Building Social Capital: Collective Action, Adoption of Agricultural Innovations, and Poverty Reduction in the Indian Semi-Arid Tropics

Paper for the Research Theme “Escaping Poverty” D.Parthasarathy∗ and V.K.Chopde†

The central argument of this paper is that social capital, defined as the ability to develop and use various kinds of social networks – and the resources that become available thereof – are central in understanding how farm households, and the farming community in general, adopt and benefit from improved agricultural technologies. Earlier studies have shown the importance of collective action for the successful uptake of technologies for which cooperation is a prerequisite – such as watershed and irrigation management, integrated pest and disease management etc. However the importance of collective action, the use of social capital in information flows regarding new technology options and adoption procedures, and the actual ways in which communities enhance their collective welfare as a consequence of individual farm level growth, is something about which little is known. The paper is based on case studies done by teams of researchers at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). The attempt is to show that social capital - in terms of increased ability and willingness to co-operate and work together for achieving common goals, and, sustaining and developing norms and networks for collective action - is crucial for successful uptake, diffusion, and impact of innovations. These innovations could be in the areas of technology, institutions, or socio-economic processes. The focus here is on agricultural technologies for dryland, arid and semiarid areas. Based on case studies from the states of Maharashtra and Rajasthan in India, and technological innovations in three major crops – pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp., arhar, tur), groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea Linnaeus), and pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Brown, bajra), the paper shows that: •

•

collective action and willingness to work together helps overcome, problems of institutional access to information, credit etc, as well as seed supply and provision related problems arising out of government and private sector inefficiencies; and it enables large scale adoption and results in positive impact in terms of higher yields and incomes for farm households, as well as other less tangible and indirect gains. in utilizing direct benefits from technology adoption for maximizing welfare gains, farmers and households co-operate and seek to develop facilities which are likely to benefit the community as a whole, especially in investments for the future; this of course is in addition to individual level investments for increasing cropping system production and farm income.

The major illustrations used for the study include •

∗ †

farmer to farmer exchange of wilt resistant pigeonpea seeds, in the absence of state support for an appropriate and needed innovation in the Vidharbha and Marathwada regions of Maharashtra; kinship, community, and other informal networks initially played a crucial role in the diffusion of the technology, and in the production and distribution of seeds

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India Socioeconomics and Policy Program, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics, Patancheru, India

•

•

•

the role of co-operatives in production and increasing adoption rates of short duration pigeonpea in western Maharashtra. Intensive farming, especially of sugarcane and other input intensive crops in the irrigated tracts of the region had led to problems related to soil fertility. Co-operatives played a significant role in introducing legumes into the cropping system to make it more sustainable. Short duration varieties were preferred since they disrupted preferred cropping patterns to a lesser extent Adoption of groundnut production technology in Umra village, Nanded district; the technology being of a complex nature, and requiring more supervision, care, and labour – developing better relations with the adivasi (tribal) lambada population in the village who were the main source of labour was considered to be important. Better social and political relations were an outcome of technology adoption since everyone stood to gain from it. Farmers in the village also displayed a rare willingness to join hands in repaying their long-term debts to various formal and informal creditors in the initial years of gains from the technology, so that they could begin investing in production enhancing assets, as well as improve their creditworthiness – important since the technology needed relatively more inputs In the absence of availability of appropriate pearl millet varieties, farmers in arid western Rajasthan, who had participated in ICRISAT led participatory trials, saved and shared seeds of varieties with preferred traits over a long period - even across drought years. Benefits from pearl millet and other technological innovations were invested in areas where real as well as symbolic, direct as well as indirect gains were expected: these included school and hospital buildings, temples, and kabutarkhanas (bird houses)

ICRISAT’s REIA (Research Evaluation and Impact Assessment team carried out quantitative as well as qualitative studies, to assess the impact of the technological innovations mentioned above1. This paper is based on some of the data collected as part of these studies, but relies mostly on focussed group meetings and RRAs carried out to understand the linkages between technology adoption and poverty reduction, and the processes and intervening factors involved in these linkages. The studies were carried out in a phased manner between 1994 and 1999. In sections that follow, each of the four cases is dealt with separately followed by summarizing and concluding comments at the end. A brief discussion of conceptual and theoretical issues relating to ‘social capital’ is also presented, and the particular approach to the definition of the term that is used is in the paper is highlighted.

I. ‘Social capital’ as a concept in development studies The concept of social capital is currently being hotly contested in the world of development policy debates. While the meanings and usage of the concept in its current incarnation can be traced to the work of sociologists and anthropologists, the most notable appropriation and usage of the concept by international policymakers, perhaps is by the World Bank. Many critics of the IMF/World Bank directed development policies have focused on the impact of such policies on local communities; in the case of infrastructure projects for example, large-scale involuntary resettlement tends to result in disarticulation of communities and networks. Social capital issues are now therefore afforded importance in resettlement and rehabilitation programmes.

1

A selection of these studies is referenced in the bibliography at the end of this paper. See Bantilan and Joshi 1996, Bantilan and Parthasarathy 1999, and Joshi and Bantilan 1998

