APPROACHES TO

AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

ADOPTION AND CONSEQUENCES

OF ADOPTION IN

LESS - DEVELOPED

COUNTRIES

BY

Anthony B. Shaw

Department of Geography

Brock University

St. Catharines, Ontario,

Canada.

Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Conference of the Caribbean StudiesAssociation, St. Kitts, West Indies.

1984

1. Introduction

Since World War II, the prevailing approach to agricultural development

in the Third World has been to stress the application of science-based technology

in order to achieve rapid economic growth. The technology was generally acquired

from transnational corporations and largely embodied capital inputs (hardware)

such as financial resources, machinery, intermediate goods, and distributional

channels for export. This technological relationship between the supplier

and the recipient has been variously described as "technology commercialization"

(Vaitsos 1975), or one of "technology leasing or renting" (Odle 1979). While

the capital-embodied aspects of the technology could be easily transferred

from the, developed to the needy countries, the human embodied aspects (software)

of the technology incorporated as knowledge, skills and experience of human

resources followed rather slowly. In most cases,the hardware of the technology

represented a quick technical solution as a means of reducing the "gap" between

the rich and the poor countries. It is best represented in recent years as a

package of inputs as in the case of the seed-fertilizer technology associated

with the so-called 'Green Revolution'. Today a large body of evidence on the

accumulated experience of many LDCs has proved very convincingly that the

imported technology did not create the desired impact on employment and income.

In other respects, it. did not cater to the basic needs of the population or

build up the technological capability of the nations concerned.

The study of this imported technology has developed in three major

areas: (1) Studying the process of diffusion and adoption across international

and regional boundaries and within regions, (2) Studying the economic,

institutional, structural and environmental preconditions for adoption, and

(3) examining the consequences of its adoption. Within these broad areas of

enquiry, there are multiple traditions of research on the agricultural technology

adoption process in such fields as anthropology, economics, geography, sociology,

and other disciplines. Each has evolved a somewhat different model of the

adoption - diffusion process. Aside from the differences in terminology, there

are real differences among these models because they are concerned with different

aspects of the adoption phenomenon. Such differences which exist in conceptual

schemes, analytical methodologies, and underlying assumptions have tended to

preclude an interdisciplinary approach. In this paper these various approaches

have been grouped into four broad areas of enquiry and a select number of studies

in each area is discussed.

2

The main focus of sociologists and geographers has been on the impact

of communication (or interaction) and socio-cultural resistance to innovation on

the pattern of diffusion over time and space. The objective here is to understand

how the different socio-cultural characteristics of the adopters create a spectrum

'ranging from innovators to laggards and how these characteristics determine the

means of communication that are most effective in accelerating the diffusion

process. The models of economists have focused on how economic variables such as the

profitability of an innovation and the asset position of firms influence the rate of

diffusion. In its elaborate form, this approach views peasants as essentially

economic men who are willing and able to respond to the presence of economic

opportunity. In recent years'a third area of enquiry has emerged that is based on

several empirical findings in third world countries. This approach builds on the

communication theories and states that structural change is the essence of

development and that communication is complementary to the adoption process.

It postulates, furthermore, that communication behaviour and the accompanying

socio-psychological chakacteristics of the individual are derived from the situation

in which he is found. Unless this situational or institutional structure is

favourable for development (i.e., opportunities are available) communication

and the personal attributes of the individual alone can furnish only limited

explanation of the innovation-diffusion process. A fourth area of enquiry that is

indirectly related to the diffusion process, very recent in origin, and closely

associated with studies of 'Green Revolution' technology, is that which deals with

the consequences of innovation adoption. This approach has been concerned

primarily with analyzing the changes that have occurred following adoption of

innovations. In the remainder of this paper each of these four approaches is

treated in more detail.

2. Communication and Personal Attributes of the Adopters

Early studies concentrated entirely on the variables reflecting the

communication behaviour of individuals and their socio-cultural and personality

characteristics, since such factors which influenced the flow and processing of

information by individuals were held to be the principal determinants of the

adoption and diffusion of innovation (Havens 1972). In particular, the main

stream of diffusion research of the 1960s held that it was primarily cultural

and material obstacles that prevented the individual farmer from innovating and

consequently, from rising in social and economic status. Three interconnected

assumptions were made with regard to this view: (1) that it was variations in

the resource base of the individual decision-maker that enhanced or obstructed

the diffusion of innovation, (2) that change, in general, and adoption of

innovation in particular, was in itself desirable, and (3) that individual

decision-maker had equal access to innovation (Apthorpe 1977). These assumptions

ultimately formed the basis of the majority of the diffusion studies which were

concerned with the individual adopter as the unit of analysis.

Rogers with Shoemaker (1971) identified three classifications of

characteristics of adopters: (1) socio-economic status, (2) personality variables,

and (3) communication behaviour. The general findings indicated that early

adopters tended to be more educated, have higher social status, wealthier, more

specialized, have larger size units and possessed a more favourable attitude

towards credit. Personality-wise, early adopters were shown to possess greater

empathy and to be less fatalistic and dogmatic than their less 'progressive'

counterparts. They were shown to be more rational and to possess more favourable

attitudes towards change, education and science, as well as being less averse to

risk-taking. In terms of communication behaviour, earlier adopters tended to be

more cosmopolitan, t.o have more contact with change agent, t.o have more exposure

to mass media and information channels and to seek information earlier than

non-adopters. Careful examination of these variables which have been used in

diffusion models show, by implication, that they have been conceptualized so

as to indicate the success or failure of the individual within the system rather

than as indications of the success or failure of the system.

