SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 51
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Intro    Context   Usage    Impact: Info           Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion




        The Value of Advice: Evidence from Agricultural
                     Production Practices

            Shawn Cole (Harvard) and Nilesh Fernando (Harvard)

                                           IFPRI


                               August 2, 2012
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                      Agricultural Extension Services



        Widely credited for speeding the green revolution
        But...
                  “often fail due to inadequate consultation of farmers about
                  their information needs” (Babu et al., 2012)
                  are costly, reach few, and su¤er from limited accountability
                  (Anderson and Feder, 2007)
        Arrival of low-cost ICT may provide improved way to convey
        information
Intro   Context          Usage    Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                           Today
        Evaluate a mobile-phone, voice-based agricultural advice and
        information service
                  “Avaaj Otalo,” or AO, a for-pro…t startup in Gujarat
        RCT with 1,200 cotton farmers in 40 villages, randomized at
        individual level
                  400   get AO & Physical Agricultural Extension
                  400   get AO only
                  400   serve as pure controls
                  [No   control group of Extension only]
        Impact on:
                  Sources of information
                  Agricultural knowledge
                  Real outcomes
        Peer e¤ects and learning:
                  Information sharing
                  Learning by observation
                  Peer agricultural behavior
Intro   Context   Usage    Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                               Motivation

        Modern growth theory attempts to explain productivity
        di¤erences within and across countries through varying
        technology use
        Large productivity di¤erences in crop yields exist within and
        across countries. To what extent are these di¤erences
        explained by ine¢ cient agricultural practices?
        Does a lack of awareness and technical know how explain the
        limited adoption of pro…table agricultural investments in the
        context of Gujarat? Through what mechanisms do such
        ’informational ine¢ ciencies’limit technology adoption?
        How do farmers share information? Does informing some
        farmers lead to positive spillovers, or less observation and
        information exchange? What factors serve to promote or limit
        the di¤usion of agricultural technologies?
Intro   Context   Usage    Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                            Contributions




        Rigorous evaluation of agricultural extension
        E¢ cacy of training (Financial literacy, management
        consulting)
        Test of validity of rural surveys via mobile phone
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects    Discussion



                           Speci…c Open Questions

        Impact: Can e¤ective agricultural extension be delivered via
        mobile phone?
                  Inform general debate on delivery of public services via ICTs.
        Is ICT education a substitute or complement to traditional
        (in-person) extension?
        Demand-Driven Extension: What is the importance of
        ’top-down’information provided by experts versus ’bottom-up’
        information generated by users?
        Predictors of Adoption: What demographic factors explain
        di¤erences in technology use?
        Technology Di¤usion: Is valuable agricultural information
        shared among peers?
Intro   Context   Usage      Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                          Location in Literature


        Identifying the Impact of Agricultural Extension : Bardhan &
        Mookherjee (2011), Gandhi et al. (2009), Evanson et al.
        (1990)
        Explaining Technology Adoption in Agriculture : Du‡o,
        Kremer and Robinson (2011), Suri (2011), Udry & Conley
        (2010)
        Markets for Advice : Anagol & Kim (2012), others????
        Productivity and Technology (Banerjee-Du‡o 2005,
        Hsieh-Klenow 2009)
        Entire …eld of agricultural economics
Intro   Context   Usage    Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                          Feedback sought




        What are the most pressing questions in agricultural
        extension?
        Particular mechanisms worth testing
        Alternative applications in our setting
Intro   Context        Usage      Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                     Avaaj Otalo
        Avaaj Otalo (“Voice Stoop”)
        Based on open source software (hence scalable)
        Mobile and voice-based touch-tone platform
                  Good for low literacy environments
                  Facilitates consistent delivery and reception of information
        Easy to monitor information delivery, evaluate services
        Enables farmers to receive, solicit, and share agricultural
        information
                  Bottom-up and top-down agricultural information
        Gujarat-based startup, founded by Stanford and Berkeley
        computer scientists
        About 8 implementations in 6 states of India (information
        network for sex workers, ag info, etc.)
Intro   Context   Usage    Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                          Motivation for AO

        Training & Visit method of agricultural extension considered
        unsustainable (IFPRI 2010)
        Up to 97 percent of Ag Extension budgets pay salaries,
        leaving little resources for …eld visits
        Caste and gender limits use of e-Choupal kiosks (Kumar,
        2004)
        Provides information on information needs quickly and cheaply
        AO provides ongoing ‡ow of information rather than one-shot
        training
        Agri-input dealers provide advice, but may have incentives to
        recommend incorrect quantities or even products
        Local NGO, DSC, has provided radio program with farming
        practices for 5 years in study area
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                   Avaaj Otalo Service: Main Features


        Push calls
        Question and answer service
        Experience Sharing
                  Farmers can volunteer agricultural practice information,
                  perspectives, etc.; respond to others
        Radio Program
        Normal implementation: farmer pays airtime
        Our implementation: computer provides free callbacks in
        response to a missed call
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                      Push Calls



        Delivered every Wednesday to all 800 treatment respondents
        Average Length: ~5 minutes
        Each message is based on:
                  Weekly calls to ten randomly selected farmers about their
                  information needs for the following week
                  Questions from incoming calls the week before
                  Weather information from Indian Meteorological Dept.
                  Agronomists’knowledge of crop phase, and agricultural best
                  practices
Intro   Context        Usage      Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                               Incoming Call Features

        QnA: Farmers can record their own questions as well as listen
        to or respond to existing questions and answers
                  Typical response time ~24 hours
        Announcements: This forum contains all the push messages
        that are sent out weekly by DSC and CMF
        Radio: Many episodes on agriculture are available from a
        radio show run by DSC over the previous …ve years.
        Experience-sharing: This forum encourages farmers to share
        their own innovative practices.
        Personal Inbox: Gives users access to their own questions and
        messages.
Intro   Context        Usage      Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                Value Proposition

        Provides customized, timely, regular and relevant agricultural
        information
        Mitigates failures of traditional extension systems
                  Addresses spatial failures by providing geography-speci…c
                  information, and mobile-based delivery decreases cost of
                  delivery and thus has higher reach
                  Addresses temporal failures by delivering information that is
                  sensitive to local weather conditions, and is available 24/7
                  Addresses institutional failures by delivering information that is
                  demand-driven, and the web-based moderation platform allows
                  for centralized monitoring of extension delivery
        Demand-driven
        Builds on trust and expertise established by DSC, a local NGO
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                               Physical Extension

        Two hours long; one session in Kharif (monsoon), one in Rabi
        (winter)
        Run by NGO (AKRSP), not government
        Invited 400 people from treatment group, 168 came
        Provided free transportation and a meal, no other
        compensation
        At NGO site, ca. 10-50 km from respondents households
        Rabi session focuses on:
                  Wheat and cumin variety selection
                  Cotton pesticide usage
        Based on time in season and informed by AO questions
        20-30 people per session
Intro   Context    Usage    Impact: Info   Impact: Practices      Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                  AO vs. Physical Extension Cost

        AO: Assume 20 minutes of push calls and 18 minutes of
        incoming usage each month

          Per Farmer Cost     Monthly Cost (USD)               Monthly Cost (USD)
                              (N=800)                          (N=2000)
          Airtime             .60                              .60
          Agronomist          .90                              .36
          AO System           .40                              .17
          Total Monthly       1.90                             1.13

        One agronomist can handle 2,000 farmers on a regular basis
        Physical Extension Cost: $8.50 per farmer
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                Sample Selection


        Focus on cotton farmers
                  Important crop for millions of farmers
                  Similar varieties and irrigation methods over large area
                  Well-settled science, but uncertainty about practice remains
        Identify 40 villages in which DSC has a good presence
        Identify all cotton farmers in village (NGO workers created
        lists)
        Selected 30 from these lists at random, strati…ed by subcaste
        Assigned 10 to Control, 10 to AO, and 10 to AO & Physical
        Extension
Intro      Context           Usage   Impact: Info       Impact: Practices       Peer E¤ects         Discussion



                                     Project Timeline


                                       Surveying and Intervention Timeline
        Date                           Event
        May/June 2011                  Cotton planting decisions begin
        May 2011                       Listing for Baseline Survey
        July 2011                      Baseline (Paper) Survey
        August 2011                    AO training for treatment respondents
        August 2011                    AO missed call service activated, first treatment message delivered
        October 2011                   Encouragement reminder calls
        November 1-6, 2011             Physical Extension
        November 10, 2011              Round 1 of phone survey
        November 21, 2011              Peer / General Reminder Calls Begin
        November 2011                  Cumin planting decisions for Rabi 2012
        December, 2011                 Round 2 of phone survey
        March, 2012                    Peer survey
        July, 2012                     Midline survey
        July, 2012                     2nd AO training session starts for treatment respondents
Intro   Context    Usage    Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                  Avaaz Otalo Administrative Data




        All calls, duration of call, features access
        Whether individual listens to push call or not
        Whether control group calls in to non toll-free line
        Linked by mobile phone number
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info    Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                   Results Map

        Randomization Check and Summary Statistics
        Impact Evaluation
                  Randomization Check
                  Sources of Information
                  Knowledge Index
                  Pesticide Purchase and Usage
                  Sowing Decisions
        Peer E¤ects and Learning
                  Information Sharing Behavior
                  Spillovers within study sample
                  Spillovers outside of study sample
        Attrition and other concerns
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                               Empirical Approach
        Standard simple di¤erence estimator, village …xed-e¤ects,
        robust standard errors
        Comparing AO and AO+Extension group to controls


                   yi ,v = αv + β (AO or AO&Extension ) + ε i

                  Sample size with paper survey 1,200=398 control + 399 AO +
                  403 AO&E
                  Sample size with phone survey 737=369+184+184
        Comparing AO to control

                                yi ,v = αv + β (AO ) + ε i

                  Sample size with paper survey: 797=398+399
                  Sample size with phone survey: 553=369+184
Intro    Context              Usage              Impact: Info              Impact: Practices               Peer E¤ects      Discussion



        Sample Characteristics and Randomization Check
                                                    Balance Information Sources (Paper)
                                               Cotton Fertilizer               Cotton Pesticide           Cumin Planting
                                          Control (AO+AOE)-C              Control    (AO+AOE)-C     Control    (AO+AOE)-C
         Cell contents:                    Mean           ITT              Mean            ITT       Mean           ITT
                                             (3)           (4)               (5)            (6)        (9)          (10)
         Asked for or received advice      0.265        -0.005             0.594          0.035      0.131        -0.022
                                          (0.442)       (0.027)           (0.492)        (0.030)    (0.337)       (0.020)

            N                              392             1180            392             1180      398           1200

         Importance of source consulted
           Past experience                 0.048          -0.014           0.030          -0.016       -           0.023
                                          (0.215)         (0.025)         (0.171)         (0.012)                 (0.016)