In the realm of rural and agricultural development, the importance of social capital, perceived as a willingness and ability to work together, has been emphasized in the case of technology options such as watersheds, irrigation management, and integrated pest management strategies2. The concept has thus become one of the most popular exports from sociological theory into development discourses and has evolved into a panacea for the problems and challenges that confront modern societies and their socioeconomic and political development. The attractiveness of the concept perhaps stems from its perceived positive consequences for development, its character of acting as non-monetary sources of power and influence, and as sources of information and opportunity for those who lack possession of and access to other forms of capital – financial, human or natural. As Portes (1998) observes, ‘Whereas economic capital is in people’s bank accounts and human capital is inside their heads, social capital inheres in the structure of their relationships’. The uniqueness of social capital is that it is relational. It exists only when it is shared. Putnam (1993) therefore claims that “Social capital refers … to features of social organization, such as trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society, facilitating co-ordinating actions”. Likewise the World Bank states: “defined broadly, social capital encompasses the formal and informal rules that enable coordinated action and goal achievement” (World Bank 2000). Deepa Narayan, who has attempted to apply the term to field situations, refers to it as “the glue that holds groups and societies together – bonds of shared values, norms and institutions” (Narayan n.d.) Coleman (1988), one of the pioneering users of the concept applies the concept to refer to “a resource for action” which enables us to introduce social structure into the rational action paradigm. He identifies different forms of social structure: obligations and expectations, information channels and social norms, all of which as we shall show are important development issues. In this context it is useful to remember that not all social capital is developed or accessed through membership in formal organizations. While this paper does focus on the role of formal organizations such as agricultural cooperatives, informal aspects of social structure are shown to play an equally significant role in information and technology exchange and in realization of benefits from technology adoption. Bourdieu’s work has, perhaps more than anyone else’s, played a seminal role in popularizing the concept of social capital, especially as a facilitating agent or obstacle for development. He focused on the benefits accruing to individuals by virtue of membership and participation in groups and group activity, and on the deliberate construction of sociability as a means of creating this resource. Bourdieu defines the concept as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition’ (1985). He breaks down his definition into two elements: first is the social relationship itself that allows individuals to claim access to resources possessed by their associates; and second, the amount and quality of those resources. For Bourdieu, it is the underlying economic organization, which is seen to constrain social processes. He argues that it is the presence of profit that is the major reason for the type of solidarity that makes group existence possible in the first place and thus, he argues that it is structural economic organization that is the base for the creation of social capital. It is thus clear that any measurement using Bourdieu’s definition would have to include an understanding of the material conditions that motivate the development of social processes. Social relations are complex and cannot be quantified simply by using individual indicators, as some researchers have attempted to do based on Coleman’s definitions. This is because social capital is not merely the property of individuals. In this study social capital using this definition is applied using qualitative methodologies based on Bourdieu’s approach..

2

For a good discussion of the importance of collective action for adoption of natural resource management technologies see McCulloch et al 1998.

A number of studies have established direct relationships between social capital and poverty reduction (Narayan n.d., Grootaert 1997and n.d.), as well as more indirect impact of building social capital people’s sense of well being, feelings of social inclusion, household welfare, and on risk management ability 3. A tentative finding of these studies is that social capital, defined in part as membership in different private and public groups, tends to be correlated with poverty alleviation. Social capital, in turn, is also seen to entail greater democratization and improved governments, thus increasing the need to bring in the disciplines of political science, sociology, and anthropology into the research process. Building on the above definitions, in the following sections, using case studies of agricultural technologies from India, we show that social capital is important for both adoption and impact to occur i.e. social capital is not merely an “input” to development, it is also one of its most significant outputs. While the building of social capital plays a crucial role in bringing about positive economic changes, it also has significant non-economic and non-monetary changes, and may be valued for its own sake.

II. Adoption and impact of wilt resistant pigeonpea cultivar ICP8863 (Maruthi) in Vidharbha and Marathwada regions of Maharashtra Vidharbha and Marathwada regions of Maharashtra along with contiguous areas of Northern Karnataka constitute the major pigeonpea-growing region of India. The crop is traditionally intercropped with cotton, and long duration, local varieties were mainly used. . Over a long period, the crop became susceptible to a major disease of pigeonpea - fusarium wilt. Since the early 1970s yield began to fall drastically. ICRISAT in association with agricultural universities in the region began research to develop varieties, which are resistant to wilt. By the mid-1980s, through conventional breeding efforts, a new cultivar ICP 8863 (Maruthi) with stable and broad based resistance to wilt was developed. It was soon adopted on a large scale in Karnataka, and the Karnataka State Seed Corporation began to produce the seed. The crop soon displaced other varieties susceptible to wilt. In the case of Maharashtra due to bureaucratic reasons, the cultivar was not officially released and the Maharashtra State Seed Corporation did not produce the seed. Being an orphan crop (as it has been called), and being a subsistence crop, the private seed sector also did not evince much interest in producing seed; since farmers were used to multiplying their own seed, seed companies did not find any future in producing seeds of an open pollinated variety (OPV). In response to a specific demand, seeds were given on an experimental basis to five farmers in Kanzara – a VLS 4 village, with a long association with ICRISAT. The village is located in the Akola district of the Vidharbha region of Maharashtra. The seeds were given more as a goodwill gesture than with any real intent of spreading the variety in the region. Finding success in the first year it was planted and harvested,5 the farmers shared it with few friends and kin members within and outside the village. Over the next few years, as demand for the seed increased, neither the public sector nor the private sector offered to produce and distribute the seed, and the government of Maharashtra paid little heed to the demand for the cultivar, as well as to the drastic fall in yields as a result of wilt. Thus farmers in Vidharbha region undertook production and distribution through kin and community networks. The initial spread occurred from the five farmers who were originally given seeds to farmers in neighbouring

3

Many of these studies attempt to define and measure the dimensions of social capital, focusing as they do on self-help groups for micro credit. Self-help groups for many social scientists are reflective of the constructability of social capital and constitute a major focus of research in recent times. 4 VLS refers to the renowned village level studies – longitudinal studies on selected villages in the Indian semi-arid tropics carried out by ICRISAT. See Walker and Ryan 1990. 5 Success is in terms of resistance to wilt and resultant higher yields.

districts of the Vidharbha region through informal networks. Farmers shared and sold seeds among themselves, resulting in widespread adoption by the year 1995. Adoption and impact studies carried out at that time showed the following: • • • •

Adoption of ICP 8863 helped to stem widespread production losses for pigeonpea in the region Diffusion of the variety was rapid and occupies 60% in the primary target zone, while in zones of diffusion, adoption ranges from 18% to 58% Considerable yield gains were obtained by adopting farmers over the next best cultivar in grain yield (57%), as well as in fodder and stalk yield Yield gains have translated into lower per unit production costs and improved profitability levels6