This approach of identifying the characteristics of the individual

associated with early adoption has been viewed as detrimental t.o the orientation

of action programs designed t.o develop and disseminate new agricultural technology

among farming populations in the . developing countries (Byrnes 1976). According

to Roling (1974), this approach has resulted in a tendency for extension workers

to classify their client farmers on the basis of progressiveness or innovativeness.

Action is then concentrated on the more innovative farmers in the hope that the

new technology will eventually 'trickle down' to other, less progressive farms.

Concentration on the more progressive farms has led to an increase in economic

disparities between the small and large producers by permitting the large operators

to reap windfall profits from early use of the technology. Morss (1976) has

pointed out in several case studies that the more progressive farmers demand :more

time and services of extension personnel, thereby causing a relative neglect of

the less progressive farmers.

Foster and Eramus (1968) presented a far more contentious view on the

subject of peasant conservatism and reluctance to innovate. The interpretation

holds that the scarcity of present resources leads to the development of societal

attitudes which restrict individual initiative. Foster's model entitled the

'Image of Limited Good' theorized that, in the mind of the peasant all things

desirable in life exist in finite, not infinite, quantities. Foster claims

that in addition to discouraging economic innovation, the limited image also

inhibits development of local leadership and permits the display of wealth only

in a ritual context. He postulated that the social, psychological, and

cultural parameters within which peasants work are so tight as to exclude all

possibility of a large number of peasants maneuvering into more favourable economic

circumstances.

Charles Eramus's cognition model also supported the hypotheses that

present society is by nature intrinsically non-innovative. Peasant society is

said to be in a closed stage of development in which man's limited knowledge of

his environment restricts his control of it and of his own destiny. Owing to.

limited availability of goods, the accumulation of wealth is socially unacceptable.

Innovation and individual achievement are eagerly suppressed. In order to

enforce this standard, peasants exercise 'religious sanctions', permitting wealth

only to be displayed through the rites of 'conspicuous giving'. Religious and

political rituals and positions act as levelling mechanisms, reducing differences

between wealthy and poor (Eramus 1961).

Other scholars have also found peasant societies to be inherently

non-innovative. Lewis (1951) has determined that the society of the Teportlan

is non-competitive' and argued that this circumstance is due to the lack of

strong drive and ambition for improvement and the absence of initiatives. Others

such as Huizer (1970) have placed the absence of innovativeness on an outwardly

imposed cultural repression and stated, furthermore, that once the repression is

removed peasants become militant and ready to accept change. Moreover, some of the

early studies which examined the socio-psychological and cultural attributes of

the peasant farmer have suggested that the peasant farmer possess only a limited

sense of reasoning and economic motivation. Rogers (1969) stated that:.

4

Peasant behaviour is far from fully oriented towards rationaland economic considerations. The degree to which peasant farmersare efficiently-minded and economically rational depends in a largepart on his level of modernization. It does not seem justified toassume that subsistence farmers will be promptly motivated to adoptagricultural innovations merely if the pecuniary advantages ofsuch acceptance are pointed out.

In answering the question whether peasant farms can be expected to

behave in a profit-maximizing fashion, Rogers presents empirical evidence that

many farmers are fatalistic (Banfield 1958, Borda 1955, Lewis 1960, Reichel-Dolmatof

1965), favour luck over knowledge and that they are unwilling to save in order to

purchase new inputs t.o increase yields. Peacock (1972) presented further empirical

evidence in support of Rogers' work, in which Peacock points out community

pressures against innovation.

Other studies have pointed out the relatively weak sense of communal

identification or public spiritedness as an impediment to innovation.

This distrust towards mutual self-help has been termed the 'ego focused

image of change' by Hirschman (1958) and the 'zero sum entrepreneurship' by

Leibstein (1957). According to Banfield (1958), the peasant would vote against

measures which help the community without helping him because even though his

position is unchanged, he considers himself worse off if his neighbour's position

changes for the better. Their inability,( therefore, to act concertedly in the

common good was considered a fundamental impediment to their economic progress.

Caplan and Nelson (1975) have warned against applying this psychological

approach. They contend that psychological research focuses on the person-centred

variables which create a person-blame causal attribution bias when applied to social

change. Person-blame is a tendency t.o hold the individuals responsible for their

problems; the alternative is system-blame where the social structure is held

accountable for the problem. According to Havens (1975):

The reason for the failure of technology to bring about widespreadchanges in peasant societies is that the most important obstaclesto rural change is the social structure--the structure of land tenure,of political participation, of economic segregation (both classsegregation and lack of integration into the national economies);the inequitable distribution of wealth, of services, of legal privilegesand of rights, etc. These factors are the ones that have all toofrequently been overlooked (p. 107).

The communication approach has been the most dominant one in the

diffusion literature. Pye (1963) states that it was the pressure of communication

which brought about the downfall of traditional societies. Rogers (1969) concurs

by affirming that since inventions within a closed system like a peasant village

is a rare event, until there is communication of ideas from sources external

to the village, little change can occur in peasant knowledge, attitudes

and behaviour. He argues that communication is central Lo modernization and

that it is the central force for further dissemination of ideas in the village.

In essence, modernization can be viewed as a communication process.

