Selecting contact farmers for agricultural extension : the training and visit system in Haryana, India

SELECTING CONTACT FARMERS FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION: THE TRAINING AND VISIT SYSTEM IN HARYANA, INDIA by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade World Bank August 1982 The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the view of the World Bank or its affiliated institutions. SELECTING CONTACT FARMERS FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSIONt THE TRAINING AND VISIT SYSTEM IN RARYANA, INDIA I. Introduction With dwindling land and water resources in many less developed countries, there is an increasing recognition that the major potential for increasing agricultural output and improving the lot of the rural popula- tion lies in increasing the productivity of existing land and water resources. A significant gap exists in many countries between known and feasible agricultural technologies, and what is actually practiced by the majority of farmers. Attempts to close this gap have included programs that focus primarily on the delivery of physical inputs--fertilizer, water, seeds--as well as those aimed at improving farming practices. It has been asserted by some that even when equipment and material-dependent techniques are excluded, there are still substantial gains to be realized if cultivation practices are improved in accordance with the results of specific agro-climatic and agronomic research. A major channel for the dissemination of information on known and feasible technologies is the agricultural extension system. Extension agents are.an important link between agricultural research institutions and the ultimate clients of agricultural knowhow, the farmers. Accord- ingly, improving the efficiency and quality of extension services is considered by many to be an indispensable element in any agricultural development strategy. -2- Agricultural extension services with various forms of organization are not new phenomena in less developed countries. These organizations have a mixed record of effectiveness and some of the major problems are well known. 1/ A few examples will suffice. Inadequate budgetary alloca- tions and a shortage of properly trained staff lead to a high ratio of farmers to extension agents and to low effectiveness of extension efforts. Uncoordinated dissemination of information by different organizations may be another factor. In many areas extension agents are expected to perform multifarious duties, thus reducing the time available for pedagogic activity. Another common problem is the lack of effective means for the routine updating of agents' agricultural knowledge and still another, the haphazard nature of agents' contact with farmers. The present paper deals with some aspects of the interaction* between extension agents and farmers within a specific system of extension commonly referred to as the Training and Visit (T&V) method. This system has been adopted in mar.y less developed countries, often with the support of the World Bank, and it incorporates several features designed to enhance extension effectiveness. One particular aspect of this system is the selection of individual farmers to act as regular contact men with extension workers. The analysis in this paper focuses on the selection of these farmers and on the extent of their interaction with agents. 1/ See Sinha (1972)), Sinha, et al. (1976), Chambers (1976) and Howell (1982). -3- The paper has the following structure. The next two sections describe the T&V system and the area of the study respectively. An analysis of the characteristics and selection of contact farmers and their exposure to extension is followed by a discussion of the overall coverage achieved by extension visits. The last section provides a summary and some conclusions. II. The Training and Visit Extension System The T&V extension system was designed to overcome some of the major problems afflicting earlier forms of extension organization. Its structure and objectives are fully elaborated in Benor and Harrison (1977), 1/ and are briefly summarized below. Under the T&V system the extension organization deals exclusively with extension work eschewing all other activities dealing, for example, with agricultural research or input supply. Personnel are organized in a unique line of command, such that each officer at each hierarchial level has a sufficiently small number of staff under him to allow him to provide effective and personal guidance, supervision and training. At the bottom of the hierarchy are village level extension agents, who cover areas containing 700-800 farming families, divided in to about eight groups. In each group, about 10% of the farmers are selected as "contact farmers" and 1/ See also Cernea (1981), von Blanckenburg (1982) and Howell (1982) -4- their names are recorded at local extension headquarters. The extension agent visits each of the eight farmers' groups once a fortnight, on a prespecified and fixed date. These visits mostly take place in the fields of contact farmers, but other farmers are expected to participate. During the visit, the agent passes on information regarding improved practices which are