As a result of such studies one private sector seed company took the initiative in producing seed but admitted to meeting no more than one percent of the demand. Finally the state government officially released the cultivar in Maharashtra in 1996 and undertook production and distribution of seeds. In the Marathwada region of the state, farmers bought seeds from the neighbouring state of Karnataka and multiplied seeds and distributed among themselves using informal farmer to farmer channels. The widespread adoption of ICP 8863 provides an excellent illustration of how in the face of an apathetic and indifferent bureaucracy, and an uninterested private sector, farmers use their social capital in the form of village, caste, and community and kinship networks, to produce and distribute an appropriate innovation. Even though governments and researchers have evinced little interest in the crop reflected in the low level of public policy support for it, for farmers it was an integral part of their cropping system. Being drought prone areas, pigeonpea had an important role in the cropping system. It was a low input, low cost option, which required little or no irrigation – important in a resource poor area. Thus once an innovation was available to surmount the problem of wilt, farmers willingly embraced the new technology, especially as the new cultivar had all the advantages of an OPV. Farmers could multiply the seed themselves without depending on the market for seed purchases. This explains the rapidity with which the variety was adopted on a large scale in a wide area, and the efficiency in the production and distribution of seed. Through invisible channels, with no middlemen, agents and retailers, and seemingly with little marketing efforts, the cultivar made its way into farmers’ fields across large parts of Maharashtra. What is perhaps even more striking is the spread of information regarding the new technological option. Normally in the absence of extension support and marketing efforts, given the divergences in farming systems and farmers’ needs, spread of information about an innovation takes place over the long term. The rapid uptake of the technology (over 3-4 years) is partly explained by its appropriateness – it was very similar in terms of its characteristics and cultivation practices to traditional varieties; but it is also a tribute to the trust farm households displayed towards each other in rapidly adopting a promising variety. This is in part a result of the operation of the transfer of technology process through community and kin networks. There is a very important lesson here regarding the technology transfer and absorption process. Governments and the private sector operate within very specific institutional constraints and biases. In introducing an innovation therefore, especially in agriculture, it is useful to go directly to the main stakeholders – the farmers themselves. This is reflected even more clearly in the case study of the GPT.

6

For more details on the impact study of ICP 8863, see Bantilan and Joshi 1996.

III. Sustainability dimension in the adoption of short duration pigeonpea ICPL 87 in Western Maharashtra Traditionally pigeonpea has been a long duration crop (160-200 days). However efforts have been ongoing since the early 1970s to develop new varieties of shorter duration to fit into cropping systems with more two or more crops per year. These efforts bore fruit with the development of several new short duration pigeonpea (SDP) varieties by the early 1980s. One of these - ICPL 87 showed a lot of promise. ICPL 87 is a SDP cultivar (120-130 days duration); the variety is determinate, has a short stature and is semispreading. It was developed through pedigree selection from the cross ICPL 73032 (T 21 x JA 277) made in 1973, i.e., soon after ICRISAT was established. In 1980, it was included in the All India Coordinated Pulses Improvement Project. The trials were conducted over five years. The variety was initially targeted for release in northern India, for cultivation in rotation with wheat, where due to a mismatch of agro-climatic conditions, it proved unsuitable and not appropriate for the cropping systems of the region. Around 1983, a decision was taken to test it for possible release in peninsular India. ICPL 87 was first introduced during the mid-1980s in the Vidharbha and Marathwada regions in eastern Maharashtra, i.e., regions which constitute one of the main pigeonpea-growing areas in India. These areas were targeted by the LEGOFTEN (Legumes On-farm Testing and Nursery) technology transfer program—a part of the Government of India's Technology Mission on Pulses implemented in collaboration with ICRISAT. Early adoption studies (Kelley et al. 1990) and subsequent reconnaissance surveys revealed that farmers in eastern Maharashtra did not find ICPL 87 suitable for their cropping system. ICPL 87 being a dwarf variety was affected by water-logging in this highrainfall region and, therefore, farmers found medium-duration varieties to be more suitable for their intercropping systems. The spread of information about SDP to the western part of the state is attributed to further efforts of local research and extension networks from around 1990. With the launch of one of the few public programmes for pulses in the country – the NPDP (National Pulses Development Programme) 7, ICPL 87 was one of the varieties recommended under the programme. Meanwhile farmers in the irrigated tracts of western Maharashtra were facing problems of sustainability. Cultivation of water intensive crops such as sugarcane, and banana, and continuous irrigation in fragile and marginal soils, had to led to severe soil fertility problems and declining yields. Farmers were on the lookout for an appropriate solution to this problem, without any major change in their profitable sugarcane based cropping systems. Some farmers who tried out ICPL 87 as part of the NPDP minikit trials found it promising in terms of • • •

improvement of soil fertility in sugarcane-growing areas where SDP could be planted in sequence with wheat and chickpea8 suitability of ICPL 87 in the drought-prone areas of the region, as it matures early and is more likely to escape terminal drought stress; this is important as the soils in the area have low water retention capacities ability to fit existing cropping systems due to the shorter duration of the cultivar9

Gradually word regarding the new option began to spread through the cooperatives to farmers in the region. Cooperatives have been known to take joint decisions and provide advice on changes to cropping and farming systems in the region. However despite the official release and seed production by the state owned MSSC, seed supply was still a problem. Hence several of the cooperatives began participating in seed production in association with MSSC, thus assuring themselves of good returns, as well as meeting 7