Communication is the process by which messages are transferred from a

source to receiver. Its role in the agricultural modernization process is

predicated on the assumption that farmers are prevented from adopting new

techniques mainly because of the lack of information and geographic isolation

of farming communities from information centres. The external stimulus which is

channeled through such media as the radio, newspapers, and farm journals is

perceived by individuals and in turn provides impetus for behavioural alteration

(Rogers 1969). To demonstrate the effect of mass media exposure on the adoption

of innovation, communication research was launched in various developing countries

in the 1960s. Noted among these were studies in Colombia (Rogers 1965), in

Turkey (Fry 1964) and in India (Neurath 1962) which showed that mass media

exposure was highly correlated with individual modernization variables.

Closely associated with the communication approach is the study of

innovation-diffusion through space. This approach tends to emphasize the

situational factors in explaining variations in adoption rates from place to place

and is mainly used by. geographers who have applied mathematical models in

attempting to explain the spatial spread of an innovation. These models are either

probabilities or deterministic. The information variable is the key variable in

the diffusion process. The earliest models were introduced by Hagerstrand

(1952, 1965, 1966 and 1967). The chief component variable was information or

communication of information about an innovation. Thus, Hagerstrand (1967)

arrived at the following axiom:

The geographic expression of human behaviour must be viewed in termsof the information available to the individual decision-maker andthereby analyzed in terms of the social network of interpersonalcommunication through which information circulates (p. 300).

6

7

In Hagerstrand's theory, the motive power for diffusion lies in the

spread of information; other cultural variables are relegated to the status

of resistance factors, or barriers, and for the most part are considered to be

randomly distributed and rather unimportant.

Diffusion theorists in the Hagerstrand tradition still hold tenaciously

to the information axiom in spite of cautions expressed by Brown (1969), Pred (1967),

HudSon (1971) and others. The conceptualization of the diffusion process upon which

the models are based is somewhat simplistic and its narrow assumptions limit

cross-cultural applications. Hagerstrand was working in Sweden with a culturally

uniform space and with a population of potential adopters who possessed the

technical and economic means for adoption. Information was, in essence, the only

missing variable, and the only element to set the diffusion process in motion.

An example of a cross-cultural application of the Hagerstrand information based

model is the study by Garst (1972), who examined the diffusion of agricultural

innovations among the Gusii of Kenya. Here, Garst assumed that the technologies

studied were appropriate to the farming population and that . the intensity of

adoption was related to the information received from previous adopters and from

agricultural agents. He concluded that such variations in adoptions rates

indicated that ecological infrastructures and market facilities, rather than

receptivity of information on the part of the adopters, were the most important

factors of innovation diffusion among the Gusii.

In particular, the information based diffusion models have been

criticized by Blaut (1977), who writes:

The diffusion models are grounded in the assumption that thespread of knowledge is a basic operating variable, paradoxicallyenough this is somewhat. anti-intellectual. One assumes thatignorance is the obstacle to adoption - that is, to cultural change.One assumes as well', that a change must come from a teaching (ortelling activity). All of this is, in effect, a denial thatordinary humans are intelligent enough to seek, demand, and toacquire the'need of new knowledge when other conditions foradoption are already present.. Thus, it is not surprising to findthat information-based diffusion theory, in application ratherconsistently identifies successful diffusion with exceptionalindividuals, and with information-dissemination institutions...whenpeasant farmers do not innovate, it is not because they areafflicted with technological ignorance, or with traditional mentalityMost often it is because they cannot afford to do so (p. 346).

Information-based models by themselves have limited explanatory

power in the diffusion process. They are more effective when combined with

other variables related to the structural situation in which communication

takes place. Unless the situational structure is favourable (i.e., opportunities

are available) communication can be of little use in the development process.

The complementary function of communication is thus to provide situationally

relevant information needed by the individual in order to understand and to

adapt to new conditions resulting from a modernization situation (Grunig 1971).

Thus, mass media exposure does not create innovative individuals; rather

innovative individuals have opportunities and a need for information and thus

expose themselves to the media in hopes of gaining new facts about an innovation

(McNelly 1968).

3. Profitability and Rate of Adoption

Economists have argued against the prevailing view that socio-cultural

and communication variables are the important determinants of the rate of

adoption of innovation among peasants in less developed countries. According to

Shultz (1964), economic stimuli greatly affect peasants and to such an extent that

we do need to attend to cultural factors:

Despite all that has been written to show that farmers in poorcountries are subject to all manner of cultural restraints thatmake them unresponsive to normal economic incentives in acceptingnew agricultural factors, studies of observed lags in acceptance ofparticularly new agricultural factors show that these lags areexplained satisfactorily by profitability (p. 164).

Shultz argues that increases in agricultural production over the

last few decades have come primarily from the responses of farmers to new

economic opportunities and that economic.growth from the agricultural sector

of a poor country depends predominantly upon the availability and price of modern

(non-traditional) agricultural factors. When the suppliers succeed in producing

and distributing these factors cheaply, the stage is set for farmers to adopt them.

The American farmer appears to have adjusted rationally to these new

developments in the supply and distribution of cheap factors of production. In

the case of hybrid corn, Griliches (1969) postulated that the rate of acceptance

was a function of both the profitability per acre and the total output. Where

the profits from the innovation were large and clearcut, the changeover was rapid.

