Although this paper has a lot of useful insight into the role of human capital in the acceptance of agroforestry techniques, it fails to account for other factors that may significantly impact adoption as well. In particular, the study lacks any variable that can capture the role of social networks in reducing uncertainty of new agroforestry methods. The authors do include a variable titled "Exposure". However, this captures only the effects of "formal on the job training" or "extension programs".
From a theoretical standpoint, social networks like any information medium act as a network to transfer news without direct contact between an initial source, and later receivers of the message. In the case of farming, one farmers success with agroforestry could have cascading effects as the information passes from one person to another, one town to the next, one region to its neighbor. As a result, social networks may have exponential effects on reducing the uncertainty that farmers may have about using new, non-traditional cultivation techniques. All it takes is a few success stories, and evidence of greater yields than with traditional methods, and the process of country wide adoption begins.
By excluding social networks from this study, it is possible that the included results and empirical evidence suffers from some type of omitted variable bias. Consequently, if this is the case, the bias will get picked up by the coefficients of other factors. As a result, the value of these coefficients may be overestimated, making them appear more significant than they actually are.
Therefore, we may need to question the validity of the results in this paper. While it offers overwhelming support, the outcome may not totally rest upon increases in human capital.
Reading through this article, my first thought was, as in the words of the author: "Of course, this makes sense". The article is particularly interesting because it doesn't disprove the rationality of peasants, as it merely shows that rational choices in agro-forestry are based on agent-specific traits, in this case training and education which seemingly increases the ability to properly assess and lower risks.
As Justin notes above, many more questions are raised as a consequence of this evidence. I would not agree however, that the paper falls short of accounting for social networks, since the variable "informal training" very well could capture some if not all of this effect. I would be curious to hear from the author, in class, if the area he surveyed has characteristics to suggest that agriculture there is a much more communal undertaking than we conventionally think of it - which would affect whether the social networks variable could be accounted for in the informal training variable.
Also, as I understand the goal of the model used, the precision of the actual coeffecient isn't so important as it is to simply determine whether it is positive and significant, answering the question: "does investing investing in a farmers HC affect that same farmer's decision to enter use agro-forestry techniques"? The evidence clearly suggests that this is likely to be true.
Quite clearly, there are numerous factors to account for when understand decisions by farmers, and for the sake of this model, a proxy had to be used. Whether it is a good proxy or not, I find it hard to believe that better, empirical evidence could be found in a different fashion. Simply, since the data is self-reported to the interviewer, a more complex measure would entail every person interviewed to understand and evaluate his or her own value in that measure.
I would be interested to know if these measures would differ by region, geography and density of communities - and especially in cases of other, similar decisions to adopt techniques in agriculture not pertaining to forestry. One such example could be techniques in rice fields around the world, which have been criticized for being inefficient, but costs in the short run to restructure is similar in fashion, I would imagine, to agro-forestry.
I agree with Morten that the argument of the paper - that individual farmers’ levels of human capital play an important role in making decisions to adopt agroforestry - seems intuitive. However, when I arrived at the end of the paper, I realized HOW important it is to emphasize that lack of education and hence lack of confidence (or the “weight” variable) discourages farmers to adopt new technologies.
Thinking about our society, I have the feeling that many people use “ignorant” and “uneducated” as synonyms to describe people who are easily convinced by popular opinions (as long as these are presented well) without reflection. One would assume that farmers who are supposedly incapable of reflecting upon just what these new agroforestry techniques really incorporate and how beneficial it would be to adopt them, would be equally easily convinced by an extension agent who is a good “salesman”. But this paper’s evidence show that this is not the case at all, but rather the opposite occurs! Unlike a large amount of unreflected decisions and opinions formed in our society, for instance about government’s policy decisions, a rather “uneducated” farmer does reflect upon his or her decisions very thoroughly, because the potential loss (entailing deprivation or even starvation) of making a false decision is very high. This proves the distinct rationality of simple farmers who are often supposedly incapable of making rational decisions, due to lack of knowledge and understanding.
The results of this paper are also crucial for policy implications. It is shows that more focus needs to be put on the demand-side of agroforestry (the farmers’ willingness to try it), parallel to investments in supply-side factors (the ability of the extension agents to explain the benefits of agroforestry). Apparently, efforts of extension agents and promoters of agroforestry are not effective, if the recipient of the information does not place confidence in his own interpretation of that input. Hence, it does not seem at all surprising anymore that there is such a low adoption rate of agroforestry, even though we all know that it enhances productivity and should help increase farmers’ welfare. WE know this because most of us have basic confidence in our judgments.
I find the fact that the income variable displays a negative coefficient especially interesting. As the paper states, traditional economic theory would predict that income and technology adoption are positively correlated. I would like the author to given an interpretation about why the coefficient on income is negative here? Is it maybe because this agroforestry adoption program does not require farmers to contribute their own capital to pay for the direct costs of the new technologies? Or could one also argue that maybe more educated, but poorer farmers place more “weight” on their decision capabilities and, at the same time, might be more willing to adopt new technologies in order to increase their relatively lower income?
The finding that income does not have a statistically significant effect on the probability of implementing agroforestry techniques is confusing. In theory, there are two reasons that income should have a positive effect on the probability of adoption. First, as we discussed in class, having more disposable income (not living with the volatility of meeting day-to-day consumption at or below the poverty level) should decrease the risk associated with implementing these new techniques that may have a substantially higher payoff. This may not be captured in the data, since this income effect may happen only after a threshold level of income is reached, which was not included in the data. The second theory that supports a positive correlation with income and agroforestry implementation is through human capital theory. Since human capital theory posits that the accumulation of educational and health attainment will lead to better analytical and productive skills, we should see those with higher wages (and presumably higher levels of human capital) adopting agroforestry techniques with greater frequency, ceteris paribus. Since we in fact do not see this relationship, there may be endogeneity between human capital indicators and income, or omitted variable bias at play that clouds this effect, or maybe the income indicator is not a good measure of wealth. It could be, as with many subsistence farmers, that income does not accurately capture household consumption, and maybe that is the effect we are seeing here.