            Gov't extension                0.010          -0.010           0.004           0.002     0.019        -0.019
                                          (0.098)         (0.010)         (0.066)         (0.006)   (0.139)       (0.019)

            NGO                            0.019          -0.014           0.004           0.002       -           0.011
                                          (0.138)         (0.014)         (0.066)         (0.006)                 (0.012)

            Other farmers                  0.731          -0.009           0.421          -0.005     0.635         0.101
                                          (0.446)         (0.054)         (0.495)         (0.039)   (0.486)       (0.082)

            Input shops                    0.144           0.027           0.515           0.019     0.269        -0.062
                                          (0.353)         (0.043)         (0.501)         (0.040)   (0.448)       (0.076)

            N for Mean                     104                             233                        52
            N for ITT Regression                           309                             729                     139




          No di¤erence for Cotton and Wheat Planting, or by treatment
Intro       Context                 Usage               Impact: Info           Impact: Practices    Peer E¤ects             Discussion



        Sample Characteristics and Randomization Check
             Randomization mostly successful, except Cotton 2010

                                                             Balance Planting (Paper)
                                            Control Group     AO Only     AO+Extension      AO-C    AOE-C    (AO+AOE)-C
        Cell contents:                         Mean            Mean          Mean            ITT     ITT         ITT
                                                 (1)            (2)           (3)             (4)     (5)         (6)
        A. Sample Size
        Entire Sample                           398              399           403          797      801           1200

        B. Planting in Kharif '10
        Planted Cotton                          0.98             0.98          0.99        -0.01     0.00           0.00
                                               (0.12)           (0.15)        (0.11)       (0.01)   (0.01)         (0.01)
        Area Cotton Planted                     4.45             5.01          4.74        0.57**    0.29          0.43*
                                               (3.62)           (4.05)        (4.43)       (0.27)   (0.29)         (0.24)
        Planted Wheat                           0.78             0.72          0.72        -0.05*   -0.05         -0.05**
                                               (0.42)           (0.45)        (0.45)       (0.03)   (0.03)         (0.03)
        Area Wheat Planted                      1.17             1.35          1.07         0.18    -0.10           0.04
                                               (1.35)           (2.30)        (1.25)       (0.13)   (0.09)         (0.09)
        Planted Cumin                           0.42             0.40          0.41        -0.02    -0.01          -0.02
                                               (0.49)           (0.49)        (0.49)       (0.03)   (0.03)         (0.03)
        Area Cumin Planted                      0.76             0.79          0.70         0.03    -0.06          -0.02
                                               (1.41)           (1.50)        (1.34)       (0.10)   (0.10)         (0.09)




             Imbalance in reported area cotton planted in Kharif 2010
             (No cotton imbalance in Kharif 2011)
Intro   Context   Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                          Usage (First Stage)



        Initially, some concern about usage / take-up
        AO service …rst provided free by IBM/DSC, high usage
        Subsequently required farmers to pay own airtime, usage
        dropped
        Maximize research power with free service for treatment group
        DSC started to charge farmers nominal fee (ca. $4/year)
        Could be …nancially self-sustaining even without subscription
        (airtime charges)
Intro    Context            Usage         Impact: Info             Impact: Practices        Peer E¤ects         Discussion



                                       Usage (First Stage)

                    First Stage: Effect of Assignment on AO Usage and Physical Extension Visits
                                                         Control      (AO+AOE)-C         AO-C         AOE-C
                                                          Mean             ITT            ITT           ITT
                                                           (1)              (2)            (3)           (4)
        Listened to more than 50% of push calls             0           0.755***       0.745***      0.766***
                                                                         (0.017)        (0.024)       (0.024)

        Called AO                                          0             0.603***      0.555***      0.650***
                                                                          (0.017)       (0.023)       (0.025)

        Duration of usage                                  0            72.548***      53.866***    90.828***
                                                                         (10.644)       (8.902)      (18.589)

        Winsorized duration of usage (90%)                 0            45.341***      40.106***    50.540***
                                                                         (4.140)        (4.534)      (5.783)

        Total no. of questions asked                       0             1.441***       1.22***      1.656***
                                                                          (0.201)       (0.205)       (0.272)

        Total no. of times Q&A accessed                    0             3.416***       2.28***      4.496***
                                                                          (0.571)       (0.338)       (0.957)

        Attended Physical Extension                       0.005          0.214***       0.013*       0.413***
                                                         (0.071)          (0.017)       (0.007)       (0.033)
Intro   Context   Usage   Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                          Question Topics



        Thematic breakdown from Start until Round 1 Phone Survey:

                   Topic                 Percent of Calls
                   Pest Management       59
                   Fertilizers           8
                   Seeds                 1
                   Crop Planning         5
                   Others                24
Intro   Context            Usage          Impact: Info         Impact: Practices           Peer E¤ects         Discussion



           Sources of Information: Planting Decisions
        AO may complement or substitute information collection


                                                  Impact: Information Sources
                                         Cotton Planting               Wheat Planting            Cumin Planting
                                     Control    (AO+AOE)-C         Control   (AO+AOE)-C      Control  (AO+AOE)-C
          Cell contents:              Mean            ITT           Mean          ITT         Mean          ITT
                                       (1)             (2)           (7)           (8)         (9)          (10)
          Importance of source consulted
            Past experience           0.612       0.078**           0.138       -0.040*       0.179       -0.035
                                     (0.488)      (0.035)          (0.346)      (0.024)      (0.384)      (0.027)

             Gov't extension          0.008        -0.003          0.000           0          0.005       -0.005
                                     (0.090)       (0.006)                                   (0.074)      (0.004)

             NGO                      0.043        -0.008           0.014       -0.003        0.005        0.005
                                     (0.204)       (0.014)         (0.116)      (0.008)      (0.074)      (0.007)

             Mobile phone-based       0.003       0.087***           0          0.052***        0        0.125***
                                     (0.052)       (0.015)                       (0.012)                  (0.017)

             Other farmers            0.230      -0.127***          0.033       -0.019*       0.070      -0.046***
                                     (0.422)       (0.027)         (0.178)      (0.011)      (0.256)       (0.016)

             Input shops              0.070        -0.016           0.000        0.005        0.011        0.000
                                     (0.256)       (0.018)         (0.000)      (0.004)      (0.104)      (0.008)


                                                              35
Intro   Context            Usage     Impact: Info        Impact: Practices     Peer E¤ects   Discussion



          Sources of Information: Agricultural Inputs
                                     Impact: Information Sources
                                          Cotton Fertilizer             Cotton Pesticide
                                      Control (AO+AOE)-C             Control   (AO+AOE)-C
          Cell contents:               Mean           ITT             Mean           ITT
                                        (3)            (4)             (5)           (6)
          Importance of source consulted
            Past experience             0.496         0.029           0.291     -0.018
                                       (0.501)       (0.037)         (0.455)    (0.033)

             Gov't extension           0.011          0.005           0.008      0.003
                                      (0.104)        (0.009)         (0.091)    (0.007)

             NGO                       0.051         -0.013           0.044     -0.011
                                      (0.221)        (0.015)         (0.206)    (0.014)

             Mobile phone-based        0.003        0.223***          0.006    0.297***
                                      (0.052)        (0.022)         (0.074)    (0.024)

             Other farmers             0.252        -0.149***         0.177    -0.073***
                                      (0.435)        (0.028)         (0.382)    (0.026)

             Input shops               0.146        -0.081***         0.446    -0.190***
                                      (0.354)        (0.022)
                                                    35               (0.498)    (0.035)
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                    Impact on Agricultural Knowledge



        Measure agricultural knowledge with a series of ten questions
        related to agricultural practices
        Asked once at baseline paper survey, once in round 1 phone
        survey
        Example questions
                  “If money were not a constraint, what is the best pesticide for
                  cotton white‡y?”
                  “Which fungicide should be applied to control wilt in cotton?”
                  “Which variety of cumin is recommended as wilt-resistant?”
Intro   Context          Usage        Impact: Info              Impact: Practices     Peer E¤ects    Discussion



                   Impact on Agricultural Knowledge

                                   Impact: Agricultural Knowledge
                                      Baseline Survey                        Round 1 Phone Survey
                                 Control       (AO+AOE)-C                   Control     (AO+AOE)-C
        Cell contents:            Mean              ITT                      Mean            ITT
                                    (1)              (2)                       (3)            (4)
        Total                     0.289           -0.001                     0.350          0.008
                                 (0.212)          (0.014)                   (0.173)        (0.011)
        Cotton-related           0.585               0.024                   0.576         0.025
                                 0.493               0.034                  (0.380)       (0.022)
        Fertilizer-related       (0.162)             -(0.004)                0.321        -0.015
                                  0.279               0.016                 (0.200)       (0.014)
        Pesticide-related         0.284               0.003                  0.202        -0.008
                                 (0.451)             (0.028)                (0.257)       (0.014)
        Cumin-related             0.254              -0.024                  0.340       0.123***
                                 (0.436)             (0.025)                (0.474)       (0.035)




        Limited e¤ect, only on cumin-related question
Intro   Context   Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                           Cumin Adoption




        Cash crop with potential for high-return, but risky
        Important risks: wilt, frost
        AO provides timely weather forecasting and planting
        suggestions
        Nearly half of push messages (20) discuss Cumin, and physical
        extension covers cumin cultivation
Intro      Context         Usage          Impact: Info          Impact: Practices       Peer E¤ects         Discussion



                           Impact on Adoption of Cumin




                                                Impact: Cumin Adoption
                                                      Control    (AO+AOE)-C          AO-C         AOE-C
                                                       Mean           ITT             ITT           ITT
                                                         (1)           (2)             (3)           (4)
        Planted cumin in R'11 but not in R'12          0.183        -0.016           0.007        -0.036
                                                      (0.387)       (0.030)         (0.039)       (0.033)

        Planted cumin in R'12 but not in R'11          0.138         0.064**         0.054        0.064*
                                                      (0.345)        (0.028)        (0.041)       (0.035)

        Planted cumin both in R'11 and in R'12         0.233         -0.032         -0.016        -0.045
                                                      (0.423)        (0.029)        (0.040)       (0.034)
Intro      Context         Usage            Impact: Info         Impact: Practices       Peer E¤ects             Discussion



                     Cumin: Acreage Planted (No Control)

                                                      Control      (AO+AOE)-C         AO-C         AOE-C
                                                       Mean             ITT            ITT           ITT
        Baseline (N=1200)                                (1)             (2)            (3)           (4)
        Did you plant cumin in Rabi 2011?              0.425          -0.017         -0.023        -0.012
                                                      (0.495)         (0.030)        (0.034)       (0.035)

        Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2011?       0.762         -0.019          0.018            -0.055
                                                       (1.406)        (0.078)        (0.085)           (0.106)

        Baseline Phone Respondents (N=798)
        Did you plant cumin in Rabi 2011?               0.425         -0.018         -0.035            -0.001
                                                       (0.495)        (0.032)        (0.039)           (0.039)

        Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2011?       0.762          0.000          0.036            -0.037
                                                       (1.406)        (0.081)        (0.110)           (0.119)

        Round 1 Phone Survey (N=737)
        Did you plant cumin this Rabi 2012?             0.274          0.046         0.070*             0.022
                                                       (0.446)        (0.033)        (0.042)           (0.039)

        Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2012?       0.522         0.243**        0.240*            0.255*
                                                       (1.174)        (0.112)        (0.127)           (0.154)
Intro        Context         Usage            Impact: Info         Impact: Practices       Peer E¤ects             Discussion



        Cumin: Acreage Planted (Control for Baseline Cotton
                              Area)

                                                Cumin Sowing Decisions
                                                        Control      (AO+AOE)-C         AO-C         AOE-C
                                                         Mean             ITT            ITT           ITT
          Baseline (N=1200)                                (1)             (2)            (3)           (4)
          Did you plant cumin in Rabi 2011?              0.425          -0.025         -0.032        -0.019
                                                        (0.495)         (0.030)        (0.035)       (0.035)

          Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2011?       0.762         -0.057         -0.036            -0.080
                                                         (1.406)        (0.079)        (0.085)           (0.105)

          Baseline Phone Respondents (N=798)
          Did you plant cumin in Rabi 2011?               0.425         -0.034         -0.052            -0.014
                                                         (0.495)        (0.033)        (0.039)           (0.038)

          Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2011?       0.762         -0.086         -0.058            -0.099
                                                         (1.406)        (0.084)        (0.102)           (0.115)

          Round 1 Phone Survey (N=737)
          Did you plant cumin this Rabi 2012?             0.274          0.038          0.051             0.019
                                                         (0.446)        (0.035)        (0.045)           (0.040)

          Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2012?       0.522          0.225 *        0.202             0.246
                                                         (1.174)        (0.117)        (0.138)           (0.156)
Intro   Context   Usage    Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                      Why Pest Management?


        Indian cotton yields are one third of Chinese yields (NCC,
        2012)
        Cotton production accounts of 54% of all pesticide usage in
        India
        Pesticide accounts for roughly 15% of input costs in cotton
        production
        Pilot studies of AO in rural Gujarat suggest large demand for
        pest management information (Patel at al. 2010)
        Types of pests a- icting cotton vary by season and develop
        resistance to pesticides and varieties of cotton putting a
        premium on learning and timely information
Intro      Context   Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices     Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                       Pesticide Choice for Cotton

                              Monocrotophos                   Imidachlororprid
        Price per Liter       $8                              $20
        Dose for 1 acre       1.5L                            300 ml
        Cost/acre             $12                             $6
        Introduced            1980                            2000
        Kills Bollworm        Yes                             No
                               Many sucking pests
        Kills sucking pests       have developed              Yes
                                 immunity to this
        Toxicity              High                            Medium-Low
           Key fact: 95% of farmers grow BT Cotton, which is resistant
           to bollworm
Intro   Context     Usage   Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                  Control Actions on Monocrotophos


        Indonesia: Banned for use in rice in 1986
        Kuwait: Severely Restricted
        Germany: May not be handled by adolescents, pregnant and
        nursing women
        Malaysia: Registered for speci…c use
        Philippines: Severely restricted
        Sri Lanka: Severely restricted. Banned since 1995.
        US: Use is prohibited
Intro     Context          Usage           Impact: Info      Impact: Practices         Peer E¤ects    Discussion



            Use of Cotton Pesticides: More of the Good

                                                 Control    (AO+AOE)-C        AO-C          AOE-C
                                                  Mean          ITT            ITT            ITT
        Baseline (N=1200)                           (1)          (2)            (3)            (4)
        Purchased imidacloprid in K'10            0.428        0.028         -0.018          0.074
                                                 (0.496)      (0.038)        (0.041)        (0.050)

        Amount of imidacloprid used in K'10        0.435       0.034          0.066          0.019
                                                  (0.837)     (0.068)        (0.093)        (0.083)

        Round 1 Phone Survey (N=737)
        Purchased imidacloprid in K'11             0.388       0.128 ***      0.136 ***      0.122
                                                  (0.488)     (0.037)        (0.049)        (0.043)

        Used imidacloprid in K'11                  0.388       0.125 ***      0.136 ***      0.116
                                                  (0.488)     (0.036)        (0.049)        (0.044)

        Amount of imidacloprid used in K'11        0.492       0.105          0.149          0.050
                                                  (1.254)     (0.082)        (0.128)        (0.071)

        Intensity of imidacloprid used in K'11     0.110       0.037 **       0.039          0.032
                                                  (0.214)     (0.018)        (0.027)        (0.019)
Intro     Context         Usage           Impact: Info             Impact: Practices      Peer E¤ects             Discussion



              Use of Cotton Pesticides: Less of the Bad
                                             Usage of Monocrotophos
                                                         Control      (AO+AOE)-C        AO-C        AOE-C
                                                          Mean            ITT            ITT          ITT
        Baseline (N=1200)                                   (1)            (2)            (3)          (4)
        Purchased monocrotophos in K'10                   0.962          0.000         -0.001       -0.001
                                                         (0.191)        (0.012)        (0.010)      (0.016)

        Amount of monocrotophos used in K'10              2.328          0.254*        0.346*            0.219
                                                         (1.866)         (0.137)       (0.189)          (0.169)

        Baseline Phone Respondents (N=798)
        Purchased monocrotophos in K'10                   0.962           0.002        -0.011            0.013
                                                         (0.191)         (0.013)       (0.015)          (0.017)

        Amount of monocrotophos used in K'10              2.328          0.306*         0.412            0.226
                                                         (1.866)         (0.180)       (0.287)          (0.213)

        Round 1 Phone Survey (N=737)
        Purchased monocrotophos in K'11                   0.945          -0.013        -0.024           -0.002
                                                         (0.229)         (0.019)       (0.020)          (0.026)

        Used monocrotophos in K'11                        0.942          -0.010        -0.021            0.001
                                                         (0.234)         (0.019)       (0.021)          (0.026)

        Amount of monocrotophos used in K'11              3.870          -0.486**      -0.307       -0.684**
                                                         (4.005)          (0.210)      (0.251)       (0.278)
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion




        At baseline, each farmer was asked to identify top agricultural
        contacts with whom they exchange information
        Can imagine two models for e¤ect of AO
                  AO dramatically increases sharing of knowledge, because
                  quality of knowledge increases, so returns to sharing are higher
                  AO reduces sharing of knowledge, because farmers avail of AO
Intro    Context        Usage                      Impact: Info                      Impact: Practices                      Peer E¤ects   Discussion



        How does AO a¤ect farmers propensity to share
                       information?


                                                             Impact: Information Sharing
                                                                           Control     (AO+AOE)-C      AO-C      AOE-C
                                                                            Mean            ITT         ITT        ITT
                                                                              (1)            (3)         (5)        (7)
                   Shared agricultural information with top contacts        0.693         -0.019       0.003     -0.046
                                                                           (0.462)       (0.034)      (0.038)    (0.043)
                   Topics of information shared:
                   Crop decision                                            0.122          -0.037*    -0.033     -0.041
                                                                           (0.328)         (0.020)    (0.025)    (0.027)

                   Fertilizers                                              0.313          -0.053     -0.042     -0.067*
                                                                           (0.464)         (0.033)    (0.042)    (0.040)

                   Pests and diseases                                       0.043          0.027*      0.010     0.040*
                                                                           (0.204)         (0.016)    (0.016)    (0.024)

                   Pesticides and fungicides                                0.454          -0.005      0.025     -0.038
                                                                            0.499          0.036       0.040     0.046

                   Harvesting                                               0.014          -0.014**   -0.014**   -0.014**
                                                                           (0.116)          (0.006)    (0.006)    (0.006)
Intro      Context            Usage              Impact: Info             Impact: Practices         Peer E¤ects      Discussion



                             E¤ect on Information Collection
            Less likely to receive information from top contacts


                                         Impact: Information Reception and Observation
                                                                Control      (AO+AOE)-C        AO-C        AOE-C
                                                                 Mean             ITT           ITT          ITT
                                                                   (1)             (2)           (3)          (4)
        Received information from top contacts                   0.563          -0.076 ***    -0.086 **    -0.066
                                                                (0.497)        (0.029)        (0.040)      (0.037)

        Topic of information received:
        Crop decision                                            0.114          -0.054 ***    -0.046 **    -0.061
                                                                (0.318)         (0.019)       (0.022)      (0.021)

        Field Preparation                                        0.038          -0.020 *      -0.016       -0.026
                                                                (0.192)         (0.011)       (0.015)      (0.013)

        Seeds                                                    0.179          -0.045 *      -0.057 *     -0.033
                                                                (0.384)         (0.026)       (0.029)      (0.030)

        Fertilizers                                              0.204          -0.052 **     -0.049       -0.058
                                                                (0.403)         (0.025)       (0.032)      (0.033)

        Pests and diseases                                       0.035          -0.002        -0.003       -0.002
                                                                (0.185)         (0.012)       (0.016)      (0.015)
Intro      Context            Usage              Impact: Info             Impact: Practices         Peer E¤ects      Discussion



                              Less Learning from Neighbors


                                                                Control      (AO+AOE)-C        AO-C        AOE-C
                                                                 Mean             ITT           ITT          ITT
                                                                   (1)             (2)           (3)          (4)
        Learned information from observing top                   0.239          -0.107 ***    -0.115 ***   -0.102
          contacts' fields                                      (0.427)        (0.028)        (0.035)      (0.029)
        Topic of information learned:
        Crop decision                                            0.049          -0.040 ***    -0.034 ***   -0.043
                                                                (0.216)         (0.013)       (0.012)      (0.013)

        Field Preparation                                        0.041          -0.024 **     -0.025 *     -0.023
                                                                (0.198)         (0.011)       (0.015)      (0.012)

        Seeds                                                    0.035          -0.021 **     -0.034 ***   -0.008
                                                                (0.185)         (0.010)       (0.010)      (0.012)

        Fertilizers                                              0.041          -0.020        -0.037 **    -0.004
                                                                (0.198)         (0.015)       (0.016)      (0.018)

        Pests and diseases                                       0.014          -0.011        -0.008       -0.014
                                                                (0.116)         (0.006)       (0.008)      (0.006)
Intro      Context                Usage          Impact: Info         Impact: Practices          Peer E¤ects    Discussion



