Traditionally, economic analysis of agricultural technology adoption (or lack thereof) has focused on imperfect information, risk, uncertainty, institutional constraints, human capital, input availability, and infrastructure as potential explanations for adoption decisions [1-3]. In studying agricultural technology adoption, analysis of the adoption of high yielding varieties (HYV) in India has been particularly influential. Kohli and Singh  found that inputs played a large role in the rapid adoption of HYVs in the Punjab on of the prosperous state in India. They claimed that the effort made by the Punjab government to make the technological innovations and their complementary inputs more easily and cheaply available allowed the technology to diffuse faster than in the rest of India. On similar lines study is conducted in Mauritius to learn feasible and acceptable model of technology adoption. Mauritian economy is based on service industry. And farming is done only to satisfy local demand. At points heavy imbalance is observed in demand and supply, hence the study becomes more important.
Kohli and Singh  used a choice of technique framework to characterise the decision to adopt HYVs in India. They found that since HYVs require higher levels of fertilizer and irrigation to realize their yield potential, their introduction corresponded with a large jump in the demand for fertiliser and irrigated land. Bandiera and Rasul  looked at social networks and technology adoption in Northern Mozambique and found that the probability of adoption is higher amongst farmers who reported discussing agriculture with others. Besley and Case  use a model of learning where the profitability of adoption is uncertain and exogenous. Looking at a village in India, they found that once farmers discover the true profitability of adopting the new technology, they are more likely to adopt.
Foster and Rosenzweig  found that initially farmers may not adopt a new technology because of imperfect knowledge about management of the new technology; however, adoption eventually occurs due to own experience and neighbours’ experience. Similarly, looking at pineapple cultivation in Ghana, analyse whether an individual farmer’s fertilizer use responds to changes in information about the fertiliser productivity of his neighbour. They found that a farmer increases (decreases) his fertiliser use when a neighbour experienced higher than expected profits using more (less) fertiliser than he did, indicating the importance of social learning.
Adoption of innovations refers to the decision to apply an innovation and to continue to use it Recent adoption studies in Europe  in Asia [7,8] and in Africa  have identified farm and technology specific factors, institutional, policy variables, and environmental factors to explain the patterns and intensity of adoption. Rao and Rao  found a positive and significant association between ages, farming experience, training received, socio-economic status, cropping intensity, aspiration, economic motivation, innovativeness, information source utilisation, information source, agent credibility and adoption. Diffusion of innovations refers to the spread of abstract ideas and concepts, technical information, and actual practices within a social system, where the spread denotes flow or movement from a source to an adopter, typically via communication and influence . The adoption/diffusion model developed in the United States by rural sociologists attempted to predict the adoption behaviour of individuals by looking at their personal characteristics, the time factor, and the characteristics of the innovation itself. But this model was developed at the height of productivity paradigm for agriculture and “green revolution,” and now faces serious criticism for its inability to study environmental challenges in agriculture.
The Green Revolution in Asia as demonstrated in the empirical literature (see for instance [12-18] among others) is an indication that improved technology adoption for agricultural
transformation and poverty reduction is critical in modern day
agriculture. Sunding and Zilberman  affirmed that there
is a significant gap between the launch of a technology to the
market to its wide use by farmers, therefore its adoption is not
immediate. Also Agbamu  found only knowledge of a practice
to be significantly related to its adoption  shows that where
farmers have to adopt a new crop technology that shifts time
from their farming to the home production activity sector, the
probability and rate of adoption of such technology are higher;
also, as family time is shifted away from the farming sector to
home production sector, the economic impact index increases.
Arene  reported a positive and significant relationship
between family size and adoption. On the other hand Voh 
established that household size is not significantly related to
adoption.  Reported a significant relationship between
landholdings (farm size) and adoption.
Voh  also reported that socio-economic status of
farmers is positively and strongly related to adoption. This
report implied that the higher the socio-economic status, the
higher the tendency to adopt innovation.  Reported that
farmers who are more exposed to formal extension information
have a high propensity towards adoption than those with less
exposure. However,  did not establish any relationship
between education and adoption. Education, size of holdings
and cosmopoliteness accounted for significant variation in
communication behaviour of farmers. Goswami and Sagar 
identified some factors associated with knowledge level of an
innovation. They found educational level, family educational
status, innovation proneness and utilisation of mass media to
be positively and significantly correlated with knowledge level.
Earlier evidences [27,28] led to the categorisation of adoption
behaviour into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late
majority and laggards. This is based on validated studies that the
adoption behaviour of any agricultural technology would follow
a normal distribution curve in a given social system .