Additionally, the implicit assumption that uncertainty is at least in part a function of human capital, and by extension education, is in my opinion shaky. Education will undoubtably contribute to an individual’s ability to assess an agroforestry plan (reading the pamphlets, conducting a cost-benefit analysis), but I think that there are many other factors that contribute to a small farmer’s uncertainty that cannot be captured by measures of human capital. For example, had a scientist previously come to the village, pitching an agroforestry or similar idea? And what were the results? What is the dynamic between the government and locals, and foreign aid and locals? The ability of researchers to reach and relate to locals, and locals’ subsequent receptivity to these plans play a large role in determining whether or not they decide to adopt such a plan.
This article's basic point was: investments in human capital will lead to more farmers interested in pursuing agroforestry. Investment in improving human capital can poverty, so the fact that most of the world's poor is in agrarian communities, this article is wuite relevant to solving other problems as well. If farmers are more knowledgeable in agroforestry, they will be less risk averse than those deprived of such knowledge.
Since Keynes was mainly referring to subsistence farmers, any uncertainty they might have is due to the dangerous risks, like death or starvation. His research (where he studies trends of farmers who are interested in agroforestry) can maybe lead to policy ideas such as subsidies for subsistence farmers. If they decide to pursue agroforestry, they can receive some assistance to take care of their immediate needs. Also, possibly a farmer who has used agroforestry before, can go to towns and encourage such ideas. Some of this uncertainty probably comes from doubt in the credibility of those who are pushing agroforestry programs on farmers.
In response to Justin’s comment, I agree that social networking can drive information flow and disperse the benefits of agroforestry around the community, however I also question the attempt to include social networking as a variable on two points. Firstly, the idea of social networking is something difficult to quantify. Unless the farming community is uncannily communicative and communal, it seems to me that social networking effects would be equivalent from area to area. Secondly, because the benefits of agroforestry are not immediately quantifiable or noticeable and because some of the benefits work to minimize a negative externality (deforestation through slash and burn farming techniques) it would be difficult for farmers practicing agroforestry to fully detail how the benefits outweigh the investment costs and risk associated with the practice.
This is not to say that social networking does not matter. The fact that 142 farmers out of 175 sampled expressed interest in agroforestry suggests that word of mouth transfer of information is very important. However, the fact that only ~1/3 of the sample population actually practices agroforestry suggests something of more substance than simply social networking is required to instill confidence in the practice. Nonetheless, the paper recognizes the importance of social networking in the concluding paragraphs stating, “Perhaps most important is the role to be played by farmers who have already successfully implemented agroforestry systems. These farmers need to be identified and allowed to participate actively in the dissemination of information and the on-the-job training of new adopters of agroforestry technologies.” (519). Perhaps here it worth considering through which means this information would be best disseminated so as to merit the alteration of farming practices.
I dealt with a similar situation this summer while working on an economic model of local beef farmers. Cattle farmers in the Rockbridge area have been presented with the option to put up fencing to keep cows from defecating in streams and thereby polluting the water. This fence is costly to the farmer, but there is also literature that suggests it may benefit the health of the cattle herd. For the most part, I found that most of the area farmers who have implemented such fences have higher education degrees than those who did not.
Howerver, I noticed several educated farmers who were strongly unwilling to invest in the fencing system. This seems to go against the grain of what Professor Casey's paper says and common sense.
It isn't a problem of lack of information. Extension agents strongly advertise fencing to local farmers as a way to cut down on water pollution. They provide lots of information to the farmers about the potential herd health benefits of fencing. Despite the available information, many farmers still decline to fence. I believe there is a negative political association with environmental improvements that many farmers shy away from without even investigating the details of such programs. There are also concerns over land privacy, with many farmers believing that they are the sole masters of their own land and shouldn't be told how to manage it. Also, farmers can face huge social scrutiny and even being ostracized for adopting progressive environmental tactics.
The study also mentions that more often then not the practitioners of agroforestry were younger. Often it requires elders to popularize a farming technique because of the status they hold in a farming community, while the younger farmers who adopt such techniques may be seen as rogues deviating from tradition. Unfortunately, older farmers are much less likely to change their behavior, which leads to a suppression of innovation in their locality.
It would be interesting to see if the same social and political pressures apply to the Mexican farmers. The social network theme mentioned by Justin and Brian would be the lens through which to examine this effect.
I think we can all agree to the better outcomes for farmers who implement Agroforestry versus those who don't. However, the actual decision to implement and the conceived pros and cons which lead a farmer to the decision seem to be almost always directly related to the farmers level of education. Many times the article noted that when a farmer knew more about how agroforestry works and how it will benefit him, he was more likely to implement the strategy. If he was better trained to farm more crops and to harvest trees, the farmer is more likely to pursue agroforestry. If the farmer understands the costs and benefits, he can make a rational decision. The article did mention that increases human physical capital increases the chance of implementation, as a farmer with greater security can afford to accept higher risk, where a subsistence farmer cannot. Beyond education, I believe the most important factor in implementing an agroforestry initiative anywhere is that people understand the cost-benefit problem. Agroforestry is a question of present-time-costs and future-realized benefits. A farmer only chooses to take risks on agroforestry if he believes that his future benefit is not only greater than the present costs, but also that the risk in attaining the future benefits is not too high. In all these things, I think in order to implement a functioning agroforestry initiative anywhere, one would first need a push in education, not only agricultural, but multilevel. We discussed this problem a few weeks ago, that without the education to use a new technology, pumping any level of that technology to a place is in effect useless. Agroforestry seems to make sense, benefit economically and environmentally, and be rather easy to implement. I think lack of proper education is the only thing holding these sort of programs back.