        Peer E¤ects: Spillovers on Imida Use, Control Group
                                   Peer Effects on Imidacloprid Adoption within Study Group

                                                              1=Purchased Imidacloprid in K'11
                                             (1)           (2)           (3)             (4)            (5)
          At least one top contact         0.123                                                      0.304*
          received treatment              (0.118)                                                     (0.160)

                                                          0.165         0.185         0.283**
          Proportion of top contacts
                                                         (0.130)       (0.133)        (0.138)
          who received treatment

          Controls
          Age                                                           -0.008         -0.006         -0.003
                                                                       (0.006)         (0.006)        (0.006)
          Years of education                                            -0.003          0.004          0.012
                                                                       (0.017)         (0.015)        (0.014)
          Land holdings (ac)                                            0.018           0.034         0.0419*
                                                                       (0.022)         (0.021)        (0.024)
          Area Cotton Planted (K'10)                                    -0.016        -0.0495*        -0.048
                                                                       (0.031)         (0.029)        (0.034)
          Top contacts' average land holdings                           0.003           0.010          0.010
                                                                       (0.012)         (0.013)        (0.017)
          Number of references received                                -(0.048)        (0.033)
                                                                       (0.039)         (0.043)

          Village Fixed Effects            Yes             Yes           Yes              Yes          Yes
          N                                120            120            120              102           90
          No. of villages                   38             38             38               38           36
Intro    Context                Usage          Impact: Info        Impact: Practices          Peer E¤ects    Discussion



                          Spillovers, Imida Use Among Peers

                                                           1=Purchased Imidacloprid in K'11
                                           (1)           (2)           (3)            (4)             (5)
        At least one top contact         0.033                                                      0.033
        received treatment              (0.046)                                                    (0.051)

        Proportion of top                               0.029         0.026         0.065
        contacts who received                          (0.051)       (0.051)       (0.190)
        treatment
        Controls
        Age                                                          -0.001         -0.002          0.001
                                                                     (0.002)        (0.003)        (0.003)
        Years of education                                            0.006          0.007          0.007
                                                                     (0.005)        (0.007)        (0.005)
        Land holdings (ac)                                           0.005**        0.005**       0.0051**
                                                                     (0.003)        (0.002)        (0.002)
        Top contacts' average land holdings                          0.002**       0.001***       0.002***
                                                                     (0.001)        (0.000)        (0.001)
        Number of references received                                 0.003          0.005
                                                                     (0.028)        (0.051)

        Village Fixed Effects            Yes             Yes           Yes             Yes          Yes
        N                                687            687           651              360          528
        No. of villages                   40             40            40               40           40
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                        Caveats



        Attrition
                  Number of attritors equal in treatment and control group
                  Imbalance in attrition in round 1 phone: treatment group
                  attritors more likely to have planted cumin in ’10
        Demand e¤ects
                  55% of treatment group reports having called into AO to ask
                  question
                  Administrative data indicates 53% actually did so
                  Continue knowledge tests
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                               Proof of Concept



        Take-up of AO is high, among randomly selected sample of
        poor farmers
                  75% listen to more than half of push calls
                  60% call into system,
                  Each person asks 1.4 questions on average
        Young, technophiles more likely to use
        Telephone surveys appear to work well
                  Midline: Section ‘
                                   Z’randomly assigned phone or paper
                  administration
Intro   Context   Usage   Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                  Impact Evaluation: Information




        Between 10-30% report AO as main information source on
        various topics
        Reduction in reliance on agro-dealers for pesticide (from 45%
        to 25%) and fertilizer (from 15% to 7%)
        No dramatic change in measured agricultural knowledge
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



            Impact Evaluation: Agricultural Practices


        Cumin
                  Approximately 6 percentage point increase in cumin adoption
                  (from base of 12 pp)
                  Average area planted in cumin increase .22 acres, o¤ base of
                  .52 acres
        Pesticide
                  Dramatic increase in use of imidacloprid (from 40% to 55%)
                  Modest reduction in intensity of monocrotophos (from 3.9 to
                  3.5 L)
        E¤ect on Yields
                  Collecting data currently
Intro   Context        Usage         Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                         Conclusion



        Farmers will listen to advice
        Treatment has important e¤ects:
                  pesticide choice
                  cumin sewing
        Behavior may change without generic change in knowledge
        New technology may a¤ect information-sharing behavior
                  Less reported sharing, but likely better quality information
Intro   Context        Usage     Impact: Info   Impact: Practices   Peer E¤ects   Discussion



                                    Future work



        Audit study of agri-dealers
        Peer survey
                  Peer_Outcome=a+β Peer _Treated + ε i
        Health outcomes
        Measuring willingness to pay
        Role of trust in learning (DSC well-known)
                  Education vs. persuasion

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Dfid mobiles in development seminar final
Dfid mobiles in development seminar   finalDfid mobiles in development seminar   final
Dfid mobiles in development seminar finalEnvisage RTI
 
Elements Necessary for the Successful Scale Up of Mobile Health in Developing...
Elements Necessary for the Successful Scale Up of Mobile Health in Developing...Elements Necessary for the Successful Scale Up of Mobile Health in Developing...
Elements Necessary for the Successful Scale Up of Mobile Health in Developing...Jeannine Lemaire
 
Transforming lives of rural communities around the world by using digital pla...
Transforming lives of rural communities around the world by using digital pla...Transforming lives of rural communities around the world by using digital pla...
Transforming lives of rural communities around the world by using digital pla...STARS Forum
 
GFAR webinar on farm radio, community radio and participatory radio
GFAR webinar on farm radio, community radio and participatory radioGFAR webinar on farm radio, community radio and participatory radio
GFAR webinar on farm radio, community radio and participatory radioGCARD Conferences
 
Bell bajao - Impact, Recognition, Stories
Bell bajao - Impact, Recognition, StoriesBell bajao - Impact, Recognition, Stories
Bell bajao - Impact, Recognition, Storiesbellbajao
 
Innovative and Pragmatic eHealth Solutions at Work: Mekong Region
Innovative and Pragmatic eHealth Solutions at Work: Mekong RegionInnovative and Pragmatic eHealth Solutions at Work: Mekong Region
Innovative and Pragmatic eHealth Solutions at Work: Mekong RegionInSTEDD
 
Use of Information Communication Technologies Among Female Block Extension Ag...
Use of Information Communication Technologies Among Female Block Extension Ag...Use of Information Communication Technologies Among Female Block Extension Ag...
Use of Information Communication Technologies Among Female Block Extension Ag...IOSRJAVS
 

La actualidad más candente (10)

WOCAT_QA_Summary
WOCAT_QA_SummaryWOCAT_QA_Summary
WOCAT_QA_Summary
 
Dfid mobiles in development seminar final
Dfid mobiles in development seminar   finalDfid mobiles in development seminar   final
Dfid mobiles in development seminar final
 
Elements Necessary for the Successful Scale Up of Mobile Health in Developing...
Elements Necessary for the Successful Scale Up of Mobile Health in Developing...Elements Necessary for the Successful Scale Up of Mobile Health in Developing...
Elements Necessary for the Successful Scale Up of Mobile Health in Developing...
 
Public-private partnership business model to scale up climate information ser...
Public-private partnership business model to scale up climate information ser...Public-private partnership business model to scale up climate information ser...
Public-private partnership business model to scale up climate information ser...
 
Transforming lives of rural communities around the world by using digital pla...
Transforming lives of rural communities around the world by using digital pla...Transforming lives of rural communities around the world by using digital pla...
Transforming lives of rural communities around the world by using digital pla...
 
GFAR webinar on farm radio, community radio and participatory radio
GFAR webinar on farm radio, community radio and participatory radioGFAR webinar on farm radio, community radio and participatory radio
GFAR webinar on farm radio, community radio and participatory radio
 
Report -MEEA
Report -MEEAReport -MEEA
Report -MEEA
 
Bell bajao - Impact, Recognition, Stories
Bell bajao - Impact, Recognition, StoriesBell bajao - Impact, Recognition, Stories
Bell bajao - Impact, Recognition, Stories
 
Innovative and Pragmatic eHealth Solutions at Work: Mekong Region
Innovative and Pragmatic eHealth Solutions at Work: Mekong RegionInnovative and Pragmatic eHealth Solutions at Work: Mekong Region
Innovative and Pragmatic eHealth Solutions at Work: Mekong Region
 
Use of Information Communication Technologies Among Female Block Extension Ag...
Use of Information Communication Technologies Among Female Block Extension Ag...Use of Information Communication Technologies Among Female Block Extension Ag...
Use of Information Communication Technologies Among Female Block Extension Ag...
 

Destacado

09.13.2012 - Seema Jayachandran
09.13.2012 - Seema Jayachandran09.13.2012 - Seema Jayachandran
09.13.2012 - Seema JayachandranAMDSeminarSeries
 
позднякова
поздняковапозднякова
поздняковаlucykey
 
chmsc lab school science project Grade 5
chmsc lab school science project Grade 5chmsc lab school science project Grade 5
chmsc lab school science project Grade 5SundayVince
 
мо вчителів іноземних мов
мо вчителів іноземних мовмо вчителів іноземних мов
мо вчителів іноземних мовlucykey
 
Social Media Snapshot
Social Media SnapshotSocial Media Snapshot
Social Media SnapshotSarah Alsager
 
Science project sunday vinceroquillas12-31-12
Science project  sunday vinceroquillas12-31-12Science project  sunday vinceroquillas12-31-12
Science project sunday vinceroquillas12-31-12SundayVince
 
Planificare orientativa proiect toamna
Planificare orientativa proiect toamnaPlanificare orientativa proiect toamna
Planificare orientativa proiect toamnadinescusilvia
 
школа № 40 детский сад № 10
школа № 40 детский сад № 10школа № 40 детский сад № 10
школа № 40 детский сад № 10lucykey
 

Destacado (8)

09.13.2012 - Seema Jayachandran
09.13.2012 - Seema Jayachandran09.13.2012 - Seema Jayachandran
09.13.2012 - Seema Jayachandran
 
позднякова
поздняковапозднякова
позднякова
 
chmsc lab school science project Grade 5
chmsc lab school science project Grade 5chmsc lab school science project Grade 5
chmsc lab school science project Grade 5
 
мо вчителів іноземних мов
мо вчителів іноземних мовмо вчителів іноземних мов
мо вчителів іноземних мов
 
Social Media Snapshot
Social Media SnapshotSocial Media Snapshot
Social Media Snapshot
 
Science project sunday vinceroquillas12-31-12
Science project  sunday vinceroquillas12-31-12Science project  sunday vinceroquillas12-31-12
Science project sunday vinceroquillas12-31-12
 
Planificare orientativa proiect toamna
Planificare orientativa proiect toamnaPlanificare orientativa proiect toamna
Planificare orientativa proiect toamna
 
