The impact of agricultural extension : the training and visit system in India

may ('7G THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION: THE TRAINING AND VISIT SYSTEM IN INDIA Gershon Feder and Roger Slade wo centuries ago, Malthus predicted a grim future for man- kind, with population growth outstripping the rise in food production. His projections have proved false because agricul- tural output has grown faster than he expected. It has done so not only because more land has been cultivated, with more irrigation and drainage; technology has also improved. In technical terms, each farmer has a production function that dictates how much output will come from the inputs he uses. While these inputs are subject to his discretion, the production function is affected by many other factors beyond his control. Some are environ- mental. But others can be affected by public investment, even though an individual farmer considers them as given: public irrigation and drainage, for example, and agricultural research organizations. These factors can increase output without requiring extra inputs from the farmer. Of course, such investments are not cheap. In many develop- ing countries, public investment in irrigation is a large part of the government's agricultural budget. As for research, worldwide spend- ing has been estimated at $7.4 billion in 1980. Between 1974 and 1984, the World Bank financed some 300 projects dealing partly or wholly with agricultural research, spending almost $1.5 billion. This paper summarizes the results of a study sponsored by the World Bank, "The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Case Study of the Training and Visit System in Haryana, India" (RPo 672-29). More detailed discussions of these results can be found in other papers by the authors cited in the text. This paper has benefited from the editorial assistance of Joan S. Hazell. Copyright( 1986 by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 139  However, better technology alone may not increase farm productiv- ity. There is often a gap between available knowledge and what farmers actually do. They need to know about the costs and benefits of new technology before they adopt it. The public sector is often involved in spreading the knowledge. What is the rationale for its doing so? Information on new farming technology is often a public good, since the provider of information to one user cannot stop other users from getting it without charge, and the value of the information is not affected by the number of users. Information that is more specialized and specific is less of a public good, so could be provided by private entrepreneurs. Indeed, commercial agents dealing with cer- tain types of information such as pest control may operate alongside a public agency providing more general information (Hall 1977). And they may have an incentive to tell farmers about new technology that is embodied in the supplies they are selling. In general, however, farming information has enough public-good qualities to justify public sector involvement in its dissemination. Farmers obtain most of their information from each other. The time and resources they devote to acquiring it vary considerably. Also, a farmer does not consider the potential benefits to others when he decides how much information to obtain. It follows that, from a social point of view, farmers tend to underinvest in information ac- quisition. The availability of public sources of information tends to lower the cost of acquiring it for all farmers, and thereby increases social welfare if the cost of the public program is not too high (Feder and Slade 1984a). The main public channel for spreading agricultural knowledge is usually the extension service. Public spending on agricultural exten- sion is large. Judd, Boyce, and Evenson (1983) estimate that it totaled $3.5 billion worldwide in 1980. In 1974-84, investment in agricultural extension in projects financed by the World Bank was $2.3 billion. However, many analysts doubt that extension services can bring the big increases in agricultural productivity promised by the growing quantity of new or modified technology emerging from agricultural research institutions. Extension services in developing countries are often criticized for: (a) lack of staff training and incentives and channels for updating agents' knowledge; (b) inefficient organizational structures that pre- vent adequate supervision of field workers; (c) requirements for staff to perform tasks other than spreading information, such as collecting data; (d) staff shortages; (e) absence of organized feedback about farmer problems from fieldworkers to researchers. Accordingly, agencies have been paying more attention to improv- ing the management and efficiency of extension systems. One result has been the Training and Visit (T&v) extension system (described in 140 Research Observer 1, no. 2 (July 1986)  Benor and Baxter 1984). T&V was originally tested in Turkey in the late 1960s. It has been introduced during the past ten years in more than forty developing countries, in many cases as nationwide systems, and often with the assistance of the World Bank. It has been most widely adopted since 1977 in India, replacing the system of multipur- pose village-level workers. With T&V, staff deal exclusively with extension work. They are organized in a