuable recommendation for

Page | 24
problems observed/if any importance to the success of the study. Thus, you are kindly requested to
fill the questionnaire carefully and return at your earliest as convenient. Information provided will
be treated confidential.

♠NOTE

1. There is no need to write your name.

2. Please indicate your response by putting “x” mark where necessary for close ended question and
explanation for open ended questionnaire.

♦Section 1

Back ground information of the respondents

1. Sex A) Male B) Female

2. Age A) Below 20 B) 21- 30

C) 31-40 D) 41-50 E) Above50

3. Marital status A) Marred B) Single C) Divorced D) Widowed

4. Education background A) Illiterate B) 1-4 C) 5-8

D) 9-12 E) Above 12

Page | 25
♦ Section two;

1) Questionnaire to be filled by farmers, it is related to land usage and cultivation.

I. How much hectares of productive land do you have?

II. DO you produce enough? Yes no
Explain your answer above?
III. How many time do you cultivate you land within a year?
A, 1 B, 2 C, 3 D, 4
IV. How many times do you cultivate the land for one production time?
A, 1 B, 2 C, 3 D, Above 3

Which type of method do you apply for cultivation?

A, family labor B, animal labor C, tractor

2) Questionnaire related to agricultural usage of technology in production.

I. Are you aware of new technology? Yes, No,

II. Do you use improved seed, pesticides, fertilizer and irrigation? A)

A) Yes B) No,

III. If your response is no, explain why

IV. Do you get improved seeds, pesticides, fertilizer regular on time and sufficiently?
A) Yes B) No
If your response is no explain, why?

Section three:

Questionnaire to be filled by Debre Libanos woreda agriculture office, it is related to

agricultural usage of technology in production.

Page | 26
 1, the following table show that the house holder of the total cultivated land , improved seeds
applied, pesticide applied, fertilizer applied, irrigation applied and the total production of Dale
Soyama from year (2011/12-2016/17).

Y e a r Total cultivatd land(hectares) Improved seeds applied(hectares) Pesticide applied(hectares) Fertilizer applied(hectares) Irrigation applied land (hectares) Total production(quintals)

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

Page | 27
Page | 28