As outlined by Dillon  it is also sometimes useful to
recognize that, like other systems, agricultural systems may be
categorized as which is a special point to be considered when
technology adoption need to be implemented:
Purposeful or non-purposeful depending on whether or
not they can select goals and the means by which to achieve
Static or dynamic depending on whether or not
they change over time in response to internal or external
Open or closed depending on whether or not they
interact with their environment.
Abstract or concrete depending on whether or not they
are conceptual or physical in nature.
Deterministic or stochastic depending on whether or not their behaviour exhibits randomness over time, i.e., their
future behaviour is uncertain.
Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation.
Innovators are willing to take risks, youngest in age, have the
highest social class, have great financial lucidity, very social and
have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with
other innovators. Risk tolerance has them adopting technologies
which may ultimately fail. Financial resources help absorb these
“This is the second fastest category of individuals who adopt
an innovation. These individuals have the highest degree of
opinion leadership among the other adopter categories. Early
adopters are typically younger in age, have a higher social status,
have more financial lucidity, advanced education, and are more
socially forward than late adopters. More discrete in adoption
choices than innovators. Realise judicious choice of adoption will
help them maintain central communication position” .
“Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a
varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly
longer than the innovators and early adopters. Early Majority
tend to be slower in the adoption process, have above average
social status, contact with early adopters, and seldom hold
positions of opinion leadership in a system” .
“Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after
the average member of the society. These individuals approach
an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the
majority of society has adopted the innovation. Late Majority are
typically skeptical about an innovation, have below average social
status, very little financial lucidity, in contact with others in late
majority and early majority, very little opinion leadership”.
Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an
innovation. Unlike some of the previous categories, individuals
in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These
individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents and tend
to be advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to be focused on
“traditions”, likely to have lowest social status, lowest financial
fluidity, be oldest of all other adopters, in contact with only family
and close friends, very little to no opinion leadership. Rogers 
reported two types of discontinuance which can be replacement
discontinuance that is rejecting an idea in order to adopt a better
one that supersedes it or disenchantment discontinuance when
a decision to reject an idea as a result of dissatisfaction with its
performance (Figure 1).
Bishop and Coughenor  reported that the percentage
of discontinuance among Ohio farmers ranged from 14%for
innovators and early adopters, to 27% for early majority, to
34% for late majority, to 40% for laggards; while Leuthold 
reported 18%, 24%, 26% and 37% respectively for Canadian
Farmers. Greeve  reported the discontinuance of the easy
listening format by radio stations in USA and also Rogers (2003)
noted the discontinuance of chemical innovation and the rise of
organic farming. Ogunfiditimi  used the term “abandoned
adoption” to describe discontinued use of previously adopted
innovation and identified 14 reasons among maize & cassava
and cocoa farmers in Nigeria. Similarly  reported the varying
degrees of discontinuance among farmers in Ekiti state Nigeria
to be immediate, gradual and rapid based on the nature of
innovation and farmers situation. Adesina and Baidu-Forson 
found that farmers perceptions affect the adoption of improved
varieties of sorghum and mangrove rice in Burkina Faso and
Enrique Silva R., National TTG President made a comment
that seems to reflect international reality: “[Technological
transfer] is more necessary than ever, because agricultural
commodity prices tend to constantly go down while costs tend
to go up, so that the profit margins are narrower.” Enrique Silva
R. explained: “The name of the groups does not correspond
exactly to the philosophy of the system. It is not a matter of only
transferring knowledge or technology. The human contact is
what is fundamental in the group’s activity. The most relevant
is the friendship that takes place among the participating
farmers. That is, the characteristic individualism of the farmer
of the past is broken. An absolute sincerity between neighbours
is obtained ... which leads to a great friendship. With friendship
they communicate both the failures and successes ....”
In Mauritius almost half of our sugarcane land belongs to
planters and the rest for corporate sectors. The question was
being asked how small planters may have been able to own
nearly forty five percent of lands, when regarding Mauritius historical background concerning British, French and even
Dutch colonisation. Where did they ever get the money to buy
The following possible reasons were stated:
May be those small planters were sirdars, that can
be defined as those (e.g. a foreman) holding a responsible
position or a person holding high ranks, and they had the
opportunity to buy lands.
Those small planters could also have been in the class
of “Bourgeoisie”. This word is derived from the French
word meaning a French citizen-class. Bourgeoisie is often
identified a social class oriented to economic materialism
characterised by their ownership of capital, and their related
culture or who is a member of the wealthiest social class of a
given society, and their materialistic worldview.
