Does sending farmers back to school increase technical efficiency of maize production? Impact assessment of a farmer field school programme in Indonesia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Technical efficiency in a two-input space.

Adopted from Farrell (1957).

Figure 2. Distribution of research areas.

Source: authors.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Variables	Treatment group (participants of FFS-ICM) (n = 1,625)			Control group (non-participants of FFS-ICM) (n = 26,553)			Pooled sample (n = 28,178)
	Mean	Min	Max	Mean	Min	Max	Mean	Min	Max
Quantity of maize (kg)	2,507.38	48.00	28,800.00	2,291.25	20.00	176,000.00	2,303.71	20.00	176,000.00
Quantity of fertiliser (kg)	255.17	2.00	2,450.00	248.23	2.00	5,300.00	248.63	2.00	5,300.00
Quantity of seeds (kg)	8.92	1.50	160.00	8.89	1.05	315.00	8.89	1.05	315.00
Quantity of labour (man-days)	34.72	3.20	337.00	33.80	1.10	1,940.00	33.85	1.10	1,940.00
Farm size (meters square)	5,549.93	410.00	90,000.00	5,370.66	200.00	280,000.00	5,381.00	200.00	280,000.00
Rainfall (mm)	2,183.95	1,404.30	2,838.00	2,161.31	1,404.30	2,838.00	2,162.61	1,404.30	2,838.00
Dummy pesticides (1 = use pesticide, 0 = otherwise)	0.63	0	1	0.61	0	1	0.61	0	1
Dummy type of land (1= irrigated land, 0 = otherwise)	0.46	0	1	0.33	0	1	0.33	0	1
Age (years)	50.23	21	89	49.53	14	90	49.57	14	90
Gender (1 = Male, 0 = Female)	0.93	0	1	0.90	0	1	0.90	0	1
Education (years)	6.29	0	18	5.55	0	18	5.59	0	18
Farmers’ group membership (1 = member, 0 = non-member)	0.88	0	1	0.49	0	1	0.51	0	1
Contract farming (1 = Yes, 0 = No)	0.06	0	1	0.02	0	1	0.02	0	1
Land ownership (1 = self-owned land, 0 = otherwise)	0.73	0	1	0.67	0	1	0.67	0	1
Rented land (1 = rented land, 0 = otherwise)	0.13	0	1	0.14	0	1	0.14	0	1
Other-land ownership (1 = other land ownership, 0 = otherwise)	0.14	0	1	0.19	0	1	0.18	0	1
Location Java (1 = Java, 0 = otherwise)	0.65	0	1	0.54	0	1	0.54	0	1
Location Sumatra (1 = Sumatera, 0 = otherwise)	0.14	0	1	0.19	0	1	0.19	0	1
Location West Nusa Tenggara (1 = West Nusa Tenggara, 0 = otherwise)	0.03	0	1	0.06	0	1	0.06	0	1
Location Sulawesi (1 = Sulawesi Island, 0 = otherwise)	0.18	0	1	0.21	0	1	0.21	0	1

Source: Authors’ calculation.

Table 2. Estimation of the parameters for stochastic production function.

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Variables	coefficient	coefficient	coefficient
Fertiliser	0.1261***	0.1116***	0.1122***
	(0.0038)	(0.0037)	(0.0037)
Seeds	0.2738***	0.2920***	0.2800***
	(0.0062)	(0.0062)	(0.0064)
Labour	0.0620***	0.0663***	0.0761***
	(0.0045)	(0.0044)	(0.0046)
Land	0.5367***	0.5676***	0.5633***
	(0.0073)	(0.0071)	(0.0071)
Dummy pesticide	0.0312***	0.0506***	0.0415***
	(0.0050)	(0.0050)	(0.0050)
Dummy type of land	0.0817***	0.0604***	0.0710***
	(0.0052)	(0.0052)	(0.0053)
Rainfall	−0.0002***	0.0024***	0.0027***
	(0.0000)	(0.0000)	(0.0001)
Rainfall squared		−0.0000***	−0.0000***
		(0.0000)	(0.0000)
Dummy Sumatera			0.0603***
			(0.0074)
Dummy West Nusa Tenggara			0.0814***
			(0.0132)
Dummy Sulawesi			0.0598 ***
			(.0109)
Constant	2.2864***	−0.5931***	−1.0136***
	(0.0453)	(0.0916)	(0.1260)
Diagnostic statistics
Sigma_v	0.2441***	0.2439***	0.2433***
	(0.0046)	(0.0029)	(0.0029)
Lambda	1.8681***	1.8070***	1.8094***
	(0.0068)	(0.0065)	(0.0065)
Wald chi^2	105,899	100,809	101,187
Prob > Chi^2	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000
Log likelihood function	−18190	−17550	−17550
Observations	28,178	28,178	28,178

Standard errors in parentheses.

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Source: Authors’ calculation.

Figure 3. Average technical efficiency by FFS-ICM participation.

Source: Authors.

Table 3. Logistic regression of determinants of FFS-ICM participation.

	(1)
Variables	coefficient
Age	0.0002
	(0.0024)
Gender	0.1875*
	(0.1024)
Education	0.0340***
	(0.0070)
Farmer group membership	1.9846***
	(0.0788)
Contract farming	1.0010***
	(0.1225)
Farm size	0.0000***
	(0.0000)
Rented Land	−0.1027
	(0.0789)
Other-land ownership	−0.3579***
	(0.0765)
Constant	−4.3858***
	(0.1903)
Dummy provinces	YES
Observations	28,178
Pseudo R-Squared	0.1051

Standard errors in parentheses.

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Source: Authors’ calculation.

Table 4. Impact of FFS-ICM on technical efficiency.

	Coefficient
Matching method	(ATT)
4-Nearest neighbour	0.0190***
	(0.0054)
Kernel based matching	0.0148*** (0.0048)

Standard errors in parentheses.

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Source: Authors’ calculation.

Table 5. After matching quality test.

Variables	Mean		p-value
	treatment group	control group
Age	50.22	50.67	0.271
Gender	0.92	0.93	0.890
Education	6.29	6.13	0.260
Farmer group membership	0.88	0.88	0.989
Contract farming	0.06	0.06	0.910
Rented land	0.13	0.12	0.268
Other land ownership	0.14	0.13	0.468

Note: p-value indicates statistical mean differences between treatment and control group.

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Source: Authors’ calculation.

Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 120(3), 253–281. https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar