fw/fi) WW 0 ABSTRACT VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNICATION PATTERN: A FACTOR ANALYTIC TYPOLOGY OF SELECTED VILLAGES AND FARMERS IN THREE STATES OF INDIA By K. S. Sripada Raju The present study deals with the village development dimensions and communication patterns in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and West Bengal of India. Two levels of analyses are distinguished: (l) village as a systemic unit, and (2) individual farmer within the village as a behav- ioral system. The investigation attempts to provide answers to the following questions at the village level: (1) What are the empirical dimensions of the village development? (2) How do village social systems configurate typologically along the dimensions of development? (3) What is the pattern of the outside—village communication linkages? At the farmer level, the following questions are answered: (u) How do within- village interpersonal communication structures, roles and integration among the farmers differ across different village types? (5) What types of farmers in what types of villages constitute what types of communica- tion structures and roles in the interpersonal network? Basic concepts such as communication process, network, role, linkage, development and modernization are explicated. The theoretical perspectives of agricultural development, modernization and social K. S. Sripada Raju change are considered to fOrmulate relevant communication prOpositions. The general hypothesis is stated: Higher the degree of village develop- ment greater is its communication linkage with its environment. Specific empirical hypotheses are derived operationalizing the village development dimensions and communication linking roles. Some exploratory propo- sitions are stated regarding the within-village communication attributes. Phase I (1966) and Phase II (1967) survey of the Diffusion of Innovations in India provided the cross sectional data for the village and farmer analyses. For the village level study 108 villages were selected on a multi-stage sampling basis in the states of Andhra Pradesh, riaharashtra and West Bengal. Seven villages were studied as cases for farmer level study. The number of farmers ranged from.32 to 1H6 in each of the seven villages. The data were collected by personal interview with deveIOpment functionaries, village leaders and farmers. Eleven deveIOpment dimensions were extracted from a set of 57 indicators assumed to measure the domain of village development by using R-Factor analysis. The study confirmed the similarity of village devel— Opment dimensions found in an earlier study. Eight development dimensions were clearly interpretable: (1) Village general development, (2) Man- power-communication resources, (3) Leader change orientation, (H) Leader economic conservatism, (5) Institution handicap, (6) Agricultural devel— opment, (7) Fmdmary education and mechanization, and (8) Mechanization 'with lack of post—primary education. The external communication linkages of the more developed villages were positively maintained through the contacts of the agricultural development functionaries such as the Agricultural Extension Officer (AEO) K. S. Sripada Raju and the Village Level Worker (VLW) as also those of the village leaders. The role of the VLW was relatively strong and direct especially through the demonstrations in the agriculturally developed village whereas the direct linkage of the ABC was relatively weak. The villages with more change-oriented leadership were not neces— sarily linked to the outside system through the development functionaries or though the village leaders. The villages whose leaders were more con— servative in economic matters did not necessarily lack contact with the outside system. Primary education was not an important factor for estab- lishing the communication contacts fOr the village with the external system, Presence of mechanization in the village established some external contact. The Q—type factor analysis yielded three village types and eight farmer types. The case studies in each village type gave the following profiles of the within village interpersonal communication attributes: The type I village had leadership less oriented to change, poor institutional facilities and a low level of agricultural deveIOpment. This type of village showed a dominant regional syndrome of West Bengal. There were a large number of communication groups, small number of dyads, monads and chains. The interpersonal communication integration was medium. It had a large number of intergroup bridge roles, medium number of liaison and centrality roles. The group and dyadic heterophily was very high. Farmer type A (i.e., low in change orientation with moderate control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation) was likely to dominate as the group centrals. Farmer'type B (i.e., high in change orientation with great control over farmxeconomic resources and a K. S. Sripada Raju low degree of social participation) tended to dominate as the group peripherals and isolates. The type II village had leadership less oriented to change but was endowed with better institutional facilities and a moderate level of agri- cultural deve10pment. This type of village indicated a regional syndrome of Andhra Pradesh. There were a large number of chains, dyadic and mon- adic structures but a small number of groups. The communication integra— tion was low. The liaison, intergroup bridge and centrality roles were mediumu the group and dyad heterOphily was medium. The group central dominantly belonged to the farmer type D (i.e., high in change orienta- ‘tion with moderate control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation). The group peripherals also belonged to type D. 'The isolate monad belonged to farmer type F (i.e., modest disposition to— 'wards change with low control over'farmieconomic resources and a low degree of social participation). V The type III village had leadership more favorable to change and a high level of agricultural development though endowed with moderate insti— tutional facilities. This type of village showed a regional syndrome of I€aharashtra. The village scored medium.on group, chain and monadic struc- tures while low on dyads. The communication integration was high. The degree of group and dyad heterophily was low. There was a large number of centrality, liaison and intergroup bridge roles. The type G farmer (i.e., high in change orientation with small control over farm economic resources and a moderate degree of social participation) occupied the group central role. The group peripheral also belonged to the type G. The isolate monad belonged to the farmer type H (i.e., low in change K. S. Sripada Raju orientation with a moderate control over farm economic resources and a low degree of social participation). Communication implications for agricultural development are examined in the light of the typology of villages. VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNICATION PATTERN: A FACTOR ANALYTIC TYPOLOGY OF SELECTED VILLAGES AND FARMERS IN THREE STATES OF INDIA , " By K. S Sripada Raju A.DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1973 Copyright by K. S. SRIRADA RAJU 1973 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Comrmmication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. (4.4 MM, Director of Thesis Guidance Committee: W Vt M- , Chairman Aug. M7703...— gem-gn’ .1.»ng fiend my, SQGK up»? samSwod cease? Dedicated to Seethamma, my Mother AC NJOWLEIISMENT S I must acknowledge my indebtedness to the tradition in India — symbolism, musicology, mysticism and phiIOSOphy. Let me start invoking that awkward fat belly person, Lambodara who is the trouble shooter and solvent of all inquiry and action, and that colorful peacockrrider, Sharada, the inspiring source of all knowledge and conceptualizations. They provide all the spirit and strength to the farmer as well as to me: To the farmer, the subject of my study, to renew his self-reliant strength and c0pe with the vagaries of monsoon, market and political climate; to me to c0pe with the empirical data drudging process and the uncertainties of my experi- mental living cross-culturally, of which this thesis is only a tip of an iceberg. In understanding the nature of reality and life, Sri Shankaralinga Bhagavan Saraswathi Paramahamsa of Komaranahalli, Chitradurga District, Karnataka, India, who was himself an innovator par excellence (A. Raa. se., 1971, p. 36) and to whom my parents introduced.me at my earliest age, has been my living light. To keep up my Spirits many hours I have spent listening to the musical compositions of Purandaradasa, Thyagaraja, Shama Shastry, Muthuswami Deekshitar, Swathi Thirunal, and Pattinatthar sung melodi- ously by Srimathi.M. S. Subbulakshmi. iii I have spent many hours reading Shankara, Allama, Basava, and Mahadevi. They have kept me always renewed and refreshed in my study of rural and forest communities. That tradition has taught me the greatness of scholarship, the pragmatics and philosophy of communica- tion. Professor'M. H; Gopal and Professor 8. V. Ayyar provided me a link to the scholarship in the United States. My scholarly friends Mr. umapathi Sastry and Dr. B. K. Narayan helped me to sustain it. I amlgrateful to all of them. It is said of scholarship [by Mammata (c1100 AmD.)]: .A tiny drOp of good quality work-—that is enough for the scholars. Unknown to jealousy, they'make that drop the very ocean and revel. In the Depart— ment of Communication I found such a community of scholars. I acknowl- edge my gratitude to them. I express my grateful thanks to Dr. R. Vincent Farace, my thesis IDirector and Chairman of my Guidance Committee. He gave me very cordi- ally all the help and recognized the academic freedom and time I needed “to explore my ideas. Whenever I went to him with my load of problems 'written on my face, he decoded those nonverbal cues. His receptivity and enlightened conversation always put me at ease and invariably kept 'up my spirits; his constructive critique and counsel did always help me to strengthen my confidence and increase my competence. Dr. Everett M. Rogers guided me in formulating my research pro- posal, getting access to the data, and was very largely responsible for Iny stay at Michigan State University. Both as the initial Chairman.of zmy Guidance Committee, and as a Committee member subsequently he very readily provided advice in shaping my work amidst his very busy circuits iv across the nations. In him I saw a rare co—existence of a demand for rigorous scholarship and an empathic affection for his students (sishya vaathsalya) . The stream of students that cone to him every day reminded me of the Upanishadic posture of a teacher: Let students seeking truth come to me like water flowing down the stream and like the days rolling into months and years (yathaa aapaha pravathaa yanthi , yathaa masaaha ahagjaram eevam maam bralmnachaarinaha). I express my gratitutde and thanks to him. To Dr. Carl K. Eicher, Dr. William A. Herzog, and Dr. Randall P. Harrison, members of my Guidance Committee I express my appreciation and grateful thanks for the stimulating discussions, critical reviews, comments and suggestions in my work. I must thank Dr. Clyde D. J. Morris who blew off cinders from my mind and Dr. Daniel B. Wackman who offered useful advice in the initial stages of my work. I wish to thank the farmers in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and West Bengal for providing the data, the NICD—MSU-U.S. AID Project authorities for permission to use the data for my thesis. Dr. Prodipto Roy who drew my interest to the village level factor analytic study, Dr. Lalit K. Sen for his encouragement in my advanced studies, Dr. V. M. Mishra for the support when I needed it most, and Dr. Ronald G. Havelock for the research opportunities at the Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, while I was working there. I thank Dr. L. Jaganmohan Rao, Dr. Krishna Kumar, and Dr. Dilip K. Bhowmik for their very friendly help. Dr. Rao and Mrs. Uma Rao offered extraordinary assistance when I was in dire need. Also I V thankfully acknowledge the aid and hospitality given by Mrs. Lalitha and Mr. M. Hanumanthaiya, Mrs. Nalini and Mr. M. Krishnappa, Mrs. Dakshayani and Dr. 0. Ganesh, Mrs. Indu and Dr. Sathyanarayana Rao, Mrs. Kamala and Dr. R. Sathyanarayana, Mrs. Rupina and Mr. P. K. Prabhakar, and Mr. Ghanta S. C. Bose. A Special note of thanks is due to Mr. S. N. Prakash and Dr. S. N. Bhat for their comradeship and conversations lit with wit and wisdom while we were working for Kannada Kuta, a cultural organization to keep ourselves in tact amidst cross—cultural currents. To Mrs. Lillian Manhart and her son Mr. Martin Manhart I express my appreciation and thanks for offering me an idyllic place in their lake-side home near Pinckney where I heard through the ripples of the lake in spring and summer, read through the colorful maple leaves of fall, saw in the snowy white landscape the message of Saraswathi, the muse of knowledge. To tl'e oak, the maple, the weeping willow, the Red Cedar river, the ducks, the squirrels, the robins, the cardinals, the bells of Beaumont Tower, that cheerful body of MSU students--and all tre living and non-living entities in the beautiful Michigan State University campus, I owe a great deal for insight and inspiration. I thank Mrs. Joanne Helfrich for her very ready help in computer programming. My appreciation and thanks are due to Mrs. Rita weigers and Mrs. Ruth Langenbacher for their patience with my confused scripts (one of my friends had nicknamed me as Confusion Achar! ), cooperation and very excellent typing. To Mrs. Judith Osborne, Miss Suzy Pavick and Miss Lynn Langenbacher I express my thanks for their courtsey and help. vi 't To the great people of Miyapura and Thyavanagi (Karnataka, India) I owe a good deal for it is there, I became a part of the working farmer community and culture. I can only acknowledge my deep gratitutde to the great family in the shelter of Oudumbara (Miyapura, Karnataka, India). To my sisters: Gowrakka and Shyamala, to my brother and sister— in law: Murthyanna and Pankajakshamma, to my nieces: Manju, Kumuda, Veena, Sandhya, to my nephews: Gurunatha, Nari, Valla, to my uncle and aunt: Narasimhakakka and Kakki, and to my great friends: Subbanna and all the Purohit brothers, I express my deep love, affection and admira— tion. I am grateful to them for taking care of my mother whom I couLd not serve in times of her need. It is she who brought home to me the meaning of Shankara's expression: “A bad son is sometimes born but never a bad mother" (kuputhroojaayetha kvachidapi, kumaatha panhavathi), and Beveridge's expression: "Mothers are a long suffering race.” With deep love and gratitutde I dedicate my work to her. Tb Smitha who communicated to me constantly so that I exist (sath) in cognition (ghith) consistently Cheerful (agenda) I say onakkam, an expression of affection, love, regard, thanks and all that. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I THE PROBLEM AND THE PURPOSE . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem The Purpose Why This Study? Information Needs of Modern Agriculture Organization of the Thesis II CONCEPTUALIZATION AND HYPOI‘HESIS . . . . . 12 The Approach Necessary Conditions for Human Comunication Participating Systems Communication Arc Network Concepts Necessary Conditions for a Human Communication Network Components of a Human Communication Network Characteristics of Networks Communication Roles in Informal and Formal Organizations Communication Roles in a Network Communication Integration Communication Participant Composition Developmental Communication: Agricultural Development Theory Perspective Social Change Theory Perspective Agricultural Development Theory Perspective Social Change Theory Perspective Communication Propositions The Hypothesis III STUDY DESIGN, DATA SET AND METHODOLOGY . . . 37 General Study Design Data Collection Methods Sampling Procedure Selection of Leaders (Formal and Informal) Data Collection Instruments and Procedures Concept of Development: Types of Variables Variables Relevant to Village Development and Modernization Village Development Variables viii Chapter III (oont'd.) Chapter Page Data Processing and Analytical Procedures IV VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION CONTACT . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 R Factor Analytic Findings Factor I - Village General Development Highest Loadings Other Loadings Factor II - Manpower-Communication Resources Highest Loadings Other Loadings Factor III - Leader Change Orientation Highest Loadings Other Loadings Factor IV - Leader Economic Conservatism Highest Loadings Factor V — Institution Handicap Highest Loadings Other Loadings Factor VI - Leader Economic Risk Orientation Highest Loadings Other Loadings Factor VII - Agricultural DeveIOpment Highest Loadings Other Loadings Factor VIII - Land Resources and Tenancy Highest Loadings Other Loadings Factor IX - Primary Education and Mechanization Highest Loadings Other Loadings Factor X - Mechanization with Lack of Post- primary Education Highest Loadings Other Loadings ix Chapter IV (CCITt 'd.) Chapter Page Factor XI Highest Loadings Other Loadings Summary and Discussion of R Factor Analytic Results Comparison with Previous Factor Analytic Study Selected Development Dimensions Factor Scores of Selected Development Dimensions Empirical Terms Linking Roles Communication Behavior of Linking Roles Development Functionary Linkages Village Leader Linkages Hypotheses Testing Findings Village Institutional Development and External Communication Contact Findings Conclusion Agricultural Development and External Communication Coitact Findings Conclusion Village Manpower - Communication Resources and External Commmicat ion Cont act Findings Conclusion Leader Change Orientation and External Communication Cmtact Findings Conclusion Leader Economic Conservatism and External Communication Contact Findings Conclusion Chapter IV (cont ' d.) Chapter Page Village Primary Education and Mechanization Factor and External Communication Coitact Findings Conclusion Mechanization with Lack of Post —primary Education and External Communication Contact Findings Conclusion V VILLAGESOCIALSYSI'EMTYPOLDGY . . . . . . . . . 132 Towards a Village Typology Analytic Method Results of Q Factor Analysis (three-factor structure) Description of Village Typology Village Social System Type I Village Social System Type II Village Social System Type III Summary of Findings VI COMJNICATION PATTERN AND VILLAGE TYPOLOGY . . . . . 153 Objectives of the Chapter Communication Structure Communication Structure and Communication Network Communication Integration Communication Role Communication Participant Composition Village Typology and Some Communication Propositions Communication Structure Proposition Communication Integration Propositions Communication Role PrOpos it ions Communicat ion Participant Propositions Methodology and Data Selection of Village Social Systems Variables and Operationalization Method of Data Analysis Farmer Composition (Participating System) Variables Findings: Commication Structure xi Chapter VI (cmt ' d. ) Chapter VII Page Village Type I Village Type II Village Type III A Comparison Among the Three Types of Villages Findings: Communication Integration Findings: Communication Role Findings: Participant Corposition Findings: Participant Composition (Village Type II) Findings: Participant Composition (Village Type III) Discussion of Findings Communication Structtme Communication Integration Participant Composition (Type I Village) Participant Composition (Type II Village) Participant Composition (Type III Village) SUMMARY DISOJSSION AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . 218 Summary Discussion Limitations of the Study Implications APPENDICES I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 2 3 8 APPENDIX A Tables APPENDIX B Operationalization and Measurement Procedures of Variables BIBLIOGWE'IY O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 380 Table 10 ll 12 LIST OF TABLES (Appendix A) Data Set for Village Development Dimensions, India, 1966 . . . . . (Appendix A) Basic Statistics and Missing Data on 58 Variables for 108 Villages, India . . . . (Appendix A) Missing Data Substitution and Transformation . . . . . . . . . (Appendix A) Product Moment Correlations Among 58 Variables (Village Development Indicators) for 108 Villages, India, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . (Appendix A) R Factor Structure and Percent of Variance Orthogonally Rotated R Factor Matrix for 57 Village Development Indicators . . . . . . . . (Appendix A) Commurality of Variables in Eleven—Factor %lution . O O O O I I O O O I O O O O Alptabetical List of Variables used in Factor Analysis for Describing Village Development Dimensions . Factor I: Village General Development (VGD) (Variance explained: 8%). . . . . Factor II: Manpower-Communication Resources (MCR) (Variance explained: 696). . . . . Factor III: Leader Change Orientation (LCO) (Variance explained: 696). . . . . . Factor IV: Leader Economic Conservatism (LEE) (Variance explained: 5%). xiii Page 238 2H5 2N7 2H9 257 63 258 67 70 72 75 77 Table 13 1M 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 21+ 26 27 28 29 Factor V: Institution Handicap (IH) (Variance explained: 7%) . . . . . . . Factor VI: Leader Economic Risk Orientation (LERO) (Variance explained: l#95) . . . . . . . . . Factor VII: Agricultural Development (AD) (Variance explained: 6%) . . . . . . Factor VIII: Land Resources and Tenancy (LRT) (Variance explained: |+%) . . . . . . Factor IX: Primary Education and Mechanization (FEM) (Variance explained: 5%) . . . . . . . . . Factor X: Mechanization with Post-Primary Education (MP-PE) (Variance explained: 5%) . . . . . Factor XI: No name (difficult to interpret) (Variance explained: 5%) . . . . . Village Development Dimensions--A Corparative Picture of the Factor Analytic Findings . . . . . . . Selected Village Development Dimensions . . . Village General Development and External Communication wntact C O C O O O O O O O C O O O 0 Village Institutional Development and External Communication Contact . . . . . . . . . Village Agricultural Development and External Communication Contact . . . . . . . . . Village Manpower - Communication Resources and External CommunicationContact . . . . . . . . . . Village Leader Linkage and Manpcnwer—Commmnication Resources............. Village Leader Change Orientation and External Communication Contact . . . . . . . . Village Leader Change Orientation and External CommmicationContact . . . . . . . . . . Village Leader Economic Conservatism and External Communication Contact . . .' . . . . . . . xiv Page 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 9M 97 ' 1014 107 110 113 115 117 119 121 Table 30 Village Leader Economic Conservatism and Development FunctionaryContact . . . . . . . . . . 31 Village Primary Education, Mechanization and External Cormunication Contact . . . . . . 3 2 Village Primary Education, Mechanization and Development Functionary Contact . . . . 33 Village Primary Education, Mechanization and Leader External Communication Contact . . . . . . 31+ Mechanization with Lack of Post- -Primary Education and External Communicat Ion Contact . . 35 Mechanization with Lack of Post-Primary Education and VillageLeaderLinkage . . . . . . . . 36 (Appendix A) Inter-correlation of 100 Villages as Variables with Respect to 57 Development Indicators 3') Orthogonally Rotated Q Factors for Village Typology . . 37A (Appendix A) Q Factor Analysis of 100 Villages (Results of Six Orthogonal Rotations) . . . . . . . . 38 Orthogonally Rotated Factor Matrix for 100 Villages (Three-Factor Solution): Type I village Social Systems. 39 TYpe I village Social Systems . . . . . . ”0 Orthogonally Rotated Factor Matrix for 100 Villages (Three-Factor Solution): Type II Village Social Systems ”1 T'YpeIIVillageSocialSystems . . . . . . . . . ”2 O15*tzhogonally Rotated Factor Matrix for 100 Villages (Three-Factor Solution): Type III Village Social Systems ”3 TYpe III Village Social Systems. . . . . . . . 141+ Description of Village Typology (z scores) . . . . . ”5 TVpe I Village Social System Profile . . . . ”6 TyDe II Village Social System Profile . . . . . ”7 TYPe III Village Social System Profile . . . . . XV Page 122 125 126 127 129 130 261 135 277 136 137 138 139 luo 1141 Inn 1146 1148 150 Table 48 Village Social System Typology: Summary of Findings 49 Village Typology in Succinct Form . . . . . 50 Village Social Systems Selected for Study of Comunicat lon Attributes . . . . . 51 V illage Typology and Communication Structure . . 52 Village Typology and Communication Structural Indices (meanvalues).............. 53 Village Typology and Communication Integration . . . . 514 Village Typolog/ and Communication Role . . . . . 55 A Profile of the Farmer Typology in Village Type I (Mulwa) (z scores) N=6t+ . . . . . . . 56 Composition of Interpersonal Communication Contacts inVillageTypeI........... 57 A Profile of the Farmer Typology in Village Type II (Polamuru) (z scores) N=63 . . . . . 58 Composition of Interpersonal Communication Contacts in Village Type II (Polamuru) . . . . . . . 59 A Profile of Farmer Typology in Village Type III (Pophali) (z scores) N=66 . . . . . . . . . . 60 Composition of Interpersonal Communication Contacts in Village Type III (Pophali) . . . . . . . . . . 61 Case Evidence: Communication Structure . . . . . . 62 Case Evidence: Communication Integration . . . . . 63 CaSe Evidence: Communication Role . . . . . . . . 61+ SUIInary of Village Typology, Farmer Typology and icationAttributes . . . . . . . . . . Page 152 162 175 179 191 191 192 19+ 198 200 202 205 208 210 211 213 222 LIST OF FIGURES figures 1 ReseaI‘Ch-PIECtiCB-EffECt CYCle o o o o o o o o 2 A Model of Human Communication . . 3 Sociogram IA (Type I Village: Mulwa (Maharashtra) FarmingAdviceNetmrk . . . . . . . . . ‘i Sociogram 18 (Type I Village: Kanchumarru (Andhra Pradesh) Farming Advice Network . . . . . . 5 Sociogram IIC (Type II Village: Polamuru (Andhra Pradesh) Farming Advice Network . . . . . 6 Sociogram IID (Type II Village: Manchili (Andhra Pradesh) Farming Advice Network . . . . . 7 Sociogram TIE (Type II Village: Harishpur (West Bengal) Farming Advice Network . . . . . . 8 Sociogram IIIF (Type II Village: Pophali (Maharashtra) FarmingAdviceNetwork . . - . - - - - - . 9 Sociogram IIIG (Type III Village: Laxmidanga (West Bengal) Farming Advice Network . . . . . . . xvii Page 16 180 182 183 185 ‘ 186 188 190 CHAPTERI THE PROBLEM AND THE PURPOSE statemerrt of the Problem What are the empirical dimensions of village development? Hm do Village social systems differ along the dimensions of development? Ho» do communication structures differ across different types of village social system? How are the farmers located in the network of communica- tion relations with other farmers in different village types? Given the operation of farmer interpersonal contacts, extension personnel contacts and mass media institutions, how can we describe the information flow process among the farmers differentiated in terms of their socioeconomic and Change orientation characteristics? The Pu1"pose To seek answers to some of the foregoing questions, conceptually and emPiI‘ically, is the purpose of the present investigation. Specifi- ca11y Stated, the purpose of the dissertation is two—fold: (l) to conceptualize communication linkages as related to a typology of village social systems in terms of devel— opment dimensions , and (2) to analyze communication linkages among farmers in selected villages of India, using variations in a 1 2 typology of village social systems, and a typology of farmers within villages as the major bases for differentiating among the communication patterns. Why This Study? Given that the agricultural professionals working among the farmer‘s do not have sufficient time and resouroes to reach personally each and every farmer, what predictions can we make regarding the message flow arrong the farmers living in a village system to "optimize" pro- fessional contact? Given different modes of communication contacts (formal extension organization, mass media institutions, informal friend- ship arnd kinship networks), what regularities do we expect in the com- municat ion contacts of the farmers with the deve10pment functionaries at different levels in the extension organization, the exposure to mass 3891a, and the participation in different kinds of networks? Answers to Sudl questions are of practical importance to the agricultural pro— fessionals, and also of theoretical interest to the students of farming commities, organizations and communication. F or the agricultural.extension professional, the first problem is to idEBI‘ttify the on-going communication lines of the farmers among whom he is w01-"}<:I'.1'ng. If he thinks that the existing communication lines are unsuitable to design new plans and programs, or to send new messages, them the problem of streamlining the communication structure to suit the floz of new information has to be tackled. He can "optimize" the infor— matlon flow among the members of a farming community by channeling the 3”formation through those who occupy central positions in the communication ,- ... . ..... - o .u- .a ._' '1.- . ‘91 ~c~ c.‘ _ ._ - . "\ ' '- \~* |~ ~ 3 network and througn organizational leaders. But he should also be aware of the nature of distortion* that accompanies information dif- fusion through different channels. This knodedge is basic in devising differern‘t communication strategies which combine the elements of utmost credibility, least cost, least message distortion, and maximum beneficial outcome for a given audience. A parsimonious description of the farmers that are interlinked, and an analysis of the structural features of communication linkages, enable the professional to disseminate effectively new knowledge and reinforce or change the ideas and practices already introduced into the farmer community. Further, it is useful to know the communication link— ages of persons and groups in a given social system. This enables us to evaluate the relative effectiveness of mass media like radio, print, film and television in disseminating farm information in varied social stmct ural contexts . InfOI‘m-ation Needs of Modern Agriculture The agricultural information“ needs of subsistence farmers are, by and large, limited to manage the farm inputs familiar to them through .\ i: . Different degrees of skills and knowledge in the network, the :2“: of relations, attitudes and expectations of persons are likely fefirt the encoding and decoding process. This process is likely to maulRSI—1'1 the deletion or addition of sone details in a given message, or their“ alteration. ‘ *9: In this thesis, by the term "agricultural information," we mean all thOSe ket' messages relevant to the farmer in the production and mar- mg of agricultural crops . $21945 The construct of "information" is many—Sided. Cherry (1966, pp. 6) distinguishes three levels of information correSponding to the - .- u .- .._ -a A- ~ L} herditary farming. Consider, for example, the management of physical inputs such as seeds, mantmes and farm equipments. For the most part, the farflers preserve the needed seeds from previous harvests or may get them in exchange for ungraded consumption seed stocks from their neighbors. They make the manures domestically by using farm and anmestic wastes. They depend on village artisans for fabricating farm instrunernts and equipments. Animal and human labor are the main energy base f or- agricultural Operations. Information on the use and management processes of these inputs is part of family and local ecological tra- dition - For example, in some farming communities farm products such as dung and plant stumps have varied uses, e. g. , for conpost mnanure, domestic fuel and housing material. Anthropological and sociological studies of farming communities in the less developed countries describe the formation of groups and lines of communication in terms of kinship, clan, caste, tribe, physical pmpinquity, and other sociological relations (Firth, 19 36; Maj umdar, x three levels of semiotic--the syntactic, semantic, and pragnatic levels. At the Syntactic level, the patterns of matter—energy units essentially “PIPE?“ signs and statistical relations between signs. Given a set of dlscrlmiInable matter-energy units, and, at minimum probabilities of occurrence and non-occurrence other than 0 to 1, then information (Berlo, 1970’ Do III—10). At the semantic level, the pattern of matter-energy Wilts are about something other than the signs. At the pragmatic level 3:245:58“ of matter—energy units and their statistical relations have d g to do with the subjective expectations, needs, values, Skills, an Pmblems of the participating systems . Morris (1968) describes four ways (I1, 12, I3, I”) in which the :TtHIDformation" (I) has been explicated during the last 20 years: 11 mtioatlStical information. I2 may be looked at as "pieces of infor- ima .rn OI: as Brillou1n's "absolute information"--any’thlng creative or mfgmatTVE that adds to a given body of knowledge. I is distributed maturatlon that spreads to more than one person. In, is the informatlon re ates to the state of the communication system. 5 195 8; Mayer, 1966). Given the low level of agricultural technology, the information flow process in subsistence agriculture has mainly been canfined to the closely knit circuit of family, the geographically con- tiguous system called the village, the extended family kinship, and the loosely organized market system. The son relies on the father's wisdom and experience for agri- cultur'al knowledge. The present generation of farmers looks to its elders and the accumulated wisdom of previous generations for advice and infoth ion. The communication network which does not spread geograph- ically far beyond the kinship ties among farmers serves their agricul— tural information needs also. However, migrant farmers in the village may add a new channel or a new source of agricultural information which may Widen the resevoir of information and diversify its sources. As the transformation of agriculture from subsistence to com— IIEICiiL farming takes place, modernization processes* among farmers set in. The modernization process in agriculture is characterized by four main Elements: (1) the changing nature of agricultural inputs (e.g., seeds, plant nutrients, energy bases, operating skills and cultivation practices), (2) the changing supply sources of agricultural inputs (e.g., MUfactufing plants, marketing networks for agricultural inputs, irri- \ are 1966- The concept of modernization is multi-dimensional (see fiisenstadt, th ’ Weiner, 1966; Rogers, 1969). Black (1966) defined modernization as e.pm0ess by which historically evolved institutions are adapted to the rigidly Changing functions that reflect the unprecedented increase in . the: blmledge, permitting control over his environment, that accompanied of a C2}€Bl'ntlflc revolution. .Mellor (l967) represents the modernization a fmm?ulture by.a production function depicting agricultural output-as timaitlon of various inputs, the 11614 inputs being largely of an institu- 1nature, including research, education and communications facilities. 6 gation systems, agricultural training schools and agricultural experi— mental stations), (3) the changing mode of agricultural output disposal (e. g. , warehousing, transport and marketing processes), and ('4) the organizational complexities affecting the decision-making processes in farming business. In the process of change an interplay of the foregoing elements gets embedded in a continuously) larger network of social, political and economic relations (Wharton, 1969, pp. 15-16). The decision-making processes at the farm level become increas- ingly sensitive to what happens in the market, manufacturing, finance and cor-edit sectors, agricultural research centers, legislatures and administrative services. The farm folk—wisdom needs to be substituted and/or complemented by the body of scientific lcnowledge of agriculture generated in the areas affecting the farmer's decisions. 80 the infome- tim flow processes for modernized agriculture, as in other substantive 81938 (e.g. , education, industry and medicine), involve a linkage with the rasearch point of the researdn—practice—effect cycle (Figure 1). New agricultural information, technological and farm management methods relevant to the farmer to cope with the modernizing agricultural SYStem originate mainly from outside the farmer's kinship and local r)‘J'ighbor‘hood system though the information reaches him after mediation by the familial kirnship and friendship networks. As the farmer improves his communication skills in retrieving and decoding new information, his UtilJ:Za’tion of the potential sources of new agricultural information (me the formal extension organizations, broadcast, print and other mass media institutions) become more effective. As the degree of infor— “atlon utilization increases, the lumpy overhead costs involved in .maozo poomeImOHpompmngvamommm .H onswam Loammmmm mafiocsm sonoczowB ocm >pdsomm evammmmm. mmwdeOHLm mommz pomecoaw>cm Hmoamoaoom new cowymosom anocoom amaoom Hooasaaoa mpommmm pommmm mm: 09 me: om: ow 30m coaumocmEEoomm om: ow cons pom coapmsam>m mm: 09 memes Homeaoao>mm on: 0p woes eohmommm umcaxmzuCOflmHomo mpmfihmm K33pm ..~ 8 creating and maintaining the information systems are matched with the greater increments of benefits accruing to the farmer and the community. The information "explosion" in agriculture has been one of the main contributing factors to the "Green Revolution" of the later 1960's in the South Asian countries. This explosion has taken place at different levels in the macro-system of agricultural production where agricultural scientists, technologists, agricultural statesmen, administrators, extension personnel and farmers have all played their key roles in the agricultural transformation (Brown, 1970; U. 8. Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs, 1970; Raju, 1971). From the point of view of farm production, the impact of agricul- tural information on the farmer is of prime importance. The cognitive, motivational and performance system of the farmer can be modified by information: information can create awareness of new alternatives available to him, affect the probability of his choice among a given set of alternatives, motivate him to modify his value system, reorder his priorities, and enable him to improve his skills and capacities to manipulate and control his action environment . What is even more important from the vieWpoint of self-sustained agricultural growth, is the process of information exchange or trans- action. Who takes the initiative in information transaction? How frequently does it take place and in what location? What kind of infor— mation is transacted, in what language, in what medium? What roles are involved, and under what terms and canditions? To the extent the agricultural information originates in the social system components such as the family, village and kinship, it is _.~ 9 very likely that the information is mostly in oral form and depends on the interpersonal network for its flow. As the new agricultural informa- tion originates in the agricultural researdn centers, however, or flows from those enterprising farmers who are outside the kinShip and the village, we need to look at the communication linkages of the village to outside systems. We have to ask ourselves the following questions to identify some elements that affect the structure and process of the inter-system cmmunication linkages: What are the dimernsions or types of information provided by modern agriculture? How does this information enter into the user or the client system, i.e., the farmers? What are the dnaracteristics of the networks that transmit the information among the farmers? What is the nature of the medium and the format of the message? What are the communication roles played by the "outsiders" and "insiders" as related to the village social system in the information fldfl process? Do those farmers who play distinct communication roles differ from other farmers in the use of different sources and channels of information? Do these communica- tion roles facilitate the flow of information into and through the system? What are the communication styles (frequency, continuity and source of initiation of communication) of the facilitating communication roles? These questions have immediate and continued relevance to the agri- cultural development planners. The present study does not deal with all the foregoing questions. It is limited to the communication pattern in the village social system, differentiated in terms of development, its communication linkages with the outside system, the communication structure, role, integration among 10 the farmers within the village and also the composition of the farmers that constitute the interpersonal communication network in the village. Thus we distinguish two levels for the purpose of the present investigation: (1) the village as a systemic unit whose components are economic and social institutions, organizational dnaracteristics, leadership profile and communication envirmment, and (2) the individual farmer as a behavioral system whose components are his social psychological dispositions, economic and social characteristics, demographic characteristics , and communication contacts . Organization of the Thesis We stated in Chapter I the problem and the purpose of the present investigation . Chapter II presents basic concepts of communication process, net- work and propositions derived from a theory of development and modernization. In Chapters III, IV and V we consider village social system as the unit of study for describing the communication contacts. In Chapter III we deal with the study design, research site, data collection methods and the variables used in the study. An "R" factor analytic procedure is used for data reduction and description of village development dimensions in Chapter IV. Correla- tional analysis is used to test the statistical hypotheses relating the development dimensions to external communication contacts of the village. .-. a. . .\_ 7,. ‘V. s 11 Chapter V is devoted to data reduction using the "Q" factor analytic method to describe a village social system typology. In Chapter VI farmer as an individual behavioral system is con— sidered as the unit of study for describing the interpersonal communica- tion contact, structure and composition. Sociogram analysis is employed to describe the communication structure and to examine the empirical propositions relating the typology of village and internal interpersonal communication structure. Q factor analytic design is used for data reduction and description of farmer typology. In Chapter VII we summarize the study, discuss the findings and present our conclnaions with implications for further research. CHAPTER II CONCEPIUALIZATION AND HYPOI‘HESIS This chapter has four purposes: (1) to provide a set of con- cepts for formulating communication prospositions relevant to village deveIOpment and farmer modernization, (2) to develop a theoretical per- Spective for establishing the relevancy and choice of variables in the aralysis of village development and modernization processes, and (3) to state a general hypothesis for testing against the empirical evidence. The Approach The approach taken here is to consider the cormnunicat ion structure* and process“ from a "systems perspective." General systems theory is useful for conceptualizing the more complex belavior of social systems of which communication structure and process are important components. One method*** of general systems theory is a deductive scheme which starts a Patterning of recurring and ongoing communication" (Watzlawick, 1967, p. 118). as Process is an ongoing relational transaction in the context of specified dimensions. 322'”: Another method is empirico—intuitive. It takes the world as we find it, examines the various systems that occur in it and then draws 12 13 with a set of postulates and definitions about systems"‘ and generates hypotheses regarding relations among the components. We propose to adopt this approach in formulating the problem for our investigation. m: Our model represents a system which conSists of some components that are interconnected and oriented to a common goal. In general, following Smith and Hunt (19 70) we say a system is a set Z = (S, P, F, M, T, G) where S = a set of system state functions P = a set of input value functions (stimuli) F = a set of Specified input value functions relevant to a specified sequence of time M = a set of changes in system states as a result of interaction of inputs and initial system state T = a set of time values setting the frame of reference with reference to which system is operating G = a set of rules which tells us how to find a new system state given a current system state and the input. To formulate a problem specifically for investigation one of the procedures in systems analysis is to specify the variables of the system up statements about the regularities that have been observed to hold (Bertalanfy, 1962). a: "A system is a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes" (Hall and Fagen, 1956, p. 81). The components are parts of a given system. E.g. , consider a number of farmers in a village. Let us suppose they receive messages in print relating to farming from an agricultural experimental station. They talk to the workers at the experimental station regarding their farming problems. The interaction between the agricultural experimental station people and the farmers may be conceptualized as a communication system. The writers of pamphlets in agricultural experimental station are one component. The farmers may be considered as another component, and so on depending on how we formulate the problem for study. 