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

DISCUSSION PAPER Report No.: ARU 46 The impact of Agricultural Extension The Training and Visit System in india by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade Research Unit Agriculture and Rural. Development Department Operational Policy Staff World Bank June 1985 The views presented here are those of the author(s), and they should not be interpreted as reflecting those of the World Bank, The authors are staff members of the World Bank. However, the World Bank does not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein which are those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or to its affiliated organizations. The iindings, interpretations, and conclusions are the results of research supported in part by the Bank; they do not necessarily represent official policy of the Bank. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this document are solely for the convenience of the reader and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank or its affiliates concerning the legal status of any country, territory, area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of itis boundaries, or national affiliation. /usrl5/aspdr/t'arloki/nd.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION: THE TRAINING AND VISIT SYSTEM IN INDIA 1/ by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade 1. Introduction Two centuries ago, Malthus published his gloomy predictions for the future of mankind based on his assessment of the limited potential for growth in food production relative to population growth. His projections have proven false because the growth of agricultural output has been faster than Malthus expected. This growth has been due not only to more land being cultivated and the expansion of irrigation and drainage facilities, but also to the spread of new or improved technology. Better technology has allowed the production of more output per unit of land, or the production of the same output with less variable inputs such as fertilizers. However, better tech- nology alone may not increase farm productivity. In the short-run, there is often a gap between available knowledge and typical farmer practices. The new knowledge must be spread among farmers before the adoption of the new technology, or parts of it, can take place. What then is the rationale for public sector involvement in spreading such knowledge? 1/ This paper summarizes the results of a World Bank sponsored study entitled "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. /usrI-Y/aspdr/tarioki/Iind.agriexc/text/b-2/-8I/rev:wpu:tdas -2- When farmers first become aware of new technology, they tend to have inaccurate perceptions regarding its costs and benefits simply because of limited information. Clearly, agricultural output and farmer incomes will be greater if farmers base their technology and resource decisions on accurate information regarding benefits. However, information on new technology in the agricultural sector is often a public good, since the provider of infor- mation to one user cannot exclude other users from obtaining the information without charge, and the value of the information is noc affected by the number of users. Information which is more specialized and farmer, or loca- tion, specific is less of a public good, and may thus be provided by private entrepreneurs. Indeed, commercial agents specializing in certain types of information such as pest control may operate side-by-side with a public sector agency spreading more generalized information [Hall 19771. Moreover, where the new technology is embodied in the proper use of new or improved inputs which are commercially marketed, input suppliers may have an incentive to provide information regarding the use of these inputs (or regarding new crops making use of them), since the spread of information will tend to increase sales. Nevertheless, the public good qualities of information provide some justification for public sector intervention in spreading information. It is estimated that in 1970, worldwide expenditure on public extension services totaled US$3.5 billion [Judd et aL 19831. Most farmers obtain information mainly from other farmers. The amount of time and resources farmers devote to acquiring information varies. Also, the potential benefits to others are not considered when a farmer /usrl5/aspdr/arloki!ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -3- decides how much information he must acquire. Since it is often-difficult and costly for farmers to obtain all the information they need about a new technology, this information might be better provided by a public agency. The availability of publicly sponsored sources of agricultural information tends to Lower the cost of acquiring information for all farmers, and thereby increases social welfare if the cost o2 the public program is not too high [Feder and Slade 1985a]. The main channel for spreading publicly sponsored agricultural knowledge is usually the extension service. Agricultural extension has long been the handmaiden of agriculturaL research and usually a poor one. To some extent this has been due to the widespread Lack of conviction regarding the ability of extension to bring about the sharp increases in agricultural productivity heralded by the growing quantity of new or modified technology emerging from agricultural research institutions. Extension services in less developed countries are frequently criticized for: (i) lack of staff training and incentives, and channels for updating agents' knowledge; (ii) inefficient organizational structures which prevent adequate supervision of field workers; (iii) staff performing tasks other than spreading information, such as data collection; (iv) insufficient manpower to effectively reach reasonable numbers of farmers; (v) a'sence of organized feedback about farmer problems from field workers to researchers. Accordingly, increasing attention has been given in recent years to ways of improving the management and efficiency of extension syscems. One f us ra I JideZPULtI L u-L- O I/lIQ-.aZrle.CL/ CeXTi- --i Irev.iwpu.a5 -4- result has been the emergence of the Training and Visit (T&V) Extension System which was originally tested in Turkey in the late 1960s. This system which is comprehensively described in Benor and Baxter [19841 is being intro- duced in a number of developing countries, often with the assistance of the World Bank. It has been most widely adopted since 1977 in India where it has progressively replaced the older system of multipurpose village- Level workers (VLWs). The T&V extension system is designed to overcome some of the major problems afflicting earlier forms of extension organization. Under the system, extension staff deal exclusively with extension work, eschewing all other activities (for example, direct involvement with input supply). Personnel are organized in a single line of command, such that each officer at each hierarchical 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 extension workers (VEWs), who cover areas typically containing 700-800 farming families, divided into about eight groups. In each group, about 10 percent of the farmers are selected as "contact farmers" and their names are recorded at local extension headquarters. The extension worker visits each of the e'ght farmers' groups once every two weeks, on a prespecified and fixed day. These visits mostly take place in the fields of contact farmers, but other farmers are expected to participate. -5- During. the visit, the VEW passes on: information regarding improved practices which are relevant to the current stage of the season. Occasion- ally, the extension worker may organize a large group meeting, but most farmer-extension contacts take place in small groups or individually. The fixed schedule of visits is advantageous both for the effective supervision of agents' activities by their superiors and for maincaining farmers' interest and confidence in the extension agent. In order to have a significant impact, the T&V system, when operating properly, focuses 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 co adopt recommended practices (or at least try them out) and transmit them to other farmers. Accordingly, the selection of contact farmers is not arbitrary, as they are an important link between the primary source of knowledge and the farming community as a whole. While the structure of T&V is designed to address the traditional weaknessds of extension systems, it is s4gnificantly more expensive, being based on a low ratio of extension personnel to farmers. Its introduction has aroused widespread interest and spawned a growing body of literature; see for example, rCernea 1981], [Howell 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1984], [von Blankenburg 1982], [Jaiswal 1983], [Singh 1983], [Moore 1984]. Some of these, and other writers, see advantages in this new system of extension while others have been critical. /usrl5/aspdr/tarlokii/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpui:das -6- These critics claim, not only that the T&V system is expensive, but that in the practice it is ineffective and biased towards wealthier farmers. The resulting arguments, in the absence of suitable empirical evidence, proceed by anecdote and casual empiricism. Nevertheless, few authors fail to mention the need for objective empirical information [for example, Moore 1984] with which the effects of the T&V system can be assessed. In this paper we use farm survey data from India to examine the effectiveness of T&V extension. After briefly reviewing our data