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

World Bank Reprint Series: Number 301 Gershon Feder and Roger Slade Contact Farmer Selection and Extension Visits The Tralning and Visit Extension System in Haryana, India Reprinted with permission from Quarterly Jornltll of Inleri17tiiiial Agriculture, vol. 23, no. I (January/March 1984), pp. 6-21.  World Bank Reprints No. 260. Pradeep K. Mitra, 'A Theory of Interlinked Rural Transactions," Journal of Plublic Ecotnomlics No. 261. David L. Lindauer and Richard H. Sabot, "The Public/Private Wage Differential in a Poor Urban Economy," Journal of Developmient Eco.zonolms No. 262. J. B. Knight and R. H. Sabot, "Labor Market Discrimination in a Poor Urban Economy," Journal of Developmienf Studies No. 263. Carl Dahlman and Larry Westphal, "Technical Effort in Industrial Development: An Interpretative Survey of Recent Research," The Econom.ics of Neuw Technologyi in Developing Coutn tries No. 264. Michael Bamberger, "The Role of Self-Help Housing in Low-Cost Shelter Programs for the Third World," Built Environment No. 265. Bela Balassa, "The Adjustment Experience of Developing Economies after 1973," IMF Conditionality No. 266. Bela Balassa, "Outward Orientation and Exchange Rate Policy in Developing Countries: The Turkish Experience," The Middle East Journrd No. 267. Dipak Mazumdar, "Segmented Labor Markets in LDCs," Amteriican Economlic Rezviewo No. 268. Stephen P. Heyneman and William A. Loxley, "The Effect of Primary-School Quality on Academic Achievement across Twenty-nine High- and Low-Income Countries," The American Journial of Sociology; No. 269. James R. Follain, Jr., Gill-Chin Lim, and Bertrand Renaud, "Housing Crowding in Developing Countries and Willingness to Pay for Additional Space: The Case of Korea," Jotrnmal of Devielopmitenit Econoomics No. 270. Bela Balassa, "Policy Responses to Extemal Shocks in Sub-Saharan African Countries," Joutnial of Policy Modeling No. 271. Jaime de Melo and Sherman Robinson, "Trade Adjustment Policies and Income Distribution in Three Archetype Developing Economies," Journal of Developmtellt Economnics No. 272. J. B. Knight and R. H. Sabot, "The Role of the Firm in Wage Determination: An African Case Study," Oxford Economiic Papers No. 273. William G. Tyler, "The Anti-Export Bias in Commercial Policies and Export Perfor- mance: Some Evidence from Recent Brazilian Experience," Weltwirtschaftliches Archii No. 274. Ron Duncan and Emst Lutz, "Penetration of Industrial Country Markets by Agricul- tural Products from Developing Countries," World Developnment No. 275, Malcolm D. Bale, "Food Prospects in the Developing Countries: A Qualified Optimistic View," Thle American Econoinic Rev7iew (with Ronald C. Duncan) and "World Agricultural Trade and Food Security: Emerging Patterns and Policy Directions," Wisconisini International Law Journall (with V. Roy Southworth) No. 76. Sweder van Wiinbergen, "Interest Rate Management in LDCs," Journal of Monetarty E-ccionomics No. 277. Oli Havrylyshyn and Iradj Alikhani, "Is There Cause for Export Optmism? An Inquiry into the Existence of a Second Generation of Successful Exporters," lJ .ltzaJfliches Archlit) No. 278. Oli Havrylyshyn and Martin Wolf, "Recent Trends in Trade among Developing Countries," Eutropean Ecotionoic Review No. 279. Nancy Birdsall, "Fertility and Economic Change in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Europe: A Comment," Pouiilbtion anid DU'v'loptlieot Rezview  Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Volume 23, No. 1, January -March, pp. 6 - 21 Contact Farmer Selection and Extension Visits: The Training and Visit Extension System in Haryana, India by Gershon Feder and Roger Slade * Introduction With dwindling unexploited land and water resources in many less developed coun- tries, there is a growing realization that the major potential for increasing agricultural output and improving the lot of the rural population lies in increasing the productivity of existing land and water endowments. A significant gap exists in many countries between known and feasible agricultural technologies, and what is actually practiced by the majority of farmers. Attempts to close this gap have included programs that focus primarily on the delivery of physical inputs - fertilizer, water, seeds - as well as those aimed at improving farming practices. It has been asserted by some that even when equipment and material-dependent techniques are excluded, there are still sub- stantial gains totbe realized if cultivation practices are improved in accordance with the results of well directed agronomic research tailored to specific agro-climatic and loc31 situations. A major channel for the dissemination of information on known feasible technologies is the agricultural extension system. Extension agents are an important link between agricultural research institutions and the ultimate clients of agricultural know-how, the farmers. Accordingly, improving the efficiency and quality of extension services is con- sidered by many to be an indispensable element in any agricultural development strategy (4, 6, 1 2). The present paper deals with some aspects of the interaction between extension agents and farmers within a specific system of extension, commonly known as the Training and Visit (T & V) method. This system has been adopted in many less developed coun- tries, often with the support of the World Bank, and it incorporates several features designed to enhance the effectiveness of the extension service. One particular aspect of this system is the selection of individual farmers to act as regular contact men with ex- tension workers. The analysis in this paper focuses on the selection of these farmers and on the extent of their interaction with extension agents. The paper is organized as follows. The next two sections describe the T & V system and the area of the study respectively. An analysis of the characteristics and selection of contact farmers and their exposure to extension is follGwed by a discussion of the overall coverage achieved by extension agents through their visics. The last section pro- vides a summary and some conclusions. 