One of the ‘technology missions’ launched by the Government of India in the mid 1980s. Legumes such as pigeonpea are known to improve soil fertility by fixing atmospheric nitrogen. 9 See Bantilan and Parthasarathy 1999 for more information. 8

their needs in terms of a sustainable crop rotation option. Gradually, essentially due to the efforts of the cooperatives, who had built up good networks, and who were trusted by their farmer members, the variety spread throughout the western Maharashtra region by 1996. Impact studies showed a significant increase in the area under pigeonpea 10 in this traditionally non-legumes based cropping systems of the region. Significant yield and income increases11 as a result of adoption of the cultivar were also observed. In addition significant savings were observed in expenditure on land preparation and fertilizer inputs for the subsequent crop in the plot where pigeonpea was grown12. While cooperatives advised farmers of the need to incorporate pigeonpea in their crop rotations, and its sustainability capabilities, farmers also obtained knowledge of sustainable practices from older farmers in the community. Legitimacy for trying out the new option seems to have come from community elders who were critical of the new input intensive practices and advocated a return to older practices in achieving sustainability. The legitimacy issue was very important since farmers were not just adopting a new variety, but were in effect modifying an existing cropping system by introducing a new crop. It was possible to introduce pigeonpea only because the new variety was of an appropriate duration to fit into the existing system. There was concern in the region among about the existing cropping system due to its unsustainability, which was given expression by the agricultural cooperatives in the form of introduction of new options that had become available. It can thus be argued that in the absence of support and advice from the cooperatives, changes towards sustainable systems may have been difficult to implement. The issue here was not simply the substitution of varieties; SDP was in effect competing with other short duration crops, and had to prove its worth to the cropping system. System-wide changes across a large region are usually required to manage sustainability issues such as integrated pest management or water management accompanied by consensus and an implementing agency that has the trust and feelings of ownership among the stakeholders. The building of social capital over time reflected in institutional structures such as cooperatives are therefore crucial in bringing about effective transformations leading to greater sustainability. Access to information regarding innovations and alternative options is also a key issue. Information regarding the new technology was provided to the farmers by the cooperatives, usually a trusted source; in turn government extension agents provided information regarding the new options to cooperatives and leading farmers in each village. It is the channeling of information through existing and highly successful social capital networks in the form of cooperatives, that successful adoption and uptake became possible. In areas where such networks did not exist, extension programmes by themselves did not have much impact. Other institutional factors also played an important role in enabling the widespread adoption of ICPL 87. Scientists from Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, whose jurisdiction included western Maharashtra, first recommended the variety as suitable for the multiple-cropping systems in the irrigated tracts of the region, particularly in the niches where sugarcane is grown on a large scale. Information dissemination by scientists, and extension agents of the department of agriculture emphasized on the appropriateness of the technology as well as its importance for sustainability. Thus there seems to have been a consensus among extension agents, scientists, government bodies, and farmers’ organizations regarding the introduction and appropriateness of ICPL 87 for the western Maharashtra region, which resulted in successful integration of the crop into the region’s farming systems, and contributed to enhancing its sustainability. 10

The increase was to the tune of 60% between 1985 and 1992. Compared to the previous best available variety, net farm income was higher by 30%, and grain yield advatage was 93%. 12 Bantilan and Parthasarathy op.cit. 11

IV. Groundnut Production Technology in Umra village, Maharashtra Groundnut Production Technology (GPT), is a package of practices for dryland cultivation of groundnuts. It is essentially a natural resource management (NRM) innovation. The GPT was specifically developed for cultivation of groundnuts in dry areas, especially to promote cultivation in summer using improved package of practices which included improved cultivars, as well as soil, water, and nutrient management options. The components of GPT may be organized as follows: -

land management: preparation of raised bed and furrows nutrient management: efficient application of macro- and micro-nutrients improved varieties: high yielding variety seeds, seed rate and seed dressing insect and pest management: effective control of diseased, pests, insects, and weeds, and water management: improve efficiency of water use

The GPT was introduced in Umra village of Nanded district in Maharashtra (along with other villages in the groundnut growing regions of the state), as part of LEGOFTEN, an initiative supported by Government of India, the Government of Maharashtra, and ICRISAT, in the late 1980s. The package had the following objectives: • • • • •

increase the adoption of improved varieties Optimize use of fertilizers and encourage the use of micronutrients Minimize the need for pesticides and herbicides Increase the efficient use of soil moisture, and Minimize drudgery

A survey conducted during the early 1990s in Umra village showed that there was fairly widespread adoption, but did not reveal any appreciable impact. However significant changes were noticed with respect to the gender issue, especially the intra-household distribution of benefits, and changes in access to and control over different post-harvest products (Kolli and Bantilan 1997). Significant impacts on a number of indicators, to diverse social groups were however evident during the pilot survey in 1999, carried out more than ten years after the technology was first introduced in the region. These included:

1. Adoption of GNPT has contributed directly to increase in income and yields 2. Greater stability of the cropping system has been achieved. 3. Indirectly, it has improved food availability, improved nutrition, led to crop diversification, ownership of assets etc. 4. Assets acquired for GNPT are being used for other crops, and have enabled cultivation in other seasons. 5. Initial benefits in the form of higher profits and income were reinvested in order to obtain long term benefits and to stabilize the farming system. 6. Stability of the farming system has expanded choices i.e. increased the freedom of farmers to take decisions regarding the cropping pattern (cash vs. subsistence crops or market vs. subsistence orientation, investing in production vs. investing in education, housing, household assets etc.)