relevant at that particular stage in the season. The fixed schedule of visits is advantageous both for the effective supervision of agents' activities by their superiors and for maintaining farmers' inter- est and confidence in the extension agent. When operating properly the T&V system, in order to have a sig- nificant impact, focusses advice on the main crops grown and on the most important practices. Simple, non-cash requiring practices are promoted first, so that all classes of farmers are able to benefit. Contact farmers are expected to adopt recommended practices (or at least try them out) and transmit them to other farmers. Accordingly, the selection of contact farmers should not be arbitrary, as they are an important link between the source of knowledge and the farming community as a whole. Agents participate in regular two-weekly training sessions con- ducted by subject matter specialists (who are part of the extension hierarchy), where the important practices to be transmitted in the follow- ing two week period are discussed and explained. These sessions also provide an opportunity for agents to provide feedback from farmers to -5- subject matter specialists and ultimately applied research organizations, with which these specialists have close links. III. The Study Area The present analysis is based on data from a recent sample survey of 981 farmers in two districts (Jind and Karnal) of the state of Haryana, India. This is one of the relatively more advanced agricultural regions in India and benefitted substantially from the green revolution of the late sixties and seventies. The Training and Visit extension system was initiated in Haryana in 1979 and by August 1981 (two months prior to the survey) about 95% of village level extension agents and 80% of subject matter specialists were in position. However, about 25% of the positions for officers directly in charge of supervising and guiding village level agents have been vacant since project inception, thus diminishing the effectiveness of supervision and the quality of the extensive lower level coverage. Additionally, District Technical Committees, Zonal Workshops and the State Technical Committee have either not been convened or have not functioned properly over the same period. These institutions were expected to play an important role in generating locally-specific and timely recommendations and useful adaptive research work. The districts covered by the study are geographically adjacent, but there are some agroclimatic differences between them. Jind district, with average annual rainfall of 592 mm, is dryer than Karnal district (803 -6- mm), and has less irrigation facilities (58% of net cropped area irrigated. compared with 74% in Karnal). Karnal is somewhat larger in area (3,766 square km versus 3,224 for Jind) and has a larger population (about one million compared to 750,000 in Jind). The differences in population density are not substantial (267 persons per square km in Karnal versus 233 in Jind). Random samples of contact and non-contact farmers were selected. While contact farmers constitute approximately 10% of the farming com- munity, samples of similar size were chosen (436 contact farmers and 545 non-contact farmers) in order to generate reliable statistics for each group. IV. Characteristics of Contact Farmers As stated in Section II, one of the basic principles of the T&V extension method is the reliance on the "Two-Step-Flow" of communications [(Rogers (1962, p. 219)] whereby new ideas and innovations spread first to opinion leaders, and from them to their followers. Contact farmers are expected to act as opinion leaders. They receive new and timely agricul- tural information through the regular two weekly visits of extension agents. This information is then communicated to other farmers, either through the initiative of the contact farmers, or in response to enquiries from other farmers who may have observed the new practices applied by the contact farmers. -7- The T&V method stresses that extension agents should not exclude non-contact farmers from direct interaction with them. Such farmers should be made aware of the extension agents' regular visits to the group (or the village) and of their freedom to attend. They should be encouraged to attend visits by extension agents in contact farmers' fields, and their queries should be answered. I/ Indeed (see section V), non-contact farmers do report significant direct exposure to extension..2/ Contact farmers receive a continuous and regular flow of informa- tion from extension agents, and it is clear that their selection is a matter of considerable importance. While their potential for opinion leadership on matters of crop husbandry is the key criterion, there are additional considerations which should be kept in mind. For instance, Benor and Harrison (1977, pp. 13, 14) state: "Contact farmers must be willing to try out practices recommended by the extension workers and be prepared to have other farmers visit their fields. But they should not be the community's more progressive farmers who are usually regarded as exceptional and their neighbors tend not to follow them. On the other hand, very weak farmers tend to be slow in adopting new methods. Further- more, the contact farmers must be of good standing in their com- munity so that their views on new practices will be respected by other farmers." 