19 (Carroll and Farace, 1968, p. 27). In the present study, we are mainly interested in the systemnstates specified at two levels: The village social systemnand.the farmer~as an individual behavioral systemh Chapter III deals with the Specification of the variables con- sidering the village as a social systemh In Chapter VI variables are specified considering the farmer‘as an individual behavioral systemh In this Chapter5 we would like to lock at the concept of system state in terms of the following: (1) the state of communication arcs* of the village social systemnwith its environment, (2) the state of communication arcs of the individual farmers within the village social system, (3) the state of interpersonal communication contacts as measured by structural and role indices,** and (H) the state of'network participant composition as measured in terms of the types of farmers in the village social systemm Structure: The termn"structure" is used here in a very general sense to refer to a systemnof relatively stable, enduring relationships among an identifiable set of elements. The elements of a structure may be social psydhological attributes (e.g., cognition and beliefs), complex concepts of group Characteristics, information seeking behavior, ini- tiating talk, manipulating symbols, expression of liking or disliking of persons or'events of any kind (Peak, 1958). In analyzing the structure (of a system, we may fCCUS on the relations among the elements with respect to a designated attribute at a given point in time (Hare, 1960, p. 10). ’o hSee page 17 for definition. "”See Chapter VI. 15 For purposes of our present investigation, we consider the communica— tion structure as one of the attributes within the village. Necessary Conditions for Human Communication A static analysis of a cormunication transaction shows that there should be minimally four components representing specific levels of organization and system complexity: l. Participating System A 2. Participating System 8 3. Message ”1 1+. Medium M2 If A (one participating system) makes available Ml (a message) to 8(another participating system) through M2 (a medium) then we say a com- munication arc or line is formed between A and g. A process approach to communication enables us to look at the transaction beginning from any of the other components (see Figure 2). We need not necessarily be restricted to a unidirectional and linear approach (Watzlowick, 1967, p. Ll6; Berlo, 1970; Harary and Havelock, 1971). Given a Specific context, "Who says what, in which channels to nfnom with what effect" (Lasswell, 19%) , each of the four components may be analyzed further. Let us look at the components: (1) participating systems, and (2) the communication arc. Participating Systems In human communication the participating systems may vary in the degree of complexity from an individual person to an entity like a nation or a larger aggregate. In the context of the present study, as we have 16 m Edvmhm mfipmcwoflfimm .m. so 5 coves 08m o5 mo Human... ‘ .cofimoacEEoo agar mo Hoooz < m Empmsm wfigoo och coflmowéaoo ohm conscious—=00 d 509m #50 spawns \ #05 9am. 9.3 “so urnmd .N am fl. :8ng Emcwoflbdc 17 mentioned earlier, we conceptualize the participating systems at two levels: (1) the village social system, and (2) the farmer as a behavioral system. For each of the foregoing systems we must specify the S (a set of system state) functions. We propose to Specify the S function for the village social system in terms of its level of develOpment (see Chapter III and IV). Degree of modernization in terms of change orientation (as one of the dimensions) is used to specify the S function for the farmer as a behavioral system (see Chapter VI). The selection of relevant vari- ables to describe the state of the participating systems and the appropri— ate data analytic techniques to analyze the structural relations among the variables form the subject matter of Chapter III througn Chapter VI. Comminication Arc By communication arc we mean the coupling of the participating systems through a message-medium system. Two components of the communi- cation arc or line may be analyzed: (1) that part of the arc that issues out from A (see Figure 2), (2) that part of the arc taken in by A assum- ing that the participating system A is sending the message. Each of the components of the communication arc or line is termed as demiarc or half-line (Harary and Havelock, 1971): the outgoing demiarc as "male" and the incoming demiarc as "female." "Male Half-line" or "Male Demiarg": If A has the desire or capa- city to give a message (Ml) to A through a medium (M2) then we say a "male half-line" ( ——9) exists between A and _B_ (A ——) B). "Pimple Half-line" or"Female Demiarc": If A has the desire or Capacity to ask for or receive a message (Ml) from A (through a medium 18 (M2) then A is said to have a "female half-line" 0—) for A's message (A)— B). The communication arc is the basic ingredient for the concept of communication network . Network Concepts Information transaction through networks forms a substantial domain of man's communication styles. Farming communities are no exception. The abstract concepts used in network analysis help us to under- stand the human communication network, and to formulate some propositions relating the characteristics of a village social system to its internal interpersonal communic ation network . Following Frank and Frisch (1970) , we define the concepts in network analysis, in a general way, as folloos: liodi: A node may be the source (A) of message flow, a terminal (0) where the message is received, or a point (0) through which it passes. Nodes: A Source 0 Terminal (Receiver) 0 Other Branch: A branch couples the two points or nodes to transmnit the message . Branch : A a Path: A path is a subset of the network. It is a Specific sequence of nodes through branches, that connects a given point of message source Network : 19 and a point of message receiver. There may be several paths in a network. A network is a set of nodes connected to one another by branches. Network: 0/): Necessary Conditions for a Human Communication Network In the context of the human communication process, we may define a network as a set of two or more persons or other entities of human organization where they are directly or indirectly interconnected for transacting symbolic information. Katz (1966) defined network as a set of persons who can "get in touch with each other." "Getting in touch" may include indirect as well as direct interaction. Components of a Human Communication Network Pres: ii.- A dyad is the branch of a network. There Should be at least two human systems of Specified level and complexity, that comprise the network as "contacts"; they are the members of the network (Katz, 1966, p. 203). A chain is the path of a network. If 2 number of persons in a communication network are interconnected at given points in time through indirect relations (A -—98 -—+ C -——-> . . .n) A network may comprise Clique : h“ 20 we call this a chain. If three or more persons have a communica- tion contact configuration where at least two or more members seek information from a same node or a person, then it is a group. Given two or more systems in interaction, if we find evidence for the existence of reciprocity in giving and receiving information among them then we say there is a linkage. Linkage: A :7 B In the linkage process, when the transaction between A and A are observed over time, we find B extending the male demiarc, and A, the female demiarc. one or more linkages. In a given network, if we observe the communica— tion linkages among "contacts" we may find some members who interact with each other relatively more frequently than with other members in the network. We call this structural unit of mutually interacting members a clique* (Festinger, Shacter, and Back, 1950: Farace and Morris, 1969). Linkage is a necessary condition for a clique. a . . Festinger and others give a more limited definition of a clique by llmu-ng the number of members to three or more. 21 Isolate: In a given social system, if a member does not get in touch with any other member for a given communication event at a Specified interval of time with respect to a given issue'then that member is an isolate. Characteristics of Networks Given an interpersonal network, we may describe it from the point of view of the ego or a designated person in the network. The ego's network consists of all the other persons or the "contacts" with whom he can get in touch. The "contacts" may be ego's kinsmen, professional colleagues, neighbors, or any other categories of persons (Katz, 1966, p. 203). We may distinguish, following Katz (1966) , from the point of view of the ego, some categories of networks. Potential or possible networks: Potential networks refer to all possible networks likely to be formed in a given cultural, technological, ecological, economic, social and institutional environment. They are communication paths, but may seldom be used. These paths can be Shown for a given person in a community by raising the communication contact matrix to (N-l) various powers. For example, any citizen in a democratic nation may establish contact with his national leaders. But not all the citizens do 80. Again, an illiterate, poor farmer engaged in “primitive" farming may exchange farming information with farmers who are technologically advanced and economically affluent. In actuality this network may not likely to be formed. . " s- "o ’h-- . .‘y “.‘ “ ~.. ‘. 't..‘ V"‘- \ . .,_ . - 22 Actual networks: Actual networks refer to the "contacts" latent and activated, direct and indirect, who are currently in ego's networks. It is the "social field" (Lewin, 1936) or the "influence domain" (Lin, 1968, p. 125) in which the ego is communicationally involVed at given points in time with respect to a given issue. It may include trans- actions of the face—to—face type as well as other mediated communication; it may comprise different kinds of networks serving different purposes, and many times, there may be an overlap among them. These networks may transcend local community. Network state: Networks may be distinguished in terms of the degree of live and dormant state of their activization. Certain net- works begin to operate whenever a relevant issue or a need for them arises. For instance, some networks which are relevant for political information and influence get activated during political campaigns and voting season. Unexpected news events may set in motion a hitherto dormant network (Spitzer and Spitzer, 1965). Among farmers, for example, specific agricultural information needs may make a network become func- tional and live. If the farmer‘s purpose is to transact social or religious ideas and tasks then the agricultural information network may be irrelevant. Another network relevant to social or religious purpose is activated. Katz (1966) makes a continuous—discontinuous dichotomy arong the "contacts" that form the basis for networks. A continuous network is one where the relationship among "contacts" is in a state of activation. Each participant is actively oriented to send and receive messages. A discontinuous network is subject to deactivation. 23 Our'present study deals with an actual and a live agricultural production information network among farmers in seven villages of India. Communication Role In addition to structural concepts we consider the concepts of communication role and integration in the present investigation. 5212; In general terms, we define role as a behavior set of a person or an entity occupying a defined position in an interaction rela— tion with other'positions or persons or entities in a given organization, informal or formed” The termlrole is in usage reflecting different conceptualizations based on the needs, expectations and actions of the entity in position. Deutsch and Krauss (1965) make a distinction among prescribed role, sub- jective role and enacted role. A.prescribed role consists of a system of expectations Shared by persons in the social world surrounding the occupant of a position (Hare, 1960). A subjective role refers to the Specific expectations perceived by the occupant of a position applicable to his own behavior in his interaction with other‘positions. An enacted role consists of specific overt behaviors of the occupant of a position vmen he interacts with the occupants of some other position. The perspective taken in the present investigation is in accord widnthe concept of enacted role. We focus mainly on the dimension of theemacted role which we label for our purpose as communication role. Communication role is a set of behaviors a given individual CfififldfiStO process symbolic information in a given role set. We con- camuflize communication roles in two ways: (1) by virtue of the enacted nflecm a person in an informal or formal organization, and (2) by 2'4 virtue of his structural location within a communication network. Communication Roles in Informal and Formal Organizations The communication roles in an organizational structure may be described by virtue of the nature of the informal or the formal func— tions a person performs in an organization. These roles are predom— inatly concerned with the processing of symbolic information. Havelock (1969, pp. 7—2 to 7—15), lists a typology of such roles interlirnking the systems involved in knowledge building and knowledge utilization. A subset of such roles relevant to the communication pro— cesses in farming communities are mentioned here: Conveyor: Conveyor, or information carrier (Rao, 1966) is one who seeks information and takes the initiative in informing others about events or products or processes. In a formal organization like agri- cultural extension service, a subject—matter specialist may play this role. Consultant: This role facilitates in analyzing a specific Situation of a given client system, e.g. , farmers, industrialists, patients, and enables the client system seeking information to make efficient evaluations and decisions. A farmer may seek the help of a professional eXpert or an experienced farmer for dealing with a Specific problem such as water management or land development. m: By virtue of his power and influence, an individual in a given social system affects the knowledge levels, motivations, atti- tudes, eXpectationS and overt behaviors of other members within the _->. 25 range of his influence. Concepts suCh as "Opinion Leader" (Lazarsfeld, 1948), "Star" (Menzel and Katz, 1955), "Information Man" (American Psy— chological Association, 1963), "Key Communicator" (Jacobs and others, 1966), "Informal Educator" (Wenridh and others, 1969), "Information Influential" (Morris, 1960), and "Central Communicator" (Blake, 1970) have provided empirical evidence to the communication role of a leader. A communication leader (GuimaraES, 1970) is a person who is looked upon by his peers as both a.recipient and a source of information. The concept of f0rmal leaders (Ashby, 1962) suggests that the formally constituted leaders (e.g., elected leaders and appointed leaders) have an important communication role in affecting the credibility of the message, opening up formal channels for communication transactions and disseminating information in a Specified organization. They act as "funnels" through Which all infOImation flows into the formal organization. Gatekeeperu The concept of gatekeeper (Lewin, 1951, pp. 176-187; Allen, 1966; Allen and then, 1969) emphasizes the set of norms, rules and procedures embodied in a particular‘role acting as a facilitator or as a barrier fbr‘the flow of information. Innovator: An innovator is defined as one who is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas and practices in a social systemnand Who exposes other'members to the first consequences of the innovation adoption (Rogers, 1962; Havelock, 1969). Defender: The concept of "resistor" (Ross and others, 1968) and "defender" (Havelock, 1969) is used to describe the role of a person who Champions the client against the innovation. He challenges the "change agents" and the innovators. He is always on.watch to forsee the dangers and undesirable consequences of new ideas and practices. 26 Commmicat ion Roles in a Network One of the role sets considered in this study is the position of a person in a given communication network. Let us consider the locations of persons in a formal or informal organization in terms ‘of information seeking and information giving activities. We assume that some individ- uals locate themselves in places which are structurally distinct and functionally differentiated. These positions may be defined in terms of communication transactions. In considering the positions we may make a distinction between formal and informal role structure. In formal role structme of an organization, there is a public, recognized, and sanc- tioned "official" role written or unwritten in the charts and conventions of the organization based on the principle of division of labor. In the informal role structure, the roles are identified based on the actual pattern of the individual's communication practices, and his choices of members in giving and seeking information. The roles that so emerge are "unofficial" 0r informal. I Three communication roles derived from the informal information seeking activities of the members of a social system are considered here. They are: centrality role, liaison role, and bridge role (MacDonald, 19 70) . The centrality role refers to a configuration of communication trans- actions where a person or an entity occupying the position is relatively nearer to all other persons or positions in terms of communication proximity. In other words, the most central position is the one closest to all other positions. Operationally, communication centrality is the length of the communication chain involved in influencing other members in a given 27 network (Lin, 1968). In the experimental studies of small group communication net- works, centrally located persons have been found to send more messages than those of their more peripheral colleagues. Nbre central positions in networks are more highly regarded, and their occupants are more likely to be seen as group leaders (Bavelas, 1950; Leavitt, 1951; Shaw, 19614). The liaison role refers to the communication position of an indi- vidual or entity that inter-links two or more persons, or other entities who would have been isolated in the absence of that linking position. Another characteristic of the liaison role is his low or no participa- tion in any of within group transactions. (Jacobson and Seashore, 1951; Weiss and Jacobson, 1955; Schwartz, 1968; MacDonald, 1970; Amend, 1970). The bridge role combines membership and participation in two or EDIE E2&S 0 Communication Integration Given a social system (defined as a complex of elements with norms, roles and expectations standing in interaction striving towards a common goal) we may look at the communication processes in the social system involving different communication roles. The concept of communication integration relates to these communication processes among the sub—systems of a system. Integration,* in general, can be defined as an on-going process 5: Integration is a multi-dimensional concept. At least three dimensions of integration have been theoretically identified; normative integration, functional integration, and communicative integration (Guimaraes, 1970). 28 of making relatively separate parts into a whole. Communication inte- gration is defined as the degree to which the sub-systems and elements of a communication gistem are structurally interlinked (Guimaraes, 19 70). The communication behavior of the conveyors, consultants, leaders, gatekeepers, innovators, defenders, network—centrals, liaison persons and bridge roles are relevant in determining the degree of both internal and external integration of a social system. They provide the communication arcs for information dissemination. Considering the level of village social system development, we can postulate a certain degree of village external and internal communication integration. The village has in its environment other systems from which extrinsic message inputs (e.g. , mass media, information from extension organization) are available to it. The communication interconnectedness of the village with the exogenous systems we may refer to as external integration. The within-village communication connectedness of the farmers we may refer to as internal integration. It is the degree to which the individual farmers in the village are interconnected into a whole. Communication Participant Composition Within a village the farmers who are members of an interpersonal communication system are likely to show differences in terms of their socioeconomic characteristics. We propose to evolve an empirical typ- ology of farmers to describe the communication participant composition. If the composition of groups and dyads show a high degree of dissimilarity or heterogeniety in terms of the types of farmers we then consider the participant composition to indicate a high degree of heterophily. 29 What can we say about the internal and external communication integration, communication network, structural differentiation, roles, and network participant composition in the context of the level of village development and degree of farmer modernization? 'I‘or deducing testable propositions we have to look toward a theory. The relevant theoretical orientation to the problem under present investigation is derived from the theory of agricultural development and modernization. The terms "development" and "modernization" without reference to an entity and a sector of attributes are ambiguous. The term deve10pment may be used to indicate the structural and functional differentiations and of resource capacities of a system in its Operation for realizing the system's goals at varying rates. The term "modernization" may be used to indicate the general process of change in social psychological tendencies and man-environment relations at a specified level of observation and sector of analysis. Agricultural Development Theory Perspective Mellor (1967, p. 21) articulated the elements of a theory of agricultural development in terms of three interrelated parts: (1) the role of agriculture in economic development, (2) the economic nature of traditional agriculture, and (3) the economic process of modernizing agriculture. It is the economic process of modernizing agriculture, one of three elements, that is relevant to us here for postulating a set of communication propositions. 30 Let us consider the main proposition of the process of modem- izing agriculture focusing on the farmers as entrepreneurs and managers at the farm level. We summarize the proposition in the following way: Proposition 1: A0 = f (I, R, P, M, F, E, S, C) which says that agriculture output (A0) is a ftmction of a set of interrelated functions, where: A0 agricultural output I a set of incentive functions R = a set of research functions P = a set of physical input functions, (e. g. , seed, water, fertilizer, power, land, pesticides, tools and equipment) = a set of market functions a set of finance functions F1 ”1 Z n = a set of education functions 8 = a set of service functions C = a set of comrmmication functions Considering the communication component of the agricultural development proposition, Mellor states in his model of agricultural modernization: the main functions of the communication system are (l) to make farmers become aware of new alternatives, (2) inform them how these alternatives work under village conditions, and (3) make the farmers under— stand the reasons for their success or failure with the innovations. We consider two subsets of the communication component affecting the agricultural development: (1) communication contacts of a village 31 social systemlwith its environment and (2) interpersonal ccmmmmication contacts among the farmers within a village social systemn Social Change Theory Perspective In analyzing the process of social change, we may look at three levels: (1) the individual and the environment, (2) the interaction between or'among the individuals, and (3) the social system defined along a continuumlof a small group to a large world aggregate. At each of these levels, psychological theories, social psychological theories and sociological theories have offered explanations for the process of social change. In the present investigation, our analytical interests are at the village level (as an aggregate social system) and at the level of the farmer (as an interactive behavioral system). The relevant social change theories for'the foregoing two levels come fromtthe sociological and social psyCholOgical perSpectives. Appelbaum (1970) summarized the dominant paradigms* (models which give rise to particular echerent traditions of scientific researCh) of social change: (1) evolutionary theories, Characterized primarily by the assumptions of cumulative change, often in smooth, linear fashion always in the direction of increasing complexity and adaptability; (2) equilibrium.theory, Characterized by the concept of homeostasis and Kuhn (1970, pp, 181—187) considers paradigm as "disciplinary matrix” and labels its constituents: symbolic generalizations, beliefs in particular’models, values related to predictions (accuracy, error, simplicity, consistency and plausibility) and the exemplars (the concrete prOblem—solutions). 32 focusing on conditions tending towards stability as a consequence; (3) conflict theory, characterized by the assumptions that change is endemic to all social organizations , and focusing on conditions that tend towards instability as a consequence; and (1+) "rise and fall" theories, that civilizations regress as well as grow-that all societies do not move in the same direction. Among the social change theories, we find it heuristically useful for the present investigation to work within the paradigm of evolutionary theory of social change. The main emphasis in this theory is on the magnitude and the direction of change at the social system and individual levels from a technologically simple, organizationally more self- sufficient and relatively slow rate of change to a more complex, inter— dependent and rapid change encompassing the style of man's life (Parsons, 1966). The propositions related to change processes in farming communities of the less developed countries have been discussed under the rubrics, "persistence and change among the peasant populations" (Wolf, 1966) and "modernization among peasants" (Rogers, 1969). Commun- ication factors as correlates of development and modernization have been articulated in the framework of this paradigm. Broadly, we categorize the conceptualization of modernization process into two: (1) unilinear and modernity-tradition dichotomy (polar opposite) and (2) non-linear and cmfigurational. The former approach derives its ideas from the works of sociologists sudm as Maine, Morgan, Weber, Tonnies, and Durkheim. It assumes that the change process involves a movement from one pole to another which contains mutually exclusive societal qualities. Lerner (1956) developed the bipolar model of modernization further 33 enumerating the prerequisites and sequences of the unilinear and polar opposite model. A typical representation of this model says: some critical levels in urbanization, literacy, industrialization, mass media exposure, empathy, and achievement motivation are preconditions for modernization to occur. The non—linear and configurational approach considers that a societal system contains elements of both new (modern- ity) and old (tradition) in the process of change (Rudolph and Rudolph, 1967, pp. 8—12). When a society confronts new ideas and institutions, there is a dynamic interplay of the elements of modernity and tradition. The process of change results in the creation of a more or less stable mixture or configuration of the processes of the confronting society. These may be complete displacement, marginal substitution, partial adap- tation for the existing values and processes (Whitaker, 1970, p. lJ.60). There is no fixed sequence involved in the modernization process. Depending on the need to cumulate control over the environmental phenom— enon affecting the welfare of the organism, different processes, sequences, relationships, and outcomes are probable (Rudolph and Rudolph, 1967; Gusfield, 1967; Sen, 1968, Ascroft, 1969; Whitaker, 1970). Both schools agree on the process of change, but differ on the initial states, the path ,the sequential process, the interplay and con— figuration of elements and the end state of the system. Our theoretical orientation is that the societal systems have multilinear (not necessarily rectilinear) modes of change. Also, the temporal sequences and structural characteristics of the change processes do not fit into a bipolar, unilinear model of tradition and modernity. Considering the farmer as a behavioral system we expect to find a 3U typology of farmers which is not necessarily modern-traditional polar opposites. It contains elements of modernity and tradition in different configurat ions . Communication Propositions Both agricultural development theory perspective (Mellor, 1967) and social change theory perspective, as we have mentioned earlier, recognize communication as one of the functional factors in effecting modernization. Lerner (1957; 1963), Farace (1967), Shaw (1968), Rogers (1969), and Ascroft (1969) have established the vital role of commun- ication factors in the development and modernization process. Deriving from these theoretical perspectives, we postulate the following propositions: Proposition I: Development is a systemic process continuously building the structural, functional and resource capacities of a given system to realize the system's goals at optimum rates. Proposition II: Modernization is a process by which individuals change to cumulate control over a given system and its environment related to their welfare. Proposition III: The nature of the welfare function determines the direction, rate, complexity of human and technological makeup of modernization and the nature of control. Proposition IV: Communication is the main vehicle of this commol. Proposition V: Internal and external communication integration of a given system facilitates the effectiveness of this control. Prospoition VI: Agricultural development is, ceteris paribus, a function of the communication system. a» 35 Given the foregoing propositions, we would like to raise some questions related to the degree of village develOpment, farmer moderniza- tion, and their relations to communication attributes. These questions relate to five main aspects: (1) typology of village social systems (2) external communication linkages of the village social systems (3) communication attributes of interpersonal contacts among farmers within the village social system (u) typology of farmers (5) composition of the interpersonal commmication contacts among the farmers. Are there any communication contact differences along the dimen- sions of village development? In a relatively more developed village system what is the nature of external (i.e. , village with the larger system) and internal (i.e., within village) communication? Given the interpersonal communication contacts within a village, what differences do we find in the nature of network structure and composition along the dimensions of village development? In answering these questions, we would like to formulate the following hypothesis based on the foregoing Propositions I through VI. The Hypothesis: The higher the development level of a village, the greater is its contact with its environment. Village social systems vary along the dimensions of development as well as along the dimensions of communication attributes. It is predicted that an agriculturally more deve10ped village would establish greater communication linkages with the development agencies because they are the main sources of new agricultural information. This ,, 1", 1 ,1 "' " __ q .. I— I a... J '. uh .. .r..- --.. 1... .. _ . -~ ‘ w .. ~ " ’v -,I ‘. g _. 36 predict ion is derived from Proposition V . A more developed village has a greater need to control and cope with the pressures of change. This prediction is derived from Proposition III. The client system obtained in the more developed village is keener on asking questions and presenting their problems for identifi- catim and solution. The stimulating client environment is likely to motivate the development workers to seek and search for information relevant to the problems througi reading technical books and journals, and consulting the information sources that disseminate the technology related agriculture. This prediction is derived from Proposition IV. Additionally, the empirical evidence found by Rao (1966, pp. 62-65) that the flow of technical Knowledge in the village was in favor of Kothuru (the more developed village) supports our hypothesis. Specific empirical hypotheses supporting the foregoing general hypothesis are presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER III STUDY DESIGN, DATA SET AND PETHODOLOGY In this chapter, we deal with description of the source and site of data for the empirical testing of the general hypothesis stated in Chapter II. The specific purposes of this chapter are to describe the (1) general study design (2) data collection methods (3) Lmlit of study and selection of respondents (1+) data collection instruments (5) types of variables (6) data processing and analytical procedures. 1. General Study Design": Our analysis is based on data gathered using survey research methods from a sample of 108 villages in India during 1966. The sample was selected on the basis of the following criteria in the 5—stage sample design using administrative units, viz. , state, district, block, ‘ a: . The study design presented in this chapter is based on the ‘detailed deSCI‘g-ption reported in Agricultural Innovations in Indian “Aliases by Fl1egel and others (19687. 37 38 village level worker circle and village. Stage I: A purposive selection of three states was made to represent different structures of administration, strategies of devel— Opment and the relative intensities of these strategies in each state. Stage II: In each selected state, a purposive selection of ten districts was made to represent the relative intensities of agricultural development programs . Stage III: In each purposively selected district (except one) three development blocks were selected at random from a list of develop— ment blocks obtained from the state government. Stage IV: In each development block, six village level worker (VLW) circles were selected at random from a list of village level worker circles obtained from the Development Block administration. Stage V: In each selected village level worker circle, two villages were selected at random from a list of villages. 2 . Data Collection Methods In each village, data were gathered by, a team of five interviewers led by one among them. The author was one of the interviewers in one of the selected states, viz. , Andhra Pradesh. The data collection methods consisted of: (1) Retrieving information from official records and published government reports (2) Interviewing the village level worker (VLW) who is the official in charge of implementing the development programs (mainly agricultural) at the village level 39 (3) Interviewing five formal'elected or appointed leaders at the village level (14) Interviewing three informal leaders of the village selected based on the sociometric choice in (seeking advice on agriculture by the formal leaders (5) Interviewing the extension officers in charge of agriculture (AEO), health and medical services at the block level (6) Interviewing the block develOpment officer (BDO) who coordinates all the development programs in the block . Sampling Procedure Stage I (Selection of States) Three states, viz. , Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and West Bengal were purposively selected. Andhra Pradesh was ch0sen to represent states where elected people participated in the decision-making processes for development at the village, the block, the district and the state level. Maharashtra was selected to represent the states where elected people partici- pated directly in development decision—making at the district level and the state level (the block level and the village level decision-making being left to the appointed leadership and the bureaucracy). West Bengal was selected to represent states where peOple's direct control over development decisions came from the state level (decision—making at the district, block 1+0 and the village level involving people's participation only indirectly). Stgge II (Selection of Districts) Within each of the three selected states, the districts were stratified according to the following criteria: (1) Districts where the highest level of agricultural development inputs through Intensive Agricultural Development Program (assured irrigation, finance and technological help) was made available (2) Districts with development blocks organized for implementing special programs to facilitate development process among some ethnic groups (tribals who had historically lived a life of a high degree of isolation and self-sufficiency in mountainous and forest tracts of the country) (3) Districts with development programs common across all districts in the whole state. In Andhra Pradesh, West Godavari District was selected according to the criterion (1); Adilabad District was selected according to the criterion (2); and Kurnool District was selected according to the criterion (3) . In Maharashra, Yeotmal District was selected according to criterion (1); Nasik district was selected according to criteria (2); and Bhandara and Sangli districts were selected according to criteria (3). In West Bengal, Birbhum District was selected according to Atl' " I. . . . s. -. . .. _‘ .. Q. ' c.-~ .. - .- I‘f-.. fi.‘ ~ . . ~.. '\., < - a ' ‘ .. . .‘. \ . \ I'-. ‘. _~- 91 the criterion (1); West Dinajpore and Burdwan Districts were selected to represent the criterion (3). There was no Specific district where development blocks were organized specifically oriented to tribal development. Stgge III (Selection of Blocks) Within each selected district, three development blocks were randomly selected‘with the rule that in the district selected for ethnic Speciality, one block should be randomly selected controlled on the tribal blocks. This gave a total of nine development blocks in Andhra Pradesh. In Maharashtra, one tribal block was selected randomly in the Nasik District. Ircmleach of the two districts of Bhandara and Yeotmal, three blocks were randomly selected. TWO develop- ment bloCks were randomly selected in another district. For MaharaShtra, this gave a total of nine development blocks. In west Bengal, three development blocks were selected randomly from each one of the three districts to give a total of nine development blocks. Thus, in all the three states, we selected a total of twenty—seven development blocks. Stage IV (Selection of Village Level Worker (VLW) Circles) Badh development block is organized into a number'of village level worker circles. Fromlthe list of village level worker circles, we selected randomly two of them from each of the twenty—seven development blocks. This gave us fifty—four VLW circles across all the three states. u2 Stagg V (Selection of Villages) We obtained a list of villages in each of the selected VLW circles and picked two villages at random from each one of the VLW circles across all the three states. This gave us 108 villages which make the N for the present analysis. Study Unit and Respondent Selection The village social system is the unit of study. The selection of respondents was so made as to be pertinent in obtaining information on various attributes of each one of the 108 villages. The following categories of persons related to the development aspects of a village were interviewed: Village Panchayat President/Vice-President (elected) Formal Leaders of the Village (elected or appointed) Informal Leaders of the Village Village Level Worker (appointed) Agriculture Extension Officer (appointed) Medical Officer (appointed) Health Worker/ Midwife (appointed) Block Development Officer (appointed) a o 0000 Selection of Leaders (Formal and Informal) One of the assumptions we made in selecting the leaders was that the leaders represent the ethos of the village life, values, attitudes and communication styles. In each village, five formal leaders were identified representing the following facets of village life. 1. General political area: mobilization of people for village level decision-making and legitimizing the general policy of the village Leadership roles: the Panchayat President , Union H3 Board Chairman or Panch, and members of the Panchayat 2. Educational area: school development, management and teaching Leadership role: Teacher 3. Religious area: establishing and management of temples, mosques, and churches Leadership roles: Trustees and Board Members 1+. CooPerative institutions: credit, marketing and farming Leadership roles: President and Secretary 5 . Youth organization: Leadership roles: President and Secretary Additionally, based on the sociometric choice made by the formal village leaders, we identified three other leaders who did not occupy any formal leadership position in the village , but whose opinion and advice set an atmosphere for the village development, mainly in the area of agriculture. In a way, they may be considered as the opinion leaders in the village on farming matters. Thus, we relied on eight leaders in each village to give us infor— mation on different aspects of village development. In some villages, however, we were not able to identify as many as eight leaders. The same person was playing the leadership role in more than one area. Hence the total number of leaders in some villages was not more than six. In bigger villages, we interviewed as many as ten leaders. But on the average, it worked out to eight leaders per village. 1+9 We further supplemented the information on the village by asking the development workers like the Village Level Worker (VLW), Agricultural Extension Officer (AEO), Block Development Officer (BDO) , Midwife and Medical doctor on different aspects of village development. 14. Data Collection Instruments and Procedures The instruments used to gather information from each category of informants were in the form of questionnaires. The questions were admin- istered to them in person by the trained interviewers in the language comfortable to the respondents (see Appendix B for the'qtestions.)- The interview lasted between thirty to ninety minutes. The inter- view with the AEO, the midwife, the medical doctor and the BBQ took about thirty minutes; the. interview with the village leader took about an hour; and the interview with the VLW lasted for about ninety minutes. 5 . Concept of Development: Types of Variables The dominant characteristic of contemporary research on develop- ment is an emphasis on complex and speculative concepts based on a very large number of empirical referents (Crittenden, 1967, p. 990). The empirical referents for development differ in their relevance and meaning- fulness depending on the conceptualization of the entity studied in terms of its level and complexity. Comparative international studies which consider nation as the entity for analyzing the phenomenon of development have provided different empirical referents. Sears (1970) and McGranhan (19 70) have questioned the adequacy of per capita national product alone as a valid measure of development. They have reexamined the concept of development at the '45 national level and argue that the concept of development has to be viewed as both an economic and a social process. Human factors, e.g. , education, health and leasure-time activity, have to be recognized as important com- ponents of the concept of development (McGranhan, 1970,'p. 62). Development is a systemic, coherent and positive process. Let us look at some of the hypothesized relationships between development and social and economic indicators. Better education, health and nutrition may be thought of as posi- tively related to development. They are expected to advance with develop- ment (McGranhan, 1970, p. 63). Mental illness, crime and pollution may also be positively related with economic development. Then does economic development mean increase in crime, economic, political, social, cultural and ecological agression? Identification and accomodation of variables relevant to the concept of development is open for continuous inquiry. Three approaches have been made to conceptualize the items related to development: (1) An empirical approach which defines development as that which distinguishes developed from developing communities or the same communities at different periods of development; this may include trivial and negative items. (2) Evaluative approach which defines development in terms of some collection of values and purposes which are embraced by contemporary communities, but which may not necessarily distinguish between develOped and developing communities or have any objective relationship to each other. This may inclucb arbitrary items and exclude structural trans— 1+6 formation. (3) Development may be defined as consisting of change of valuative and structural factors that are empirically associated with each other at a point of time. It is not out of context to quickly look at the categories of variables included in the description and analysis of national and regional developments. Farace (1966) grouped 1+6 measures of national development under (1) political system, (2) health and nourishment, (3) agricultural pro- ductivity, (1:) climate, (5) population characteristics, (6) cultural factors, (7) economic factors, and (8) mass communication. Harbinson and others (1970) in their quantitative analysis of modernization and develOpment of 112 countries used 36 measures to con- struct 7 indices of development: (1) economic development, (2) cultural development, (3) health, (l4) educational effort, (5) high level‘manpower stock, (6) high level manpower flow and (7) demographic development. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development has provided a set of variables pertinent to the concept of development at the national level (McGranhan, 1970, p. 69). The study started with 73 social and economic measures and reduced them to a set of 18 component variables. Crittenden (1969) grouped thirty-three indicators of modernization in a study of the dimensions of modernization in the American states under the following categories: (1) Benchmark indicators (e.g. , educa- tion, income, fertility), (2) other indicators of modernization (e.g. , urbanization, newspapers, TV sets, automobiles, housing), (3) scope of v.-. ‘ . 