Presentacin de PowerPoint

1

Institut de Sosteniblitat

Elena Poli

1

12345Results, Contributions and LimitationsMethodologySocial Capital: case study of rural IndiaProblem Statement, Objectives and HypothesisConclusions and Further Research Presentation Contents2

2

3

12345Problem Statement

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTALEnvironmental DegradationSocial exclusionChallenges faced bySMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN DEVELOPING WORLD Production constraints

Unsustainable farming practicesFree-riding of privatized natural resourcesClimate change85% of farms worldwide75% worlds hungry and undernourished

Gender & minoritiesCultural restrictionsLand rights/extension

Lack of access to resources Low productivityLow profit and investment

3

4Hypothesis

FARMER

RURAL SOCIETY

ENVIRONMENTNatural Capital PreservationCollective empowerment

Improve Performance

Bottom-up innovationSustainable use through Collective ResponsibilitySustainable, zero-cost & locally based

Building of grassroots institutions Empowerment of disadvantaged groups

Higher Productivity, Efficiency Reduced VulnerabilityHow can Social Capital help?12HypothesisHypothesis

12345

4

5250 semi-structured interviews to smallholder cotton farmers in 9 villages in Wardha District

Support of Wardhas Agricultural College

Household survey, a rapid rural appraisal and stakeholder workshops used for data collection

Data: farm production, farmers constraints and farmers Social Capital

Study Location

Agronomic

EnvironmentSocial

Analysis Empirical

Research

12345

5

6

12345MEANSTDMINMAX

24%GENDERPercentage of farmers interviewed are women

20%REPRESENTATIVENESS

250 farmers in 9 villages 100-150 farm households 30 farmers interviewed

68%COTTONPercentage of cotton on total cultivated area. Farm income: 80% of household income

55%IRRIGATIONPercentage of irrigated lands: bore-dug wellsYIELD(Qtl)14.98.11.550LAND (acre)2.911.041.005.00SEEDS(Rs.)5,4813,20593032,790FERTILIZER(Rs.)6,5615,2660.0040,750PESTICIDE(Rs.)2,4312,1490.0015,000LABOUR(Rs.)19,01710,8490.0072,000NET INCOME(Rs./Qtl)1,401968,5-6493450EDUCATION (years)7.64.4015AGE(years)46.313.52098

Sample Characteristics

6

7What is Social Capital? and how to measure it?

Social

Capital

PRODUCTIONINFORMATIONTRUSTMUTUALITYLikert scale: 0 to 10

25 Survey Questions

12345Social Capital = networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1993)Integrated Questionnaire for the measurement of Social Capital

7

8Average Social Capital score: 4,8 6,5TM

2,16,56,2CPIS

Trust & Mutuality

Information Sharing

Collective ProductionCollective ProductionJoint input acquisition and marketing produce, share of labour force, collective soil & water conservation

Information SharingCapacity of farmers to generate, find and share valuable technical informationTrust & MutualityInter-caste collaboration, mutual support and volunteership/cooperation in community activities

Principal component Analysis

?!

Social

Capital

What is Social Capital? and how we measured it?

12345

8

Research Scheme9

Researchmethods

Social CapitalEfficiency AnalysisRisk AnalysisDescriptive AnalysisResearch contribution

Farmers Efficiency &Productivity

Community& Local Rural Development

Farmers Vulnerability Output Risk

123

12345

9

10

Farmers production constraints

Social exclusion in resources access

Social Capital characteristics Descriptive Data AnalysisDescriptive Analysis

Socio-economic Analysis----------------Multiple Linear Regression--------------Factor Analysis

12345

METHODOLOGYNetworks, institutions and shared rules

For the QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS we used a number of analytical tools (such as Multiple Linear Regression, Factor Analysis and Socio-Economic Analysis).The first objective was to investigate in-depth which are the constrictions faced by sample farmers in productive activities (in this regard we found that their main constraint is high production costs). Then we investigated social/cultural exclusion of some categories of farmers (expecially women farmers) te, in accessing resources, credit, information and markets. Another important objective of the Qualitative Analysis is to understand the characteristics of Social Capital in this area: to understand what type of networks, what type of informal institutions and shared rules exist in this area as basis for Social Capital. 10

11Analyse the effects of social capital on farm productivity and riskiness(Just and Pope, 1979)