Given the strong empirical evidence presented in this paper for the effect of Education on participation in Agroforestry, I would like to know from the author as to what kind of a response he has received from this paper. Has there been follow up studies to check for the robustness of these conclusions? Have there been studies that have looked at different areas or have looked to test other pertinent variables, such as the "informal extension agent" that Justin and Brian have discussed earlier? Have there been organizations (government or otherwise) that have attempted to subsidize education for farmers, in the hope that they might adopt agroforestry?
The biggest question that I would like to raise in regards to the “Keynes and Agroforestry” paper is why the farmers interested in agroforestry appeared to have lower incomes than their non-interested counterparts. The paper suggests that information and education may have some role to play, but does not specify if higher or lower per capita income plays a “positive role in the adoption of new technologies” (Casey 11). Rather, the paper simply notes that “per capita income will play a positive role in the adoption of new technologies” (Casey 11) Would lower incomes force farmers to take an interest in increasing their incomes, by whatever means necessary, or would higher income (and possibly higher education) lead those farmers to play the role of early adopters? I would like to better explicate this part of the paper in an effort to understand how and why current agricultural incomes affect behavior that could influence long run incomes. Would higher income in the present serve as a disincentive to adopt new technology that may lead to higher incomes later (example: “I have enough income to feed my family and make some money, so why bother changing?”) or would it spur educational spending and lead to more rapid adoption? Similar questions could be asked about the effect of lower current income. I also was left wondering about the uses of trees in a non-agricultural setting. While the trees obviously play a vital role in helping to rejuvenate soil and prevent erosion, could there be a situation in which a sustainable timbering program could be established among a group of farmers? For instance, could a system be worked out by which a certain percentage of trees are cut down each year (and the area re-seeded), certified for niche market or general consumption and sold or exported to augment economic income? The niche market approach may yield better results, since the value added of “sustainable” labeling would hopefully be enough to offset the temptation to sacrifice future output for all-out current consumption. Since one of trees used is mahogany, for which a large market exists, could not a sustainable program using the returns to scale afforded by the communities in Campeche help supplement farmers’ agricultural income? --Scott
I started reading this paper with a few preconceived notions about agroforestry from the Intro to Environmental Studies course I've taken. My knowledge of agroforestry was mainly centered around the practice of going into pre-existing forests and clearing narrow strips of land fully surrounded by forest life and farming numerous areas like that on a rotating basis. Since farmers were farming on narrow areas the forest would be able to quickly recover the farmed areas and replenish the soil.
The agroforestry this paper mostly discusses is the use of agroforestry where farmers plant trees on open farm land and somewhat "create" small forests. This was a novel idea to me, but I knew there would be a number of uncertainties. This paper acknowledged many of these questions like how many trees should be planted, in what way should they be planted, who is gonna teach the farmers how to plant trees, etc.
All of these help shed light on the "weight" farmers will carry expected profits of agroforestry techniques. Even with the information that agroforestry will increase yield farmers have to determine if they will be able to successfully implement the techniques. This paper shows the factors farmers consider when making rational decisions, and does address the fact that successful adopters of agroforestry will be some of the biggest participants in boosting its universal implementation.
What if we exposed and educated agroforestry to women? They could start by planting trees in their little vegetable gardens which would be less riskier than planting a tree in a large field. If the process succeeds, women would be able to grow larger portions of food on more fertile ground. The male farmers might see the benefits and realize it is a good idea. Instead of trying to have different programs throughout the community, agroforestry could start in each individual household by targeting women.
I saw one of the most valuable aspects to this article as the potential for the findings presented in relation to agroforestry to be extended and applied to other different development programs in the future. The central link that the author notes between human capital, the ‘weight’ gained in the decision making process, and ultimately participation in the program undoubtedly functions in many other arenas, such as healthcare, where innovation is consistently presenting new opportunities. Additionally, I believe that the connection between adoption of innovation and acquirement of human capital can be viewed as a type of positive feedback cycle. Increasing or developing human capital in a society not only increases the likelihood that members will adopt new innovations but also leads to more innovation and advances in technology itself. In turn, these new innovations will be adopted more readily as human capital advances. Finally, I thought it was interesting how the author viewed the pursuit of conventional agriculture as the “uncertainty minimizing position for the farmer” (511). Although the refusal to adopt new and potentially beneficial technology seems irrational at first, when viewed in the light that agroforestry adds more uncertainty to the already uncertain work of farming, which is so dependent on weather and a number of other uncontrollable factors to begin with, it makes sense that certain relatively uneducated farmers would forgo any extra changes. This article focuses on the individual decisions of individual farmers but also demonstrates an overarching theme in the behaviors of farmers in general. As a result, the logical solution of increasing human capital so that members of society can take advantage of new technologies leads to a wide-scope, societal scale solution to address the individual decisions encountered in agroforestry and beyond.
I think the paper does a good job of supporting the idea that the impoverished don't just make decsisions without thinking but instead make decisions the same way we do just with different constraints. Without hiher levels of human capital to better understand how agroforestry works it is really more rational not to adopt it than to start using a practice you don't understand which could leave you even worse off. I think the paper could benefit from being a bit more developed and considering other reasons why farmers don't adopt agroforestry. I agree that human capital levels contribute but they aren't the whole story. I imagine things like what crops your growing and how much light they need, water requirements of the trees vs the crops, etc would all be considered before adopting agroforestry.