1/ D. Benor, personal communication. 2/ Contrary to the frequently expressed view that the contact farmer system operates at the expense of the more disadvantaged: see for example, Howell (1982) p.12. -8- Evidence suggests that there is a considerable overlap between the, attributes which characterize individuals who tend to be opinion leaders and the characteristics of innovators, or fast adopters [Kivlin, et al., 1971, pp. 155-160]. If, however, the contact farmers are mostly wealthy individuals with greater resources than other farmers, the diffusion of innovations may be hampered. Smaller and poorer farmers may not be con- vinced that the new practices are better, perceiving a better performance by contact farmers to be a result of their advantageous resource position. In practice, overcoming this problem may prove difficult. Traditionally, extension agents have tended to focus attention on the well-to-do farmers, because this ensured an immediate and visible impact and because wealthier farmers could offer them personal rewards (meals, accommodations, produce). This bias haL. been frequently noted in the literature [von Blanckenburg (1982, p. 8), Cernea (1981, p. 233), Chambers (1975, p. 7)]. Moreover, Welch (1979) has argued that efficiency considerations require that scarce extension resources should be used to achieve maximum impact, implying a bias toward larger, 4nd usually richer, farmers. Thus, there is a tradeoff between choosing those farmers who will adopt innovations most speedily and those who are somewhat less suitable (from the point of view of potential for fast adoption), but whose resource position is more typical of the majoriLy of farmers and hence, their behavior more readily imitated. A further complication is introduced by the fact that the exten- sion agent is sometimes obliged to nominate influential individuals as -9- contact farmers even if they are not suitable as communicators of innova- tions. This is prompted by the need to avoid hostility on the part of such individuals, who may make extension work dificult to carry out. I/ The discussion above highlights some of the considerations involved in selecting'contact farmers. It is not, therefore, surprising (see below) that in some respects contact farmers as a group are repre- sentaLive of the farming community as a whole, while in other ways they are significantly different. 2/ The area of land owned is an indicator of wealth, which, in turn, is related to both opinion leadership and the propensity to adopt innova- tions [Kivlin, et. al,, (1971), p. 160]. The data, as presented in Table 1, indicate clearly that contact farmers (who comprise approximately 10% of the population) have a higher proportion of larger land owners than the rest of the population. Such a pattern has been observed elsewhere in India 3/ but as indicated above, this element in the set of trade-offs is 1/ For instance, in some places in India, a large land owner is formally announced as a contact farmer even though he is not directly involved in cultivation. Similarly, we have been informd of instances in Sri Lanka where the village teacher (who is not a farmer) is considered a contact farmer. See also evidence cited in Dubey (1962). 2/ The classification of farmers as either "contact" or "non-contact" was done on the basis of both extension agents' written records and farmers' statements. In 93% of the cases, the results were identical. For the rest, the farmers' declared status was used. 3/ World Bank, AGR Technical Note No. 5, pp. 17, 18 states: "The selec- tion of represenative contact farmers has often proved difficult resulting in an unwarranted proportion of large and progressive farmers facing very different problems from those of the majority". -10- complex and we have not attempted to determine whether the bias in favor of larger farmers observed in our sample is counter-productive. However, the proportion of very small farmers (less than 5 acres of owned land) in the contact group is not negligible. Table 1 DISTRIBUTION OF CONTACT AND NON-CONTACT FARMERS BY SIZE OF OWNED HOLDING Contact Non-Contact Size Class Farmers Farmers Acres of Owned Land (N=436) (N-545) ------------( %-------------- Less than 5.0 14 27 5.0 - 9.9 22 30 10.0 -19.9 37 29 20.0 plus 27 14 Another characteristic of contact farmers, which is of obvious relevance in the Indian context, is caste. Traditionally, leadership in Indian villages has been monopolized by higher castes [Kivlin, et. al., (1971), p. 73]. If this pattern is repeated in the choice of contact farmers it may hamper communications between contact and non-contact farmers. Table 2 presents the caste composition of both groups of farmers, and shows that there is practically no difference between contact and non-contact farmers. -11- Table 2 CASTE COMPOSITION OF CONTACT AND NON-CONTACT FARMER GROUPS Contact Non-Contact Farmers Farmers Caste (N=436) (N=545) ------------(%)------------ Brahmin 7 8 Rajput 6 6 Jat 58 55 Sikh 11 10 Harijan 1 2 Others 17 19 Additional characteristics of contact farmers are described in Table 3, which enumerates several indicators relevant to farmers' socioeconomic status and their potential as opinion leaders and fast adopters. It has been argued, for instance, that education is an important factor in explaining willingness to adopt innovations [Jamison and Lau, (1982), p. 195]. Our data confirm that the contact farmer group is characterized by higher education levels compared to the rest of the population. The difference is statistically significant, and is also observed even when contact and non-contact farmers are compared across size of holding. 