sources, we compare In section 3 the relative importance of different information sources in providing farmers with knowledge about new or improved farming practices. The appropriate choice of contact farmers is an important element of the T&V system, and in section 4 we examine the characteristics of the contact farmers chosen and the biases inherent in their selecrion. Section 5 is devoted to an analysis of the relative frequency with which contact and non-contact farmers are reached by extension, and to some of the factors which determine these frequencias (such as season and farm size). Turning to the benefits from T&V, we examine the effect of T&V on farmers' knowledge and report the results of an econometric estimation of T&V impact on farm produc- tivity in section 7. The value of the benefits from T&V are matched against its costs through a cost/benefit analysis in section 8. Section 9 presents our conclusions. /usrl5/aspdr/tadoki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -7- 2. Empirical Sources In the balance of this paper we draw mainly on two principal sources of empirical information. The first is data from India, collected through a series of sample surveys, spanning four consecutive crop seasons in two districts in Haryana (Jind and Karnal) which were 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 nearly equal numbers of contact and non-contact farmers, were chosen. At the time of these surveys, the T&V system had not been introduced in Kairana, where the older community develop- ment approach to extension conr,inued to operate. Hence, the sample from Kairana comprised only non-contact farmers. 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 the district of Jind is much drier than both Karnal and Kairana, comparative analysis in this paper is mainLy confined to the latter two areas, and spans both the rainy and dry growing seasons of 1982/83, for which comparable data are available. Our second source of information is data drawn from monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reports from seven states in India over a number of years. These reports have been produced more or Less regularly by states where T&V has been instituted. The data are comparable across states because all M&E /usrl5/aspdr/carloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -8- units use the same sampling design, definitions, and questionnaire [Slade and Feder 19851. 3. T&V Operations in Practice In order to assess the relative importance of various channels of spreading information, it is useful to review farmers' ranking of information sources. Using data from the surveys noted above, Table 1 shows that contact farmers, those who receive regular and very frequent extension visits, con- sider extension to be their primary source of information. However, a significant proportion of other farmers, 19 percent in Karnal, the intensive extension area, also view extension as a primary source of information. However, about three-quarters of these farmers, and 82 percent of farmers in the less intensive extension area (Kairana) report other farmers to be their main source of advice. Table 1 also shows that radio programs tend to be a secondary or tertiary source, probably because farmers prefer to rely on direct and personal information sources, where clarifying questions and additional inquiries can be easily addressed. The minor role of written materials is compatible with the low rate of literacy prevailing in the area (35 percent). However, in an area of high literacy (and very low extension availability) in Thailand, farmers were found to use written sources only infrequently, while radio use was much more common [Hutanuwetr et al., 19821. /usrl5/aspdr/carioailind.agriexttext/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das These numbers highlight the main factor underlying the dynamics of information spreading processes, namely, communication among farmers. They also provide a rationale for the approach taken by several extension systems in which the impracticability of directly reaching every single farmer is recognized, and the extension effort is focused on selected farmers. These farmers are then expected to transmit information to fellow farmers. While these observations refer to information in a generalized way, the degree of complexity or cost associated with the technique or practice being learned may dictate a preference for first-hand or specialized informa- tion sources, as these are believed to be more accurate and reliable CFeder and Slade 1985b, Howell 1984]. Using monitoring and evaluation data, Table 2 compares the ratio of farmers who have learned complex or expensive practices from.extension agents (first-hand source) to that of farmers who have Learned from other farmers (second-hand source). It is clear that the availability of extension agents has a significant effect on the ratios. The more avail- able extension agents are, the more likely they are to be the source of information. However, irrespective of the extenc of extension availabilicy, the more complex or risky practices tend to be more frequently learned from extension. Therefore, when spreading more complex practices, agents try to maximize their direct interaction with farmers, leaving the simpler practices to be spread through contact farmers. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -10- Table 1: FARMERS' SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY RANKED PREFERENCE /a (Northwest India, 1983) /c Kairana Tehsil, Karnal District, Haryana Uttar Pradesh Source of Ranked Contact Non-Contact Information Preference Farmers Farmers All Farmers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ----------------Percent------------------ 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 Farmers /b oecond 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 /a For each source of information farmers were asked to say whether they regarded it as a primary, secondary, or tertiary source. /b Other farmers could be contact farmers. Not all contact farmers are known as such to non-contact farmers. /c Karnal District is serviced by T&V extension, Kairana TehsiL by different and older extension system. Source: Feder and Slade 1985a. /usrl5/aspdr/taroki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -11- Table 2: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FARMERS' INFORMATION SOURCES FOR WHEAT PRACTICES /a T&V Non-T&V Farmers Non-Contact Farmers T&V Contact Farmers Less More Less More Less More Expensive Expensive Expensive Expensive Expensive Expensive Practices /b Practices /c Practices Practices Practices /b Practices Small 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.28 3.51 4.43 Large 0.16 0.16 0.36 0.68 4.27 7.50 All 0.04 0.19 0.27 0.47 3.98 5.14 /a The "Source Ratio" is the ratio of the number of times that a VEW is cited as the main source of information to the number of times that "other farmers" is cited. /b Less expensive (variety choice, seeding rate, and spacing). /c More expensive (use oE phosphate, potash and zinc, seed treatment against termites, seed treatment against disease, timing of nitrogen application). Source: Feder, Slade, and Sundaram 1985. 4. Characteristics of Contact Farmers Contact farmers receive a continuous and regular flow of information from extension agents, and the way in which they are selected is a matter of considerable importance. While their potential for opinion Leadership on matters of crop husbandry is the key criterion, there are additional con- siderations which should be kept in mind. For instance: /usrl5/aspdr/tarLoki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -12- "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. Furthermore, the contact farmers must be of good standing in their community so that their views on new oractices will be respected by other farmers." [Benor and Harrison 1977, pp. 13,141. 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]. If, however, the contact farmers are mostly wealthy individuals with greater resources than other farmers, the spread of innovations may be hampered. Smaller-scale and poorer farmers may not be convinced that the new practices are better, since they may perceive a better performance by contact farmers to be a result of their advantageous resource position. In practice, over- coming this problem may prove difficult. Traditionally, extension workers 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, accommodation, produce). This bias has been frequently noted in the litera- ture [Chambers 1976, Cernea 1981 and von Blanckenburg 1982]. Moreover, it has been argued that efficiency conoiderations require that scarce extension resources should be used to achieve maximum impact, implying a bias toward larger, and usually richer, farmers [Welsh 19791. Thus, there is a trade-off between choosing those farmers who will adopt innovations most speedily and /us.l5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -13- 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 majority of farmers and hence, their behavior more readily imitated. There are also otner complications. VEWs are sometimes obliged to nominate influential individuals as contact farmers even if they are not suitable as communicators of innovations. This is prompted by the need to avoid hostility from such powerful individuals, who may otherwise make exten- sion work difficult to carry out. Moreover, each VEw is responsible for the selection of contact farmers in his area and personal preferences cannot be totally eliminated. Experience has shown that agents in many extension systems tend to favor the wealthy and influential. Further, the extent to which the principles of contact farmer selection embodied in the T&V credo are applied will vary according to the extent to which VEWs understand the system and have benefitted from orientation training. Hoeper [1983] has shown that there is considerable variation in the selection by VEWs. It is not, therefore, surprising that in some respects contact farmers are representative of the farming community as a whole, while in other ways they are significantly different. Feder and Slade [1984b] demon- strate this point using multivariate logit analysis (see Table 3). They show that while the caste composition of two groups of contact and non-contact farmers is almost identical, farmers who are wealthier, more educated, more favorably endowed with irrigation facilities, and of higher social status than the majority are more frequently selected as contact farmers. They also /usrl5/aspdr/tarLoki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -14- noted, however, that although very small-scale farmers (those owning Less than two acres) were under-represented 'n the contact farmer group, their share was not negligible - 12 percent - compared to 30 percent in the general population. 