школа № 40 детский сад № 10
школа № 40 детский сад № 10школа № 40 детский сад № 10
школа № 40 детский сад № 10
 

Similar a 08.02.2012 - Shawn Cole

Diversity of service situations for agri-food innovations in the global Sout...
Diversity of service situations for agri-food  innovations in the global Sout...Diversity of service situations for agri-food  innovations in the global Sout...
Diversity of service situations for agri-food innovations in the global Sout...ngouambe
 
Content management process in selected m-agriculture initiatives in India
Content management process in selected m-agriculture initiatives in IndiaContent management process in selected m-agriculture initiatives in India
Content management process in selected m-agriculture initiatives in IndiaILRI
 
Proposals for Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Research Component 2—Communit...
Proposals for Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Research Component 2—Communit...Proposals for Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Research Component 2—Communit...
Proposals for Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Research Component 2—Communit...africa-rising
 
Knowledge Exchange Strategies BMGF reviewed (upload)
Knowledge Exchange Strategies BMGF reviewed (upload)Knowledge Exchange Strategies BMGF reviewed (upload)
Knowledge Exchange Strategies BMGF reviewed (upload)Pier Paolo Ficarelli
 
2012 08 CIARD Opening Access (VI FORAGRO - Peru)
2012 08 CIARD Opening Access (VI FORAGRO - Peru)2012 08 CIARD Opening Access (VI FORAGRO - Peru)
2012 08 CIARD Opening Access (VI FORAGRO - Peru)CIARD
 
Assessment of socio-economic, institutional and political constraints and opp...
Assessment of socio-economic, institutional and political constraints and opp...Assessment of socio-economic, institutional and political constraints and opp...
Assessment of socio-economic, institutional and political constraints and opp...RiceAdvice
 
Content management process on m-Agriculture platforms
Content management process on m-Agriculture platformsContent management process on m-Agriculture platforms
Content management process on m-Agriculture platformsILRI
 
Ouma - Technology adoption in banana-legume systems of Central Africa
Ouma - Technology adoption in banana-legume systems of Central AfricaOuma - Technology adoption in banana-legume systems of Central Africa
Ouma - Technology adoption in banana-legume systems of Central AfricaCIALCA
 
van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing...
van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing...van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing...
van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing...CIALCA
 
2012 06 CIARD (Regional Workshop)
2012 06 CIARD (Regional Workshop) 2012 06 CIARD (Regional Workshop)
2012 06 CIARD (Regional Workshop) CIARD
 
Agricultural Knowledge Information/Innovation System
Agricultural Knowledge Information/Innovation SystemAgricultural Knowledge Information/Innovation System
Agricultural Knowledge Information/Innovation SystemSaurav Singla
 
last mile farmer reach using open agriculture and knowledge and Innovation ICT
last mile farmer reach using open agriculture and knowledge and Innovation ICTlast mile farmer reach using open agriculture and knowledge and Innovation ICT
last mile farmer reach using open agriculture and knowledge and Innovation ICTFRANK Water
 
Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Development Programme Exten...
Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Development Programme Exten...Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Development Programme Exten...
Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Development Programme Exten...BRNSS Publication Hub
 
Innovations in agricultural extension: What can Ethiopia learn from global ex...
Innovations in agricultural extension: What can Ethiopia learn from global ex...Innovations in agricultural extension: What can Ethiopia learn from global ex...
Innovations in agricultural extension: What can Ethiopia learn from global ex...ILRI
 
Evaluation of the use of ict in agricultural technology delivery to farmers i...
Evaluation of the use of ict in agricultural technology delivery to farmers i...Evaluation of the use of ict in agricultural technology delivery to farmers i...
Evaluation of the use of ict in agricultural technology delivery to farmers i...Alexander Decker
 
The Feed Assessment Tool - (FEAST)
The Feed Assessment Tool - (FEAST)The Feed Assessment Tool - (FEAST)
The Feed Assessment Tool - (FEAST)ILRI
 

Similar a 08.02.2012 - Shawn Cole (20)

Diversity of service situations for agri-food innovations in the global Sout...
Diversity of service situations for agri-food  innovations in the global Sout...Diversity of service situations for agri-food  innovations in the global Sout...
Diversity of service situations for agri-food innovations in the global Sout...
 
Mobile plus pp.ficarelli (final)
Mobile plus pp.ficarelli (final)Mobile plus pp.ficarelli (final)
Mobile plus pp.ficarelli (final)
 
Content management process in selected m-agriculture initiatives in India
Content management process in selected m-agriculture initiatives in IndiaContent management process in selected m-agriculture initiatives in India
Content management process in selected m-agriculture initiatives in India
 
Proposals for Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Research Component 2—Communit...
Proposals for Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Research Component 2—Communit...Proposals for Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Research Component 2—Communit...
Proposals for Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Research Component 2—Communit...
 
Knowledge Exchange Strategies BMGF reviewed (upload)
Knowledge Exchange Strategies BMGF reviewed (upload)Knowledge Exchange Strategies BMGF reviewed (upload)
Knowledge Exchange Strategies BMGF reviewed (upload)
 
2012 08 CIARD Opening Access (VI FORAGRO - Peru)
2012 08 CIARD Opening Access (VI FORAGRO - Peru)2012 08 CIARD Opening Access (VI FORAGRO - Peru)
2012 08 CIARD Opening Access (VI FORAGRO - Peru)
 
Assessment of socio-economic, institutional and political constraints and opp...
Assessment of socio-economic, institutional and political constraints and opp...Assessment of socio-economic, institutional and political constraints and opp...
Assessment of socio-economic, institutional and political constraints and opp...
 
M agri pp.ficarelli vs.2.2
M agri pp.ficarelli vs.2.2M agri pp.ficarelli vs.2.2
M agri pp.ficarelli vs.2.2
 
Content management process on m-Agriculture platforms
Content management process on m-Agriculture platformsContent management process on m-Agriculture platforms
Content management process on m-Agriculture platforms
 
Ouma - Technology adoption in banana-legume systems of Central Africa
Ouma - Technology adoption in banana-legume systems of Central AfricaOuma - Technology adoption in banana-legume systems of Central Africa
Ouma - Technology adoption in banana-legume systems of Central Africa
 
van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing...
van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing...van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing...
van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing...
 
2012 06 CIARD (Regional Workshop)
2012 06 CIARD (Regional Workshop) 2012 06 CIARD (Regional Workshop)
2012 06 CIARD (Regional Workshop)
 
Agricultural Knowledge Information/Innovation System
Agricultural Knowledge Information/Innovation SystemAgricultural Knowledge Information/Innovation System
Agricultural Knowledge Information/Innovation System
 
last mile farmer reach using open agriculture and knowledge and Innovation ICT
last mile farmer reach using open agriculture and knowledge and Innovation ICTlast mile farmer reach using open agriculture and knowledge and Innovation ICT
last mile farmer reach using open agriculture and knowledge and Innovation ICT
 
East Africa Perspectives on the Book: Agricultural Extension - Global Status ...
East Africa Perspectives on the Book: Agricultural Extension - Global Status ...East Africa Perspectives on the Book: Agricultural Extension - Global Status ...
East Africa Perspectives on the Book: Agricultural Extension - Global Status ...
 
Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Development Programme Exten...
Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Development Programme Exten...Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Development Programme Exten...
Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Development Programme Exten...
 
Innovations in agricultural extension: What can Ethiopia learn from global ex...
Innovations in agricultural extension: What can Ethiopia learn from global ex...Innovations in agricultural extension: What can Ethiopia learn from global ex...
Innovations in agricultural extension: What can Ethiopia learn from global ex...
 
Evaluation of the use of ict in agricultural technology delivery to farmers i...
Evaluation of the use of ict in agricultural technology delivery to farmers i...Evaluation of the use of ict in agricultural technology delivery to farmers i...
Evaluation of the use of ict in agricultural technology delivery to farmers i...
 
The Feed Assessment Tool - (FEAST)
The Feed Assessment Tool - (FEAST)The Feed Assessment Tool - (FEAST)
The Feed Assessment Tool - (FEAST)
 
Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) amongst Smallholder F...
Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) amongst Smallholder F...Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) amongst Smallholder F...
Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) amongst Smallholder F...
 

Más de AMDSeminarSeries

02.16.2014 - Carolina Castilla
02.16.2014 - Carolina Castilla02.16.2014 - Carolina Castilla
02.16.2014 - Carolina CastillaAMDSeminarSeries
 
09.19.2013 - Laura Schechter
09.19.2013 - Laura Schechter09.19.2013 - Laura Schechter
09.19.2013 - Laura SchechterAMDSeminarSeries
 
08.15.2013 - Robert Jensen
08.15.2013 - Robert Jensen08.15.2013 - Robert Jensen
08.15.2013 - Robert JensenAMDSeminarSeries
 
07.18.2013 - Michael Clemens
07.18.2013 - Michael Clemens07.18.2013 - Michael Clemens
07.18.2013 - Michael ClemensAMDSeminarSeries
 
06.20.2013 - Nishith Prakash
06.20.2013 - Nishith Prakash06.20.2013 - Nishith Prakash
06.20.2013 - Nishith PrakashAMDSeminarSeries
 
06.06.2013 - Hoyt Bleakley
06.06.2013 - Hoyt Bleakley06.06.2013 - Hoyt Bleakley
06.06.2013 - Hoyt BleakleyAMDSeminarSeries
 
05.16.2013 - Dilip Mookherjee
05.16.2013 - Dilip Mookherjee05.16.2013 - Dilip Mookherjee
05.16.2013 - Dilip MookherjeeAMDSeminarSeries
 
05.02.2013 - Jonathan Robinson
05.02.2013 - Jonathan Robinson05.02.2013 - Jonathan Robinson
05.02.2013 - Jonathan RobinsonAMDSeminarSeries
 
04.24.2013 - Maitreesh Ghatak
04.24.2013 - Maitreesh Ghatak04.24.2013 - Maitreesh Ghatak
04.24.2013 - Maitreesh GhatakAMDSeminarSeries
 
02.07.2013 - Mark Rosenzweig
02.07.2013 - Mark Rosenzweig02.07.2013 - Mark Rosenzweig
02.07.2013 - Mark RosenzweigAMDSeminarSeries
 
01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot
01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot
01.17.2013 - Garance GenicotAMDSeminarSeries
 
12.10.2012 - Catherine Wolfram
12.10.2012 - Catherine Wolfram12.10.2012 - Catherine Wolfram
12.10.2012 - Catherine WolframAMDSeminarSeries
 
12.06.2012 - Giacomo de Giorgi
12.06.2012 - Giacomo de Giorgi12.06.2012 - Giacomo de Giorgi
12.06.2012 - Giacomo de GiorgiAMDSeminarSeries
 