It. took Iowa farmers only four years to go from 10 to 90 percent of their corn

9

acreage in hybrid corn. In areas where the profitability was lower, the

adjustments were also slower. Given the uncertainty of the innovation and the

gradual spread of knowledge, farmers have behaved in a fashion consistent

with the idea of profit maximization. Griliches further contends that in the

long term and cross-sectional sociological variables will cancel themselves out,

leaving the economic variables as the major determinants of the pattern of

technological change.

Similar findings were reported by Bhati (1975) of profit maximizing

behaviour of Malaysian rice farmers. The farmers will adopt HYV of rice if it

helps him to make a greater profit. Research data from West Malaysia on padi

yield to fertilizer input show that the production function of IR 5 is superior to

Mahsuri resulting in rapid adoption. When the factor-product prices changed in a

manner that adversely affected relative profitability this caused a discontinuation

of HYV.

Apart from direct economic gains from the innovation, Mellor (1968)

summarized three conditions that must be met if an innovation is to be accepted:

(1) there must be a desire for increased material welfare; (2) there must be

expectation that the specific innovation will increase wealth; and (3) there must

be expectation that the farmer as an innovator will participate in an increase in

wealth from the innovation.

Further inhibition to acceptance of an innovation may arise from labour

allocation, borrowing of resources, and response to price. Innovation may require

additional labour input if it is to be profitable. In such a case, an innovation

may not be accepted for the simple reason that it requires a substantial labour

input and yet does not generate sufficient income (Mellor 1965). In appraising .

the risks of adopting new agricultural technology, small farmers worry about labour

scarcity, not surplus. Every time a small farmer's labour requirement exceeds

the capacity of his family labour supply, he faces labour scarcity. Depending

on the labour deficit, outside labour must be hired at a high cost which places

a serious labour constraint on adoption (Morss et al. 1976).

Other constraints may also exist in terms of market and distance factors.

Brown and Lent.nek (1973) posit that the incentive to adopt is directly related

to the marginal returns from adoption, the amount of information about the innovation,

and the transportation costs. Given these constraints, the adoption potential

would exhibit distance decay properties with the market centre at the peak of the

10

surface. A shift in price will shift the entire surface since marginal returns

for all locations would be affected. According to Huerta (1978), a farmer may

meet all the price requisites and still not adopt the innovation if the input

and product markets are not easily accessible to him. Easy access to product

markets is essential for adoption since success with innovation means higher

levels of marketable production.

Finally, prospective yield and risk also determine the rate of acceptance

of new technology. For adoption to occur, the new technology must result in greater

production per unit of inputs used than previously existing technology (Herdt and

Wickham 1975). When Filipino rice farmers are asked why they changed from the

old to the new rice varieties, they invariably reply: "Because yields were

higher and I made more money" (Chandler 1973).

4. Institutional and Structural Constraints

The social, economic and cultural characteristics of the individual,

together with the flow of information about new farm techniques and market

prices, are not alone sufficient to explain the differential adoption rate of

agricultural technology. The communication, psychological and economic behaviour

of the peasant farmer in the adoption process has been over-emphasized and seems

to suggest that the entire responsibility of agricultural modernization depends

on the responsiveness of the farmer to information, new production techniques

and prices. This preoccupation with the individual as the key element in the

innovation-diffusion process ignores the structural, institutional and social

rigidities that must be removed if meaningful development is t.o ensue. This

particular approach is due to the dominance of a few disciplines in the diffusion

research and especially the socio-economic and geographic context in which the

theories originated:

The single most important group of studies came out of Rural . Sociology.

.Most of the research had been done in the United States. Prominent sources

were the NOrth Central Rural Sociology Sub-Committee for the Study of Diffusion

of Farm Practices (1955, 1961), Wilkening (1958), Liongerger (1960), Bohlen (1964)

and Burdge (1972). Wilkening was among the first t.o determine the relationship

among individual characteristics of potential adopters. The survey by Rogers

and Shoemaker (1971) of diffusion research showed 58 percent of the generalizations

11

had innovativeness As the dependent variable and 78 to 92 percent of the

generalizations had the individual as the unit of analysis.

In the 1960s an increasing number of United States scholars transferred

their research interests to the underdeveloped countries where diffusion theory

and principles were applied with similar vigour and were considered compatible

with national growth strategies. The emphasis was on modernization through

communication development (learner 1958, Pye 1963, Learner and Schramn 1967 and

Rogers with Svenning 1969). The diffusion model was applied with similar

individualistic and psychological bias (Havens 1975) and with little consideration

shown for the socio-economic and structural system in which the peasant farmer

operates (Bordenave 1976). Analysts of Latin American development problems

have contended that technological diffusion and growth is not what is needed

but rather a change of social structure or situational conditions that will

facilitate the acquisition of technology by all potential clients (Beltram 1976).

In agriculture, farm size is a major structural variable. Farm size

has implications for the amount and composition of production inputs. Enterprise

choices and combination are additional structural characteristics that influence

the use of agricultural technology. Institutions can have a significant impact

on the rate and direction of technological change in agriculture; these impacts •

can range from influence on the allocation of resources, to public research, to

policies that encourage or discourage the use of specific forms of technology.

