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

Production functions for first-season rice
For adopters and nonadopters, rice output was mainly determined by the area of
land cultivated (Table 8). However, when land area and Iabor were included, both
variables yielded coefficients \vith high standard errors. This was attributed to
rnulticollinearity. The coefficient of correlation between these variables was 0.75 for
adopters. To circumvent this situation, labor use per unit area was entered in the
subsequent analysis. This produced stable coefficients for both land and labor.
Nevertheless, the coefficient of the Iabor variable cannot be interpreted as the
production elasticity of labor.
Althougll use of preharvest Iabor per unit area contributed significantly to
rice output for nonadopters, it was not significant for adopters. The cost of fertilizer
contribured significantly at the level of 0.01 for adopters and 0.1 for nonadopters.
Production functions for second-season potato
The area of land cultivated and the cost of fertilizers per unit area contributed
significantly and positively to potato production (Table 9). As in the case of rice,
fertilizer cost per unit area was used to avoid multicollinearity. The correlation
coefficients between land area and fertilizer cost were 0.64 for adopters and 0.85 for
nonadopters. The negative sign of the statistically significant coefficient of dunlrny
variable 1 (with = 1; without = 0) in the production function for aclopters indicates
that the farmers in the with site were technically less efficient than the farmers in
the without site. This indicated that the farmers, who voluntarily used the
technology after having seen it, applied the technology more effectively than farnlers
who were made adopters by persuasion. This dummy variable did not show any
significant difference in the productivity of nonadopters, which is to be expected.
The significant coefficient of dummy variable 3 (continuo~ls irrigation = 1;
irrigation once in 2 yr = (1) in rhe production function of nonadopters showed that
farmers who received continuous irrigation every year did better than farmers who
received water once in 3 yr for the first-season rice crop. Dummy varirtble 3 is
nonsignificant, however, in the production function for adopters. This cou Id be due
to low variability of the dummy variable in the sample. Only one farmer did not
have irrigation facilities in this group. Therefore, lack of continuous irrigation may
be considered a constraint to the adoption of new technology.
Dummy variable 4 (owner operators = l; tenants = 0) had a significant and
negative coefficient for adopters, but a significant positive coefficient for
nonadopters. Hypotheses and empirical evidence suggest that tenant farmers
produce more to ensure they have a substantial portion of their produce left after
paying a share to the landlord. However, there is also evidence that owner-operators
perform better because they invest in their land over time for soil conservation.
Nevertheless, there is inadequate information available to explain the contrast in
the behavior of the dummy variable for tenancy in adopter and nonadopter groups.