The major obstacle to overcome in implementing sustainable agroforestry techniques, essentially planting trees on farms, is farmers’ unwillingness to adopt these techniques because of uncertainty about the risk. Most, being subsistence farmers, are more content to be able to feed their families than take a chance that could potentially have disastrous consequences such as starvation (even if the payoffs if successful are high). As discussed in Schultz’s “The Economics of Being Poor” people often find it hard to understand the behavior of poor people. Poor people’s decisions may appear irrational, but they actually are rational when seen in the light of their different set of constraints. Farmers would rather have just enough to eat rather than risk having nothing. Yet, if farmers were informed about the benefits cited by those who use agroforestry, it is likely these techniques would spread. Casey seeks to explain why adoption rates are so low, utilizing Keynes’s theory of investment and the concept of “weight”, based on relevance, completeness, and balance, to do so. Results show that human capital investment in farmers improves the likelihood of participation in adopting agroforestry techniques by reducing uncertainty. The farmer who is more confident in interpreting information or who places more “weight” on a forecast will be more likely to invest. The positive coefficient on education is statistically and economically significant in relation to agroforestry. The results echo what we learned in class about increasing returns to human capital. Once farmers have the necessary information, and confidence in this information, they will implement techniques, even though benefits are seen on a long-term scale, and will lead to sustainable practices which increase overall social welfare.
Sustainable agroforestry would obviously provide social benefits if implemented on a large scale. However, as most farmers are currently producing only enough to live off of or a little more, are wary of any sort of change as the possibility of being worse of is not an option. Thus, in this sort of situation, in order to implement these policies, we must provide some sort of incentive to the farmers or convince them that this new technique actually will improve their welfare. Programs which provide them with the necessary information on agroforestry and the means to interpret it will help to spur on change. Additionally, we need to make sure that those that do implement these new practices succeed, for if they fail, the whole community will see their failure and never attempt sustainable practices themselves.
According to Keynes view, uncertainty in sustainable activities such as agroforestry results in insufficient confidence at which point farmers will place little "weight" on an activity, leading to insufficient investment and less adoption. If there is no adoption, then there is no improvement in output or incomes of farmers. Similar to what Professor Casey explores in his paper, the adoption of biotech seeds (GMOs) has been similar to the adoption of agroforestry in developing countries. In India especially, smallholder farmers that compose about 78% of India's farmers, oppose the adoption of GMOs because doing so threatens to make them hostage to large multinational companies that supply these seeds, and seeds are very expensive. Furthermore, these often resource-poor farmers may perceive an increased risk rather than return in changing their farming strategy because of uncertainty surrounding this nontraditional approach to farming. By 2050, agricultural production will need to double in order to sustain an estimated population of over 9 billion people (according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN). Furthermore, well over 75% of that population will inhabit the developing world (T&S Ch. 6), so it is especially important to target these sustainable activities to developing countries with the largest population. Ignoring the health risks that may be associated with biotech seeds, it seems like at least a possible solution, along with agroforestry, to producing twice as much food in the next 40 years than is currently being produced. Both drought-resistant biotech seeds and agroforestry reduce the uncertainty associated with droughts and can increase income of smallholder farmers in developing countries.
In order to increase the "weight" that farmers put on sustainable activities like agroforestry, human capital needs to be raised. Through public policies and government subsidies of sustainable activities and education, farmers will receive more formal education and potentially gain more experience, which will contribute to less uncertainty, according to Professor Casey. It is clear that improving farmers' outlooks on and confidence in new systems such as agroforestry or biotech seeds will help reduce the uncertainty of investing in these new, sustainable activities and drive the growth in developing countries.
Though I think the story about human capital and the notion of “weight” is an interesting and convincing one, I also think that the opportunity cost story we used to describe why more people do not get flu shots is very relevant to this study. Flu shots, like agroforestry, are proven to have beneficial results both for those who get the shots and for the general public. Even though the average individual has a concrete understanding of the benefits of getting a flu shot, many opt not to simply because of the opportunity cost involved. In order to get the shot, one is required to put their daily tasks on hold, travel to a health center or clinic, wait in line, etc. Even though the benefits are great, many times these benefits are overpowered by opportunity cost involved. I believe that this story is very applicable to adoption rates of agroforestry. Though many farmers understand, at least on some level, the benefits of agroforestry, many do not adopt it because they are accustomed to their monocultural system of farming. A change to their practice would require adapting to a new learning curve and, like Casey discusses, some degree of uncertainty. In my mind, farmers view the transitional period that is required to make the switch from monocultural farming to agroforestry as an opportunity cost of their time and energy. It is much easier for most to simply continue to farm the way that they always have, and save themselves the time it takes to learn a new method. Again, in their minds, the costs of time and energy outweigh the potential benefits that agroforestry can offer.
From the Keynesian perspective and his discussion of animal spirits it is very important to emphasize the differences between the short and long run investment opportunities. For obvious reasons short term investment expectations are much more transparent than an uncertain and indefinite future. I’m not sure that I like the term Animal spirits in relation to decisions made based on levels of human capital. In the realm of nature vs nurture, I typically think of animal spirits as more of a raw pre-education natural concept, rather than one which becomes altered over the years. Obviously, our decision making and expectations do change with the level of schooling and transparency of long term investment, but I do not think animal spirits would be a good term to describe this.
In looking at the papers results we see those adopting agroforestry are usually younger than those who do not. This result made me think about ways this variable could be accurately measured in order to fully capture the effects of age itself. In dealing with animal spirits and risk appetite we associate younger people as being more risk seeking. At young ages workers have different incentives and aspirations motivating their actions. It could be argued that the effects seen are due to the younger generation being more educated. And in turn, this increase in human capital has caused these farmers to place more weight on their investment decisions. However, within the sample the head of household minimum age is 16 which would typically not have allowed most people to achieve an optimal level of schooling. Furthermore, it makes sense intuitively that older farmers would have a great knowledge of soil and cultivation through on the job experience/education. The way this knowledge affects weight and investment cannot be ignored. With this tradeoff between formal schooling and experience I think that the intangible risk seeking nature of youths must play a very dominant role. It would be interesting to quantitatively see how much this correlation between age and likelihood of agroforestry adoption is has nothing to do with increased education, but what I think of as animal spirits. -Kyle Koka
Although this paper has a lot of useful insight into the role of human capital in the acceptance of agroforestry techniques, it fails to account for other factors that may significantly impact adoption as well. In particular, the study lacks any variable that can capture the role of social networks in reducing uncertainty of new agroforestry methods. The authors do include a variable titled "Exposure". However, this captures only the effects of "formal on the job training" or "extension programs".