Credit and price policies are also institutional factors that affect technological

change (Taske 1977). In case studies these factors have been referred to by

Aiken and others (1974) and Havens and Flinn '(1975) as structural rigidities and/or

situational constraints. For example, Grunig (1971) has identified seven areas

of structural rigidities in agricultural modernization in Colombia: (1) highly

unstable markets, (2) a land tenure system which concentrates the best land in

favour of large land owners, (3) insufficient roads and poor quality of transportation

facilities, (4) poor distribution of modern production inputs, (5) insufficient

education and with little practical use, (6) an institutional credit system which

excludes most peasants, and (7) sources of information that seldom provide

situationally relevant information. He concludes that communication can be of little

use unless these situational constraints are first removed.

The need for structural change is most evident in the credit institutions

upon which small farmers rely. Too large a share goes to the big farmers who

use it less efficiently (Rao 1976). Limited access to credit institutions

prevents small farmers from employing technology that is by nature capital

intensive. This point has been widely documented in studies related to the

diffusion of 'Green Revolution' technology by Frankel (1971), Schulter (1974)

and Lipton (1976). Small farmers are restricted in their ability to adopt new

technology because they are considered bad risks as opposed to the big farmers

who are more credit worthy. Thiesenhausen (1975) suggests other reasons for

this bias:

The cost of servicing a loan to a small farmer may be as greatas that to a larger farmer. The red tape and delay also deter thesmall farmer from borrowing. Even assuming zero credit availabilityto everyone, large scale farmers would be able to finance a certainlevel of inputs from their own savings while small holders usually findthis impossible and even if small farmers who are prevented fromreceiving public credit and are able to borrow from private credit market,they will probably have to pay usurious rates which may well cancel outprofits (p. 45).

Limited access to credit has also adversely affected the small farmer

by increasing risk aversion. Incapacity to borrow in bad times, so as to repay

in good times, has further deterred the risk averse farmer .from adopting

agricultural innovation.

The part played by the alleged conservativeness of the peasant farmer

in the non-adoption of innovation has been over-emphasized. Awareness of

accurate information is a necessary condition for adoption but obviously is not .

sufficient in itself. Such factors as the compatibility of the technology with

local environmental conditions and the production system will also determine

its rate of acceptance by farmers. For example, agricultural research institutions

have produced modern technology designed around high-yielding plant varieties,

which can only produce if their specialized needs for water and agro-chemicals are

met in accordance with specific formulas. Adoption of this form of technology

requires costly adjustment in farm production strategies that restricts it to a

limited number of farmers (Morss 1976). Extensive adoption can take place only

if the necessary preconditions in such areas as drainage and irrigation, adequate

supplies of complementary inputs, market roads, storage facilities and extension

12

1 . 3

institutions are provided. The provision of such costly infrastructural facilities

will require public investments and considerable changes in institutional

arrangements (Bhalla 1977).

Finally, the attribute of the innovation has also been judged to be an

important constraint on adoption. Grain quality is an important characteristic

that has influenced the acceptability of rice varieties by farmers. Such

varieties as IR 8 and IR 5 have been widely criticized because they have rather

broad grains with a considerable amount of chalkiness in the abdominal part of the

endosperm. These qualities reduce market price. In addition, some of these

varieties tend to be rather dry (as opposed to sticky) when cooked. This

characteristic has reduced the acceptability of these varieties, particularly in

the Phillipines and Indonesia. A good example of the importance of cooking

quality is the variety C4-63, which was developed by the College of Agriculture

of the University of Phillipines. Its good cooking and eating quality is the

principal reason for it.s rapid spread in the Phillipines and Indonesia (Poleman

and Freebairn, 1973).

5. Consequences of Adoption

Consequences have been conceptualized as separate and subsequent

• phenomena to the diffusion of innovations. Consequences are defined as the

changes that occur within a social system as a result of the adoption or

rejection of an innovation. In spite of the importance of consequences, they

have received very little study by diffusion researchers. Typically, diffusion

researchers have devoted much attention to the antecedents of adoption, including

socio-economic and personal characteristics of the respondents and their communication

behaviour. This is primarily because: (1) change agencies believe that the

innovation is needed by the clients and that it.s introduction will be desirable

and will bring about positive changes; (2) perhaps the usual survey methods are

inappropriate for the investigation of innovation consequences; and (3) consequences

are difficult to measure because judgements concerning consequences are almost

unavoidably subjective and value laden and may be confounded with other effects.

Consequences can be measured on two dimensions: (1) the level of

consequences, and (2) distribution of consequences. In measuring the level of

consequences, there is assessment of the absolute amount or change in the aggregate

value of consequences. For development programs these are typically figures

14

regarding changes in average production, average cost, average income, average

education, etc. (Day and Singh 1975 and Rudra 1978). In measuring distribution

there is assessment of the frequencies of system members along a continuum for a

particular consequence. These are typically distribution of people by income

groups, distribution of farms by production, distribution of people by amount of

education, and so on (Goss 1979).

Consequences may alsO be classified as functional or dysfunctional.