5. Extension-Farmer interaction The interactions of the VEW with contact farmers can oe viewed as a system determined "supply" of extension services. "Supply" is a relevant concept because the T&V system requires the VEW to provide these services to contact farmers regularly. Contact farmers, in turn, are expected to dis- seminate this information to non-contact farmers. 'Thus for non-contact farmers, the interactions between farmers and VEWs are likely to be "demand" determined -- that is, non-contact farmer meetings with the exterion worker may reflect the farmer "demanding" the information, since it is not a system imperative that the VEW regularly visit farmers other than contact farmers. The VEW is expected, however, to accommodate requests for information from all farmers. it is also expected that non-contact farmers will occasionally attend meetings between the VEW and contact farmers. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -15- Table 3: ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE SELECTION PROBABILITIES-OF CONTACT FARMERS /a Coefficient /b Jind Karnal Pooled Criteria District District Sample (2) (3) (4) 1. Farm Size .0275 * .0339 * .0317 (3.471) /c (3.41) (5.154) 2. Education (years) .0397 .0573 * .453 (1.637) (2.227) (2.593) Dummy Variables 3. Ownership of Tubewell .0570 * .8987 * .3956 (3.016) (1.949) (2.250) 4. Membership in Village .3416 .4374 .4090 Insttutions (1.443) (1.524) (2.260) 5. Previous Participation 1.042 * .8262 * .8172 * in Agriculture Training (2.180) (2.213) (2.851) Likelihood Ratio Statistic 60.55 44.96 99.23 Number of Observations 599 361 960 /a The results in this table were obtained from a logit analysis in which the probability of a farmer being selected as a contact farmer is related to socio-economic explanatory variables. /b No estimate of the constant is presented; the sample is not random with respect to the proportions of contact non-contact farmers, and the estimated constant is therefore biased. The other coefficients are not affected, however, (McFadden, personal communication). /c Numbers in parentheses are asymptotic "t", values. * Significant at a 5% (one tailed) level of significance. ** Significant at a 7% (one tailed) Level of significance. Source: Feder and Slade, 1984b. For the purpose of examining the broad difference in the number of visits by the VEW to contact and non-contact farmers, data for several /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -16- seasons from monitoring and evaluat'ion reports from seven states in India where the T&V system has been introduced are summarized in Table 4. The reference period for visit frequencies as reported in Table 4 is one month, but it is possible that non-contact farmers, since they do not receive regular visits, had a longer time horizon in mind, thus generating an exag- gerated monthly visic frequency. The critical indicator is the percentage of farmers who report not seeing the VEW. For contact farmers, this ranges from 1.2 to 34.7 percent, while for non-contact farmers, it ranges from 21.4 to 59.2 percent. Across all seven states, the average percentage of 'no-visits' reported by contact farmers is 15.4 percent (that is about 85 percent of contact farmers were visited at least once in the reference month), while 34.5 percent of the non-contact farmers reported no interaction with extension. Considering that some share of 'no-visits' must be due to factors such as VEW illness, vacant posts, contact farmer non-availability, etc. (factors chat Feder and Slade 1984a, refer to as "normal friction") the actual supply of T&V extension services seems adequate relative to the potential supply. . . Iusr15/aspdr/tarloki/iпd.agrie�t/ta�C/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das , -17- таьiе �-: �qц�:гс� oF ы�?�r lтгsгтs �чzэ ��ч sxzL 1 L сОп'лс; г.�ггs чОн-сдь-е.lст г.r�:;s 1 9LaCtь/3asaoas I �лаlLог{аЕ ат 18адрlе 1 8v, of yfiiia 7icaia l З.тр1г ; Уо, at 7 uica uic'sio ! пад Ор�гаспд 1 ;SOaicariag 1 Siza 1 с9а ?sit ?о�1у•�.�' � Sias 1 �а ?,у� Four Чге'к,s,�_1 Таrл. 9zsa I.ид ?vи2иасгоn I 1 0 1 2 ат aocrl I 0 . 1 Z ог �ога 1 ! ) 1 ! I ! ! I � --- осг:есС � ' -- 5ггса.�у ---.1 ' -1t6 Э.abi 19Э1-Э2 х "� Зтх11 Faпs a,f 331 17.1 14.0 58.9 ]1] 48.5 17.9 23.5 Larya Fхпа 202 15.э 12.Э 71.] 1]$ 43.1 29.7 2+•д 1Charif• 14Э?-3} х 5вьs11 ?аг�а 272 16.5* (7.2 56.4 309 40.L ]3.9 23.7 �. Larae Faraa ц9 t0.0 20.1 5Э.9 t3d '+3.5 2L0 33.3° ,� RЬarff 19а2-8] Кеi 5ru1I Уагав Ь4 7.$ 21.9 70.J 658 32.3 г6.3 .7.2 Wrдa Fапе 64 б.z 17.2 7ь.5 2b7 49.д г1.з :$.э �Lika ааь. l9а1-ы х 5ea1i гатав 2�24 15.+* !7 J 57.J 1482 ]0.2 :1.3 ��Ь,О° � Largк Тап+а 1143 iz.3 Z0.5 ы,t 530 зг.5 гб.а :.1.0 8sbi 198l-92 ЯеЕ 5и11 7апа дб 17.4 1б.з ббJ J45 �4.3 г1.Э ]7.9 � Lacge Раrл+ 139 ц.4 17,6 71.0 49] 40.г :J.3 ]4.0 Iharьf 1982-8] t! 5т 1i Fапа 1499 :0.1 L0.8 7?.1* 13б9 Z8.0 l5.1 J3.3* Lar$т Еат�в 11]з 10.9 14.7 7h.й 750 ц.д i3.9 +д.ч IYarif 1982-д3 xtS 9аа11 Та:�а 307 1].0 24.1 52.4 .Об3 30.7 19.? :9.3 CirEe Tarat 273 9.9 27.2 ЬЗ.д 712 30.о 20.,3 23,Э R.abi 1981-Э] Ч $auii ?агаа l2ED l].0 :1.5 б3.ь I621 :д.2 <'4.5 и;.. Lтge Fапв 488 14,0 13.0 71.а� 598 27.д ь2.i 49,3 .L,bi t482-3] Нс_° 5ва11 rакъв 69 19.Э Э].2 58.0 5С3 S7.Э* i8.0 :4.i ;,,гэв ?ага. 168 и.] 17.з 71.4* sa4 4з.7 .О.з Зо.3- aьar�t 1эв]-as ч Sma11 Fапа 1237 .0.+* :7.9 53.7 1537 35.4+ 18.Э 4•'..3 Lsrge raraa 94+ 13.4 ta,b 5б.0 ььа ]1.з 19,и 49.з Cuiaro[ йharix l981-82 2S Sma11 ?агва 303 33.: L4.Э '+б,Э - - - - - ❑, а . - - - - - - Саг;с Уатъс ]_8 29.6 21.5 49.7 ' - - - - п. а . ' - - - - - xЬarif 19а1-82 КеЕ Sma11 ?дгаа 298 8.0 1Э.3 72.5 - - - - - а. а . - - - ' ' - Lrga Рагиь 2]7 Э.О 20.7 71.J - - - - ' о. а . ' ' - - - ' �Ьi 1991-Э2 К 3еа11 ?а:�ь 327 2].9 11.3 38.5 - - ' - ' а. а . - - - - ' large rагnв }08 ?0.1 14.0 63.Э' - - - - ^ а. а . ' ' - ' - �abi 1981-Э2 хс2 5�ав11 Fатав 20$ 8.Ь 14.9 76.5 - - - - - а. а . - - - - - Lrge Fвкаt Ъ84 1:.0 20.1 67.9 - - - - - а. а . - - - - - ' йЬаг:.f 1982-д3 К 5та11 Спгаа 49В :4.3 14.3 61.4 ' - ' - - а. а . - - - - -. Larga Psraa 337 19.) 14.2 бb.S ' - ' ' ' о. а . - - - - - xЬaril 19$2-д] Нс� � sma11 :яп� 194 12.4 13.0 7..6 - - ' - - с- а • - ' ^ - - LcYa 7агаа ]73 1].1 }D,3 Ьб.б - ' - ' - о, в . - - - ' ° - Fьbi 1Э82-83 х 5та11 Faria 481 21.9 1А.9 39.3 - - - - - n. а . - - - - - LвгЕ+ :'аТ�+• ]34 2о.г z1;.1 37.7 - - - - - а. а . - - - - - - лг� . кьатz: 19az-a3 хсг 3аи11 7arna 394 :7.3+ 9.6 б].0 4гз 4д.0* гг.1 29.] L+тЕп та�+• ]32 l1.Т 1д.0 10.Э" 308 21.+ 9.1 6Э.3* у.аЬ3тдlЪtra ч,ьi 19а3-яа х 9аи11 Тагва 1200 I4.0+ 12.2 77.� - - - - • а. а . - _ - - ° Lr;e Ратнв 7з3 10.2 I1.4 79.4■ ' ' - ' - а. а . - ' ' ' - - в 3iЬаг Lhari; 19Э]-дд К 9т11 Taran 734 3г.2 l7.S 30.3 $34 34.2 15.2 г5.5 • Lu qa Tsraa 331 ]4.7 1Ь.Э 43.5 249 35.0 16.1 :8.9 ' ?as' аади ` 9..,wa:r t9a= х Saa11 7агаа ]47 4,Ь чЭ.1 - - - - - n, а . - - - - - LатУв Fала 93 l.S $.4 90.4 - - - - - а. + . - - - - - k�sar{f 19$2-33 х ' 8аи11 7arsa 2317 ],4 2.8 9J.8 ' - - ' ' а. в . - ' ' - - Спsае Tarxf :48 „.а з.б 93.5 - - - - а, , . - - - - - *�ignizi.canC at 5 perCenc probabi,lity 1eve1 п.а. - nct available �J Sma11 fаг°ms were derined as less thaп S.1 haceareз 1а i�aryana and GujaraC 4.1 hecCarea iп Tami], nadu апд KarnaCaka, Э.1 in *iadhya Pradesh and Вi�1зг аад 2.I hactares in �зsат. • Snurc=: Евдеr, S1ade, апд 5undaram 1Э85. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-2"/-85/rev:wou:das The demand for extension services (measured bv VEW's interaction with non-coritact farmers) is significantly lower than the suPPL7 (measured by VEW$s visits to contact farmers). However, the actual supply available to non-contact farmers must be less than that which is available to cor.Lacc farmers, thus there is not necessarily a significant Level of unused capacity. Further, the demand for extension services in a T&V area is far higher than the demand in a non-T&V area. Data for the Kairana area which is not covered by the T&V system, shows that between 89 and 97 percent of the farmers were not visited by (or did not seek.out) the extension worker during the reference period [Feder and Slade 17985b, p.161. Because a distinction cannot be drawn between contact and non-contact farmers in non-T&V areas, this could be the result of either low demand or Low supply. It is known however that the extension worker to farmer ratio is lower in non-T&V areas than in areas with T&V, and that in the former areas extenslon workers have many duties other than extension. Therefore, it is possible that in areas without T&V excension, the low supply of extension increases the cost to the farmer of acquiring information from extension and thereby reduces the amount of interaction between farmers and extension workers. Table 5 summarizes data on visits and 'non-visits' by farm size. There is remarkable similarly between large and small farms among both con- tact and non-contact farmers. Among contact farmers, 15.9 percent of the small farms and 14.5 percent of the large farms are not visited, a difference of 1.4 oercent. Similarly, for non-conLact farmers, the difference is only /.Lasrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -19- 3.2 percent. While these differences are statistically significant at the 99 percent level (see Table 5), their size indicates that the bias in favor of large-scale farmers is not great enough to warrant serious concern. Moreover, since non-contact farmers' interactions with VEWs are probably demand-driven, the difference between large and small-scale farmers may merely indicate, as predicted by theory [Feder and Slade 198Aal, the tendency of Larger-scale farmers to invest more in information gathering. Further evidence of the lack of substantial farm size related discrimination is provided by Feder and Slade [1984b] who showed "area of land owned" to be a positive, though not a significant explanator of the probability that a contact farmer would be visited. Table 5: FARM SIZE AND VEW VISITS TO CONTACT AND NON-CONTACT FARNERS: SEVEN STATE~S N INDIA, ALL SEASONS /a Contact Farmers Non-Contact Farmers One or more One or more No Visits Visits No Visits Visits Small 15.91 84.09 35.44 64.56 Large 14.49 85.51 32.17 67.83 /a Based upon evidence from large sample surveys conducted by M&E units. States, years, and seasons as in Table 4. Source: Feder, Slade, and Sundaram 1985. Visit frequencies may be greater in the dry season than the rainy season. Indeed, data for both contact and non-contact farmers indicate that the incidence of no-visits during the dry season is significantly lower than in the rainy season, although the absolute difference is small. This result is consistent with an analysis conducted by Feder and Slade [1985b], which /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.,agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu;das -20- shows that the rate at which knowledge spreads tends to be higher for-dry season crops than for rainy season crops. These findings-support the proposition that the VEW plays a greater role in the dry season) although the cause may be more closely associated with the available technology, and the riskiness of rainfed agriculture than the efficiency of the extension system. Another explanation may be that the rainy season reduces the mobility of extension agents. We next examine the trend in extension visirs as experience with the T&V system increases. The results, summarized in Table 6 and Figure 1, form a mixed picture. The proportion of contact farmers not visited goes up significantly: among projects which are four or more years old, nearly one in five contact farmers were not visited. This may, in part, be due to the VEW replacing those contact farmers who are deemed inadequate with ocher farmers, without formally notifying the original contact farmers of the change. On the other hand, the proportion of non-contact farmers not visited declines equally significantly, from about 48'to 36 percent. This may be due to the fact that as projects mature, knowledge about the availability of regular extension visits spreads, and more non-contact farmers take advantage of the service. As mentioned earlier, in the T&V extension system the VEW is expected to respond to all farmers who approach him with queries [Benor and Baxter 1984]. Remembering that contact farmers form only about 10 percent of the farming community, the most important finding is that the proportion of farmers visited is the greater, the older is the project. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -21- Figura 1: PROJECT LIFE AND FARMERS NOT VISITED BY VEW Percent of ,armars not visited 80% 60% 40%- Non-contact Farmers 20% •Contact Farmers 1 2 3 More than Year Years Years 4 Years Project Life --- /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -22- Table 6: PROJECT LIFE, FARM SIZE AND VEW VISITS: SEVEN STATES IN INDIA, ALL SEASONS /a All Project Visits Small Farms Large Farms Farms Life Percent Percent Percent Concact 0 5.01 7.50 5.74 > 1 94.99 92.50 94.26 > 1 year Non-contact 0 48.65 45.65 47.81 > 1 51.35 54.35 52.19 2 years Contact 0 17.13 13.93 16.04 > 1 82.87 86.07 83.96 Non-contact 0 32.34 36.27 33.83 > 1 67.66 63.73 66.17 Contact 0 14.26 14.06 14.17 > 1 85.74 85.94 85.83 3 years Non-contact 0 28.08 26.75 27.70 > 1 71.92 73.25 72.30 Contact 0 22.18 14.26 19.44 > 1 77.82 85.74 80.56 > 4 years Non-contact 0 38.83 28.14 36.09 1 61.17 71.86 63,91 /a Based on monitoring and evaluation reports of state governments in India. States, years, and seasons as in Table 4 Source: Feder, Slade, and Sundaram 1985. /usrl5/aspdr/tarlki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -23- In short, although the T&V system is not without flaws, it does reach the majority of contact farmers regularly, and a substantial proportion of non-contact farmers less regularly. Furthermore, the data do not support the contention that T&V has atrophied, leaviug an empty structure and no change in extension operations [Jaiswal 1983]. On the contrary, in the state of Haryana, even in unsettled times 1/ it appears that the mechanics of T&V operations, although Less than perfect, were still better than those of the traditional system in neighboring Uttar Pradesh. Moore [1984], Jaiswal [1983] and other commer.tators have claimed, for many areas in India covered by the T&V system, that farmers perceive lictl4 benefit in the reformed system, that VEWs are not known by their clients, that contact farmers fail to pass on information to others and may not even know that they are contact farmers. The data for the study area in Haryana do not support these contentions, Out of an original sample of 192 contact farmers selected at random from the extension lists in Karnal district 175 turned out, on their own admission, to be contact farmers. Most of the remainder claimed to have been contact farmers in the recent past. All farmers in the sample surveys in Karnal and Kairana were asked in 1983 if they had observed changes in the style of the extension system during the past few seasons compared to several years earlier. Predictably, no 1/ During 1982 and 1983 when the surveys in Karnal and Jind districts of Haryana were conducted, there were widespread and disruptive transfers of field staff and a high rate of turnover among senior management. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -24- change was perceived by farmers in the Kairana area of Uttar Pradesh as no change had taken place. 1/ In Karnal (where T&V extension was introduced in 1979) almost all contact farmers were aware of a change in extension opera- tions, and they thought the change to be beneficial. Among non-contact farmers, less than half were similarly aware, although the majority of those who noticed a change held positive opinions about it. This relative lack of awareness of the change among non-contract farmers, particularly small-scale non-contact farmers, suggests that efforts to publicize the availability of extension advice in the years preceeding the study had been inadequate. Almost all contact farmers, and about half of the non-contact farmers knew the VEW that visited their group. The comparable proportion for the non-T&V area (Kairana) was, however, a little more than one-tenth. Similarly, 60 percent of non-contact farmers reported knowing at least one contact farmer in their area. While it is not incumbent on contact farmers to pass on the knowledge gained from VEWs, they are expected to do so. Evidence from the study area indicates that more than half of all contact farmers claimed to have dis- cussed extension advice with other farmers, while more than 30 percent of those non-contact farmers who had direct contact with VEWs also claimed to have passed on information obtained from them. 1/ The extension system in Uttar Pradesh is expected to be reformed along T&V lines starting in 1986. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -25- 6. T&V Effects on Farmer.Knowledge An increase in farmers' knowledge about crops and cropping practices is the intended direct product of extension. Obviously, managers df the extension system hope that additional knowledge will lead to the adoption of improved husbandry by cultivators and will ultimately be translated into increased agricultural productivity Adoption and any resulting changes in output are, however, only indirectly affected by extension. The disentangling of the direct and indirect effects from other contributing factors is a complex task discussed in detail in Section 7. For the time being, we concentrate on comparing levels of knowledge among the different grou-ps of farmers. This avoids complicating issues such as imperfect or irregular seed or fertilizer supplies and credit availability, which may affecc adoption and productivity in a particular season. Such factors should not, however, affect the acquisition of knowledge. The following comparative analysis is confined to I'ata drawn from the sample surveys in Karnal (T&V area) and Kairana (non-T&V) during the rainy and dry seasons of 1982/83. The data show that for most practices not involving specialized technical knowledge or major expense, contact farmers under the T&V system learned mostly from the extension service. However, non-contact farmers learned mostly from other farmers, including contact farmers. With regard to practices involving specialized technical knowledge, the picture was roughly reversed. For such practices,all farmers tended to learn from knowledgeable primary sources, such as extension agents or other informed persons. This /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev;wpu:das -26- apparently regular. pattern suggests that the spread of knowledge regarding the more demanding practices is likely to be much faster in an area such as Karnal which has ample extension staff, than in a less well-endowed area such as Kairana. During the sample surveys, rarmers were also questioned about their knowledge of specific practices, and about the time when they first Leacned them. Knowledge is difficult to measure without conducting a thorough examination of a respondent's understanding of all aspects of a given recom- mendation. For some practices this was possible, but for others detailed testing was beyond the time and resources available. In such cases, however, it was possible to establish the farmers' awareness of the practice. Such awareness is an important indication of knowledge because, by definition, a farmer who is unaware cf a practice cannot be familiar with its detail. From the resulting data, the growth in the number of farmers who were aware of different technologies in 1978, the year before T&V extension was intro- duced in Haryana, and in 1982, four years later, has been calculated. To increase the validity of comparisons between Karnal and Kairana, contact farmers in Karnal have been excluded from the analysis because they receive a disproportionate amount of direct extension advice and may also be different in other ways (see Section 4). The analysis employed two alternative standard specifications (Logis- tic and negative exponential) of the time path of growth in the spread of /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:-vpu:das -27- knowledge.l/ -The resulics showed that among ten practices for high yielding varieties (HYV) of paddy 2/ (rice) the rate of growth in farmer knowledge was clearly superior in Karnal compared to Kairana for only three of them. For two paddy practices the rate of knowledge growth was superior in Kairana. This suggests that for HYV paddy practices, the growth in farmer knowledge in Karnal under the T&V system is not universally better chan in Kairana. it is noteworthy, however, that of the three practices in Karnal that had superior knowledge spread rates, two were cash demanding practices with a significant technical content. It was argued earlier that these are the practices which farmers most commonly learn directly from extension agents, and these resulcs are consistent with that argument. Turning to the levels of farmer knowledge about practices for Hi wheat, the results showed superior rates of knowledge spread in Karnal for nine out of the ten practices examined. These are interesting results but they are not free of caveats. First, they are based on results from sample surveys and all such surveys have a margin of error. Second, even though knowledge about a practice has increased, this says nothing about the extent to which the practice is either useful or profitable to those who have learned it. Consequently, these 1/ Details are to be found in Feder and Slade [1985 b]. 2/ The term "paddy" is used to describe rice, whether growing or harvested, prior to the milling process. (Farmers grow paddy; millers produce rice.) /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -28- resuLts per se do not allow us to determine whether any gains in yields result from the observed increases in knowledge, or whether such gains out- weigh the increased costs of T&V extension. A discussion of these issues is deferred to sections 7 and 8. Nevertheless the results suggest that T&V extension in Karnal, when compared to the traditional system in Kairana Led to a noticeable increase in the rate of knowledge spread for almost all recommended practices for HYV wheat, and several important practices for HYV rice. Such results are con- sistent with the significantly higher level of extension activity prevailing in Karnal compared to Kairana. They are also consistent with other survey findings that show (for nine of ten paddy practices, and eight of ten wheat practices) the rates of knowledge spread among contact farmers to be higher than among non-contact farmers. As observed in preceding sections, contact farmers have a greater degree of direct interaction with VEWs and should, other things being equal, have higher rates of knowledge. Recall, however, that contact farmers are not necessarily representative of the farming com- munity, and that their higher rates of knowledge may be the result of other attributes. 7. Information Sources and Farm Productivity The process by which extension influences crop yields involves a wide range of intervening variables. If extension efforts are successful, however, this success must eventually result in an increase in output per upit input and/or reduced costs per unit of product. Iusrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -29- Since the contact point between the extension system and the farmer is the village extension worker, it is essential that the YEW, as a first-hand information source, be "better" than other second-hand or non-personal sources of information. A testable hypothesis is therefore implied, namely, that other things being equal, farmers whose main informa- tion source is the extension worker will have higher productivity or yields than those who rely on other information sources. Of course, there may be some systematic relationship between farmers who are more inclined to use extension as a main source of information and oTher inherent attributes (such as intelligence) which make them better farmers who obtain higher yields. Drawing again on the state M&E reports in India, we use data on croo yields in the rainy and dry seasons classified by information source. For the rainy season, we use paddy yields and for the dry season wheat, under bo.ch irrigated and unirrigated conditions. State average yields were calculated by applying weights based on the sample sizes for irrigated and unirrigated farms, and contact and non-contact farmers. The resulting overall average for each state was set equal to 100. Subsequently, each subset of yields was expressed as an index number relative to the overall state average. This conversion permits paddy and wheat yields to be compared (since they differ in absolute magnitudes) and plays down differences in agro-climatic and socio-economic factors between states. The net result of this conversion is a series of index numbers that are com- parable across states, crops, and cropping seasons. A summary of the data /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -30- for irrigated, unirrigated, and all farms, classified by main jource of farmer information, is shown in Table 7. Table 7: YIELD INDICES BY MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMiATION /a Main Source of Information Other Other N,o VEW Farmers Sources Advice 116.25 89.52 92.64 93.22 Irrigated (13) /b (13) (13) (13) 114.75 101.90 103.29 /c 79.88 Unirrigated (13) (13) (13) (13) 114.50 99.08 95.77 86.11 All (13) (13) (13) (13) /a Monitoring and evaluation reports from seven stace govern- ments in India. States, years, and seasons as in Table 4. The actual sample base in terms of numbers of farmers is more than 1,500; the sample sizes in the table refer to the number of average yield index figures and hence represent a mean of means. /b Figures in parentheses indicate sample size. Sample sizes differ because, for two states, data classified by irrigated and unirrigated farms were not available. /c One state, in one cropping season, had an unduly high yield figure, and the sample base was extremely low in relation to the rest and hence was significant in the computation of weighted average yields for "all" farms. However, in computing the average across unirrigated farms in all states, this number receives equal weighting. Hence this particular figure should be considered an overestimate. Source: Feder, Slade, and Sundaram,1985. Farmers , :ose main source of information is the VEW have the highest yield index of 114.5. This is followed by those whose source is "other farmers" and their yield index is close to the average. "Other" sources /usrl5/aspdr/tarlokilind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -31- (such as radio, demonstration days, sales personnel) have a lower yield index of 95.77 and those farmers who receive "no advice", 86.11. It would appear that those using the VEW as the main source of information have yields that differ substantially from all other sources, but the difference between "other farmers" and "other sources" is much less marked. All three, however, appear to be better compared to those farmers receiving "no advice". The figures shown in Table 8 underwent further rigorous testing using econometric techniques, and the conclusions confirmed the above results [Feder, Slade, and Sundaram. 