147 government indicators (e.g. , tax level, spending level), (1+) centraliza- tion indicators and (5) reference indicators (e.g, population, political parties). Shaw (1967) used the following indices for studying the district development in India: (1) economic development (e.g. , population, urbanization, income), (2) political development (e. g. , voting), (3) com- munication development (e.g., linguism, education, library, and newspaper). Obviously, not all measures meaningful at one level of study are relevant at another level. A sub-system analysis has to regard some variables as environmental and exogenous. We shall examine this aspect in a little more detail below when we discuss the relevancy of variables for village level development. Variables Relevant to Village Development and Modernization We describe the village as a social system in terms of some attri- butes which are related to the concept of develOpment and modernization. The minimum conditions for considering an entity as a system are what Schramm (1%7, p. 30) calls boundary maintenance and interdependent rela— tions among the components. The common attributes of a behavioral system are: (1) to maximize the accomplishment of defined goals, and (2) to minimize the stress and strain (Schramm, 1967, p. 31). Village as a social system satisfies the foregoing conditions. The Census Commission studies in India (1961) and social anthropological studies (Dibe, 1955, Mayer, 1966, Doshi, 1969, p. 297) bear empirical evidence for considering the village as a system with a unique sense of belongingness on the part of its inhabitants by virtue Of a greater frequency of mutual interaction among the persons residing in a us contiguous geographical area and sharing institutional facilities commonly. For ccnvenience of analysis , we. make a distinction between two sets of variables: (1) a set of variables relevant to the concept of village development, and (2) a set of variables relevant to the external and internal communication contacts relating to the village social system. We Shall begin with the explication of the first set of variables. In Chapter IV we deal with the eXternal communication contact. We pre— sent the internal communication contact in Chapter VI . Village Development Variables AS we mentioned earlier, one of our research objectives in this study is to seek answers to the following questions at the village social system level. #1. What variables are conceptually meaningful in describing and ordering the village systems along the dimensions of development? #2. What data analytic methods are useful to describe and order villages in terms of development based on mmlti—variate measures? #3. What is the meaningful typology of village systems analytically useful to talk about their internal com— munication structures, integration and external linkage? With reference to question #1 we assume the existence of a domain consisting of an interplay of influences affecting the development phenomenon occurring in the village social system. The battery of vari— ables selected for analysis here are hypothesized to be conceptually 149 related to this domain of development. These variables are assumed to measure a number of development activities and characteristics at the village level. The conceptual relevance of the variables and the availability of quantitative measures for the village level analysis, are the two main guidelines followed in this investigation for choosing the variables. For purpose of the present investigation, we consider it useful to make a conceptual distinction between "development" and "moderniza- tion." Development refers to a set of complex changes in the economic and social aspects of a system at an aggregate level whereas moderniza- tion refers to social psychological aspects of the components constituting the system (Smith and Inkeles, 1966; Rogers, 1969). In abstract terms, development may be defined as a process by which a system continuously increases its capacity and performance to realize its goals. Conceptualization of development and its aspects is dependent on the nature of the system. For example , when psychologists Speak of development, the reference is to the psychological aSpect of a person or a group. When a sociologist or a political scientist looks at the process of development, the conceptualization of a system is its social structure, power, authority, and political organization. When the economist analyzes the concept of development , he looks at the factors of production, allocation of resources , capital formation and utilization, growth and composition of output, institutional structure and economic organization. In general, the mode of increasing the capacity of a given system is indicated in initiating and sustaining of new structures and roles, resource capabilities, evolving new relations, building new institutions, 50 innovations , and renovative techniques of production , management , and application of new knowledge to reshape, control and cope with the environment. DevelOpment is basically a dynamic process through time. However, at any one time, we may identify this process by looking at the capacity of a given entity to accomplish its goals in Specified components of development domain at a rate consistent with the explicit or implicit values of the entity. This capacity may be looked upon both as a product and as a process depending on whether we are analyzing synchronically or diachronically. A representative sample of development indicators at the village level is proposed to be selected from a set of available data. A. Development institutions The concept of development, as we indicated earlier, has as its integral part the capacity of a village system to regenerate and mobil- ize human and non-human resources to accomplish specified set Of system goals. This capacity of the system is, in part, indicated by the number and variety of institutions Operating affecting the village system. Literature on development frequently refers to the adequacy of institu- tional configuration and strength of the societies aspiring for develop— ment (Kirany, p. 96). In the ”particular context of agricultural develop- ment, Luykx (196“) and Wharton (1967) refer to these institutions under the concepts of capital intensive intrastructure (e.g. , irrigation, tranSport and storage facility), capital extensive infrastructure (e. g. , credit and financial facilities, and institutional infrastructure (e.g. , land tenure and agriculture reform). 51 Lerner‘(1957, p. #11) refers to the facilitating role of the institutions in providing services, knowledge, and alternative solu- tions fOr-problems facing the village social systemuengaged in its transformation. . Eisenstadt (1966, p. 93) speaks of the continued creation of structural differentiation, growth of interrelation among,the differs entiated units and ability of the systemuto tranSfOrmuitself to meet the demands for change and.sustained growth. The concept Of differentiation defined as the diversity of pub- licly descriminated meaning areas maintained by the community was measured.by Young and others (1968) fOcusing;on the simple presence or absence Of institutionalized patterns (e.g., primary school, central sewer system, secondary school, and post office). They found a correla- tion (.59) between their community differentiation scale and the level Of agricultural technology (Young and others, 1968, p. 399). These insti— tutions at the village level cover'a.wide range of services and facilities affecting agriculture, educatiOn, health, communication and.transport. The hypothesized relation between the degree of the proximate existence of institutions and the level of village development is positive. In.the present investigation the following variables were used as indi— cators of the proximate existence Of institutions in the village. 1. Village institution scale. The fOllowing items were used in constructing the Scale (see Appendix B Variable #58 for measurement procedure): (a) High school (b) Co-Operative society (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) 2. 52 m (warehouse) facility Youth club Post Office Panchayat (village government) headquarters ' Bicycle repair shop Retail market Temple / church/ mosque Village grocery Store Village institution proximity scale The physical distance between the village and the location of facility were obtained for the following institutions (see Appendix B Variable #58 for measurement procedure): (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) B. Veterinary facility Co—Operative society _Go_c_1_o_wn_ facility Village level worker headquarters Panchayat headquarters Block development headquarters Techno-economic resources One of the factors affecting the development of a village is the availability Of economically exploitable physical resources such as cultivable land, labor, cattle wealth, energy base, physical and financial capital for Operating the farm and farming related activities. The hypothesized relation between the degree of availability of resources and the level of village development is positive. .. 53 The following variables were chosen as indicative of human, phy— sical and financial resources (see Appendix B for measurement procedures of these variables). 3. l}. 10. ll. 12. 13. 114. 15. 16. 17. 18. C. Land ownership (variable #5) Percentage of cultivators to agricultural workers (variable #10) Man-land ratio (variable #1) Percentage of male agriculture workers to total male workers (variable #8) Percentage of female agriculture workers to total female workers (variable #9) Cattle wealth index (variable #53) Grain mill index (variable #98) Oil engine index (variable ##7) Machine index (variable #50) Electric pumps (variable #96) Draught animal index (variable #6) Availability of electricity (variable #51) Tax (variable #52) Number bicycles per thousand persons (variable #95) Transportation facility index (variable #39) Village store items (variable #55) Agricultural development In the villages where the main economic activity is cultivating food and commercial crops, the degree of agricultural develOpment is indexed by the adoption of modern agricultural inputs and crop patterns . by l- _. ...‘. .. l . )7 .«l b .. i . ..u ..I .. g .l u .. ‘ r ..1 , .. ‘ 1 ..u .4 ‘ . '. I n .. . ... - ., ‘- >.. s I ‘l ‘1 o . . ... u u 'I u ‘ I. O -’ ‘- 1 . s o“ : .r , ' o y ', ~, I ‘c o s, n. ‘s '5 N - ~ ~. , . ‘. - o 'I i n. H \. u. 51+ The hypothesized relation between the degree of adoption of modern agri- cultural inputs and the level of village develOpnent is positive. The following variables were chosen to index the agricultural development (see Appendix B for description of measurement procedures of respective variables). 19. Multiple cropping index (variable #147) 20. Agricultural adoption index (variable #uu) 21. Seed distribution index (variable #30) 22. Plant protection adoption scale (variable #28) 23. Cattle and manure adoption scale (variable #27) 29. Prize winning performance (variable #29) 25. Implementation adOption scale (variable #26) 26. Improved seed (Guttman) scale (variable #25) 27. AEO'S rating Of agricultural development (variable #zu) 28. BDO'S rating Of agricultural development (variable #22) D. Health and family planning practices The positive state of adoption of modern health practices and family planning methods are indicators of development. It is hypoth- esized that the relation between the adoption of modern health practices in the village and the level of development is positive. The following variables were selected as indicators of the state of health in the village (see Appendix B for description of measurement procedure of respective variables). 29. Infant mortality (variable #19) 30. Birth rate (variable #20) 31. Physician's rating of village health development (variable #23) 55 32. Percent of women practicing family planning (variable #21) E . Educational development Educational experience has a positive contribution towards developing the necessary skills , knowledge and attitudes in the village systems . The hypothesized relation between the educational attainments of the village manpower and the level Of village development is positive. The following variables were chosen to index the educational development of the village (see Appendix B for description Of measurement procedure of respective variables). 33. Male literacy (variable #11) 31;. Female literacy (variable #12) 35. Male primary grade (variable #13) 36. Female primary grade (variable #114) 37. Male middle grade (variable #15) 38. Female middle grade (variable #16) 39. Male high grade (variable #17) ‘40. Female high grade (variable #18) F. Political development Participation in political activity is assumed to be an indicator of development. It is hypothesized that the degree of political partici- pation and the level of village development is positive. The following variables were chosen to indicate the political activity (see Appendix B for description of measurement procedures for respective variables). 1+1. Political parties in the village (variable #2) ~‘ 56 1+2. Voting in Panchayat election (variable #H) H3. Voting in national election (variable #3) G. Commnication resources Availability of communication resources is hypothesized to be positively associated with the degree of development of the village. The villagers would have greater Opportunity to widen their lcnowledge of the social and technological changes going on in the outside world if the communication resources are available. Outside knowledge is likely to create a sense of motivation to set new goals for the individuals and the community, to achieve new goals or adopt alternative methods to accomplish the old ones. Also, this is likely to develop a concern for the wider (regional, national and international) welfare of the people and increase the degree Of independence or liberation from the unsatisfactory local norms. The following variables were chosen to index the communication resources (see Appendix B for description of measurement procedures of respective variables). 1m. Number Of persons per monthly magazines, daily newspapers and weekly newspapers received in the village (variable ##9) 145. Number of persons per radio in good working order (variable #57) 1+6. Accessibility to postal facility (variable #35) 1+7. Accessibility to library facility (variable #36) H8. Accessibility to cinema facility (variable #37) 1+9. Officers residing in the village (variable #38) 57 H. Leadership profiles Among the human resource structures, leadership roles and char- acteristics are considered to be relevant factors of development at local, national and international levels. It is widely believed that incon- grous human resource structures are serious impediments to self—sustained economic and social development (Himmert Strared and others, (1971, p. 27) . The variables included to index the village leadership profiles of human resource structures are the following (see Appendix B for des- cription of measurement procedmres of reSpective variables). 50. Leader caste status (variable #56) 51. Leader empathy index (variable #31) 52. Leader land oriented conservatism index (variable #56) 53. Leader sacred-secular value index (variable #314) 514. Leader change norm index (variable #32) 55. Leader economic orientation index (variable #33) 56. Leader occupational mobility index (variable #143) 57. Leader credit orientation index (variable #1) Data Processing and Analytical Procedures The data for the foregoing variables were available from the MSU- AIIY‘Diffusion Project data file, ptnched on the IBM cards at the Department of Communication, Michigan State University. Table 1 (Appendix A) gives the variables , the data location, their brief description, form and assumed level of measurement. For each variable the source of information on which it is based is indicated in Appendix B. *Michigan State University - Association for International Development (MSU - AID). 58 The form in which the data are proposed to be analyzed can be described as "implications model" and not "causal model." We are merely seeking to describe the elements and their inter-relationships having implications for the concept and measurement of village. development and its implications for commnication correlates. We see this as a pre- liminary step for a later formulation of a causal model of village development. The hypotheses ccncerning the development level of the village social system and communication patterns are proposed to be tested based on non-experimental survey data and case evidence. The first step is to arrive at the descriptive statistics so that we can look at the nature of the frequency distribution of the variables in terms of mean, standard deviation and the degree of skewness, and also to note the extent of missing data. The descriptive statistics and the extent of missing data are reported for each variable in Table 2 (Appendix A). Also see Appendix B for a detailed profile of the distribution of each variable. Table 3 (Appendix A) presents the extent of missing data on them for the 108 villages, the N for the present village study. B__a_s__t_a_t_ program which gives basic statistical measures such as mean, standard deviation and skewness was run to obtain the basic statistical measures suppressing missing data. We set up an arbitrary tolerance limuit of 10 percent of muissing data for retaining the variables in the analysis. In cases where we considered that a particular variable was conceptually important, we relaxed the arbitrarily set limit. 59 The second step is the construction of a matrix of intercorrela— tions using all the relevant variables that are hypothesized to measure the domain of village development. Such a matrix is presented in Table u (Appendix A). By inspecting the coefficient of correlation, we find that almost all variables show a measure of statistically significant correlation (P < .05) with other variables in the matrix. That is, the correlations among the variables can occur by chance alone five times or less out of one hundred cases. The third step is to reduce the intercorrelation matrix of 57 variables into a smaller set whose interrelationships are assumed to provide an empirical basis to describe the dimensions of village development. Factor analytic method has been widely used in data reduction and description of the development dimensions (Farace, 1965; Adelman and Morris, 1967; Rummel, 1971; Adelman and Dalton, 1971). Given a set of descriptive variables, factor analysis resolves them in terms of a small number of categories or factors based on the strength of the intercorrelation of the variables (Holzinger and Harman 19u1, p. 3). The factor analytic designs vary depending on the nature of the entities that we are studying and the nature of the variables whose variance component we propose to extract as hypothetical factors. In the present study we are concerned with the village social system as the entity and the variables assumed theoretically to indicate some aSpects of village development. The variables we are analyzing are very large, numbering 57. We have conceptually categorized these variables 60 under eight labels. We propose to describe the villages, their level of development in terms of eight components. The problem for us now is to empirically relate the 57 variables in such a way that their struc- tural relations as indicated by their intercorrelations provide us a justification to consider them as a group of variables which are under the influence of some "hypothetical factor," a higher level conceptual abstraction. Consider each of the 57 variables as some kind of a "response" each village social system (the entity we are studying) is giving us when we use the instruments (the set of questions in the present case) to measure their "development state." We propose to extract some factors from the variance of the "response variables." Conventionally, this mode of factor analysis is referred to as "R factor analysis." In this third step, we employed FACTORA Program available at CISSR, the Michigan State University Computer Center specifying the following options. 1. Unity was substituted for the diagonal value in the correlation matrix. 2. Varimax rotation of factors was employed. 3. Orthogonal solution was used. ‘4. Kiel-Wrigley criterion of 3 variables was set up for terminating the factor rotation. Our fourth step is to obtain a composite score for each of the development factors extracted from the matrix of correlations. This composite score is the basis for ordering each of 108 village social system along different dimensions of development. Chapter IV presents the findings of steps three and four. CHAPTER IV VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION CONTACT The objectives of this chapter are: 1. To present the R Factor analytic results of the 57 variable correlation matrix extracting the village development dimensions 2. To test empirically the general hypothesis relating the selected dimensions of village development to external communication integration indicators . R Factor Analytic Findings How many factors can we extract from the correlation matrix of 57 variables? Our objective was to get a set of meaningful factors consis- tent with the principle of parsimony, obtain a composite score for eadu one of the factors which subsumed the functional unity among the vari- ables correlated with it. In addition to the criterion of parsimony, we set out two other criteria based on the statistical considerations alone in choosing the number of factors: (1) "purity" of factor loadings, and (2) percent of variance explained by the number of factors chosen. These criteria are sometimes conflicting and may be demanding a different type of factor solution. For example, if we stick to the criterion of parsimony in 61 62 selecting the number of factors, we may have left out a large amount of variance unexplained among the battery of variables. On the other hand the criterion of extracting as complete an amount of variance as practic- able calls for an increase in the number of factors. We took into consideration the criteria of factor "purity," parsimony, variance maximuization, conceptual relevance, meaningfulness and interpretability of factors, and a balance had to be struck in deciding the number of factors we could extract. Thus four main considerations guided the choice of the factor solution: (1) parsimony, (2) conceptual clarity, (3) "purity" in factor loadings, and (it) the maximum amount of variance explained. A satis- factory solution should yield factors which convey all the essential information of the original set of variables (Holzinger and Harman, 1991, p. 3). Accordingly, we decided to choose eleven—factor solution which explained 57 percent of the variance based on the varimax principle. Table 5 (Appendix A) gives the factor structure of all the solutions. In this chapter, we make a detailed presentation of the eleven- factor structure. Table 6 below presents the variables with their highest loadings on each of one of eleven factors starting with Factor I. The last column presents the communality (hz) for each variable. The communality of a variable represents the degree of variance of each vari— able accomted for across all the eleven factors. Table 7 (Appendix A) gives the spectrum of communality. Com— munality values in the eleven—factor solution range from .305 to .913. Six variables have a range of communality from .305 to .1406. The remaining 51 variables have a communality of .1421 or better. 63 60.005.000.00 3000050500 606.263 moan Hodge . 08.300500 2.005 mm 000.0006 053008.000 wfi .00 dmcowmfio 9.005 05 50 0096.095 0.03 3005 .COflvaHHmcoHpMQmmc .0000 m xflocme/w cam “Ea.” 000000.003 pom m magma. mmm . 0 ::0. :00... 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 0000. 000. 0:0. 000 :0 0::. 000... 000.- 0:0. 000. :00. 000. 000.- :00.- 00:0. 000.- :00. 0am 00 0:0. 000. 000. 000.- 0:0.- 000.- :00.- 000. 000.- 0000.- 000.- 000.- 00000 00 000. 000.- 000. 000. ::0.- 000. 0:0.- 000.- 000. 0000. 000. 000. 00 0 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. :00. 000. :00.- 0000. 000.- :00.- .0000000 00 000 000. 000. :00.- 000.- :00. 000. ::0. 0:0.- 000. 000.- 0000. 0:0. 00000 00 00:. 000.- 000.- 000. :00. 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 0000. 000. >2 0 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 0:0. 000. 0:::. 000. .00000 00 00:. 000.- 000.- 000. 000.- :00.- 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 0000. 000. m0: 0: 000. 000.- 000. 000.- 000. 000.- 000. 0:0. 000. 000. 00:0.- :00.- 00000 00 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 0:0.- 000.- 000. 0000. 000. .500000 00 00:. :00.- 0:0. 000.- 000. 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 0:0.- 0000. 000. x0000 00 ::0. 000.- 000.- 000.- 0:0.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 0:0. 00:0.- 000.- x0000 0 00 000. 000.- :00. 000.- 0:0. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000.- :00. 0000. 00000 00 00:. 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000,- 000. :00. 000. 000. «00:. x00 00 000. :00.- 000.- :00. 0:0.- 000. 0:0. 000.- 000.- :00.- 000. 000:. 000002 00 000. 000. 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000.- 0:00. 00000000 0: 0:0. 0:0. 000. 000. ::0. 000. 000. 000.- 0:0. 000. 000. 0000. 0000 00 000. 000.- 00:. 0:0. 000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 0000. 0000002 00 0:0. 0:0.- 0:0.- 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000. 0000. 0000000 00 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000. 0000. 0000m< :0 000. 0:0.- 000.- :00.- 000. 000. 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 0000. 000000 00 0 AummUOc . arm 00000003 03.30.: mHOHmvoaocH -:Esoov 000 000 00 00 00 00 00 :0 00 00 00 00000000>0c 0 0000000 0 E 00880.0 0.08.0035 #:8200093 @9000? S how 03.00.02 scoomu 00003.00me >0Hmcomofibo .0 @0909 >pafimcaeeoo mm X00006 50000009900 64 may mo HmcowMflo came 0L0 ca ommoHaEm mos >pflca .mpmeapmm .msvwcmcmp m0xm Hmaaccapm n .coapMpocnxmeanm>m .comeNflHmcoaHMngo.pom m xaocwma<_ocm 0000 macmahm> 00% m maan omme 00:. 000. 000.- 000.- 000. «000. 000. 000.- 000. 0:0. 000. 000.- 0000000 00 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000.- «00:. 000. 000.- 0:0. 000. 0:0. 0:0.- x0000 00 000. 000.- :00. 000.- 0:0. «000. 000. 000. 000. 00:. 000. 000. 00000000 00 000. 000. 000.- 000. :00.- 0000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 000. 000000 00 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 0:0.- «000. 000.- 000.- 000. 00:. 000. 0:0. 00000m< :: 000. :00.- 0:0. 000.- 0:0. «000. 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 0:0. 000000 00 00> 000. 000.- 000. 000.- 000. 000. «000. 0:0.- 000.- 0:0. 000.- 000. 000000000 0: 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 0000. 000.- 000. 000. 000.- :00.- 000000 00 0:0. 000. 000.- :00.- 00:. 000. 0000. :00. 000. 000. :00. 000. 00000< 0 00:. 000.- :00. 0:0.- 0:0. 000.- 0000. 000. 000.- :00.- 000. 000. 0000000000 0: 00 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 000. :00. 000. 000:.- 0:0.- 000. 000. 000. 000000 00 00:. 000. 000.- 0:0.- 000. 000.- 000.- «00:.- 000.- 000.- 0:0. 000. 00002 0 0:0. 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 000. 000.- 000:.- 0:0. 000. 000.- 000. 00000000 00 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 000. 000. «0:0.- 000.- 0:0.- 000. 000. 00000000 :0 000. :00. :00. 000. 00:. 0:0.- 000. 0:00. 000. 000.- 000.- 0:0. 0x000< 0 000. 000. 000. 000. 0:0.- 000. 000. 0000.- 000.- 000. 0:0. 000. x000000 00 000. 000. 000. :00.- 000.- 000.- 000. 0000.- 000.- 0:0. 000. 000. 00000000 00 > 000. 000.- 000. 0:0. 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 0000. 000. :00. 000. >0 : 000. 000. 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000. 000:. 000.- 000. 0:0.- 0000 00 000. 000. :00.- 000. 000.- 000.- 0:0.- 000. 0000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 0000000 0: 000. 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- :00.- 000. 000.- 0000.- 000.- 0:0. 000.- 000000000 0: 000. 000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 000. ::0. 0000.- 0:0. 000. 000. 00000000 00 >0 000ooo em 0000000>0 Amuaamc mLOHmoaocH 00068 000 000 00 00 00 00 00 :0 00 00 00 0000000900 m: mmmaafl> 0.o.pcoov 0 00009 3.5.0558 mm 0000000000 0000000908 00000 “00 00.00%? 00.00000 9000 00.0 0000000900 mm: 000005 00000003000000.0000 00.0 m 00000000090: 0000 00000 . 000000500000 0000 0.0000500 . 8.0000000 00 000000000 000.000.0000 0000009 000 0 0000.0 000.0 65 00 00 00 0: 00 0: 00 00 00 00 00 000000000 800.0000, 000. 000:.- 000.- 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000.- 000.- 000. :00. 000.- 000000 00 00:. 0000.- 0:0. 000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 000. :00. 000.- 000. _00000 00 0x 000. 000.- 00::. 0:0. 0:0.- 000.- 000.- 0:0. 000. 000. 0:0. 000. 0000000 0: :00. 000.- 000:.- 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000. 000.- 000000 00 000. ::0. 0000.- 00:. 000.- 000.- 000.- :00.- 000.- 000. 000. 000. _0000z 00 000. 0:0. 0000.- 000. 000. 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 000. 000 00 x 0:0. 000. :00.- 0:00.- 000. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 0:0. 0:0. 000. 00000 00 000. 000. 000.- 0000. 0:0.- 000,- 000.- 000.- 0:0.- :00.- :00. :00.- 0000 0: 000. 000.- 000. 0000. 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 000. 0:0. 000. 000. .000000 00 000. 000. :00.- 0000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 000. 0:0. 000. 000. 0:0.- 000000 :0 000. 000.- 000.- 0:00. 000. 000. :00. 000. :00.- 0:0. 000.- 000. .000000 0: x0 000. :00. 000.- 000. 0000.- 000. 000.- 000.- 000.- 000. :00. 000. 002 0 000. 000. 000.- 000.- 00:0.- 0:0. 000. :00. 000. 000.- 000.- 000. 00 0 0000 Aflmvoo #00 000000000 0.300.000: 0:000:00ch -000000 000 000 00 00 00 00 00 :0 00 00 00 00000000000 00 0000000 “00.00805 0 mHQmQ 66 Table 8 (Appendix A) gives reference to the variable code numbers and labels used in R Factor analysis. The description of each one of the eleven factors is based on the operational meaning and the conceptual significance borne out by the variables that show the highest loadings on the factor. "Purity" of factor loading* and simplicity of factor structure are desirable for a "clean" factor interpretation. It seemed very difficult to satisfy such criteria. Therefore, we formulated some guidelines based on previous factor analytic studies of development and modernization. 1. The major structural meaning of the factor was derived from the variables which showed loadings of . 30 or better 2. Conceptual and theoretical sense of the configuration of the variables was stressed more than the mere size of individual factor loading 3. In cases where we found the factor loadings very complex i.e. , the size of loadings being similar across more than one factor for a given variable, we included that variable in interpreting the factor where it made the most concep— tual sense ' H. For each variable, we included its secondary and tertiary loadings on other factors in their interpretation. Following the foregoing guidelines, we found all the 57 variables to be associated primarily with one or the other factor of the eleven— factor structure . Factor I Village General Development Factor 1 accounts for eight percent of the variance among the 57 variables. Nine variables show primary relations with this factor, *The factor loading measures the degree of involvement of a vari- able in making up the factor. It is a correlation coefficient between the variable and the factor. 67 Table 8. Alphabetical List of Variables" used in Factor Analysis for Describing Village Development Dimensions. Code Name Code No. Variable Name .Agadopt #uu Agricultural Adoption .Aglada #2u Agricultural Extension Officer Rating Agladb #22 Block Development Officer's Rating .Agocxf # 9 Agricultural Occupation Index (Female) Agocxm # 8 Agricultural Occupation Index (Male) Bicy #45 Bicycle Index Birth #20 Crude Birth Rate Caste #56 Caste Status (Leader) Catman #27 Cattle and Manure Adoption Catt #53 Cattle Wealth Index Change norms #32 Change Norm Index (Leader) Cinedist #37 Cinema Facility Distance Creditori #Hl Creditorientation (Leader) Danix # 6 Draught Animal Index Ecorient #33 Economic Orientation (Leader) Elec #51 Availability of Electricity Elecpump #u6 Electric Pump Emp #31 Empathy Index (Leader) Grainm. #HS Grain Mill Index prladp #23 Physician's Rating of Village Health and Family Planning Development Hifem. #18 Females with High school Grade Education Him. #17 Males with High School Grade Education Imple #26 Implement AdOption Scale Infmart #19 Infant Mortality Instigut #5” Institution Scale Instprox #58 Institution Proximity Landconsori #56 Land Oriented Conservatism Libac #36 Library Facility Distance JSee Appendix B for operational definitions and measurement. T, u.. Table 8 (cont'd.) 68 Code Name Code No. Variable Name Litem #11 Male Literacy Litfem #12 Female Literacy Lo # 5 Land Ownership Machine #50 Machine Index Mag #ug Magazine Rate Midem #15 Males with Middle Grade Education Midfem #16 Females with Middle Grade Education er # 1 Man Land Ratio Mucix # 7 Multiple Crop Index Nv # 3 National Voting Occuprrobi #l+3 Occupational Mobility (Leader) Oilengi #u7 Oil Engine Index Office #38 Officers Residing in Village Plantpro #28 Plant Protection Adoption Postac #35 Postal Accessibility Pp # 2 Political Parties Primef #1“: Females with Primary Grade Primem #13 Males with Primary Grade Prize #29 Village Progress Index Pv # 1+ Panchayat Voting Radio #57 Persons Per Radio Riskori #112 Risk Orientation (Leader) Sac #31+ Sacred-Secular Values Index (Leader) Sedgut #25 Seed Adoption Scale Sedix #30 Seed Distribution Index Tax #52 Tax Rate Tenix #10 Ratio of Agricultural Laborers to Cultivators Transix #39 Transportation Facility Index Visgut #55 Village Store Items Wfp #21 Women Practising Family Flaming Methods 69 their factor loadings ranging from .260 to .809 (Table 6). Highest Loadings Three variables which indicate the subjective ratings of the level of village development made by three different development workers (viz. , the block develOpment officer, the agricultural extension officer and the public health officer) on a 7-step development ladder scale show a very high loading on Factor I: the block development officer (.809) ,* the agricultural extension officer (.738), and the public health officer ( .703) dominate the factor. Also this factor is characterized by a higm ratio of machines to population (.558) , availability of electricity in the village (.526), use of electricity in lifting water for irrigation purposes (.514), greater proportion of girls in the village educated up to middle school level (.1489), high taxable capacity of the village (.H38), and the prize—winning performance of the village in development activities (.260) (Table 9). Other loadings The empirical meaning of Factor I becomes clearer if we look at the variables whose secondary and teriary loadings on this factor range from .212 to .376 (Table 9): Proximity to institutions“ (.376), higher rate of general literacy among women (.357) and men (.215) , adoption of “Figures in the parenthesis refer to factor loading for respec- tive variables. M: Institutional facilities such as veterinary dispensary, coopera- tive society, gardening and warehousing facilities, headquarters of development workers and office locations of organizational decision making. 7O .COHHMCMHme pom m xaUCmac< pew m magma mmm « .mpaamczeaoo u New .pouomm u m .mcapmoH pmmcwflz uxmc may mam >m£p mmmac: pmppflao mam mmnH .mmma so mma. mafipmog u ... "mpoz mom. mmm.n ... mmm. ... 3mm. ... No:.| ... ... mmm. mam. oppmom mm mam. ... mmm.| ... ... ... ... mom.n ... mmm. :33. mam. temper Ha mmm. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... NNN.I HHw. ... mHN. gm NO mum. msm.| .... ... ... ... Ham. ... smm.n ... ... mam. ahOpapwso a: emu. ... mos.n new. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... mmm. _EHm ea mam. Hmm. :om.n ... ... ... ... s:m.| ... omm.| mmm. mam. OMAHA mm mmm. ... ... ... ... omm. ... s:m.| ... ... ... mam. cmewmo mm m::. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... mjmo ... IQN. GEM Hm Him. ... ... 3Hm.l ... ... ... ... ... OJN. ... mmN. mfing ON Hmm.Hmm.l n+3. ... ... ... ... ... ... mom. ... mom. -.mwcm HHO 5.: mo:. ... ... ... ... ... ... ms:.n ... ... ... mmm. .xaocz no Nmb. ... ... ... ... N.mw. ... ... ... 5H3. th . mim. PDOUMW< :3 Nms. ... mmm.| ... ... ... ... o:m.: ... ... mam. 5mm. iammpwq NH ij. ... ... ... 5mm. cam. ... mm:.l ... ... ... mum. xOMQFmCH mm , ‘wwcHUMOH pmnpo Nmm. oom.u ... ... ... omm. omm. ... 5mm. ... 3mm. 0mm. mmanm mm mo:. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... mmm. mm:. xme mm Han. :mm.n ... ... m:m.| ... ... Hom.n ... ... mam. mm:. .Emwpflz ma mmm. ... Hmm. ... ... me. ... ... ... ... ... JHm. QESQUMHM m: m3m. ... mom. ... ... ham. omm. mmm.: mmm. omam Hm mmm. HHN.I mm:. ... mom.n HHN.I ... ... mmm. meanomz om as. 8e. 838m mm mam. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 00H. ... ... mm5. MUMHW< 3N OOB. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... mmH. mom. DUMHW< NN mwcflpmoH mnmeapm Aaw>v «prov m: Ham cam mm mm up mm mm :m mm mm H QOPUMM marmasm> Awm ”cmcamacxm mocmasm>v AQQ>V pcmecoam>mo Hmsmcoo mmmaaa> "H Loyomm .m magma 1 . 7l modern.cultivation practices by farmers (.3H5), multiple cropping practices (.299), use of oil engine for irrigation (.296), use of new agricultural implements (.293), adoption of new cattle breeds and use of Chemical fertilizers (.2u8), empathic ability of village leadership (.26u), accessibility of the library facilities to the village (.2u7), greater proportion of boys with high school education (.218), propensity of village leaders to borrow money for investments (.218), active fUnc— tioning of political parties in the village (.215), and accessibility of postal facility to the village (.212). A configuration of the fOregoing measures around Factor I suggest that this factor is a village general development factor because it indexes the overall development of the village based on the subjective ratings of development workers as also its positive correlation with the objective measures: Educational, teChnological, communication, political and agricultural domains of development. Factor II Manpower-Communication Resources Factor II explains six percent of the total variance among the 57 variables. The loadings on Factor II range from .201 to .7u0 (Table 10). Highest Loadings The dominating variables loading on this factor'are (—.7H0), a smaller‘proportion of village animal power used for draught purposes in agricultural operations and a larger ratio of agricultural laborers to land owning cultivators (.627). The implication of these variables is 72 .COHHmcmagxm.uom m xflocmac<_ocm m manme mom ... . .muaawcnaaoo n n :HOpomm u m .MCHUMOH pmmnmfla uxmc may mHm hmnp mmmac: omppHEo mHm >m£9 .mmma so mma. mcaomoq n ... "mpoz Hos. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Hos. ... Hom.u inhocmno mm Nmm» oom.| ... ... ... omm. omm. ... smm. ... omm. 3mm. mwahm mm mmm. ... ... ... ... 5mm. ... ... ... 5H3. m3m. mum. pa0omw< 3: ... ... ... mom.u ... ... ... ... ... mm3. «mm. xme mm mom. ... ... ... ... ... ... mo3.| ... ... ... mmm. oppmom mm Has. 3mm.u ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... mm3. mum. ihmwoaz ma who. ... ... Hem ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3mm. >Umm m: meflomoa pmcpo mo3. mmm.| ... ... ... ... ... ... ... smm. ... Hem. >2 mo mam. ... Nmm.| ... ... ... ... mom.n ... mmm. ... 333. _Emqu AH @51. ... ... ... ... ... ... ONm.l ... ... ... HNm. mmzw: «ms. ... ... mmm ... ... ... ... ... ... ... m3m.| oaomm em was. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5mm. mum. _EmMpr NH mm3. ... ... ... ... mmm. saw. chme OH :30. co. ... co. co. ... Fmflol co. co. oo. .oo Ojbol xflrfig mo mmcaomoa mnmeasm Amozv smooo N: Ham can mm mm uh mm mm 3m mm Hg HH acycmm magmahm> Awe HomCHmamxm mocmanm>v Amozv mmOQDOmmm coapmoacqsaoolpmzoacmz HH peyote .oa magma 73 that there is a greater’potential of landless manpower in the village as also a possible tendency fOr the cultivators to rely heavily on man- power'for agricultural Operations. Further'the syndrome of greater reliance on agricultural tenants and laborers is positively associated with a.higher rate of general literacy among women (.626) and men (.uuu) in the village. .Also this factor is positively associated with the prevalence of relatively a smaller number of persons per radio (-.5u6), a larger number of print media.per person (.521), a greater degree of library facilities accessible to the village (.339) and.a.greater political participation of the village in national elections (.361). Other Loadings Factor II has secondary loadings of the greater'proportion of girls educated up to middle school grade (.376). This adds to the literacy and communication skills of the village population. T'he acces- sibility of the village to postal (mailing) facilities is positively associated with this factor (.338). The proportion of families in the village paying one or more ruppees as taxes, is positively associated with this factor (.322). The number of bicycles per 1,000 people in the village is also positively associated with this factor (.38u). All together, Factor II represents the development aspect of the village indicating more reliance on agricultural labor manpower, greater reliance on literacy and communication skills of the people, and.greater accessibility for the village to:message—media facilities. 71+ Factor*III Leader Change Orientation Factor III accounts fOr six percent of the variance among the 57 variables. Five variables show primary loadings on this factor ranging from1.523 to .791 (Table 6). Highest Loadings Village leaders' favorable attitude towards new agricultural, health and family planning programs, women's education programs, sUb- stitution of contractual relationShips in place of traditional profes- sional—client relationships, whidh indicate the acceptance of change as a.norm.(.79l), political activism as indicated by two to three political parties operating in the village (.611), dominance of upper caste strata in village leaderShip (—.586),* ability of the village leaders in putting themselves in other's roles and situations (.509), village leaders' value orientation along the line of thinking, believing and using the science-teChnology approaChes to solve problems based on rational con- siderations (.523), have the highest loadings (Table 11). Other Loadings Adoption of modern agricultural practices (.Hl7) suCh as plant protection measures (.u25), improved cattle breeding (-.305), implements (.2u0), seeds (.220), and oil engines (.263) are positively related to the favorable attitude of the village leaders towards Change in s The highest caste was scored.as l and the lowest was scored as 5 (see Variable #56, Appendix B). 75 .mfiomoa pmmzmfiz ”.me m5. 86 >93 woman: owtfiso 88 ~85. .coflmfimamxw pom m 5.98%? can m magma. wmm wamEsEOo u m: ..Hovomm .mmma so ama. meaesoa u.» h o o o umpoz mom. H3m. Hmm. mam. mum. mo3. om3. mum. mmw. mmm. 33m. m33. 03m. mmm. awn. mam. mom. 5mm. mam. mmm. Hmm. 333. bsmemm mm maaeH ea Hmcmaao e3 ... omm. ... cam. ... mam. ... omm.- umbaa mm ... mom.u peso mm ... smm. >2 m ... m3m. bboemeH ma ... mam. seeped Ha ... eH3. pmobmm< 33 O O O mN: O pglfi Massage sass 0mm 3m sew Hm mpmmo mm am a Eonmwcmfio mm mmfiomoa Seam ... mmm. 3mm. m3m. ... mmm.l ... Ham. ... Has. Ham cam mm uh oh mm 3% mm 803 Hm HHH mobbmm «mooo maomrnm> Arm 6098368 gangs A005 cowymnrcmflo mmcmeu hmommq "HHH sesame .HH masts 76 agriculture. General literacy among men is higher (.383). There is active political participation on the part of the villagers in terms of participation in the national voting (.327), but there is high infant mortality (.3l+9), and low library accessibility (-.290). Factor IV Leader Economic Conservatism Factor IV accounts for five percent of the variance among the 57 variables. Five variables show primary loadings on this factor ranging from .556 to .760* (Table 6). Highest Loadings Village leaders' orientation to occupational changes and their inclination toward the credit sclmces for financing agriculture develOp- ment are indexed by this factor. Greater proportion of leaders is not inclined to sell any portion of the land to finance the farm development; they are inclined to think of other ways of financing rather than selling the land. There is an element of land conservatism involved in this. They also feel that the major portion of finance for farm develOpnent *Auto c'grrelation effect: It is necessary to note here one of the factors affecting the factor loadings. In Factor IV (leader economic conservatism) among the five variables with highest correlations with the factor, the follwing variables have their highest loadings: #33 Ecorient, -.760, #H3 Occupmobi, —.679, ##2 Riskori, -.679. If we look at the opera- tionalization of the three variables (see Appendix B) we notice that vari- able #33 Ecorient is derived by adding the scores of four variables of which #153 Occupmobi and #uz Riskori are the two variables. Because vari— ables #l+3 and ##2 are already a composite part of variable #33 there is an element of auto-correlation effect in their loadings on this factor. But this does not distort the meaning of the factor and only contributes to the redundancy of its meaning. 77 .meaeeoa pmmcmflc_uxmc may mam.>wcv mwmac: omppaao mum mosh .coapmcmagxm mom m xaocwac<.ocm m 53558 u as . mmmH ..HO mmH . .QOpomm weaves; masts meme a umpoz 053. mmm.| mum. ... 53w. ... mom. ... Nmb. ... Nmm. ... mum. ... mhm. ... mmm. mom. mmm. ... mHm. CO. 000 .0. NIH. one had. cam. NNN. H3N. mmm. 5mm. nmm.l cesam om OJ mo excom< mo xflowm om caomm um mmwhm mm asepmmmso H3 .wwcfiomoa Loewe mmj. mmm. mum.l mum.l omh.l pHMU mm >m 3o asoxmam N3 assessooo m3 Heemsoom,mm mmcwomoa unmeanm Ham OHM mm mm up on Aomuv mm mm mm Hm >H sesame «coco maomw§m> Arm "omcamacxm moccasm>v aUMJV Emflpmawmcoo OHEOCOOM 98MB ">H Loyomm .mH mHAmH 78 should not come from loan either. Greater proportion of village leaders is less likely to sell their farms and invest it in another type of business (-.679) or is less likely to move to a city for a job even if it offered double the income (-.679). These orientations of village leaders also go with a greater proportion of people participating in Panchyat (local self-government) elections (.556) and a higher density of cattle population per 100 people (.H65) (Table 12). This factor indexes the village leaders' conservative interest in land, greater interest and participation of villagers in the political decision-making at the village level. Factor V Institution Handicap Factor V accounts for seven percent of variance among the 57 variables. . Seven variables show their highest primary loadings on this factor ranging from —.u02 to —.728 (Table 6). Highest Loadings Low proximity of the village to cinema facility (-.728) , low accessibility to transport facility (-.702), lack of institutional develop— ment such as high school, cooperative society, warehoxse, post office, Panchyat (local self—governing body) headquarters, bicycle repair shop, village shop and retail market, public places of worship facilities (-.51+8), lo» proximity to veterinary diSpensary and VIM headquarters (-.L+88), postal facility (—.H02), and absence of multi-crop cultivation (-.u73) characterize this factor (Table 13). 79 ..COHHmCMchm 90% m xfiocmac< out mpHHmccsaoo u .mcaomOH pmmcch pxmc mew mnm mocv mmch: omuuHEo mHm amcH .mmmH so m m. .LOuumm meaemoa CD 833. meme m 0.. "mu-oz mmm. mmm. mmm. mmm. 53w. wmm. @30. mmm. mum. 053. «mu. mum. mam. @03. N3m. NHm. mom. mom. HHm. oer. mam. omm. m3H. mmm. HHo. mmm. HHN.I NNN.I NNN.I h3N.I 3mm. mmm.l mmm.| mom.l on. omm.| o3m.l mmm.l scenes: as Lawma> mm as No owed em “cabana 8 emeewo em omHm Hm amps; 2 find mm mm: m3 .hmwpwq NH scam m3 mmqamoa s25 «03.1 mn:.l mm:.l m3m.| 3mm. «05.1 mmb.l osme mm xHusz so xgmpmfi mm “5355 am excom< mo xwmcmpe mm pmfiomcmo hm mdeUMOH mwmaahm HHm QHm mm Awe mm on HomCHMchm 3m mocmafim>v mm AIHV QMOHUCMI COHVSVHpmcH Nb AmHv a > 88mm u> 9090mm «comm! mHomahm> .mH mHQMB 80 Other Loadings A law ratio of bicycles per 1,000 population (-.353), low pro- portion of literates among men (—.302) and women (-.3u0) , low ratio of print media per 100 population (-.320) , lack of electricity in the village (-.295), lack of adoption of improved cattle practices (—.85) , low accessibility to library facility (-.2'-l7), low level of political activity (-.222), fewer number of items in the village stores (-.222), and a low degree of mechanization (-.211) are other variables showing secondary loadings on Factor V which represents the handicaps of the institutional development in the village. Factor VI Leader Economic Risk Orientation , Factor VI accounts for four percent of the variance among the 57 variables . ' Four variables show primary loadings on this factor ranging from .511 to .596 (Table 6). Highest Loadings Factor VI is primarily loaded with the village leaders' propensity to sell some land cwned by them in order to use that proceed to intensively cultivate a profitable crop (.596), their preparedness to borrow money for investing in a profitable business (.511), availability of institu— tional facilities for development (.526) , and a greater proportion of women labor making up the work force (.530) (Table 114). -‘~.r- muaunu. ! u¥~ \~§,vv| . b. .0, h f. d‘ an 5.. .a...u..