7. There have been positive changes in the condition of agricultural labour. Out-migration of labour has been replaced by in-migration of labour. Employment opportunities for women have gone up. Agricultural labour now have improved choice of work and workplace. 8. Credit rating has of the farmers have gone up; most are no longer dependent on credit sources who charge high interest rates; there is also better access to institutional and supplier credit. 9. Families and households have been enabled to fulfil social and family obligations (marriage of children, providing hospitality to household/village/community guests. There is increased capacity to perform traditional cultural activities such as celebrating festivals, going for pilgrimages etc. 10. Government programmes have enabled purchase of accessories and equipment used in farming; equally government programmes have targeted the village after its 'visibility' improved due to technology adoption and resultant impact. 11. There have been general improvements relating to, health, sanitation, housing, common facilities etc., as also an improvement in the level of food security, especially for marginalized groups in the village. 12. Feeling of empowerment; general improvement in self-esteem, confidence, ability to innovate etc. Empowerment is also reflected in an increased choice of crops that are cultivated, choice of investments, access to credit, information, and agents of various government bodies. 13. Reduction in the social distance between groups of different social status; feelings of social isolation both within the community, as well as with reference to the wider world has decreased. The community has become more socially inclusive, with greater interaction and inter-dependence between members of different social categories. It can be seen from the above that a stream of benefits have flowed due to changes as a result of adoption of the GPT innovation. These are both direct and indirect, benefits are seen in terms of increases in on farm yields and income, as well as changes in wider welfare and development indicators. In carrying out an informal survey to assess impacts, in attempting to find causal relations between technology traits and the perceived impacts, and in the process of unearthing the reasons for lack of impact during an earlier study, we began to understand the role of social capital and collective action in successful adoption and impact in the village. It was observed that farm households had short, medium and long term planning horizons in deciding how to utilize the positive impacts of the new technology for improving their socio-economic conditions as well as for improving their livelihoods, and developing strategies to sustain flow of benefits from their farming activities. Over a long period poverty had forced many households to take loans from various sources which they could not repay, as well as to sell or pledge their valuables, especially gold and silver ornaments. In the initial few years therefore farm households jointly paid of their debts both to redeem their valuables – which are important sources of security in times of distress – as well to close the loans so that new lines of credit may be opened for consumption and production purposes. In a remarkable act of unity and based on rational evaluation of future possibilities, households actually pooled their resources to clear off past debts. Since the technology was fairly complex and needed initial investments, opening of credit lines was of importance despite the government subsidies for some of the capital investments. Significantly the mobilization of social capital for this purpose and the stability of yields in the initial years improved the credit worthiness of the households. Formal institutions such as banks as well as retails suppliers of inputs such as seeds and fertilizers were more willing to give credit compared to earlier times. The importance of collective action and of forging unity with members of other social categories was also felt because of the complexity of the technology in terms of more number of operations to be performed and supervised and hence more dependence on labour. The landowning households therefore consciously

attempted to improve relations with the agricultural labour community. In Umra the landholding classes mainly belonged to Maratha and other upper caste groups, while predominantly, the adivasis (lambadas) staying in a separate hamlet in the village, constitute the labour force. Thus links had to be forged at a political level, and the landowning castes consciously attempted to improve relations with the lambada population by acts such as offering the deputy-sarpanch’s post to a lambada leader13. This is quite significant, as at the time of introduction of the technology in the late 1980s, relations between the two groups were indifferent and hostile. Though much of agricultural workforce came from among adivasi households, work was available only during a few months during the monsoons, and in any case since there was not much intensive cultivation of the land, demand for labour was low. After the introduction of GPT not only did demand for labour go up, but work was available almost throughout the year, thus avoiding the need to migrate seasonally in search of employment. Thus on the one hand while the farmers realized the need to maintain good relations with the adivasis in order to avoid labour problems especially during crucial periods, labour households found it convenient to cooperate in terms of long-term security of employment14. Many of the agricultural workers were also marginal farmers and so working in their own village, made it possible to also work and supervise cultivation of their meagre landholdings. But there was also another important reason for labour to prefer work in their own rather than away from their village. Mobility whether seasonal or on a daily basis also brings down contacts with members of ones own community as also with patrons and employers in ones own village. Especially in times of distress local networks can be accessed for help and assistance. This is not possible if contact is not maintained and the stock of social capital diminishes. Moreover the kind of ties that bind employer and worker at the village level goes beyond wages and strict contracts; frequently in addition to wages, they also have access to food from the farm kitchen, or grains, vegetables, milk etc from the farmers’ kitchen gardens and households. Being in constant touch with one’s own community members also means that they have greater access to information, and knowledge of new opportunities that may crop up. This finding goes contrary to assumptions of neo classical economics about the efficiency of labor market integration which is typically assumed to improve welfare in the absence of distortions, because it allows labor to move to where returns are highest. On the other hand it is observed that social capital raises productivity and falls with labor mobility. Integration of labor markets can result in too much mobility, too low a level of social capital, and so an ambiguous effect on welfare. Studies on migrant labour in India have shown similar results. Lacking access to and not being able to use education, health and other facilities as a result of constant mobility, and not having any networks to depend on in times of distress, migrant labourers may be at quite a disadvantage in terms of obtaining welfare gains from adopting migration as a strategy for development and survival. While migration is one way of managing risk, community forms of social capital and the risk managing practices they allow are also to be treated as critical elements of any effort to improve the effectiveness of risk management. Many individuals and families build linkages with other actors in the community such as families, friends, peers, neighbors, kin, ethnic networks etc., which may get disturbed due to frequent migration. Apart from access to formal institutional structures and facilities, migration may also result in non-participation in informal activities and groups such as work related networks festivals, civil society groups rituals, sports events, story telling, religious activities, etc. All these are important to enhance 13

In this context it may be mentioned that interesting conceptual advances have been made in distinguishing between “bonding” social capital - the ties that link members of a social group -and “bridging” social capital the ties that cut across different social groups (World Bank 2000). 14

This is perhaps a classic case of interdependence arising out of modernization and specialization leading to greater social solidarity, typified as ‘organic’ solidarity by the classical sociologist Emile Durkheim.