Analyse the contribution of social capital to farm productive efficiency (Battese and Coelli, 1992)Deterministic componentnoise= (, )+ (, )

Output LevelVariability of OutputInefficiency

Efficiency Analysis

Social Capital

as input variable

Maximum Likelihood

SAS, Frontier, STATA

Stochastic frontierproduction function

Just & Pope production function Quantitative Data AnalysisRisk AnalysisSocial CapitalSocial Capital

METHODOLOGY

12345

Then we come to the QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS. THE COMMON FEATURE OF BOTH THE EFFICIENCY AND RISK ANALYSIS is that SOCIAL CAPITAL is INTRODUCED AS AN INPUT VARIABLE IN THE PRODUCTION FUNCTION.

Demographic characteristics such as education and age 11

12Results

12345

12

13

RESULTS Efficiency AnalysisInputElasticityStdSeed2.226 ***0.244Labour1.083 ***0.108Fertilizer0.583 ***0.103Land0.277 ***0.107Pesticide0.097 ***0.024Education0.012 **0.003 CP0.037 ***0.002 IS-0.000560.001 TM0.00240.002

InputElasticityStd CP-0.077 ***0.023 IS-1.024 ***0.318 TM-0.565 **0.237Education-0.090 **0.039Female dummy-0.0440.180Social (CP + IS + TM) x Education0.008 **0.002Social (CP + IS + TM) x Age 0.001**0.000

Elasticity of inputs

Stochastic frontier production functionElasticity estimates

Elasticity of inputs

Technical Inefficiency Model

?!

?!

Social Capital raises productive efficiency of LESS EDUCATED and LESS EXPERIENCED/YOUNGER FARMERS.

Tested for Exogeneity and Multicollinearity

12345

13

14**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level and * at the 0.05 level.

Spearmans correlation

RESULTS

0,135*

FarmerEducation

0,282**

-0.221**ProductivityQtl/acre

ExpensesCost /Qtl

Collective Production0,371**

Information Sharing0,458*

0,321**

Trust & Mutuality

0,568**

?!0,207**

0,210**

-0,852 **-0,277 **-0,145

0.554**

SocialCapital0,426**

-0.566**

Efficiency

Land/Qtl-0.566**Seed/Qtl-0.581**Fertil/Qtl-0.414**

Pestic/Qtl-0.316**Labor/Qtl-0.779**

Inputs Efficiency AnalysisCorrelation Scores

12345

14

Risk Analysis15

0102Social Capital is Productivity-increasing

Social Capital is Risk-Increasing

RESULTS

12345

15

Social Capital is productivity-increasing16

Frequency distribution of farms produce shows the positive impact of Social Capital on productivity levels

Mean 4.1 Variance 4.8

SOCIAL CAPITALbelow the median011,75%15,23%

5,42%3,4%

Productivity distribution is wider and flatter

Number of farmersQtl per acre

Greater ranges and higher variability of scores

Higher Social Capital owns potentials for higher returnsSOCIAL CAPITALabove the medianMean 4.9 Variance 5.8Number of farmersQtl per acre

12345

16

Number of farmers

Social Capital is risk-increasing

Risk-increasing effect of social capital reflects an impact on the upside risk, responding to the probability of gaining something rather than losing

70,55%29,45%Mean 3.8 Variance 36.117

SOCIAL CAPITALbelow the median

Greater variability of outputNumber of farmers

Much greater probability of obtaining higher results than expected

Higher level of Upside Risk

SOCIAL CAPITALabove the medianMean 14.7 Variance 45.50293,24%6,76%

12345

17

18Summary of Results

Especially Collective Production

Especially Information Sharing

Augmenting positive risk of achieving better results than expected

01PRODUCTIVITY INCREASING

02EFFICIENCYINCREASING

03UPSIDE RISKINCREASING

12345Can Social Capital be a Rural Development Tool?