1/ 1/ However, the difference is statistically significant only for the larger farmer class (see Table 3). -12- Membership in village institutions is an indicator of status, and is hypothesized to characterize innovativeness [Lionberger (1960), pp. 101-102]. Status is clearly related to wealth, and it is not surprising that the percentage of contact farmer who are members of village institu- tions is almost double that of the rest of the population. This also holds across farm s4ze classes, although the difference for larger farmers is not statistically significant. Participation in a short-term agricultural training courses (a service provided by the Haryana Agricultural University ) is an additional indicator of agricultural knowledge and, therefore, the farmers potential for opinion-leadership on agricultural matters. It may also be charac- teristic of innovativeness, suggesting that the farmer is willing to make extra effort to gain new knowledge. The data show that a significantly higher proportion of contact farmers have undertaken such training, in comparison to non-contact farmers. -13- Table 3 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTACT AND NON-CONTACT FARMERS Contact Farmers Non-contact Farmers Smaller Larger Smaller Larger farmers a/ farmers b/ All farmers a/ farmers b/ All ---------------Z----------(%)------------------------------ No formal education 70 56 61 74 69 72 Membership in village Institutions 20 26 24 9 19 13 Participation in short- term agricultural training 6 13 11 5 3 4 Regular off-farm emp- loyment by any house- hold member 21 24 23 23 19 21 More than one-third of income from off-farm sources 7 6 6 7 5 6 a/ Less than 10 acres owned. b/ Ten or more acres owned. Regular off-farm employment by any member of the household is, ceteris paribus, a possible indicator of a more favorable resource posi- tion. The income arising from such employment may provide working capital for the farm and reduce the risk of extreme hardship should crops fail. Households with this attribute may therefore be hypothesized to be more receptive to innovations, especially those where some cash is required. However, the favorable situation of such farmers (especially in cases where most of the family's income is earned outside the farm) may reduce -14- their effectiveness in influencing the adoption decisions of other farmers, since their successful experience may be attributed to their general prosperity rather than to their adoption of improved practices. The data in Table 3 record the prevalance of regular off-farm employment by members of contact and non-contact farmer households as well as the proportions deriving more than a third of their income from off-farm sources. There are no significant differences betwen contact farmers and other farmers with respect to these indicators. Access to Irrigation is an important factor affecting farmers' crop and technology choices. If, as a group, contact farmers are substan- tially different from other farmers with respect to this factor, their pedagogic role may be diminished. As there are considerable differences between irrigation infrastructure in Karnal and Jind, data are presented separately for each district. The statistics in Table 4 suggest that in general, contact and non-contact farmers do not have differential access to irrigation. This is probably conducive to the dissemination of infor- mation. However, contact farmers do have some qualitative advantages because ownership of tubewells is more prevalent among them (see last row of Table 4). Access to a tubewell allows the farmer to better control the timing of irrigation. Yield variability is reduced and risks diminished. Farmers with access to tubewells may, therefore, be more receptive to innovations and thus suitable for selection as contact farmers. On the other ha-id, if only a small fraction of the population owns tubewells, the situation of contact farmers with tubewells may be viewed by other farmers '-15- as a-typical, and diffusion of innovations may be adversely affected. Since in Karnal district tubewells are common, the selection of contact farmers appears appropriate. But in Jind district the percentage of contact farmers with access to tubewells substantially exceeds that of other farmers, hence these contact farmers may be less effective com- municators of innovations. Table 4 ACCESS TO IRRIGATION BY CONTACT AND NON-CONTACT FAMERS _arnalDistrict - Jind District Contact Non-Contact Contact Non-Contact Farmers Farmers Farmers Farmers (N=175) (N=199) (N=260) (N-346" Less 'than 40% of crop- ped land irrigated 1 2 24 27 