~ .~ .u & \ . I ... «(x ~.~.~ l... “...—I: : s -. C Pall: I .(s-d.-.~ . ~ a N. 81 .COHHmGMchm sow m x8539. paw m mHoma mom an EHHMSEEOO u N: ..Hovomm .ommfi.uo mmH. meaomoa .mqmomOH Hmong”: Ham: m5. mam .65. $de omo‘pHEo mom >99 m o o o umpoz mmm. Nmb. Nmm. 33m. m3m. 03m. mom. mHm. ohm. omm. 53m. mm3. oom. ow: nor. own. mmm. th.I mmm.| bmH. Nam. >a 3o oNN. oases so ems. amass as aw .- ownomm 3m oom. omen Hm 3Hm.- opmso om 3m. x88 om 0mm. peommoom mm afiBflsfié HHm. anouaompo H3 mam. bsmma> mm omm. oxoow<_mo mmm. Oncommnmq,o3t mMGHomoH g HHm OHM Aw: mm mm mm mm 3m mm mm Hm nommqv «coco H> 930mm 03393 "UmCHMHme moccahm>v Aommqv COHHMVCMafiO Xmam oafiocoom hmommq uH> QOpumm .3H mHQMH "' a n ‘ '3‘“.- .- . ... _ a . *po-N . . ‘5 0" ‘4 V ‘g ’0 “h y n-nJI r. ...-- OI. ... ‘N ... ‘- ‘ .n“‘ u n.“ q . ‘- n ..-- -.. .1 ... _ ..h‘n ‘ 5“ A. ‘\ . C ‘ .~>\ 82 Other Loadings Village leaders are, in general, oriented twards mobility in terms of the choice occupation, location of activity, nature of business and are prepared to finance their activities either by borrowing or by selling their land (.550). The villagers show greater utilization of new seed variety (. 359) . The electric power facility is available to them (.260). The village leaders belong to upper castes (-.361+) and are likely to be less secular in their belief system (-.231). The village has a prize-winning performance (.230). There is a low ratio of popula- tion to radio (.226) . There is a greater participation in Panchyat voting (.222). Factor VII Agricultural Development Factor VII accounts for six percent of the variance among the 57 variables. Six variables show their primary loadings on this factor ranging from .692to .355 (Table 5). Highest loadings Factor VII is characterized by the greater percentage of village cultivators using green manure, compost manure, utilization of artificial insemination for improving cattle breed (.692) , adoption of other innova— tive agricultural practices like village leaders' usage of chemical fertilizers, green manure, new implements, improved seeds, pesticides, new breed of cattle, greater percentage of leaders using improved seeds and plant protection measures most recommended, agricultural implements , 83 .COHHm:MHoxm.Hom m xHocwao< pew m mHan mpHHmcsaaoo n .mCHoMOH vmmnmwc_uxmc mew mam >vnu mmch: omepaao mam much .mmmH 90 m H. wCHomoq c. .QOpomm m mom a "mpoz mum. «Hm. m3m. 33m. «mm. mm:. mam. 3Hm. mmm. mmm.. mmm. Q30. om3. mom. mmm. mom. mmm. mmm. mm:.| .0. 0.. mmm m3m.l mm3.l No3.l mm3. mmm. m3m. mm3. omw. 5H3. bum. mmm. own. 3Hm. mam. m3m. mmH. mmH. OHN. mum. omN. mmw. 3mm. mom. mmm.| hHm. omm. hmm. mmm. um3. mHm. mHm. umm.. «mm. pHmo amass; xohcpmcH 0mm mNHpm chma umpmom _ammwm >m mascomHm ocean mm 3m mm 3m mm oH mm mH 30 m3 om omHthm mmmHUMOH porno fimfifi xHomm 836$ Ewoowm 68m? cmaemo mH om mm mm 33 um .mwcHomOH mumaapm HHm OHh mm mm mm as "ooqaaoxo mm mocmahm>v 3h 85 pc28am>8 8.88% mm NM Hm AQ .mH mHAMH 81+ improved cattle stock, and pesticides for plant protection (.687). The high percentage of cultivators utilizing improved seeds for food and cash crops (.616), greater extent of cropped area treated with plant protection measures (.513), higher improved seed. rate as adOpted by standarcb recommended by the agricultural experts (.1467), higher rate of infant mortality (.365) are positively associated with this factor (Table 15) . Other Loadings Additionally we find other variables measuring the aspects of edlcation (.268), energy (.367), communication (.330), institutional facilities (.210) and leaders' secular attitude (.225) positively loaded on the agricultural develOpnent factor. Factor VIII Land Resources and Tenancy Factor VIII accounts for four percent of the variance among the 57 variables. Only two variables load on this factor, their loadings being -.7u2 and -.687 (Table 6). Highest Loadings Low percentage of village cultivable land owned by the tOp ten cultivators (-.7l+2), large number of people per crop area viz. , high density of people per cropped area (-.687)* make up this factor. Hence we label this factor as land resources and tenancy (Table 16) . “The variable was scored high if it has low density. 85 .wcHUMOH meQMHn pxmc new mam >m£p mmch: omppHEO mam mmcH .COHHmcMchm pom m xHocmcc< ocm fiflmgoo u we 58me .mmoa so mad. meaomoa a) flame. some a O O O ”mUIOWQ @53. mom. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... mom. cyHHm om mmm. ... .. ... .. .. .. . mmm mom.u mCHcomz om om3. ... ... ... mom. ... .. ... ... ... ... mmm. encamcH mH HHs. ... ... .. ... ... ... . . . mm3. m3m.n gaasz mH mom. ... .. . so3. . .. ... . .. ... mmm.n xHoom om mmm. ... ... ... ... mmm. ... ... ... ... ... mmN.l umeH> mm mo3. ... . .. ... ... ... ... mm3. mom.a xma mm Nim. ... ... ... ... .. mm3.| .. . .. ... tho XQHQPWCH mm 3Hm. ... mm3.u ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... mmm.: AEmMHm mH mmmo ... ... ... ... o . 3mm. ... . ... ... mOJo 15x00w< mp mMCHUMOH smcpo sow. ... .. ... ... ... mmH.n ... ... ... ... smo.u 9H: Ho New. ... ... ... ... ... ... QHN. ... ... ... «35.: nuH mo meHomOH mnmaahm AHMAV ampoo N: HE OE E E 8 mi i E E E SE mounts flawed; :3 "oofimHaxm 82383 SH: 88:8. bet mgommm 663 "H; 86mm .3 Boos . ‘~ _ 86 Other Loadings A greater proportion of male agricultural workers (.u05) , greater proximity to village institutions (.267), infant mortality (.229), and birth rate (.202), lower percentage of women with high school education (-.269), lav tax base (-.266), poor village store facilities (-.255), lcw utilization of improved seed (-.253) , lo» mechanization or machine—use (-.205) characterize this factor. Factor IX Primary Education and Mechanization Factor IX accounts for five percent of the variance among the 57 variables. Five variables have their highest loadings on this factor ranging from -.311+ to .7314. Highest Loadings Number of grain mills per thousand population has the highest loading on this factor (.73l+). High percentage of girls attending primary school (.696) , high percentage of boys attending primary school (.687) , high ratio of bicycles per ten thousand population (.501), but low percentage of cultivators using recomrended agricultmral implements in the village (.3114) dmaracterize this factor (Table 17). Other Loadings High percentage of boys attending middle school (.1408) , high per- centage of boys attending high school (.277), ratio of persons to number of radios is negatively loaded on this factor (-.356) , positive load- ings of variety of items in village store (.300) , high ratio of cattle 87 .COHHmcMngm.How m xHocwcc< ocm m mHan mom « .>HHHmc:EEoo u .mcHUMOH pmmcch.uxmc map can xmcv mmchs ompvaao mam mesa c .mmmH so mmH. .90pcmm menses: m 0 O O "mpoz 33m: mum. ems. mmm. mmh. Nmm. H3m. mum. mmm. mmm. mHm. monol- .0. OOO mmN. ... mom. .0. “New. .0. com 0.. mmm 0.. @010 mmm. 3Hm O O 0 How. 0 O 0 5mm. 0 O 0 mom. .0. :mn 0mm 3m peso mm EH3 5H . bemoa> mm .| OHomm em .Emonan mmcHomOH smcvo .- oHoEH ow son m3 amaapm mH mmaanm 3H . _achnw m3 nMCHpMOH mumaapm HHM on mm hm mm mm 3m mm wk Hammv Hm XH.HOHQMM Awe "boeesaoxm mossesmsc Azure soaumseemeooz new eoeemooom sausage «MUOO mHnmaHm> "xH peyote .sH masts . a . 'l .. A . .__, . - u -n, ' -..” . ~K.‘ .‘ ‘ - . ‘9 ~ . -4 . . a ‘1 x ., n n L \ 88 per 100 population (.268), positive relation with secular orientation (.268) characterize this factor. Factor X Mechanization with Lack of Post—primary Education Factor X explains five percent of the variance among the 57 vari- ables. Four variables have their primary loadings on this factor ranging from .uu7 to .705 (Table 6). Highest Loadings A low percentage of boys (-.705) and girls (-.l+99) going to high sdlool, 10d peroentage of boys going to middle school (-.665) , high ratio of oil engines (.|+l+7) and other farm machinery (.1439) characterize this factor (Table 18) . Other Loadings General male and female literacy and primary education are neg— atively loaded on this factor. Library facility, institutional develop- ment and health and family planning development are also negatively assoc- iated with this factor. Facility of electric power, electric pump and other mechanical indicators are positively loaded on this variable. This factor is tentatively interpreted as mechanization factor combined with lack of post—primary education. 89 . .eoflmemaoxo soc m x6988 out a Home mom a bHHmEano n m: ..Homem u m .mfioMOH #3:ch “.ch mfi. 98 >93 mmch: owHfiEo mam amen. .mmmH so mmH. widows u . .. "mpoz mmmo 0.0 000 no. 0.. o o 0.0 .00 mmmo coo 30N0| 033 mm ®J®. ... ... ... ... . o. o .. ... mNm. DON. UNHW Hm who. ... Hom. . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... HNN.I AUHm m3 NHQ. ... ... ... . mimol ... ... ... OMNo| FDWHPWCH 3m Nmb. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... QNO. ... wMNoI Afiwmpflfl NH 0mm. .0. wow. co. 00. on. 0.. on. 0.. 0.0 0.. .T—mNol- “Em :H 535. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... MOB. mJMoI QUMHMm MN mwm. ... ... ... .. . o 33:. ... Nmm.l .EGPHJ HH mom. ... ... ... ... . .. .. ... 3Hm. Hmm. QESQomHm m3 0mm. .0. ooo co. 0.. o. 00. o o o mmmo mmjo mqmfimzbm meHomOH 9930 0mm. co. 00. 000 00. co. co 00 o 00 mmmo mmjo mfifig om Hmm. Hmm.l ... ... ... . ... ... ... . ... 533. HwCMHHO 53 JHm. ... ... mmmo| o. o . ... ... o o co. mmiol EEWHm mH Nmmo ... mOJ. ... o o ea. o oo- oo. mom-I .EQUH: mH ems. Rm. .. mos... HEPH mmEHVMOH g Ammumzv «mooo we HHm mm mm so mm mm 3m mm mm Hm x_uouomm mHQMHnm> cs, "oofifloxm 8685 ates Samoan. gasotboe fies 538663 "x .888 .m: 28a. 9O Factor XI Factor XI accounts for five percent of variance among the 5 7 variables. Only two variables with their highest loadings are negatively associated with this factor. Highest Loadings Birth rate is negatively correlated with this factor (—.568) as also the residence of officials in the village (-.L&50). Other Loadings By looking at the secondary loadings we find this factor to be correlated negatively with mechanization (—.391), institutional facilities (-.381), national voting (-.326), number of people per radio (-.300), credit orientation (-.278), women educated up to high school grade (—.261), low prize—winning performance of the village (-.200) . The meaning of this factor is not clear hence it is left uninter- preted. There is an element of low birth rate, isolation and handicaps of institutional accessibility (Table 19). Summary and Discussion of R Factor Analytic Results Factor I (labeled as village general develgpment) indexes both the subjective reputational ratings by the development workers as well as the objective indicators of village develOpnent. We consider this dimension to represent a measure of over all general development of the village. Factor II (termed as war—Zoommlunication resources) indicates the dimension of village manpower resources, the literacy skills of 91 .GOH “Nagoya now m finance“? can ..HOuumm w mHAmH m EHngoo u «n .wcHHVMOH #83st 86: m5 mam horn. mmch: omupHEO ohm >93. .mmmH .HO mmH. mfiuomQH 8m .m u .962 «mm. mmm. wmw. who. m«m. mom. 3Hm. mum. ow3. «mm. mo3. HHh. «Hm. Hmm. mom. @53. mm3.l 53:. How. «o«. co. on. co. co. on. ... OQN. OON.‘ on. .0. 3mm. co. co. o no. ION. ... oo- oo. co. co. ... mmmo HHN.‘ on. no. .0. 0.. co. co. co. OMN. co. co. ooo no. go. mmm. coo HMN. co. co. NOjol oo- ooo co. co. NMNoI ... oo- ooo coo co. co. co. HwNo| ... HHW. coo on. ooo on. coo whNol mmmo co. o. co. co. co. co. OWN. coo coo ooo on. .0. 03m. ooo OOMoI co. co. co. co. co. me o co. DNMoI ... ... go. co. co. co. mmio JmMol ... ... mimol oo- ooo ooo ... HQMo| Hmm.l mNfiHm Exoow< mcHeomz scam Cg ompmom .amMHm €868 ES oats >2 5&3: panama aeoflo m« we om m3 mm mm mH H3 mH hm mo mH 3m 53 mmfiomoa 98.5 0.. mmlfio .00 9.. .0. 0.. 0.. om3.l mmm.| monmo mm Aynmmlpm. mmfioMOH gm OHM mm mm «QUOO uh oh mm 3m mm «m Hm Hx.houomm mHnmaam> Awm HomCHMmem mocmahm>v Apmncpoch ou HHSOHMMHUV mam: oz ”Hx 888 .2 Home. n ~‘ 92 people, and the message-media facilities available to the village. Factor III (named leader change—griepjation) represents village leaders ' favorable attitudes towards changes introduced in agricultural and health programs in the village. Factor IV (labeled leader economic_conservatism) characterizes the village leaders' hesitancy and their negative inclination to finance their farm development plans by such methods as selling part of their land or borrowing money. Factor V (named institution handicap) capsules the handicaps of a village because of the lack of accessibility and proximity to institu- tional facilities affecting the welfare of the village. Factor VI (named leader economic risk orientation) represents high economic risk orientated leadership and economic activism in the village as indexed by a high ecmomic participation of women as workers. Factor VII (named agricultural development) represents moderniza- tion process of agriculture as indexed by the adoption of innovative agricultural inputs . Factor VIII (named land resources and tenan_cy) represents the dependence of the village economy on land resources and tenant farming. Factor IX (named p_rimary education and mechanization) represents the aspects of high proportion of children in the village studying in primary schools and more use of mechanized process of farming and farm product processing machineries . Factor X (named mechanization with lack of post-primary education). This factor describes a coexistence of the adoption of farming related machines and lack of post-primary education. ,—-*" .‘f a-» ----. ‘r.. “_ "¢. ‘, ,- x . o‘ . \ -'_ w. I-‘.. 93 Factor XI is difficult to interpret and label. However, it characterizes a lack of residency of development officials in the village and shows a low birth rate. Comparison with Previous Factor Analytic Study We may mention here the findings of a previous factor analytic study which is relevant to our present investigation because of the com- parability of the unit of analysis involved and national setting for the data. Adelman and Dalton (1971) studied 108 villages in India using 1961 India Census Village survey data. Though the domain of investiga- tion viz. , village develOpment is the same, the Operationalization pro- cedures employed in the Adelman and Dalton study and in the present one to measure the variables are different. Further, the number of variables included in the R—Factor analysis are also different. Adelman and Dalton (1971) used 17 variables whereas the present study used 57 variables. But conceptually both of the studies have a common focus of empirical investigation analyzing village development and modernization dimensions. Even though the variables are not Opera- tionally the same, the conceptual relevance lends some basis for validating the structure and meaning of factors empirically established. Table 20 gives the names of variables used in the Adelman and Dalton study, which are found relevant to the factors extracted in the present case. In both the studies we find the utilization of agricultural inputs such as irrigation facilities, fertilizer, pesticides and new seeds in 9a 6.832 mam xocpm .HHmnp cH omHMHpcmoH muovowm 93 can 63m HHN. mHv COHHmmocm HREHmo< cH poms mmHAMHth 9833 33pm #cmmwnm m5. hHo mHOpUmm #cmHm>H:dm mHHmfiubmocoo u + .c0vaocom gcnpmoa 5H3 COHpmNHcmfimz u on EOHHMNHcmcome ocm COHpmgom E u mm mmocmcmp ocm 80.903,» pawn H mm MPEQOHQ/mo HmHDPHdoHE n E 386%: :03prng n mm 8930me COHHMOHSEooJHmsoacmz u «m mpcmEQOHmsmo Hmsmcmm mmeHH> u Hm a "muoz 1. 88m mumpnmm Emacs so + mfimm omcso ocmm as + meow wHSHHSOstm e3.” eemscaeem a + 80.90me UcMH paw game MpHcmo 9mm puma + 3:ng ngwHwQOIoo mHanmnamwa gHHwmeonoo + 8am 8382 but toasts + + + + mnmm COHpmosom QOHHMNHEmer HMHUOm paw QOHQEUNH. + + 3588b H93 «mafia, 39338.4. mo H93 Se 8 on E a E E :33 83.0. 83.3 :33 88m 63m possess mfi 5 owflficmfi «8088 a oomMmpWfiEmomNomwmm cmemmmmaMoMafiHMM .mwcHoCHm OHEAHME. 98.0mm 93 ..Ho 3363 93¢ng «InmCOHmemaHo pcmenHOHng owMHHH> .o« mHnt 95 modernizing agriculture. We see Factor VII of our study which indexes the agricultural development dimension containing the measures of improved agriculture technology which is found as a component factor labeled as village level economic and social modernization by Adelman and Dalton. Because of the additional measures we have included in the battery of our variable set, our study additionally indexes other measures related to energy and technology aspects of development such as the availability and use of electricity, use of oil engines to lift water and process agricultural produce. The variable, transport and location, used in the Adelman and Dalton study, has its conceptual relevance in Factor V (institution handicap) of the present study's factor structure. The variable education of the Adelman and Dalton study has its components Split into three different factors in the present study viz. , Factor II (human resources - communication resources), Factor IX (Primary Education and Mechanization), and Factor X (Medianization with lack of post-primary education. The variables, land per capita, percent of persons employed in agriculture, percent of land owned, and percent of tenant farmers (of the Adelman and Dalton study) have conceptual relevance to Factor VIII (land resources and land tenure) of the present study. While comparing our factor structure with that of Adelman and Dalton, we find that our study has partitioned a general factor such as modernization and development factor (of the Adelman and Dalton study) into education, agriculture development and institutional handicap. Even the education factor has been further partitioned into literacy , primary 96 education, and post-primary education. Thus the present study based on a larger battery of variables while confirming the empirical findings of Adelman and Dalton has mapped a factor Space of increased complexity of village development dimensions. Selected Development Dimensions We have described in detail (see pages 66-90) the eleven village development dimensions based on 57 empirical measures. Empirical estab- lishment of the village development dimensions was only a means for a further study of the communication linkages of the village social systems which vary on different dimensions of development. Among the eleven dimensions described previously, we selected the following eight dimen- sions of development because they were conceptually meaningful and clearly interpretable. Table 21 lists the dimensions chosen. Factor Scores of Selected Development Dimensions In order to differentiate the village social systems along each one of the development dimensions , we computed factor scores by a weighted combination of z scores of the variables taking into account their loadings on a given factor. The factor scores embody the inter- related functional unity among the variables from which they are derived (Rummel, 1970, p. 152). FACTORA program at the MSU (CISSR)*was used for obtaining the factor scores. The factor scores on each one of the selected eight dimensions give us the degree of village development. 1: Michigan State University (Computer Institute for Social Science Research) ,. l 97 Table 21. Selected Village Development Dimensions. Factor Code # (Dimension) Descriptive Label 1 I Village general development 2 II Manpower communication resources 3 III Leader change orientation u IV Leader economic conservatism 5 V Institution handicap 6 VII Agricultural development 7 IX . Primary education and mechanization 8 X Mechanization with lack of post- primary education Village Development Dimensions and External Communication Contact Hypothesis The eight-factor scores are considered as eight variables in formulating the empirical hypotheses derived from the theoretical hypothesis as follows: Theoretical Hypothesis: The more developed a village system is the more integrated it is with the outside system. Empirical Terms In order to test the hypothesis empirically we consider the following aspects: (1) eight dimensions of village development as vari- ables characterizing the village social system; (2) three different linking roles relevant to the village development process; and (3) .a ~A... 98 communication behavior of linking roles relevant to external communica- tion of the village. Linking Roles In our discussion of the conceptualization of the communication roles ( see page 21+ )7, we had introduced such roles as the conveyor, the consultant and the leader. For purposes of empirically testing the theoretically hypothesis stated earlier, we operationalize the communication role into linking role and categorize it as development functionary linkage (the ABC and the VLW) and leader linkage (village leader). (1) Agricultural Extension Officer (AEO): The ABC occupies an important technological administrative role in the formal organization of agricultural development affecting the village system. He formally links to the village the development directions that come from the dis- trict administration as well as the technological information. that comes from agricultural research stations and laboratories. Also, his role is significant in the decision-making processes at the block development level affecting the agricultural programs reaching the village. His commmication linkage with the village social system establishes active contact lines for disseminating agricultural development ideas to the village. (2) Village Level Worker (VLW): The VLW occupies the immediate linking role with the village both in his formal functional role relating the block development administration and the village government function- aries and also in his informal person to person contact at the farmer level. His role is the meeting point for the formal structure of the 99 governmental, the non—governmental processes and the farmers' needs at the village from day-to-day. (3) Village Leader: The village leaders are a set of persons in the village who occupy formal positions of pover and/or positions of opinion leadership to whom people look to for advice and influence- on matters affecting their farm business. The communication contacts of the leaders outside the village bring to the village a common information system of ideas, knowledge, values and attitudes that set a frame of reference for individual and group actions. Formal administrative roles of the ABC and the VLW were identified by looking at the organizational chart (formal structure) of the develop— ment organization operating at the block and the village level. The village leaders were identified based on the leadership of a person as a formally elected leader of the village government or other service structures, or a person who was sought by the people for his opinion and advice on agriculture and related matters. Communication Behavior of Linking Roles We Operationalized the communication behavior of the ABC , the VLW, and the village leader roles and computed the scores on each one of the communication variables as follows: Development Functionary Linkages AEO village visit: AEO communication linkage with the village was measured in terms of the number of times he visited the village up. \ \ . 100 during a year. The range of the AEO village visit scores is from 00 to 90 (for detailed measurement procedures see Appendix'B Variable #60). VLW village visit: This variable was measured by asking the VLW as to how many times he visited the village during a Specified year. His visit scores range from 01 to 98 (for detailed measurement pro— cedures see Appendix B Variable #62). VLW percent of time spent: The percent of time the VLW spent in the village was measured by asking him what percent of his time was spent in the village. The scores range from 2 to 98 (see AppendixB Variable #61 for detailed measurement procedure). VLW demonstrations: This variable was measured by asking the VLW how many times he had demonstrated the agriculture-related practices and products in the village during a specified year. The VLW demonstra- tion scores range from 0 to 80 (for detailed measurement procedure see Appendix B Variable #63). Village Leader Linkages In order to measure the communication linkage role of the village leaders, we measured their communication contacts in three areas: (1) comrmlnication interaction with formal organization functionaires such as the VLW, the AEO, the block development officer and the veterinary doctor; (2) contacts with the urban and development administrative centers; and (3) exposure to mass media. The following specific vari- ables measuring the communication contacts of the village leaders with the outside system were included in the study. 101 Leader talk with the block development officer (BDO): The village leaders were asked: "How many times in a year have you talked with the BBC?" The responses were scored as described in the Appendix B (for details see Variable #71), The leader talk with the. BDO scores range from 0 to 7. Leader talk with the veterinary doctor: The village leaders were asked about their frequency of talk with the veterinary doctor in a year. The responses were scored as described in Appendix B (see Variable #75). The leader talk scores with the veterinary doctor range from 0 to 7. Leader talk with the ABO: This variable was measured based on the leader's response to the question, "How many times have you talked with the ABC?" (See Variable #72 in Appendix B for measurement pro- cedures.) The leader talk scores with the ABC range from 0 to 8. Leader talk with the VLW: This variable was measured based on the leader's response to the question, "How many times have you talked with the VLW?" (See Variable #66 in Appendix B for measurement pro- cedures.) The leader talk scores with the VLW range from 0 to 8. Leader visit to block headcparters: This variable was measured by asking the leader, "How many times during the past six months have you visited the block headquarters?" The responses were coded as described in Appendix B (see Variable #61:). The scores range from O to 59. Leader visit to district headquarters: This variable was measured by asking the leader, "How many times during the past six months have you visited district headquarters?" The responses were scored as described in Appendix B (see Variable #65). The scores range from 0 to 1+3. av‘ 102 Leader visit to urban centers: This variable was measured by asking the leader, "During the past six months, how many times have you visited the nearest town and city?"; "Have you ever lived outside the village in another urban area for more than a year?" i The responses were scored as described in Appendix B Variable #81. The scores range from O to 16. Leader exposure to cinema: This variable was measured by asking the leader, "About how many times a year do you go to the cinema?" The responses were scored as described in Appendix B (see Variable #79). The scores range from 0 to 9. Hypothesis Testing 1. Village General DeveLOpment and External Communication Contact We shall examine the external linkage hypothesis of the village re la ting external communication contact indices to the village general development. Deriving from the theoretical hypothesis stated on page 97 we state the following empirical hypotheses: Empirical hypothesis lesz Higher the village scores on general development , greater is the contact of the village with the external system throng": the development functionaries (VLw. ~.and AEO) . Empirical hypothesis H :y:A 1 Higher the village scores on general development, greater is the contact of the village with the outside system through the village leaders The statistical hypotheses derived from the empirical hypotheses lesz and leyzA are presented in Table 22. 103 The hypothesized relationship between the village general develop- ment factor score and each one of the external communication linkage variables is stated in column 3, Table 22. The variable village general development is derived from the factor scores computed based on the weigrted sum of the z scores (standardized in terms of the standard deviation units) of variables loading on the village general development factor (see Factor #1, pages 66-71). The range of scores on this vari- able is from -2.20 to 3.08. In column 2 (Table 22) the external communication contact vari- ables are stated. The measurement procedures of these variables are described on pages In column 1+ the Pearsonianr found in this study are reported. The column 5 indicates the state of the statistical hypotheses in the light of the present findings. Findings Development functionary linkage: The correlations of the village general development dimension with the ABC village visit (. 31), the VLW village visit (.30), the VLW's percent of time spent in the village (.36), and the VLW demonstrations in the village (.21) are statistically sig— nificant past the .05 probability level. Hence the hypothesis of positive external communication linkage of the more developed village social system througi the development functionaries is supported. Village leader linkage: The correlations of village general development dimension with the village leader--VLW talk (.37), the village leaders-ABC talk (.26) and the village leader cinema exposure (.310 are statistically significant past the .05 probability level. 101+ 33 Engaged mo. mfi p93 unmoflsmnmg mumfimsuommm BBEE u are gmgcommm #553ng £0on u 0mm mod n .....B mo.“ u z hobboo gov; u 000 38> 8x83 H93 mmma> u as 983.8 8.88398 x88 u 08 smoEMO aowmcmuxm gpdfiwowxw u om< ”mpoz vantages p02 2. + 6828 amp“: .8683 mmmfle, 8 "firm. omfioaddm «3m. + enamomxm 22.8 98on wwmafl> Hm 3;”? umfionasm «8. + 8a 88> fins 583. 988a mmmflr, 2.39%: Bfloagm «9.. + 92 £3 fig 8&3 B33, Bantam umfioaaam #02 Z. + 8m 5? fig 9883 Bad; Syntax emfifigm «S. + 34> fins v28. 3.83 mmfld> $2;th Btoansm 602 «a. + 95 on “59.5 68me mwmflg guitar emfioddsm 8.02 S. + 0% 8 pawn, 688a mmmflg 835ch euphemism «2. + mmmfl? fi 83898966 35 823%: emtomasm «mm. + mmmflfi, fi 85. no “588% as Zufixuflz nmfioagm «om. + paw? Hui? 34> mace! umfioaBm «a. + paw? mama? om< dfixua: 3v 2; A8 A3 GU flange/8 H883 «twang 33.30%: 3 663.88 fins 3 fiBomHmmE flamers, mmmvsfl 3952 m5. no 053 mmfiofim cowpfluwenoo omwammzpogm coapmoflgoo adambxm mammzpomhm .pompcoo soapmoflEano ngouxm ocm pémoagma gcmw mwmaag .NN magma. ~-. ~“ \ \x .‘ , u a N 105 The correlations of village general develOpment dimension with village leader——BDO talk (.17), the village leader urban contact (.13), and the leader visit to block headquarters are positive but statistically not significant past .05 level. The correlation between village general development and village leader visit to district headquarters is negative (-.22) and statistically significant. Conclusion External linkages of the more developed village social system are positively maintained through the communication contacts of the agri- cultural development functionaries such as the AEO and the VLW. The village leader's external communication contacts are main- tained through his interpersonal contacts with the ABC, the veterinary doctor, the VLW and exposure to cinema. The village leader external linkages through interpersonal con— tacts with the BDO, visits to urban centers and block headquarters are weak while visits to the administration centers such as the district are negative . 2. Village Institutional Development and External Commmicat ion Contact . We shall examine the external contact hypothesis relating to another dimension of village development, viz. , institution handicap. Deriving from the theoretical hypothesis stated on page we state the following empirical hypotheses: Empirical hypothesis lesz The greater the village scores on institutional handicaps, 106 the less integrated the village is with the agri- cultural research system through the development functionaries (ABC and VLW) . Empirical hypothesis H1:y:B The greater the village scores on institutional handi- cap is,the less integrated the village is with the out- side systems through village leaders. To provide the statistical evidence to examine the empirical hypotheses, we Operationalized the communication variables indicating the commmication behavior of the ABC, the VLW, and the village leader roles as described on pages 99-102. The statistical hypotheses derived from the empirical hypotheses lesz and Hl:y:B are presented in Table 23. i The hypothesized relationship between the scores on village institutional handicap and each one of the external munication contact measures in terms of the linkage roles are stated in Column 3 of Table 23. The variable, institution handicap, is derived from the factor scores computed based on the weighted sum of the z scores (standardized in terms of the standard deviation units) on variables loading on village insti- tution handicap factor (see Factor #V). The range of scores on this variable is from -3.0l+ to 1.77. In Column 1+ of Table 23, we state the Pearsonian r found in the present study. Column 5 mentions the state of the statistical hypotheses in the light of the findings mentioned in Column 1}. Findings Deve10pment functionarLlinkage: The correlation of institution handicap with AEO's village visit score (-.23), VLW'S village visit score (-.28), and the VLW's peroent of time Spent in the village (-.37 are 107 84” ... we 84 u 2 so. 4.3 H93 mo. 65 #me “Ecumdmumm 8863 4964 334$ u 34> awowmmo cowmcmuxm 85ng n om< "muoz nmfioaasm «as... - 83:8 8.an $683 6333/ 853ch nonrandom «mmf .. 3:8de gmfio meMmH mmmaad, mm ”muam omuhommdm #02 S... I 98.0% hamfismpg 5H3 v9.3 pmomoa mwmaag 145m” Tam amfioaaum «Hm .. - owe. 85. £3 Vamp omega mmmflg 85;ch omPHRESm «mmf I emoflmo #cmedoagmo 383 85. 5.3 vamp 82.2 mmmflg as"??? omfiofism 3am: .. 34> EH3 v83 883 88:49 855ml nmfioadsm p02 8.- -Emggmm: 825.6 8 new? .583 mmmflg «€2ch grandam it- .. B38388: x003 8. puma, 893 mwmfly amumufiam coupomasm poz moi u mmmflng 9? sun maoapmfipmcnemo 34> mmnmuxuam omfiocasm «5.- I mmmfl? mfi fi 5.5% 25. mo c.6863 34> maumuxuam umfioaBm «mm: - 8.8? BSA? 34> 2;:th nmfiofism «mm... - yam? mania, om< Numuxuam A3 23 Amv AC AC &Bchm Superhuman mmmfl§ mammnpogm A9 smacomwmmmv spa: on Eggnog 393th mmmxcj nogz m5. mo mpmym mmfiofim coauhagwoo omnwmmfioahm coavmogoo #05306. wwwmfioahm .8328 coapmowgfiea Hmfimuxm ocm “cm—egngmd HmcowubpwpmcH wmwflg . 108 negatively related and statistically significant past .05 probability level. Hence the hypothesized relations are supported. The linkage through the VLW demonstrations (-.06) though negative is not statis— tically significant. 1 Village leader linkage: The correlation of institutional handi- cap with the village leader visit to block headquarters (-.27) , the village leader talk with the VLW (-.38) , the leader talk with the EDD (-.28) , the leader talk with the ABC (-.31) , the leader cinema exposure (-.35), and the leader urban contact (-.|+8) are all negative and statistically significant artthe.05 probability level. The leader visit to district headquarters (-.03) , the leader talk with the veterinary doctor (-.l7) are negatively correlated with the village institution handicap but are not statistically significant past . 05 probability level . Conclusion The evidence is strong to support the assertion that the more institutionally handicapped a village is, the less is its linkage with the external system ,either through formal developmental functionary roles or through village leadership roles . 3. Agricultural Development and External Communication Contact We shall examine the relationships between agricultural develop- ment dimension of village development and external communication linkages of the village social system. Deriving from the theoretical hypothesis on page 97 we state the empirical hypotheses as follows: 109 Empirical hypothesis lex:C The higher the village scores on the agricultural develOp- ment, the higner is the contact of the village with the agricultural research system througn the develOpnent functionaries (ABC and outside the village VLW). Empirical hypothesis Hl:y:C The higher the village scores on the agricultural develOp— ment, the higher is its contact with the outside system throng": village leaders . Statistical hypotheses derived from the empirical hypotheses H1:sz and Hl:y:C are presented in Table 21+. The external communication contact variables are presented in Column 2 of Table 29. Their Operational definitions are as described on pages 99-102. In Column 3 of Table 21+ their hypothesized relation with the variable agricultural development is indicated. The score for the vari- able agricultural develOpment was derived from the Factor VII extracted as one of the village development dimensions (see page 82 ). (We computed the z scores of the variables that loaded on this factor using the factor loadings as the weight and summed the weighted scores across all the variables, and obtained an average 2 score which range from -1.59 to 2.76. In Column 14 of Table 29, the Pearsonian r found in this study between the agricultural development dimension and the respective external communication contact variables are stated. In Column 5 of Table 21+, mention is made of the state of the statistical hypotheses in the light of the findings. 110 mad n as was n z Ame. 43V Hm>ma mo. mew pmmd pcmoamacwam nmxpo3 Hm>m4 mwmaau> n 34> « Qmoflmo cowmraflfi stHmdofiHm/w u om< "mpoz umpmoaasm «mm. + unapcoo amen: pmvmma mwmaau> 4m 0 >n4m omypoaasm mom. + mesmoaxm memcuo mmnmma mmmaaa> mm o >"4m omyuoaasm «Na. + echoes >mmcaumpm> epa3.xaMp_amemmH mmmaaa> m> o >"Hm Umuuoaazm «mm. + om< may epa3.xa8p mmvmma mmmHHn> am on> Hm omfioxmddm «Hm. + emoflmo pgaoagmo 5803 86. £43 V88. 988a mmmds, and"??? umsmoaazm «mm. + 34> epa3.xamu mmnmmfl mamaflu> Hmuou>nfim omp90ddsm poz ma. +mempwmsaomme Hoawpmao on pfimu> mmnmma mmmHHa> m: o >"Hm ombpoaasw #02 mo. + mpmgcomm: xooan ow ”Sum? pmomma mmmflg mmnouwuam 83.83% ...8. + 98:? 23 an 203858845 34> 253%: nmfioaaam «2. + Magus 85 fi 8.5% 85. mo 2893 34> Saddam nmpmoaasm «Hm. + pwmu> mmmaaa> 3u> HH 0 xuam emupoaasm poz mo.- + pflmfi> mmmaaa> om< m oux Hm Ame lav Ame ANV AHV . pcmeaoam>mo danceasoumm< mammepoa>m Ag amusemmmmac euaz,xp cmacommmmav magmanm> mmmxcu4 mmaesz may mo macaw mmfiofim :oflwmamfinoo ommflmmnponbnm coapmogoo HmfiouXm mammnpomhm #00qu0 cowpmdafiaseoo ~35me ocm #55398 gwgoflg mmmaag .rm manoH 111 Findings Development functionary linkage: The correlation of agricul- tural development dimension of village development with the VLW village visit (.31), the VLW peroent of time spent in the village (.19), and the VLW demonstration in the village (.20) are positive and statis- tically significant past .05 probability level. Hence the VLW role linkage with the agricultural develOpnent aSpect of the village is supported. The correlation between the agricultural development dimension of the village and the AEO's village visit is —.06,which is not significant. This finding does not support the hypothesis. Village leader linkage: The correlation between agricultural development dimension of the village social system and the village leader talk with the VLW (.29) , the leader talk with the block development officer (.21), the leader talk with the ABC (.29), the leader talk with veterinary doctor (.22), the leader cinema exposure (.30) , and the leader urban contact (.23) show positive and statistically significant correlation with the agricultural development dimension past .05 prob- ability level. Hence the hypothesis is supported. Village leader's visit to block headquarters (.06) and village leader visit to district headquarters (.15) show correlation with agri- cultural development in the hypothesized direction but are not statis- tically significant, hence do not support the hypothesis. Conclus ion A village social system which scores high on the agricultural devel- opment dimension has positive linkages through the formal development 112 worker at the grass roots such as the village level worker, and the leader's linkage with the development workers at different levels in the hierarchy. The evidence suggests that the role of the VLW is rela— tively strong and the direct linkage of the AEO to the village social system is relatively weak. The village leaders' visit to block head- quarters or district headquarters are not strong indicators of commmn- ication linkages with the outside system. But their interaction with the development workers, their visit to urban centers and their exposure to cinema establish strong linkages between the agriculturally developed village and its outside system. H. Village Manpower - Communication Resources and External Communication Cont act We shall examine the relationship between manpower—communication resources and external communication linkage. Deriving from the theo- retical hypothesis on page 97 , we state the empirical hypotheses as follows : Empirical hypothesis H1: x: D The higher the village scores on manpower—communication resources, the higher is its contact with the agricul- tural research system outside the village through develOpnent functionaries. Empirical hypothesis H1 The higher the village scores on manpower—communication resources, higher is its linkage with the outside systems through the village leader contacts. :y:D The statistical hypotheses derived from the empirical hypotheses lexzD and leyzD are presented in Table 25. 113 e: u as 2: u z $0. 4.: 493 mo. 93. 8.me pcmofldmam 68:03 364 69:; u 34> r. Locate scamdmuxm mgpgofimd .I. om< "302 amt0a9m «mm. + 6380 among 98mg H83; «293% Bfioaam «mm. + 8:898 25:8 688a 98:; graham omfiodasm p02 8.- + 98.840 339363 533 V88. Emma mmmflg {dense nmtoaasm. am. + 92 ma. :33 Vans. 8883 H83; 35%? omppoadom «mm. + pmoflmmo ”2353938 V183 9r 553 amp 98mg mmmfla> 853%: 8.6098 ...2. + 34> £9 5:8. anma Mamie, 3,5ch umfioanam ea. +8383nt 084.8me 8. name, 9383 mafia: $53ch @8639... 8.02 ms. + 933:8me 0483 8. 8.845 393 92d; of??? amtoaam «2. + mmmflc, 86. fl 200255640 34> 35cc? omphommom #02 NH. + mmmaag mac. Ca ”Emmm mafia mo 8.809% 34> omumuxuam 83639.0. 0.03 8. + name, mafia? 34> anagram 40850333 “63 S. + pawn, 92H? om< inseam 3v 2: A3 A3 A3 moonsowmm cowumoagooimzomcmz 9.893933 A,» cmgmnmmmv nfiz TH awesomnmmmv manmwum> mwmxfiq .8952 05 mo mumww meHofim cowvmamfiwoo omwwmmfionbmm COHFMOHEEOU Hmfimukm mammzponbf .pomficoo COflpmoflEEEOo Hmfimukm cam mmOQDOmmm counpmofiSEEOO I fimécmz owning .mm manmh 114 The external communication linkage variables are mentioned in Column 2 or Table 25. The Operationalization of the communication linkage variables are described on pages 99-102. In Column 3 of Table 25, the hypothesized relation of these vari- ables with the manpowerucommunication resources and the respective external communication contact variables are stated. The variable manpower-com— munication resormces was measured based on the linear combination of the z scores of the variables loaded on Factor II (see page 71) weighted according to their respective factor loadings. The z scores range from -2.26 to 3.58. In Column 5 of Table 25, we mention the state of the statistical hypotheses in the light of the findings in Column 1+. Findings Development functionary linkage: The Pearsonian r between manpower- communication dimension and the VLW demonstrations is equal ‘to .19 which is significant past the .05 probability level. This is the only supporting evidence for the external linkage hypothesis of a developed village social system in terms of manpower-commmnication dimension through the formal role of the VLW The Pearsonian r between the ABC's village visit score and manpower— communication dimension of the village development is equal to .10 . The Pearsonian r of the VLW visit score and the VLW percent of time spent in the village with the same village development dimension are equal to .09 and .12 reSpectively. All the three findings are not statistically sig- nificant, and hence, do not support the general hypothesis of positive relation between manpower-communication dimension of village development 115 and linkage through formal functionaries with the outside systems. Village leader linkage: The Pearsonian r between village leader visit to district headquarters, leader talk wifin the VLW,’ the BDO and the ABC and other are shown in Table 26 below. Table 26. Village Leader Linkage and Manpower-Communication Resources. ManpdfleP-Commmication Resource External Linkage Variables Dimension of Village Development Leader visit to block HQ .08 Leader talk with the VLW .2l+* Leader talk with BBC . 21* Leader talk with the ABC . 37* Leader talk with veterinary doctor -. 07 Leader cinema exposure .28='= Leader urban contact -.26* * Significant past the .05 probability level. Except the two communication linkage indicators viz. , leader visit to block headquarters ard the veterinary doctors , all the remaining six indicators of external communication linkage of village leaders are statistically significant. The hypothesis that the villages whidn score high on manpower - communication resources are positively related to the village leader external contacts are supported. Conclusion There is no positive relation between the manpower — communication dimension of village develOpment and linkage through formal functionaries 116 with the outside system. Village leader tendency to establish linkages outside the village and the communication resource development of the village is positively related . 5. Leader Change Orientation and External Communication Contact We shall examine the relationship between village leader change orientation dimension of development and external communication linkage of the village system. Deriving from the theoretical hypothesis on page 97 we state the expirical hypothesis as follows: Empirical hypothesis lex:E Higlner the village scores on leader change orientation, higher is the contact of the village with the agricultural research system through the development functionaries . Empirical hypothesis H :yzE 1 Higher the village scores on leader change orientation, higher is the communication contact with the outside system through the village leader contacts. Statistical hypotheses derived from the empirical hypotheses lex:E and ley:E are presented in Table 27. The external communication linkage variables are mentioned in Column 2 of Table 27. Their operational definitions are described on pages 99 to 102. In Coltmmn 3 of Table 27, the hypothesized relation with the village leader change orientation is indicated. The score for the variable village leader change orientation was derived from the Factor III which .....n: — - ..Phl. s (3!. ~ .- .- n R».- a. 117 mod n we moH u z Ame. 43V Hm>ma mo. may mama pcmoncaawam. emxmo3 Hm>m4 mmmHHH> u 34> encamo cowmcwuxm gpasog .I. oma. ”302 omuhoacom poz oaf + Boycoo omen: .HmommH mmmflnc/ mmumumuam omuhoacom #02 mo. + 8.58me $89.8 pmomma mwmafig mmumuwuam omppgdom poz . 