Farmers social capital as a policy resource for community development in the rural areas

18

19Sahaj Krishi Grassroots Agric. Project

12345

INNOVATIVE PROD. TECHNIQUES

201120.000 Indian farmers participating(830 centers in Maharashtra)

2015Techniques researched and applied by ICAR (Indian Council for Agricultural Research)

Ancient knowledge of yoga and farmers connection to natural environment - holistic approach to agriculture

TRUST & MUTUALITY

INFO SHARING

COLLECTIVE ACTION

Project started by few Maharashtran farmers2005

Sahaj Krishi is a grassroots agricultural project started by few Maharashtran farmers in 2005. These farmers developed INNOVATIVE PROD TECHNIQUES based yoga to IMPROVE FARM PRODUCTIVITY and FARMERS WELLBEING. In few years time PROJECT expanded to reach 20.000 farmers all over India, 830 centers Maharasthra. Its TECHNIQUES so SUCCESSFULL, that are now RESEARCHED and APPLIED by ICAR. This is a GREAT EXAMPLE of BOTTOM-UP INNOVATION and PARTICIPATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, solutions that RESPOND TO THE NEEDS AND VALUES OF THE COMMUNITIES INVOLVED. In this model we FIND all the KEY ELEMENTS we had identified in our research on SOCIAL CAPITAL: collective production, information sharing ( bottom-up farm innovation ), trust and mutuality ( inter-caste, inter-group collaboration --- farmers participating across all caste/gender/religious groups). WE EXTRAPOLATED THEORY FROM REALITY of our sample FARMERS and then from another route, WE CONFIRMED THIS THEORY IN REALITY of a SUCCESSFUL PROJECT

Sahaj Krishi is a very interesting grassroots agricultural project which was initiated by just few Maharashtrian farmers in 2005. These farmers developed some very INNOVATIVE AGRICULTURAL TECHNIQUES to IMPROVE FARM PRODUCTIVITY and FARMERS WELLBEING. They are proposing a fully new way of approaching agriculture, just the opposite of individual oriented, industrial agriculture. Their techniques do not employ any type of chemicals, but their use the Indian ancient knowledge of yoga and farmers connection to the natural environment and to their fellow farmers to improve productivity, proposing a very HOLISTIC APPROACH to agriculture and its sustainability.

In few years time, by 2011, this PROJECT expanded to reach 20.000 farmers all over India, having 830 centres Maharashtra. Its TECHNIQUES are so SUCCESSFULL, that are now RESEARCHED and APPLIED by ICAR (Indian countil for agricultural research). This is a GREAT EXAMPLE of BOTTOM-UP INNOVATION and PARTICIPATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, solutions that RESPOND TO THE NEEDS AND VALUES OF THE COMMUNITIES INVOLVED. In this model we FIND all the KEY ELEMENTS we had identified in our research on SOCIAL CAPITAL: collective production, information sharing ( bottom-up farm innovation ), trust and mutuality ( inter-caste, inter-group collaboration --- farmers participating across all caste/gender/religious groups).

Analysing this project was very interesting because we could confirm that the social capital categories that we identified are actually the key elements to make an actual grassroots project succeed in this area. Secondly, it also helped us to see how these different aspects of social capital interact with higher levels of governance to provide collective benefits. From this we could extrapolate recommendations for policy, as we can see from the next slide.

19

20Social capital and Rural Development Policy

12345

Policy:

Provide COMMUNITY RESOURCES and improve MARKET EFFICIENCY

Farmer organizations farmers integration markets & value chainsFarmersCOLLECTIVE PRODUCTION

Policy:

FARM INNOVATION and KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGESFarmers Researchers Extension services

Bottom-up innovation & problem-solving pools of local expertiseFarmersINFORMATIONSHARING

Policy:

CROSS-CUTTING TIES and COLLECTIVE ACTION HETEROGENEOUS NETWORKS

Virtuous circle: : higher trust, cooperation, civic engagement & collective well-beingFarmersTRUST andMUTUALITY

By analysing the case of SAHAJ KRISHI, we examined which benefits these 3 Social Capital aspects can bring to the whole rural community and discuss how policy can use their potential to achieve higher development goals. IS: Recognizing the role of these actors to co-create, collectively, knowledge for new sustainable practices. TM: Generalised trust and reciprocity among the farming community tend to be self- reinforcing and engender a virtuous circle of high levels of.. Focus on INTER-CASTE, INTER-GROUP collaboration. Open economic opportunities...less powerful /excluded groups. SO WE HAVE SEEN SOCIAL CAPITAL HAS A GREAT POTENTIAL, BUT WHAT ARE ITS LIMITATIONS AND DRAWBACKS ? 20

21Limitations and drawbacks of Social Capital Social Capital is a RESOURCE which is not easy to CREATE

Once created, there is NO ASSURANCE it will last long

Non-monetary COSTS in building an infrastructure of trust, reciprocity and civic engagement

RISKY to TRUST ON OTHERS, SHARE one's own information and knowledge

Not one-size fits all strategy for Policy: participative, bottom-up, user-led

Drawbacks of PARTICIPATORY DESIGN: complex and time-consuming

Advantages?