40-70% land irrigated 7 9 25 22 More than 70% irrigated 92 89 51 51 Farmer owns tubewell 95 84 41 25 The discussion above considered each characteristic of contact farmers separately from their other socioeconomic attributes (except for some classifications by farm size). While the correlations between the different variables are quite low (see appendix), it is appropriate to consider their relevance to the selection of contact farmers within a framework where all elements enter simultaneously. Multiple regression is not an appropriate methodology in the present case because the dependent -16- variable is dichotomous (contact or non-contact), thus violating the normality assumption required for statistical tests. We have, therefore chosen to use logit analysis, which is well suited to problems involving qualitative response variabls (McFadden, 1973). The Logit model posits that the probability of a farmer being selected as a contact farmer is a function of the socioeconomic explanatory variables with the following specific formulation: (1) P(C) = eS'x /[1+e$'x where P(C) = probability of being selected as contact farmer e = the exponential operator x = a vector of explanatory variables S = a vector of parameters The probabilities P(C) are not observable. The estimation proce- dure requires that all observations of contact farmers are assigned a probability of 1 while the other observations are assigned probability zero. The estimated parameters () are asymptotically normally dis- tributed, and tests of statistical significance can be performed. In order to avoid bias which may result from the differences in irrigation infrastructure in the two districts covered by the study, separate estimates were obtained for each district and are reported in -17- columns 2 and 3 of Table 5. The results corroborate the conclusions of the earlier discussion, as all the indicators which were previously found to differ among contact and non-contact farmers have a significant coeffi- cient with the expected sign. The variables which seemed to be identi- cally distributed over the contact and non-contact farmer samples (i.e., percent of land irrigated and regular off-farm employment of family mem- bers) have coefficients which are not significantly different from zero. The coefficients are similar across districts, with the exception of the dummy variable for ownership of a tubewell. The likelihood ratio statis- tic for each estimated equation has a X2 distribution, and it can be 2 shown that the estimated equation is a relevant model since the critical X value for a 5% test is 14.07. Reestimating the mod?1 but omitting the non-significant indicators does not change the parameters or their significance appreciably (columns 4 and 5 of Table 5). Moreover, since the extent of irrigation does not appear to be a significant factor, and given the similarity of coeffi- cients across districts, the model can be estimated utilizing a pooled sample. The results (see column 6 in Table 5) indicate that all the variables suggested by the district level estimates are significant at the 95% confidence level. Parameter values are only slightly affected by the pooling of observations, except for the copfficient for tubewell owner- ship. - 18 - Table 5: LOGIT ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE SELECTION PROBABILITIES OF CONTACT FARMERS Variable Coefficient Jind Karnal Jind Karnal Pooled District District District District Sample (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) Farm size .0257* .0257* .0254* .0265* .0277* (3.220).af (2.696) (3.202) (2.790) (4.589) (2) Education (years) .0388** .0543* .0374** .0508* .0409* (1.596) (2.113) (1.547) (2.003) (2.362) (3) % Land under -.3056 -.6328 irrigation (1.108) (.853) Dummy Variables (4) Ownership of tubewell .6229* 1.045* .564* .946* .4239* (3.184) (2.318) (3.012) (2.176) (3.030) (5) Membership in .3761** .4747* .3837** .4960* .4534* village (1.598) (1.676) (1.635) (1.777) (2.546) institution (6) Previous partici- 1.024* .8685* .9935* .8660* .8336* pation in Agric. (2.113) (2.336) (2.066) (2.364) (2.931) training (7) Regular off-farm .0305 .2213 employment2/ (.1451) (.8136) Constant -.7944* -1.263* -.9767* -1.712* -1.063 (3.625) (1.802) (6.762) (4.138) (8.571) Likelihood ratio statistic 60.57 44.67 59.31 43.41 97.18 No. of observa- tions 607 374 607 374 981 a/ Numbers in parentheses are asymptotic "t" values. b/ Regular off-farm employment by any family member. * significant at a 5% (one tailed) level of significance. ** significant at a 7% (one tailed) level of significance. -19- V. Coverage of Extensi6n Visits As explaind in Section II, under the T&V extension system agents make a regular two weekly visit to each of the farmers' groups assigned to them. They visit the contact farmers, but other interested farmers attend as well. The day of the visit is fixed throughout the year, and should be known to all farmers. The regularity of these visits is important for the effectiveness of the extension system. Farmers who are assured of con- tinuous and regular contact with extension may be expected to demonstrate increased receptiveness to new practices. Uncertainties and doubts may be diminished by the prospect of future