6  1 The Training and Visit Extension Systo-mi The T & V extension system is designed to overcome some of the major problems afflicting earlier forms of extension organization. Its structure and objectives, which are fully elaborated in several published sources (1, 2, 3, 6), are briefly summarized below. Under the T & V system the extension organization deals exclusively with extension work, eschewing all other activities (for example, direct involvement with agricultural research or input supply). Personnel are organized in a unique 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 level extension agents, 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 agent visits each of the eight farmers' groups once every two weeks, on a prespecified and fixed date. These visits mostly take place in the fields of contact farmers, but other farmers are expected to participate. Obviously, since non-contact farmers can freely join in extension agent visits, they can become de-facto contact farmers if they persist in attending visits in a relatively re- gular manner, and if they experiment with the practices recommended by the ex- tension worker. Over time the composition of the formal contact farmer group may be changed, and it is likely that farmers who have shown interest in extension visits will actually become formal contact farmers while others will be dropped. During the visit, the agent passes on information regarding improved practices which are relevant at the particular stage in the season. Occasionally, the extension worker may organize a large group meeting, but as wiil be shown later, in the area covered by the present study, 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 maintaining farmers' interest and confidence in the exten- sion 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 to adopt recommended practices (or at least try them out) and transmit them to other farmers. Accordingly, the selection of con- tact farmers should not be arbitrary, as they are an important link between the primary source of knowledge and the farming community as a whole. 2. The Study Area Haryana is part of one of the relatively more advanced agricultural regions in India and benefitted substantially from the Green Revolution of the late sixties and seventies. The Training and Visit extension system was introduced in Haryana in 1979 and by 7  August 1981 (two months prior to our survey) about 95 percent of village level ex- tension agents and 80 percent of subject-matter specialists were in position. However, about 25 percent of the positions for officers directly in charge of supervising and guiding village level agents had been vacant since project inception, thus diminishing the effectiveness of supervision and the quality of the extensive lower level coverage. Additionally, District Technical Committees, Zonal Workshops and the State Tech- nical Committee had either not been convened or had not functioned properly over the same period. These institutions were expected to play an important role in gene- rating locally-specific and timely recommendations and useful adaptive research work. These problems continue to hinder the development of the reorganized extension systern. The two districts covered by the study are geographically adjacent, but there are some agro-climatic differences between them. Jind district, with average annual rainfall of 592 mm, is dryer than Karnal district (803 mm), and has less irrigation facilities (58 percent of net cropped area irrigated compared with 74 percent in Karnal). Karnal is somewhat larger in area (3,766 square km versus 3,224 for Jind) and has a larger po- pulation (about one million compared to 750,000 in Jind). The differences in popula- tion density are not substantial (267 persons per square km in Karnal versus 233 in Jind). The present analysis is based on data from a recent sample survey of 972 farmers in the two districts. Random samples of contact and non-contact farmers were selected. While contact farmers constitute approximately 10 percent of the farming community, samples of approximately equal size were chosen (430 contact farmers and 542 non- contact farmers) in order to generate reliable statistics for each group. 