1985]. A difficulty with the above yield comparlsons is that no allowance is made for other systematic factors such as different soil types, different farmer attributes, or different degrees of irrigation, which may also con- tribute to differences in yields. A more in-depth analysis was therefore undertaken using the detailed farm-level data available from the Karnal and Kairana sample surveys. Although the analysis reported below takes into account certain differences between the two areas, Karnal and Kairana are similar in many respects. They lie on opposite banks of the Jamuna river, are flat, have similar light alluvial soils, and are connected by a solitary bridge which spans the river some distance to the north. Average annual rainfall in Karnal is 803 mm, and in Kairana 794 mm. Both districts are heavily irrigated: in Karnal 74 percent of the net cropped area is irrigated, the /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -32- comparable figare for Kairana is 84 percent. The two- areas are linguisti- cally and ethnically similar. In the dry season, wheat is the dominant crop in both areas. In the rainy season, however, paddy is the major crop in Karnal, sugarcane being of lesser importance. In Kairana, sugarcane is the preponderant rainy season crop and paddy is of secondary importance. In the State of Uttar Pradesh of which Kairana is one of the most westerly parts, the extension system at the time of the study, consisted of the traditional network of village-level workers (VLW) administered by the Community Development Department. These workers are not only responsible-for the provision of extension advice but also regulate the supply of inputs and credit and provide links with the rural population for several other govern- ment agencies. in 1981, there were some 140 VLWs in Kairana: one worker for every 6.1 villages. By comparison in Karnal the ratio was 4.7. ALterna- tively, there was one village extension worker (VEW) for every 7,400 members of the rural population in Karnal, and in Kairana one VLW for every 11,500 rural people. These VLWs are supplemented by staff of the Department of Agriculture, working mainly under the aegis of a series of special crop programs. VLWs are much concerned with the supply of farm inputs, and administration of specific subsidy and incentive schemes, aside from agricul- tural extension duties. In Karnal, the extension system was reformed in late 1979. The reorganization reduced the ratio of villages to VEW from the initial position of 6.05 (similar to the situation in Kairana at the time of the study) to /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -33- 4.7, and created, higher level positions (for example, supervisors and subject--matter specialists) which did not exist before. Village extension workers were relieved of non-extension duties. By March 1983, 99 percent of village extension worker positions as well as 88 percent. of subject-matter specialist positions (technical specialists of intermediate rank) were filled. However, in May 1982, 25 percent of agricuLtural extension officer positions (supervisors of VEWs) were still vacant.l/ At the outset, yield differences between the two regions for two major crops (high yield variety wheat and paddy) were estimated using econometric techniques which accounted for differences in the quantities of variable and fixed inputs, the types of soils, human capital, irrigation (both quantity and qualicy), and the production environment.2/ Only high yield varieties of wheat and paddy were considered, as traditional varieties are only rarely grown in Karnal district. It is tempting to assume chat yield differences in 1983 between Karnal and Kairana which are not accounted for by the explanatory variables listed above are attributable to differences in the extension system. However, this need not be true if there are other systematic (but unobserved) factors differentiating the two areas, or if 1/ There were also other important problems during 1982 and 1983. For example, state and regional committees with important functions related to defining and programming technical recommendations were either not convened or worked only erraCically. 2/ Readers interested in a more extensive discussion of the analysis and results reported in the remainder of this paper are referred to Feder, Lau, and Slade [1985]. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -34- there were-significant yield differences, after similarly accounting for differences in the levels of explanatory variables, between the two areas in 1979. To minimize these problems the control sample (the non-T&V case) was selected from that portion of Muzaffarnagar district (Kairana tehsil) adjacent to Karnal district, rather than Erom the whole of the district. Thus, the villages in the control sample in Kairana are Located at distances not exceeding 30 miles from the center of Karnal. Spillover effects were minimal because contacts between farmers from the two regions were inves- tigated and found to be infrequent. Despite our precautions, if there were any fixed and systematic differences between the areas still unaccounted, or if, for historical reasons, there was a more rapid spread of knowledge in one of the areas prior to the initiation of T&V, then the yields in 1979 even when adjusted for differences in explanatory variables, would not be equal. It would then be necessary to subtract this initial yield difference from the estimated yield difference in 1983. Then, any remaining yield difference in favor of Karnal district would indicate a positive T&V extension impact because the rate of yield increase between the two areas (in the absence of any change in the extension systems) would have been the same. Ideally, if a similarly complete farm-level sample for 1979 had been available, the detailed econometric analysis applied to the 1982/83 sample could have been replicated for the base year sample, and the residual yield difference for 19-79 directly estimated. It would then have been possible /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -35- to test the. hypothesis. that- the 1982/83: residual yield difference is Larger than the 1979 difference. Clearly, any such difference between these two levels would then have been shown to be due to T&V extension. Unfortunately, no such detailed farm-level sample from our study areas (Karnal and Kairana) was available for 1979. However, some data derived from the seasonal crop-cutting estimates were available. These provide a time series of mean yields for wheat and paddy for both Karnal and Kairana. These mean yields have a number of deficiencies: (i) the sample sizes for sub-districts are small, and thus the number of observations und,r- lying the Kairana means is only 30-40; (ii) they do not differencate between irrigated and unirrigated conditions, or between high yield and traditional varieties, while the 1982/83 sample data focus only on high yield varieties under irrigated conditions; (iii) they provide no information on the mean input levels (or other relevant explanatory variables) that pertain to the samples generating the mean yields; (iv) in any given year they Laclude random elements which fluctuate over time such as a severe pest outbreak, or an adverse micro-climatic condition such as hail. Thus, the differences in mean yields are not directly comparable to the econometric estimates of the differences. In order to overcome these deficiencies, a number of adjustments were undertaken to derive mean yields for 1979 which are comparable with the sample used in the detailed analysis of the 1982/83 data. Econometrically estima-ted..relations were then used to calculate the residual yield difference /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -36- between Karnal and Kairana in 1979. This difference was then subtracted from the one estimated from the 1982/83 sample, and the increased yield attributable to T&V extension, if any, calculated under several different scenarios. The resulting estimates suggest that in 1982/83, after three years of T&V extension and holding all inputs constant, HYYV wheat yields in Karnal were 8.9 percent higher than in Kairana. However, this estimate is gross of any difference that existed before the more intensive T&V extension system was introduced.1/ A calculation of the productivity difference between Karnal and Kairana which prevailed in 1979, before the introduction of the T&V extension system, reveals an initial difference of between 1.6 and 3.0 percent which must be subtracted from the yield difference observed in 1982/83. The net gain in HYV wheat yields attributable to T&V extension is therefore about 7 percent in the third year of T&V implementation. Since the study area was quite advanced even before the introduction of T&V (almost-all farmers used HYVs and nitrogenous fertilizers), the ques- tion of the source of this gain in productivity naturally arises. The study suggests thac the gains derive in part from the wider spread of improved production practices (such as the timing of various farm operations). However, an apparently important factor, in the opinion of both farmers and extension agents in the study areas is the ability of extension field workers 1/ The results for HYV paddy were not statistically significanc. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wou:das -37- to.observe-the-occurrence of specific local production problems, seek expert advice from subject-matter specialists, and then provide farmers with appropriate and timely advice, This enables farmers to minimize yield losses. In areas without this timely link to expert advice, farmers suffer greater Losses when faced with unforeseen and localized production problems. 