Functional consequences are the desirable effects of an innovation on a social

system whereas dysfunctional consequences are undesirable effects. An innovation

such as the adoption of high-yielding varieties of wheat or rice may lead to

desirable consequences such as higher crop yields, higher income, higher wages

and an increase in the demand for labour as shown in studies by Ahmed (1977),

Eckert (1977), Agarwal (1976) and Mehta (1975). On the other hand, introduction

of similar innovations may exacerbate existing economic disparity between income

groups and between geographic regions as a result of institutional and structural

constraints. Although farms of all sizes have adopted HYVs, the gains have been

highly concentrated among large size farmers as shown in studies of such countries

as India, Colombia and Mexico (Frankel 1971, Sen 1970, Havens and Flinn 1975, and

Tuckman 1976). Moreover, the new technology, by enhancing the profitability of

cultivation has made many land owners who earlier leased out their land or left it

idle, into commercial-profit-maximizers. From this change, there followed eviction

of tenants, increased rental payments, high interest rates and a general rise

in production costs and land values (St.avenhagen 1968 and Swanson 1973). Whereas the

new technology has been considered to be labour intensive, this beneficial effect

has been offset by high labour costs, the need for timeliness of field operations

and multiple cropping practices which demand intensive mechanization (Barker

1972 and Staub 1973). In India and Pakistan farm mechanization, especially

the use of tractors and combine' harvesters, appears to nave further polarized rural

wealth and'created tensions in the social structure of the rural populations

(Kaur and Ta4at 1973, and Ali and Ali 1973).

Finailly, controversy still surrounds the distribution of gains of the

new technology. Luning (1977) stated that although a percentage of the rural and

urban poor gained, in general, the benefits were transmitted to consumers through

both lower food prices and increased per capita consumption.

6. Ecological Consequences

A major indirect consequence of the greater use of chemical fertilizers

is the deficiency of micronutrients in the soil, which has increased since the

introduction of "green revolution" technology. In India increased use of

chemical fertilizer has reduced the amount of organic manures, consequently

up-setting the chemical balance of the soil. (Bowonder 1981).

Another important consequence of adopting the High Yielding Variety

Technology is the increased usage of energy associated with mechanization in field

operations and irrigation. The short growth period of new crop varieties and

their requirements for precise field conditions placed additional constraints

on the utilization of traditional inputs and practices,and in turn have demanded

more energy-intensive methods in order to exploit the full potential of the

technology.

The use of fertilizers and pesticides has negative ecological

consequences. For instance, increased turbidity in rivers and canals result in

lower fish yield. Furthermore, fertilizer run-off from fields into streams

is increasing and affects the fish population which cannot thrive in water that

contains high amounts of nitrates and sulphates. Farmers, especially those

who cultivate paddy, have fish ponds in their fields, but larger doses of

fertilizers have such a deleterious effect that those groups who consume mainly

fish and rice suffer from malnutrition. the reduction of fish yields causes

the poorer farmers to consume more cereals, further aggravating the protein-

calorie malnutrition. Increased pesticide application has also been found to

decrease the humus layer of the soil and impair it to micro structure, resulting

in higher rates of erosion and desertification. (Fernando 1978).

It seems therefore that there are systematic consequences of the

incompatibility between the mature of modern agro-technology and agriculture

itself especially in the tropical regions. This incompatibility arises as a result

or failure to recognize that technological input - irrigation, agrochemicals,

new seed varieties, are in fact high energy inputs into a system that has

evolved by obtaining its energy from the sun solely. These intrusions often

produce effects sufficiently deleterious to counterbalance the positive socio-

economic benefits of the intended programme. It is essential therefore, that the

practical application of any technology should not disrupt the environment.

15

16

At a more general level, there are many built-in forces in the process

of economic development of LDCs which convert technological gap into a situation

of technological dependence, with its consequences at the political, economic,

and social levels. With respect to third world agricultural development, farmers

are moving from traditional modes of production that are not truly static bUt do

emphasize stability and security and which have evolved slowly. In their place

they adopting capital-intensive methods that are closely linked to international

market forces which are not only dynamic but intensify dependence on foreign

suppliers. The most important effects are manifested in the deterioration of

the terms of trade. In this case the deterioration is due to the fact that LDCs

are exporting low priced goods and importing high-technology-intensive goods

(high-priced). Additionally, this situation tends to stifle indigenous

technological capability, especially where foreign technologies are unadapted to

local social, economic and cultural factors.

7. Conclusions

It is evident from this discussion that the conceptualization of the

diffusion process has been interpreted within strict disciplinary frameworks.

In the various disciplines that have probed the diffusion adoption phenomenon

the majority of the studies have taken an individualistic bias by focusing on

the personal attributes of the individual and his communication behaviour. The

strong individualistic bias of this approach is apparent in the assertion that

institutional arrangements may present themselves as constraints on the individual,

but that the individual by his own actions can free himself from these constraints.

Moreover, closely related to this assertion is the assumption that all have

equal access to information and to credit necessary to finance the acquisition

of new technological inputs. This approach is largely due to the fact that early

studies have viewed the causes of underdevelopment from strictly North American and

European viewpoints. As a result, we see third world studies employing the

same selection of variables as the U.S. and European studies. This is probably

because in most cases the researchers have failed to recognize that variables transferred

from one setting to another may be reflecting different cultural, institutional and

structural contexts which determine the individual behaviour. As long as imported

technologies from the industrialized countries are not modified and adapted to the

indigenous conditions of the Third World, this situation will inevitably worsen

conditions for the recipient countries. The technology must be compatible as

far as possible with local cultural, social and economic factors, as well as

existing structural and institutional arrangements. But even a benign form of

technological dependence should not preclude the development of specific

technological policies and strategies as part of the overall goal of economic

and social development-

17

18

REFERENCES

Books and Articles

Agarwal, N. L. and Yadav, R. A. "Farm Labour Employment and Resource UseFrequency in the Green Revolution Context," Economic Affairs,Vol. 21, No. 1-2 (1976), pp. 73-78.

