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

Nonfarm expenses constituted the bulk of household expenditures,
particularly during October and January, for both adopters and nonadopters in
1987-88. The same pattern was observed in 1988-89, but expenditures were higher
The adopters had a substantial cash outflo\v from July to December 1987.
The cash outflow during the 12-mo period was P1,070 more than the cash inflow.
The cash inflow among the nonadopters covered their cash outflow and provided a
net cash flow of P1,268. The noncash outflow was significant among the nonadopters
from October 1987 to April 1988. However, this trend was not observed in 1988-89.
Except in December, cash and noncash expenses were evenly distributed throughout
the year.
Farm household asset accumulation
The accumulation of assets was given special emphasis in the crop production survey
of 1989-90. From April to September 1989, there were only 12 farmers who acquired
farm and household assets, most of which were household items such as gas stoves,
clothing, blankets, and kitchenwares. One farmer bought a hand tractor engine, and
two farmers had their houses renovated. During this period, adopters acquired
assets worth P1,571; nonadopters spent about P523 on assets. Household assets
were generally purchased with income gained from crops sales; other assets, such as
tractor engines, were procured iitith loans.
A similar trend was observed in a survey conducted during the second crop
(October 1989-April 1990). There were 11 farmers who bought household assets
and had their houses renovated. The adopters acquired household assets worth P809
during this period, compared with P185 in assets acquired by nonadopters. One
farmer obtained a loan to purchase a carabao; another farmer acquired a loan to
renovate his house. Income from crop and animal sales was used only for the
purchase of small household items and appliances.
ALTERNATIVE TOOLS FOR CLASSIFYING
TECHNOLOGY ADOPTERS
The results of cluster analysis on data collected in 1987-88 revealed four dissimilar
clusters. A partial tree diagram indicated that CL4 and CL7 were under CL2 with
= 0.52; CL6 and CL8 were under CL3 with = 0.64 (Table 4). However, CL7
had only two observations. The cluster analysis on the 1958-89 data showed 4 major
clusters but 1 cluster had only 1 observation. For both cropping years, only 3 clusters
with more than 5 observations were considered. Cluster analysis based on variables
related to a particular component of technology was also used, but it produced the
same result as when the VARCLUS-selected variables were used.
hlembership between clusters derived using data from each year were
compared by considering the characteristics common to all clusters. There were 32