household’s sense of well being and self worth, minimizing social exclusion, and providing access to opportunity structures. Showing or displaying a united façade also helps in successfully bargaining and demanding facilities from government agencies. Pressure from the villagers acting together and speaking with one voice, and the increased visibility of the village as some kind of a show piece in the region, resulted in the government providing common facilities such as schools, health centres, electricity, roads, etc. Feelings of social inclusion thus by improving the quality of people’s social relationships also lead to an enhancement of their sense of well being. For the lambada labour households, secure work throughout the year, and employment for more members of each family enabled them to fulfil certain social and community social obligations. Lambada pilgrims from around the region who come to the nearby Mahur pilgrim town annually as part of a larger pilgrim circuit are usually put up and fed by lambada communities along the route. Poverty and consequent inability to fulfil this community obligation (involves feeding upwards of 10000 pilgrims) has been perceived as a shame by the lambadas of Umra 15. An improvement in their economic status has enabled them to now provide hospitality to their fellow community members. Providing hospitality is not only a matter of obligation16 but also builds links with their community which is important for instance in finding brides and bridegrooms, but also from the point of view of building a broader political community to be used when occasions demand 17. In general for families in the village as a whole, economic prosperity has led to an intensification and building up of ties with families outside the village. Outsiders did not have much to with Umra, and this especially made it very difficult to find marriage partners. A spate of long pending marriages took place in the early 1990s, and this was not only as result of having money to celebrate marriages but also because families were willing to enter into matrimonial alliances with families in Umra 18. The social capital that was built up as part of the process of adopting and benefiting from a new technological option generally seems to have led to an enhancement of sharing within and outside the village. Initially, seeds for groundnut as well as for pulses such as chickpeas and pigeonpea were given to the farmers of the village under the LEGOFTEN extension programme. Subsequently seed supply for some of the varieties have been erratic while seeds for some varieties are not available at all since they were not released. However, farmers in the village propagated and distributed seeds among themselves, perceiving them to be superior to other varieties. Ten years after the LEGOFTEN programme these varieties are being cultivated not only in Umra but also in neighbouring villages. For OPVs, in the absence of proper production and marketing, farmer production and sharing of seeds is crucial for maintenance and availability of seed stock. This is shown even more clearly in the next section on pearl millet cultivars in western Rajasthan, where after the withdrawal of the original parties who initiated innovations, saving and sharing of seeds under adverse circumstances has been crucial for maintenance of seed stock of appropriate cultivars. 15

Among the lambadas poverty is no excuse for an inability to meet community obligations, and members of the group perceived this inability as shameful. 16 Good relations in the family or community, and the ability to exchange gifts and meet social obligations, all contribute to a community’s feelings of well-being. (World Bank, 2000) 17 Families have a pressing need to retain what Portes terms as consummatory social capital, that is social capital deriving from socialization processes in families, kin networks, class and occupational groups. Consummatory sources are related to the endowment of social capital; long term changes in social processes such as migration can thus affect or diminish the underlying endowment. 18 The tendency of households to delay marriage and childbearing during periods of prolonged crisis has been mentioned by other authors as well.

V. Participatory variety breeding and adoption of improved cultivars in the arid zones of western Rajasthan Western Rajasthan is an arid, dryland zone, with little rainfall and sandy soils. It is one of the major pearl millet growing regions in India. An interesting and innovative experiment in farmer participatory breeding of improved pearl millet cultivars was started in the early 1990s by ICRISAT in collaboration with the Rajasthan Agricultural University, a local NGO, and farmers in selected villages in western Rajasthan. Hybrids cultivars of pearl millet were found to be risky and performing poorly given the agro-climatic conditions and unstable weather patterns. In terms of stability of yields traditional cultivars or landraces performed better, though the yields were low. On the basis of this evaluation, the collaborating teams worked with farmers using on-farm breeding and varietal valuation to enable farmers to breed and select varieties, which would perform better than the available alternatives under the typical conditions of the region. Several varieties were thus selected through several years of trials. Some of these were recommended for release through the RAU and the government of Rajasthan. However bureaucratic reasons resulted in the delay of release and except of one variety, most of these are still not officially released. Households perceived major benefits in villages resulting from large-scale adoption of ICRISAT developed varieties that have taken place over a ten-year period. These include: 1. Improved choice of varieties to suit weather; farmers are able to better manage risk arising out of climatic factors through the availability of varieties of different duration to suit the rainfall pattern. 2. Reduction of risk has led to greater stability of the cropping system; farmers are able to plan better in advance and take decisions regarding the cropping pattern. More importantly, stability has led to yield gains, and especially enabled building up of grain stock for lean years. 3. The cropping pattern has changed due to decreased risk and higher yields. Farmers choose an optimum mix of cash and subsistence crops, to harvest grain yield for consumption, and cash crops for purchasing other necessities, and investing in factors that lead to higher yields and productivity. In particular we observed land augmentation due to technology adoption – increased yields of pearl millet and more stability in yields have enabled farmers to plant lesser area to millets and more to other, particularly cash crops. Seed saving has been a major problem, given the non-availability of seeds of desired cultivars in the market. Successive or back to back droughts can also result in the seed stock being wiped out. The practice of seed purchase from retailers which had become popular had also meant that many of the younger farmers were not aware of the actual procedures involved in segregating, tending to, saving and preserving seeds. Addressing questions regarding this problem, we found that in villages where farmers had participated in the experiment, some of the older men and women had retained traditional knowledge of seed saving, and it is through them, that seeds of preferred varieties were saved and stored for use in subsequent seasons. Often during years of drought, seed saved for sowing was used up for consumption. Under such conditions, it was those farmers who had a better knowledge of cultivating, and saving seeds from OPVs who managed to harvest higher yields, and it was through them, that it was possible to ensure that these varieties did not die out. Especially older women seem to have played a major role in ensuring the preservation of these varieties, and maintaining continuity in cultivation across seasons. In sharing an distributing seeds, members of a kinship group were given first preference, and in this was these varieties also spread to other villages through, for instance, daughters who had been married into families in other areas, and by distributing to other kin group members. Kinship also played a major role in dissemination