Ahmed, H. "Technical Change and Labour Utilization," Bangladesh Development. Studies (1977), pp. 358-366.

Aiken, M. T. and Others. The Adoption of Innovations: The Neglected Role of Institutional Constraints. Unpublished Paper. Madison, Wisconsin,Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1974.

Apthorpe, R. "Technology and Peasant Production: A Comment," Development andChange, Vol. 8 (1977), pp. 370-373.

Banfield, E. C. The Moral Basis of Backward Society. Glencoe: Free Press, 1958.

Barker, R. and Others, "Employment and Technological Change in PhillipineAgriculture," International Labour Review, Vol. 106, No. 2-3 (1972),pp. 111-139.

Beltran, L. R. "Alien Promises, Objects and Methods in Latin AmericanCommunication Research," Communication Research, Vol. 3, No. 2,

), pp. 107-134.

Bhalla, Sheila. "Agricultural Growth: Role ofIntrastructural Factors," Economic and No. 46 (Nov. 1977), pp. 1898-1904.

Bhati, U.N. "Use of High-Yielding Varieties of Rice," The DevelopingEconomics, Vol. 13, No. 2 (June 1975), pp. 181-207.

Blaut, J. M. "Two views of diffusion," Annals of Association of American Geographers,Vol. 67 (1977), pp. 343-349.

Brown, L. "The Market and Information Context of Adoption: A Spatial Perspective,"Economic Geography, Vol. 51 (1975), pp/ 185-216.

Brown, L. A. and Lentnek, B. "Innovation Diffusion in a Developing Economy:A Meso-Scale View," Economic Development and Cultural Change,Vol. 21, No. 2 (1973) pp. 274-288.

Bordenave, J. D. "Communication of Agricultural Innovations in Latin America:The Need for New Models," in E. M. Rogers (ed.), Communication and Development: Critical Perspectives. London: Sage Publication, 1976.

Bohlen, J. M. "The Adoption and Diffusion of New Ideas in Agriculture,"in J. H. Copp (ed.), Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1964,pp. 265-287.

Institutional andPolitical Weekly, Vol. 12,

Bowonder, B. "The Myth and Reality of High Yielding Varieties in India",Development and Change, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1981), pp. 293-313.

Byrnes, N. L. The Adoption and Diffusion of Agricultural Production Techology.Florence, Columbia, 1976 (mimeograph).

Caplan, N. and Nelson, S. "On Being Useful: The Nature and Consequencesof Psychological Research in Social Problems," American Psychologist,Vol. 28, No. 3 (1973), pp. 199-211.

Chandler, R. E. "The Scientific Basis for the Increased Yield of Rice and Wheat,and Its Present and Potential Impact on Food Production in DevelopingCountries," in P. T. Poleman and D. K. Freebairn (eds.), Food, Poplat.ion and Employment. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973.

Eckert, J. B. "Farmers' Response to High-Yielding Wheat in Pakistan's Punjob,"in R. D. Stevens (ed.), Tradition and Dynamics in Small-Farm Agriculture: Economic Studies in Asis, Africa and Latin America. Ames, Iowa:Iowa State University Press, 1977, pp. 149-176.

Eramus, Charles. Man Takes Control. Boston: University of Minnesota Press,196], p. 20.

Felstehausen, H. "Conceptual Limits of Development. Communications Theory."Paper presented at. the Association for Education in Journalism,Columbia, South Carolina, 1971.

Fernando, V. A. and Thomas, P. M., "Role of Technology in Agriculture,"International Journal of Environmental. Studies, Vol. 11 (1977),pp. 35-38.

Foster, G. M. Applied Anthropology. Boston: Little Brown, 1969, p. 83.

Frankel, F. R. India's Green Revolution: Economic Gains and Political Costs.Princetown, N.J.: Princetown University Press, 1971.

Frey, F. W. The Mass Media and Peasant. Paper presented at. the Association forEducation in Journalism, Austin, Texas, 1964.

Garst, R. D. "Innovation Diffusion among the Gusii of Kenya," Economic Geography,Vol. 50 (1974), pp. 300-312.

Goss, Kevin F. "Consequences of Diffusion of Innovations," Rural Sociology,Vol. 44, No. 4 (Winter 1979), pp. 755-771 .:

Gotsch, Carl H. "Technical Change and the Distribution of Income in Rural Areas,"American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 54, No. 2 (May 1972),pp. 326-340.

19

Griffin, R. F. the Political Economy of Agrarian Change: An Essay on the Green Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Griliches, Zvi. "Hybrid Corn: An ExplanatiOn in the Economics of Agriculture,"in K. A. Fox and G. Johnston (eds.), Readings in the Economics of Agriculture. Georgetown, Ontario: Irwin Dorsey Ltd., 1969, p. 243.

Grunig, James E. "Communication and Economic Decision-Making Process AmongColumbian Peasants," Economic Development and Cultural Change,Vol. 19, No. 4 (1971), pp. 580-597.

Hagerstrand, Torsten. Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Havens, A. E. "Diffusion of New Seed Varieties and Its Consequences: AColumbian Case," in A. E. Havens (ed.), Problems in Rural Development: Case Studies and Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Leiden, Holland:E. J. Brill Press, 1975, pp. 92-111.