11.29.2012 - Marta Vicarelli
11.29.2012 - Marta Vicarelli11.29.2012 - Marta Vicarelli
11.29.2012 - Marta VicarelliAMDSeminarSeries
 
10.25.2012 - Craig McIntosh
10.25.2012 - Craig McIntosh10.25.2012 - Craig McIntosh
10.25.2012 - Craig McIntoshAMDSeminarSeries
 

Más de AMDSeminarSeries (20)

02.16.2014 - Carolina Castilla
02.16.2014 - Carolina Castilla02.16.2014 - Carolina Castilla
02.16.2014 - Carolina Castilla
 
11.07.2013 - Jenny Aker
11.07.2013 - Jenny Aker11.07.2013 - Jenny Aker
11.07.2013 - Jenny Aker
 
09.19.2013 - Laura Schechter
09.19.2013 - Laura Schechter09.19.2013 - Laura Schechter
09.19.2013 - Laura Schechter
 
09.12.2013 - Esther Duflo
09.12.2013 - Esther Duflo09.12.2013 - Esther Duflo
09.12.2013 - Esther Duflo
 
08.15.2013 - Robert Jensen
08.15.2013 - Robert Jensen08.15.2013 - Robert Jensen
08.15.2013 - Robert Jensen
 
07.18.2013 - Michael Clemens
07.18.2013 - Michael Clemens07.18.2013 - Michael Clemens
07.18.2013 - Michael Clemens
 
06.20.2013 - Nishith Prakash
06.20.2013 - Nishith Prakash06.20.2013 - Nishith Prakash
06.20.2013 - Nishith Prakash
 
06.06.2013 - Hoyt Bleakley
06.06.2013 - Hoyt Bleakley06.06.2013 - Hoyt Bleakley
06.06.2013 - Hoyt Bleakley
 
05.16.2013 - Dilip Mookherjee
05.16.2013 - Dilip Mookherjee05.16.2013 - Dilip Mookherjee
05.16.2013 - Dilip Mookherjee
 
05.02.2013 - Jonathan Robinson
05.02.2013 - Jonathan Robinson05.02.2013 - Jonathan Robinson
05.02.2013 - Jonathan Robinson
 
04.24.2013 - Maitreesh Ghatak
04.24.2013 - Maitreesh Ghatak04.24.2013 - Maitreesh Ghatak
04.24.2013 - Maitreesh Ghatak
 
03.20.2013 - Flavio Cunha
03.20.2013 - Flavio Cunha03.20.2013 - Flavio Cunha
03.20.2013 - Flavio Cunha
 
02.21.2013 - Petra Todd
02.21.2013 - Petra Todd02.21.2013 - Petra Todd
02.21.2013 - Petra Todd
 
02.07.2013 - Mark Rosenzweig
02.07.2013 - Mark Rosenzweig02.07.2013 - Mark Rosenzweig
02.07.2013 - Mark Rosenzweig
 
01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot
01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot
01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot
 
12.10.2012 - Catherine Wolfram
12.10.2012 - Catherine Wolfram12.10.2012 - Catherine Wolfram
12.10.2012 - Catherine Wolfram
 
12.06.2012 - Giacomo de Giorgi
12.06.2012 - Giacomo de Giorgi12.06.2012 - Giacomo de Giorgi
12.06.2012 - Giacomo de Giorgi
 
11.29.2012 - Marta Vicarelli
11.29.2012 - Marta Vicarelli11.29.2012 - Marta Vicarelli
11.29.2012 - Marta Vicarelli
 
11.08.2012 - Lori Beaman
11.08.2012 - Lori Beaman11.08.2012 - Lori Beaman
11.08.2012 - Lori Beaman
 
10.25.2012 - Craig McIntosh
10.25.2012 - Craig McIntosh10.25.2012 - Craig McIntosh
10.25.2012 - Craig McIntosh
 