of information both regarding the new, more appropriate and higher yielding cultivars, as well with reference to knowledge regarding seed saving. Information spread was also perhaps made easier in western Rajasthan by the tradition of labour sharing prevalent in the area. During times of peak labour demand, the adola or cooperative labour sharing arrangements between small and medium farmers, involving short-term agricultural working parties, is one way of obtaining large amounts of labour for a short time. The adola is also a social occasion involving singing, sharing stories and jokes, and provision of food and hospitality in lieu of wages by farmers to members of the labour party. Other forms of social capital such as community level institutions and organizations also seem to have played an important role in spread and uptake of improved pearl millet cultivars. In Jodhpur for instance, farmers belonging to the patel community had contributed to the building and development of an ashram and temple complex which among other things included a goshala19. The head of the ashram was not merely a religious head but also provided key advice and information regarding political and economic issues, particularly related to cropping patters, markets and prices, new technologies and so on. The ashram itself functions as a centre that facilitates information exchange among the patel community and between the patels and outsider visitors. It provides a venue for patels to congregate and discuss issues of common concern. Though the ashram came up in the 1970s, it is only in the last decade or so that it became fully functional owing to funding from rich patels from other parts of the county and abroad. Farmers in the region attributed their recent prosperity to adoption of innovations, information of which they obtained through the ashram. While major changes seem to have taken place in cropping pattern and cultivation practices, pearl millet occupies a dominant position in the cropping pattern, and as such stability and improvement in yields as result of the availability of new varieties of pearl millet is seen as a key contributor to agrarian growth. Once again, thus, social capital, and the resources that become available as a consequence of its expansion, can be seen to be a key factor in technology uptake. In this case of course, it is possible to argue that the social capital that the patels generated is of the type that Portes (1998) calls instrumental, which ‘entails purposive exchanges based on expectations of reciprocity’. Instrumental sources illustrate the construction of social capital as a deliberate process for future gains 20. If social capital in the form of kinship and community linkages is crucial for technology adoption and transfer, it also plays a significant role in translating adoption into positive impacts. For impact to be felt in the form of welfare changes, higher yields and incomes have to facilitate and address other development and welfare concerns and needs of the farming community. Thus while some of the increased income flows are channelized into farm level investments such as tractors, or household inventions such as renovation or construction of pucca houses, increasingly, individuals are also recognizing the importance of investing in common or community level facilities. Thus both in Jodhpur and in Ajmer we found that farmers raised resources to invest in facilities like school buildings and hospitals/health centres. They pooled resources to supplement investments by governments, in schools21, and by private medical practitioners, to set up clinics. 19

A goshala is a community shelter for unproductive cows and bullocks. In this case, the construction of social capital by the patels had negatives consequences for the wider community in the region. The pastoral and nomadic raikas entered into a prolonged legal conflict over the acquisition of the common lands for the temple/ashram complex, which they ultimately lost. 21 The importance given to schooling and education also came out clearly in PRAs carried out among women and men which revealed increased rates of schooling, especially for girl children, and community level support for education. In the Maharashtra study as well, there was a marked improvement in literacy and education levels, especially among marginalized groups.

20

Other symbolic structures also benefited from the pooling of individual resources. Both in Maharashtra and in Rajasthan, old temples were renovated or new ones were constructed. The construction of temples seems to be related as much to the fulfillment of spiritual needs, performance of rituals and celebration of festivals, as to a need to develop pride in ones community, and perhaps also related to the need to integrate with a larger community outside one’s own village. The temple structure of course, by itself provides an arena for interaction, a site for congregation, an occasion to meet, and thereby enlarge the scope of interaction, and building of social capital. The interest in building social capital that is more symbolic, and whose benefits are not very tangible, can also seen in the construction of a kabutarkhana in one village, using pooled funds. The presence of a kabutarkhana is an indicator of status, of village prosperity. It is something that can be afforded by a village only after they have met other more pressing needs. However they also have an indirect– they attract birds of various kinds, which feed on pests and minimize pests and insects of various kinds which attack crops. Concluding comments The importance of economic or financial capital, human capital and natural capital for development and for finding an exit path out of poverty is well known. Most development policies in the post-colonial period in the developing countries have thus focused on generating assets and providing access to these forms of capital to the poor. However many studies have shown that often other factors intervene in preventing or facilitating access to resources or programmes, as well as in actually obtaining and making use of different kinds of assets. It is suggested in this paper that social capital plays a key role in enabling households to take advantage of human capital resources that become available in the form of new cultivation practices and knowledge regarding technologies. In the semi-arid and arid tracts of India, the population on average is among the poorest, with low natural resource endowments, few viable assets and low levels of access to finance and credit. In such situations, technological innovations have to be appropriate to actually be adopted and bring about significant welfare changes. Social capital, it is argued plays a crucial role in facilitating adoption, and overcoming constraints of lack of financial, human and natural capital22. Collective action actually provides the means to adopt and benefit from agricultural innovations, generate economic and human capital, and make the development process sustainable. It is difficult to generalize based on essentially qualitative studies from a non-representative and diverse set of ‘village studies’. However the data presented here seem to indicate that commercialization of agriculture and/or the introduction of technological innovations need not necessarily result in the ‘separation of the economic dimension of local agriculture from its established cultural bases’, nor its social implications in terms of ‘disjunctions’ and ‘dissonances’ within society, as Vasavi (1999) argues. If, in ‘privileging the economic impetus of taking to commercial agriculture, many had overlooked the importance of retaining social ties23’ in parts of the country it could be because of the traits or characteristics of the technology24, the mode of transfer and diffusion of technology, and the strength of social ties and social relations in the community under study. In societies that have been studies here then

22

The contrary can also occur. In the absence of a strong tendency among community members to build and retain social capital, state and market interventions can reorder the “local meanings and knowledge systems which underlie human-land relations (and) the conduct of agriculture”, leading to a depletion of ‘sociality’ or social capital as Vasavi (1999) argues. 23 Ibid. 24 Hybrid seeds need to be purchased. They also require purchase of more inputs and therefore make the farmers more dependent on external agents. On the contrary cultivars require less inputs, and seeds can be saved from the previous years harvest.

