guidance and technology: an assessment of project intervention and promoted technologies

7/31/2019 Guidance and Technology: An Assessment of Project Intervention and Promoted Technologies

1/78

Guidance and Technology: An

Assessment of Project Interventionand Promoted Technologies

Justin D. McKinley

International Rice Research Institute

Social Sciences Division

Los Baos, Philippines

July 18, 2012


2/78

Outline

Part one CSISA study

Part two Personal Experiences


3/78

PART ONE

CSISA STUDY


4/78

Outline

Introduction CSISA

Conservation Agriculture

Selection Bias

Methodology

Cost and Return

Propensity Score Matching

Cost Efficiency

Results

Conclusions


5/78

INTRODUCTION


6/78

CSISA

Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia Primarily Funded By:

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

USAID

Goals of project: Decrease hunger and malnutrition

Increase food and income security

For resource-poor farm families in South Asia

Through the accelerated development and

deployment of: New varieties,

Sustainable management technologies, and

Policies


7/78

CSISA

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

IFPRI

International Food Policy Research Institute

ILRI

International Livestock Research Institute

CIMMYT

International Maize and Wheat ImprovementCenter


8/78

Project Area

CSISA

India

Nepal

Pakistan Bangladesh

Cost & Return Survey

Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Bihar

IRRI GIS Lab


9/78

Project Area

Kharif Season

Wet

Rice

Rabi Season

Winter

Wheat


10/78


11/78

Resource-Conserving Technologies

DIRECT-SEEDED RICE TRANSPLANTING

Flickr Photo By: IRRI ImagesFlickr Photo By: IRRI Images


12/78

Direct-Seeded Rice

Reductions in

Labor

Irrigation

Cost of CropEstablishment


13/78


ZERO TILLAGE CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE

Flickr Photo By: CIMMYT Flickr Photo By: IRRI Images


14/78


Reduced Labor

Reduced Diesel

Improved Soil Quality

Flickr Photo By: CIMMYT


15/78

Intervention Class

With intervention Trainings

Access to technology

Subsidy (sometimes)

Follow CSISA promotedtechnologies / practices

Without intervention

Control group

Sometimes engage inresource conservingtechnologies / practices


16/78

Goal of Study

Investigate which factors make a farmer:

More cost efficient

Have higher net returns

Are the farmers in the CSISA project doing

better because:

They use the promoted technologies?

They receive guidance from the project?


17/78

Goal of Study (Cont.)

To answer the question compare two groups:

CSISA-beneficiaries vs. non-beneficiaries

Non-CSISA ZT users vs. non-CSISA non-ZT users

Compare the results of these groups.


18/78

Sampling Procedure

Stratified random

Sampling

However, restricted to a

list of pre-selectedcandidates

Issue of selection bias


19/78

Propensity Score Matching (PSM)

Used when treatment cannot be randomized.

Match control to treatment group based on

OBSERVABLE characteristics.

Literature is not clear on what characteristics

should be used when determining PSM.

However, should be based on characteristics not

affected by the program


20/78


21/78

Selected Characteristics

Probit estimation to determine the probability that a

respondent would participate in the project based on:

caste

size of sample plot(ha)

household size

total farm size(ha)

age

education attainment

primary occupation

farming experience

cropping system

production system (lowland-

upland)

money borrowed


22/78

METHODOLOGY


23/78

Cost and Return

Gross returns minus

Paid-out costs

Imputed Costs

SQXQPNR j

n

j

jw

n

w

w

11


24/78

Cost Efficiency

C= Cost of production

x= Vector of input prices and output V ~ N(0,2v), iid, independent of,

U ~ N(0, 2u), non-negative, normally

distributed accounting for inefficiency

)(lnln 0 UVxC

k

k

ko ZU


25/78

Propensity Score Matching

Predict probability of participation Treated

Control

Propensity scores Kernel matching

Nearest neighbor

1-1, 10-1, n-1 With or without replacement

)()1( XPTXP


26/78

RESULTS


27/78

Results of PSM

Untreated TreatedWithout

Intervention With Intervention With Intervention

(n=124) (n=242) (n=124)

Gender (%)

Male 100.00 100.00 100.00

Female 0.00 0.00 0.00

Marital Status (%)

Married 96.77 95.45 96.77

Single/Widowed 3.23 4.55 3.23

Primary Occupation (%)

Farming 92.74 88.43* 95.97

Other 7.26 11.57* 4.03

Type of household (%)

Absolute nuclear 51.61 55.79 54.03

Extended family 48.39 44.21 45.97

Age (years) 51.22 48.91* 50.36

Years in school 9.88 11.63*** 9.85

Household size (persons) 7.98 7.79 7.78

Farming experience (years) 28.45 27.84 28.4


28/78

Results of PSM

Untreated TreatedZT-wheat

group

Control

group

ZT-wheat

group

Control

group

(n=40) (n=84) (n=32) (n=32)

Gender (%)

Male 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Marital Status (%)

Married 97.50 96.42 96.88 100.00

Single/Widowed 2.50 3.58 3.12 0.00

Primary Occupation (%)

Farming 95.00 91.67 93.75 93.75

Other 5.00 8.33 6.25 6.25

Type of household (%)