08.02.2012 - Shawn Cole

  • 1. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion The Value of Advice: Evidence from Agricultural Production Practices Shawn Cole (Harvard) and Nilesh Fernando (Harvard) IFPRI August 2, 2012
  • 2. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Agricultural Extension Services Widely credited for speeding the green revolution But... “often fail due to inadequate consultation of farmers about their information needs” (Babu et al., 2012) are costly, reach few, and su¤er from limited accountability (Anderson and Feder, 2007) Arrival of low-cost ICT may provide improved way to convey information
  • 3. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Today Evaluate a mobile-phone, voice-based agricultural advice and information service “Avaaj Otalo,” or AO, a for-pro…t startup in Gujarat RCT with 1,200 cotton farmers in 40 villages, randomized at individual level 400 get AO & Physical Agricultural Extension 400 get AO only 400 serve as pure controls [No control group of Extension only] Impact on: Sources of information Agricultural knowledge Real outcomes Peer e¤ects and learning: Information sharing Learning by observation Peer agricultural behavior
  • 4. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Motivation Modern growth theory attempts to explain productivity di¤erences within and across countries through varying technology use Large productivity di¤erences in crop yields exist within and across countries. To what extent are these di¤erences explained by ine¢ cient agricultural practices? Does a lack of awareness and technical know how explain the limited adoption of pro…table agricultural investments in the context of Gujarat? Through what mechanisms do such ’informational ine¢ ciencies’limit technology adoption? How do farmers share information? Does informing some farmers lead to positive spillovers, or less observation and information exchange? What factors serve to promote or limit the di¤usion of agricultural technologies?
  • 5. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Contributions Rigorous evaluation of agricultural extension E¢ cacy of training (Financial literacy, management consulting) Test of validity of rural surveys via mobile phone
  • 6. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Speci…c Open Questions Impact: Can e¤ective agricultural extension be delivered via mobile phone? Inform general debate on delivery of public services via ICTs. Is ICT education a substitute or complement to traditional (in-person) extension? Demand-Driven Extension: What is the importance of ’top-down’information provided by experts versus ’bottom-up’ information generated by users? Predictors of Adoption: What demographic factors explain di¤erences in technology use? Technology Di¤usion: Is valuable agricultural information shared among peers?
  • 7. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Location in Literature Identifying the Impact of Agricultural Extension : Bardhan & Mookherjee (2011), Gandhi et al. (2009), Evanson et al. (1990) Explaining Technology Adoption in Agriculture : Du‡o, Kremer and Robinson (2011), Suri (2011), Udry & Conley (2010) Markets for Advice : Anagol & Kim (2012), others???? Productivity and Technology (Banerjee-Du‡o 2005, Hsieh-Klenow 2009) Entire …eld of agricultural economics
  • 8. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Feedback sought What are the most pressing questions in agricultural extension? Particular mechanisms worth testing Alternative applications in our setting
  • 9. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Avaaj Otalo Avaaj Otalo (“Voice Stoop”) Based on open source software (hence scalable) Mobile and voice-based touch-tone platform Good for low literacy environments Facilitates consistent delivery and reception of information Easy to monitor information delivery, evaluate services Enables farmers to receive, solicit, and share agricultural information Bottom-up and top-down agricultural information Gujarat-based startup, founded by Stanford and Berkeley computer scientists About 8 implementations in 6 states of India (information network for sex workers, ag info, etc.)
  • 10. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Motivation for AO Training & Visit method of agricultural extension considered unsustainable (IFPRI 2010) Up to 97 percent of Ag Extension budgets pay salaries, leaving little resources for …eld visits Caste and gender limits use of e-Choupal kiosks (Kumar, 2004) Provides information on information needs quickly and cheaply AO provides ongoing ‡ow of information rather than one-shot training Agri-input dealers provide advice, but may have incentives to recommend incorrect quantities or even products Local NGO, DSC, has provided radio program with farming practices for 5 years in study area
  • 11. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Avaaj Otalo Service: Main Features Push calls Question and answer service Experience Sharing Farmers can volunteer agricultural practice information, perspectives, etc.; respond to others Radio Program Normal implementation: farmer pays airtime Our implementation: computer provides free callbacks in response to a missed call
  • 12. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Push Calls Delivered every Wednesday to all 800 treatment respondents Average Length: ~5 minutes Each message is based on: Weekly calls to ten randomly selected farmers about their information needs for the following week Questions from incoming calls the week before Weather information from Indian Meteorological Dept. Agronomists’knowledge of crop phase, and agricultural best practices
  • 13. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Incoming Call Features QnA: Farmers can record their own questions as well as listen to or respond to existing questions and answers Typical response time ~24 hours Announcements: This forum contains all the push messages that are sent out weekly by DSC and CMF Radio: Many episodes on agriculture are available from a radio show run by DSC over the previous …ve years. Experience-sharing: This forum encourages farmers to share their own innovative practices. Personal Inbox: Gives users access to their own questions and messages.
  • 14. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Value Proposition Provides customized, timely, regular and relevant agricultural information Mitigates failures of traditional extension systems Addresses spatial failures by providing geography-speci…c information, and mobile-based delivery decreases cost of delivery and thus has higher reach Addresses temporal failures by delivering information that is sensitive to local weather conditions, and is available 24/7 Addresses institutional failures by delivering information that is demand-driven, and the web-based moderation platform allows for centralized monitoring of extension delivery Demand-driven Builds on trust and expertise established by DSC, a local NGO
  • 15. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Physical Extension Two hours long; one session in Kharif (monsoon), one in Rabi (winter) Run by NGO (AKRSP), not government Invited 400 people from treatment group, 168 came Provided free transportation and a meal, no other compensation At NGO site, ca. 10-50 km from respondents households Rabi session focuses on: Wheat and cumin variety selection Cotton pesticide usage Based on time in season and informed by AO questions 20-30 people per session
  • 16. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion AO vs. Physical Extension Cost AO: Assume 20 minutes of push calls and 18 minutes of incoming usage each month Per Farmer Cost Monthly Cost (USD) Monthly Cost (USD) (N=800) (N=2000) Airtime .60 .60 Agronomist .90 .36 AO System .40 .17 Total Monthly 1.90 1.13 One agronomist can handle 2,000 farmers on a regular basis Physical Extension Cost: $8.50 per farmer
  • 17. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Sample Selection Focus on cotton farmers Important crop for millions of farmers Similar varieties and irrigation methods over large area Well-settled science, but uncertainty about practice remains Identify 40 villages in which DSC has a good presence Identify all cotton farmers in village (NGO workers created lists) Selected 30 from these lists at random, strati…ed by subcaste Assigned 10 to Control, 10 to AO, and 10 to AO & Physical Extension
  • 18. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Project Timeline Surveying and Intervention Timeline Date Event May/June 2011 Cotton planting decisions begin May 2011 Listing for Baseline Survey July 2011 Baseline (Paper) Survey August 2011 AO training for treatment respondents August 2011 AO missed call service activated, first treatment message delivered October 2011 Encouragement reminder calls November 1-6, 2011 Physical Extension November 10, 2011 Round 1 of phone survey November 21, 2011 Peer / General Reminder Calls Begin November 2011 Cumin planting decisions for Rabi 2012 December, 2011 Round 2 of phone survey March, 2012 Peer survey July, 2012 Midline survey July, 2012 2nd AO training session starts for treatment respondents
  • 19. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Avaaz Otalo Administrative Data All calls, duration of call, features access Whether individual listens to push call or not Whether control group calls in to non toll-free line Linked by mobile phone number
  • 20. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Results Map Randomization Check and Summary Statistics Impact Evaluation Randomization Check Sources of Information Knowledge Index Pesticide Purchase and Usage Sowing Decisions Peer E¤ects and Learning Information Sharing Behavior Spillovers within study sample Spillovers outside of study sample Attrition and other concerns
  • 21. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Empirical Approach Standard simple di¤erence estimator, village …xed-e¤ects, robust standard errors Comparing AO and AO+Extension group to controls yi ,v = αv + β (AO or AO&Extension ) + ε i Sample size with paper survey 1,200=398 control + 399 AO + 403 AO&E Sample size with phone survey 737=369+184+184 Comparing AO to control yi ,v = αv + β (AO ) + ε i Sample size with paper survey: 797=398+399 Sample size with phone survey: 553=369+184
  • 22. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Sample Characteristics and Randomization Check Balance Information Sources (Paper) Cotton Fertilizer Cotton Pesticide Cumin Planting Control (AO+AOE)-C Control (AO+AOE)-C Control (AO+AOE)-C Cell contents: Mean ITT Mean ITT Mean ITT (3) (4) (5) (6) (9) (10) Asked for or received advice 0.265 -0.005 0.594 0.035 0.131 -0.022 (0.442) (0.027) (0.492) (0.030) (0.337) (0.020) N 392 1180 392 1180 398 1200 Importance of source consulted Past experience 0.048 -0.014 0.030 -0.016 - 0.023 (0.215) (0.025) (0.171) (0.012) (0.016) Gov't extension 0.010 -0.010 0.004 0.002 0.019 -0.019 (0.098) (0.010) (0.066) (0.006) (0.139) (0.019) NGO 0.019 -0.014 0.004 0.002 - 0.011 (0.138) (0.014) (0.066) (0.006) (0.012) Other farmers 0.731 -0.009 0.421 -0.005 0.635 0.101 (0.446) (0.054) (0.495) (0.039) (0.486) (0.082) Input shops 0.144 0.027 0.515 0.019 0.269 -0.062 (0.353) (0.043) (0.501) (0.040) (0.448) (0.076) N for Mean 104 233 52 N for ITT Regression 309 729 139 No di¤erence for Cotton and Wheat Planting, or by treatment
  • 23. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Sample Characteristics and Randomization Check Randomization mostly successful, except Cotton 2010 Balance Planting (Paper) Control Group AO Only AO+Extension AO-C AOE-C (AO+AOE)-C Cell contents: Mean Mean Mean ITT ITT ITT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) A. Sample Size Entire Sample 398 399 403 797 801 1200 B. Planting in Kharif '10 Planted Cotton 0.98 0.98 0.99 -0.01 0.00 0.00 (0.12) (0.15) (0.11) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Area Cotton Planted 4.45 5.01 4.74 0.57** 0.29 0.43* (3.62) (4.05) (4.43) (0.27) (0.29) (0.24) Planted Wheat 0.78 0.72 0.72 -0.05* -0.05 -0.05** (0.42) (0.45) (0.45) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) Area Wheat Planted 1.17 1.35 1.07 0.18 -0.10 0.04 (1.35) (2.30) (1.25) (0.13) (0.09) (0.09) Planted Cumin 0.42 0.40 0.41 -0.02 -0.01 -0.02 (0.49) (0.49) (0.49) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) Area Cumin Planted 0.76 0.79 0.70 0.03 -0.06 -0.02 (1.41) (1.50) (1.34) (0.10) (0.10) (0.09) Imbalance in reported area cotton planted in Kharif 2010 (No cotton imbalance in Kharif 2011)
  • 24. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Usage (First Stage) Initially, some concern about usage / take-up AO service …rst provided free by IBM/DSC, high usage Subsequently required farmers to pay own airtime, usage dropped Maximize research power with free service for treatment group DSC started to charge farmers nominal fee (ca. $4/year) Could be …nancially self-sustaining even without subscription (airtime charges)
  • 25. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Usage (First Stage) First Stage: Effect of Assignment on AO Usage and Physical Extension Visits Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT (1) (2) (3) (4) Listened to more than 50% of push calls 0 0.755*** 0.745*** 0.766*** (0.017) (0.024) (0.024) Called AO 0 0.603*** 0.555*** 0.650*** (0.017) (0.023) (0.025) Duration of usage 0 72.548*** 53.866*** 90.828*** (10.644) (8.902) (18.589) Winsorized duration of usage (90%) 0 45.341*** 40.106*** 50.540*** (4.140) (4.534) (5.783) Total no. of questions asked 0 1.441*** 1.22*** 1.656*** (0.201) (0.205) (0.272) Total no. of times Q&A accessed 0 3.416*** 2.28*** 4.496*** (0.571) (0.338) (0.957) Attended Physical Extension 0.005 0.214*** 0.013* 0.413*** (0.071) (0.017) (0.007) (0.033)
  • 26. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Question Topics Thematic breakdown from Start until Round 1 Phone Survey: Topic Percent of Calls Pest Management 59 Fertilizers 8 Seeds 1 Crop Planning 5 Others 24