‘collective social reproduction of the society has not been made subordinate to individual economic reproduction’, and therein perhaps lies hope for technology and R & D led poverty reduction strategies. One way of enhancing technology / R & D — poverty reduction linkages therefore is to mobilize social capital, through participatory R & D. In assessing technologies for their appropriateness to local needs, and in successfully adopting and diffusing technologies, it is essential for farmers to understand technologies and their operation. In Rajasthan, participatory modes of research in the form of participatory variety breeding, enabled farmers to understand, select, and adopt technologies of their choice. Participatory approaches are therefore more likely to result in an enhancement of some forms of human or cultural capital – those related to knowledge regarding innovations, and the use of innovative techniques. Human capital enhancement in the form of knowledge regarding technological options expands choices available to farm households and is a key feature of the empowerment process. These choices relate to cropping pattern, investment strategies, and choices to better manage risk and instability. Expansion of choice, it is observed also reduces constraints on economic and social decision making Poor people have few assets. Access to common property resources is also on the decline. It is therefore in their social relationships and networks that poor people can cooperate, share resources and risks, and act collectively. The importance of understanding formal and informal organizations and their contribution to the construction of social capital is necessary to perceive how people mobilize and acquire a wide range of assets and gain access to decision making processes, technologies, resources and markets, and benefit from them.

References Bantilan, M.C.S. and Joshi, P.K. (1996) Returns to research and diffusion investments on wilt resistance in pigeonpea, Impact Series No.1, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Bantilan, M.C.S., and Parthasarathy, D. (1999) Efficiency and sustainability gains from adoption of shortduration pigeonpea in nonlegume-based cropping systems, Impact Series No.6, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1983. ‘Economic Capital, Cultural Capital, Social Capital.’ Soziale-Welt, Supplement 2:183-198. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1985. ‘The Forms of Capital’, Chapter 9 in JG Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited and introduced by John B. Thompson. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Coleman, J. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’. American Journal of Sociology 94 (supplement), s95–s120. Collier, P. 1998b. ‘Social Capital and Poverty.’ Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 4, Social Development Department. Washington, DC: World Bank. Evans, Peter. 1996. ‘Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy.’ World Development, 24 (6), pp.1119-1132. Falk, Ian H. and Sue Kilpatrick. 1999. ‘What Is Social Capital? A Study Of Interaction In A Rural Community’. Paper D5/1999 in the CRLRA Discussion Paper Series. Launceston, Australia: Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania. Falk, Ian H. and Lesley B Harrison,. 1998b. ‘Indicators of Social Capital: Social Capital as the Product of Local Interactive Learning Processes.’ Discussion Paper. Launceston, Australia: Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania. ICRISAT. ‘Improving the unimprovable – succeeding with pearl millet’, Food From Thought No.3, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India. ICRISAT. ‘The seeds they prayed for…Farmer-to farmer exchange of seeds of a wilt resistant pigeonpea in southern India’, Food From Thought No.4, International Crops Research Institute for the SemiArid Tropics, Patancheru, India. Fox, Jonathan. 1997. ‘The World Bank and Social Capital: Contesting the Concept’. Journal of International Development, Nov/Dec, 1997. Fox, Jonathan. 1996. ‘How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico.’ World Development, 24 (6), pp. 1089-1103.

Grootaert , Christiaan. ‘Social Capital, Household Welfare and Poverty in Indonesia’. (mimeo) Local Level Institutions Study, Social Development Department, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network, The World Bank. n.d. Grootaert, Christiaan. 1997. ‘Social Capital: The Missing Link?’ Chapter 6 in Expanding the Measure of Wealth—Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development, Washington, DC: World Bank. Heller, Patrick. 1996. ‘Social Capital as a Product of Class Mobilization and State Intervention: Industrial Workers in Kerala, India.’ World Development; Vol. 24, pp. 1055-71. Joshi, P.K. and Bantilan, M.C.S. (1998) Impact assessment of crop and resource management technology: a case of groundnut production technology, Impact Series No.2, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Kilpatrick, Sue and Rowena Bell. 1998. ‘Support Networks and Trust: How social capital facilitates economic outcomes for small businesses’. Learning Communities, Regional Sustainability and the Learning Society: An international symposium. Launceston, 13-20 June, Conference Proceedings 223-231. Kilpatrick, Sue, Rowena Bell, , and Ian H Falk,. 1999. ‘The Role of Group Learning In Building Social Capital.’ UK Journal of Vocational Education and Training 51 (1) 129-144. Knack, S. 1999. ‘Social Capital, Growth and Poverty: A Survey and Extensions’. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper, Social Development Department. Washington, DC: World Bank. Kolli,R.D. and Bantilan, M.C.S. (1997) Gender-related impacts of improved agricultural technologies: identification of indicators from a case study, Gender and Development 1 (3), 371-393. McCulloch, Anna Knox, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Peter Hazell, 1998. ‘Property rights, collective action and technologies for natural resource management: A conceptual framework’. IFPRI SP-PRCA Working Paper No. 1, CGIAR System-wide Program on Property Rights and Collective Action Molinas, José. 1998. ‘The Impact of Inequality, Gender, External Assistance and Social capital on LocalLevel Cooperation.’ World Development, 26 (3), pp. 413-431. Narayan, Deepa. ‘Bonds And Bridges: Social Capital And Poverty’, (Mimeo) Poverty Group, PREM, World Bank . n.d. Portes, A. 1998. ‘Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.’ Annual Review of Sociology (24), pp. 1-24. SchiffF M. (1998b) : ‘Trade, Migration and Welfare: The Impact of Social Capital’, working paper, World Bank, November 1998. Teachman, Jay D., Kathleen Paasch and Karen Carver. 1997. ‘Social Capital and the Generation of Human Capital.’ Social Forces, 75 (4), (June, 1997). Vasavi, A.R. 1999. Harbingers of Rain: Land and Life in South India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Walker, T.S., and Ryan, J.G. (1990) Village Household Economies in India’s Semi-Arid Tropics, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London. Woolcock, M. 1998. ‘Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework.’ Theory and Society 27(2) World Bank. 2000. ‘New Paths to Social Development: Community and Global Networks in Action’. A contribution of the World Bank to the United Nations Special Session of the General Assembly World Summit for Social Development and Beyond: Achieving Social Development for All in a Globalizing World. Social Development Department, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network