systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...

that although adopters were better off than nonadopters in terms of savings, they
were as much in debt as nonadopters.
Assets
Adopters had more household assets than nonadopters. For example, 61% of the
adopters had hand tractors compared with 22% of nonadopters in the project
area. Adopters also had more livestock, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, sewing
machines, rice barns and livestock houses compared to nonadopters, especially
those outside the project area.
Improvement in standard of living
About 92-93s of the households in all groups reported an improvement in their
standard of living during tlie last S vr. Only 5% of adopters reported a
deterioration in their standard of lhing compared with 8% among nonadopters
in the project area and 7 9 among those outside the project area.
Adopters of rnungbean - rice technology appeared to be more active in
farming than nonadopters in the project area. Adopters also engaged in livestock
enterprises more than nonadopters in the project area.
Nonadopters outside the project area were as acti\,e as adopters and
earned as much from fuming. Havever, their income frorn off-farm
employment and li\.estock was less than the adopters. Their out-migration rate
was also higher and they depended more on remittances than adopters. Their
health cond~tions and savings icere also slightly lower than adopters and
nonadopters in the project area.
hlungbean before rice
CONCLUSION
Although rnungbean before rice appeared to be a relativelv simple new
technology that would provide farmers with supplemental jncome, a closer
examination of the adoption of mungbean before.rice re\.ealed that it had tmtli
strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths
¤ It provided supplemental income and helped ease capital requirements
for the follo\ving rice crop.
Q.
.d