3H. + pouboo 3.89.389 5H3 v3.3. smooch” ommaafi/ Eumuwnam oBLoccom #02 mo. + oma. m5. suns v83 among” mmmHHfi/ mmumuwnam omubocmom #02 3. + .Hmoflmo pom—emoagoo a gooHa map epa3 ramp.pmvmoa mmmaau> : mu>u m omupoccom p02 moi + 34> 5H3 vamp among mmflnag mmumnwnam nonrandom #02 mo. 593.853me 6.35% or 33> swomma mmmaag 9.1m" wuam ampmoaasm «mm. + mmmummsaomme_xooaa op puma> mmemma mmmaau> >m mu> Hz octagon #02 me. + mmmaafil may Cum mcoapmfipmcgao 34> mmumnxnam omewoacom p02 mof + mmmaafi/ 23 CH ucmdm NFC. mo pcmommc 34> Hmumuxnam Umpmoaasm poz >o.I + pumn> mmmaau> 33> ma m xnam ampmoaasm poz mo.- + unma> mmmaaa> om< m m xnam 3V 2; Amy 3v 2Q cowvmvcmnflo mmcmnu pmoqu mmmflg mammspoamm A.“ Cmflcomummmv 3H? 3 coacomnmmnc manmflmxr mmmxfifi .3852 may mo 343m mmcaocflm coapmawawoo omnamwfiogm cowumdunSaEBo QEBXM mammnpoczm .pompcoo :oHpmoucasaoo smegmpxm new coupmpcmauo mmcmeu mmamm4 mmmHHu> .>N magma 118 was extracted as one of the cfimensions of village development (see page 71+). Based on the z scores of the variables that loaded on this factor and multiplying them with their factor loadings as the weight we summed up all the z scores and divided them by the number of variables to give us a composite factor score measuring village leader change orien— tation. These 2 scores of the variables range from -2.75 to 1.97. In 00an '4 of Table 27, the Pearsonian r found in this study between village leader clnange orientation and external communication linkage indicators are presented. In Column 5 of Table 27, we mention the state of the statistical hypotheses in light of the present findings. Findings Development functionary linkage: Table 27 shows no evidence for the hypothesis that village leader change orientation and external communication with the development functionaries are positively related. The AEO village visit (-.03), the VLW village visit (—.07), the VLW per— cent of time Spent in the village (—.06), and the VLW demonstrations (.06) show no statistically significant correlations with the village change orientation dimension. Hence the empirical hypothesis H :sz is 1 not supported. Village leader linkage: The Pearson r between the village leader change orientation and village leader communication linkage indicators are as follows : 119 Table 28. Village Leader Change Orientation and External Communication Contact. Village Leader External Communication Linkage Indicators Village Leader Change Orientation (Pearsonian r) Visit to block HQ .23* Visit to district HQ .03 Talk with the VLW —.03 Talk with the B11) . 10 Talk with the ABC .08 Talk with the veterinary doctor .11: Cinema exposure .05 Urban cont act - . 10 ”Significant past the .05 probability level. Except for the village leader visit to the block headquarters, their external communication linkages are not statistically significant, as related to the leader change orientation. Conclusion The village social systems with more change oriented leaders will not necessarily be linked with the development functionaries outside the village social system. The village social system with dnange oriented leadership is not necessarily linked with the development functionaries or outside urban centers and mass media through the village leader's contact. 6. Leader Economic Conservatism and External Communication Contact We shall examine the relationship between village leader economic 120 conservatism, a dimension of development and external communication linkages of the village social system. Deriving from the theoretical hypothesis on page 97, we state the empirical hypotheses as follows: A Empirical hypothesis Hl:x:F Higner the village scores on leader economic conservatism, less is tl'e contact of the village with the agricultural research system outside the village through the development fnnctionaries. Empirical hypothesis leyzF Higher the village scores on leader economic conservatism, less is the contact of the village with the outside system through the village leader communication linkages. The statistical hypotheses derived from the empirical hypotheses lex:F and Hl:y:F are presented in Table 29. The external commnication linkage variables are mentioned in Column 2 of Table 29. Their operational definitions are described on pages 99 to 102. In Column 3 the hypothesized relations are indicated. In Column 1: the Pearsonian r found in this study between the village leader economic conservatism and external communication linkage indica— tors are presented. Column 5 mentions the state of the statistical hy— potheses in the light of the present findings. The score for the variable village leader economic conservatism was derived from Factor IV extracted as one of the dimensions of the village development (see page 76). The z scores of the variable that loaded on ttfis factor were multiplied by the factor loadings as their weights. We summed up all the (z scores and divided them by the number of variables to give us a composite factor score measuring village leader economic conservatism. These 2 scores range from —.362 to 2.12. q.- ...B... y e I.) -_~w . .. . .x,’h.§liuhn~& v F!!- -’.\I" § Ilfiul‘ h \\r 121 ooH n we moa u z Amozqmv Hgma mo. 85. “..me empowmwcwflmm .8083 8.04 08:; u 34> pmoflmmo £088po 8pd40a9m< u om< 80.02 omuhonaom «moi I 8380 898 .8282“ mwmaag :oumuwuam catacow poz oHi I 8898 89.8 among mwmadg om "mnwuam omuhomdom #02 «mm. I 900.com 85900.9 fies vane .8984“ mwoflw; sumuwuam 8889m 0.02 3. I om... 06. EH3 0:3 808a 882$ E cacao 8an90 803 ...S. I .8088 0.0233038 0003 0fi 8.3 0:8. 8084.. 08E> Sauna: 008088 #02 S. I 34> fie. 093 8003 08:3 $889 88898 82 ...oH. 89883988: 8888 0p “8.? .883 8:“; ozumnwuam 80.888 p02 2.. I 808088: 0003 8 0.8.9 9008a 08:; Sucrose omuhocdom 82 :H. + mmmaag 05. cum mcoaumfipmcflemo 315 omumuxuam omfiocmom poz moi + 08.3.? map 5” #88 88.3. mo #80.an 315 mmnmuxnam 08.8008 p02 8.- + “84.5 88:? 34> 38me 880338 p03 8: + 39.9 0828 92 mass? 3v C; A2 A3 A3 538390980 0880M .8083 mwmdwg mammnpoamm A.» 880883 5.3 on 880885 manm8> 0802.3 .8852 map .8 889m 888 soapmawswoo omuammfioabi cowpmogfiuoo 8508M mammfionbnm .8888 c3808 85088. new Emflpmamwcoo oesocoom 98.84 88.3.3 . mm 833. 12 2 Findings Development functionary linkage: The Pearsonian r's between leader economic ccnservatism and commication with the development func— tionaries of the village social system are not statistically siglificant as show below: Table 30. Village Leader Economic Conservatism and Development Functionary Contact. DevelOpnent Funct icnary Communicat ion Linkage Indicator Leader Economic Conservatism (Pearsonian r3 AEO village visit -.09 VLW village visit .08 VLW percent of time in village -.09 VLW denonstrations . 11+ The three indices of the ABC and VLW communication contacts show negative relationships. But they are not statistically significant. However, the VLW demonstrations in the village has positive relations with village leader economic conservatism. But this is also not statistically significant. Hence the hypothesis is not supported. Village leader linkage: Pearsonian r between leader economic conservatism and leader visit to urban areas is equal to —.22 which is significant past the .05 level, supporting the hypothesis that leader economic conservatism is negatively related to leader external communica- tion linkages . 123 Leader cinema exposme shows a negative Pearson r of —.10 which is not significant. Hence this does not support the hypothesis. Leader visit to district (.19), leader talk with the BBC (.19) , and leader talk with the veterinary doctor (.25) show significant. posi— tive correlation between leader economic conservatism and external com— mmication cmtact by the leaders. The Pearsonian r's are statistically significant. Hence the hypothesized relation is not supported. On the other hand, there is a strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between leader economic conserva- tism and external communication linkages as indexed by some contacts. Conclusion The correlation between leader economic conservatism and com- mLmication linkage through the visits and contacts of development func- tionaries is weak. I'Ihere is no consistent evidence for supporting the hypothesis that village leader economic conservatism is negatively correlated with external communication linkages. There is a partial evidence to the assertion that the develOpnent workers contact with the village which are high on leader economic conservatism is weak and tends to be negative. But the leaders of such villages establish positive linkage with selected development functionaries like the BBQ and the veterinary doctor. There is positive evidence for the negative correlation between the village social system which is high on leader economic conservatism with leader urban contact. III 124 7. Village Primary Education and Mechanization Factor and External Communication Contact We shall examine the relationship of village primary education and mechanization factor with the external communication linkage of the village social system. Deriving from the theoretical hypothesis on page 97, we state the empirical hypotheses as follows: Empirical hypothesis £11:sz The higier the village scores on village mechanization and primary education factor, the higher is the village contact with the agricultural research system through the develOpnent fmetionaries. Empirical hypothesis H :y:G l The higher the village scores on primary education and mechanization, the higher is the contact of the village with the outside system throng”: the village leaders . Statistical hypotheses derived from the empirical hypotheses leyzG and leyzG are presented in Table 31. The external communication contact variables are mentioned in Column 2 of Table 31. Their operational definitions are as described on pages 99 to 102. In Column 3 of Table 31, the hypothesized relations are indicated. The score for the variable village primary education and mechanization factor was derived from Factor IX (primary education and mechanization) which was extracted as one of the dimensions of village development (see page 86). Based on the z scores of the variables that loaded on this factor and multiplying them with their loadings as the weight, we summed up all the z scores and divided them by the number of variables to obtain a composite score measuring village mechanization and primary education 125 e: u “6 mg n z 2.5. do 353 8. 93 Emma “finesse 99303 3,3 mmmfl; 3e, smoflmmo counmcmukm waspgog om< "8.02 Stages p02 2. + 83c8 amps 98mg mwmfls gonna: omuhoaaom poz moi + 0.5898 .2850 909mm.” mmmaag mm "wuwuam omuhoamompoz No. + 98pr agony? SHE; v2.3 among owning mhuwumuflm emfioaesm poz S. + om< 9t. 6.3 VHS. $2.3 mmmfie, Himself omuhommom #02 OH. + .Hmoflmo #59333 . H x003 m6. 5%: v33 smooch“ mwmaag 329% m subpoena #02 mo. + 3.; 6.? v38. $82.. @335 36%"? omfloamom #02 3. +mumufimocomm£ pornpmflu ow paw? among mmmqg Suwuwuam omfioaaom #02 me... + goggmmn Mooan ow paw? smooch” www.md; mm "wuwuam omuhoamom #02 :f + mmmflfir 05 CH mcoflmppmcgao 34> Hmuwuxuam cmfioamsm p02 8.- + mmmfl? m5. fi pcmam mfip mo #:8me 2.; mmucuxuam emfioaasm p02 8.- + 39.5 mwmflfi 34> mauwuxuam emfioaasm uoz 2... + 39.5 mmwfl? om< twuxuam 3v 2; 8V A3 A3 838:3 3 mwmflg mwmém 0H :mwcowfimmv 853 A.» fiéogmmv . c.3383 owning 98:52 mfi. mo mvmum quwpfim couflmamnhoo cmwwmmzponcmm cowpmogéoo 353me mammfioncnm .pomvcoo cowvmoéoo Hmfimfim pom soapmNficmfig 503828 E mwmflg .Hm manna. 126 factor. These 2 scores range from -2.27 to 7.15. In Column 1% of Table 31, the Pearsonian r between village primary education and mechanization factor and external communication linkage indicators are presented. Column 5 mentions the state of the statistical hypotheses in light of the present findings. Findings Development functionary linkage: It is seen from Table 32 below that the Pearsonian r are not statistically significant. Table 32. Village Primary Education, Mechanization and DevelOpment Functionary Cont act . External Communication Linkages Village Primary Education of Development Functionaries and Mechanization Factor (Pearsonian r) AEO village visit -.12 vuw village visit -.08 VLW percent of time in the village -.ll+ VLW demonstration - . ll Hence the hypothesis is not supported. Village leader linkage: It is seen from Table 33 that the Pearsonian r are not statistically significant between primary education and mechanization factor, and the leader communication linkages with the outside systems. The hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between the village primary education-mechanization factor and the external com- munication linkages of the village leaders is not supported. 12 '7 Conclusion Primary education and mechanization factor is not important in estab- lishing the communication contacts of the villagelwith the external system. Table 33. Village Primary Education, Mechanization and Leader External Commmication Contact . External Communication Linkage Village Primary Education Indicators _ _ and Mechanization Factor (Pearsonian r) Visit to block HQ -.02 Visit to (fistrict HQ . 16 Talk with the VLW .05 Talk with the BBQ .10 Talk with the ABC .07 Talk with the veterinary doctor . 02 Cinema exposure .09 Urban contact .13 8. Mechanization with Lack of Post—primary Education and External Communication Contact We shall examine the relationship between mechanization with lack of post—primary education factor and the external communication linkage of the village social system. Deriving from the theoretical hypothesis on page 97 , we state the empirical hypotheses as follows: Empirical hypothesis Hl:x:H Higher the village scores on mechanization with lack of post- primary education, lower is its external communication contacts with the agricultural research system through the development functionaries. 128 Empirical hypothesis H1:y:H The higher the village scores on mechanization with lack of post-primary education, the lower is the external contact of the village with the outside system throng”: village leader commmicat ion contact . The statistical hypotheses derived from the empirical hypotheses lex:H and H1:y:H are presented in Table 31+. The external communication linkage variables are mentioned in Column 2 of Table 31+. Their Operational definitions are as described on pages 99 to 102. In Column 3 of Table 3M, the hypothesized relations between mechanization and lack of post-primary education factor and external communication linkage indicators are stated. In Column u of Table 3%, the Pearsonian r found in this study between mechanization and lack of post-primary education in the village and external communication linkage indicators are presented. Column 5 of Table 3” mentions the state of the statistical hypotheses in light of the present findings. The score (11 the variable mechanization with lack of post-primary education was derived from the Factor X which was extracted as one of the dimensions of village develOpnent (page 88). We multiplied the z scores of the variables that loaded on this factor using their loadings as the weight and summed up all the weighted z scores and divided the sum by the number of variables to give us a composite factor score. The 2 scores range from -3.31 to 3.17. Findings Deve10pment functionary linkage: Table 3% shows that except for the VLW's percent of time spent in the village all other development 129 2: u so 2: u 2 so. so: H93 mo. 85. “98 983383.. ammo: H93 mimic, u as 9838 c3885 833% u 92 ”8.02 subpoena 8.02 NH... .. 88.68 88: 833 8mg; mmumunflm pmuhommdm #02 mo. u 83098 9550 hmcmma mmmad> mm "may"? coupommom uoz ma... I 3.539. spas vamp sconce mwmaflc, omumnmuam Stones #02 S. .. om< 8%. fins 833. 98mg mmmads Ntmuwmm emfifigm p02 3.- . 98¢? uéaoagme x83 93 fin: 823 p882 mmflfls smumunam cmuhomabm p.02 .8. n 23> 533 vamp among” owning omumuwuf emfifigm ....Hmf -Emflmsgmmg 8.9.8me op new? .882 mwmflé mamas? nmfiofism uoz 2. . 838388: x83 8. has 8882 823, oases? omuhoamom “oz NO... I mmmqg may on” mcowpmfipmcghmc 34> mmnmuxuam subpoenas uoz 3N. . 8mg? mfi fi 28% 8a“ mo pcmflwa 34> sumac? subpoena poz so... . p8? mwmdc, 34> ammuxuam cmfiomcsm p02 3.- . p8? mama? 82 mumuxuam 3V 2; A8 A8 A3 con p828 gnpmom mo 863 53 afifiuafifim: 83;»on 3 gnawing fins 3 880883 888$ .8me 8952 m5. mo 92um mmficfim coaumawenoo cmNflmmfioEnm coapmowSeEoo Hmcumpxm flmmfiamm . Homecoo coavmowgoo ngmuxw com cowumoopm gapmom mo x03 5.."3 cofivmngfimz . rm manna 130 functionary linkages are not statistically significant. Hence the hypo— thesis that village systems which lack a great deal in post-primary education but has mechanization also lack external linkages through development functionary roles is not supported. On the other hand, the VLW's percent of time in the village is positively correlated with the lack of post—primary education but presence of mechanization in the village. Village leader linkage: As Table 35 shows , there is only one external leader communication indicator viz. , leader visit to district Table 35. Mechanization with Lack of Post—Primary Education and Village Leader Linkage. Village Leader Communication Mechanization with Lack of Post- Linkage Primary Education (Pearsonian r) Visit to district HQ -.31* Talk with the VLW -.01 Talk with the BID -.10 Talk with the AEO .10 Talk with the veterinary doctor -.13 leader cinema exposure .06 Urban contact —.12 *Significant past the .05 probability level. headquarters which has significant negative correlation with the village social systems which lack post-primary education but has mechanization. Other variables do not show any significant correlation. Hence there is sate evidence for the empirical hypothesis that village social systems which lack in post-primary grade education but has mechanization 131 also lack leader external linkage. Conclusion Lack of post-primary education but presence of mechanization in the village creates weak external linkages to the village social system. In some respect the village becomes isolated. CHAPTER V VILLAGE SOCIAL SYSTEM 'I'YPOLDGY We have seen in Chapter IV a description of the village develOp— ment dimensions and their external communication correlates . There is no claim that the empirical measures we have employed would cover all the elements in the domain of development but only a sub-set of them: (1) village general development, (2) village institutions, (3) agricul- tural development, (1+) manpower-communication resources, (5) leader change orientation, (6) leader economic conservatism, (7) mechanization with literacy and (8) mechanization with lack of post-primary education. We tested some hypotheses relating these dimensions with the external communication integration indicators of some linking roles. Towards a Village Typology In the present chapter we aim at the following objective: To describe 100 villages* in terms of a basic typology derived empirically from the development indicators presented in the previOLs chapter. Each village by itself could be a unique type. The best and the most complete description of a typology of 100 villages is cbne where *In the data analysis only 100 of the 108 villages could be used for reasons given on the next page. 132 133 eadn village is described in terms of its location on the scales of whatever variables we find relevant and meaningful. But our purpose here is to present the description in a multivariate and parsimonious mode without loosing much of the information. Analytic Method The typological procedure we have adopted is the Q factor analytic technique to partition the components of inter-village variability with respect to development indicators. The villages were differentiated in terms of the 57 variables (see the list in Appendix B). Table 36 (Appendix A) gives the inter-correlation of the villages with respect to the 57 variables standardized twice--first with reSpect to each variable across its values and second, with respect to the village entity as a variable. We submitted the inter—correlation matrix of the 100 villages for the Q-type factor analysis where we considered the 57 variables as the observations or entities or cases, and 100 villages as the variables. Using the FACTORA" program at the Michigan State Univer— sity Computer Center we specified the following options: 1. Unity was substituted for diagonal value in the correlation matrix 2. Varimax rotation of factors was employed 3. Orthogonal solution was used 14. Kiel-Wrigley criterion of 3 variables was specified for terminating the factor rotation. a: . The capacity of the FACTORA program at the Michigan State Univer— Slty Computer Center is limited to 100 variables. Therefore we lnad to delete eight villages out of our study sample of N=108 villages. We ileted those eight villages which showed a larger percentage of missing ta. 13L} Table 37 gives different factor rotated solutions , the percent of variance explained, and the number of villages loading on the factor. Table 37A (Appendix A) gives the clustering of the villages into respec- tive factors across all the factor structures-~from two-factor to_seven- factor. We studied these village clusters from four points of view: (1) Stability of the villages to be in the same cluster across rotations (2) Simplicity needed in describing the village social system typology (3) Consideration that the seven villages to be studied intensively (see Chapter VI) focussing on the within village communication structure should have their loadings on more than one factor so that we will have a range of varia- tion to consider the set of seven villages representing more than one type of village (U) Consideration of the percent of variance explained by the rotated factor solution. Studying Tables 37 and 37Aweconsidered the three—factor structure and the seven—factor structure. But in terms of simplicity and explora- tory description we decided to study the typology of village social systems based on the three-factor structure. Results of Q Factor Analysis (three-factor structure) Tables 38 through 143 give the village names and their factor loadings on eadn one of the three factors . We have noted in brackets name of the state to whidn the village belongs. All of the three factors show bipolar types where the entities (in the present case they are the village social systems) show positive and negative loadings on the same factor or type . Ii mo i so mo mo oo oo oo oo oo so oo on as so sHo cmmeeooe . so oo so so oo oo so oo oo oo oo as oo soo sameness . . oo oo oo so oo so oo oo so as ms Ho woo m>om39 - u . oo mo oo oo as oo oo oo mo oo oo soo em>wam . - u - oo oo oo oo oo oo oo so so so woo ems - u - - - oo so oo oo oo so so me oH so: meaz - u - u - . oo so oH as oH so oH so so: pewem - u - - - - - oo oH oH me so os so so: em>mm . n u - - - - . mo so oH Hs on sH so: .xem - n u u - - - - . ma mo os os os woo uses - u - - - - - - - . os ms om os ado .Hsos . n - u - u - u - - . ms om om oss mmses I u - - - - u u - u u u so om was 039 in mm was So om $1- on} so 8 we a You so 1 E evades 8338 e088 whouomm mav co omomoa mmmeHa> morsmoeoz mocmwmwwswm Hmeos .snwoaonsfi wmeHw> pow 8090mm 0 ompMVQm >HHMC&0£EO ii .nm mHQmVH. 136 Table 38. Orthogonally Rotated Factor Matrix for 100 Villages (Three-Factor Solution): Type I Village Social Systems Code # Village name h? Factor I Factor II Factor III 019 Dasnapur AP .580 . 588 -.269 —.l#06 008 Amakathadu AP . 311+ .537 .013 -. 160 063 Kakudmunda M . 373 .552 -.252 .072 085 Ahmedpur WB . am -.523 .220 -.267 098 Hitta WB . 308 -.sou —.079 -.220 075 Kismatdapat WB . 255 -.500 -.058 .038 06|4 Hanmanhral M . 333 .H98 -.289 .0l+3 102 Deasa WB .268 -.'490 -.157 .051 01a Vempally AP . 313 .1485 .156 —. 231 020 Wadagaon AP .523 .M80 -.289 -.l+57 071 Khandnol M . 318 .1459 -. 385 . 378 101 Noada WB .217 -.|457 -.037 -.079 05L: Mulawa M .237 -.457 .078 .llt8 01m Malai M .210 .USS -.019 -.0lt8 061 Nagsevadi M . 213 .uuu -.101+ .070 015 Kamanapalli AP .194 .l+3l .087 -.031 037 Mundhari B.K. M .269 -.1408 .317 .038 036 Kanchumarru AP .259 —. 398 .271 -.167 099 Bhuri WB .220 -. 398 -.l35 -.208 107 Akalpoush WB .161 -. 397 .002 .059 062 Hatgad M .175 . 392 .083 .121 ous Rajegoan M .190 . 381; -.197 .058 007 Tallagdkulapadu .AP .218 .38u -.0u5 -.261 097 Khano WB .155 -.366 .109 —.10” 018 Nagalkonda AP .288 . 353 -.251 -. 317 017 Monkapur AP .183 . 3H8 .002 -.2|+9 0149 Yeoti M . 325 ._ 339 —. 335 . 313 0u3 Kikripur M .096 . 310 .015 -.007 095 Nimdaspur WB .231 -. 309 -.203 -. 306 016 Kistapur AP .105 . 307 .103 .020 088 Markola WB .1914 —. 290 -.282 -.l7t+ 039 Devada K.D. M. .111 .285 —.165 .051 052 Sheli M .171 .288 —.l87 .232 0'41 Kattipar M .083 -.275 -.025 -.08L} 077 Beltane WB .133 -.268 -.0H6 .ZHH 038 Boragoan M .118 .2514 -.l72 .155 0140 Nilaj B.K. M .095 .250 -.ll'+ .1ltl 089 Amdole WB .071 -.197 .1714 -.0u8 087 Uttarabamnigram WB .185 -.135 -.088 —.070 State Number of Villages Andhra Pradesh (AP) 10 Mahavashtra (M) 16 West Bengal (WB) _l__3_ Total 39 137 Table 39. Type I Village Social Systems. Village social Village 3061515 systems with 3* $9 systems with Code Village positive factor 3 :1 % negative factor # name loadings on Factor I g ‘3 loadings on Factor I 019 Dasnapur (AP) .588 063 Kakudrmmda ( M) .552 008 Amakathadu (AP) .537 085 Ahmedpur (WB) -.523 0614 Hanuwantmal ( M) .498 098 Hitta (WB) «501+ 011+ Vempally (AP) .lt85 075 Kismatdapat (WB) -.500 020 wadagaon (AP) .980 102 Deasa (WB) —.u90 071 Kandnol ( M) .1459 101 Noada (WB) -.1457 01m Malai ( M) .1155 051} Mulwa ( M) -.l%57 061 Nagsevadi ( M) .999 037 Mundhari B.K. ( M) -.l&08 015 Kamanapalli (AP) .931 036 Kanchumarru (AP) -.398 062 Hatgad ( M) .392 099 Bhuri (WB) -.398 095 Rajegoan ( M) .389 107 Akalpoush (WB) -.397 007 Tallagokula (AP) .389 097 Khano (WB) -.366 018 Nagalkonda (AP) .353 095 Nimdaspur (WB) -.309 017 Monkapur (AP) .3148 088 Markola » (WB) -.290 0149 Yeoti ( M) .339 0‘41 Kattipar' ( M) -.275 093 Kikripur ( M) .310 077 Beltara (WB) —.268 016 Kistapur (AP) .307 089 Amdole (WB) -.197 039 Devada K.D. ( M) .285 087 Uttarabamnigramxo a. no.0 oH.H- NN.o 9680 mm mo.H- mo.a- mm.o anoxmam Na mo.a- am.o- No.0 aooeooooo ma 3m .HI NH.ol mm .H PCGHCHOOM mm >H Emfluvmammcoo OHEOCOUw fimfimwd mH.H am.o- ma.o- omm am oa.a NH.o- Hm.o osm Hm am.m- ma.o- mo.H opmmo om mm.H mN.o oo.o. om N mmé mméu 52.0 E6505 mm HHH cognacwflo mmcmco (8me Ho.H- mm.o aH.H- omoaa om m:.o mm.o oo.o. >2 m am.o ma.o am.an lambaa Ha mo.o. ma.o am.H- max” a: mm.on mH.H- mH.m oaomm am mo.on ma.H oo.H- emuoao NH mm.o. mm.o oa.oa xaome OH 3.0: worm: rod xflcmd w HH 80.90me cofifioflggoonnpozomcmz om.H ma.o om.o ooaoo am aa.o mo.o om.on x69 mm oo.H- mo.~ ma.ou .56moaz ma om.H mm.o om.o ossoooam o: aa.a oo.H aH.a ooam Hm Hm.o mo.H ma.o amazon: om Hm.o. mm.a mH.o. oomaomm mm am.o mH.H mm.o. momam< am mo.o am.H mo.o oomam<_ mm H pomeooao>oo Hmpooom omoaaa> E 88 9895, 658 .m .Amwuoom NV Qoflg mmmflg mo 5009390me .3: canoe 195 0H.0: 0H.0 N0.H 00.0: 03.0: N0.H: 00.0 00.H: 05.0 00.H 05.0 0H.H: 30.0: 33.0: 03.0 00.H 30.0 03.H 0m.0 «3.0 mm.0 0N.H 0H.H: 03.0: mh.H: 3m.0: 00.0: «3.0 H0.H: 00.H: 03.0: Hm.H H0.0 00.0: m0.m: 0H.NI 00.0 00.H: 00.0: H0.H: H0.0: 00.0: 3m.0 03.0: 33.0 HH.0 mm.0: «0.0: 33.0 N0.H 0H.0 3N.H 30.H 00.0: 00.0 03.0: 05.0: mH.H 0m.0: 03.0: mowmmo :ynflm 980.5 Ema 503: fix ngEH. 0am g .8an Ecamgw 9H2 04 “.055 xflomm OuopcmHm 93% 689.5. cmapwo 98980 comma, .909... poocooocmq oopmom xwosz xonmvaH 8839a axoom< xwmcmnfi pmflomcao H3 00 03 mm 00 30 mm mm Hx cmamc #02 x somamuaaafl pom soapmNHcmcomz xH cowpmocom mnmaaha cam soapmNHcmnomz HHH> 00mg HH> pcmeaoam>mo Hmndpadownw< H> COHHMLmQMH HMflOQMCHm gonna; > pcmamoam>wp COMPSpflpmcH 8.6.83 .3 39a. Hi); i ‘i 400:! I ’Q ml. \1 I'UU o ' a . - C.) (7m . u, (7’ -—J I ‘ I t8 ‘- a. ‘5'. ‘ r r ‘ :Q'E Ln-» E18: 'T‘ n“.! tail 4»: Lit.e ' C Q duo... 5&0va v . ‘95 L136: 0". J.‘ "‘U ’U Listi Inst“- 5v. G ‘r‘ 9.9 7" “cl-M V: . 43931 196 Table 95. Type I Village Social System Profile. Score 1040 on Score medium on Score high on variable code variable code variable code -0.32* Aglada 0.08 Agladb 0.18 Elec -0.32* prladp 0.50 Elec pump 0.93 Machine -0 . 50 Tax -—0 . 73 Midfem 0.50 Prize -0.96 Tanix -1.l7 Libac 2.09 Danix -l.60 Litfem: 3.18 Radio -1.37 Litem -l.39 Mag -1.l7 Libac -0.60 NV -0.06 PP 0.97 Chanorm 1.03 Caste -0 . 22 Catt 1. 38 Ecorient -0.73 Instigut —0.93 Cinedis 0.52 Occupmobi -0.95 Instprox -0.30 Transix 0.59 Riskori 0.36 Mucix 1.19 Pv -0. 36 Postac 1.19 Agocxm -0.52 Agadopt 0.10 Visgut 1.59 Land- consori 0.11 Plantpro 0.99 Catman 1.29 Agocxf -0.29 Sedgut 1.52 Creditori _ 0.99 Sedix 0.29 Lo -1.89 Bicy -0.96 Infmart 0.86 Imple -0.73 er -0.63 Hifem I 1.31 Birth -2.l7 Him -0.01 Grainm -2.02 Midem -l.Ol Primef —O.67 Primem 0.51 Oilengi -0.90 Office * . They represent average of z scores taken across all the villages that "purely" loaded on the respective factors (types). 197 development functionary headquarters are poor. The leadership of the type I village social system largely comes from lower castes; the leaders are characterized by less secular and "otherhdirected" belief elements. Also the village leadership is high on economic conservatism , risk and credit orientation . Village Social System Type II Table 96 presents the profile of the type II village. The typical type II village is low in cattle wealth and the percent of animals used as draugrt animals. It contains a low percentage of agicultural laborers . Crop farming in the type II village is characterized by a low use of improved seeds, implements and oil engines for irrigation and grain mill to process the agricultural produce . It. is characterized, hwever, by higi ratings of the block develop- ment officer and agricultural extension officer regarding agriculture (e. g. , tee .of improved cattle breed, manure, multiple cropping), the ratings of the health officer regarding health and family planning practices achieved in the village. There is electricity available in the village. The village has a greater taxable capacity and a high man- land ratio. The general literacy of the village population is high but the proportion of children attending primary school is 10». The village is high on communication resources such as newspapers , magazines and radio, library and transport facilities. 198 Table 96. Type II Village Social System Profile. ScoreT low on + Score meditmn on Ecore high on variable code variable code+ variable code+ 0.58 Elecpump 1.57 Agladb 0.92 Price 1.15 Aglada 1.55 prladp 1.08 Machine 1.60 Blec 2.03 Midfem 0.69 Tax -2.06 Danix 0.28 NV 0.65 Tanix -l.15 Radio 1.73 Litfem 0.99 Mag 0.95 Litem 0.59 Libac -1.29 Chanorm 0.23 Pp 012 mp .095 Caste -0.29 Sac -l.08 Riskori -0.12 Ecorient -l.19 Catt 0.29 Occupmobi -0.7l Pv -l 67 Agocxm 0.71 Cinedist 0.62 Transix 1.09 Instigut 1.29 Instprox 1.53 Mucix 0.86 Postac -0.55 Agocxf -0.51 Landconsori -0.99 Visgut 0.77 Creditori -0.29 Sedgut 0.92 Agadopt 1.11 Catman —0.66 Sedix 0.13 Plantpro -1.36 Infmart -l.00 1.0 -0.68 er .093 Trainm’ -0.69 Bicy -l.99 Primef -l.20 Primem -0.17 Imple -0.71 Hifem -l.19 Midem -0.l3 Him 0.32 Oilengi -0.20 Birth 0119 Office a Represents average of z scores taken across all the villages with "pure" loadings on the respective factors (types). + See Table 8 (Appendix A) for explanation. 199 The participation of village peOple in the election process of the local government is low. Further, the village is characterized by a low degree of village leader empathic ability (capacity to take the role of others), his orientation to change and to take risk. The birth and infant mortality rates are low. The items of consumer goods sold in the village store lack very many varieties. Village Social System Type III Table 97 presents the profile of the type III village. The type III village is low by the subjective ratings of the block development officer and the agriculture development officer on agricultural develOp- ment, low by the ratings of the health officer on health and family plan— ning development. But the type III village is high on the use of electric pump for irrigation, shows high prize-winning performance in the area of develOpnent such as the use of fertilizers, plant protection measures, oil engines and grain mills. The type III village is high on primary and middle school education for boys, but is low on the prOportion of girls attending middle school. It is low (:1 library and postal accessibility, cinema and transport facilities. It is low cn man-land ratio and adoption of new breed of cattle and new variety of manure though scores high on cattle population. It is higi on political participation throug': national voting and activity of political parties in the village. The village leadership is characterized by low economic conserva— tism, occupational mobility, land conservatism and credit orientation. 150 Table 97. Type III Village Social System Profile. Low score on Medium $00an High score on variable* variable" variable" 0.08 Agladb 0.77 Elec . 1.50 Blecpump —0u Mh® 027Agma 130Pfim 0.31 Machine 0.29 Tax -l.00 Midfem -l.61 Libac -0.59 Danix 0.95 Nv -0.38 Tanix —0.65 Litfem -0.23 Radio -0.03 Mag -0.27 Litem -2.39 Caste 1.83 Chanorm 1.53 Pp 1.10 Emp 1.18 Sac -l. 39 Ecorient -1.05 Riskori 0.55 Catt -l.63 Occupmobi 0.89 Pv -1.00 Cinedist -l.67 Agocxm -l.61 Transix 1.09 Instigut -1.79 Mucix 1.29 Instprox -0.90 Postac -1.16 Landconsor 1.20 Agocxf 0.23 Visgut 0.92 Creditori 0.37 Catman 0.98 Sedix 1.98 Agadopt 0.59 Sedgut 1 . 60 Plantpro -0 . 99 Infmart -1.19 M11? -0.59 Lo -1.05 Bicy 0. 78 Grainm 0.05 Imple 1.03 Primef 0.76 Primem —l.02 Him —0.96 Midem -0.66 Hifem 1.92 Oilengi 0 . 75 Birth -0 . 18 Office —‘ They represent average of z scores taken across all the villages that "purely" loaded on the respective factors (types). 151 Also the leadership has a high degree of change orientation, empathy and secularism. The infant mortality rate is high in the type III village. There is a greater number of governmental official residents in the village. The village stores sell a variety of SOphisticated consumer goods. Summary of Findings Table 98 smrmarizes the village social system typology. In type I village, we find a configuration of social psycho- logical attitudes of the village leadership less oriented to change but with high economic conservatism, low level of agricultural development , low communication resources , low political participation, poor institu- tional facilities and medium primary education for the village children. In type I village we find West Bengal regional syndrome of village development. In type II village we find a configuration of social. psychological attitudes of the village leadership not favorable to change but the village is endowed with a high degree of institutional facilities, man- pmer—commmication resomoes and a medium degree of agricultural develop- ment. In type II village we see a village development syndrome character— ized by Andhra Pradesh region. In type III village we find a configuration of social psychological attitudes of the village leadership favorable to change, low to medium availability of communication resources and institutional facilities but a high level of agricultural development. The village development syndrome of the type III village is characterized by the Maharashtra region. I.uu‘.~r ~ .‘\) 152 @3002 05.302 35 + 6.0 u 35 + 35 + op 0.0 o B Q: a £0 + HHH 0% 0:980: 3300: cu ca: 0 ow 0:: 0 3.: : A05 : 35 + 35 + 05605 0 HH 09$. 60 : £0 + 9005 o 9005 o 6.0 - 30 u 6.0 - H 95 cowvmuEmaHo 803030080 cowl“... 1001.900300 0083000,»: m0flflmaamomw “Ema 090“ 0.05050 9.95500 09.83900 gnaw . sous, 63:30.05 :ooH 0>0o 50.3.0900 90003 90000; 0003300 00200 away 0600 190690: ugowhmae 0mm-§ .mmcfiocflm mo Seam "swoaog Emumenm Hmwoom 0mmflwm> .03 030R. CHAPTER VI COMMUNICATION PATTERN AND VILLAGE 'IYPOLOGY We propose to study some attributes of interpersonal commmica- tion contacts among the farmers in settings of different types of village systems described in Chapter V. The Specific objectives of this chapter are: (1) to construct measures of commmication structure, communication integration, com- munication network role, and participant composition of farmers in the interpersonal communication contacts , (2) to state some propositions of communication structure , integration , role , and participant composition differentiated in terms of the village typology, and (3) to provide empirical evidence based on some case studies of villages in India with respect to the foregoing communication indicators for generating some testable hypotheses . Communication Structure Communication Structure and Communication Network By the term: communication structure we mean a set of elements of some specified participant-message-media systems with different degrees and kinds of relations and configurations among them. If the 153 159 communication configuration consists of the connected elements in a given social system then it is a comnmication network. A communication net- work thus becomes a subset of a given communication structure. In other words, if two or more persons or participating systems have a communica- tion path that could be traced from one node to another then it is a communication network. That means a network is a set of commmication configuration consisting of dyads , chains, circles or groups or any of their complex inter-connected structures . An isolated monad in the communication structme is not a network . All the elements of a given social system may not be connected to form a network with reference to a given communciation criterion attribute. The criterion attribute may refer to any one or more of the characteristics of a participant—message-media system. For example, different kinds of messages, or different kinds of media, or different types of participants may be used in constructing the structure of com- munication relations. If we consider more than one criterion attribute in mapping the communication structure, the probability of attaining the communication network co-extens ive with the communication structure increases. Conversely, if we limit ourselves to only one communication attribute of a given social system, the network tends to become a sub- set of the communication structure. In the present chapter we propose to look at some attributes of within village interpersonal communication relations such as structure , integration, role and composition. We wish to recall some of the con- ceptual definitions we had mentioned in Chapter II and develop them further to construct cammmication measures for purposes of this chapter. 155 Anatomy and Measurement of Communication Structure As we have mentioned earlier, a communication structure may consist of some isolated monads, a network of dyads, chains , groups and circles or isolated substructures like groups , chains and dyads. We consider each one of them as an indicator of the communication structure. In the following sections we give their conceptual definitions and measurement procedures. Monad isolate: In a given social system, if a person neither seeks nor is sought for information with reSpect to a specific topic during a Specified period, than he is considered to be a monad isolate. If the monad is a member of a dyadic structure which in turn may be a part of a chain or a circle or a group then the monad is considered to be a part of another structure. Monad isolate index: AdOpting the foregoing definition of a monad isolate we counted the number of monads in a given village social system, and computed the ratio of the number of isolated monads to the total number of members in the social system under study and expressed it as percent. M: In a given social system, if one person seeks information from another but neither of them is sought for information from a third person then we describe the relation between those two persons as dyadic. This definition is wider than that which specifies a reciprocated rela- tionship between two persons (Guimarags, 1972, p. 51). A dyadic struc- ture may become a part of a chain, or a circle, or a group. In that case the dyadic relation is transformed into a more complex structure. 156 Dyadic index: Adopting the foregoing definition of a dyad we counted the number of dyads which are not part of a chain or a circle or a group, and computed the ratio of the number of dyads to the total number of members in the social system mder study and expressed it as percent. Chain: In a given social system, if three or more persons seek information not from the same node as a direct source but get the infor— mation in steps of three or more transitive sequences in a specified period for a Specified tOpic, then we call that structure a chain. For example, A seeks information from B (A ——-(B), and B goes to C for information (B ———42) is a communication structure of the form chain. Chain index: We identified the number of chains which are not part of a circle, or a group, and computed the ratio of the number of these chains to the total number of members in the social system uncbr study and expressed it as percent. M: We define a gap as a commmication contact configura— tion of three or more persons where at least two or more members seek information from the same node or person. Thus a commmication group is one which consists of three or more persons who seek or share informa— tion from: the same person. For example, if A —(B (A seeks infome- tion from B) and C also seeks or shares information from B (C -——(B) then we call the communication involving ABC (A ——-——- C) as a communication group. This is a narrow definition of a group but opera- tionally useful in our present analysis. Group index: We identified the groups which satisfy the fore- going definition and expressed the number of groups as a ratio of the total number of members in the social system under study and expressed it as percent . 157 Communication Integration Communication integration is the degree to which each of the members in a given social system is connected directly or indirectly to other members through lines of message-media system. We have to under- stand clearly who the members are in a given social system, as also the reference criterion for message, medium (channel), and participating systems. Each member in a given social system may show different degrees of connectedness with reference to a given element in a message-media system and at a Specified time slice. Given the reference to the commun- ication attributes , if a component is not connected with any other element or a sub-structure then it is an isolate. The isolated component may be a monadic element or a dyad or a chain or a group structure. Even though the sub-structure such as a dyad or a group may show a high degree of integration (conrectedness) within its elements it may not be connected with all the other sub-structures. Communication integration measures are many.* The choice of a particular measure is dependent on the following factors: (1) the communication systemic component we are measuring (e.g. , an individual or a group or a larger complex, (2) the purpose of the investigation (i.e. , whether we are interested in the description of the whole system under study or a substructure of only that system, or whether we are 9 Studies by Yadav (1967) and Guinara'és (1972) have contributed towards the conceptualization, measurement , and empirical examination of commmication integration in rural communities in India and Brazil. 158 interested in a comparative study of the systems, (3) the attribute we use in defining the communication relation, and (9) the nature of the data available (if one has no choice of collecting the needed new data). Further, we should note that integration measure is a function of (l) the unit of our study (an individual, informal or formal human relations or organizations), (2) the number of choices we limit for each partici- pant to specify the communication relation, (3) the importance we give to the components of a given communication structure for measuring the inter-carnectedness , (9) the importance we give to the number of steps or linkages involved in establishing the commmication connectedness among the specified members of the system, and (5) the choice of the numerator and the denominator we employ in constructing the measure of communication integration . In our present study , taking into accomt the purpose of our investigation, and the nature of the data we have to work with, we constructed the following communication integration indices. Network integration score: We counted the number of direct and indirect contacts for each person in a given social system. We divided the number of direct and indirect contacts by the total possible number of contacts among all the members in the social system. We expressed this ratio as a percentage score. If each member should talk to every other person in the social system or have a path to receive messages (irrespective of the number of steps or links or direction), then that social system has an integration score of 100. If each member is an isolate, then the integration score is 0. 159 glad isolate score: In a given social system we counted the total number of isolated dyads. We computed the ratio of the mmber of isolated dyads to the total number of possible dyads, and expressed it as a percentage. If the percentage score is 0, it means that each one of the dyadic unit is completely integrated with other structures of the social system (irrespective of the steps or direction involved in the linkages) assuming that none of the member is an isolated monad. If the percentage score is 100 then it means that the whole system is a set of isolated dyads. Monad isolate score: In a given social system we counted the total number of isolated monads. We computed the ratio of monads to the total mmnber of persons in the social system and expressed it as percent. If the percentage score is 0 then there are no isolated members in the system. If the score is 100 then the social system is composed of isolated members. Communication Role Communication roles are a function of the commmication struc- ture of a given social system. By communication role we mean the expected function that a person performs in encoding and decoding of messages relevant to his location in a given communication structure. Consider the following structure: A————-—-—————————-C T D We identify B as being located centrally while A, D, C are peripherals seeking information from B. The expected communication role may be 160 described as group centrality or opinion leadership or key communicator role in the case of B. A, C, and D, relatively speaking, play the peripheral or follower roles. As we mentioned previously, a network is a subset of the com- munication structure of a social system. We conceptualize the components of a communication network as group, chain and dyad. Looking at the configurations and inter-relations among the network components of a given social system we conceptualize the following communication roles. Grotp central: If a person in a communication group has the most direct and indirect linkages with all the other ones then he is considered to be the group central and all the other ones are m peripherals. We identified the goup central as one who is sought the most among all the persons in a given group. We computed the ratio of the number of gap centrals to the total number of members in the village social system and expressed it as percent. Inter:gotp bridgg: If a person isa member of more than one group linking the grotps to one another, then he is identified as an inter- group bridge. Counting the number of inter-group bridge roles to the total number of members in the social system we expressed it as percent. Liaison: Group liaison is a person who is not himself a central member of a group, but one who commmicates with people in at least two different groups , thus creating a link between the groups through which information passes (Berlo and others, 1972, p. 17). We counted the number of liaison roles to compute the ratio of the number of liaison roles to the total number of members in the social system and eXpressed it as percent . 