opportunities to discuss problems and queries with the agent. The continuity of interaction with extension also tends to strengthen farmers' confidence in the agent, provided, of course, that his advice is generally useful. If, however, visits are irregular ard unpredictable, farmers may rapidly lose interest and will not make efforts to maintain their contact with extension. Visits to contact farmers are to a large extent initiated by the extension agent but they require an interest and a willingnes to listen on the part of the farmer. The situation is reversed in the case of non-contact farmers. Whilst the agent should make sure that knowledge about his visits to the village is widespread, and he is expected to encourage other farmers to be present when he visits contact farmers, it is left mostly to the non-contact farmers to take the initiative and -20- participate in the agents visits to the fields of contact farmers, or to approach the agent with queries. The analysis in this section focuses on extension visits as reported by both contact and non-contact farmers. The primary hypotheses are that contact farmers will report a much higher incidence of contact with extension and that the pattern of their contact will be more regular than that reported by non-contact farmers. Table 6 records the incidence of extension visits during the four weeks preceding the interview. Recall that within such a period, contact farmers are supposed to receive two visits. 1/ Coverage is not expected to be perfect for a variety of reasons which may be termed "friction". 1/ Some contact farmers may have reported only one visit because the interview took place just before the second visit. -21- tabie 6 NUMBER of VISITS TO FAPJYIs BY ETENSION Contact Farmers Contact Farmers Owned Land Sample No. of Visits Sample No. of Visits (acres_ size 0 1 2+7 siz 0 1 2+ 0 - 4.9 41 32 22 46 87 83 9 8 5.0 - 9.9 53 28 17 55 108 78 12 10 10.0 - 19.9 104 16 9 75 104 73 15 12 20.0 - plus 63 21 11 68 47 66 17 17 All 261 22 13 65 346 76 13 11 KARNAL 0 - 4.9 21 19 29 52 60 53 30 17 5.0 - 9.9 42 24 14 62 54 63 20 17 10.0 - 19.9 56 14 20 66 55 55 20 25 20.0 - plus 56 20 18 62 30 50 40' 10 All 175 19 19 62 199 56 26 18 Some agents may miss visits owing to illness or leave; similarly, some farmers may miss visits as a result of personal circumstances. The data classified by district, reveal that approximatey 80% of the contact farmers were visited at least once during reference period and about two-thirds received two or more visits. These data do not, in general, support the hypothesis that there is significant bias in favor of visits to contact farmers with large farms. When the data are pooled across districts, however, this size bias is marginally significant ("t" ratio 1.58). Moreover, the correlation between farm size and the incidence of -22- visits is negligible (-.005 for contact farmers and .10 for non-contact farmers) and does not support the farm size bias hypothesis. As expected, non-contact farmers report a substantially (and statistically significant) lower rate of direct interaction with exten- sion. But it is quite remarkable that 44% of the nop-contact farmers in Karnal district have had, during the reference period, at least one direct contact with extension. The rate of direct exposure is much lower in Jind district (24%) but is not negligible. The reasons for the differences between the two districts cannot be analysed with the available data. Analysis of possible farm-size bias in the incidence of visits to non-contact farmers based on a comparison of proportions does not yield statistically significant results. Similar results to those reported above were obtaind when the analysis was replicated using data for the whole agricultural season, but excluding the month before the interview. The majority (about 70%) of contact farmers who received at least one visit during the reference period reported that the visit always took place on the same day of the week. 1/ A comparison of the responses across farm size classes (see Table 7) does not reveal a significant difference between larger and smaller farmers. This is a positive and important 1/ It should be borne in mind, however, that on occasion the agent con- ducts visits on weekends to make up for missed visit days. Similarly, if the agent's headquarters is located in the village, farmers may see him on days other than the visit day, t'2hough these encounters do not constitute formal visits. -23- finding as regular visits are, as argued above, essential for effective T&V extension work. REGULARITY OF EXTENSION VISITS TO CONTACT AND NON-CONTACT FARM4ERS ContactFarmers^ Contact Farmers Acres of Owned Sample Reporting Sample Reporting Land size regular visit size regular visit (%) (%) Less than 10 114 62 86 26 10 Plus 228 72 84 29 All 342 69 170 27 As hypothesized non-conact farmers in both districts report a much higher incidence of irregularity in visit dates (about 73% of those who had any visit in the reference period). This may reflect in part their lack of knowledge regarding availability of regular extension visits in the village as well as the actual irregularities in visit schedules which can be inferred from the