Absolute nuclear 47.50 53.57 46.88 50.00Extended family 52.50 46.43 53.12 50.00

Age (years) 46.53 53.45*** 49.72 48.88

Years in school 11.95 8.89*** 11.81 11.72

Household size (persons) 6.75 8.57*** 7.09 8.34*

Farming experience (years) 25.98 29.63* 28.03 26.43

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

50 60 70 80 90x

control treated


29/78

CSISA Cost and ReturnUntreated Treated

Without

interventionWith intervention With intervention

(n=124) (n=242) (n=124)

Production-

Yield 3.4 3.75*** 3.70***

Farm gate price 10,446.77 10,525.70 10,530.09

Value of Cereal ( A ) 35,505.82 39,475.94*** 38,964.57***

Paid out costs-

Seed 3,023.23 2,030.60*** 2,035.57***

Fertilizer 3,498.42 3,269.87** 3,188.08***Insecticide 27.14 25.12 26.29

Herbicide 337.83 287.35 268.32

Fungicide 5.34 4.16 3.01

Non-chemical 891.83 831.38 871.65

Labor 4,627.96 4,277.80 4,260.59**

Machine 7,741.28 5,226.36*** 4,916.81***

Total paid out ( B ) 20,153.03 15,952.65*** 15,570.32***

Imputed costs-

Material subsidies 44.24 338.12*** 283.96***

Machine subsidies - 2.55*** 2.808***

Total subsidies 44.24 340.67*** 286.77***

Imputed labor 2,276.99 998.79*** 1,021.25***

Total imputed ( C ) 2,365.47 1,339.46*** 1,654.23**

Net returns-

Gross returns - paid out costs (A-B) 15,352.78 23,523.29***

23,394.25***

Gross returns - total costs (A-(B+C)) 13,031.55 22,183.83*** 22,086.23***


30/78

CSISA Cost and Return


31/78

0

.5

1

1.5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5cost efficiency

CSISA group Control group

CSISA Cost Efficiency

CSISA Farmers: 1.64

Control Farmers: 2.15

*1% level of significance


32/78

ZT Adopter Cost and ReturnUntreated Treated

ZT-wheat group

(n=40)

Control group

(n=84)

ZT-wheat

group (n=32)

Control group

(n=32)

Production-

Yield 3.18 3.51*** 3.20 3.31

Farm gate price 10,637.50 10,355.95*** 10,650.00 10,525.00

Value of Cereal ( A ) 33,765.94 36,334.33** 34,063.99 34,860.80

Paid out costs-

Seed 2,534.23 3,256.09*** 2,589.46 3,134.46**

Fertilizer 3,315.86 3,585.36* 3,392.78 3,620.34Insecticide 54.77 13.99** 68.46 21.09

Herbicide 252.62 378.40* 267.35 199.64

Fungicide 16.56 0.00* 20.70 0.00

Non-chemical 2,082.57 324.81*** 2,201.27 593.35***

Labor 4,005.20 4,924.51* 4,179.51 5,003.92

Machine 4,600.03 9,237.12*** 4941.54 8,142.89***

Total paid out ( B ) 16,861.83 21,720.27*** 17,661.08 20,715.69***

Imputed costs-

Material subsidies 137.14 - 92.66 -

Machine subsidies - - - -

Total subsidies 137.14 - 92.66 -

Imputed labor 828.60 2,966.70*** 1,012.58 1,939.15**

Total imputed ( C ) 965.74 2,966.70*** 1,105.25 1,939.15*

Gross Returns-

-paid out costs (A-B) 16,904.10 14,614.06*** 16,402.91 14,145.10*-total costs (A-(B+C)) 15,938.36 11,647.36*** 15,297.66 12,205.95**


33/78

ZT Adopter Cost and Return


34/78


35/78

CONCLUSION


36/78


37/78

Guidance or Technology?

CSISA-guidance may have a more substantial

role in the performance of farmers than the

use of the ZT-wheat technology.

Meaning, the technology is only as useful as

the farmers understanding of how to use it

properly.


38/78

Limitations

Under-sample of control group

Small sample in technology comparison

Limits use of PSM

Over-sampled control in current survey Only corrects for observable characteristics

Use of Greene(2010) in current study

Short time-series limits applicable methodology

Completing 6th season and hope to continue


39/78

PART TWO

PERSONAL EXPERIENCES


40/78


41/78


42/78

Noble Township, Michigan


43/78

Noble Township, Michigan


44/78


45/78


46/78


47/78

Photo By: Adam Sparks


48/78

Accomplishments

Restructured CnR Survey 3 Conference Posters

7 Conference Papers

2 Journal Papers

3 Under Review

7 Presentations

5 Philippines

1 Singapore

1 Vietnam


49/78


50/78

Tamil Nadu, India


51/78

Bhubaneswar, India


52/78

Ghorakpur, India


53/78

Tamil Nadu, India


54/78

Tamil Nadu, India


55/78

Tamil Nadu, India


56/78

Gowati Skyline


57/78

Singapore Skyline


58/78


59/78

Carabao

1 horsepower

Bihar, India


60/78

Tamil Nadu, India


61/78

Tamil Nadu, India

Tamil Nadu, India


62/78

Bihar, India


63/78

Bihar, India


64/78


65/78

Bhubaneswar, India


66/78

Ganesh

Kumaran Anurag

PrasunRandom kid

Raman


67/78


68/78


69/78


70/78


71/78

Thailand


72/78

Thailand


73/78


74/78

WHAT NOW?


75/78


76/78


77/78

[email protected]


78/78

Maraming Salamat Po!!

guidance and technology: an assessment of project intervention and promoted technologies

Documents