161 Communication Participant Composition Given an interpersonal commmication structure, what types of farmers constitute the members of that communication structure? Does the composition of the communication structure differ in terms of the farmer types across the types of villages? To provide answers to these questions we propose to derive an empirical typology of farmers based on some selected socioeconomic behavioral characteristics as a schema for the description of the farmers composing the village interpersonal communication structure. By using the multi-variate approach (Q-type factor analysis) we identified the farmers in each one of the village types in terms of eight farmer types. Group Central: We examined the sociogram of the three villages (Figs. 3,5, 8) dipicting the communication roles and structural relation- ships among the farmers and identified them in terms of farmer typology. We counted the number of farmers who occupied the centrality role in the communication group. We computed the ratio of the specific farmer types occupying the group centrality role to the total number of group centrals withina given village and expressed it as a percentage to give us a measure of the kinds of farmers who are group centrals. Group Peripheral: The group peripherals were identified as belonging to one of the eight farmer types. We computed the ratio of the farmers belonging to each one of the farmer types to the total number of group peripherals across all identified groups in the village and expressed it as a percentage for each one of the types of farmers to give us a measure of the group peripheral composition. 162 pumamoa 0>0c 83383 38082 0o Hoe/0H 00am 0085 8 038900 08: HQ 95. pcmaaoagmc mo 0033.600 0902 H0>0H cw? co. 5.3002 0006 8. 0309900 000g HH 0%? wgmoagco 4 00.33.60...“ 0004 mo H0>0H 33 0w00no cu 030990.9— 0004 H 003. 03936009 aoaubpaumcH 0.533900 gwgcflg 050003 0w0aaw> mo 0mg? mo 0&5. 083.30.. 0892928 9800 «cavmrncobmfifi 0M0Hq> .an 098:0 ca .0395 008:0, .9 030.3. 163 Isolate nonad: Adopting similar procedures used in identifying the group peripherals we identifed all the isolates in terns of the farmer types. The isolate nonads belonging to a specific type were expressed as a percentage to the total nunber of isolates in a given village. We attempted to describe the composition of the interpersonal contacts anong the farmers in a village in terms of similar or dissimilar types of farmers making up the contact structure. We computed a heter- ophily score for the communication group composition as well as the dyadic structures. Group heterophilLs core: We looked at the composition of each group and identified the menbers of the group in terms of the typology of farmers. We assigned a heterophily score on a three-point scale for each group as follows: If the group composition consisted of the sane type of farmers we assigned 0 score (absence of heterophily). If the group composition was dominated by the sane type of farmers, we assigned a score of 1 (less heterophilous) . If the group composition showed a dominance of different farmer types, then we assigned a score of 2 (nore heterophilous) . If the composition of the group menbership tended tcwards equal proportion of all the three types* of farmers, then we assigned a score of 3 (nost heterophilous group). Radio heterophily score: We considered the interpersonal com- rmmication structure of the farmers in terns of dyadic relationships and k In each village type we identified three types of farmers out of the eight types. 1614 looked at their carposition in each village type. If the dyad consisted of the sane farner types then we assigned a score of 0 (no heterophily or presence of honophily). If the dyad consistedof different types of famers then a score of 1 was assigned (presence of heterophily or no honophily) . We counted the nunber of heterophilous dyads and expressed it as a percentage of the total nunber of dyads in a given village. Village Typology and Sone Communication Propositions Our findings in Chapter V provided the empirical evidence for conceptualizing the village social system into three types: Table 1:9 depicts the village typology in a succinct form. In type I village, we found a configuration of social psycho- logical attitudes of the village leadership (a high economic conserva- tism and low orientation to change) associated with a low level of agri- cultural developnent, poor communciation resources , poor institutional facilities, a low degree of political participation and a nedium primary education for the village children In type II village, we found a configuration of a big“: degree of village institutional facilities, manpower and conmunication resources and a nedium to high level of agricultural develOpnent; but the social psychological attitudes of the village leadership were less favorable to change. In type III village we found a configuration of a low to nedium degree of the availability of communication resources and institutional facilities, very favorable social psychological attitudes of the village leadership tmards change, and a high level of agricultural develOpnent. 165 Given the foregoing gross profiles of the village social systens , the questions we raise for further investigation here is: Do we expect to find any differences in the attributes of internal interpersonal conmunioation system anong the farners in those village types? We assert that type I, II, and type III village social systems show differences in the interpersonal commmication structure anong the farners , connnmication integration, conmmication role and participant composition. Communicat ion Structure Proposition Proposition 1: In type I villge we exEct to find less number of grows , isolated nonads, isolated dyads and chains. If the village is less developed institutionally and agriculturally, and leaders are less oriented to change, information sharing burden is nore likely to fall very heavily on the internal interpersonal commmioa— tion lines anong the farners. In such less change—prone farming com- munities, expertize, credibility, and conventional wisdom in agriculture- related matters have a tendency to be associated with only a few persons who conserve conventional wisdom in oral communication tradition. More- over, the conmmioation contacts anong the farners persist on the primary institutional lines such as kinship, caste roles and status . Hence we expect the interpersonal conmunication structure of the type I village to show smaller mmber of groups , less nunber of isolate nonads , and other isolated structures. Proposition 2: In type II village there are a nedium nunber of grows , isolated nonadsfisolated dyads and chains. 166 The type II village has a high degree of communication and institutional facilities as also a nedium—to—high level of agricultural development, but the leadership is less oriented to change. Assuming that the degree of change orientation among the farmers to be of the sane order as that of the leaders, we state that the persons acting as sources or relaying functionaries for new agricultural information related to innovative production practices will be relatively smaller in number. The number of information source points that act as the nuclei for communication grows and other structures will be somewhat between the type I village and type III village (see next paragraph). Hence in type II village we expect a medium number of grows, isolated nonads , isolated dyads and chains. Proposition 3: In type III village there are a large nunber of groups, isolated monads, isolated dyads and chains. The type III village is moderately developed institutionally, highly developed agriculturally and contains the village leadership more oriented to change. This type of village has a tendency to have a greater degree of external linkages outside the village. The agricultural infor- mation is more likely to flow to the farmers both through within village interpersonal communication lines as well as outside-village mass media and formal organization communication lines. Also, in a more developed village of the type III we expect to find a greater number of farmers who have expertize, credibility and specialized knmledge of the changing farm practices so that the centrality in communication or opinion leader- ship is nore likely to be Spread over a larger number of farmers. Hence we expect the interpersonal communication structure in type III village 167 to show a greater number of grows , a greater number of isolated nonads and also other isolated structures . Communication Integration Propositions Prwosition H: The degree of internal interpersonal com- munication integration is low in type I village . Our findings shaved previously that type I village is character— ized by low indices of agricultural development, poor institution facil— ities (educational, credit, transport and marketing), and the less change—prone village leadership. In social systems of this kind, the need for exchanging information related to innovative practices in agri- cultural production tends to be low. There is a tendency for self- sufficiency and a near saturation for information need and absorption. Further, a sense of self-complacency and a syndrome of "I kncm everything; what new is there to know" pervades the farmer information exchange behavior. The compatibility of agricultural information originating in the agricultural experimental stations with the on-going farming practices, the degree of flexibility in the adaptation of the new agricultural practices are likely to be low. When there are low or no agricultural innovations , the range of options from which to choose and evaluate the alternative outcomes is very narrow. Hence the degree of uncertainty involved in decision-making is also low. The need for new information and the kinds of problems the farmers face in farming do not create an environment for an information exchange pattern to show a high degree of interpersonal communication among the farmers relevant to farming. Either the communication structures are centralized around a very few 168 persons or we find a large number of isolated structures which may indicate a high degree of self-sufficiency, a highly individualized need for information and an information "balance" or "equilibrium" attained at a law degree of interpersonal communication integration. Hence we expect to find a low degree of interpersonal communication integration in type I village. Proposition 5: The degree of interpersonal commmication integration Twith reference to agricultural ppoductionfiinformation) is medium in .‘pype II village when compared to type I and type III villages. Proposition 6: The degree of internal inteppersonal commun- ication integration is higi’fin :ype III viilage. In type III villages we found that the leaders showed a greater orientation to change while those in type II villags scored less on this trait. Assuming that the leadership characteristics reflect the general ethos of the village, we may say that the motivation is high among the farmers in the village type III in seeking new information, comparing and sharing the results of their new experiences of the new agricultural practices. As the farmers of the type III village are more likely to take the initiative for adopting agricultural innovations when compared to those of the type II village, considerations of wider range of options and alternatives, costs and benefits assume greater saliency. Hence the need to know is high. The farmers who are innovative find it rewarding to get more and more information relevant to their product ion practices. The information gathered and efforts devoted to seek and listen to advice has a great deal in influencing the outcomes of any decision-making. Hence we expect that the degree of internal 169 interpersonal communication integration is high in the village type III while it is medium in the village type II. Communication Role Propositions Proposition 7: Type I village tends to score less on the degree of liaison role, inter-gropp bridge role, but more on centrality role. Proposition 8: Type II village tends to score medium on the degree of liaison role , inter-growiiridge role and centrality role. Proposition 9: Type III village tends to score high on the degree of liaison role, inter—group bridge role , and centrality role . We have stated that communication roles are determined by the structm'e of communication and the degree of communication integration obtaining in a given social system. If there are more number of grows there is a tendency for the existence of more number of centrality roles. If the degree of communication integration is hig-ler and if the number of grows and chains are large then we expect the communication roles such as liaison, inter-grow bridge and centrality to be high also. We had hypothesized in Proposition 1 that the type I village contains less number of grows and scores low on the degree of commun- ication integration (Proposition H). Therefore type I village tends to have fewer liaison, inter-grow bridge and centrality roles. We had hypothesized that the type II village contains nedium number of groups , isolated nonads , isolated dyads and chains (Proposition 2), and medium degree of communication integration (Proposition 5). Therefore, the type II village has a medium degree of liaison, intersgrow 170 bridge and centrality roles . We had hypothesized that the type III village to have a big number of groups, isolated nonads, isolated dyads., and chains (Proposition 3), and a high degree of communication integration (Proposition 6). Hence we expect that the type III village to show a high degree of liaison, inter—grow bridge and centrality roles. Communication Participant Propositions In the type I village Proposition 10: Proposition 11 : Proposition 12 : (leadership less favorable to change, poor institutional facilities and a low level of agricultural development): The type A farmer (low in change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation) is iikely to dominate as the grow central. The type C farmer (moderately disposed towards chapge , moderate control over iarm economic resources and moderate degree of social partici- gt ionT is like lpto dominate as the gropp peripheral. The type B farmer (high in change orientation, great control over farm economic resources and a low degree of social participation) is liker to dominate as isolate. In the type II village (leadership less favorable to change, better Proposition 13: institution facilities and medium to high level of agricultural development): The type B farmer (low in change orientation, Proposition ll}: great control over farm economic resources and moderate degree of social participation) is mely to dominate as the gropp central . The type D farmer (high in change orientation, moderate control over farm econofic resources and a high degree oi social participation) is likely to doriinate as the group peripheral . 171 PrOposition 15: The :ype F farmer (moderately disposed towards change , control over iarm small economic resources and a low degree of social participation) is likely to dominate as isolate. In the type III village (leadership more favorable to change, moderate institutional facilities and high level of agricultural development) Proposition 16: The type G farmer (high in change orientation, small control over farm economic resources and moderate degree of social participation) i3 likely to dominate as the grow central . Proposition 17: The type A farmer (low in change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation) is likely_ to dominate as the group peiipheral . Prcpcsition 18: The type H farmer (low in change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources and low degree of social participation) is likely to dominate asisolate. We assume a positive relation between the change orientation of village leaders and the grow centrals. If the social psychological attributes of the village leadership is less favorable to change , we would expect the same degree of unfavorable disposition towards change reflected dominantly among the grow centrals in the interpersonal commmication structure also. The farmers who are the grow peripherals seeking information on agricultural production problems are more likely to be motivated to know more about the improved methods of agricultural practices , to exchange their experiences of working with the new seeds, use of fertilizer, plant protection measures by contacting the information influentials . Hence we expect that these farmers to be more oriented to change in villages with a high agricultural develOpnent. We also expect the grow 172 peripherals to be moderate on social participation because the social contacts facilitates the opportunities for information trans fer relevant to farming. The grow isolates are more likely to be low on social partici- pation. In villages with poor institutional facilities and 1cm leader change orientation and low level of agricultural development, the isolates may be more oriented to change. They are likely to have less control over farm economic resources. Methodology and Data To provide the empirical evidence in swport of the foregoing propositions relating to communication attributes and village typology, we propose to use the data on the internal interpersonal commmication contacts from seven villages in India (in the case of participant composition, we use data only from three villages as cases to keep the study within manageable limits). Because the data do not satisfy the requirements of tests to support any statistical inferences our con- clusions do not warrant any generalization. Our modest claim is that the case study method provides some empirical evidence to develop a rationale for formulating the testable hypotheses. Selection of Village Social Systems Selection of villages for the study of the internal communication attributes of the villages was guided by two considerations: (1) the availability of data, and (2) the representative character of the 173 village as belonging to one or the other types in the empirically evolved typology of village social systems described in the previous chapter. From the India Diffusion of Innovations Project Erase II study* we have data on seven villages which belong to different village types as indicated in Table 50. Mulwa village (N=l73)** of Maharashtra and Kanchumarru village (N: 35) of Andhra was selected to represent the type I village social system. Each one of them clustered around the negative pole of the village type I (Table 39). The villages Manchili (N=9U.) and Polamuru (N=120) of Andhra, and Harishpur (N=72) of West Bengal were chosen to represent the type II village social systems. Both Manchili and Polamuru villages clustered around the positive pole of the type II villages whereas Harishpur loaded on the negative pole (Table 141). Pophali village (N=llO) of Maharashtra and Laxmidanga village (N=75) of West Bengal were chosen to represent the type III village. Pophali village loaded on the positive pole of the type III village whereas Laxmridanga represented its opposite pole (Table Lt3). *The data from the India Phase II study are arong the most exten- sively used set for empirical examination of sociological and communica- tion hypotheses. For full description of the study design and data collection methods see Iliegel and others (1968) , Raju (1969), Saxena (1968), Abraham (1970), Krishna Kumar (1972), Rao (1972), thwmik (1972), Nayak (1973). a‘n‘c N refers to the number of members involved in communication contacts in the village under study. 17L} Variables and Operationalization The categories of variables we are interested in the study of communication attributes may be grouped as follms: Medium: Interpersonal information seeking for advice on farming among the farmers Messge: Information related to technical problems of agricultural production Participating system: Farmers aged 50 years and below operating farms of 2.5 acres and above. Medium-message variables: The follcwing question was asked of each selected farmer in each of the seven villages in the course of a personal interview: Question: If you needed advice on problems associated with farming, what one person in this village would you seek advice from first? (INTERVIEWER: if the respondent mentions an official, e. g. , VLW then ask again.) Name of farmer Official position if any The responses to the foregoing question were the basis to con— struct the interpersonal communication contacts (MEDIA) between farmers (PARTICIPATING SYSTEMS) with reference to agricultural production relevant information (MESSAGE). Method of Data Analysis We used sociograms (Figures 3,- Lt, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) to display the communication contacts among the farmers in each of the seven villages. Looking at the sociograms we identified the 175 Qmmcmm p85 mmcmaceaaa 02.- :8... 20.- 962 802 man. 2:. so. 828.885 328a SH 85 Aammcmm p85 Basmflmm iamf Mm..- m2. 802 3H. Mam. mam: Aflaéc 9538 M82 mmmf Ma. 80.. Agéc Hdfifiz HH x5. 3...ch #83 385. $0.- :2. mm; 302 ASBEV gsficmx Sm- EN. MW... 802 “Epsmmmmfizc min: 9:. m8. at mcoz H mes magmas 9388 an when: NH amass G go manages 33sec 88:? fie; mamas 908mm EH 883 HH @1qu H fin: mmwflfls no @325 mwcflomoq pouomm .mmysnappu< cowumowcaesoo mo scapm sow ompomamm mampmzm Hmaoom mamaaa> .om manna 176 interpersonal communication structure , integration and role attributes. Farmer Composition (Participating System) To construct the profiles of the farmer (participating system) types composing the communication structure in the village, we selected all the farmers (aged 50 years and below and operating farms of the size 2.5 acres and above) separately for each one of the three types of villages, viz. , Mulwa of Maharastra representing the type I village, Polamuru of Andhra representing the type II village, and Pophali of Maharashtra representing the type III village. Considering the farmer as an individual behavioral system, we selected the following socioeconomic behavioral characteristics whidn satisfied the criteria of the peasant typology study done previously (Raju, 1969). Variab les“" 88. Family size refers to the number of members related to the head by kinship ties, sharing food from a common kitchen, and shelter. 89. Education refers to the degree of a person's ability to read and write a letter with formal schooling. 90. Acres cultivated refers to the total extent of land cultivated by the respondent during the agricultural year of July to June, 1966. 91. Total value of ggricultural produce raised refers to the monetary value (at the appropriate market price) of the quantity of agricultural products . :‘e For detailed measurement procedures see Appendix B. 177 92. Change_agent knowledge is the degree of awareness of the extension workers on the part of the farmer. 93. Social participation refers to the degree of behavior orientation of a person interacting with other persons in a formal grow. 91+. Cosmopoliteness refers to the degree to which an individual is oriented outside of his system. .. 95. Fragrentation index refers to the extent of scattering of cultivating plots of land in non-contiguous places. 96. Taxes paid refers to the value of local taxes like housing and property tax (excluding land tax) annually paid by the farmer. 97. Productive man work units are the estimated number of man days (hired as well as family) used in farm operations through the year. 98. Comrercialization is the degree to whidn an individual is oriented to the market forces for his output disposal. 99. Agricultural innovativeness is the degree to whidn an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new agricultural ideas than other members of his social system. 100. Political knowledgeability refers to the awareness of the individual about persons who are the chief policy—makers in government. 101. Ritual caste status refers to the ranking of the respondent relative to other persons in the village according to the acceptability of drinking water and eating cooked food with them. 102. Bullock power is the total number of bullocks or draught animals owned by the peasant. 103. Health innovatiVeness is the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new health ideas than other members 178 of his social system. Method of Data Analysis We used Q—type factor analysis for data reduction and construction of farmer typology. Findings : Communication Structure Village Type I Sociograms IA (Fig. 3) and IB (Fig. 1+) refer to the village social system which we have described as type I village. Table 51 presents the mean value of the communication structural measures for all the three types of villages. In village type I we identified an average number of 10.5 grows whose size ranged from 3 to 18 with a mean size of 6.5. The mean number of chains is two. The mean size of the chain, is three. There is a mean of 12 dyads which are not a part of any group or chain or any other structure. The mean number of monads is 11%. Village Type II Sociograms IIC (Fig. 5), IID (Fig. 6) and HE (Fig. 7) refer to the village type II (Table 51). In this village type we find a mean number of 13.5 grows whose size ranges from three to nine with a mean size of 8.7. The mean number of chains is 2.5 with an invariant size of three. The mean number of dyads which are not part of any other structure is 13.5. The mean number of monads whidn are not a part of any other structure is 19. 179 are as 0.3 98 0.2“ mi xmecH ammo: ms ms was was 9: 9S x83 ems o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m 8.8 886 mg as BA m.m HA ma chH 39c 0.2 .01: as m... we ma 8.8 90% :82 mas mg do was. a: has x8cH 98w .3: EmsmOHoOm QHH sapwoaoom $.8sz 110 : farmer #110 seeks advice from farmer #99 A Liaison Role D Bridge Role (how Central Punipl'eral OQainCentral o Isolate 183 J37 .205 903 (2;;;\ r,// ’34 ’55. :03 :94 I310 n3 :5: @ éZOéL p I95 [/7 I94 ) I73 '38 I97 17m H8 lal Figure 5. Sociogram IIC (Type II Village: Polamuru (Andhra Pradesh) Farming Advice Network N = 99 + 21* = 120 * Persons outside the sample. Legend: 113 -—< 131 : farmer #113 seeks advice from farmer #131 Liaison Role Bridge Role Group Central Peripheral Chain Central Isolate @OO© II] [> 184 185 186 ”we 6 g... @@ so @3 @ Cb / Figure 7. Sociogram III: (Type II Village: fhrishpur (West Bengal) \19 Fanning Advice Network N=59+13*=72 a Persons outside the sample. Legend: 856 ——< 191 : farmer 5856 seeks advice from farmer #191 A Liaison Role D Ridge Role Group Central 0 Peripheral Claim Central Isolate some 187 Village Type III Sociograms IIIF (Fig. 8) and IIIG (Fig. 9) refer to the village type III (Table 51). In the village type III we find a mean number of nine grows with the mean size of 8.7, the range being from three to 35. The mean number of clnains is 1.5 with a mean size of three. The mean number of dyads is 7.5 whereas the mean number of monads is 12. A Comparison Among the Three Types of Villages To facilitate a comparison of the communication structural measures across the three types of villages, we expressed the structural measures in terms of percentage using the size of the system (the number of persons participating in the social system under study) as the denomi- nator. Table 52 gives the measures. Type I village scores high on the number of communication grows, low on chain and monad, but medium on dyadic structures. Type II village scores high on chain, dyadic and monadic struc— tures, but low on group. Type III village scores medium on grow, chain and monadic structures while low on dyadic structures. Findings : Communication Integration Based on the Sociograms IA through IIIG we comptued the scores on the following indicators of communication integration: Network integration, dyad isolation and monad isolation for each one of the eQe WQ @ ’__ (32.) gar/5n. (5//)—__«@ (3:: (if?) 9 Gen—4 Q @ @fi I7? Q“) @—< @ Figures. Sociogunn'flypenvmage: WON-meshes) WWW N=100+10‘=1.10 ‘P‘ereons outside the maple. baud: 882 —-< 868 : farm-0662 madvice frmfarm 0868 Amismkole 0mm GIquCentml W1 190 r 1, . m e H 6669®€3®9 33333333 ® fifiéfié Figure 9. Sociogram IIIG (Type III Village: Laxmidanga (West Bengal) Farming Advice Netmrk N = 62 + 13* = 75 9: Persons outside the sample. Legend: 373 —--—-< 2 : farmer #373 seeks advice from farmer #2 Liaison Role Bridge Role Group Central Peripheral Clnain Central Isolate @OO©D[> 191 Table 52. Village Typology and Communication Structural Indices (mean values). Communication Typologr of Village Structural indices Type I Type II Type III Group Index 11.1 (high) 9.1 (10d) 10.3 (medium) Chain Index 1.1 (low) 3.3 (high) 3.0 (medium) Dyad Index 11.9 (medium) 13.7 (high) 8.5 (low) Monad 12.6 (low) 21.8 (high) 11+.2 (medium) three types of villages. Table 53 presents the results. As seen from Table 53 we find that type II village shows con— sistently low communication integration as indicated by a low degree of isolated dyad and isolated monad scores. Type III village shows a high degree of communication integration as indicated by a high degree of network integration, a low degree of isolated dyad and isolated monad scores. Table 53. Village Typology and Communication Integration. Commmication Typology of Village integration indices Type I Type II Type III Network integration 0 (Low integration) 100 (High integration) 12 (medium 5 (low) 19 (high) Isolated dyad score 0 (High integration) 100 (Low integration) 23 (medium) 25 (low) 13 (high) Isolated monad score 0 (High integration) 100 (Low integration) 11+ (medium) 27 (low) 7 (high) 192 Type I village shows a medium scoring on all the three indicators of communication integration: network integration, isolated dyad, and isolated monad scores. Findings : Commmicat ion Role Based on the Sociograms IA through IIIG we computed the scores indicating the degree of presence of the following communication roles: Centrality, Inter-group bridge and Liaison. Table 51! presents the findings for the three types of villages. Table 51+. Village Typology and Communication Role. Communication Typolog of Village role indices Type I Type II Type III Liaison .30 (medium) .73 (high) 00 (1cm) Inter-group bridge 6.3 (high) 3.20 (10») 3.6 (medium) Centrality 10.1 (medium) 8.8 (low) 10.3 (high) Type II village scores high on liaison role but low on inter— group bridge and centrality roles. Type I village scores high on inter—group bridge role but medium on liaison and centrality roles. Type III village scores high on centrality role, but medium on inter-group bridge and low on liaison roles. Findings: Participant Composition Results of Q Factor Analysis: An Empirically derived Farmer Typology The considerations of parsimony and simplicity needed for an 193 exploratory study of the participant composition put some limitations on the number of village social systems to be chosen. we decided to con- sider farmers in three villages, each representing one type of village to keep the data analysis within the manageable limits. Accordingly, we selected the following three villages: Mulwa of Maharashtra (type I village), Polamuru of Andhra (type II village) and Pophali of Maharashtra (type III village)) present study guided us to choose the three—factor solution whidh gave us the three "pure" types of farmers in eaCh one of the three villages. Using the "pure" factor loadings as weights we computed the average 2 score on each one of the 16 variables for eaCh type of farmer in eaCh type of village using the WRAP program available at the MSU Department of Communication. In total we generated nine types of farmers across all the three villages. But a comparitive study of the nine types Showed that except two types whidh Showed a great deal of similarity in their profiles, all the remaining types of farmers showed different profiles. Hence we describe below eight types of farmers labeled A through H as they occur in the three types of villages. Findings: Farmer'Typology in Village Type I (e.g., MUlwa, a type I village whose leadership has social psydhological attitudes more favorable to change, institutional facilities are poor and level of agricultural develOpment is low) Table 55 gives the profile of the farmer typology in village Type I. 199 Table 55. A Profile of the Farmer Typology in Village Type I (Mulwa) (z scores*) N=61+. FarmerTypeA FarmerType B FarmerType C Item Rank N=23 Rank N=2H Rank N=l7 1. Family size low 0 . 11+ medium 0 . 56 high 1. 50 2 . Education medium -0 . 2 3 high 0 . O 5 1cm -1 . 05 3. Acres cultivated low 0 . 33 high 1. 20 medium 0 . 37 u. Value of farm produce medium 0 . 35 higi l. 06 low —0 . 01 5 . Change agent knowledge 104 —1 . 59 high 0 . 2 5 medium -0 . 5 7 6 . Social par— ticipation high 1 . 1+2 10»! -0 . 79 medium 0 . 18 7. Cosmopolite— ness medium 0 . 06 low -0 . 50 high 0 . 33 8. Hagmentation medium 0 . 81 low —2 . 50 high 2 . 0L: 9 . Taxes paid medium 0 . 26 low 0 . 21+ high 0 . 50 10 . Productive man-hours medium 0 . 6 3 high 0 . 96 low 0 . 21 11. Commercial— ization high 1 .97 medium -0 . 56 ' low —1 . 77 12 . Agricultural innovativeness low -0 . 9 2 high 0 . 57 medium —0 . 01 13. Political knowledge- ability medium —1 . 26 high -0 . 50 low -1 . 30 11+ . Ritual caste status high -0 . 80 medium -1. 22 low -1. H8 15. Bullock power low 0.51 high 1.56 medium 0 .6” 16 . Health inno- vativeness low -1 . 7 3 medium -0 . 141 high 0 . 1+0 2': Converted from the arrays of weighted items (e. g. , family size, agri— cultural innovativeness, etc.) The scores represent the mean of the weighted scores across all farmers who were most associated with a given type. Factor loadings were used as weights. 195 Farmer Type A: The farmer type A belongs to a higher ritual caste and has a greater degree of social participation and commercial- ization; he has a medium score on educational attainments, cosmopolite- ness, political knowledgeability, amount of taxes paid, number of man hours put in on the farm, and the total value of agricultural produce raised; he has low scores on change agency knowledge, size of farm and family, and use of animal power on the farm. Figure 10 presents a summary of the profile: The farmer type A has a low degree of change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources and has a high degree of social participation. Farmer Type B: The farmer type B has a high degree of agri- cultural innovativeness, change agent kncwledge, political knowledge and educational attainments. He cultivates a large extent of land, uses a great number of animals for farming, puts in a large number of work hours on the farm, and raises a higher value of agricultural produce; he occupies a medium position on the ritual caste status, commercialization, family size and adoption of health innovations; scores 10» on social participation, degree of cosmopoliteness , fragmentation of farm plots and the amount of taxes paid. Figure 10 presents a summary of the profile: The farmer type B has a high degree of change orientation, gleater control over farm economic resources and a low deg-gee of social Barticipation. Farmer Type C: The farmer type C scores high on the degree of cosmopoliteness, health innovativeness, family size, amount of taxes paid and fragmentation of farm plots; he scores medium on the degree of 196 Farmer Typology (Village Type I) Farmer Traits Score Agricultural Innovativeness _ A* C+ B** Health Innovativeness A B C Education Political Knowledge Change Agent Knowledge Cosmopoliteness Labor Employed Value of Agriculture Produce Acres Cultivated Bullock Power Taxes Paid Family Size Commercialization Fragmentation Social Participation Ritual Caste OCUUJOCDCD3>3>OOCD3>OO mn>ww>oo>>>o>> >3>03>OOU§CDCDUJOCDCD * . Farmer Type A: Low to medium on change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resomcces and high on social participation M Farmer Type B: High on change orientation, great control over farm economic resources and low on social participation + . . . . Farmer Type C: Medium to high on change orientation, great control over farm economic resources, medium on social participation. Figure 10. Summary Profile: Farmer Types A, B and C in Type I Village (Mulwa). 197 social participation, Change agent knowledge, agricultural innovativeness, extent of land cultivated and animal power used on the farm; he has a low score on educational attainments, commercialization, ritual caste status, the number of productive man hours put on the farm, and the total value of agricultural produce raised. Figure 10 presents a summary of the profile: The farmer type C is moderately disposed towards Change, control over farmleconomic resources and socialparticipation. Findings: Participant Composition (Village Type I) Table 56 presents the findings of the composition of interpersonal communication contact in Village Type I. Group centrals: 0f the farmers occupying the role of group centrals 57 percent belong to farmer type A. Grogp peripherals: Of the farmers occupying the role of group peripherals 39 percent belong to farmer'type B. Isolates: 0f the farmers who are isolates 39 percent belong to farmer type (I ; 35 percent belong to farmer type B and 26 percent belong to farmer'type A. ands: The composition of dyadic structure shows that 6H percent of the dyadic structures are heterophilous. Group heterophily score: The mean group heterophily score is 2.HH (0 = absence of heterophily or presence of homophily; l = less heterophilous; 2 = more heterophilous; 3 = most heterophilous). andic heterophily score: The dyadic heterophily score is 6H (0 = absence of heterophily; 100 = completely heterophilous). 198 Amooaflnapumpmz 8.3950 u 02” unfinagoymfi mo mommmnm n 8 :m "£00m emawzaonmpmfi p.95 Amooflfionmpmn “60.: mooflzcemvmn mace 90338.85; mme fifififlgmpmn mo mocmmnm II II II II Ot—le V ::.N "Boom zflncgmpmz macaw m m w mm samm so mm mPMHOmH coavmoflgaaoo me so am .o mm ..Hm 98:9ng 99% coflmofisgoo a w. mm mi 61. m Hmsvcmo macaw soapmoéoo REE? o m < 20m mob 9953 cu. wfimcoaon mHmEHmm .H mg mmeHH> cum Bomvcoo cowpmoéoo HmcowwwgumUEH mo cowpwmocho .3 game 199 Findings: Farmer Typology in Village Type II (e.g. , Polamuru, a type II village whose leaders' attitude towards change is less favorable , but the village is endowed with greater institutional facilities and the agricultural development is moderately high) Table 57 gives the profile of farmer types in village type II. Farmer Type D: The farmer type D scores high on agricultural innovativeness, change agent knowledge, social participation, cosmo— politeness and animal power for farm operations; scores medium on ritual caste status, number of acres owned, educational attainment, adoption of improved health practices, amount of taxes paid, number of productive man hours put in on the farm, and the total value of agricultural pro— duce raised; scores low on commercialization, family size, political knowledge and fragmentation of farm holdings. Figure 11 presents a summary of profile of farmer type D: He has a high degree of favorable attitude towards change, medium to low degree of control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation. Farmer Type E: The farmer type B scores high on the number of acres cultivated, number of productive man hours put in on farm, the total value of agricultural produce raised, amount of taxes paid, educa- tional attainment, family size and fragmentation of holdings; scores medium on social participation, cosmopoliteness, commercialization, political knowledgeability, and animal power used on the farm; scores low on ritual caste status, agricultural innovativeness, change agent knowledge and health innovativeness. Figure 11 gives a summary of the profile: The farmer :ype E has a low degree of change orientation, greater control over farm economic resources and moderate in social Table 57. A Profile of the Farmer Typology in Village Type II (Polamuru) (z scores*) N=63. Farmer Type D Farmer Type E Farmer Type F Item Rank N=25 Rank N=l7 Rank N=21 15. Bullock power high .98 medium 0.62 low -0.01 1H. Ritual caste status medium . 61 low . 08 high 1 . 141+ 12. Agricultural innovativeness high . 59 low —1. 39 medium -0 . 70 6. Social par— - ticipation high . 58 medium -0 . 0 3 1cm —1 . 1+8 3. Acres cultivated medium . 5 7 high 0 . 62 low 0 . 00 10. Productive man-hours medium . 5U. high 0 . 61 low -0 . 11 H. Value of farm produce medium . L47 high . 67 lcw 0 . 15 5. Change agent knowledge high . 39 low —1. 05 medium 0 . 3H 7. Cosmopolite— ness higi . 37 medium 0 . 29 low —2 . 31 9. Taxes paid medium .29 high 0.51 1 low 0.12 11. Commercial- ization low . 0 7 medium 0 . 1+7 high 1 . L+5 2. Education medium -.27 high 0.09 low -—0.99 1. Family size 104 film high 0.98 medium 0.63 16 . Health inno- vativeness medium —. 59 low -2 . 15 high 0 . 31+ 13. Political knowledge- abiliw low - 76 medium -1.77 high 0.57 8. Fragmentation low —3.l+0 high 1.95 medium —0.l+l: 3': Converted from the arrays of heighted items (e.g. , bullock power, ritual caste status etc.) The scores represent the mean of the weighted scores across all farmers who were most associated with a given type . Factor loadings were used as weights. 201 Farmer Typology (Village Type II) Farmer Traits Score Low Medium Rig": Agricultural Innovativeness - E** F+ D" Health Innovativeness E D F Education F D E Political Knowledge D E F Change Agent Knowledge E F D Cosmopoliteness F E D Labor Employed F D E Value of Agriculture Produce F D E Acres Cultivated F D E Bullock Power F E D Taxes Paid F D E Family Size D F E Commercialization D E F Fragmentation D F B Social Participation F E D Ritual Caste D D F a: Farmer Type D: High on change orientation, medium-to-low control over farm economic resources and high on social participation m: Farmer Type E: Low on change orientation, great control over farm economic resources and medium on social participation + . . Farmer Type F: Moderate on change orientation, small control over farm economic resources and low on social participation. Figure 11: Summary Profile: Farmer Types D, E and F in Type II Village (Polamuru). 202 Amsoflrfigmvmz 83960 u 03 janconmwm: mo cosmQO u 3 a: ”800m gunfiogmpoz omS 3:328,»an ymg mzoflgaopmpmn mace msoflpaemwm: mmma fiancgmpmn mo 93¢me V main "800m >Hfl£a8mpm£ @380 N m «Em can a w ma mpmHOmfl coflpmo flcoEEoo :m we a m w m m 03H : awhmnawpma @6ch COM Pmowgfiaoo m m NH I saw m ngcmo 95% cowpmoéoo mafia/$2 a m a 30m was. 9853 cc. mfimconn mum—5mm . APHSEMHOQV HH maze mwmaafl> CH mpomuboo :oflmoflcstou HmcomhmacamvcH Mo cofipflmocho .mm magma. 203 pgrticipat ion . Farmer Type F: The farmer type F scores high on ritual caste status, commercialization, health innovativeness, political knowledge; scores medium on agricultural innovativeness , change agent knowledge, family size and fragmentation of holdings; scores 1cm on social partici- pation, number of acres cultivated, productive man hours, total value of agricultural produce, amount of taxes paid, level of education attainment, cosmopoliteness, and animal power used on the farm. Figure 11 gives a summary of the farmer profile: The farmer type F has a moderate attitude towards change, alm degree of control on farm economic resources and a low degree of social participation. Findings: Participant Composition (Village Type II) Table 58 presents the findings of the composition of interpersonal communication contact in village type II: Group central: Of the farmers occupying the centrality role in the communication group (N=8) 88 percent belong to farmer type D. Group peripheral: Of the farmers who are group peripheral (N=3l+) '41 percent belong to the farmer type D; 35 percent belong to the farmer type E , 21+ percent belong to the farmer type F. Isolate: Of the farmers who are isolates (N232) 1+7 percent of isolates belong to type E farmer; 31+ percent belong to type F farmer; 19 percent belong to type D farmer. Dyads: The dyadic structure composition shows that 53 percent (N: 30) are homophilous whereas L47 percent are heterophilous. 209 Grougheterophily score: The mean group heterophily score is 1.12 (0 = absence of heterophily or presence of homophily; l = less heterophilous; 2 = more heterophilous; 3 = most heterophilous). Iladic heterophily score: The dyadic heterophily score is 1+7 (0 = absence of heterophily; 100 = completely heterophilous). Findings: Farmer Typology in Village Type III (e.g. , Pophali, a village whose leadership has social psychological attitudes more favorable to change endowed with moderate institutional facilities and had a high level of agricultural development) Table 59 presents the profile of farmer types in village type III. Farmer Type G: The farmer type G has a high degree of health and agricultural innovativeness , greater change agent knowledge greater educational attainment and cosmopoliteness and belongs to a higher ritual caste status; he scores medium on social participation, animal power used on the farm; scores low on the total value of agricultural produce raised on the farm, amount of taxes paid, productive man hours put in on the farm, commercialization and number of acres cultivated and political knowledge. Figure 12 gives a summary of the profile: Tile farmer type G has a high degree of change orientation, less control over farm economic resources and a moderate degree of social participat ion . Farmer Type A: The farmer type A scores high on the amount of taxes paid, animal power used on the farm, number of productive man hours put in on the farm, family size, and social participation; scores 205 Table 59. A Profile of Farmer Typology in Village Type III (POphali) (z scores“) N=66. FarmerTypeG FarmerTypeA FarmerTypeH Item Rank N=2l+ Rank N=23 Rank N=l9 16 . Health inno- vativeness high 1 . 82 low -1. 09 medium -0 . 6 3 12 . Agricultural innovativeness high 1 . 19 medium 0 . 2 3 low -0 . ll 5. Change agent knOWIedge high 1.15 medium, -0.58 low —0.60 13 . Political knowledge- ability high 1.12 medium -0 . u3 low -0 .u 3 11+ . Ritual caste status high 1. 0 8 medium —0 . 1+5 low —0 . 56 2 . Education high . 9 8 medium -0 . 01 low -0 . 13 1+ . Value of farm produce low — . 21 medium 1 . 19 high 1 . 22 ll . Commercial- ization lo» - . 2 3 high -0 . 014 medium —0 . 15 9 . Taxes paid low —. 63 high —0 . 16 medium -0 . 26 7 . Cosmopolite- . ness high -.67 low -1.60 medium —0.86 l O . Productive man—hours low - . 6 7 high 1 . 10 medium 0 . 61+ 3 . Acres cultivated low - . 6 8 medium 1 . 2 2 high 3 . 16 l . Family size low —. 72 high 0 . 96 medium -0 . 01 6 . Social par— ticipation medium - . 9 3 higr 0 . 8H low -0 . 02 8 . Fragmentation high —1 . 29 low -2 . 17 medium —1 . 1+0 15 . Bullock power medium -1. 30 high 0 .99 low 0 . 12 :‘c Converted from the arrays of weighted items (e.g. , family size, agricultural innovativeness etc.) The scores represent the mean of the weighted scores across all farmers who were most associated with a given type. Factor loadings were used as weights. 