Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36950339›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2021

Interventions to promote technology adoption in firms: A systematic review.

David Alfaro-Serrano, Tanay Balantrapu, Ritam Chaurey, Ana Goicoechea, Eric Verhoogen

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David Alfaro-SerranoCornerstone Research New York New York USA.
Tanay BalantrapuWorld Bank Group Washington District of Columbia USA.
Ritam ChaureySchool of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Johns Hopkins University Washington District of Columbia USA.
Ana GoicoecheaWorld Bank Group Washington District of Columbia USA.
Eric VerhoogenDepartment of Economics and School of International and Public Affairs Columbia University New York New York USA.
World Bank Group · USColumbia University · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The adoption of improved technologies is generally associated with better economic performance and development. Despite its desirable effects, the process of technology adoption can be quite slow and market failures and other frictions may impede adoption. Interventions in market processes may be necessary to promote the adoption of beneficial technologies. This review systematically identifies and summarizes the evidence on the effects of interventions that shape the incentives of firms to adopt new technologies. Following Foster and Rosenzweig, Objective: The objective of this review is to answer the following research questions: 1.To what extent do interventions affect technology adoption in firms?2.To what extent does technology adoption affect profits, employment, productivity, and yields?3.Are these effects heterogeneous across sectors, firm size, countries, workers' skill level, or workers' gender? Selection Criteria: To be included, papers had to meet the inclusion criteria described in detail in Section 3.1 which is grouped into four categories: (1) Participants, (2) Interventions, (3) Methodology, and (4) Outcomes.Regarding participants, our focus was on firms, and we omitted studies at the country or region level. In terms of interventions, we included studies that analyzed a source of exogenous variation in incentives for firms to adopt new technologies and estimated their effects. Thus, we left out studies that only looked at correlates of technology adoption, without a credible strategy to establish causality, and only included studies that used experimental or quasi-experimental methods. Regarding outcomes, papers were included only if they estimated effects of interventions (broadly defined) on technology adoption, although we also considered other firm outcomes as secondary outcomes in studies that reported them. Search Methods: The first step in selecting the studies to be included in the systematic review was to identify a set of candidate papers. This set included both published and unpublished studies. To look for candidate papers, we implemented an electronic search and, in a subsequent step, a manual search.The electronic search involved running a keyword search on the most commonly used databases for published and unpublished academic studies in the broad topic area. The words and their Boolean combinations were carefully chosen (more details in Section 3.2). The selected papers were initially screened on title and abstract. If papers passed this screen, they were screened on full text. Those studies that met the stated criteria were then selected for analysis.The manual search component involved asking for references from experts and searching references cited by papers selected through the electronic search. These additional papers were screened based on title and abstract and the remaining were screened on full text. If they met the criteria they were added to the list of selected studies. Data Collection and Analysis: For the selected studies, the relevant estimates of effects and their associated standard errors ( Results: The electronic and manual searches resulted in 42,462 candidate papers. Of these, 80 studies were ultimately selected for the review after screenings to apply the selection criteria. Relevant data were extracted for analysis from these 80 studies. Overall, 1108 regression coefficients across various interventions and outcomes were included in the analysis, representing a total of 4,762,755 firms. Even though the search methods included both high-income and developing countries, only 1 of the 80 studies included in the analysis was in a high-income country, while the remaining 79 were in developing countries.We discuss the results in two parts, looking at firms in manufacturing and services separately from firms (i.e., farms) in agriculture. In each case, we consider both technology adoption and other firm outcomes. Authors' Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest that some interventions led to positive impacts on technology adoption among firms across manufacturing, services, and agriculture sectors, but given the wide variation in the time periods, contexts, and study methodologies, the results are hard to generalize. The effects of these interventions on other firm performance measures such as farm yields, firm profits, productivity, and employment were mixed.Policy-makers must be careful in interpreting these results as a given intervention may not work equally well across contexts and may need to be adjusted to each specific regional context. There is great need for more research on the barriers to technology adoption by firms in developing countries and interventions that may help alleviate these obstacles. One major implication for researchers from our review is that there is a need to carefully measure technology adoption.

Identifiers

PMID36950339
PMCPMC8988818
OpenAlexW3213870065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.