ReplyDeleteFrom a theoretical standpoint, social networks like any information medium act as a network to transfer news without direct contact between an initial source, and later receivers of the message. In the case of farming, one farmers success with agroforestry could have cascading effects as the information passes from one person to another, one town to the next, one region to its neighbor. As a result, social networks may have exponential effects on reducing the uncertainty that farmers may have about using new, non-traditional cultivation techniques. All it takes is a few success stories, and evidence of greater yields than with traditional methods, and the process of country wide adoption begins.
By excluding social networks from this study, it is possible that the included results and empirical evidence suffers from some type of omitted variable bias. Consequently, if this is the case, the bias will get picked up by the coefficients of other factors. As a result, the value of these coefficients may be overestimated, making them appear more significant than they actually are.
Therefore, we may need to question the validity of the results in this paper. While it offers overwhelming support, the outcome may not totally rest upon increases in human capital.
Reading through this article, my first thought was, as in the words of the author: "Of course, this makes sense". The article is particularly interesting because it doesn't disprove the rationality of peasants, as it merely shows that rational choices in agro-forestry are based on agent-specific traits, in this case training and education which seemingly increases the ability to properly assess and lower risks.
ReplyDeleteAs Justin notes above, many more questions are raised as a consequence of this evidence. I would not agree however, that the paper falls short of accounting for social networks, since the variable "informal training" very well could capture some if not all of this effect. I would be curious to hear from the author, in class, if the area he surveyed has characteristics to suggest that agriculture there is a much more communal undertaking than we conventionally think of it - which would affect whether the social networks variable could be accounted for in the informal training variable.
Also, as I understand the goal of the model used, the precision of the actual coeffecient isn't so important as it is to simply determine whether it is positive and significant, answering the question: "does investing investing in a farmers HC affect that same farmer's decision to enter use agro-forestry techniques"? The evidence clearly suggests that this is likely to be true.
Quite clearly, there are numerous factors to account for when understand decisions by farmers, and for the sake of this model, a proxy had to be used. Whether it is a good proxy or not, I find it hard to believe that better, empirical evidence could be found in a different fashion. Simply, since the data is self-reported to the interviewer, a more complex measure would entail every person interviewed to understand and evaluate his or her own value in that measure.
I would be interested to know if these measures would differ by region, geography and density of communities - and especially in cases of other, similar decisions to adopt techniques in agriculture not pertaining to forestry. One such example could be techniques in rice fields around the world, which have been criticized for being inefficient, but costs in the short run to restructure is similar in fashion, I would imagine, to agro-forestry.
I agree with Morten that the argument of the paper - that individual farmers’ levels of human capital play an important role in making decisions to adopt agroforestry - seems intuitive. However, when I arrived at the end of the paper, I realized HOW important it is to emphasize that lack of education and hence lack of confidence (or the “weight” variable) discourages farmers to adopt new technologies.
ReplyDeleteThinking about our society, I have the feeling that many people use “ignorant” and “uneducated” as synonyms to describe people who are easily convinced by popular opinions (as long as these are presented well) without reflection. One would assume that farmers who are supposedly incapable of reflecting upon just what these new agroforestry techniques really incorporate and how beneficial it would be to adopt them, would be equally easily convinced by an extension agent who is a good “salesman”. But this paper’s evidence show that this is not the case at all, but rather the opposite occurs! Unlike a large amount of unreflected decisions and opinions formed in our society, for instance about government’s policy decisions, a rather “uneducated” farmer does reflect upon his or her decisions very thoroughly, because the potential loss (entailing deprivation or even starvation) of making a false decision is very high. This proves the distinct rationality of simple farmers who are often supposedly incapable of making rational decisions, due to lack of knowledge and understanding.
The results of this paper are also crucial for policy implications. It is shows that more focus needs to be put on the demand-side of agroforestry (the farmers’ willingness to try it), parallel to investments in supply-side factors (the ability of the extension agents to explain the benefits of agroforestry). Apparently, efforts of extension agents and promoters of agroforestry are not effective, if the recipient of the information does not place confidence in his own interpretation of that input.
Hence, it does not seem at all surprising anymore that there is such a low adoption rate of agroforestry, even though we all know that it enhances productivity and should help increase farmers’ welfare. WE know this because most of us have basic confidence in our judgments.
I find the fact that the income variable displays a negative coefficient especially interesting. As the paper states, traditional economic theory would predict that income and technology adoption are positively correlated. I would like the author to given an interpretation about why the coefficient on income is negative here? Is it maybe because this agroforestry adoption program does not require farmers to contribute their own capital to pay for the direct costs of the new technologies? Or could one also argue that maybe more educated, but poorer farmers place more “weight” on their decision capabilities and, at the same time, might be more willing to adopt new technologies in order to increase their relatively lower income?
The finding that income does not have a statistically significant effect on the probability of implementing agroforestry techniques is confusing. In theory, there are two reasons that income should have a positive effect on the probability of adoption. First, as we discussed in class, having more disposable income (not living with the volatility of meeting day-to-day consumption at or below the poverty level) should decrease the risk associated with implementing these new techniques that may have a substantially higher payoff. This may not be captured in the data, since this income effect may happen only after a threshold level of income is reached, which was not included in the data. The second theory that supports a positive correlation with income and agroforestry implementation is through human capital theory. Since human capital theory posits that the accumulation of educational and health attainment will lead to better analytical and productive skills, we should see those with higher wages (and presumably higher levels of human capital) adopting agroforestry techniques with greater frequency, ceteris paribus. Since we in fact do not see this relationship, there may be endogeneity between human capital indicators and income, or omitted variable bias at play that clouds this effect, or maybe the income indicator is not a good measure of wealth. It could be, as with many subsistence farmers, that income does not accurately capture household consumption, and maybe that is the effect we are seeing here.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the implicit assumption that uncertainty is at least in part a function of human capital, and by extension education, is in my opinion shaky. Education will undoubtably contribute to an individual’s ability to assess an agroforestry plan (reading the pamphlets, conducting a cost-benefit analysis), but I think that there are many other factors that contribute to a small farmer’s uncertainty that cannot be captured by measures of human capital. For example, had a scientist previously come to the village, pitching an agroforestry or similar idea? And what were the results? What is the dynamic between the government and locals, and foreign aid and locals? The ability of researchers to reach and relate to locals, and locals’ subsequent receptivity to these plans play a large role in determining whether or not they decide to adopt such a plan.