206 Farmer Typology (Village Type III) Farmer Traits Score Low Medium High Agricultural Innovativeness H“ A“' G* G ZI> :33 Health Innovativeness Education Political Kncwledge Change Agent Knowledge Cosmopoliteness Labor Employed Value of Agriculture Produce Acres Cultivated Bullock Power Taxes Paid ®3>3>ZECEB>I>3> :1: ll Family Size Commercialization Fragmentation Social Participation Ritual Caste C 112 CE > CD CD 63 111 63 G3 63 11> C13 :2 213 G) > 6') > 11> II> 11> :12 III 11> G) G) G) 3963:2333: s: Farmer Type G: High on change orientation, small control over farm economic resources, medium on social participation Farmer Type A: Low to medium on change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources and high on social participation 4. Farmer Type H: Low to medium on change orientation, high to medium on farm economic resources and low on social participation Figure 12: Summary Profile: Farmer Types G, A and H in Type III Village (Pophali). 207 medium on agricultural innovativeness , change agency kncwledge, political knowledge, ritual caste status, educational attainment, total value of agricultural produce, number of acres cultivated; scores low on health innovativeness, cosmopoliteness, and fragtentation of farm holdings. Figure 12 gives a summary of the farmer type A profile: The farmer type A has medium to low degree of change orientation, medium to higi control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation. Farmer Type H: The farmer type H scores high on the total value of agricultural produce raised on the farm and the number of acres cultivated; scores medium on health innovativeness, cosmopoliteness, commercialization, amount of taxes paid, number of productive man hours put in on the farm, family size, and fragmentation of holdings; scores low on agricultural innovativeness, change agent knowledge, political knowledge, ritual caste status, education attainment, social partici— Pation , and animal power used on the farm. Figure 12 gives a summary Of the profile: The fa_r:m_er type H scores low to geidium on change (Elihu—ation, high to medium on the control over farm economic resources, ECU-CW on social participation. Findings : Participant Composition (Village Type III) Table 60 presents the findings of the composition of inter- Personal communication contact in village type III: Group central: Of the farmers occupying the role of group central (N:5) 60 percent belong to the type G category of farmers. 208 AmoOHHLQOchpmn mpdeEoo u 03“ maanaewpmg mo mocmmnm u 8 Amooawndopowmn pmoE macawndogmpmn who: mooflnoopmpm: mwma handgmpon mo mocmmom. OHNm do “Boom Knaflndempmn ammo v mé ”Boom unawadgmpmz c.3096 m . mam mam mam 330ml.” dofimugeer om mam oaom oamm Hgopaflpma ashram cofimodmgoo m mew mew mew H828 99% 5382228 mafia/radar m < 6 30m word. pmfimm ow mfimconb magma . Aflamndomv HHH o5 mmmadu, fi mpomvcoo cowpmoflgoo HmcowHoEoch mo coflfimanoo .om ogre 209 Group peripheral: Of the farmers (N280) occupying the role of group peripheral, 39 percent belong to the farmer type G; 31 perL cent belong to farmer type H and 30 percent belongto type A. Isolate: Of the farmers (N=8) who are isolate, 37 percent belong to type G; 37 percent belong to type A ; 25 percent belong to type H. mad: Of dyads (Nzul) 66 percent are heterophilous in composition. Group heterpphily score: The mean group heterophily score is 1.8 (0 = absence of heterophily or presence of homophily; l = less heterophilous; 2 = more heterophilous; 3 = most heterophilous). andic heterophily score: The dyadic heterophily score is 141 (0 = absence of heterophily; 100 = complete heterophily). Discussion of Findings Communication Structure The case evidence supports the proposition that the type 1 Village (with leadership less oriented to change poor institutional facilities and low level of agricultural development) has less number Of Chains and monads. But we do not find evidence for the statement that tYPe I village has a small number of groups and isolated dyads. The case evidence does not support the propositions that the type II village has a medium number of groups, chains, isolated dyads and IIDDads and that the type III village has a large number of groups, 210 chains, isolated dyads and monads. The case evidence suggests the following as shown in Table 61. Table 61. Case Evidence: Communication Structure. Communication structure Village Type indicators Type I Type II Type III Group index high low medium Isolated chain index low high medium Isolated dyad index medium high low Isolated monad index low high medium Type I village has a large number of groups and a less number of isolated chains, dyads and monads. The type II village has less number of groups and a large number of isolated chains, dyads and monads. The type III village has a medium number of groups, isolated chains and nonads but less number of isolated dyads. The question that comes to our mind is: Why does the type I village which has poor institutional facilities, tend to show a large number of informal communication groups and small number of isolated chains, dyads and monads to pool and share the agricultural information? One explanation is that in type I village, Which has a kind of leadership which is less oriented to change and has poor inStitutional facilities, tends to function through informal ghotu-ngs. The type II village, it appears to us, because it has more institutional facilities may not need a large number of informal groups: the formal institutionalized relations are likely to cater to the com— muhlcartion process of pooling and sharing of agricultural information 211 among the farmers. Similarly, the type III village which has a moderate institutional facilities functions through a medium number of groups. These facts lead us to the reasoning that the village which lacks the formal institutional structural facilities tends to rely more on informal communication groups . In light of the case evidence and the reasoning we propose the following hypothesis: the agricultmal information seeking, pooling and sharing function among the farmers shifts from informal commmication groups to the formal institutions and organizations as the village gets endowed with better institutional facilities such as service societies, agencies, centers, clubs, associations and other forms of formal organizations . Communication Integration The case evidence does support the proposition that type III Village has a high degree of communication integration. There is a lack of evidence for the proposition that the village type I has a low communication integration and the 'type II village has a medium degree of integration. The case evidence suggests the following as shown in Table 62. Table 6 2. Case Evidence: Communication Integration \ 9°mmication Village Type Won index Type I Type II Type III Network integration medium low high ISOlated dyad score medium low high ISOlated monad score medium low high \ 212 In ligit of the case evidence we find that the village system which has a leadership less oriented to change, poor institutional facilities and a low level of agricultural development does not lack in within village interpersonal communication integration. It has a medium degree of internal interpersonal integration. It is possible that the farmers in such villages depend on increased interpersonal contacts because formal associations and organizations are not available at the village. Further, when the leadership is less oriented to change, there is a need for an interpersonal communication mechanism for defensive, counter attitudinal and comter change advocacy. The defensive mechanism calls for a fair degree of communication integration. In the type II village which has a leadership less oriented to change and better institutional facilities and a high level of agricul- tural development, the role of interpersonal communication may be low because the institutional facilities and formal functioning of the institutional personnel cater to the needs of the agricultural develOp— mental communication. Hence the interpersonal integration may be eXpected to be low. The type III village which as a leadership well oriented to change and a high level of agricultural development but moderate institutional facilities the need to maintain interpersonal communication line open and integrated is high. Hence we expect the degree of commmication Lntegl‘ation is high. We have the case evidence supporting this p1"OPOSi‘tion. 213 Commxnication Role The case evidence does not support any of our propositions relating the typology of village systems and the communication roles. The case evidence suggests the following as shown in Table 63. Table 63. Case Evidence: Communication Role. Communication Village Type role Type I Type II Type III Liaison index medium high low Inter—group bridge index high low medium Centrality index medium low high From the evidence we begin to think that the interpersonal com- munication structure of the type I village shows greater number of inter- group bridge, a medium degree of liaison and centrality roles. The reasoning is that the type I village is characterized by a large anber Of communication groLp, moderate degree of within village communication integration, and a high degree of heterophily in terms of composition of the farmer types, poor institutional facilities and leaders less oriented to change. As a result of their interaction effect communica- tion roles such as inter-group bridge, liaison and centrality roles Should naturally be more important. The type II village is characterized by better institutional faCilities and a small number of groups, moderate degree of heterophily and a lower degree of commmication integration. These characteristics call for a small number of inter—group bridge and centrality roles. 211+ Because of better institutional facilities a liaison role that links the persons from one association to another becomes necessary. The type III village is characterized by a low degree of heterophily, moderate institutional facilities, and a medium number of groups. We expect a high degree of centrality and a medium degree of inter-group bridge and a low degree of liaison role in the type III village. Participant Composition (Type I Village) The case evidence supports the following propositions in the type I village: The farmer type A (low in change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources, and a high degree of social participation) dominate as the group centrals. The farmer type B (high in change orientation, great control over farm economic resources, and a low degree of social participation) are the isolate monads. The case evidence does not support the following propositions: The farmer type C (moderately disposed towards change, moderate control over farm economic resources, and moderate degree of social participation) dominate as grotp peripherals. The degree of group and dyadic heterophily is low. In the type I village, the case evidence provides support for the following propositions: The group centrals in the type I village are dominantly of the farmer type A (low in change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources , and a high degree of social participation) 215 The group peripherals dominantly belong to the farmer type B (high change orientation, great control over farm economic resources, and a low degree of social participation) The isolate monads also dominantly belong to farmer type B. The degree of group heterophily and dyad heterophily is high. Participant Composition (Type II Village) The case evidence supports the following propositions in the type II village: The group peripherals belong dominantly to the farmer type D (higm in change orientation, moderate degree of control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation). The isolate monads belong to farmer type F (moderately disposed towards change, low control over farm economic resources and a low degree of social participation). The group and dyad heterophily is medium. The case evidence does not support the following proposition: The group central belongs dominantly to the farmer type B (low in change orientation, great control over farm economic resources, and moderate degree of social participation). The case evidence provides support for the following propositions in the type II village: The group centrals dominantly belong to farmer type D (high in change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation) The group peripherals also belong dominantly to the farmer type D 216 The monad isolates belong to farmer type F (moderately disposed towards change, small control over farm economic resources and a low degree of social participation There is a medium degree of group and dyad heterophily (medium number of heterophilous groups and dyads) Participant Composition (Type III Village) The case evidence supports the following propositions in the type III village: The group centrals dominantly belong to the farmer type G (high in change orientation, small control over farm economic resources, and a moderate degree of social participation). The isolate monads dominantly belong to the farmer type H (low in change orientation, moderate on control over farm economic resources, and a low degree of social participation). The evidence does not support the following propositions. The group peripherals are dominantly of the farmer type A (low in change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources , and a high degree of social participation). The degree of group heterophily in groups and dyads is high. In the type III village the case evidence suggests support for the following propositions: The group centrals dominantly belong to the farmer type G (high in change orientation, small control over farm economic resources and a moderate degree of social participation) The group peripherals also belong to the farmer type G The isolate monads dominantly belong to the farmer type H (low in change orientation, moderate control over 217 farm economic resources, and low degree of social participation) The degree of heterophily as measured by the number of heterophilous groups and the dyads is low. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Summary The present study was an investigation into the empirical aSpects of village development dimensions and the communication pattern of the village social systems differentiated in terms of develOpnent. The aspects of communication pattern were: village-outside communica— tion integration, village-within interpersonal communication integra- tion, structure, role and communication participant composition. Specifically the purpose of the dissertation was two-fold: (l) to conceptualize communication linkages as related to a typologl of village social systems and (2) to analyze communication linkages among the farmers in selected villages of India, using variation in a typology of village social systems, and a typology of farmers within villages as the major bases for differen- tiating among the communication patterns. TWO levels of analysis were distinguished: (l) the village as a systemic wit and (2) the individual farmer as a behavioral system. The investigation attempted to provide answers to the following questions : (1) What are the empirical dimensions of village development? 218 219 (2) How do village social systems coifigurate along the dimensions of develOpnent in terms of a village typology? (3) What are the development factors correlated with the external communication linkages of the village? (1+) How do within village inter-personal communication structure, role and integration attributes differ across different types of villages? (5) What types of farmers are located in the network of communication relations with other farmers in different village types? Basic coicepts such as development, communication process, linkage, structure, network, role aid integration were used in formu- lating the relevant communication propositions. The following gereral hypothesis was derived from the theoretical perspectives of agricultural development and social change aid tested statistically: The higher the development of the village the greater is the linkage of the village with its environment. Other propositions relating to within village communication attributes were formulated in the light of case evidence. The study was based on the cross-section survey data collected by personal interview for the MSU—AID Diffusion of Innovations Project in India in two phases-—Phase I (1966) at the village level, and Phase II (1967) at the farmer level. For the village level study 108 villages were selected on a multi—stage random sampling method from the third stage onwards while the sampling at the first and second stage for selecting the states and districts was purposive to represent variations in administrative structures, people's participation and intensity in agricultural development. In studying the communication participant 220 composition of farmers and in the within village interpersonal communica- tion contacts o11y three cases were selected. Factor analytic methods (R and Q types), product moment correla- tions were employed to provide the statistical evidence for the prop- ositions relating to village development dimensions, village typology, village external communication contact and farmer typology. The case study method employing sociogram technique was used to provide empirical evidence for propositions relating to within village communication attributes. The results of the R factor analytic study of village development indicated eleven empirical development dimensions. Among them eight dimensions were clearly interpretable. Hence they were selected for testing the hypotheses related to village development dimensions aid village outside communication linkages. The communication contacts of the more developed villages showed strong linkages with the outside system. The linkages were positively maintained by and through the contacts of the agricultural develOpnent functionaries such as the AEO and the VLW as also those of the village leaders. There was a strong empirical support for the assertion that the more institutimally hardicapped a village was, the less it was in its linkage with its external system through the formal development func- tionaries as well as through the village leaders. The communication contacts of the VLW were relatively strong and direct in the agriculturally developed village but the direct linkage was weak with the AEO. The village leaders' interaction with the 221 develcpment functionaries, their visits to the urban centers and their exposure to cinema.tended to establish strong linkages between the agri— culturally developed village and its outside system. Except for the VLW demonstrations in the village , other indices of external contact through the development functionaries were not sta- tistically significant but the tendency of the village leader to estab- lish linkages outside the village had.positive evidence for'the villages endowed with a.high degree of communication resources. The villages with more Change-oriented leaderShip were not necessarily linked to the outside systemlthrough the development fUnc- tionaries or through the village leaders. The village Whose leaders were more conservative in economic matters did not necessarily lack outside contact. Primary education and post-primary education in the village was not an important factor for establishing the communication contacts for the village with the external systemu However, the presence of medhan— ization in the village tended to establiSh some external contacts to the village. Our attempt at constructing a typology of villages along the dimensions of development by using the Q-type factor'analysis gave three types of villages. Table 6” presents a summary of village and farmer typology, and communication attributes. Type I Villagg: Its leaderShip was less oriented to change, was handicapped by poor institutional facilities and maintained a low level of agricultural development. The dominant trait of this village showed a regional syndrome of west Bengal. 222 .cmE mun mflfigopos coho paw moonm mo mopwmo o5. .mmHMHOmw ocm mdmpcfiflpmo 98m m5. mm. mumfieco cu. 33m“ ma Amoebwoflcflhmo dmflocm mo wgmmo 30H m cam $08.6me cameococm 5H3 po>c H0550 Hmapgpmgm «coapmfiumfiuo @986 MO mewmo awe: m mm: 053 moo one “$1.3 m 093 human 48“?on 99% 93. mm mvméoo 8. 39a m.“ Acoflmoflcfirna deOOm mo 89me cm? m. cam 809:0me ouabcoom 58mm 9m>c H9550 38mg . noun “35.30 mwcmfi mo 89mg 30H m. mm: 053 moo m5. .613 < coho. 995mm .mmaop bwapcmo oopnm pom. acmfimfl” MO 985:: £336 . mmae mwoflpn QSDHmJHmpS.” m0 «895: mwhmq .coflmgmmpfiu comeoHEeEoo mo wgmmo guano: .mfimno cam. momcoe .mommo mo popes: H35 699% CQEMOHSEBU mo pounce mwamq wagocknm Hmccfimmp dmwcmm ummz vacagmo ngadcaQM mo ago.“ 304 mmflpflflomm Hmcoflbuwpmfi Loom mmcmnc 0p omvcmflo m$a mun mflngwomma mwfludg mmmadg H 33. hagoumpmm mo ownwmm conflwmanoo ugoflofigm maom ace #8 ..EEEOU c3 “mammch Goa Pmcfigoo 830556 cow pMUHEeEco mmflfi; 2o co first coward mom Bfimflmfimfifi .mmubnflptue coapmcéco new QOHQBAB .HmEHmm .hwcacnSH mwmaag mo gm .30 3nt 223 .8362 , ma >HHLQ80¥0L Ego EB 95% mo 005mg 05H. . ACOHHEQUUQMQ H0300 mo 009mg 30H m ocm 00093000.» 0.26800 anew 90>o HQUEB 30a .0906 02038. ~000ng 30.390er 0co 0gp . 0.3 90.58% m 0:“ cu. wcoa0n cocoa 0umHOmw 05. .095 Q 00. maca0n omdm ma0fiflh0a 95% 05. . ccflmoflfihmo H3000 mo 009mg emu”; 0 £33 28 0E. . .013 Q 093 928m 05. co. mcoa0n Knavcmquebo 38500 macaw 05. .038 Bapfio 90% com 0moficfi anemnpgfi .coflmfln mo 9095: 5360: .GOflvmoflafig0 Hmcowu0mlp0pfiw 03:“; gas mo 0&8 33 .35on MO 90055 HHmEm mouse pom mommo . 09930 no 90935 0mg 5&0 38.."me £00905 g5 pagaon>8 as»??? mo H93 amen m0wpfiq00m Huccwpaflmfi 9030mm 0mqm£0 Op o0pc0flpo 000a ma oEmH0om0H 090.2”: 00mins B 0E >Hfl£o80p0m mo 009mg 8330980 Emauoafima 0Hom COHE0H5E8 COHEREH cofikdg 088.0an :3 pmowEOU mmmfly mfi .8 mange 1%.ng 3m 0HQMH 22L} .309 09 9999:0830: 00% 0:0 909% 90 009M00 0:9. .Eofimafififima 90980 :0 009M00 309 0 0:0 0009:0009 0960500 E909 90>0 9099:00 09090006 :0990p:0990 0m:0:0 90 009m00 309 0 :993 0:0 0:0. . .0.9V 9: 096. 90.9909 09 0m:090: 00:99: 0909009 0:9. 090.90%:9900 959m 0:9 00 0090:9500 908909 0 090. 0:.H 0909500 0:80 99 0m. 0090:0008 2030090900: 0908 mo 009M00 00.09009: 0 0:0 0009:0009 0980:000 E909 90>0 909950 99050 509909990990 0m:0:0 90 0w9w00 002 m 593 08 06. 20...: 90500 0 090. 9:. .0098 0w099: 9&9095 0:0 :009099 .39909950 959m 90 009m00 :w9m . :09 9009:2500 $8080.90ch 000:0, c.2993 :0 8908 £090 .309 090 000990 90 90:50: 0:0. 099:3 000:9: 0:0 0:90:0 090% 90 90:55: 509002 05990950 90:09me 09200930: 288350 95:09.90... 00 :96: A090 0099999009 930959905 09090002 0w:0:0 09 0.309909 $99: 09 09:0900009 0m0999> 0033, 999 RE. 9999:0830: 90 08mm: :099900900 900909990: 090m :09 00095500 :09009M09:H :09 9009:2500 gubapm COHPMUHCHEPCO 000:; 0E :0 099080 TULEOOV :0 09990.9. 225 A case study of the type I village showed the following comrmm— icat ion characteristics: There were a large nunber of communication groups, small number of dyads, Inonads and chains. The degree of within Village interpersonal communication inte- gration was medium. There were a large number of interegroup bridge roles, medium nunber of liaison and group centrality roles. Farmer type A (i.e. , the one who has a low degree of change orientation, noderete control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation) was likely to dominate as the group centrals. Farmer type B (i.e., the one who has a high degree of change orientation, substantial control over farm economic resources and a low degree of social participation) was likely to dominate as the group peripherals and isolates. The degree of group and dyad heterophily was high. Type II Village: The leadership of the village was less oriented to change but the village was endowed with better institutional facilities and maintained a moderately high level of agricultural development. This type of village showed a regional syndrome of Andhra Pradesh. A case study of the type II village indicated the following conmunication characteristics: There were a large number of chains, dyads and nonads but a small number of groups. The village indicated a low degree of within village interpersonal commmiction integration. There was a medium number of liaison 226 intergroup bridge and group centrality roles. The group cerrtrals dominatly belonged to the farmer type D (i.e. , the one with a high degree of change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources and a high degree of social participation). The group peripherals also belonged to D type. The isolate monad belonged to the type F farmer (i.e. , the one moderately disposed towards change with a low control over farm economic resources and a low degree of social participation). The type II village showed a medium degree of group and dyad heterophily. Type III Village: Its leadership was more favorable to change; it was endowed with moderate institutional facilities and maintained a higi level of agricultural develOpnent. This type of village showed a regional syndrome of Maharashtra. A cammmication case study of the village type III indicated the following communiction characteristics: There were medium number of groups, chains and monads, but low number of dyads. The degree of within village interpersonal communication inte- gration was high. There was a high degree of group centrality, liaison and inter- group bridge roles. The type G farmer (i.e., the one with a high degree of change orientation, small control over farm economic resources and a moderate degree of social participation) dominated as the group centrals. The type G farmer also dominated as the group peripherals. The isolate 227 monad belonged to farmer type H (i.e., the one with a low degree of change orientation, moderate control over farm economic resources and a low degree of social participation). The degree of group and dyad heterophily was low. Dis cuss ion Village development dimensions and typology: Our study empirically validates the dimensions village development and moderni— zation identified by Adelman and Dalton ( 1971) and explores further other dimensions in the village development space. Hursh and others (1968, pp. 1u0-1u2) presented a bipolar typology of villages based on the criterion of success of agricultural programs in Eastern Nigeria. The villages with successful agricultural programs were positively associated with higier levels of commercial and educational development, and mass media exposure. The village leaders in "success" villages came mostly from farming occupations. They held one or more leadership roles, formal or informal. Their awareness of the agricultural services, personal contacts with the agricultural extension methods were high. This bipolar typology, how— ever, does not explain the coexistence of successful agricultural performance and less change—oriented leadership in a village. The three-village typologl of the present study enables us to understand the agricultural development of villages with less change-oriented leadership also. The evidence from the R and Q factor analytic study of the village development dimensicns indicates pointedly towards an interplay of 228 factors related to village agricultural development, leadership attri- butes and institutional facilities. we see a circular interactive relationship among themlaffecting each other. In the type I village we find a case where all the three factors are Operating at a low level. Leadership (conservative or less change oriented or traditional) Poor institutional facilities V Irmwlevel agricultural development The type II village has a positive and an active Operation of the two factors (institutional facilities and agricultural development) but still is handicapped by an unfavorable disposition of the 229 leadership towards change: Leadership _ (conservative or less dmange oriented or traditional) i Better institu- tional facilities V High level of agricultural development The type III village shows two factors (leadership and agri- cultural development) operating favorably and one factor (institutional facilities) operating moderately: Leadership (progressive or more change oriented / or modern) Moderate institutional f aci lit ies \ Hi gh level of agricultural development The foregoing empirical typology of village development aids us in conceptualizing alternative models of village development and the correlated nature of the commmication attributes. In the three-factor 230 model we can conceptualize the process of village development as being set into motion in any one or all of the components. Considering the autonomous factor which initiates and leads the. development process, the model and the path of village development differ according to how the configuration of the change process is Operating. The communica— tion ingredients Of the development model in terms of the media-mix, message characteristics, structure, role, internal and external integra— tion show different patterns. Farmer typology: Our findings relating to farmer typology based on a different set of variables (socioeconomic) has some profile simi- larities with the ones found by Otis Oliver-Padilla in the Puerto Rican study Of dairy farmers (1961+). He identified three types of farmers: Type I (future minded, favorable towards hard work and achievement, strong believers in science, higily independent in decision making); type II farmer (favorable towards Old ways Of living, slight tendency to favor value items referring to modern state of affairs); type III is in a state of transition sharing both progressive and traditional ways of looking at the world. Communication composition within village types: The findings in our case evidence is consistent with the conclusion reached by Saxena (1968) using a different methodology: he found that innovativeness of individual farmers would be higher when both the individual and the village system are modern. In our study Of the village type III whose leadership was high on change orientation and was endowed with moderate institutional facilities and a high level of agricultural development we fOLmd that the communication group centrals , group peripherals 231 dominantly belonging to the farmer type G who scores high on change orientation but medium on social participation. Also, in village type II which shows high level of agricultural development we found that farmers who are group centrals and peripherals dominantly belonged to type D who scores high on change orientation . Further our case evidence is consistent with the Haring's (1965) study of modern type of farmers in the USA. She found that modern type of farmers were higher in joining the change oriented and economic type of organization. We found that the farmers who are group peripherals and group centrals in the type II village to have a high degree of social participation and those in the type III village to have a moderate degree. Our Operationalization Of social participation indexed the membership in cooperative credit societies and other service organizations. Communication integration: Our findings are consistent with the findings Of Yadav (1967), Guimaraés (1972) and Bhowmik (1972): com- munication integration is positively correlated with the village modernity measured by farmers' innovativeness or change orientation. Their findings showed linear positive relationships between communica— tion integration and village modernity. But the analysis of village development and modernization in terms of multi-dimensional typology indicated that the type III village which has innovative leadership and a high level of agricultural devel- opment and moderate institutional facilities shows a high degree of communication integration. The village Of the type I (low change oriented leadership, poor institutional facilities and low agricultural 232 development) shows a medium degree Of interpersonal communication inte- gration. The type II village which has a less change oriented leader— ship but is endowed with better institutional facilities and maintains a high level of agricultural development, has a low degree Of commun- ication integration. Heterophily: Our measurement procedures Of heterophily and reference dimensions were different from the ones used by Bhowmik (1972). We considered the composition of communication groups and dyads in terms of types of farmers differentiated along the dimensions Of change orientation, control over farmer economic resources and social partici- pation. If the groups had equal or near equal compositions in terms Of different types we considered the groups to be most heterophilous. If the dyad consisted of different types of farmers then it was counted as heterophilous. Bhowmik used three dimensions, viz. , change agency contact, status and movie exposure to measure the degree of heterophily using the difference scores for each dyad. Because Of these differences our findings are not comparable. However, Bhowmik's findings showed no significant positive rela- tionships between village modernity and degree Of dyad heterophily. Our case study points to the proposition that the type III village representing the modernity has low degree of heterophily whereas type I village has high degree of heterophily. This assertion is contrary to those of Van den Ban (l963), Rogers with Svenning (1969), Rogers with Shoemaker (1971, pp. Zlu-ZIS), and the one hypothesized by Bhowmik (1972). 233 Limitations of the Study As the sample of 108 villages is from the three purposively selected states and some nine purposively selected districts in India, the generalization regarding the village development dimensions has a restricted relevance to the village population of India. The set of variables chosen to measure the domain of village development is by no means exhaustive. Availability of data was the main constraint in the choice of variables. In providing evidence for the concept of village development dimensions, no time order sequence could be studied because Of the cross- sectional nature of the data which are a product of one—shot study. The propositions are only indicative of correlational and not causal nature. The model of village development revealed by our analysis implies that the development phenomenon is an inter-related process , the com- ponents as revealed by our empirical study being village leadership, village institutional facilities, and agricultural development, among other things. The evidence does not permit us to interpret the inter— relationships among the components in any unique time order seqxence or causality. The implication of such a model is that one or the other component may be the leading factor for initiating change in other components. In other words, the path to village development is not unique or unilinear. The state of village development as measured in terms of the degree Of the strength Of the components at any given time should lead us to outline the path of the village development model. 23” The factor analytic model we have used in the empirical extrac- tion of the village development dimensions assumes linear relationships among the measures of development indicators. TO the extent the rela— tionships among the measures are non-linear our model does not validly represent the reality of village development process. Implications Implications for action: The main aim of this study was to extend the knowledge Of comparative study of village communities, their developmental aspects and communication factors affecting the agri- cultural development. This knowledge has some implications for agri- cultural community development in designing communication strategies. The three types of villages we identified call for different communication strategies for development. The state of the village develOpnent at any one time shows different configurations Of leadership characteristics and institutional facilities in an inter—dependent relations. We have to identify the most favorable and leading dimension and get involved in the change process working with the favorable dimension and plan a strategl for a sustained development giving emphasis to the related needs Of village system. In type I village where there is a low institutional development, low agricultural development and low degree of change-oriented leader— ship, change process need be initiated with the personalized communica- tion contact of the develOpnent agencies introducing changes which relate more to the visible and physical improvements of agricultural 235 perfbrmance. The Change agents should.work with the farmers who act as bridges in the interspersonal communication structure of the village. The village needs the communication inputs that increase the awareness of the leaders and the people to see the need for change in the village. It can be accomplished not by providing information alone. Leadership education program needs to be initiated wherein the leaders are totally exposed to another system situation which shares their major socio-cultural and.technO—economic conditions but is coping with the change processes. This type Of total communication exposure introduces into the village leaders' cognition several alternative modes of change initiation and management. It tends to increase the capacity of the village to be selfereliant while articulating its needs and seeking help from actual agencies to diffuse and manage the Change processes. When the awareness stage is set into operation other stages Of innovation decision-making processes (ROgers with Shoemaker, 1971, p. 103) are likely to fOllow. In type II village where the institutional facilities and man- power communication facilities are better~and the degree Of agri- cultural development is high but the village leadership is less oriented to change, both the mass media and interpersonal communication contacts should be strengthened. Attempts to contact the leaders Who occupy the liaison role should be maximized fOr disseminating infOre mation relevant to the operations Of agriculture that increases the profitability to the farmer. 236 Farmers who do not occupy the central role in the interpersonal communication structure but who show a greater degree Of change orien- tation need be in greater frequency of communication contact with the change agents. In the type II village, resistance and apathy towards change need to be studied further. The developmental forces seem to be working because Of exogenous initiatives and pushful Operations. For a stable and self—sustaining change process, areas of development should be identified which are compatible with initiatives and priorities of the villagers, and receptivity to change on the part of the leaders. In the type III village where we find a highly change oriented leadership, low-to—medium availability of communication and institu- tional facilities but a high degree of agricultural development as measured by the adoption of improved farm practices, most favorable conditions exist for change and sustained development. This type of village is the most favorable one for the change agent to work with. In spite of the relatively low degree Of institutional and communication facilities, a highly change oriented village leadership seems to be the leading indigenous force motivating agricultural development. Avail— ability of outside help for evaluation, diagnoses and follow-up action need to be kept up. The communication strategy in this type of village should be to work with the farmers who are less change oriented and help build the village institutional and comrmmication resources for dissemination of information . 237 Implications for future research: FOr'measuring the development state of a village future research should consider additional important indicators suCh as the state Of unemployment or underemployment, income, housing conditions and industrialization. Smallest—Space Analysis (BSA) as a multivariate technique of data.reduction based on non—metric assumptions has scme:promises fOr extracting smaller'number'of dimensions (Lingoes, 1966). This method of data analysis may be used to see the emerging picture Of village development dimensions as compared to the one we have described.using factor analytic model. Given that we have the knowledge of the degree Of external come munication contact of the village and its internal inter-personal communication structures an attempt may be made fOr measuring the come munication network potential for the infOrmation flow using the measure— ment procedures suggested by Lionberger (1963). Other researchable questions that need investigation are: How do the communication behavior Of the farmers occupying different communication roles vary? What comparative differences exist in the inter-personal communication structures in the village with respect to different kinds of messages? The propositions we have fOrmmlated in light Of the case evidence regarding village interepersonal communication attributes need testing with a large number‘of cases in order to provide valid statistical evidence fOr generalization. APPENDD< A TABLES 238 own. I950 88> m CH no.8 mac 2 u m 8 mm .323 EBBE Ame B5 was amass 93 2.2 m floss .c. own .355 pewsmno mm. , nucmo com: x0989“: HopOp m: u m 8 as $2.3 $835“ 38a 8. 939a .6 Spam 3.3 a xaaa a mmm . mmmqy CH taboo wumceo ”Bowman OH KS mm ... m or mm sum H9933 Jame cam: come. mo ”Esta :12 m on m ApeaEEmSow H.801: own mcoapcmao nucoo wfipg Hmmmnocmm as n m 8 mm is H335 Jam fl 88> 95.8mm 3.? m >m : own upcco coaubmam Hmconnpmc 9.52 .368ch Low 5 wcficb> mcomumm mil} m >2 m .02 owned? mfi m 8 was; $02 fiasco 3% SM 833a 30.338 3 a as N mama? 8+. 98 mfi fl amps/Edd lam 83a mono mo wHom poo own.” gooey a: u m 8 8m am HESS 8va A? m6. fi .060me aura? ‘ m ,3: H A3 A3 A3 8v 3V 2; A3 A3 3U $23, mfimflz . 2 .8 8 p85 Eon cofiaaamom a EaHoO a 88 2az 88 a mo mfiooomm mood; nmfismmmz H meE uommonm manage, warm mfimflz no 3.3 89.56qu .8 ....pal, omafimm< :03:th 90% wow memo H2 XHocmoo’B H 3an 239 own IHcmo 89% 8 u w. 8 am we: $535 Lam mass. 5.3 madame an? a Bag 3 own 138 8.9% 8 u m 8 mm ..25 33mg 18m was? 5? 8am: 9.? a 53: 3 omm . taboo mowuw Enema 8 u m 8 mm aha BEBE Ame fie. amass exam a mafia i own, luamo momnw 2” u m 8 mm ..mm. 3335 Lam sawing fins 8?: 3.2 m Senna ma own [wood S u m 8 mm ..mm. 3335 Ame 3833 32$ 85 m 833 NH own upcmo mm H m 8. mm ..mm. BEBE 18m BEES 3...: 8.3 a 533 3 Own 39303 Aamficmo L50 madam? 8 408 802 3535 name 8. E8933 8.2 m xmaa S own $9303 3.28m $.50 Hmpov Cu. mnmvcnoz me u m 8 mm was; 3333 name 3933a? magma swam a room... a own mnmxsoz luhmo ma: HMPOU. Ou. mhmvEOS an n m 8 mm ..mm. 3335 18a Engage 3...: 2.3 m 880?. a 8O a: AS 8O GO GO c8 AS :u spaces 2 fining H magma. 2140 péooam>mo Q 8. 8 3.853833. mm33> 808 no mfipfl 9.8038 acoz 33..ch 3mm 83283 graces? am 3 $33 .a “Egooamfivo Q 8. 8 63mm: 3333 800m mo magma m B a 393 ngfi 3mm mfaamaa mm 3 amass ma pogooagoo Q 8. 8 amapgoaam 3.33., 800m mo mafia,» $83.30 w. 8. m 33.3 3.5...ch 3% E83398 x88 3. 3 B3? 2 mmm mogume -28 magma heme m 8. mm .398 3.535 38m mfiflfiwa c802 3.3 3 is 3 9899? 9mm m 8 mm .333 3383 03mm 32 6.33 mafia 3.8 a :33 ON own 1360 canons: Loo u w. 8 am am; 3333 Ame BE b3mto= p.53 No.8 m eased 3 own :58 ~6me Hoofim w. 8 8 3a.: 3.383 1mm a? £33 madame 3.3 a 53m 3 mmm I380 83% Hoocom m 8. mm seam 3.523 lama amen 6.3. 8a.: 3.9.. a 3m 3 2: 2: A3 2: So to A8 A3 Ad 2583 2 xscmaafi 3 magma Zul Aom OP my macaw cowHMHCMfino mcoz Hm>pmucH 3mm oHeocoom .mpmvmmq mm.mm :m HcmHaoom mm Hum ou mv 9.80m $03 was @9633 maoz H0333 3mm mmmcmanmagmm .mnmommq 3.0m 3m Eocmmcmgu mm Hm ow ov 980m 983” wcoz 3mm m mo xmwcH NHfimgem mu mH gem Hm mwm ..Emo 5% Hm wmm.m Hm>amch lama coHpanppch umwm amm.mm mH wamm om HH 0p 0v whoom xmnfi mwmamocHa *mm. Hmchno 3mm mmmHHH> mCHccHz mNHpm Hm mH mNHgm mm A: 09 0V 800m cofiEoom mcoz H9935 3mm £353me “35.8 2.. NH 89363 mm Hm ow 0V 800m mHMUm mcoz Hm>nmch 3mm mascm:_vcm meHwo m: NH cmepmo hm Am 0p 0V macaw mamom mcoz Hm>nmch 3mm cOHpaonm pcmengEH mu HH mHaEH om Am ow 0v 800m A§v mcoz 33¢ch 3mm mamom ummm @9895 m: d “EMUmm mm :3 2: H3 2: 3V :3 H3 H3 Ad 1P..E8V 2 xflccmaas H 3an IX 2H2 IX IX 3 Op 8 800m 3mm 8 Op 8 mrHOom 3mm $335 3335 SH Cu. 08 800m 3335 3mm 08; 93 $335 .3952 A: Op 8 800m mam A: Op 8 300m 3mm 2. Op 8 980m 39m 8 0v 3 980m 2mm .358ch HerHmch HMEHREH HmificH SfipmHEmflHo £680 . mHmUqu Emflpflfimm ncoo Gama .mchUMQH >pflaflomm “Loamqmb 0p mmmoo< 03mg 853 $9 .mméoflmmo upwafiomm Emma 68% mocmpmfla 3:63 53H 509w 8%me 336mm Hmpmoa 59G mommpmflo cfivmpgflpo mDHmS .mumowmq .2. on 8,8 2 m Em mm cmmzpmn #889 H9583 n m . mm mm mm mm :N CV A8 A3 2; TPHEOUV 2 xficfiév H 033 £86.96 ..Eomcooncmg 2H3 AH ow oV 800m fiHdHcHuUMHm mcoz Hmcfiyuo 3mm mo EHHHAmHHMBH mm mm omHm Hm Ammfigom: 0333 SM 88m 8me BUEBmHQHHB mo u m 0p mm wmm.NH Hm>nmch 2mm mmcngms mo amnesz mmamm mm mcngmx om COHHMHsaoa ooo.H So u m ow mm comm. Hmfimch 03mm HRH mmfiwaE mo $952 8.8 mm W: m: coHHmHsaom ooo.H awn mo u m ow mm Hmm.H Hm>poch OHHmm mHHHa chpm mo amnesz mm,Hm mm ECHmpo m: . COHHMHDQOA ooonH pwm . mH u m ow mm wmm. Hm>pmch OHHmm mmchcm HHo mo amnesz omnm: mm HmcmHHo 5: COHHMHSQOQ oooéH 9mm mafia OH H m ow mm HHH.HH Hm>pmch OHHmm UHHHumHm mo amnesz mjnn: mm masmomHm m: cchmHsmoa ooo.oH m: mcoz HmEmEH ofimm 9% $863 mo 3052 n3:} mm gum m: HHm ow DOV 800m meCH mcoz Hm>pmch 2mm COHpaonm HaaspHsngm< om.mH mm paovmm< :3 Am ow 0V mpoom >pHHHnne mcoz HmzmHEH 3mm dmcowpwmbooo .wumcqu mm. :m Hagadooo m: Hm 0p 0v 88m cowvmvcmfiuo mcoz HmimuEH 3mm x93 wfiH .Emcmfl 2 :m flomem N: Hmv Hmv HBV Hmv Amy A3v Hmv “NV HHV HfiLcBV 2 gammaé H 3an zuu .mm H 8339mm, mo 393 .mmmMHHd, mmH u z "302 Am 0p oV 88m. COflPBflPwfi mgoz Hm>gchH .3mm 0p HHHEHeoam Hm mm xopaumcH. mm 88m 088 m: 982 Hmamch 3am ,Hma mcomHmm mo amnesz .36: mm 9.6mm mm Hm op HV 800m mmm.m HmCvao 3mm msumum mpmmo .mamnmmq Hm mm mpmmo mm HoH op HOV mHMOm mcoz Hm>nmch cusppsw mempH mpopm mmmHHH> mH mm psmmH> mm mHmom #525398 mcoz Hmspwch swappnw HmcoHuspHumcH :H.mH mm pzmemaH :m Hmm ow gov OHHMM 833.33 mcoz Hm>pmch ooH mma meumo om.mm mm ppmo mm Hem om DOV 0mm mo u m ow mm mmm.: Hm>pmch -pcmo xMH.mchma mmHHHemm mm.mm mm xma mm ermnH :3 A3 A3 A8 13 2; A8 8V HHV H.923 2 gang H 2an 245 Table 2 (Appendix.A): Basic Statistics and.Missing Data on 58 Variables fOr 108 Villages, India. Missing Variable . Data (% to Code Mean S.D. Skewness Base N = 108) Ml]? #1 1.75 1.95 .03 2% Pp #2 1.06 1.06 .81 None Nv #3 71.31 19.39 -1.31 None Pv #1} 88.39 15.09 -2.78 3.7% Do #5 35.50 23.L}9 1.18 3% Danix #6 l0.914 15.79 .13 10.19% Mucix #7 19.143 1.95 1.60 15.714% Agocxm #8 78.18 17.69 1.79 .93% Agocxf #9 79.61 29.37 1.93 1.85% Tanix #10 0.72 0.59 0.86 None Litem #11 29.17 12.61% -0.07 .93% Litemfem #12 9.69 7.148 0.77 .9396 Primem #13 11.86 7.57 2.01 .9396 Primef #114 5.87 5.99 2.35 2.78% Michm #15 3.07 14.11 1.97 3.70% Midfem #16 2.68 3.76 1.95 1.85% Him #17 0.99 1.63 2.51 3.70% Hifem #18 0.25 0.65 ”.5 9.63% Infmar't #19 9A5 9.19 1.61 8.33% Birth #20 29.90 16.29 1.06 17.59% Wfp #21 35.97 19.83 0.67 63.80% Agladb #22 3.93 1.71 1.83 11.11% prladp #23 3.06 1.79 0.99 16.67% Aglada #2”: 14.1“: 1.75 0.005 None Sedgut #25 1.12 1.11 0.99 None Imple #26 1.19 1.82 1.02 None Catman #27 2.28 1.2M 0.13 None Plantpro #28 0.65 0.88 1.07 None Prize #29 0.18 0.38 3.140 .93% Sedix #30 0.28 0.51} 3.63 5.56% Emp #31 6.69 1.26 - .92 None Table 2 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 296 Change Norn1#32 Ecorient #33 Sac #39 Postac #35 Libac #36 Cinedist #37 Office #38 Transix #39 Landconsori #90 Creditori.