  • 27. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Sources of Information: Planting Decisions AO may complement or substitute information collection Impact: Information Sources Cotton Planting Wheat Planting Cumin Planting Control (AO+AOE)-C Control (AO+AOE)-C Control (AO+AOE)-C Cell contents: Mean ITT Mean ITT Mean ITT (1) (2) (7) (8) (9) (10) Importance of source consulted Past experience 0.612 0.078** 0.138 -0.040* 0.179 -0.035 (0.488) (0.035) (0.346) (0.024) (0.384) (0.027) Gov't extension 0.008 -0.003 0.000 0 0.005 -0.005 (0.090) (0.006) (0.074) (0.004) NGO 0.043 -0.008 0.014 -0.003 0.005 0.005 (0.204) (0.014) (0.116) (0.008) (0.074) (0.007) Mobile phone-based 0.003 0.087*** 0 0.052*** 0 0.125*** (0.052) (0.015) (0.012) (0.017) Other farmers 0.230 -0.127*** 0.033 -0.019* 0.070 -0.046*** (0.422) (0.027) (0.178) (0.011) (0.256) (0.016) Input shops 0.070 -0.016 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.000 (0.256) (0.018) (0.000) (0.004) (0.104) (0.008) 35
  • 28. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Sources of Information: Agricultural Inputs Impact: Information Sources Cotton Fertilizer Cotton Pesticide Control (AO+AOE)-C Control (AO+AOE)-C Cell contents: Mean ITT Mean ITT (3) (4) (5) (6) Importance of source consulted Past experience 0.496 0.029 0.291 -0.018 (0.501) (0.037) (0.455) (0.033) Gov't extension 0.011 0.005 0.008 0.003 (0.104) (0.009) (0.091) (0.007) NGO 0.051 -0.013 0.044 -0.011 (0.221) (0.015) (0.206) (0.014) Mobile phone-based 0.003 0.223*** 0.006 0.297*** (0.052) (0.022) (0.074) (0.024) Other farmers 0.252 -0.149*** 0.177 -0.073*** (0.435) (0.028) (0.382) (0.026) Input shops 0.146 -0.081*** 0.446 -0.190*** (0.354) (0.022) 35 (0.498) (0.035)
  • 29. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Impact on Agricultural Knowledge Measure agricultural knowledge with a series of ten questions related to agricultural practices Asked once at baseline paper survey, once in round 1 phone survey Example questions “If money were not a constraint, what is the best pesticide for cotton white‡y?” “Which fungicide should be applied to control wilt in cotton?” “Which variety of cumin is recommended as wilt-resistant?”
  • 30. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Impact on Agricultural Knowledge Impact: Agricultural Knowledge Baseline Survey Round 1 Phone Survey Control (AO+AOE)-C Control (AO+AOE)-C Cell contents: Mean ITT Mean ITT (1) (2) (3) (4) Total 0.289 -0.001 0.350 0.008 (0.212) (0.014) (0.173) (0.011) Cotton-related 0.585 0.024 0.576 0.025 0.493 0.034 (0.380) (0.022) Fertilizer-related (0.162) -(0.004) 0.321 -0.015 0.279 0.016 (0.200) (0.014) Pesticide-related 0.284 0.003 0.202 -0.008 (0.451) (0.028) (0.257) (0.014) Cumin-related 0.254 -0.024 0.340 0.123*** (0.436) (0.025) (0.474) (0.035) Limited e¤ect, only on cumin-related question
  • 31. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Cumin Adoption Cash crop with potential for high-return, but risky Important risks: wilt, frost AO provides timely weather forecasting and planting suggestions Nearly half of push messages (20) discuss Cumin, and physical extension covers cumin cultivation
  • 32. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Impact on Adoption of Cumin Impact: Cumin Adoption Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT (1) (2) (3) (4) Planted cumin in R'11 but not in R'12 0.183 -0.016 0.007 -0.036 (0.387) (0.030) (0.039) (0.033) Planted cumin in R'12 but not in R'11 0.138 0.064** 0.054 0.064* (0.345) (0.028) (0.041) (0.035) Planted cumin both in R'11 and in R'12 0.233 -0.032 -0.016 -0.045 (0.423) (0.029) (0.040) (0.034)
  • 33. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Cumin: Acreage Planted (No Control) Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT Baseline (N=1200) (1) (2) (3) (4) Did you plant cumin in Rabi 2011? 0.425 -0.017 -0.023 -0.012 (0.495) (0.030) (0.034) (0.035) Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2011? 0.762 -0.019 0.018 -0.055 (1.406) (0.078) (0.085) (0.106) Baseline Phone Respondents (N=798) Did you plant cumin in Rabi 2011? 0.425 -0.018 -0.035 -0.001 (0.495) (0.032) (0.039) (0.039) Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2011? 0.762 0.000 0.036 -0.037 (1.406) (0.081) (0.110) (0.119) Round 1 Phone Survey (N=737) Did you plant cumin this Rabi 2012? 0.274 0.046 0.070* 0.022 (0.446) (0.033) (0.042) (0.039) Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2012? 0.522 0.243** 0.240* 0.255* (1.174) (0.112) (0.127) (0.154)
  • 34. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Cumin: Acreage Planted (Control for Baseline Cotton Area) Cumin Sowing Decisions Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT Baseline (N=1200) (1) (2) (3) (4) Did you plant cumin in Rabi 2011? 0.425 -0.025 -0.032 -0.019 (0.495) (0.030) (0.035) (0.035) Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2011? 0.762 -0.057 -0.036 -0.080 (1.406) (0.079) (0.085) (0.105) Baseline Phone Respondents (N=798) Did you plant cumin in Rabi 2011? 0.425 -0.034 -0.052 -0.014 (0.495) (0.033) (0.039) (0.038) Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2011? 0.762 -0.086 -0.058 -0.099 (1.406) (0.084) (0.102) (0.115) Round 1 Phone Survey (N=737) Did you plant cumin this Rabi 2012? 0.274 0.038 0.051 0.019 (0.446) (0.035) (0.045) (0.040) Total area of cumin planted in Rabi 2012? 0.522 0.225 * 0.202 0.246 (1.174) (0.117) (0.138) (0.156)
  • 35. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Why Pest Management? Indian cotton yields are one third of Chinese yields (NCC, 2012) Cotton production accounts of 54% of all pesticide usage in India Pesticide accounts for roughly 15% of input costs in cotton production Pilot studies of AO in rural Gujarat suggest large demand for pest management information (Patel at al. 2010) Types of pests a- icting cotton vary by season and develop resistance to pesticides and varieties of cotton putting a premium on learning and timely information
  • 36. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Pesticide Choice for Cotton Monocrotophos Imidachlororprid Price per Liter $8 $20 Dose for 1 acre 1.5L 300 ml Cost/acre $12 $6 Introduced 1980 2000 Kills Bollworm Yes No Many sucking pests Kills sucking pests have developed Yes immunity to this Toxicity High Medium-Low Key fact: 95% of farmers grow BT Cotton, which is resistant to bollworm
  • 37. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Control Actions on Monocrotophos Indonesia: Banned for use in rice in 1986 Kuwait: Severely Restricted Germany: May not be handled by adolescents, pregnant and nursing women Malaysia: Registered for speci…c use Philippines: Severely restricted Sri Lanka: Severely restricted. Banned since 1995. US: Use is prohibited
  • 38. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Use of Cotton Pesticides: More of the Good Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT Baseline (N=1200) (1) (2) (3) (4) Purchased imidacloprid in K'10 0.428 0.028 -0.018 0.074 (0.496) (0.038) (0.041) (0.050) Amount of imidacloprid used in K'10 0.435 0.034 0.066 0.019 (0.837) (0.068) (0.093) (0.083) Round 1 Phone Survey (N=737) Purchased imidacloprid in K'11 0.388 0.128 *** 0.136 *** 0.122 (0.488) (0.037) (0.049) (0.043) Used imidacloprid in K'11 0.388 0.125 *** 0.136 *** 0.116 (0.488) (0.036) (0.049) (0.044) Amount of imidacloprid used in K'11 0.492 0.105 0.149 0.050 (1.254) (0.082) (0.128) (0.071) Intensity of imidacloprid used in K'11 0.110 0.037 ** 0.039 0.032 (0.214) (0.018) (0.027) (0.019)
  • 39. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Use of Cotton Pesticides: Less of the Bad Usage of Monocrotophos Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT Baseline (N=1200) (1) (2) (3) (4) Purchased monocrotophos in K'10 0.962 0.000 -0.001 -0.001 (0.191) (0.012) (0.010) (0.016) Amount of monocrotophos used in K'10 2.328 0.254* 0.346* 0.219 (1.866) (0.137) (0.189) (0.169) Baseline Phone Respondents (N=798) Purchased monocrotophos in K'10 0.962 0.002 -0.011 0.013 (0.191) (0.013) (0.015) (0.017) Amount of monocrotophos used in K'10 2.328 0.306* 0.412 0.226 (1.866) (0.180) (0.287) (0.213) Round 1 Phone Survey (N=737) Purchased monocrotophos in K'11 0.945 -0.013 -0.024 -0.002 (0.229) (0.019) (0.020) (0.026) Used monocrotophos in K'11 0.942 -0.010 -0.021 0.001 (0.234) (0.019) (0.021) (0.026) Amount of monocrotophos used in K'11 3.870 -0.486** -0.307 -0.684** (4.005) (0.210) (0.251) (0.278)
  • 40. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion At baseline, each farmer was asked to identify top agricultural contacts with whom they exchange information Can imagine two models for e¤ect of AO AO dramatically increases sharing of knowledge, because quality of knowledge increases, so returns to sharing are higher AO reduces sharing of knowledge, because farmers avail of AO
  • 41. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion How does AO a¤ect farmers propensity to share information? Impact: Information Sharing Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT (1) (3) (5) (7) Shared agricultural information with top contacts 0.693 -0.019 0.003 -0.046 (0.462) (0.034) (0.038) (0.043) Topics of information shared: Crop decision 0.122 -0.037* -0.033 -0.041 (0.328) (0.020) (0.025) (0.027) Fertilizers 0.313 -0.053 -0.042 -0.067* (0.464) (0.033) (0.042) (0.040) Pests and diseases 0.043 0.027* 0.010 0.040* (0.204) (0.016) (0.016) (0.024) Pesticides and fungicides 0.454 -0.005 0.025 -0.038 0.499 0.036 0.040 0.046 Harvesting 0.014 -0.014** -0.014** -0.014** (0.116) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)
  • 42. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion E¤ect on Information Collection Less likely to receive information from top contacts Impact: Information Reception and Observation Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT (1) (2) (3) (4) Received information from top contacts 0.563 -0.076 *** -0.086 ** -0.066 (0.497) (0.029) (0.040) (0.037) Topic of information received: Crop decision 0.114 -0.054 *** -0.046 ** -0.061 (0.318) (0.019) (0.022) (0.021) Field Preparation 0.038 -0.020 * -0.016 -0.026 (0.192) (0.011) (0.015) (0.013) Seeds 0.179 -0.045 * -0.057 * -0.033 (0.384) (0.026) (0.029) (0.030) Fertilizers 0.204 -0.052 ** -0.049 -0.058 (0.403) (0.025) (0.032) (0.033) Pests and diseases 0.035 -0.002 -0.003 -0.002 (0.185) (0.012) (0.016) (0.015)
  • 43. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Less Learning from Neighbors Control (AO+AOE)-C AO-C AOE-C Mean ITT ITT ITT (1) (2) (3) (4) Learned information from observing top 0.239 -0.107 *** -0.115 *** -0.102 contacts' fields (0.427) (0.028) (0.035) (0.029) Topic of information learned: Crop decision 0.049 -0.040 *** -0.034 *** -0.043 (0.216) (0.013) (0.012) (0.013) Field Preparation 0.041 -0.024 ** -0.025 * -0.023 (0.198) (0.011) (0.015) (0.012) Seeds 0.035 -0.021 ** -0.034 *** -0.008 (0.185) (0.010) (0.010) (0.012) Fertilizers 0.041 -0.020 -0.037 ** -0.004 (0.198) (0.015) (0.016) (0.018) Pests and diseases 0.014 -0.011 -0.008 -0.014 (0.116) (0.006) (0.008) (0.006)
  • 44. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Peer E¤ects: Spillovers on Imida Use, Control Group Peer Effects on Imidacloprid Adoption within Study Group 1=Purchased Imidacloprid in K'11 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) At least one top contact 0.123 0.304* received treatment (0.118) (0.160) 0.165 0.185 0.283** Proportion of top contacts (0.130) (0.133) (0.138) who received treatment Controls Age -0.008 -0.006 -0.003 (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) Years of education -0.003 0.004 0.012 (0.017) (0.015) (0.014) Land holdings (ac) 0.018 0.034 0.0419* (0.022) (0.021) (0.024) Area Cotton Planted (K'10) -0.016 -0.0495* -0.048 (0.031) (0.029) (0.034) Top contacts' average land holdings 0.003 0.010 0.010 (0.012) (0.013) (0.017) Number of references received -(0.048) (0.033) (0.039) (0.043) Village Fixed Effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N 120 120 120 102 90 No. of villages 38 38 38 38 36
  • 45. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Spillovers, Imida Use Among Peers 1=Purchased Imidacloprid in K'11 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) At least one top contact 0.033 0.033 received treatment (0.046) (0.051) Proportion of top 0.029 0.026 0.065 contacts who received (0.051) (0.051) (0.190) treatment Controls Age -0.001 -0.002 0.001 (0.002) (0.003) (0.003) Years of education 0.006 0.007 0.007 (0.005) (0.007) (0.005) Land holdings (ac) 0.005** 0.005** 0.0051** (0.003) (0.002) (0.002) Top contacts' average land holdings 0.002** 0.001*** 0.002*** (0.001) (0.000) (0.001) Number of references received 0.003 0.005 (0.028) (0.051) Village Fixed Effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N 687 687 651 360 528 No. of villages 40 40 40 40 40
  • 46. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Caveats Attrition Number of attritors equal in treatment and control group Imbalance in attrition in round 1 phone: treatment group attritors more likely to have planted cumin in ’10 Demand e¤ects 55% of treatment group reports having called into AO to ask question Administrative data indicates 53% actually did so Continue knowledge tests
  • 47. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Proof of Concept Take-up of AO is high, among randomly selected sample of poor farmers 75% listen to more than half of push calls 60% call into system, Each person asks 1.4 questions on average Young, technophiles more likely to use Telephone surveys appear to work well Midline: Section ‘ Z’randomly assigned phone or paper administration
  • 48. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Impact Evaluation: Information Between 10-30% report AO as main information source on various topics Reduction in reliance on agro-dealers for pesticide (from 45% to 25%) and fertilizer (from 15% to 7%) No dramatic change in measured agricultural knowledge
  • 49. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Impact Evaluation: Agricultural Practices Cumin Approximately 6 percentage point increase in cumin adoption (from base of 12 pp) Average area planted in cumin increase .22 acres, o¤ base of .52 acres Pesticide Dramatic increase in use of imidacloprid (from 40% to 55%) Modest reduction in intensity of monocrotophos (from 3.9 to 3.5 L) E¤ect on Yields Collecting data currently
  • 50. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Conclusion Farmers will listen to advice Treatment has important e¤ects: pesticide choice cumin sewing Behavior may change without generic change in knowledge New technology may a¤ect information-sharing behavior Less reported sharing, but likely better quality information
  • 51. Intro Context Usage Impact: Info Impact: Practices Peer E¤ects Discussion Future work Audit study of agri-dealers Peer survey Peer_Outcome=a+β Peer _Treated + ε i Health outcomes Measuring willingness to pay Role of trust in learning (DSC well-known) Education vs. persuasion