This article's basic point was: investments in human capital will lead to more farmers interested in pursuing agroforestry. Investment in improving human capital can poverty, so the fact that most of the world's poor is in agrarian communities, this article is wuite relevant to solving other problems as well. If farmers are more knowledgeable in agroforestry, they will be less risk averse than those deprived of such knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSince Keynes was mainly referring to subsistence farmers, any uncertainty they might have is due to the dangerous risks, like death or starvation. His research (where he studies trends of farmers who are interested in agroforestry) can maybe lead to policy ideas such as subsidies for subsistence farmers. If they decide to pursue agroforestry, they can receive some assistance to take care of their immediate needs. Also, possibly a farmer who has used agroforestry before, can go to towns and encourage such ideas. Some of this uncertainty probably comes from doubt in the credibility of those who are pushing agroforestry programs on farmers.
In response to Justin’s comment, I agree that social networking can drive information flow and disperse the benefits of agroforestry around the community, however I also question the attempt to include social networking as a variable on two points. Firstly, the idea of social networking is something difficult to quantify. Unless the farming community is uncannily communicative and communal, it seems to me that social networking effects would be equivalent from area to area. Secondly, because the benefits of agroforestry are not immediately quantifiable or noticeable and because some of the benefits work to minimize a negative externality (deforestation through slash and burn farming techniques) it would be difficult for farmers practicing agroforestry to fully detail how the benefits outweigh the investment costs and risk associated with the practice.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that social networking does not matter. The fact that 142 farmers out of 175 sampled expressed interest in agroforestry suggests that word of mouth transfer of information is very important. However, the fact that only ~1/3 of the sample population actually practices agroforestry suggests something of more substance than simply social networking is required to instill confidence in the practice. Nonetheless, the paper recognizes the importance of social networking in the concluding paragraphs stating, “Perhaps most important is the role to be played by farmers who have already successfully implemented agroforestry systems. These farmers need to be identified and allowed to participate actively in the dissemination of information and the on-the-job training of new adopters of agroforestry technologies.” (519). Perhaps here it worth considering through which means this information would be best disseminated so as to merit the alteration of farming practices.
I dealt with a similar situation this summer while working on an economic model of local beef farmers. Cattle farmers in the Rockbridge area have been presented with the option to put up fencing to keep cows from defecating in streams and thereby polluting the water. This fence is costly to the farmer, but there is also literature that suggests it may benefit the health of the cattle herd. For the most part, I found that most of the area farmers who have implemented such fences have higher education degrees than those who did not.
ReplyDeleteHowerver, I noticed several educated farmers who were strongly unwilling to invest in the fencing system. This seems to go against the grain of what Professor Casey's paper says and common sense.
It isn't a problem of lack of information. Extension agents strongly advertise fencing to local farmers as a way to cut down on water pollution. They provide lots of information to the farmers about the potential herd health benefits of fencing. Despite the available information, many farmers still decline to fence. I believe there is a negative political association with environmental improvements that many farmers shy away from without even investigating the details of such programs. There are also concerns over land privacy, with many farmers believing that they are the sole masters of their own land and shouldn't be told how to manage it. Also, farmers can face huge social scrutiny and even being ostracized for adopting progressive environmental tactics.
The study also mentions that more often then not the practitioners of agroforestry were younger. Often it requires elders to popularize a farming technique because of the status they hold in a farming community, while the younger farmers who adopt such techniques may be seen as rogues deviating from tradition. Unfortunately, older farmers are much less likely to change their behavior, which leads to a suppression of innovation in their locality.
It would be interesting to see if the same social and political pressures apply to the Mexican farmers. The social network theme mentioned by Justin and Brian would be the lens through which to examine this effect.
I think we can all agree to the better outcomes for farmers who implement Agroforestry versus those who don't. However, the actual decision to implement and the conceived pros and cons which lead a farmer to the decision seem to be almost always directly related to the farmers level of education. Many times the article noted that when a farmer knew more about how agroforestry works and how it will benefit him, he was more likely to implement the strategy. If he was better trained to farm more crops and to harvest trees, the farmer is more likely to pursue agroforestry. If the farmer understands the costs and benefits, he can make a rational decision. The article did mention that increases human physical capital increases the chance of implementation, as a farmer with greater security can afford to accept higher risk, where a subsistence farmer cannot. Beyond education, I believe the most important factor in implementing an agroforestry initiative anywhere is that people understand the cost-benefit problem. Agroforestry is a question of present-time-costs and future-realized benefits. A farmer only chooses to take risks on agroforestry if he believes that his future benefit is not only greater than the present costs, but also that the risk in attaining the future benefits is not too high. In all these things, I think in order to implement a functioning agroforestry initiative anywhere, one would first need a push in education, not only agricultural, but multilevel. We discussed this problem a few weeks ago, that without the education to use a new technology, pumping any level of that technology to a place is in effect useless. Agroforestry seems to make sense, benefit economically and environmentally, and be rather easy to implement. I think lack of proper education is the only thing holding these sort of programs back.
