The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

Groups have become more important as extension service has moved away from a
training-and-visit approach to a demand-driven 22 fee-for-service approach. Where poverty
prevails, the majority of smallholder farmers cannot afford to pay for extension services. As a
result, groups are now becoming entry points for the extension service, because they can
reach many farmers at the same time at lower cost. Groups are also invaluable for
internalizing the concept of training of trainers. For example, groups or committees can and
actually have been trained to lay terraces. These people are then able to lay terraces for
others. The same can also be done in other areas or for other services. Also extension
messages can easily be passed along in a group setting.
Since soil conservation (terracing) is a form of technology, its adoption can be the
result of interactions with government officers, innovations by other farmers, and even
information diffusion through social networks. Thus, membership density is crucial. This is
because spillover or diffusion effects come into play as members interact with one another.
Diffusion of information is often enhanced as membership density increases.
Whereas cognitive social capital raises the perception or awareness of a soil erosion
problem, the variable reduces soil conservation investments. The effects on resource use and
agricultural productivity are mixed. Since the policy implications for this variable are weak, it
seems best to promote or encourage the flourishing of structural social capital.
Membership diversity has a negative effect on soil conservation, whereas
participation in decisionmaking seems to have no discernible effect (or it is simply not
important). This suggests that policymakers need not worry about participation in decisionmaking
by members of groups. However, there is concern with potentially negative outcomes
of membership diversity. This implies that when designing programs, group formation should
be encouraged along homogeneous lines.
The policy challenge here is to come up with innovative and cost-effective measures
to encourage household membership in groups. One option is to encourage existing groups to
remove ceilings on membership, further increasing their membership. However, based on the
belief that collective action is more successful with smaller groups (Balland and Platteau
1996), our considered view is that the number of groups should be increased, rather than
risking making existing groups too large. New groups are often formed when NGOs move in
to new areas. Most set up committees as part of their community mobilization. Not only does
operating with groups lower transaction costs, it may also provide contact with potential
clients, raise potential economic returns to organizational activities, and potentially reach a
greater number of people. Another approach is to keep groups that have already been formed
active. Suggestions here include holding periodic seminars on leadership skills, bookkeeping,
and project management; widening the income base of groups with the aim of giving periodic
substantial dividends to members; and compensating group officials for their time by paying
allowances. Once the need that led to the formation of a group is met, it is likely that a group
may become inactive. This can be overcome by formulating new goals or objectives around
the same membership, such as rotating savings (merry-go-rounds). As Balland and Platteau
(1996) argue, if a group is already formed around a common purpose and members share a
set of norms and values, the information and coordination costs of organizing them around
another purpose will be reduced.
The sources of social capital must also be considered, since they are an important
aspect in the conceptualization of any policy program. The family is the first building block
in the generation of social capital. Relations within the family foster the development of trust,
22 This strategy envisages a market for extension services. However, its efficacy is in doubt given the current
experience with agricultural market liberalization under conditions of poor infrastructure, weak institutions, and
poverty (Omamo 2003).