responses of contact farmers. As in the case of contact farmers, there is no significant evidence of farm size related bias in the reported incidence of these less regular visits. -24- This paper has focussed on two important aspects of the "training and visit" extension method, namely, the selection of contact farmers and the coverage of extension visits. For the particular region covered by the present study, the analysis shows that contact farmers manifest several characteristics which are commonly hypothesized to indicate the propensity to lead opinion and a potential receptiveness to innovations. Such attributes are essential if contact farmers are to convey agricultural information to the majority of farmers. It is inevitable, however, that contact farmers, as our results show, will not be representative of the farming community in many respects. Thus farmers who are wealthier, more educated and of higher status than the majority are more frequently selected as contact farmers. But in other respects which may be important for the ability to communi- cate and to induce immitation (e.g., caste and access to irrigation), contact farmers are fairly representative of the general population. It would seem therefore that in the area studied, contact farmer selection was undertaken in a manner generally conducive to the effective dissemina- tion of information. The effectiveness of the T&V system is heavily dependent on the regularity with which extension agents undertake their visits to contact farmers. Our results show that apart from normal frictional effects -25- agents appear to visit contact farmers with reasonable regularily and also. achieve a surprising degree of direct interaction with non-contact farmers. Predictably, such interaction is much less regular than that with contact farmers. The above conclusions reflect a broadly satisfactory picture of the way in which two aspects of the T&V system operate but further research is required on features such as the effectiveness and reliability of agent training, the relevance of advice offered and the degree to which it is adopted, before judgements can be made on the effectiveness of the T&V system. as a whole. CORRELATION MATRIX OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS Ownership Membership Previous Regular Farm % land of in village agric. off-farm size Education Irrigated Tubewells institutions training employment Education .135 % Land irrigated .084 .152 Ownership of tubewell .159 .202 .444 Membership in village institutions .127 .150 .053 .151 Previous agric. training .096 .147 .104 .073 .072 Regular off- farm employment .020 .026 .016 0 .063 .051 Contact/ non-contact .198 .144 .037 .164 .138 .132 .025 - 27 - REFERENCES Benor, Daniel and James 0. Harrison, Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System, Washington, D. C., World Bank, 1977. von Blanckenburg, Peter, "The Training and Visit System in Agricultural Extension: A Review of First Experiences," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, vol. 21, no. 1, January/March 1982, pp. 6-25. Cerhea, Michael, "Sociological Dimensions of Extension Organization: The Introduction of the T&V System in India," in Extension Education and Rural Development, Vol. 2: International Experience in Strategies for Planned Change, edited by Bruce R. Crouch and Shankarian Chamala (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1981) pp. 221-235. Chambers, Robert, "Two Frontiers in Rural Management: Agricultural Extension and Managing the Exploitation of Communal Natural Resources," Institute of Development Studies Communications Series, No. 113, 1976. Dubey, Sutton and Gallup, Village Level Workers: Their Work and Result .Demonstrations (National Institute of Community Development, Government of India - Manager of Publications. Delhi, 1962). Howell, John "Managing Agricultural Extension: The T and V System in Practice," Overseas Development Institute (London), Agricultural Administration Unit Discussion Paper No. 8, May 1982. Jamison, Dean and Lawrence Lau, Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency (Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 1982). Kivlin, Joseph, Frederick Fliegel, Prodipto Roy and Lalit Sen, Innovation in Rural India (Bowling Green State University Press: Bowling Green, Ohio: 1971). Lionberger, H. F., Adoption of New Ideas and Practices (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1960). McFadden, Daniel, "Conditional Logit Analysis and Qualitative Choice Behaviour," in P. Zarembku (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics (New York: Academic Press 1973) pp. 105-142. Rogers, Everrt M. Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962). Sinha, P.R.K., T.K. Chakravaraty and H.P.S. Arya, Village level Workers: A Study of Factors Influencing their Performance (National Institute of Community Development, Hyderabad, 1976. Welch, Finis "The Role of Investments in Human Capital in Agriculture," in Theodore W. Schultz (ed.) Distortion of Agricultural Incentives Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), pp. 259-289. World Bank, Agricultural Extension in India, Agricultural Technical Note No. 5, South Asia Projects Department, August 1981.