ReplyDeleteGiven the strong empirical evidence presented in this paper for the effect of Education on participation in Agroforestry, I would like to know from the author as to what kind of a response he has received from this paper. Has there been follow up studies to check for the robustness of these conclusions? Have there been studies that have looked at different areas or have looked to test other pertinent variables, such as the "informal extension agent" that Justin and Brian have discussed earlier? Have there been organizations (government or otherwise) that have attempted to subsidize education for farmers, in the hope that they might adopt agroforestry?
ReplyDeleteThe biggest question that I would like to raise in regards to the “Keynes and Agroforestry” paper is why the farmers interested in agroforestry appeared to have lower incomes than their non-interested counterparts. The paper suggests that information and education may have some role to play, but does not specify if higher or lower per capita income plays a “positive role in the adoption of new technologies” (Casey 11). Rather, the paper simply notes that “per capita income will play a positive role in the adoption of new technologies” (Casey 11) Would lower incomes force farmers to take an interest in increasing their incomes, by whatever means necessary, or would higher income (and possibly higher education) lead those farmers to play the role of early adopters? I would like to better explicate this part of the paper in an effort to understand how and why current agricultural incomes affect behavior that could influence long run incomes. Would higher income in the present serve as a disincentive to adopt new technology that may lead to higher incomes later (example: “I have enough income to feed my family and make some money, so why bother changing?”) or would it spur educational spending and lead to more rapid adoption? Similar questions could be asked about the effect of lower current income.
ReplyDeleteI also was left wondering about the uses of trees in a non-agricultural setting. While the trees obviously play a vital role in helping to rejuvenate soil and prevent erosion, could there be a situation in which a sustainable timbering program could be established among a group of farmers? For instance, could a system be worked out by which a certain percentage of trees are cut down each year (and the area re-seeded), certified for niche market or general consumption and sold or exported to augment economic income? The niche market approach may yield better results, since the value added of “sustainable” labeling would hopefully be enough to offset the temptation to sacrifice future output for all-out current consumption. Since one of trees used is mahogany, for which a large market exists, could not a sustainable program using the returns to scale afforded by the communities in Campeche help supplement farmers’ agricultural income?
--Scott
I started reading this paper with a few preconceived notions about agroforestry from the Intro to Environmental Studies course I've taken. My knowledge of agroforestry was mainly centered around the practice of going into pre-existing forests and clearing narrow strips of land fully surrounded by forest life and farming numerous areas like that on a rotating basis. Since farmers were farming on narrow areas the forest would be able to quickly recover the farmed areas and replenish the soil.
ReplyDeleteThe agroforestry this paper mostly discusses is the use of agroforestry where farmers plant trees on open farm land and somewhat "create" small forests. This was a novel idea to me, but I knew there would be a number of uncertainties. This paper acknowledged many of these questions like how many trees should be planted, in what way should they be planted, who is gonna teach the farmers how to plant trees, etc.
All of these help shed light on the "weight" farmers will carry expected profits of agroforestry techniques. Even with the information that agroforestry will increase yield farmers have to determine if they will be able to successfully implement the techniques. This paper shows the factors farmers consider when making rational decisions, and does address the fact that successful adopters of agroforestry will be some of the biggest participants in boosting its universal implementation.
What if we exposed and educated agroforestry to women? They could start by planting trees in their little vegetable gardens which would be less riskier than planting a tree in a large field. If the process succeeds, women would be able to grow larger portions of food on more fertile ground. The male farmers might see the benefits and realize it is a good idea. Instead of trying to have different programs throughout the community, agroforestry could start in each individual household by targeting women.
ReplyDeleteI saw one of the most valuable aspects to this article as the potential for the findings presented in relation to agroforestry to be extended and applied to other different development programs in the future. The central link that the author notes between human capital, the ‘weight’ gained in the decision making process, and ultimately participation in the program undoubtedly functions in many other arenas, such as healthcare, where innovation is consistently presenting new opportunities. Additionally, I believe that the connection between adoption of innovation and acquirement of human capital can be viewed as a type of positive feedback cycle. Increasing or developing human capital in a society not only increases the likelihood that members will adopt new innovations but also leads to more innovation and advances in technology itself. In turn, these new innovations will be adopted more readily as human capital advances. Finally, I thought it was interesting how the author viewed the pursuit of conventional agriculture as the “uncertainty minimizing position for the farmer” (511). Although the refusal to adopt new and potentially beneficial technology seems irrational at first, when viewed in the light that agroforestry adds more uncertainty to the already uncertain work of farming, which is so dependent on weather and a number of other uncontrollable factors to begin with, it makes sense that certain relatively uneducated farmers would forgo any extra changes. This article focuses on the individual decisions of individual farmers but also demonstrates an overarching theme in the behaviors of farmers in general. As a result, the logical solution of increasing human capital so that members of society can take advantage of new technologies leads to a wide-scope, societal scale solution to address the individual decisions encountered in agroforestry and beyond.
ReplyDeleteI think the paper does a good job of supporting the idea that the impoverished don't just make decsisions without thinking but instead make decisions the same way we do just with different constraints. Without hiher levels of human capital to better understand how agroforestry works it is really more rational not to adopt it than to start using a practice you don't understand which could leave you even worse off. I think the paper could benefit from being a bit more developed and considering other reasons why farmers don't adopt agroforestry. I agree that human capital levels contribute but they aren't the whole story. I imagine things like what crops your growing and how much light they need, water requirements of the trees vs the crops, etc would all be considered before adopting agroforestry.
