|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Smallholder farming households constitute nearly 70 percent of the population in low-income countries and are thus vital for economic activity and targeting poverty. In order to understand agriculture and farmer welfare we depend on self-reported crop production and land area information sourced from household or farm surveys. As a consequence, the accurate measurement of agricultural production is critical to empirical development analyses and answering fundamental questions on the role of agriculture in household and individual welfare. Despite this importance, there is a lack of understanding of the accuracy of farmer reported crop production and area measurement. The recent and limited literature suggest measurement error varies from 30% to over 200%. In this project, we collect a large novel state representative dataset from India to examine the extent of measurement error both in agricultural area, production and yield between objective and self reported survey measures. We then use multiple experiments to understand if measurement error is intentional or unintentional and its potential correlates.
|
After
While measurement of agricultural production is critical to empirical development analyses and answering fundamental questions on the role of agriculture in household and individual welfare, there is a lack of understanding about the accuracy of farmer reported crop production and area measurement. In this project, we conduct a large, state-representative survey in Odisha, India containing self-reported and objective measures of agricultural variables to examine the extent of misreporting and measurement error in agricultural area, production, and yield. Using rich data on farmer characteristics, their psychological state, and personality traits, we explore whether misreporting and measurement error are systematically related to these characteristics. Finally, we conduct priming experiments to test if measurement error is affected by incentives to misreport.
|
|
Field
JEL Code(s)
|
Before
I3, N5,
|
After
I3, N5
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
April 23, 2020 06:17 PM
|
After
June 15, 2020 02:54 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
The project consists of two experiments that aim to test the extent to which measurement error in farmer reported production/area/yield is due to intentional misreporting.
Experiment 1: Financial Incentives.
The lower bound treatment group prior to asking questions related to agricultural activity were read the following preface:“We will now ask you some questions about your land holdings and agricultural production. This information will remain anonymous and it will not influence your chances of receiving benefits from any organisation including the government or IRRI.”
The upper bound treatment group were told the following preface.“We will now ask you some questions about your land holding and agricultural production. This information may influence your chances of receiving benefits from the government and organisations including IRRI in the future.” This did not involve deception as we randomly select 25% of these households to receive a cash grant to be distributed between 2 and 6 months after the endline.
The control were not given any preface prior to eliciting agricultural activity.
Experiment 2: Social Desirability
In this experiment subjects are given a prime prior to eliciting agricultural information.
In the honest prime treatment prior to eliciting agricultural information, farmers are given a list of words that are related to honesty such as truth and integrity, subjects must then list synonyms related to each of the listed words.
In the neutral prime treatment the word list is unrelated to honesty such as home and music.
A separate control contains no prime.
|
After
The project consists of priming experiments that aim to test the extent to which measurement error in farmer reported production/area/yield is due to intentional misreporting.
Experiment 1: Financial Incentives.
The lower bound treatment group prior to asking questions related to agricultural activity were read the following preface:“We will now ask you some questions about your land holdings and agricultural production. This information will remain anonymous and it will not influence your chances of receiving benefits from any organisation including the government or IRRI.”
The upper bound treatment group were told the following preface.“We will now ask you some questions about your land holding and agricultural production. This information may influence your chances of receiving benefits from the government and organisations including IRRI in the future.” This did not involve deception as we will randomly select 25% of these households to receive a cash grant to be distributed between 2 and 6 months after the endline.
The control were not given any preface prior to eliciting agricultural activity.
Experiment 2: Lying (misreporting for any reason)
In this experiment subjects are given a prime prior to eliciting agricultural information.
In the honest prime treatment prior to eliciting agricultural information, farmers are given a list of words that are related to honesty such as truth and integrity, subjects must then list synonyms related to each of the listed words.
In the neutral prime treatment the word list is unrelated to honesty such as home and music.
A separate control contains no prime.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Are key outcomes are the following:
1. Measurement error in production: self-reported production based of the crop cut plot minus the plot production derived from the crop cut experiment.
2. Measurement error in area: self-reported area of the crop cut plot minus the area for the crop cut plot taken from GPS measures
3. Measurement error in yield: Calculated based on self-reported production and area, yield=\frac{production}{area}, minus yield calculated using the above mentioned objective measures of production and area.
|
After
Are key outcomes are the following:
1. Measurement error in production: self-reported production based of the crop cut plot minus the plot production derived from the crop cut experiment.
2. Measurement error in area: self-reported area of the crop cut plot minus the area for the crop cut plot taken from GPS measures
3. Measurement error in yield: Calculated based on self-reported production and area, yield=production/area, minus yield calculated using the above mentioned objective measures of production and area.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
The study was conducted in Odisha, India. The sample was selected as follows. First, we randomly selected 15 out of the 30 districts in the state. We then randomly selected 300 villages, from which we undertook a full village census. From the census we randomly selected 10 farmers in each village combining for a total sample of 3000 households prior to harvest. The sample is representative of farmers in the state.
Prior to harvest (Nov-Dec, 2019), trained enumerators conducted crop cutting of thee largest plot of each farmer. Crop cutting (CC) has been recognised as the gold standard for agricultural production measurement since the 1950s by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). During the crop cutting visit, a highly trained enumerator harvested the crop cut sub-plots in order to obtain objectively measured harvest quantities. At this time, enumerators also objectively measured plot area. In particular, a polygon of the plot is drawn using a GPS device by walking along the boundary of the plot, using geospatial software a complete polygon of the plot is then created.
After harvest (February-June), enumerators return to households and elicit farmer selected reported measures of production, area and yield of the largest plot.
|
After
The study was conducted in Odisha, India. The sample was selected as follows. First, we randomly selected 15 out of the 30 districts in the state. We then randomly selected 300 villages, from which we undertook a full village census. From the census we randomly selected 10 farmers in each village combining for a total sample of 3000 households prior to harvest. The sample is representative of farmers in the state.
Prior to harvest (Nov-Dec, 2019), trained enumerators conducted crop cutting of the largest plot of each farmer. Crop cutting (CC) has been recognised as the gold standard for objective agricultural production measurement since the 1950s by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). At this time, enumerators also objectively measured plot area. In particular, a polygon of the plot is drawn using a GPS device by walking along the boundary of the plot, using geospatial software a complete polygon of the plot is then created.
After harvest (February-June), enumerators return to households and elicit farmer self reported measures of production, area and yield of the largest plot.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
Experiment 1
Lower Bound: 540
Upward Bound: 420
Experiment 2:
Honesty Prime: 540
Neutral Prime: 540
Joint Control: 650
|
After
Experiment 1
Lower Bound: 540
Upward Bound: 420
Experiment 2:
Honesty Prime: 540
Neutral Prime: 540
Pure Control: 650
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
Measurement error, Agricultural Production
|
After
Measurement error, Agricultural production
|
|
Field
Public locations
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|