DOC PREVIEW
The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity

This preview shows page 1-2-3-24-25-26 out of 26 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 26 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 26 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 26 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 26 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 26 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 26 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 26 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

1The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity:A Study of Potato Farmers in the Peruvian Andes1byErin M. Godtland†, Elisabeth Sadoulet*, Alain de Janvry*,Rinku Murgai**, and Oscar Ortiz‡March 2004Using survey-data from Peru, this paper evaluates the impact of a pilot farmer-field-school (FFS) program on farmers’ knowledge of integrated pestmanagement (IPM) practices related to potato cultivation. We use bothregression analysis controlling for participation and a propensity score matchingapproach to create a comparison group similar to the FFS participants inobservable characteristics. Results are robust across the two approaches as wellas with different matching methods. We find that farmers who participate in theprogram have significantly more knowledge about IPM practices than those inthe non-participant comparison group. We also find suggestive evidence thatimproved knowledge about IPM practices has the potential to significantlyimprove productivity in potato production.† U.S. General Accounting Office, [email protected].* University of California at Berkeley, [email protected], [email protected].** Development Economics Research Group, The World Bank, [email protected].‡ International Potato Center, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, [email protected]. 1 We are especially indebted to the farmers of San Miguel and the extension and research staff at CIP and CARE-Peru, whogenerously offered their time and expertise on behalf of this project. This research was made possible by financial support fromthe World Bank Research Committee RPO No. 683-56 and the Development Research Group. The views expressed in thisarticle are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank or any affiliated organization. The authors takefull responsibility for any errors.2I. IntroductionThe design of agricultural extension programs in developing countries has been the subject of heateddebate. Guided by these debates, extension services have undergone several transformations in the past few decades(Byerlee, 1994). The main transformation, until recently, was a shift from the transfer-of-technology approach to theTraining-and-Visit, or T&V, system. Under T&V, the extension system was reoriented from a desk-boundbureaucracy with multiple economic and social objectives to a field-based cadre of agents who focused mainly ontechnology diffusion (Picciotto and Anderson, 1997). T&V extension agents would meet with a small group of“contact” farmers who were expected to disseminate information to the members of their respective communitiesand convey farmer’s opinions back to the agents, thus creating a feedback mechanism absent in the prior system(Birkhaeuser, et al, 1991). For nearly three decades, international aid donors, such as the World Bank, promotedT&V as the most cost-efficient extension system.T&V did, however, have its critics. With continued budgetary crises of less developed countries, someargued that it was too expensive and impossible to implement over extensive regions. Highly dispersed farmerscould never establish frequent contact with extension agents. And their needs varied widely and could not beaddressed with a single, inflexible technology package (Picciotto and Anderson, 1997; Feder, Willett, and Zijp,2001).2In recent years, a number of development agencies have promoted farmer field schools (FFS) as apotentially more effective approach to extend knowledge to farmers. FFS programs were first introduced in EastAsia, in the late eighties, as a way of diffusing knowledge-intensive integrated pest management (IPM) practices forrice.3 FFS have since been adapted to work with other crops and diseases, and have spread rapidly across Asia,Africa, and Latin America (Nelson et al., 2001). The FFS approach represents a paradigm shift in agriculturalextension: the training program utilizes participatory methods “to help farmers develop their analytical skills, criticalthinking, and creativity, and help them learn to make better decisions” (Kenmore, 2002). Extension agents, who areviewed as facilitators rather than instructors, conduct learning activities in the field on relevant agricultural practices.Through interactive learning and field-experimentation, FFS programs teach farmers how to experiment andproblem-solve independently, with the expectation that they will thus require fewer extension services and will beable to adapt the technologies to their own specific environmental and cultural needs (Vasquez-Caicedo et al., 2000).Participants are encouraged to share their knowledge with other farmers, and are sometimes trained to teach thecourses themselves, thus reducing the need for external support.FFS are costly undertakings, making a careful measurement of their impact important. However, empiricalevidence on their effectiveness has been mixed. Results of previous impact evaluations have varied greatlyaccording to the setting, the evaluation methods, and the yardstick used to assess impact. The few studies that 2 An abundance of empirical research exists on the effectiveness of T&V. See Birkhaeuser et al. (1991) for a review of studies onthe economic impact of these and other agricultural extension programs.3 IPM is knowledge-intensive because in order to effectively implement IPM – which employs natural predators to combat pests– farmers must be able to understand the origins, cycles, and natural enemies of pests.3examine the impact of FFS on farmers’ knowledge generally find that FFS participants tend to have higherknowledge test scores after program participation or relative to a group of non-participants.4 Some studies show thatFFS participants use less pesticide and have higher yields compared to non-participants, while others find littleevidence of impact on these outcomes. At the same time, there appears to be little evidence of diffusion ofknowledge from FFS graduates to other farmers.5A major drawback of most previous studies is that they do not properly control for potential differencesbetween FFS participants and farmers in the comparison group, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.These differences could arise from the non-random placement of the program or from the voluntary nature ofparticipation in FFS. For example, FFS villages might be chosen for their relative advantages in land fertility orclimate. Or farmers who voluntarily participate


The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity

Download The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?