Add wos sample results library

02-data/intermediate/wos_sample/5eb05297fbc7e50d793d48a6e4d2b6e8-alfaro-serrano-davi/info.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,247 @@
+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,
+
+  technology is defined as ``the relationship between inputs and
+
+  outputs,{''''} and technology adoption as ``the use of new mappings
+
+  between input and outputs and the corresponding allocations of inputs
+
+  that exploit the new mappings.{''''} The review focuses on studies that
+
+  include direct evidence on technology adoption, broadly defined, as an
+
+  outcome. The term intervention refers broadly to sources of exogenous
+
+  variation that shape firms'' incentives to adopt new technologies,
+
+  including public policies, interventions carried out by private
+
+  institutions (such as NGOs), experimental manipulations implemented by
+
+  academic researchers trying to understand technology adoption, and
+
+  natural experiments. Objective The objective of this review is to answer
+
+  the following research questions: To what extent do interventions affect
+
+  technology adoption in firms? To what extent does technology adoption
+
+  affect profits, employment, productivity, and yields? Are these effects
+
+  heterogeneous across sectors, firm size, countries, workers'' skill
+
+  level, or workers'' gender? 1.2.3. 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 (SEs)
+
+  were entered into an Excel spreadsheet along with other related
+
+  information such as sample size, variable type, and duration for flow
+
+  variables. Other information such as authors, year of publication, and
+
+  country and/or region where the study was implemented was also included
+
+  in the spreadsheet. Once the data were entered for each of the selected
+
+  studies, the information on sample size, effect size and SE of the
+
+  effect size was used to compute the standardized effect size for each
+
+  study to make the results comparable across studies. For those studies
+
+  for which relevant data were not reported, we contacted the authors by
+
+  email and incorporated the information they provided. Forest plots were
+
+  then generated and within-study pooled average treatment effects were
+
+  computed by outcome variable. In addition, an assessment of reporting on
+
+  potential biases was conducted including (1) reporting on key aspects of
+
+  selection bias and confounding, (2) reporting on spillovers of
+
+  interventions to comparison groups, (3) reporting of SEs, and (4)
+
+  reporting on Hawthorne effects and the collection of retrospective data.
+
+  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.'
+affiliation: 'Goicoechea, A (Corresponding Author), World Bank Grp, 1818 H St NW,
+  Washington, DC 20433 USA.
+
+  Alfaro-Serrano, David, Cornerstone Res, New York, NY USA.
+
+  Balantrapu, Tanay; Goicoechea, Ana, World Bank Grp, 1818 H St NW, Washington, DC
+  20433 USA.
+
+  Chaurey, Ritam, Johns Hopkins Univ, SAIS, Washington, DC USA.
+
+  Verhoogen, Eric, Columbia Univ, Dept Econ, New York, NY 10027 USA.
+
+  Verhoogen, Eric, Columbia Univ, Sch Int \& Publ Affairs, New York, NY USA.'
+article-number: e1181
+author: Alfaro-Serrano, David and Balantrapu, Tanay and Chaurey, Ritam and Goicoechea,
+  Ana and Verhoogen, Eric
+author-email: agoicoechea@worldbank.org
+author_list:
+- family: Alfaro-Serrano
+  given: David
+- family: Balantrapu
+  given: Tanay
+- family: Chaurey
+  given: Ritam
+- family: Goicoechea
+  given: Ana
+- family: Verhoogen
+  given: Eric
+da: '2023-09-28'
+doi: 10.1002/cl2.1181
+eissn: 1891-1803
+files: []
+journal: CAMPBELL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
+keywords-plus: 'SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA; FEMALE ENTREPRENEURSHIP; TECHNICAL CHANGE; IMPACT;
+
+  BUSINESS; FARMERS; PRODUCTIVITY; INFORMATION; SELECTION; MARKETS'
+language: English
+month: DEC
+number: '4'
+number-of-cited-references: '111'
+papis_id: 783c3aef691a2efcb8c11261b0b3baf2
+ref: Alfaroserrano2021interventionspromote
+researcherid-numbers: Pereira, Fernanda/AID-4926-2022
+tags:
+- review
+times-cited: '0'
+title: 'Interventions to promote technology adoption in firms: A systematic review'
+type: Review
+unique-id: WOS:000731087200003
+usage-count-last-180-days: '2'
+usage-count-since-2013: '6'
+volume: '17'
+web-of-science-categories: Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
+year: '2021'