Those small planters were not socially considered as
It was also pointed out that the History of Small Planters
in Mauritius should be clearly read in order to understand the
small planters’ context well.
It was also well explained that some thirty years ago, land
price in Mauritius was very expensive. This can be explained
by the fact that with sugarcane plantation in those lands and
high sugar prices in world market (about 35,000 MUR per
tonne of sugar), planters was getting lots of revenues from their
sugarcane plantation. So they preferred to keep those lands and
were not reluctant to sell those lands. Hence land price was very
expensive even those days.
It has been clearly expressed the fact that land owners
considered their land as a fortune. They didn’t want to sell
their fortunes. Hence it was well remarked that real farmers
in Mauritius don’t own any land. They get land for agriculture
through renting from land owners. Hence the complexity of the
situation is that land owners are considered as planters but they
are not those who are cultivating the lands. Land owners are
being registered as Cane planters in Mauritius, but they are not
the ones cultivating. The better pieces of land are usually rented
at better price. Long ago the grand-parents and parents of those
people who are the present day land owners were trying to gain
maximum profit with their sugar cultivation. Nowadays with the
drastic decrease of sugar price in world market (12,000 MUR per
tonne), there is tendency of zero profit. The cost of production is
very high. Land owners prefer to leave their lands bare or rent it
It was also pointed out that present day land owners consider
themselves middleclass. They do not want to do agricultural
business. They want more office works or they leave for abroad,
but they are still heirs of those lands left behind by their grandparents
and parents. They are not even prepared to sell their
lands due to the fact of their consideration of land as fortune. It has also been indicated that during those times when planters
were getting a lot of profits from selling sugar, even after getting
such fortunes in farming the planters did not invest in their
business activities. Why weren’t they investing? Why were they
only buying wants and preferring luxuries? This was mainly due
to a problem of social structure in Mauritius.
In Mauritius, if a planter is considered a big planter there
is tax being paid whereas for a small amount of land no tax is
paid. Hence it is usually a fact that heirs of those big land owners
become the new owners with small amount of land where no tax
is being paid. Mauritius is consisted of landless farmers who do
not own land but only cultivate it after renting.
It is found that in Mauritius the Government are giving
facilities for derocking for those planters being registered as
Cane Planters. At the end of the day the ones having the best
lands have in mind just of renting those lands at expensive
prices. Only those who can afford can do so. Since those landless
farmers having the best land are not having any thoughts to new technology since they have no ownership. Why to invest fortunes
for new technology when they don’t own the lands? It was found
that even those who do not want to be a farmer anymore but
having lands, they are not selling since price of land has the
trend of increasing since the last fifty years. Then what came out
as relevant was how and why to bother about new technology
Table 1 shows that most of our small farming community have
more than 15 years of experience meaning that this community
is an ageing population as rightly said by Gopal Pillay: “There is
the problem of what is known as succession planning in our small
farming community. This is the biggest issue according to him;
who will take over?” The high ageing farming population being
noticed from the result can also be matched with Raj Ramnauth’s
that “Traditional farmers are finding it difficult to pass on their
heritage to youngsters. The latter are not willing to carry out
livestock and farming activities.” This can be one of the major
constraints that small farmers in Mauritius are actually facing
which can also lead to the fact of non-adoption of technology.
This result of more than 15 years of farming experience
can also be interpreted as the traditional attitude of Mauritian
farmers. “The psychology in Mauritius in agriculture is still
towards the traditional way of doing things” as mentioned by
Raj Ramnauth during the interview session which tally with
the above mentioned point. That may be one of the reasons of
resistance to change towards technology adoption.
This suggests that a farming zone with an area of four square
kilometres could be created as shown in Figure 2 below. All
necessary facilities would be provided consisting of even the
store and cold rooms where produces could be easily stocked
and stored. Postharvest facilities could be developed to add value to the produces. Products would be made readily available
as when needed.
Family support business
It was also suggested that since all favourable conditions
prevail for moving from sugarcane to vegetables production,
family support businesses should be encouraged.
Moving to cattle, poultry and forestry business activities
It was also well specified that cattle rearing for milk and meat
purposes should be encouraged to boost up morale of planters
since the declination of sugarcane industry. Poultry farming
could be further developed. Forestry developments could also be
Government boost up plans
It was also well noted that Government should be giving tax
rebates to land owners.
Good planters should be encouraged to develop agriculture
by providing them with more skills to be more successful.
Government should work upon effective policies in order to
encourage towards Fresh Market Products.