12345

Social Capital as a development tool has a number of limitations and drawbacks. Social Capital is a RESOURCE which is not easy to CREATE. It is difficult to build trust, confidence, cooperation among human beings.In the PROCESS of CREATING SOCIAL CAPITAL, there is not a one-size fits all solution. POLICY MAKERS need to tailor strategies on the specific needs and characteristics of every social reality. So there are drawbacks but the advantages are much more.

21

22

FARMER

FARMINGCOMMUNITY

RURAL SOCIETYSUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE:Empowered communitiesEnvironmentally accountable societiesParticipative governmentsSustainable supply chains Reduce transaction costs Increase access to market and resourcesBENEFITS OF A STRONG SOCIAL CAPITAL Improve individual performanceReduce vulnerability

12345CONCLUSIONS

A strong SOCIAL CAPITAL benefits FARMERS as individuals, as group and as society

3. Greater stock of SOCIAL CAPITAL and COLLECTIVE ACTION bring benefits to the whole rural society. A STRONG SOCIAL CAPITAL IS THE BASIS TO CREATE empowered communities, environmentally accountable societies, participative governemtns and sustainable supply chains. If these 4 elements can act in synergy for mutual benefits, this could be an actual KEY for ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY IN AGRICULTURE.

22

CONCLUSIONS23

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

Sustainable, zero-cost & locally based BENEFITS of investing in SOCIAL CAPITAL RESOURCES

12345

Hence, the positive effects of investing in Social Capital Resources (which are sustainable, zero-cost and locally-based) can be perceived at the ECONOMIC, SOCIAL and ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL. []By collaborating, by trusting and by sharing my own INDIVIDUAL EFFICIENCY LEVEL augments. And that I have much higher probability of achieving higher results than I expected. This is like a safety net against vulnerability and shocks.

23

Directions for further research on Social Capital24

SmallholdersPerformance

Replicate in other settings, countries and cultures.Cross section /Time series data

Measure effects of social capital on the efficiency of whole local systemIdentify institutional bodies supporting Social Capital building & monitor their long-term resultsMeasure positive externalities of social capital stock on environmental impact of agriculture

24

12345Rural DevelopmentPolicyEnvironmentalSustainability

BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY, HERE ARE SOME POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS OF THIS WORK :1) Replic 2) We found that Social Capital not only exert a positive impact on the performance of the individual farmers, but it also bring positive contributions on the efficiency of the whole agricultural system. So it would be interesting TO EXTEND THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH TO ACTUALLY MEASURE THIS EFFECT. 2) In terms of POLICY, we proposed a number of recommendations, but it would useful to IDENTIFY WHICH3) MEASURE the POSITIVE EXTERNALITIES of SOCIAL CAPITAL STOCK on the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of AGRICULTURE. WHICH ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF FARMERS SOCIAL CAPITAL.

24

Resulting Academic Papers25Under first and second round review

Non-parametric Efficiency AnalysisSerra, T. and E. Poli, 2015. Shadow prices of social capital in rural India, a nonparametric approach. European Journal of Operational Research 240 (3): 892-903.

Indian SmallholdersRural DevelopmentPoli, E.; Serra Devesa, T. and J.M. Gil Roig, 2013. Potential and constraints of employing agricultural biotechnology as a development tool: GMO cultivation and Indian smallholder farmers. Revista Espaola de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, 235: 33-59.

Parametric Efficiency AnalysisPoli, E. and T., Serra, 2015. Social capital and farmers production risk in developing countries, the case of india. (Oxford Development Studies)

RiskAnalysis

Socio-economicAnalysisPoli, E. , Serra, T., and A. Sharma, 2015. The role of social capital in improving technical efficiency of Indian agriculture. (Journal of Development Research)Poli, E., and Gil M.J, 2015. Social capital in Indian smallholder agriculture: empirical analysis of its potentials for rural development. (Journal of South Asian Development)

12345

25

THANK YOU26

Agriculture can be fruitful only through co-operation

Mahatma Gandhi

26

27

Institut de Sosteniblitat

Elena Poli

27