8. Cost-Benefit Analysis The value of any increase in farm output attributable to T&V exten- sion must be set against the additional costs incurred to make the additional output possible. To do so the familiar technique of cost-benefit analysis is applied to the T&V system in Karnal. Although the analysis is undertaken from an ex-post position, a complete series of either costs or benefits for the complete life of the project is not available. Therefore, we were - obliged to make a number of assumptions which are redolent of an ex -ante analysis. (i) Cost Estimation The stream of incremental extension costs (adjusted to constant 1979 prices) was constructed using data on actual costs incurred during the first four years after the T&V system was initiated in Haryana, as well as projec- tions made at the time of project appraisal. In scenarios where the project life was assumed to be Less than the life span of physical structures and equipment, appropriate residual values were calculated and deducted from the costs. /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -38- (ii) Estimation of Benefits In section 7 we estimated the increase in yield attributable to T&V extension in the third year of the project. However, it is reasonable to expect gains to continue to accrue over time. In the absence of data with which to estimate future (after the third year of the project) extension-induced gains, we were obliged to construct a dynamic model to simulate the future evolution of the change in productivity, both with and without T&V extension. The model is depicted graphically in Figure 2. In the absence of T&V extension, the average yield is assumed to grow at a constant rate, while the introduction of T&V initially accelerates the growth by providing farmers with knowledge of improved practices and the ability to solve production problems. Therefore, the rate of productivity growth is initially larger than it would have been without T&V. Once however, new knowledge is well spread, the growth in productivity will slow down, and after a sufficient number of years, (T*), the average yield will be the same regardless of whether or not a T&V project was implemented. Thus the model conservatively assumes that the supply of new knowledge from research is limited. As a result, the gross benefits accruing from T&V extension are positive only in the years prior to T* in Figure 2; a period which can be called the "project's life". If it is possible to stop the project as soon as marginal benefits equal or are only slightly lower than marginal costs, a shorter project life would result which may be called the "efficient project life". ius rt-i a s p .ri/caritori-T n(d-~¯g ri~e-xüt~ëet/b2-jr¯:p: -39- Fiure 2: Tine ?atcer, or oductiuviy Chian' In y I (log. yield) Wýith T&V With-out T&V 791180 82/83 8 = ProductiviZy gain due to extension in 1932/83. iusrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -40- The model was used to estimate the project's benefits for several different lengths of project life. The results show with a high degree of statistical confidence, that the internal rate of return exceeds 15 percent using the concept of "project life" defined above, and 20 percenc if the concept of an "efficient project life" is applied. 9. Conclusions In this paper, we have reported the results of several analyses, based on data from India, of key hypotheses about the effectiveness and effects of T&V extension. The results show that T&V greatly increases the frequency with which farmers are contacted by extension, and the proportion of farmers reached increases as the period of exposure to T&V lengthens. Farmers' contact with extension agents was found to be an important source of knowledge about new farming practices, particularly when these practices are complex and expensive co undertake. T&V was found to lead to significant increases in farm yields in one area covered by a detailed study. Even after allowing for many other factorl which help explain yield differences between farmers exposed to the T&V system and those who are not, but who depend on an alternative and less intensive system, yield differences of about 7 percent over three years remain. When the costs of providing T&V extension are offset against the value of the increased production, internal rates of return of at least 15 percent are obtained. These benefits appear to result from an improvement in /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriextl /txt/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -41- the overall management of farm operations rather than from the induced use of more (or new) inputs. More specifically, our results suggest that the greater availability of extension field personnel, and through them the access that farmers have to specialists, substantially improves the ability of farmers to respond to local farming problems. This ability seems to have contributed much of the gain we attribute to the introduction of the T&V extension system in the-areas studied: areas where most farmers had already adopted high yield varieties and were using high levels of nitrogen before the extension system was reformed. This finding may be compared with the results of several studies cited by Herdt and CapuLe [1983], which show that the quality of extension is a major factor in farmers' adoption of modern varieties and inputs. Our results percain to one of the more advanced agricultural areas of India. What however, is the relevance of improved extension for less advanced areas where high yield varieties and fertilizers are not widely used? it has been observed that profitable innovations spread fast without the availability of intensive extension (such as the green revolution in northwest India). On the other hand, our results show that even a smalL gain in one major crop which is induced by intensifying the extension system is sufficient to provide a return that justifies the extra cost. The review by Herdt and Capule [1983] also cites several studies that show that extension can accelerate the spread of innovations such as high yield varieties, The simple and standard elements of new technology will spread fast naturally, but the spread of more complicated elements, and the adaptation of technology /usrl5/aspdr/tarloki/ind.agriext/text/6-27-85/rev:wpu:das -42- to special situations or circumstances requires that farmers have access to more specific and detailed advice based on up-to-date research results. Where appropriately qualified personnel. to fulfill this role are not avail- able in sufficient numbers, the effect of extension is likely to be much smaller. /usrl5/aspdr/ irioki! Ind.agriext/references/6-28-85/rev:wpu:das -43- REFERENCES Benor, Daniel and James Q. Harrison., 1977, Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System. Washington, D.C., World Bank. Benor, Daniel and Michael Baxter., 1984, Training and Visit Extension. Washington, D.C., World Bank. von Blanckenburg, Peter., 1982, "The Training and Visit System in Agricultural Extension: A Review of First Experiences", Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Vol. 21, No. 1. Cernea, Michael., 1981, "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. Chambers, Robert.,1975, "Two Frontiers in Rural Management: Agricultural Extension and Managing the Exploitation of Communal Nacural Resources", Institute of Development Studies Communications Series, No. 113. Feder, Gershon and Roger H. Slade.', 198"a, "The Aquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology", American Journal of Agricultural Economics. August 1984. ., 1984b, "Contact Farmer Selection and Extension Visits: The Training and Visit Extension System in Haryana, India", Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, January/,March 1984. ., 1985a, "The Role of Public Policy in the Diffusion of New Agricultural Technology". American Journal of Agricultural Economics. (Forthcoming). ., 1985b, "A Comparative Analysis of Some Aspects of the Training and Visit System of Agricultural Extension in India", Journal of Development Studies. (Forthcoming) 14. Feder, Gershon, Roger,Slade, and A.K. Sundaram., 1985, "The Training and Visit Extension System: An Analysis of Operations and Effects", Agricultural Administration. (Forthcoming) Feder, Gershon, Lawrence J. Lau., and Roger H. Slade., 1985, "The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Case Study of the Training and Visit System in Haryana, India". Staff Working Paper, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. (Forthcoming). -44- Hall, D.C., 1977, An Economic and Institutional Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management, Washington, D.C.: EPA Report 68-01-2982. Herdt, R.W. and C. CapuLe, 1983, Adoption, Spread and Production Impact of Modern Rice Varieties in Asia, Internacional Rice Research Institute, Los Banos. Hoeper, Bernhard., 1983, "Selected Results of the Agriculture Development Officers and Village Extension Workers Survey in Jind, Karnal and Mahendragarh Districts, Haryana, India", Institute of Socio-Economics of Agricultural Development (Berlin), Organizational and Methodological Variables of the Training and Visic System of Extension, Working and Discussion Note No. 1. (Mimeo). Howell, John., 1982a, "Managing Agricultural Extension: The T&V System in Practice", Overseas Development Institute (London), Agricultural Administration Network, Discussion Paper No. 8. ., 1982b, "Responses to Discussion Paper No. 8, Managing Agricultural Extension: The T&V System in Practice", Overseas Development Institute (London), Agricultural Administration Network, Newsletter No. 9. ., 1983, "Strategy and Practice in the T&V System of Agricultural Extension", Overseas Development Institute (London), Agricultural Administration Network, Discussion Paper No. 10. ., 1984, "Small Farmer Services in India, Working Paper No. 13", Agricultural Administration Unit, Overseas Development Institute (London). Hutanuwatr, Narong, Suchint Simaraks, Krirkkiat Phipatseritham, Chalong Bunchamcharoen, Arnone Yamtree, 1982. "Socio-economic Constraints in Rain-fed Agricultural Production in the Lower North-East Thailand", Faculty of Agriculture, Kohn Kaen University, Thailand. Jaiswal, N.K., 1983, "Transfer of Technology under T&V - Problem Identification", Background Papers: Workshop on Management of Transfer of Farm Technology under the Training and Visit System, National Institute of Rural Development, Hyderabad. Judd, M.A., J.K. Boyce, and R.E. Evenson, 1983, "Investing in Agricultural Supply", Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 442, Yale University. -45- Kivin, Joseph, Frederick Fliegel, Prodipto Roy and LaLt Sen., 1971, Innovation in Rural India, Bowling Green State University Press, Bowling Green, Ohio. Moore, Michael., 1984, "Institutional Development, The World Bank, and India's New Agricultural Extension Program", Journal of Development Studies Vol. 20, No.4. 