112 CHAPTER 5


declined over time across the board, the proportions of the different control groups who perceived no change in their situation generally increased over


time, with NAADSNON-2 and NAADSNON-3 households faring the worst. At least two-thirds of NAADSNON-2 and NAADSNON-3 households perceived a static or worsening situation in all three indicators in 2004–07.


To assess the impact of the NAADS program, we control for the initial values of the dependent variable and changes in other factors as presented in the methodology section. Unlike in the case of the adoption of improved technologies and practices, here there are multiple categories of the out- come indicator (i.e., increased, no change, and decreased). An appropriate estimator is the multinomial probit, which we use. The main issue for concern in this context is having adequate observations across the different categories for both direct participants and the control groups to reliably estimate the program’s impact. This is problematic for many of the model specifications, particularly Models II and III, which involve estimating more coefficients, as


well as for the NAADSNON-2 and NAADSNON-3 control groups, for which we have fewer numbers of observations to start with. Therefore, many of the impacts associated with these models could not be estimated, particularly for our pre- ferred model specification. The results are summarized in Tables 5.22, 5.24, and 5.26, where the base category is no change. Consequently, we redefined the outcome indicators to be dichotomous under two different scenarios: first, taking on the value of one when the response was “improved” and zero otherwise, and second, taking on the value of one when the response was “worsened” and zero otherwise. Then we applied the regular probit estima- tor. Although this makes estimation easier, caution is required in interpre- tation of the resulting estimates because the base category combines two different perceived outcomes with potentially different underlying behaviors. The estimated impacts associated with these are summarized in Tables 5.23, 5.25, and 5.27. As before, selected detailed regression results for the multi- nomial probits are presented in Appendix A (see Tables A.10–A.12). The results from the two estimators are consistent, and we see that direct participation in the NAADS program is generally positively associated with an improving situation and negatively associated with a worsening situation,


particularly when participating households are compared with NAADSNON-2 and NAADSNON-3 households. Several of the estimated coefficients are statistically significant across different model specifications. Here, too, the seemingly negative impact of the program when the direct participants are compared


with the indirect participants (i.e., the column of results headed ATTNON-1) is consistent with similar findings reported earlier and likely reflects better access to extension and confusion between NAADS service providers and other programs’ agents. Together, the results are consistent with the increase


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192