single line of command, so at each rank an officer has few enough staff under him to allow effective and personal guidance, supervision, and training. At the bottom of the hierarchy are the village extension workers (VEWS). They usually cover areas containing 700-800 farming families, divided into about eight groups. In each group, about 10 percent are chosen as "contact farmers." The VEW visits each of the eight farmers' groups once every two weeks, on a specified day. These visits mostly take place in the fields of contact farmers, but other farmers are expected to participate. Occasionally, the VEW may organize a large group meeting, but most of his contacts are with small groups or individuals. The fixed schedule of visits helps the VEW's superiors to supervise his work and also encourages interest and confidence among farmers. To be effective, the T&V system aims to focus advice on the main crops grown and the most important farming methods. Simple meth- ods that do not need money are promoted first, so that all farmers can benefit. Contact farmers are expected to adopt (or at least try) recom- mended practices and transmit them to other farmers. Because T&V involves a high ratio of extension workers to farmers, it is relatively expensive. Much research has already been done on T&V (see, for example, Cernea 1981; Howell 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1984; von Blanck- enburg 1982; Jaiswal 1983; Singh 1983; Moore 1984). Their opinions vary. Some observers argue that intensive personal contact between farmers and extension agents is unnecessarily expensive and that good results could be obtained by using written materials and the media. In many countries the mass media supplement direct contacts between farmers and extension workers (Perraton 1983). In some areas, they are the main form of diffusing public information. However, advo- cates of personal contact argue that the media do not give a fast feedback from farmers, nor can they adequately tailor their advice to local circumstances. Other skeptics of T&V argue that it is undesirable to separate advisory work from the supply of inputs. The counterar- gument is that the provision of inputs will tend to dominate the agents' activities; fieldworkers should, however, coordinate their ad- vice with the suppliers of inputs. Other criticisms of T&V are (a) that it is hard to implement in areas of extensive agriculture, because it requires well-organized farmers' groups and frequent personal contact; and (b) that T&V iS biased Gershon Feder and Roger Slade 141  toward wealthier farmers. These arguments are seldom informed by suitable empirical evidence. Few authors, therefore, fail to mention the need for objective empirical information with which the effects of T&V can be assessed. This paper assesses those effects by using farm survey data from India. First, it reviews the sources of data, then goes on to compare the importance of different channels for informing farmers about new or improved farming methods. The next section examines the charac- teristics of contact farmers, and the biases inherent in their selection. The following section analyzes the frequency with which contact and noncontact farmers are reached by extension and some of the factors that determine these frequencies. The paper then looks at the effect of T&V on farmers' knowledge. Subsequently, an econometric estimation of the impact of T&V on farm productivity is undertaken. Conclusions follow a cost-benefit analysis of T&V. Empirical This paper draws on two main sources of data. The first is a series Sources of sample surveys from India, spanning four consecutive crop seasons in two districts in the state of Haryana (Jind and Karnal) served by a T&V extension system, and two crop seasons for Kairana Tehsil (part of Muzaffarnagar district) in the neighboring state of Uttar Pradesh. In Jind and Karnal districts, two random samples, consisting of roughly the same numbers of contact and noncontact farmers, were chosen. The sample from Kairana comprised only noncontact farmers as the T&V system had not yet been introduced there. Respondents were interviewed twice in each season and repeatedly assured that the surveys were unconnected with the extension system or any other government department. Because Jind is much drier than Karnal and Kairana, comparative analysis is mainly confined to the latter two areas. It covers both the rainy and dry growing seasons of 1982-83, for which comparable data are available. The second source of data is monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reports from seven states in India over a number of years. The data are comparable across states because all M&E units use the same sampling design, definitions, and questionnaire (Slade and Feder 1985). The data in this study do not allow conclusive assessment of the relative merits of T&V extension and those methods based on the mass media. Neither can they illustrate the potential of T&V in areas of extensive agriculture, because Indian conditions are different. T&V To assess the various channels of spreading information, it is useful Operations to review how farmers rank them. Table 1 shows that contact farmers consider extension to be their primary source of information. A signi- 142 Research Observer 1, no. 2 (July 1986)  Table 1. Sources of Information forFarmers in Northwest India, by Ranked Preference, 1983 (percent) Karnal District, Haryana, Kairana Tebsil Ranked Contact Noncontact Uttar Pradesh' Source preference farmers farmers (allfarmers) Individual advice First 87 19 2 from VEW Second 1 9 1 Third 1 4 1 Advice from contact First 1 16 1 farmer Second 3 4 0 Third 1 3 0 Advice from other First 9 47 82 farmersb Second 36 33 9 Third 21 10 3 Demonstration/field First 0 0 1 days Second 10 2 28 Third 3 1 8 Agricultural radio First 1 10 9 programs Second 28 27 38 Third 39 34 32 Salesmen and agency First 0 8 3 officials Second 15 17 17 Third 18 21 17 Research personnel First 1 0 0 Second 1 2 0 Third 9 7 0 Journals First 1 0 0 Second 1 3 7 Third 5 7 13 Other First 0 1 1 Second 4 3 1 Third 5 13 26 Note: For each source of information, farmers were asked to say whether they regarded it as a primary, secondary, or tertiary source. a. Karnal District is serviced by T&V extension, Kairana Tehsil by a different and older extension system. b. Other farmers could be contact farmers. Not all contact farmers are known as such to noncontact farmers. Source: Feder and Slade 1985. ficant proportion of other farmers, 19 percent in Karnal, shares that view. However, about three-quarters of the farmers in Karnal, and rather more in Kairana, say that other farmers are their main source of advice. Radio programs tend to be a secondary or tertiary source, probably because farmers prefer to rely on direct and personal con- tacts, who can clarify points and answer additional questions. The minor role played by written materials is compatible with the area's Gershon Feder and Roger Slade 143  Table 2. Relative Importance of Extension Workers and Other Farmers as Sources of Information for Wheat Farmers in Kairana and Karnal, Rabi 1982 Type of farmer and practice Smallfarms Large farms Total Non-T&V farmer Less expensive practices 0.00 0.07 0.04 More expensive practices 0.00 0.16 0.09 T&V noncontactfarmer Less expensive practices 0.20 0.36 0.27 More expensive practices 0.28 0.68 0.47 T&V contact farmer Less expensive practices 3.51 4.27 3.98 More expensive practices 4.43 7.50 5.14 Note: Data are ratios of the number of times a VEW is cited as the main source of informa- tion to the number of times that "other farmers" is cited. Less expensive practices include choice of seed variety, seeding rate, and spacing; more expensive practices include use of phosphate, potash, and zinc, seed treatment against termites and disease, and timing of nitro- gen fertilizer application. Source: Feder, Slade, and Sundaram 1986. low rate of literacy (35 percent). However, even in an area of high literacy (and very thin extension services) in Thailand, farmers used the radio much more than written sources (Hutanuwatr and others 1982). These findings highlight the importance of communication among farmers. They also explain why several extension systems concentrate on a relatively small number of farmers, who are expected to transmit information to the rest. The choice of information source tends to be affected by the complexity or cost of the farming methods being learned. Many farmers regard firsthand or specialized information sources as more accurate and reliable (Feder and Slade 1986, Howell 1984). Table 2 compares the ratio of farmers who have learned com- plex or expensive practices from extension agents (firsthand source) to that of farmers who have learned from other farmers (secondhand source). The message is clear: the easier it is to consult extension agents, the more likely they are to be the source of information. And irrespective of extension availability, the more complex or risky prac- tices tend to be learned more often from extension. When spreading the more complex methods of farming, therefore, agents should try to maximize their direct contact with farmers. Characteristics Contact farmers receive a direct and regular flow of information of Contact from extension agents, so their selection is a matter of considerable Farmers importance. Although their potential for leadership is the main criter- ion, other considerations should be kept in mind. For instance: 144 Research Observer 1, no. 2 (July 1986)  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 community so that their views on new practices will be respected by other farmers (Benor and Harrison 1977, pp. 13, 14). Evidence suggests that there is a large overlap between the qualities of "opinion leaders" and those of "innovators," or fast adopters (Kilvin and others 1971). Traditionally, extension workers have tended to concentrate on the well-to-do farmers, because their efforts were more likely to produce an immediate and visible impact and because wealthier farmers could offer them personal benefits (meals, accom- modation, produce). This bias has often been noted in the literature (Chambers 1976, Cernea 1981, and von Blanckenburg 1982). Some studies have argued that, on efficiency grounds, scarce extension re- Table 3. Factors Affecting the Selection of Contact Farmers Coejficient Jind Karnal Pooled Factor District District sample Farm size .0275 .0339* .0317 (3.471) (3.410) (5.154) Education (years) .0397 .0573' .0453* (1.637) (2.227) (2.593) Dummy variables Ownership of tubewell .0570* .8987- .3956* (3.016) (1.949) (2.250) Membership in village .3416 .4374# .4090' institutions (1.443) (1.524) (2.260) Previous participation 1.042* .8262'