ReplyDeleteThe major obstacle to overcome in implementing sustainable agroforestry techniques, essentially planting trees on farms, is farmers’ unwillingness to adopt these techniques because of uncertainty about the risk. Most, being subsistence farmers, are more content to be able to feed their families than take a chance that could potentially have disastrous consequences such as starvation (even if the payoffs if successful are high). As discussed in Schultz’s “The Economics of Being Poor” people often find it hard to understand the behavior of poor people. Poor people’s decisions may appear irrational, but they actually are rational when seen in the light of their different set of constraints. Farmers would rather have just enough to eat rather than risk having nothing. Yet, if farmers were informed about the benefits cited by those who use agroforestry, it is likely these techniques would spread. Casey seeks to explain why adoption rates are so low, utilizing Keynes’s theory of investment and the concept of “weight”, based on relevance, completeness, and balance, to do so. Results show that human capital investment in farmers improves the likelihood of participation in adopting agroforestry techniques by reducing uncertainty. The farmer who is more confident in interpreting information or who places more “weight” on a forecast will be more likely to invest. The positive coefficient on education is statistically and economically significant in relation to agroforestry. The results echo what we learned in class about increasing returns to human capital. Once farmers have the necessary information, and confidence in this information, they will implement techniques, even though benefits are seen on a long-term scale, and will lead to sustainable practices which increase overall social welfare.
ReplyDeleteSustainable agroforestry would obviously provide social benefits if implemented on a large scale. However, as most farmers are currently producing only enough to live off of or a little more, are wary of any sort of change as the possibility of being worse of is not an option. Thus, in this sort of situation, in order to implement these policies, we must provide some sort of incentive to the farmers or convince them that this new technique actually will improve their welfare. Programs which provide them with the necessary information on agroforestry and the means to interpret it will help to spur on change. Additionally, we need to make sure that those that do implement these new practices succeed, for if they fail, the whole community will see their failure and never attempt sustainable practices themselves.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Keynes view, uncertainty in sustainable activities such as agroforestry results in insufficient confidence at which point farmers will place little "weight" on an activity, leading to insufficient investment and less adoption. If there is no adoption, then there is no improvement in output or incomes of farmers. Similar to what Professor Casey explores in his paper, the adoption of biotech seeds (GMOs) has been similar to the adoption of agroforestry in developing countries. In India especially, smallholder farmers that compose about 78% of India's farmers, oppose the adoption of GMOs because doing so threatens to make them hostage to large multinational companies that supply these seeds, and seeds are very expensive. Furthermore, these often resource-poor farmers may perceive an increased risk rather than return in changing their farming strategy because of uncertainty surrounding this nontraditional approach to farming. By 2050, agricultural production will need to double in order to sustain an estimated population of over 9 billion people (according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN). Furthermore, well over 75% of that population will inhabit the developing world (T&S Ch. 6), so it is especially important to target these sustainable activities to developing countries with the largest population. Ignoring the health risks that may be associated with biotech seeds, it seems like at least a possible solution, along with agroforestry, to producing twice as much food in the next 40 years than is currently being produced. Both drought-resistant biotech seeds and agroforestry reduce the uncertainty associated with droughts and can increase income of smallholder farmers in developing countries.
ReplyDeleteIn order to increase the "weight" that farmers put on sustainable activities like agroforestry, human capital needs to be raised. Through public policies and government subsidies of sustainable activities and education, farmers will receive more formal education and potentially gain more experience, which will contribute to less uncertainty, according to Professor Casey. It is clear that improving farmers' outlooks on and confidence in new systems such as agroforestry or biotech seeds will help reduce the uncertainty of investing in these new, sustainable activities and drive the growth in developing countries.
Though I think the story about human capital and the notion of “weight” is an interesting and convincing one, I also think that the opportunity cost story we used to describe why more people do not get flu shots is very relevant to this study. Flu shots, like agroforestry, are proven to have beneficial results both for those who get the shots and for the general public. Even though the average individual has a concrete understanding of the benefits of getting a flu shot, many opt not to simply because of the opportunity cost involved. In order to get the shot, one is required to put their daily tasks on hold, travel to a health center or clinic, wait in line, etc. Even though the benefits are great, many times these benefits are overpowered by opportunity cost involved. I believe that this story is very applicable to adoption rates of agroforestry. Though many farmers understand, at least on some level, the benefits of agroforestry, many do not adopt it because they are accustomed to their monocultural system of farming. A change to their practice would require adapting to a new learning curve and, like Casey discusses, some degree of uncertainty. In my mind, farmers view the transitional period that is required to make the switch from monocultural farming to agroforestry as an opportunity cost of their time and energy. It is much easier for most to simply continue to farm the way that they always have, and save themselves the time it takes to learn a new method. Again, in their minds, the costs of time and energy outweigh the potential benefits that agroforestry can offer.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Keynesian perspective and his discussion of animal spirits it is very important to emphasize the differences between the short and long run investment opportunities. For obvious reasons short term investment expectations are much more transparent than an uncertain and indefinite future. I’m not sure that I like the term Animal spirits in relation to decisions made based on levels of human capital. In the realm of nature vs nurture, I typically think of animal spirits as more of a raw pre-education natural concept, rather than one which becomes altered over the years. Obviously, our decision making and expectations do change with the level of schooling and transparency of long term investment, but I do not think animal spirits would be a good term to describe this.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the papers results we see those adopting agroforestry are usually younger than those who do not. This result made me think about ways this variable could be accurately measured in order to fully capture the effects of age itself. In dealing with animal spirits and risk appetite we associate younger people as being more risk seeking. At young ages workers have different incentives and aspirations motivating their actions. It could be argued that the effects seen are due to the younger generation being more educated. And in turn, this increase in human capital has caused these farmers to place more weight on their investment decisions. However, within the sample the head of household minimum age is 16 which would typically not have allowed most people to achieve an optimal level of schooling. Furthermore, it makes sense intuitively that older farmers would have a great knowledge of soil and cultivation through on the job experience/education. The way this knowledge affects weight and investment cannot be ignored. With this tradeoff between formal schooling and experience I think that the intangible risk seeking nature of youths must play a very dominant role. It would be interesting to quantitatively see how much this correlation between age and likelihood of agroforestry adoption is has nothing to do with increased education, but what I think of as animal spirits.
-Kyle Koka