3. Characteristics of Contact Farmers As stated in Section 1, one of the basic principles of the T & V extension method is the reliance on the "Two-Step-Flow" of communications (11, p. 219) whereby new ideas and innovations spread first to opinion leaders, and from them to their followers. Contact farmers are expected to act as opinion leaders. They receive new and timel'1 agricultural information through the regular two-weekly visits of extension agents. This information is then communicated to other farmers, either through the initiative of the contact farrners, or in response to inquiries from other farmers who may have observed the new practices being used by contact farmers. The T & V method stresses that extension agents should not exclude non-contact farmers from direct interaction with them. Such farmers should be made aware of the extension agents' regular visits to the group (or the village) and of their freedom to attend. They should be encouraged to attend visits by extension agents in contact farmers' fields, and their queries should be answered (Benor, personal communica- tion). Indeed (see section 5), non-contact farmers do report significant direct exposure to extension'. Contact farmers receive a continuous and regular flow of information from extension agents, and it follows that the way in which they are selected is a matter of considerable importance. While their potential for opinion leadership on matters of crop husbandry 8  is the key criteric-, there are additional considerations which should be kept in mind. For instance: "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 tendi 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 practices will be respected by other farmers." (1 , pp. 13, 14). Evidence suggests that there is a considerable overlap between the attributes which characterize individuals who tend to be opinion leaders and the characteristics of inno- vators, or fast adopters (8, pp. 1 55 - 160). If, however, the contact farmers are mostly wealthy individuals with greater resources than other farmers, the diffusion of innova- tions may be hampered. Smaller and poorer farmers may not be convinced that the new practices are better, perceiving a better performance by contact farmers to be a result of their advantageous resource position. In practice, overcoming this problem may prove difficult. Traditionally, extension agents have tended to focus attention on the well-to-do farmers, because this ensured an immediate and visible impact and because wealthier farmers could offer them personal rewards (meals, accomodation, produce). This bias has been frequently noted in the literature (2, p. 8; 3, p. 233; 4, p. 7). Moreover, it has been argued that efficiency considerations require that scarce extension resources should be used to achieve maximum impact, implying a bias toward larger, and usually richer, farmers (13). Thus, there is a trade-off between choosing those farmers who will adopt innovations most speedily and those who are somewhat less suitable (from the point of view of potential for fast adoption), but whose resource position is more typical of the majority of farmers and hence, their behavior more readily imitated. A further complication is introduced by the fact that the extension agent is 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 hosti- lity from such powerful individuals, who may otherwise make extension work diffi- 3 cult to carry out The discussion above has highlighted some of the considerations involved in selecting contact farmers. It is not, therefore, surprising (see below) that in some respects con- tact farmers as a group are representative of the farming community as a whole, while in other ways they are significantly different4 . The area of land owned is an indicator of wealth, which, in turn, is related to both opinion leadership and the propensity to adopt innovations (8, p. 160). The data, as presented in Table 1, indicates clearly that contact farmers (who comprise approxima- tely 10 percent of the population) inctude a significantly higher proportion of larger land owners than the rest of the population>. Such a pattern has been observed else- where in India6, but as indicated above, this element in the set of trade-offs is complex and we have not attempted to determine whether the bias in favor of larger farmers observed in our sample is counter-productive. However, the proportion of very small farmers (less than 5 acres of owned land) in the contact group is not negligible. 9  Table 1. Distribution of Contact a,id Non-Contact Farmers by Size of Owned Holding Size Class Contdct Farmers Non-Contact Farmers Acres of Owned Land (N = 430i (N = 542) (%) (%J Less than 5.0 13 27 5.0 - 9.9 22 28 10.0- 19.9 36 31 20.0 plus 29 14 Another characteristic of contact farmers, which is of obvious relevance in the Indian context, is caste. Traditionally, leadership in Indian villages has been monopolized by higher castes (8, p. 73). If this pattern is repeated in the choice of contact farmers it may hamper communications between contact and non-contact farmers. Table 2 presents the caste composition of both groups of farmers, and shows that there is practically no difference between contact and non-contact farmers. Table 2: Caste Composition of Contact and Non-Contact Farmer Groups Contact Farmers Non-Contact Farmers Caste (N = 436) (N = 545) (.) (%) Brahmin 7 8 Rajput 6 6 Jat 58 55 Sikh 1 1 10 Harijan 1 2 Others 17 19 Additional characteristics of contaQt farmers are described in Table 3, which enume- rates several indicators relevant to farmers' socio-economic status and their potential as opinion leaders and fast adopters. It has been argued, for instance, that education is an important factor in explaining willingness to adopt innovations (7, p. 195). Our data confirm that the contact farmer group is characterized by higher education levels compared to the rest of the popula- tion. The difference is statistically significant and is observed even when contact and non-contact farmers are compared across size of holding 10  Table 3: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Contact and Non-Contact Farmers Contact Farmers (%) Non-Contact Farmers 1