Havens, E. A. and Flinn, W. "Green Revolution Technology and Community Development:The Limit of Action Program," Economic Development and Cultural Change,Vol. 23, No. 3 (April 1975), pp. 469-475.

Herdt, R. and Wickham, T. "Exploring the Gap Between Actual And PotentialYield," Food Research Institute Studies, Vol. 14 (1975), pp. 163-180.

Huerta, M. M. "Determinants of the Adoption of Agricultural Innovations,"The American Economicst, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Fall 1978), pp. 50-56.

Huizer, Gerrit. "Resistance to Change and Radical Peasant Mobilization:Foster and Eramus Reconsidered," Human Organization, Vol. 29(Winter 1970), p. 303.

Kaur, S. and Tagat, R. G. "India is Green Revolution: Socio-Economic andPolitical Implications," Political and Economic Weekly, Vol. 18,No. 9-10 (1973), pp. 414-427.

Learner, D. and Schramm, W. Communication and Change in Developing Countries.Honolulu, Hawaii: East West Centre Press, 1967.

Leibenstein, H. Economic Backwardness and Growth. New York: Wiley, 1957.

Lewis, Oscar. Life in a Mexican Village Tepozalthan Restudied. Urbana:University of Illinois Press, 1951, p. 300.

Lionberger, H. F. Adoption of New Ideas. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State UniversityPress, 1960.

Lipton, M. "Inter-Farm, Inter-Regional and Farm-Non-Farm Income Distribution:The Impact of New Cereal Varieties," World Development, Vol. 6, No. 4(April 1978), pp. 319-337.

20

21

Luning, Henk. "Technology and Peasant Production: Some Comments on the AsianCase," Development and Change, Vol. 8 (1977), pp. 362-368.

McNelly, J. T. "Perspectives on the Role of Mass Communication in the DevelopmentProcess," in D. K. Berlo (ed.), Mass Communication and the Development of Nations. East. Lansing: International Communication Institute,Michigan State University, 1968, pp. 1-11.

Mehta, P. and Prishar, R. S. "Effects of New Technology on Farm Returns andLabour Utilization," Economic Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 11 (1975), pp. 503-510.

Mellor, J. W. "The Subsistence Farmer in Traditional Economics," in C. R. Wharton(ed.), The Economic Behaviour'of Subsistence Farmer. Chicago: AldinePublishing Co., 1965, p. 223.

Morss, E. R. et al. Strategies for Small Farmer Development: An Empirical Study of Rural Development Projects. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.,1976.

Odle, M. A. "Technology Leasing - Cuy and Trinidad," Social and Economic Studies,Vol. 28, No. 1 .(1979), p. 184.

Peacock, D. L. The Adoption of Agricultural Practices in North Eastern Brazil: An Examination of Farmer Decision-Making. East Lansing, Michigan StateUniversity, 1972.

Pye, L. W. Communication and Political Development. Princetown, N.J.:Princetown University Press, 1963.

Rao, C. H. Technological Change and Distribution of Gains in Indian Agriculture. Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth, 1976.

Raske, Norman. "Factors Limiting Change on Traditional Small Farms in SouthBrazil," in R. D. Stevens (ed.), Traditional Dynamics in Small Farm Agriculture.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1977, pp. 92-114.

Rogers, E. M. "Mass Media Exposure and Modernization Among Columbian Peasants,"Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29 (1965), pp. 614-625.

. Modernization Among Peasants: The Impact of Communication.New York: Holt, Rhinehard and Winston, 1969, p. 48.

Rogers, E. M. and Burdge, R. J. Social Change in Rural Societies. New York:Appleton-Century Crofts, 1972, p. 36.

Roling, N. G. Socio-Economic Research for Extension Planning. Wageningen, .Netherlands: Agricultural University, Department of Extension Education,1974.

Roling, N. G., Ascroft, J. and Wa, C. F. "The Diffusion of Innovations and the Issueof Equity in Rural Development," Communication Research, Vol. 3, No. 2(1976), pp. 155-170.

Schulter, M. G. The Interaction of Credit. and Uncertainty in Determining Resource Allocation and Income of Small Farms, Swat, India. Occasional PaperNo. 68. Employment and Income Distribution Project, Department ofApplied Economics, Cornell University, 1974.

Schultz, T. W. Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1964.

Singh, I. and Day, R. "Green Revolution Technology: A Microeconomic Chronicleof the Green Revolution," Economic Development and Cultural Change,Vol. 23, No. 4 (July 1975), pp. 661-685.

Staub, W. J. Agricultural Development and Farm Employment in India. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1973),p. 3.

Stavenhagen, Rudolph. "Seven Fallacies about Latin America," in J. Petras andM. Seitlin (eds.), Latin America: Reform or Revolution. Princetown:Princetown University Press, 1968.

Thiesenhausen, W. C. What Changing Technology Implies for Agrarian Reform.Paper prepared for International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.Madison: Land Tenure Centre, University of Wisconsin, 1973.

Tuckman, B. H. "The Green Revolution and the Distribution of Agricultural Incomein Mexico," World Development, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1976), pp. 17-24.

Vaitos, C. V. "The Process of Commercialization of Technology in the Andean Pact,"in H. Radice (Ed.) International Firms and Modern Imperialism.Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975.

Wilkening, E. A. "Joint Decision-Making in Farm Families as a Function of Statusand Role," American sociological Review, Vol. 23, pp. 187-192.

22

Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1Page 1