1984. Orivel, F., 1983, "The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Review of the Literature", in Basic Education and Agricultural Extension", edited by H. Perraton, D. Jamison, J. Jenkins, F. Orivel, and L. Wolff, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 564. Singh, R.N., 1983, "T&V in Chambal Command Area (Koca District): Some Observations" in Background Papers: Workshop on Management of Transfer of Farm Technology under the Training and Visit System, National Institute for Rural Development, Hyderabad. Slade, Roger and Gershon Feder, 1985, "The Monitoring and Evaluation or Training and Visit Extension in India: A Manual of Instruction". The World Bank, Washington, D.C. (Mimeo). Welch, Finis, 1979, "The Role of Investments in Human Capital in Agriculture", in Theodore W. Schultz (ed.) Distortion of Agricultural Incentives, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. DIcSCN ?X?ERS AGR/Research Unit Raort No.: ARU I Agricultural Mechanization: A Comparative Historical Perspective by Hans P. Binswanger, October 30, 1982. Report No.: ARU 2 The Acquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade, September 1982. Reaort No.: ARU 3 Selecting Contact Farmero for Agricultural Extension: The Training and. Visit System in Haryana, India by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade, August 1982. Reuort No.: ARU 4 The Impact of Attitudes Toward Risk on Agricultural Decisions in Rural India. by Hans P. Binswanger, Dayanacha Jha, T. Balaramaiah and Donald A. Sillers. May 1982. Report No.: ARU 5 Behavioral and Material Determinants of Production Relations in Agriculture by Hans P. Binswanger and Mark R. Rosenzweig, June 1982, Revised L)/5/33. Recort No.: ARU 6 The Demand for Food and Foodgrain Quality in India by Hans P. Binswanger, Jaime 3. Quizon and Gurushri Swamy, November 1982. Report No.: ARU 7 ?olicy Implications of Research on Energy Intake and Activity Levels with Reference to the Debate of the Energy Adequacy of Existing Diets in Development Countries by Shlomo Reutlinger, May 1983. Renort No.: ARU 8 More Effective Aid to the World's Poor and Hungry: A Fresh Look at United States Public Law 480, Title II Food Aid by Shlomo Reutlinger, June 1983. Re,ort No.: ARt: 9 Factor Gains and Losses in the Indian Semi-Arid Trouics: A Didactic Approach to Modeling the Agricultural Sector by Jaime B. Quizon and Hans ?. Binswanger, Sepce.ber L983, Revised May L984. Raoort No.: ARU 10 The Distribution of Income in India's Northern Wheat Region by Jaime B. Quizon, Hans P. Sinswanger and Devendra Gupta, August 1933. Revised June L984. Reoort No.: ARU 11 Populi -ton Density, Farming Intensity, Patterns of Labor-Use and Xechanization by erabhu L. Pingali and Hans P. Binswanger, September 1983. Reaort No.: ARUJ 12 The Nutritional Impact of Food Aid7: Critaria for the Selection of Cost-Effective Foods by Shlomo Reutlinger and Judit Katona-Apte, September 1983. Oiscussion Papers (Cont'd.) Recort No.: ARU 13 Project Food Aid and Equitable Growth: rncome-Transfer Efficiency First! by Shlomo Reutlinger, August 1983. Report No.: ARU 14 Nutritional impact of Agricultural Projects: A Conceptual Framework for Modifying the Design and Implementation of Projects by Shloma Reuclinger, Aug%st 2, 1983. Report No.: ARU 15 Patterns or Agricultural Protection by Hans P. Sinswanger and Pasquale L. Scandizzo, November 15, 1983. Report No.: ARU 16 Factor Costs, income and Supply Shares in Indian Agriculture by Ranjan Pal and Jai=e Quizon, December 1983, Report No.: ARU 17 Senavi3ral and Material Decerminants of Production Relations in Land Abundant Tropical Agriculture by Hans P. Binswanger and John Mcmntire, January 1984. Report No.: AJRU 18 7he Relation 3eceen Far- Size and Farm ?roductivity: The Role of Family Labor, Supervision and Credit Coascraincs* by Gershon Feder, December 1983. Report No.: ARI 19 A Comparative Analysis of Some Aspects of the Training and Visit System of Agricultural Extension in India by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade, February 1984. Report No.: ARU 20 Distributional Consequences of Alternative Food Policies in India by Hans P. Binswanger and Jaime B. Quizon, August 31, 1984. ReDort No.: ARU 21 Income Distribution in India: The Impact of Policies and Growth in the Agricultural Sector, by Jaime B. Quizon and Hans P. Binswanger, November 1984. Report No.: ARU 22 Population Density and Agricultural Intensification: A Study of the Evolution of Technologies in Tropical Agriculture, by Prabhu L. Pingali and Hans P. Binswanger, October.17, 1984. Report No.: ARU 23 The Evolution of Farmining Systems and Agricultural Technology in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Hans P. Binswanger and Prabhu L. Pingali, October 1984. Reort No.: ARU 24 Population Density and Farming Systems - The Changing Locus of Innovations and Technical Change, by Prabhu L. Pingali and Hans P. Binswanger, October 1984. Report No.: ARTT 25 The Training and Visit Extension System: An Analysis of Operations and Effects, by G. Feder, R.H. Slade and A.K. Sundaram, November 1984. -3- Report No.: ARU 26 he Role of Public Policy in the Diffusion of New Agricultural Technology, by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade, October 1984. Report No.: ARU 27 Fertilizer Subsidies: A Review of Policy Issues with Special Emphasis on Western Africa, by Haim Shalit and Hans P. Binawanger, November 1984. Report No.: ARU 28 From Land-Abundance to Land-Scarcity: The Effects of Population Growth on Production Relations in Agrarian Economies, by Mark R. Rosenzweig, Hans P. Binawanger, and John McIntire, November 1984. ReRort No.: ARU 29 The Impact of Rural Electrification and Infrastructure on Agricultural Changes in India, 1966-1980, by Douglas F. Barnes and Hans P. Binswanger, December 1984. Report No.: ARU 30 Public Tractor Hire and Equipment Hire Schemes in Developing Countries (with Special Emphasis on Africa). A study prepared by the Overseas Division, National Institute of Agricultural Engineering (OD/NIAE), by P.J. Seager and R.S. Fieldson, November 1984. Report No.: ARU 31 Evaluating Research System Performance and Targeting Research in Larfd Abundant Areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, by Hans ?. Binswanger, January 1985. Report No.: ARU 32 On the Provision of Extension Services in Third World Agriculture, by Alastair J. Fischer (Consultant), January 1985. Report No.: ARU 33 An Economic Appraisal of Withdrawing Fertilizer Subsidies in India, by Jaime B. Quizon, April 1985. Report No.: ARU 34 The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Case Study of the Training and Visit Method (T&V) in Haryana, India, Gershon Feder, Lawrence J. Lau and Roger H. Slade, March 1985. Report No.: ARU 35 Managing Water Managers: Deterring Expropriation, or, Equity as a Control Mechanism, by Robert Wade, April 1985. Report No.: ARU 36 Common Property Resource Management in South Indian Villages, by Robert Wade, April 1985. Report No.: ARU 37 On the Sociology of Irrigation: How de we Know the Truth about Canal Performance? by Robert Wade, May 1985. Report No.: ARU 38 Some Organizations concerned with Animal Traction Research and Development in Sub- Saharan Africa, by Paul Starkey, April 1985. -4- Report No,: ARTU 39 The Economic Consequences of an Open Trade Policy for Rice in India, by Jaime Quizon and James Barbieri, June 1985. Report No.: ARU 40 Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Prabhu L.,Pingali, Yves Bigot and Hans P. Binswanger, May 1, 1985. Report No.: ARU 41 Eastasian Financial Systems as a Challenge to Economics: The Advantages of 'Rigidity', with particular reference to Taiwan, by Robert Wade, June 1985. * Report No.: ARU 42 Education, Experience and Imperfect Processing of Information in the Adoption of Innovations, by Alastair J. Fischer, June 1985. Report No.: ARU 43 A Review of the Literature on Land Tenure Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Raymond Noronha, July 19, 1985. Report No.: ARU 44 Policy Options for Food Security, by Shlomo Reutlinger, July 1985. Report No.: ARU 45 Credit Markets in Rural South India: Theoretical issues and Empirical Analysis, by Hans Binswanger, Balaramaiah, V. Bashkar Rao, M.J. Bhende and K.V. Kashirsagar, July 1985. Report No.: ARU 46 The Impact of Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System in India, by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade, June 1985. Report No.: ARU 47 Methodological Issues in the Evaluation of Extension Impact, by Gershon Feder and Roger H. Slade, July 1985.