#9l Riskori #92 Occupmobi #93 Agadopt #99 Bicy #95 Elecpump #96 Oilengi #97 Gnainm.#98 Mag #99 Machine #50 Elec #51 Tax #52 Catt #53 Instigut #59 Visgut #55 Caste #56 Radio #57 Instprox #58 20.62 17.25 5.57 2.83 2.68 0.81 6.6 5.59 5.65 6.57 2.38 2.59 22.92 201.08 10.16 13.22 5.35 58.00 5.73 (0.00)(Mode) 9.76 99.53 6.70 3.75 2.11 909.00 3.30 9.17 9.36 1.23 1.06 1.31 0.98 9.18 2.31 2.17 1.82 1.88 1.71 9.80 205.13 22.72 21.52 10.8 89.36 13.36 7.36 27.12 2.25 2.93 1.16 330.25 2.08 None None None None 5.56% None 10.19% .93% None None None None None None 11.11% .93% 1.86% .93% 12.96% None 9.63% None None None 5.56% None None 297 Table 3 (Appendix A): Missing Data Substitution and Transformation. Variable Extent of Missing Data Code (Percent to Base N = 108) Values Substituted Wfp #21 63.80% ‘ Variable dropped from further analysis Birth.#20 17.59% i = 30 prladp #23 16.67% i = 09 Mucix #7 15.79% i = 19 Maohine #50 12.96% i = 06 Agladb #22 11.11% i = 09 Elecpump #96 11.11% i = 10 Danix #6 10.19% i = 93 Office #38 10.19% i = 07 Infmart #19 8.33% i = 095 Sedix #30 5.55% i = 028 Libac #36 5.56% i = 03 Caste #56 5.56% i = 02 Hifem.#18 9.63% i = 02 Tax #52 9.63% i = 05 . Pv #9 3.70% i c 88 Midem.#15 3.70% i = 03 Him #17 3.70% i = 01 Lo #5 3.00% i = 35 Primef #19 2.78% i = 06 er #1 2.00% i = 159 Agocxf #9 1.85% i = 75 Midfem.#16 1.85% i = 03 Grainm #98 1.85% i = 05 Agocxm #8 .93% i = 78 Litem.#ll .93% i = 29 Litfem #12 .93% i = 10 Primem #13 .93% >2 = 12 Prize #29 .93% i = 00 Transix #39 ~9396 3‘? = 05 Table 3 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 298 Oilengi #97 Mag #99 Pp #2 Emp #31 Eleo #51 Catt #53 .93% .93% NOne None None Transformed Values 6,5, 8,9 into 3 9 to 7 l to 0 99 to 99 Note: Data.for*the remaining variables were completely available (see Table 2 Appendix A). 299 Table 9 (Appendix A): Product Moment Correlations Among 58 Variables (Village Development Indicators) for 108 Villages, India, 1966. A 553% 8 :1 : £933 A 8 23* a s I 5 “3,5738% ’8 553’ 2: V a 9: ’5 8 x 80 8.23”“ 8 15' H (I) v ._J c: "8 5" ° V 2 q, .. V ... a 888 5°93 V ".1 CO H 0V A V 6‘ .5 +54 P‘ o. chews-g ' 3 1‘3.) 0 E g g cur-«g g8 0. P o. :2 > #3 ° 0 §§ 851;. 3 62 +9 m E :90 m 3 fin '0 8 a 9 g .. .3 v+~889 '9 5 9 5‘ 5 .9 3385.399 9 ... r-I E E '8 '0 :30 +4 -E-H§+J'§% g a) 3.2 1533999982.. . av 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 '1--- 2 19a --- 3 09 21 -—- 9 -02 17 29 ——— 5 93 —05 -17 13 ——— 6 —09 —03 -22 -06 -03 —-— 7 02 11 05 —13 -02 07 --- 8 -35 —22 —15 13 —19 06 -18 ——- 9 -39 10 10 13 —15 -13 -09 90 —-— 10 10 02 26 -10 01 -99 09 -07 09 --- 11 15 37 29 09 -01 -23 23 -25 —01 20 —-— 12 26 29 23 -03 05 -91 31 .—29 —12 36 69 -—- 13 —00 07 12 19 -00 -08 —09 05 -—11 -—09 08 07 -—- 19 03 15 13 12 -03 -03 -08 —05 -—12 -—09 22 16 60 15 25 06 12 -03 -5 -01 -07 —19 -21 -07 91 30 25 16 17 19 16 -02 15 -—31 22 -30 —05 32 36 67 15 17 12 06 09 -19 -06 —05 11 —27 —12 12 39 38 13 18 08 18 01 05 11 -01 -07 -21 —11 03 23 23 10 19 01 10 06 02 -11 —07 05 06 06 -01 23 07 01 20 -16 19 17 22 —03 -02 01 -09 08 07 10 -02 10 21 07 07 06 -03 19 19 09 -09 —08 -16 11 —03 19 22 09 29 21 03 00 -23 17 -07 06 25 27 36 -09 23 12 28 18 12 09 -20 30 -29 16 21 91 99 -03 29 03 17 25 19 07 -19 29 02 07 18 21 31 07 25 03 22 01 -11 -05 —09 -07 -13 -07 26 29 15 09 26 05 29 25 01 08 -07 03 -02 18 03 09 09 00 27 03 22 17 —22 —08 -20 6 13 -30 13 19 18 18 —08 28 —08 37 29 16 —09 —22 —11 10 33 25 20 00 10 aDecimals omitted for correlations: read 19 as 0.19. Table 9 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 250 E '8 ,. 3 8 3 c c -u ’5. A v 2; .9" .833 A 8 8 - 33 '3 c5 ,9 0 x ‘P g '5 81-9 5 34 C9 8. m a v .9 '8 8 88. 9s 8. .9 9 z 0) b0 v H c o <2r~ 3 V .... no 5 H 8v 0A >4 v > g .5 .+J .91 Q, 0A 00) Bui (F0 .S-d .2 g .p 0 J: g 8 (D 8 8‘ S4 D4 5,; 8 8 > 8 '5 a '83 gm 8%: 8 8 e,‘ '8 '8 ’8’ m 8 EV ..., +38 8’ 4 ’85 U .. a 8 § :5, '5'. 9.. 9.. >8 a m 5 E. .9 .9 a a a 8 ...8 .88 '88 a 8.. 8 '2‘ +4 5 8 a 5 85 0 g '89: >: 09 2 a. .3 E z 5”" <3H £33 0. z 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 29 ~11 13 l7 17 10 ~28 03 ~00 18 17 09 11 ~06 30 05 13 08 07 26 ~17 ~02 ~12 13 10 08 06 02 31 03 28 21 ~01 ~09 09 11 ~09 06 06 19 13 02 32 ~02 32 19 ~01 ~21 12 ~29 ~02 09 1~10 12 ~09 09 33 ~09 ~03 01 ~20 ~05 -02 01 ~01 10 11 00 10 ~16 39 22 37 26 ~11 ~01 -10 00 ~10 ~19 12 29 23 29 35 07 10 29 ~07 ~12 ~31 12 ~29 ~05 33 30 92 09 36 09 ~02 10 ~12 10 -33 16 ~08 03 16 23 35 ~08 37 20 21 13 ~02 ~02 ~06 31 ~51 ~19 09 33 35 00 38 ~01 06 16 ~02 09 01 ~05 ~17 07 06 15 08 07 39 16 25 17 13 03 ~05 31 ~90 ~23 21 33 38 03 90 ~19 ~06 07 05 02 -—10 ~02 05 29 16 01 ~06 ~05 91 ~08 05 02 ~03 03 ~01 05 -—02 26 ~02 ~05 03 ~21 92 22 ~06 ~09 ~27 ~07 15 ~05 05 -23 ~01 00 05 07 93 ~01 ~02 ~02 ~28 ~13 ~03 09 ~12 ~08 06 00 13 ~18 99 10 93 30 02 09 ~28 01 ~16 07 30 39 39 07 95 22 08 09 ~10 09 ~28 11 ~23 ~21 07 25 92 25 96 ~05 36 09 09 05 -09 ~00 -09 07 09 05 09 09 97 02 35 21 19 ~03 -19 05 ~01 07 09 17 21 15 98 17 05 09 01 07 -03 ~05 02 02 13 03 10 38 99 18 30 18 01 09 ~28 18 ~29 ~06 33 33 52 09 50 06 39 11 O7 03 ~09 15 -21 -—11 10 19 33 05 51 ~05 22 13 10 06 ~22 11 ~22 12 16 20 19 07 52 19 19 07 07 19 -19 06 ~10 ~09 19 35 99 05 53 ~10 ~08 ~17 21 17 -23 ~21 28 20 -07 ~15 ~13 18 59 12 21 25 ~09 ~08 -—12 19 ~92 ~18 15 39 90 02 55 19 01 ~09 12 25 -03 ~07 ~07‘ 08 -08 ~03 -05 03 56 06 ~38 ~18 ~13 09 20 17 17 ~25 ~02 ~30 -29 ~16 57 ~22 ~03 ~09 22 ~09 36 ~11 12 25 ~33 -—26 -97 ~20 58 ~02 28 15 ~03 ~19 -07 26 13 05 09 28 23 09 Table 9 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 251 (D A .0) | 8 8 .... ,. 8 :3 ,. (‘3 0A 8.5 (DE.1 15 in %3 LH 0% TEH A g Aggfiv Vv v mvo 60mg 839mg 9. 88 .88 ”8.88 5 8 80% E“'§"’3 911.98 8 .39 9'9 .88 ““8 2;; a2 '55 5‘8 858 9.5 88 ,C: v v :1: ,C. n—I OH +J (UV 8; “2858.889 ‘8 8938.93397g889 93.173 3998 33 9 94 gm V 30)“)ng 'o 0) E44 (0+, 3 g3 ‘ m CL-fi 360-802-5021 8 9? ”598%” "38 8 5885888831.: 88 $53 mo go mg 98 99 a gH HE mfifaa 99 3.09 Luv g“ Lem 3w L930 5 o 30‘ 00 (E O‘ $00 HV 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 19 ——. 15 98 --- 16 02 15 —-— 17 33 71 28 ——— 18 29 29 26 39 ——— 19 09 05 ~16 07 -19 ——— 20 -09 ~16 12 —20 —15 —09 _-— 21 20 09 —13 12 09 10 ~08 -—— 22 -01 09 96 20 —03 —05 15 ~29 —-- 23 09 19 98 - 37 06 09 21 -12 69 --- 29 —01 09 39 19 -10 02 11 09 61 98 --- 25 03 11 19 17 21 -09 -01 —03 19 21 16 --- 26 —00 -01 09 05 09 00 09 -03 20 39 26 07 27 ~10 01 28 09 10 —27 09 ~15 39 36 20 32 28 03 ~06 03 —11 02 -03 19 -05 12 13 15 33 29 —03 —13 15 —10 05 --16 17 —12 30 16 29 -01 30 07 —00 18 ~05 17 —09 -11 -07 07 15 09 29 31 08 09 01 15 09 01 09 05 30 16 25 18 32 25 19 -29 05 —00 11 —03 10 —01 -05 01 20 33 ~06 ~00 06 —02 ~07 —05 -05 -01 05 01 -03 01 39 25 17 16 09 05 07 09 06 11 12 ll 16 35 08 19 95 28 16 07 02 -19 39 31 29 17 36 -07 23 31 19 15 —07 —13 ~09 20 30 23 17 37 02 02 29 12 —03 09 07 -03 17 35 12 06 Table 9 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 252 U) (D A - I “U (1) $4 H [U 'U g—{r'x A 'r-l A $4 cu E .C >~A.8 >>~ <9 8 8 8’; 88 6 8 7'89": 6:26 88 8 6,9 :9; 5,288 29 858 085 880M 9 $888" W V ‘“ 9 ”9% ‘53 '8“ - 651356 C &C >9 Q) (10% CA-fi'UO t2 & ‘4 6'0 :2. 8.9 23.8 .9 3 .38 98 “8'23 ”98 ‘3“ 39"? £994.. +9 .51 a? +9 «563 > .5 'UU) .C.‘ V .CV 3:193 .58 f6 «40) OH £30) 73? (DV #1 nc-ficng-Hst 'C 527330—‘MJQA Efin 38.9.9 3.9.928 389 .‘S 2°0>V 88"“8‘ 8868 (0% 3+9 014-1 3(1) $0) P m 0451 6390-33-53 '38? m- m 8 m 8 m'U 'U m g -5 -H m gte. -H gig &: (1)13 :1 (DE: 8% "G g '§+’ (Dbl) - 9—4 '0 '0 6 5 “4 a 09 39 9.9993 89 88 £14"ng 65932 D9 15 o 3 an 53 H 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 38 19 05 06 11 15 O9 12 09 —10 03 -01 08 39 12 03 32 12 15 10 01 19 1 17 18 2O 15 90 012 -08 05 —1O -02 -01 —07 01 00 -07 O2 —12 91 017 -13 20 —11 -07 -12 20 -19 13 11 18 O3 92 20 16 -12 07 01 -09 —19 09 -03 -10 -17 19 93 -02 08 -02 11 -09 05 -O7 01 00 09 -10 01 99 O7 10 3O 13 18 -07 19 -06 93 97 39 59 95 92 93 21 92 11 11 -29 05 —05 03 -O9 O6 96 -09 -09 17 ~05 -03 -—09 12 08 90 25 36 11 97 06 —11 28 -16 -02 -15 13 -05 29 07 26 O3 98 99 31 10 29 ~01 -07 08 01 07 03 12 18 99 19 25 36 31 13 -02 -05 02 22 26 12 O9 50 -07 —09 50 09 —O9 -08 05 ~02 91 25 36 09 51 -09 -09 39 08 -03 -09 15 -OO 90 38 91 16 52 12 O9 35 12 09 03 9-01 22 33 90 23 12 53 03 -O6 -07 -19 06 ~12 03 -06 -08 -08 09 —02 59 07 23 90 29 28 09 10 -09 20 23 16 10 55 15 08 01 -01 19 -03 -17 07 —03 —11 -02 —05 56 —26 -13 -17 -12 —15 —18 -13 —16 -19 —23 -29 —19 57 -27 —31 -29 -39 —10 O9 31 —07 -17 —11 -13 —17 58 02 01 26 18 12 -03 16 —19 37 38 30 16 253 Table 9 (Appendix A) (ccnt'd.) Apmwvmqwov 8583 338$ 9850 389 88va 33.8mm hag Aomvmomv mocmumflo mpwaflomm Hopmom Aommv 3895 meCH mddm> ggomqvgomm Apcmfloomv Amhmpmmd coflpmflcmfiao 9.956on Agocmmcmnov Apmpmmd 88ch 602 mmcmno 355 3886 x99: 389$ Axufimmv 88ch soapsnflgpmwo Ummm 839% waCH mmgmgm mmmaag AEQHEMHm v 8383 838me £88 18883 58m 8:82 new 6398 Saab mamom noun “ECU/u. pCmEmHaEH 33 39 35 36 37 30 31 32 29 27 28 26 Table 1+ (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 25H $4 a) 5 g g '2 8 5 o 0) <1) 3 x jg E rd A H 8 ‘6; ,8 a 3 8* g a ,8 g 515 g 4: a X} m m 7 H M '7 '8 Q a a a H C m x 13.“ r: "9 ‘g’ C 3 '9 5 8A ‘58 $33 a .H g; a '3 é) *5 x *5 .2193 a :2: r: a.“ '8 5 EM: 8 E egsfiav-g 53, an; (n '07 8 0* 8 H £8 GE ((1133 {14% ,5 Lia-.8 P g Q. A mm b0- (1) '8 m a) A 4" me» fix >‘ 0) EU '0 H44 13 g 8‘7 wt; 8 no}: 9'8 3‘3 m8 oru 8rd 38 :3 .5 8H7 “Hggpmm $5 §3 03 (”Q‘flvfig H “8 8a. 0.. mm V V «3v 0V A U H v O V CL. >29 U30 31 32 33 314 35 36 37 26 27 28 09 12 -01 -02 38 —00 00 OH 00 06 -0: g: g; 21 35 19 ”7 39 10 29 03 07 15 1 ~03 58 12 O7 -02 -08 U0 06 01 13 11 17 0: 09 53 0H 17 -05 06 41 -00 25 2” 09 08 1 12 55 12 -03 -08 02 H2 -16 01 ~18 -17 -16 03 01 61 06 16 13 13 U3 -05 -03 -06 —13 -08 -0U —29 01 ”5 “0 27 12 NH 35 61 6O 34 37 31 09 -05 15 25 lg 19 H5 -11 ~05 ~21 ~09 10 -06 —10 _OH 16 18 16 07 U6 17 3” 28 24 11 08 16 -00 25 10 -08 01 47 O3 16 16 16 07 17 15 OH 27 22 01 -19 H8 -09 —01 l” _02 08 17 -04 17 25 30 29 26 H9 00 19 03 22 08 0 05 07 lu 27 ll 17 50 OH 21 06 05 01 10 02 06 05 33 31 22 51 23 ”8 38 3M 23 11 02 02 16 16 12 07 52 06 10 14 19 11 12 23 —25 _15 —13 08 -22 53 -15 -00 1” 03 2” -23 —06 01 lg 62 23 22 5” -05 27 U3 1” 18 02 .70” 10 -0u 10 on 12 55 -25 -OH -01 01 18 12 .“0 —06 -21 -32 05 -23 56 -07 -28 -Zu -15 -12 -38 11 -06 ~19 -27 ~37 ~05 57 08 716 02 _00 ~09 25 —OH —08 19 27 31 3” 58 13 27 13 2” 01 Table H (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 255 c: 3 A A o a; .9. +9 2: A "6'0 " 8 "-1 8 +4 as <1) , r: v A P o m 3 8 A x: 9 r91) 5 <1) Q) (g < a v Q) fi-H O 8.. 'r-i P '5 m :3 :43 '13 a, 8 £2 52 a 8 43‘ 8 8 ”-12 cm «—4 C: "-1 8 n—i CZ DD. 0 LL] X X Q) g (D H «P O 025 "U A V 0) (D S ”O "-1 A (U 'r“ 210 <2 83 'U "U 0 °H O “Ow-4 +3 +J O C: C: Q X (D “5 0‘4 Ci" ‘U HO H "-4 H H G) Q) L. +40 (1)-H 44 “IV a m g 60 “O m A 50) ogfia COA CA A V (D H in C. “ti—$38 8.33.2838", o .5 r4 H '38 $40 O'H $40 44 O 0) °H g) 2.2 >3 (1) '81: 880“” 08 8.8 8823' ‘4 m :3 f: ””4 “DE 68 My ”3 "a? a 5 -5 +J 8 :8 E5 55 83 .015 83 {:05 .H :1: .21 a a m. c) 9* C) (Q (3 4 > 04 E--! M Z <13 Z > >4 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 ...... 2 .15a——— 3 -.03 .23 _-— u .29 .01 .11 -—- 5 .12 .89 .22 .02 —-- 6 -.06 -.06 .07 .02 .99 --- 7 -.01 .20 .10 .17 .07 —.11 -—— 8 .17 .3u .26 .17 -.1u -.22 .21 --- 9 .19 .H8 .16 —.07 —.09 -.19 .35 .35 ——- 10 .02 .02 —.02 .11 -.18 .05 .u0 .32 .16 ——- 11 .12 -.08 .30 .20 .29 .00 .15 -.03 -.06 .32 -—- 12 —.02 -.06 .03 —.03 .18 .20 .05 .09 .01 .13 .06 --- 13 —.13 -.01 .15 —.10 -.03 .03 -.03 —.ou -.03 .23 .06 .H6 --- 10 -.23 .31 .39 -.07 .03 -.01 .01 .05 .11-.05 .10 .19 .19 15 -.37 —.01 .28 -.17 .16 -.10 .12 -.08 -.06 .08 .18 .23 .16 16 -.16 -.00 .12 -.13 .38 .91 —.1u -.26 -.25 .00 .23 .91 .00 17 -.22 -.09 .05 -.28 .35 .28 -.05 -.13 -.08 .06 .29 .23-.07 l8 -.ou -.07 .23 .25 —.22 .05 .06 .27 —.02 .26 .11-.07 .12 19 -.01 .08 .20 .O9-—.18 -.10 .38 .99 .28 .us .19 .32 .28 20 -.19 -.02 .06 -.00-.12 -.ou .20 .08 .16 .17 .02 .17 .06 21 .26 .18 .17 .17 .10 .25-.00 .l2-.08 .09 .03 -.1u .12 22 .32 .11 -.06 .39 .11 .01 .09 .16 .19 .03 .07 .01 -.06 23 .29 .26 .29 .39 .21 .05 .03 .29 .15 —.19 -.01 -.05 .05 29 .26 .18 -.15 .38 —.09 .09 .16 .17 .07 —.10 -.12 -.05 —.1u 25 .38 -.02 -.01 .27 .02 .02 -.06 .07 .12-.05 .05 —.10 -.16 26 .08 -.2u -.29 -.01 .16 .39 .02 -.12 -.15 .00 .11 .01 -.ou 27 .15 .15 .06 .17 —.19 -.08 .08 .19 .22 -.06 -.15 -.00 -.10 28 .15 .21 .05 .32 -.10 —.ou -.06 .23 -.O8 .11 —.05 -.00 .07 29 .27 .32 .21 .28 —.10 -.33 .33 .H8 .26 .05 -.16 -.02 .03 30 .31 .06 .05 .29 -.12 -.07 .02 .27 .06 —.11 .12 -.21 —.13 *AP = Andhra Pradesh; M : aDeciJnals omitted for correlations: Maharashtra; WB = West Bengal read 1H as 0.1H Table 36 (Appendix A) (cmt'd.) 262 '8 (f, 3 3,. g 230 mAD%AAAf\/\VA .9698 38:83g3393 ZZV63658997>~73 O'U +—’ 8%HH%D« 88’888888 :38 . EHm%r—i °Emmiggp % m 8 6 m '3 :2 0 %) <3 0 .3 ZZ¥>Q4E4 M2m2>¥¥ 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 31 .35 .10 .03 .30 .01 -.02 .05 .22 .10 .06 —.03 .0” .08 32 .1” .3” -.07 .03 -.01 -.1” .12 .1” .1” -.03 -.17 -.05 -.07 33 .31 .10 .08 .38 -.15 -.15 .03 .18 -.05 -.05 -.06 -.03 -.07 3” -.02 .05 .19 —.l” .07 .19 -.19 -.05 .2” -.09 .17 .1” .17 35 .11 -.26 -.27 -.07 .05 .18 -.01 -.28 -.20 .10 .ll .08 .12 36 .01 -.13 -.10 -.0” -.06 .15 .10 -.27 -.08 .22 .15 -.00 .07 37 .05 .01 -.02 .3” -.01 -.05 -.18 —.09 -.23 -.”0 -.l9 —.13 -.19 38 -.0” -.18 .12 .02 .15 .12 -.20 -.17 -.13 —.2” .16 .15 .07 39 -.12 -.27 -.03 .23 —.08 .20 -.29 -.10 -.30 .02 -.07 -.10 .07 ”0 .06 -.18 -.10 .11 .03 .18 -.36 —.11 -.23 —.06 .17 -.02 -.01 ”1 .1” -.18 -.05 -.00 .10 .15 -.36 -.21 -.18 -.06 .21 .00 .12 ”2 -.10 -.01 .02 —.1” .19 .09 -.18 —.19 -.30 -.15 .10 -.10 .08 ”3 -.l” -.30 —.12 —.27 .22 .37 -.20 -.27 -.35 -.19 .37 .02 -.03 ”” —.21 -.l7 -.17 —.28 .0” .12 -.05 —.”2 -.19 -.03 .05 -.02 .02 ”5 —.01 -.17 -.17 -.37 .1” .06 -.13 -.12 -.09 —.1” .00 -.08 -.08 ”6 -.06 .08 -.13 -.26 -.08 -.15 -.05 -.0” .1” -.08 -.20 -.20 -.12 ”7 .03 -.l” -.22 -.21 .0” -.08 —.06 .08 .07 -.09 -.32 -. .01 ”8 .1” -.12 -.16 -.28 .08 .10 —.2” -.15 -.02 —.21 .03 .10 -.01 ”9 .02 .0” -.02 .10 -.12 —.09 .0” .18 —.11 .02 -.13 .17 .05 50 .1” -.10 -.19 -.01 -.16 -.ll -.01 .16 -.02 -.08 -.15 -.15 7.2” 51 .10 -.03 -.02 .08 -.22 .08 .12 .”2 .22 .22 -.08 .01 .01 52 -.19 -.l” —.13 -.16 -.06 .00 -.06 -.13 -.02 -.03 .13 -.00 .06 53 -.0” -.l7 —.0” .09 —.05 .05 .12 .33 .05 .33 .00 .07 -.08 5” —.08 -.06 -.26 -.16 -.09 -.18 .05 .0” .11 -.16 -.36 -.03 .11 55 .0” -.20 -.02 .08 —.22 -.07 ~.09 .21 .10 .3” -.0” -.01 .01 56 —.03 -.32 -.05 -.09 -.02 .28 -.16 -.19 -.0” .16 .09 .18 .08 57 .02 —.07 .1” .03 .12 .21 -.00 .05 .10 .06 -.06 .26 .0” 58 -.13 -.”5 .06 -.17 .25 .32 -.09 -.27 -.18 .01 .09 .20 .09 59 -.21 -.35 .19 -.08 .21 .21 -.06 -.3” -.28 .07 .08 .17 .15 60 .06 —.23 -.28 -.06 -.08 .02 -.29 -.1” -.03 -.0” -.06 -.06 -.06 61 .15 .01 .12 -.07 .07 .09 -.16 -.01 -.02 .07 .22 .08 .23 62 -.11 .06 .18 -.06 -.06 -.0” -.08 .23 .01 -.06 —.20 -.03 -.ll 63 .2” .0” .01 —.06 -.22 -.17 .01 .13 .08 .07 -.12 -.03 -.18 6” -.19 .10 .22 -.15 -.15 -.05 -.00 .19 .1” .07 -.1” .05 .1” 65 -.15 .05 .26 -.15 .19 .22 —.11 .06 —.00 .02 .18 .06 .10 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 263 g m 9 9 A (D v Vr“ gggq3gg;3g3933 953383838238 8.98.3 83808898853273 7 a) 0) OonO )2 ZZ>¢>09E~+ XZOOX>¥ 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 66 -.03 -.20 -.01 -.20 .13 .23 -.l” -.31 —.06 .02 .09 .00 .02 67 -.3” -.32 -.11 —.29 .12 .2” -.17 —.26 -.13 .02 -.0” .3” .01 68 -.13 -.2” -.35 —.23 -.ll -.01 -.21 —.19 -.17 -.26 -.”2 .12 .05 69 -.05 —.02 -.03 —.11 -.35 -.29 .30 —.07 .27 .15 -.07 -.33 —.07 70 -.08 -.09 -.01 .10 -.l” -.09 —.07 -.19 .00 —.12 .09 .21 .21 71 -.02 .29 —.22 .03 .00 —.12 .ll .1” .1” -.l3 -.”9 .12 -.09 72 -.28 -.21 -.10 —.20 .13 .07 -.0” -.17 -.ll -.30 -.22 -.09 -.23 73 —.13 .19 —.ll -.12 -.19 .03 -.02 -.17 .07 -.06 -.03 .07 -.15 7” -.15 -.08 -.03 —.16 .10 -.18 -.17 —.22 -.l3 -.19 -.05 —.26 -.23 75 -.32 .03 .12 -.1” .15 -.03 -.02 -.25 -.17 -.l” -.06 .02 .1” 76 —.37 .1” .08 -.33 -.15 -.30 -.02 -.12 —.01 —.08 —.03 -.17 .03 77 -.26 -.10 -.05 -.23 -.03 .0” -.21 -.05 -.12 -.19 .05 .06 -.18 78 -.26 -.0” -.ll -.21 -.22 -.15 -.23 -.09 -.01 -.16 -.06 -.06 -.0” 79 .16 -.0” —.05 .20 -.20 -.32 .09 -.08 -.05 -.09 .08 -.16 .07 80 -.16 -.10 -.3” —.20 -.00 .18 —.05 -.16 -.0” -.01 .0” —.ll -.12 81 .08 -.02 -.18 .16 -.23 -.20 .02 -.12 -.0” -.13 -.20 -.10 .0” 82 —.07 -.03 -.09 -.09 -.07 —.29 .01 -.15 -.15 -.15 -.l” -.30 -.2” 83 -.l9 -.21 -.13 —.08 .15 .05 —.05 —.19 —.29 -.19 —.”6 -.1” -.l” 8” -.08 —.23 —.O7 —.15 .”0 .03 -.06 -.”3 -.28 -.25 -.03 .07 .12 85 .00 -.18 -.09 -.09 -.15 -.07 -.08 —.17 -.0” —.13 -.11 -.06 .22 86 —.12 -.30 -.05 —.l3 -.17 —.15 -.17 -.29 -.25 -.01 -.l7 -.12 .13 87 —.l” -.13 -.03 -.18 .1” .17 -.16 -.23 -.10 —.15 .18 -.07 -.20 88 -.09 -.18 —.05 -.25 .06 —.l” —.06 -.38 -.2” -.35 -.22 -.17 -.02 89 —.16 -.01 —.19 —.13 .11 .16 -.01 —.18 -.18 .06 .08 —.12 -.25 90 .03 .03 -.11 -.19 .07 -.0” -.12 -.11 -.16 -.l3 -.13 -.18 -.18 91 .07 .08 -.ll .09 -.07 -.07 .05 .12 -.06 .11 .0” —.”3 -.28 92 .06 .20 —.10 -.01 -.16 -.17 -.05 —.02 .08 -.08 —.25 —.21 —.25 93 -.17 .19 -.11 -.16 -.10 -.06 .05 -.10 -.07 .06 .06 -.21 —.22 9” -.07 -.06 -.2” -.09 .03 —.03 -.10 -.3” -.18 -.29 -.03 -.07 -.18 95 -.23 .20 .03 -.oo -.27 -.33 .08 .03 .11 —.1” —.27 .01 .10 96 .-.02 .06 -.10 .2” —.28 -.30 -.23 -.09 —.01 -.19 -.29 -.09 —.08 97 -.O7 -.32 -.2” —.17 .06 .05 -.l” -.06 -.2” -.12 -.05 .11 -.11 98 -.02 -.05 -.19 -.09 .17 .0” -.03 —.21 -.05 —.0” ~.16 -.ll -.2” 99 —.21 -.02 -.09 .06 -.22 -.10 —.03 -.01 -.06 -.12 —.30 -.19 -.25 100 —.11 -.11 .10 .07 .08 .17 .06 -.15 —.08 —.06 .16 -.09 —.29 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 26” g m ,9 33 »~ r~ ,9 .9 33 ~/ g 33 94 f‘ 5% :1 33 7' 33 33 33 " m " i3 33 " :v8vvva3g8 8.36 3‘ c L 5 3 0* '3 m m 3) (+694 £10047, 4 ‘1.ng 8%9885g.g.9.8 gg cpmé >>73§Em %%M'5C§°MH°H8° :z E: 2: C3 :3 C1 F4 :3 >4 2: F4 U) 89 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 26 19 -—- 15 .6” --- 16 .55 .55 --- 17 .”” .6” .76 —-- 18 .08 -.11 -.19 -.22 ——— 19 .11 .11 -.18 —.0” .51 --— 20 .09 -.07 -.12 -.10 .28 .32 ——— 21 —.20 -.35 —.16 —.10 .10 -.02 -.11 -—- 22 .03 —.0” .10 .0” -.05 -.05 .29 .25 --— 23 .1” -.21 -.16 -.26 .16 -.03 -.11 .”2 .2” ——— 2” —.13 -.33 -.10 -.16 .06 -.02 -.16 .31 .39 .25 --— 25 -.15 -.23 -.23 -.17 .11 .07 -.18 .15 .12 .22 .28 ——- 26 —.36 -.25 -.13 .03 .06 -.01 -.20 .21 .2” -.03~ .1” .06 —-- 27 .08 -.01 -.13 -.12 .23 .25 -.02 —.01 .09 .27 .21 .75 -.06 28 .0” -.13 -.10 —.12 .16 .16 -.17 .29 .25 .12 .27 .39 .0” 29 -.05 -.19 -.36 -.17 .13 .2” -.05 .11 .19 .”2 .”2 .2” .02 30 —.22 -.26 -.25 -.”0 .22 -.00 -.03 .29 .”” .25 .”1 .22 .22 31 -.10 -.16 -.12 —.18 .03 .03 -.26 .38 .”3 .27 .52 .35 .”0 32 -.12 -.19 -.1” -.01 -.25 —.13 -.1” .21 .2” .15 .29 .06 -.06 33 -.19 -.31 -.32 -.19 .13 .06 -.07 —.01 -.09 .19 .2” .20 -.07 3” .00 -.15 .19 -.13 —.07 —.19 —.02 -.23 -.06 .03 -.19 -.17 -.19 35 -.13 .00 .06 -.00 -.20 —.22 -.16 .11 -.13 -.02 -.10 -.10 .10 36 -.01 -.12 .09 -.13 .08 -.08 -.09 —.0” —.13 .00 -.21 -.17 .07 37 .03 —.21 -.15 —.29 -.08 -.18 —.13 .05 —.06 .17 .22 -.09 —.08 38 —.33 -.15 -.10 -.09 -.07 -.12 -.17 —.21 -.26 —.10 -.09 -.07 -.12 39 .05 .03 .19 .02 —.11 .01 -.16 .13 —.23 .19 .02 -.11 .01 ”0 -.06 .05 .07 .15 .0” .02 -.19 .05 -.25 .07 .15 .0” .02 ”1 —.29 -.08 -.09 -.02 .03 -.11 -.17 .01 -.2” -.09 -.02 .03 -.11 ”2 -.31 -.28 -.09 -.15 -.09 —.20 -.09 .03 -.26 -.18 -.15 -.09 -.20 ”3 —.17 -.36 -.18 -.10 -.06 .18 —.23 -.2” -.”1 -.30 -.10 -.06 .18 H” -.93 -.50 -.30 —.99 -.29 -.12 —.29 -.29 -.35 -.17 -.99 -.29 -.12 ”5 .05 -.19 -.16 —.17 -.15 .01 -.28 —.37 -.22 -.17 -.17 —.15 .01 ”6 -.12 -.12 -.17 —.17 —.06 -.25 —.07 —.16 —.08 .09 -.17 -.06 -.25 ”7 .13 .02 .09 —.15 —.05 —.05 -.06 -.13 -.09 -.09 -.15 -.05 —.05 ”8 -.02 -.0” .12 .09 -.12 .0” -.13 .15 .02 -.01 -.17 -.08 .03 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 265 E} (j) A . £§3§§§53V53313 I: 5, 8 c, 9, 9, :1 3) ,g 3 '3 3: ¥; > '0 ft! (34 09V «9 3 C 3 8 3 3* .3 .5 m g m 8) (0.54731:ng _>%TU.E'0 (l. 889 8563.878Cé zzggzbfizwzfi'a +4 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 26 99 -.05 —.08 —.03 —.17 .02 .21 .18 —.09 —.26 —.09 .16 .02 —.19 50 —.31 —.29 -.27 -.20 .00 -.08 -.01 —.02 -.15 -.08 .19 .08 .07 51 -.09 -.27 -.25 —.25 .95 .23 .22 .21 .06 .22 .22 .03 —.00 52 -.15 -.06 .09 —.07 —.19 —.15 .16 -.29 -.19 -.29 -.29 —.29 -.21 53 —.22 -.05 -.17 -.11 .99 .52 .90 -.18 -.19 —.17 -.17 .08 —.06 59 -.29 -.15 —.25 -.26 —.03 -.03 .12 -.05 .02 .09 .01 -.05 .02 55 —.05 —.08 —.22 -.12 .91 .35 .27 —.03 -.22 .02 —.05 .16 -.06 56 -.09 .09 .19 .15 -.03 -.02 .10 .09 -.01 -.25 -.19 -.05 .32 57 .16 .01 .13 .12 .06 .07 .12 .19 -.18 .19 .19 .06 -.00 58 .01 .28 .29 .32 —.17 -.06 .02 .05 -.16 —.23 -.23 -.02 .09 59 .17 .96 .99 .22 -.09 —.13 —.05 -.17 -.09 —.28 -.29 -.13 -.12 60 -.22 -.15 .09 -.03 —.09 -.19 .06 .01 —.06 —.15 —.10 .15 .00 61 .20 .09 .19 .05 .09 .09 .51 —.11 —.22 .05 -.33 -.11 -.23 62 -.12 -.31 -.15 —.26 .15 .10 .13 .19 -.09 .03 —.05 -.15 -.23 63 -.21 -.22 -.20 -.16 —.10 .11 .09 —.01 —.19 —.19 —.08 .16 -.08 69 .11 —.01 —.16 —.29 .20 .22 .13 —.10 —.22 -.09 —.23 -.09 —.37 65 .05 .09 .09 .02 .00 .19 .15 -.05 —.25 —.19 -.26 .02 -.15 66 -.00 .10 .22 .20 —.01 —.16 .10 —.05 —.23 —.33 -.23 .09 —.23 67 .00 .10 .37 .27 —.12 —.11 .39 -.16 -.30 —.29 —.29 -.06 -.15 68 .08 .00 .09 .06 -.02 —.16 .18 —.30 -.23 -.16 -.08 -.13 .03 69 -.22 -.19 -.33 —.29 —.09 .01 -.15 -.13 .06 -.15 .09 —.05 -.00 70 .22 -.03 .11 .09 .05 .29 .02 —.09 .21 .01 .13 -.01 .03 71 -.01 -.19 —.16 -.29 -.18 —.03 .18 .10 -.12 .19 .06 .01 -.19 72 -.21 .07 -.09 .08 -.20 —.19 .01 —.03 -.21 -.17 .05 -.00 .21 73 .22 .21 .19 .23 -.26 —.13 .13 —.11 .09 —.29 .02 -.19 .06 79 —.06 —.02 -.08 .06 —.11 -.19 .09 —.11 -.18 —.09 -.29 -.19 -.10 75 .31 .31 .32 .31 .09 -.10 .13 -.08 —.10 —.19 —.10 -.12 -.23 76 .36 .36 .09 .23 -.19 -.09 .19 -.23 -.29 -.06 —.99 -.20 —.92 77 .23 .12 .26 .36 —.13 -.11 —.03 —.12 —.03 —.05 -.23 -.17 -.09 78 .29 .20 .13 .20 -.27 -.19 .01 -.29 -.05 -.09 —.39 -.16 —.29 79 —.21 -.18 —.91 -.38 .01 —.06 -.29 .05 .06 .22 .17 .22 .08 80 -.91 ~.25 —.23 .03 -.15 -.02 .13 —.01 -.16 —.28 —.25 -.16 .35 81 .19 .17 .09 -.05 —.06 -.16 —.08 -.16 .00 .08 .16 —.11 —.17 82 -.11 .12 —.02 .09 —.30 -.30 —.13 -.15 -.29 -.12 -.01 -.07 -.03 83 —.27 -.16 —.09 —.15 .01 -.25 .30 .18 —.23 -.05 .02 —.02 .19 266 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) ’53 :1; A 22A§3A3 A 9A3oool3vs3'HA3 33g333% 9% 139.3 >363 8933333V9 “a... 8.88.98 8638‘” 88898735899g§ 8880““?8979 83.9 . 222233552>JZH038H 1” 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2” 25 26 8” -.10 .21 .21 .25 -.35 -.28 -.08 -.03 -.01 -.28 -.15 —.03 .09 85 -.01 -.03 -.06 -.10 .13 —.02 -.0” .03 .15 -.15 —.1” .02 .20 86 .00 .12 .07 -.01 .25 -.13 .0” -.01 .16 -.2” -.17 -.12 .10 87 .1” .18 .25 .33 —.20 .0” -.20 -.12 -.08 -.2” -.15 -.08 .17 88 -.19 .10 -.09 .06 -.25 —.30 -.22 -.0” -.21 -.19 -.10 -.09 .1” 89 —.1” —.0” .02 .05 —.20 -.16 -.13 -.11 .10 -.23 -.16 -.05 .29 90 -.08 .11 .10 .2” -.33 —.27 -.l” .02 -.03 —.32 -.23 —.23 .11 91 -.35 -.27 -.32 —.28 .1” -.09 —.08' .12 .17 -.06 .ll -.06 .28 92 —.06 —.08 -.15 -.10 -.09 -.17 -.20 -.09 .05 -.13 -.03 -.20 .23 93 -.09 .01 —.00 -.02 .03 -.09 -.12 -.13 .17 -.25 .11 -.1” -.06 9” -.13 .02 .0” .12 —.22 -.27 —.12 —.07 .12 -.20 -.01 —.10 .”1 95 .28 .23 -.ll -.0” -.07 -.07 -.05 -.23 —.01 .21 .08 -.19 -.37 96 -.03 -.20 -.18 -.38 -.11 -.26 .07 —.25 -.05 .12 —.10 -.07 -.30 97 -.01 .13 .2” .”2 -.25 -.20 -.17 .10 -.27 -.07 -.08 -.11 .32 98 -.15 .03 .1” .27 —.18 -.3” —.09 —.09 .0” -.18 .02 -.06 —.08 99 -.19 -.20 —.12 -.23 .06 -.22 .0” .09 .01 .06 .27 -.08 -.13 100 -.02 .08 .13 .23 -.25 —.23 -.18 .18 .18 .0” .25 -.05 .20 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 267 33./9 83 A (094:1: ”‘5 7;: cur—4 HA §8VAAA3gAiEAAA 88833332859925.5833 >fio.:3:S-a H >2- 888393 888003.38. 36886668088888 8 63568§8§d863 ZOaD-«Du EXEC!) ZMZM 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3” 35 36 37 38 39 27 --— 28 .36 —-- 29 35 .16 ——- 30 21 .39 .38 —-— 31 .29 .96 .50 .59 -—— 32 .28 .97 .29 .35 .32 ——— 33 .13 .08 .25 .06 .01 .01 --- 39 —.25 -.27 —.21 —.13 -.37 -.12 .03 -—— 35 -.18 -.22 —.28 —.26 —.15 —.17 .01 .05 ——— 36 -.25 -.25 -.29 -.20 —.26 -.16 .19 .21 .98 -—— 37 -.13 -.00 .01 -.02 .01 -.01 .50 .01 —.06 .09 _—_ 38 -.17 —.21 -.26 -.29 —.27 -.16 .11 .51 .12 .29 .19 —-- 39 -.16 .13 -.23 —.03 .01 —.16 .01 .19 .30 .91 '.23 .22 ——— 90 -.19 .05 -.25 .03 -.03 -.12 -.11 .35 .05 .29 .16 .39 .62 91 -.17 .01 -.29 -.05 -.12 -.19 -.18 .92 .06 .13 .06 .90 .31 92 —.09 .03 -.26 -.20 -.30 —.07 —.10 .28 —.01 .03 -.01 .32 .19 93 -.23 -.29 -.91 -.15 -.31 —.21 -.29 .38 .23 .12 -.19 .90 .07 99 —.29 -.29 -.35 -.38 —.90 -.19 -.30 .19 .25 .12 —.09 .16 .06 95 -.28 —.37 —.22 -.12 -.25 -.26 —.25 .18 .38 .29 —.07 .10 .11 96 -.07 -.16 -.08 .03 -.36 .09 —.23 .22 -.O6 .17 -.10 —.05 —.09 97 —.05 —.13 -.09 —.01 -.23 —.20 —.21 —.03 .19 .02 —.02 -.25 .11 98 -.19 -.22 —.25 -.01 —.19 -.13 .02 .21 .28 .15 —.03 -.03 -.01 99 .10 .11 .39 -.02 -.08 .06 .98 .01 -.03 —.12 .31 -.08 -.05 50 -.03 -.02 .17 .21 .05 .19 —.02 -.15 -.18 —.02 -.16 -.12 —.18 51 .06 —.03 .26 .26 .08 -.06 -.02 .01 .00 -.01 -.16 —.90 .11 52 —.23 —.29 -.32 -.01 -.93 —.11 -.21 -.38 .17 .19 -.17 .18 -.11 53 .27 .06 -.02 .00 -.15 -.23 .09 —.12 -.03 -.10 -.29 —.17 -.10 59 .19 -.10 .03 .07 -.09 -.03 .12 -.05 .06 .09 -.00 .01 .01 55 .12 .16 .06 .09 .02 -.16 -.03 .09 —.02 .09 -.15 —.26 .19 56 —.19 -.22 -.30 —.13 -.03 -.27 -.19 .13 .28 .19 —.21 .03 .26 57 -.03 -.09 —.12 -.08 —.02 -.13 —.06 .05 .06 .03 .03 .07 .09 58 —.11 —.27 -.33 -.30 -.09 -.39 —.26 —.10 .31 .16 -.09 .19 .21 59 -.10 —.22 -.27 —.30 -.02 -.27 —.21 .06 .22 .18 -.15 .26 .29 60 .01 .00 —.21 .09 .02 —.19 —.29 -.05 .19 .05 —.16 .00 .10 61 -.09 -.19 -.19 -.01 -.21 -.29 —.17 .07 .09 .21 —.19 .08 .08 62 -.07 -.08 .02 .05 —.15 .09 .10 .10 -.08 .19 .17 -.02 .07 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 268 fan 93 A (“fig A5 A 6 r4 2: AA §8VAAA3gAj5AAA g8§333 ...-1999:2365 99999:: 9999999 98 8686988399 33633865§§388§ ZCLCLQEZIME ZXZ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3” 35 36 37 38 39 63 .ll -.00 .03 -.12 —.06 —.02 -.03 .06 - 0” .08 -.06 -.ll -.19 6” .01 -.0” —.07 -.15 -.27 —.12 -.15 .17 -.12 .09 -.02 .ll .07 65 .02 -.l” -.39 -.21 -.26 -.21 —.22 .08 .00 —.03 -.07 .1” -.19 66 .08 -.23 -.”1 -.2” -.38 -.31 -.36 .19 .20 .13 -.15 .1” -.0” 67 .20 -.32 —.18 -.2” —.”2 -.25 -.35 .17 .15 .09 -.19 .09 -.01 68 .00 —.22 .13 .08 -.07 -.21 -.21 .05 -.03 —.10 .12 .0” .12 69 .0” -.17 -.l” —.05 -.0” -.17 .20 .0” -.12 .13 .01 —.0” —.28 70 .06 .12 .09 —.17 .06 -.12 —.03 .08 -.09 .09 .09 .06 .09 71 .1” .16 —.05 .02 -.15 .06 .07 .07 .02 -.2” .12 -.21 -.13 72 .07 -.06 -.1” -.0” .08 .03 -.06 .11 .03 -.16 .09 -.09 .06 73 .1” —.03 —.08 —.l” -.05 .08 —.08 .05 —.07 -.05 -.06 -.18 -.01 7” .19 -.15 —.2” -.33 -.18 —.03 .01 .16 —.l7 -.l9‘ .17 -.09 -.18 75 .08 —.13 -.2” -.3” —.20 -.ll -.18 .03 -.09 -.06 -.05 .06 -.08 75 .00 -.17 -.35 -.30 —.”0 —.08 -.18 .0” -.15 -.0” -.03 -.0” -.09 77 .16 —.2” -.17 -.2” - 31 —.18 -.15 .19 -.13 —.10 .17 .08 .03 78 .06 —.13 .30 .15 -.28 —.13 —.25 .ll —.09 -.l” .03 .01 .09 79 .10 .16 -.19 -.05 .16 -.35 .”6 .12 .03 -.02 .1” .05 -.22 80 .16 -.22 .05 -.17 —.09 —.07 —.18 .07 -.0” -.10 -.02 -.09 -.13 81 .02 -.13 .11 -.19 .0” -.10 —.05 .17 .20 —.10 .2” -.0” .12 82 .08 -.15 —.00 —.17 -.01 -.01 -.07 .21 .05 -.06 -.16 .05 -.07 83 .07 -.01 .00 —.17 .11 -.05 .05 .2” .06 .01 .2” -.00 .17 8” .09 -.03 -.29 -.25 .00 -.13 —.19 .09 .17 -.05 .Ol .16 -.05 85 .ll .0” -.l” —.27 -.0” —.17 -.06 .0” -.01 .09 -.ll —.05 .15 86 .09 -.06 -.20 -.12 -.05 —.22 -.01 .09 -.09 .07 -.0” —.08 .1” 87 .12 -.07 —.29 -.l” -.02 -.05 —.12 .05 -.05 —.05 .07 -.12 —.00 88 .10 -.15 —.l” -.09 -.01 .02 .10 .23 .06 -.08 .10 —.06 —.27 89 .05 .15 —.05 -.05 —.09 .27 -.01 .20 —.09 —.19 -.03 -.13 —.21 90 .19 .03 -.29 -.02 —.ll .25 —.05 .16 —.05 -.22 .05 .01 -.23 91 .15 -.02 .12 .18 .11 .07 .19 .13 -.02 .13 -.05 -.09 .00 92 .19 -.15 .09 -.08 .0” .08 .3” .0” -.06 .05 .26 .0” -.09 93 .08 -.07 .03 .08 —.09 .29 .01 .01 —.28 —.18 -.0” -.09 -.35 9” .13 .02 -.13 .10 .07 .03 —.18 .0” -.10 -.17 .07 -.03 -.2” 95 .10 —.05 .20 -.03 -.08 .18 .16 .12 -.21 -.2” .21 -.17 -.11 96 .03 .02 -.00 -.1” —.23 .10 .37 .17 -.19 .01 .”0 .2” .15 269 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) (1) HA 3‘ 5? (OVA 93 .,_.| Av 'A (Dr—4% 52A 35%333531598356 O. n—4 w—i 54. ”5888829 8888.888 mgofi- 05633931330? 9 805999039989 2340409 AME—2CD ZXZM 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 39 35 36 37 38 39 97 -.15 —.11 -.30 .09 .09 -.10 —.18 —.23 .10 .02 —.10 .08 .00 98 —.07 -.12 —.09 .12 .09 .17 -.29 -.15 —.07 .30 -.09 .09 -.17 99 .09 .08 .07 .10 .00 .22 .19 .12 -.05 .10 .21 .00 .01 100 -.16 .09 —.03 .13 .21 .18 -.08 -.08 —.07 .15 .09 .03 .08 270 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 9 9 g A A v >EC5CEQE§EEZV ”4VO OVV V V-HG O - m m m m -H -21 m ~H m m '3 C: .9989é50 Aagfi 98599089889909 :2 2: U) U) h: >4 :3 a. U) z: E: a. a: ”0 ”1 ”2 ”3 ”” ”5 ”6 ”7 ”8 ”9 50 51 52 ”0 --- ”1 .5” --- ”2 .2” .55 --— ”3 .36 .53 .53 -—- ”” .11 .37 .”0 .51 --- ”5 .21 .1” -.0” .28 .06 --- ”6 .09 .05 .0” .02 .10 .55 ——— ”7 .02 -.12 -.10 -.06 -.08 .”6 .”2 --- ”8 .08 .10 .03 .26 .10 .”8 .29 .37 —-- ”9 .00 .05 .03 .08 .11 .0” .19 .19 .00 ——- 50 -.23 —.26 -.20 -.11 -.21 -.02 05 .18 —.07 .13 —-- 51 -.01 -.17 -.19 —.19 -.38 .1” .22 .”9 .16 .27 .25 --- 52 .0” .26 .10 .33 .25 .32 .3” .1” .19 .15 -.01 .0” --— 53 -.18 -.10 -.15 -.10 —.03 .01 .15 .23 -.05 .20 .1” .37 .20 5” -.23 -.20 -.20 —.18 -.11 .15 .23 .2” .09 -.07 .07 .10 .15 55 .23 .02 -.31 -.08 .01 .06 .12 .3” -.07 .31 .11 .”l —.0” 56 .25 .02 —.32 .03 —.09 .30 .0” .06 .1” -.13 -.15 .18 .08 57 .33 .11 .01 .07 —.07 .09 —.06 -.02 .10 -.11 -.15 .18 -.01 58 .1” .00 -.25 .13 .07 .”9 .11 .25 .18 -.09 -.07 .00 .01 59 .17 .07 -.0” .06 .13 .26 .08 .15 .06 -.06 —.19 —.06 .16 60 .11 .16 -.11 .05 .08 .10 .06 23 .20 .02 -.03 .0” .22 61 .1” .3” .05 .08 .22 .16 .1” .01 .19 .08 -.17 .08 .29 62 -.08 —.08 -.05 -.11 -.17 .05 .15 .17 .11 .05 .0” .18 .25 63 .02 -.0” -.2” -.07 .07 .18 .25 .19 .12 .”1 .05 .11 .10 6” -.02 .25 .18 .00 -.02 .1” .31 .19 .08 .05 -.2” .12 .17 65 —.02 .22 .07 .22 .05 .30 .22 .09 .13 .0” -.18 -.0” .30 56 .16 .38 .21 .33 .19 .”” .33 .31 .29 .11 -.18 -.03 .”1 67 .12 .11 .07 .28 .29 .26 .16 .20 .29 .03 -.10 .01 .”2 68 .02 .18 .27 .20 .30 -.01 .02 .23 .06 .16 .10 .06 .01 69 -.29 -.16 -.10 -.18 .03 -.2” .02 -.15 -.15 —.22 .1” -.1” —.02 70 .12 .19 .16 .0” -.06 -.18 -.17 -.22 -.13 -.17 -.1” —.16 -.07 71 —.28 —.1” -.15 -.16 .06 —.01 .06 .16 .07 .17 —.03 -.03 .05 72 -.00 .02 -.19 .15 .20 .15 03 —.01 .0” .03 .06 -.19 -.07 73 .03 -.13 -.18 -.16 .08 -.06 ~ 02 -.17 -.17 .10 -.05 -.12 -.01 7” -.22 -.05 .1” -.0” .21 .06 .12 -.01 -.02 -.19 -.01 -.39 -.05 75 -.05 .00 .25 -.01 -.03 .02 —.05 -.22 —.19 —.05 -.”1 -.29 —.02 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 271 Q) A ...-q VAV A A Z: Z8§v 988993898:. 0 rum '0 M E 999998; 29998899888888... ”0 ”l ”2 ”3 ”” ”5 ”6 ”7 ”8 ”9 50 51 52 76 -.12 -.10 .26 -.07 .17 -.07 .0” -.12 -.l” -.07 -.22 -.2” .0” 77 .11 -.08 .23 .23 .06 .01 —.10 -.09 .09 -.22 -.05 -.13 -.10 78 .07 .01 .06 .05 .31 .01 .03 .02 .02 .02 -.12 -.17 .03 79 -.23 —.l” —.07 —.07 -.12 -.30 -.22 —.31 -.19 -.08 .22 -.l” -.18 80 -.10 -.16 -.ll .12 .10 .05 .03 .07 .0” -.09 .06 —.05 .0” 81 .02 .25 .ll .00 .28 -.12 -.17 .10 -.09 .01 .02 .02 —.12 82 -.13 -.01 .03 -.02 .26 .06 -.05 -.13 -.23 .25 .10 -.15 —.03 83 -.19 -.20 -.02 -.05 -.03 .12 .03 .13 -.07 -.09 .23 .08 -.29 8” -.06 .ll .19 .17 .16 .17 -.08 -.10 -.06 -.07 -.27 -.55 .07 85 -.08 .06 -.05 —.ll -.09 .01 -.02 .00 -.1” -.18 -.08 -.01 -.l” 86 -.13 -.0” .08 -.l” -.09 -.06 .02 .06 —.l” -.25 .02 -.07 -.07 87 .0” .02 .25 .2” .17 .03 -.0” -.22 .”9 —.12 —.06 -.19 -.06 88 —.25 -.l” .09 .03 .20 .00 -.09 -.15 —.l” -.l”‘ .10 -.30 .12 89 -.23 -.17 .11 -.Ol .11 ~.2” —.07 -.13 -.10 —.18 .16 —.2” -.15 90 —.1” —.17 .06 -.07 .ll -.06 -.15 -.l” —.05 .19 .15 -.32 .06 91 -.15 -.13 —.11 -.lO -.21 -.03 .00 -.17 -.22 —.2” .1” .05 .00 92 -.2” -.29 —.23 -.32 —.16 —.18 -.19 -.16 -.07 -.22 .35 -.15 -.21 93 -.16 .02 .08 .05 .03 -.19 .11 -.28 -.13 -.20 .02 -.13 .ll 9” -.00 .01 -.05 .27 .26 .02 .06 -.01 .07 -.10 .1” -.30 .13 95 -.12 -.18 —.03 -.30 .06 -.”1 —.22 -.08 -.28 -.00 .05 —.07 -.03 96 .06 -.02 .0” -.20 .11 -.”2 -.06 -.08 —.23 .01 .28 -.22 .06 97 .00 -.19 —.07 -.0” -.10 .02 -.30 -.05 .03 —.21 -.01 -.ll -.01 98 -.17 .11 .ll -.00 .18 -.15 —.18 -.06 —.l” -.13 -.00 -.23 .12 99 .01 -.18 -.05 .00 -.01 -.15 .01 -.06 -.09 -.0” .10 .06 -.00 100 .08 —.19 -.20 .05 .03 -.1” -.23 -.27 -.17 -.20 .01 -.ll —.16 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 272 8. Ag :1 g; 8v AAA .—1 A v 532qu :v:8:EEA;VVvv 888§885§888888 m m) -p m m '6 Q 8.58.8888égmfi'8... 2(1) HZCEXI‘. mfla "JCD 53 5” 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 6” 65 53 --- 5” .16 --- 55.5”—.12——- 55 .11 .10 .17 —-- 57 .05 -.05 .09 .38 --- 58 .10 .08 .15 .62 .26 —-— 59 .10 .02 .08 .51 .11 .08 ——- 60 .1” .25 .19 .22 .05 .08 .02 —-- 61 .26 -.05 .28 .08 .18 .06 .0” .39 ——- 62 .20 .27 -.ll .03 .13 -.10 .05 .29 .09 —~- 63 .1” .03 .2” .10 .05 .05 .01 .35 .22 .39 ~-- 6” .13 .11 .00 -.01 .15 .03 .12 .3” .2” .57 .36 —-- 65 .20 .0” .01 .13 .15 .29 .30 .35 .39 .38. .”” .62 —-- 66‘ .01 -.08 .08 .1” .23 .38 .36 .37 .31 .06 .30 .”” .51 67 .13 -.08 .12 .19 .31 .33 .36 .31 .33 .17 .1” .19 .38 68 .01 .17 -.06 .16 .07 .19 .12 .22 .0” .07 .05 .09 —.00 69 -.1” .0” -.20 -.16 .23 -.23 -.1” —.05 -.30 .15 .16 .07 -.09 70 -.31 -.27 -.19 -.0” .07 -.1” .20 -.25 —.1” -.18 -.31 -.15 -.25 71 .05 .25 .02 -.20 .12 —.18 —.2” .0” .01 .01 .06 .09 .01 72 -.02 .2” .01 .08 .11 .19 -.00 .21 -.06 .05 .03 .02 .0” 73 —.22 -.1” -.05 .20 —.Ol -.10 -.10 -.l” -.07 -.18 -.09 —.25 -.33 7” —.07 -.03 -.16 —.2” -.22 —.12 -.20 .08 .0” .16 -.06 .0” -.07 75 -.17 .01 -.23 .06 .11 .07 .1” -.l6 -.0” -.10 -.2” .01 .00 76 -.13 —.06 -.17 -.l7 —.18 -.16 -.06 -.21 .08 -.08 -.10 .0” -.06 77 -.21 -.26 -.2” .01 -.03 -.07 -.12 —.19 -.19 .01 -.16 —.06 -.11 78 -.17 .03 -.19 -.18 -.05 -.19 -.10 —.1” .02 —.18 .01 —.0” -.09 79 -.1” -.18 -.27 .03 -.16 —.33 -.28 -.27 -.35 —.27 -.17 -.27 -.35 80 -.05 .0” .10 .12 —.O9 .32 —.01 .13 -.12 .03 .10 —.05 -.0” 81 .02 -.12 -.12 -.03 .00 -.17 .0” -.12 -.03 -.21 -.13 -.05 -.16 82 -.15 -.03 —.09 —.00 -.12 .03 .05 —.02 -.09 -.18 -.Ol —.25 -.23 83 .08 ~.29 .01 .17 —.01 .09 .21 —.05 —.2” —.03 «.18 -.07 ~.ll 86 -.55 .07 -.22 -.01 -.30 -.07 .19 -.01 -.09 —.30 -.19 -.19 .00 85 -.01 -.1” -.16 .05 .03 .28 .08 -.19 -.23 -.32 -.29 -.13 —.25 86 -.07 -.07 -.ll .10 -.12 .16 .22 -.07 -.19 -.07 -.3” -.08 -.27 87 -.19 -.06 —.15 -.10 —.28 .01 .03 -.07 -.05 —.09 —.16 -.15 -.05 273 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) Q) A SAEAVAME 5553333 ”58888883588838 60:28.01“): 886858 858.888.5888.. 73.5 2U) Fizz-1:543: mflam") 53 5” 55 55 57 58 59 50 51 52 53 5” 55 88 -.30 .12 -.ll .01 -.27 -.15 -.07 -.l” —.23 -.0” -.07 -.25 -.15 89 -.2” -.15 -.10 -.13 -.27 -.15 -.08 -.ll -.23 -.11 -.ll -.2” -.02 90 -.32 .05 -.05 .01 -.30 .ll .03 .02 -.13 -.01 .01 -.2” -.07 91 .05 .00 .10 .11 -.08 .09 -.17 .05 -.11 .09 -.19 -.07 -.15 92 -.15 -.21 -.15 -.00 —.l” .11 —.07 —.ll -.20 -.08 -.13 -.21 -.33 93 -.13 .11 -.03 -.13 -.21 -.22 -.09 -.22 -.18 -.Ol -.25 —.0” 4.11 9” -.30 .13 -.23 —.ll -.09 -.02 -.01 -.15 -.19 -.35 -.09 -.”0 -.20 95 -.07 -.03 -.17 .05 -.05 -.”2 -.19 -.17 -.18 .05 -.05 .01 -.22 95 -.22 .05 —.18 .02 -.07 -.25 -.15 .07 -.08 .12 .03 —.01 -.22 97 —.ll -.01 -.l” -.02 -.28 .1” -.12 .05 -.ll -.05 -.19 -.35 -.31 98 -.23 .12 -.05 -.l” -.18 -.2” -.05 .03 -.09 -.03 -.15 -.08 -.15 99 .05 -.00 —.02 .18 -.01 -.2” -.l” -.00 -.25 .27 -.08 .03 -.2” 100 —.ll -.15 -.20 -.19 -.02 .00 —.03 -.05 -.23 -.0” -.15 -.27 -.25 27” Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 0) A A °° 8 8 a A A 8 £1. 8 8 A A 8 E6 8 8 8 8 A v .... v v g r0 5 A V 5 v g > A v 8 8 8 8 v 8 8 o 8 8 m 8. V 8 .A 8 g 0 5 8 fi 4.. g 8 «u '5‘ "—1 0‘ 374' rd .5 '0 .A 2 x .4 .5 :s 6 8 a 7‘6 8 8 8 .8 3g 8 8 r3 5 .8 :3 ... 2 § o. 2: >4 an 8 [—a >4 >4 '3 6 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 7” 75 76 77 78 66 --- 67 .59 --- 68 .10 .17 --- 69 -.12 -.1” -.03 --— 70 —.17 -.02 .08 .06 -—— 71 .01 .16 .10 -.1” -.01 —-— 72 .13 .10 .05 -.06 -.30 .12 --— 73 -.12 -.0” -.07 -.18 .19 .08 .15 —-- 7” .02 .09 .07 .20 .01 .08 .10 —.01 --- 75 .17 .0” .11 -.07 .21 .02 .08 .23 .13 -—- 76 -.06 -.0” .07 .10 .27 .05 -.19 .25 .23 .53 --— 77 -.08 .16 .16 -.0” .”1 -.03 -.12 .21 .1” .31 .55 ——- 78 -.09 .02 .15 —.02 .33 .15 -.08 .29 .17 .12 .6” .63 --- 79 -.37 -.”8 -.30 .38 .06 -.09 -.05 -.18 .08 -.12 -.00 -.15 -.06 80 -.05 .06 .26 .20 -.06 -.01 .08 .07 .17 .06 .19 .25 .13 81 -.01 -.19 .”0 -.01 .15 .09 -.05 -.00 -.16 —.09 .10 -.02 .21 82 -.19 -.26 .18- .0” -.01 —.00 .11 .18 .12 .18 .26 -.06 .13 83 -.13 .01 .25 -.1O -.11 .18 .32 -.1” .0” .12 -.10 .0” -.08 8” .23 .11 .06 -.11 .22 .03 .25 .06 .19 .5” .23 .11 .1” 85 —.13 -.28 .08 -.05 .38 .05 -.18 .2” —.02 .27 .19 .19 .2” 86 -.06 -.11 .2” .05 .28 -.22 -.11 .11 .23 .26 .1” .13 .09 87 —.03 .05 -.Ol -.06 .02 -.23 .12 .08 .12 -.03 .10 .2” .11 88 -.12 -.11 -.03 -.16 —.0” -.0” .20 .18 .3” .0” .21 -.01 .07 89 -.16 -.11 -.11 -.2” -.00 -.01 .0” .11 .33 —.00 .08 .18 .05 90 -.03 -.01 —.09 —.17 -.27 -.01 .06 .13 .19 —.21 .18 .15 —.05 91 —.33 -.38 -.27 .10 -.l6 -.19 .05 .07 .05 .01 -.16 -.10 -.29 92 -.3” -.32 -.01 .26 -.19 -.00 .03 .21 .08 -.0” -.01 —.00 -.10 93 -.10 -.06 —.21 .39 —.05 -.10 .08 .09 .17 .10 .09 .09 -.07 9” -.0” .02 .10 -.06 .1” .0” .18 .2” .06 -.17 -.12 .06 .13 95 -.2O —.06 .01 .27 -.00 .17 —.00 .1” .12 .06 .32 .06 .20 95 -.19 -.01 .18 .1” .09 .22 -.18 .09 .21 -.l” .11 .15 .26 97 -.1” .08 .07 -.11 .28 -.11 .10 .36 .02 .25 .2” .”6 .25 98 .27 .19 .06 .09 —.18 .07 .25 .09 .28 .20 .00 -.01 -.05 99 -.12 .0” -.11 .05 -.22 .1” .3” -.07 .05 -.1” -.18 .06 .01 100 -.22 -.0” -.37 -.01 -.07 —.21 .26 .3” .08 «.17 -.17 .13 -.01 275 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cont'd.) 8 :éA A A 'CQ . 8 A8VE8A8 83835835.. 8~§UV88 fiV§|§AVOOP SVOA 8 .38 M8 2. 5. v8 §%§A§ ”—1 ,Cl‘g 04° Qagv 08' 53 88888 8 o 885898888'8885 z xgggmagzhée§ 79 80 81 82 83 8” 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 79 -—- 80 -.09 --- 81 .07 -.08 --- 82 .18 .16 .25 --- 83 -.03 .15 .02 .23 --- 8” -.08 .11 -.06 .13 .2” --- 85 .08 .02 .08 .15 .30 .2” --— 85 .02 -.01 .05 .12 .32 .30 .69 --- 87 -.0” .13 -.20 .0” .05 .13 -.07 -.03 --- 88 .27 -.02 .05 .32 .20 .”0 .10 .23 .11 --- 89 .18 .30 -.19 -.01 .09 .05 .00 .02 .23 .08 —-- 90 .0” .39 -.12 .25 .03 .19 -.07 .02 .13 .33 .39 --- 91 .17 .19 -.17 .28 .26 -.0” .2” .29 .01 .08 .11 .1” --— 92 .23 .29 .08 .27 .23 -.12 .17 .20 .1” .11 .20 .39 .”9 93 .30 .10 -.02 .0” -.02 -.10 -.05 .09 .03 .12 .”2 .18 .38 9” .09 .13 .19 .09 .12 .15 .1” .21 .11 .2” .23 .09 .05 95 .31 -.1” .37 -.03 -.29 -.18 -.25 —.13 -.22 .25 .05 .09 -.22 96 .2” -.0” .16 .06 -.03 -.20 .03 .07 —.15 .03 .1” .11 —.02 97 -.12 .11 -.11 .16 .03 .3” .17 .20 .23 .36 .18 .35 .09 98 .02 .0” .21 .17 .03 .20 -.1” -.02 .03 .33 .21 .28 .0” 99 .18 -.18 -.01 -.09 .26 -.16 -.15 .07 -.10 .05 .00 -.07 .22 100 .11 -.15 -.05 -.02 .06 -.06 -.08 -.02 .12 .23 .19 .03 .21 276 Table 36 (Appendix A) (cmt'd.) i5: 30 7a A m r: a A Si E; A 55 g 8 65 65 g ,2: ES .4 533 e e e e 9 a e O m "-1 a. rd cu '7 8. «5 g 334 .C: 8 '3 H 5 z :1: co 5 z 3 m cg é m 92 93 9” 95 96 97 98 99 100 92 —-- 93 .26 -- 9L} 0 2"" o 2” --— 95 .12 .25 -.06 -—- 96 .30 .00 .07 .”” --— 97 .0” -.09 .08 -.03 -.O9 --- 98 .l” .”l .17 .32 .ll .19 ~-— 99 .06 .32 .06 .28 .31 -.15 .2” --- 100 .08 .28 .30 .16 -.03 .2” .25 .”” --- 277 fimamm p.83 ... m3 .8288an u z .68QO 865... u “2.. .cwwm AIV mSCHE_m mp pmHmoflpCH ma covaflUOmmm m>fiummmc fig mcwfim A+V msaa m zn pquOMUcw ma 9090mm m npwz mwmaafi> m mo cowpmfloommm m>flpwmoa «m "mpoz + + + + + + + 3 9090mm + + I m hOuomm + + + + + + N movemm HHHw + + + H 90pomm + m houumm + + + + + + + + + + N nouvmm HH % .+ + + + + + + + + H QOpUmm I I I + I I I I I N pouumm + + + + + + I + + I I H pouomm H a .83me w. u .7... m. m M a m ...... m u a m. w w w w w m m m .888 ficowofipo mqmmmmmhm Mmmmmflwmmmmmm . m. .3 .m. u m. 1. q. 9 m. T. .a an T. w mm. em... m mlwpemwmw . _ m o m m m. a“ nu T. m. 1. MW MW m m m. mw WW x“ m a e m. Au ,A .m I, I, .A \l)) )\.l )\I \I up.) T.. L.:-:Q::LW:: WII m w I (W) > ..w I\ ( I.\ S m a ZIIIIIIITIT. OGBLQShSZTLOSBLgCJhEZTLnan $8338 Haemonfio 5% .8 3385 mmmfld> 02 mo 8%? 98%.. o "2. xflnfiagv <2 3nt 278 03“.“..me ..E 3me :v mam m .3 vmvmowvfiu m4.” 995mm m Lung mwflnflxw. m mo COHpEUOmmm m>unfimoa ..E. Hmwcwm vmmz n m3 mmapsmmumrfi: .I. : Emmpmflm 939?. n ma...“ 9&8 AIV manna m .3 Umpmogcw mfl coflmaoowwm "3.02 m 888 m 9090mm 3 883 m 906mm N 88.... H 88mm >1.“ 980mm 9090mm 98.0mm 93.0mm. 906mm . >H¢ Hmong-u) hZ (dV) nfinpmmw DZ 83 (dV) ntedeumIPUI SI '[Z (W) mdvfium 81: OZ (N) “0399914 LT 61: (av) andeuseq 91: BI (dV) Ppuoxrefivn 9T LI (dV) andexum MI 91: (dV) inch-91891 SI SI (dV) :Iredvuauex fiI (dV) [fEOW II 8T 0T ZT (dV) .muueg 08 OT (av) aooleBeN 60 (W) PIPKPIUOX 80 RN ) “Pm-[19W [.0 (W) “Fed E) PTIPI. 90 (ch!) Attedead 90 (dV) arreduetefiue/I 8 hO (dV) WWW Z 80 $(dV) 999mb! TL # aIdes 839nm JO aIIPN MI 1. 6338 988m ficomofipo A.U.E8V 2 x6583 <3 «.32. 279 Hmmcmm pmmz u m3 mgwnmmrnmnmz u z mammomnm .3505. u m< 9. £me HIV mafia m. .3 UmumUHUCH mun COHuwHUOmmm m>wvmmmn ..E EMHm A3 dea m .3 63835 mun 906mm m SHE mwMHHH> m ..Ho £93300me 93ng Hz "062 I I H. 908mm I m 906mm I m 90.5mm + + + + + I I .3 98.0mm H: I I I + + m 90903 I N 9090mm + + H 98.0mm . w ccfimvom w... W U W. H m ..I... m... H ...m. H H ..n... w w w w w W m m 906mm Hmcowofiho .mlmgimmi :m: . W. cm m U W m .... W m. m 8 W w. W ® 8 I w m m d .w. o d ® d T. W m w .m. u. 9 W W. w. W m. m. M. m W m m. m mu W A e m a m... w. d A W ) ) A .\I \l \l ) \.I . \I \I ) \I \I n P. \I . IanWIWWIWWWWWIwwrwmm c w. I w w m W Z T. I T. T. I I I I I T. a 0 6 8 L 9 9 h 8 Z T. 0 6 8 L 9 9 .fl 8 Z T. an 3.88. 2 xflofigv <8 was. 280 Hmwcwm pmmz u m3 ”whpnmmamzmz u z mnmmUMMm manpc< u m<« .ame HIV manda m mp anmoHUCH mH COHuMHoommm m>Hpmwmc Hz MCMHm A+v msHa w he pmpmoHpcw mH Loyomu m £VH3 meHHH> m mo COHHMHUOmmm m>HpHmom Hm “mwoz : houomm + + I + + I I m QOpUMM N 90uumm HHHm I I + + + + + + + + + + + H 90uumm I m 90pumm I + + + + + + + + + + N 90pumm HH % + + I + + + I I H Loyomm I I N povomm + + + I + + + I I I I I I I I I I I H abuumm H * fihflhhSSESEESSEWMZZZZ I *GOflHmvom N" N" ”N .d .d T. c. T. N" .A ”N WWLZWLWWQMLZ... m. . .w T. .L. e m. m. m. D. m. m on e Ideamea .m .usmmd p m... .....xum...mn ammememA \I)\I.G\l8 \I)) . PT. mmm>wmw>wwwmm>mm>m>n c mc m... a w. \I ( ( S w M%%w%%mmaummmw%mmumu# TPE8V 2. xéfimEV Sm mafia 281 Hmmcmm ...83 n m3 MEEmmHmfiz u 2 £88an 3.65. u .2... ....me HIV 89.2. m .3 @3885 3 COHpmHUOmmm m>Hpmmmc E mcwHw A+V msHm m .3 pmpmoHpfi mm” .663 m 5.3 mMMHHH> m mo COHHMHUOmmm $3.ng E “307. II whopomm ++++ + maouomm ++ + +++++ :QOuUmm I mpopomm>* Npofimm Hpouomm +++++ I mpovomm . I I 3883 + mgouommi... + Nuouumm +++++ +++++ Hponwomm *cofimpom mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmuwum 88.3.8580 N N N dd I SINAN ..mummmmwwm. .mmr..m 8 99 Wm. . P dw. @A .. ..--.. ...... ...... .. ... IM ...... mm rm .....mw ...... ... m ....» . .. nm>m ®MA mmm..flmmd WWW m.wn 9.7.... (((\.I (VA )( \I TL mm rm<<<>mw HWIMN mc mm. a «A... \II I.\ I.\ S w < m. heeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzza 068L99h631068£99h831ufi 3.3.63 2 x6583 <3 «33. 282 Hmmcwm #83 u m3 mapgmmamnmz u z Ewmnmgm MBIBSQ. .I. m< a. imam AIV mafia: w >9 @3835” mun coaHmUOmmm gflummmc E mcwflm 3; mam m. >3 Umpmowvfi m...“ 980mm .m 8&3 mmmdmfi/ m mo coflmHOOmmm m>wpunmoa ..E "302 upouomm mpoubmm + + + + + + I + mhovumm + 3905mm Hi I mgovomm + + + + + + + + + + mucuomm + + + + + + + + + + Hpoufimm *coapmubm .fiII h h h h CC Cc 8 Cc 8 CC CG CC CC CC 7v Z 3 7w 7v I . h. 8 Z .L 0 6 8 L 9 9 .fl 8 Z T 0 6 8 L 9 9 MW .HOuthHMCOMOSuLO N N N d d I S I N ..A N mmwmnmmmmmmmwmuflqmmmMIm m..m;.::w;ml 3 m. mmRmaxwm nmmemfimmm my I.\ VA . l. m. \l d ® A m m m . U m md \I ) \Inmxm . W P P T: m w I a c I w m n w I w an“ I m I m n mm W a a \I ( I.\ S w I m. h 8 E Co 8 Co DC DC CC CC Cc 7v 7v 7y 7y 7v 7v 7v Z 7v 8 0 6 8 L 9 9 L” DC 7v I 0 6 8 [u 9 03 h. CC 7v TL nun 2588 2 x353: <5 magma. 283 Hmmcmm ummz u m3 mgpnmmhmnmz n z Emmvmpm «.565. .I. m? .qwunm AIV mscd: m 3 @3835 ma GOHmeOmmm gflummmc E mcmwm TL mafia m .3 Umpmodufi ma aovomm m :33 mwmaafir m mo cofiwmflOOmmm gflpwmoa E "302 I I I I I : 905mm + + + + + + + + m 980mm + + + + m 905mm HHQ I I I a povumw + + + + + + + + m pepumm I I I I N AOuomm HH m + + + + I + + + H 9090mm I I I I I I N 9090mm + + + + + + + + + + + + + + a 905mm H x 0.. 9 9 9 9 9 C4 9 9 9 C4 9 S 9 C4 h. .fl. .fl HI. .fl. I * COHHMuhvm I c. h. cw 7v T. nu nu I. Q. C. h. 9. 7v T. nu nu nu I“ Q. c. MW hOuUmm Hmcomoayho N I S d N M ..A X S S N mmmmfimmm.mOmmmmmmwa.m%m D. a. s .a u. on MW M” m. U. o 1. Am 0 e p. a p. P x) P . .L. I. P W 3 ) D. A w W P N W p. p. 9 e o w I e I . I < . m I m I m m m I m I. ( N W. N ) w ) ( N ( n N ( ( N A m m: I-\ I\ w (\ N I.\ 1. I.\ I.\ \I T. \.I I.\ ( .L. ) UN T. ) m I m AI I m m m 0% m a m m mo, 5 x w m m m m m % one m % % m M. m m # 35:08 2 xflncmaas Sm magma 28H Hmmcwm #83 .I. m3 mgunmmhwnmz u E Emmvmfim MBHUGQ. u 9}. 53m 3 995 m E @3865” 9.” 833088 m>Hpmwmc ...": 5me A3 msHm m .3 vmpmofivfi 9.” 9090mm m 5.3 wwMHHH> m ..Ho 5330030 w>HpHmom ..nm "mpoz m 905mm m 9303 3 88mm m 908mm N ,8qu H 908mm m 888 3 88mm m mound N 905mm H acuumm >3. >Hu 99 (N) P99)! 09 (N) 13%me fig 69 89 (N) Ppmwpnxex .89 (N) pefiléH Z9 L9 19 (w) mmasfien 99 09 (w) andesI 99 69 (N) TPPIICIQCI h9 L9 (N) {3931113 89 99 (N) J98 Z9 99 (w) IIPLIdOd T9 h9 (N) 91"an 09 89 (N) 913919}! 6h Z9 (N) TEN-{S (w) Inntprtt’cmrm 8h '[9 Lh 09 (N) PEOUE’M 9h 61'! (N) T1091 9h 8*? (N) PWX hh U1 (14) 1.09879 [ies Eh 9h (N) 9110398 h 7v 9h 4w) mesagpg # arches 889nm 30 MN #01 * cofimpom 908mm Hmcowoafio éPquov 2 x66ag$ <8 3nt 285 chmm p.83 n m3 MEEmEmfiz u z 388$ 885. ... aw £me HIV mafia m >9 UmumUHUEH mH 539.88% 943ng ..E 3me T& msHa m. an wovmoflvfiu mH nepomm m fig mwMHHHs. m mo cowpmHoommm m>HuHmoa E "302 + + showman + + + + + whovomm + + + mQOuumm + + _ + + 1908mm + .. «.888 Hi I I I magnum I Haofivmm 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 h. .fl h. .n. h * Sowpmyom 9 h 8 z .L 0 6 I. 9 S h 8 Z T. 0 6 8 L 9 9 m (Spoon Hmcomofipo Immawmmmmgmmmmm m. n 8 s d u. 8 .m. M T. o w W ow m a p. a ) p. m. .... .L. I. p. B ) P A m m. m. N m p. p. m e o m IeI.I<.mIm ImmuImI mmmwmmm mnvumpm0HUCH mH CQHHMHUOmmm m>wpmmmc H: MCMHm H+V dem m zn vaMOHUcH wH Loyomm m npfis mmmHHH> m mo COHPMHUOmmm m>HpHmoa Hm "mvoz I I I I : QOHUmm I I I m 9090mm I + + + + + m povumm HHHm I I I I I I I H 90pumm I I +++++ mhoubmm I IIIII I II upofimmHme I I I + H 90pumm + + + + + + + + + I I I m Loyomm H % I I + + + + + H powumm LL LLLQOJQOJI *COfiuWFOM % W oho m m m % n/o. M L 9 % W. Z ..L 0 6 8 L 9 m .HOPUMM HmcomOSuIHO Immmmmwmwmmmmmwmmmmmm wmwmw mexmawm m. m w I £®I®mm1ummmwmpo mmmmmHmMmImwm I))ar.m.TA.. mm (mmMIImIWImmmmmmmn ) 8( ( (I.\ (((T. (I\ I\ ( w w) «vfi m I (m a S W mmuumumuuumwwwwwmwwman finlcoov 2 xfiofiagv <3 wanna 287 m>Hpmmmc ..E 3me TL 92H m \E nmPMOHUCH wH 906mm m 5...": mmeHH> m mo COHHMHUOmmm m>HpHmoa Hm Hmmcwm pmmz ... m3 mgfimmamcmz n z 383$ 862 u “3.. £me HIV 95.5 m .3 3633 mH couBmHUOmmm "302 m 906mm 936mm .663 906mm 906mm 906mm 906mm youomm 88mm >H 1* 906mm 906mm >w HNMJ‘LD HNMJ‘LO 98 (8M) PQWX 08 98 (8M) «Indpamw (HM) Emmett) 61. ‘18 8!. 88 (8M) TTEIEP Ll. Z8 (8M) andqesax 91. T8 (8M) final?» 9!. 08 (8M) andpnmew hl. 6!. (8M) PUT-RI. 8L 8!. (8M) ~mdpu15qos 31. LL (GM) 31911298 TL 91. (8M) mdmtse'l OL 91. (8M) depmnsm 69 fit. 89 (8M) USHER 31. (N) JE’ZOPUE’d L9 U. (N) IOWUE’LDI 99 0!. (m 0093419 99 69 (N) TPUCFIPP 1‘19 89 (N) aPEOQH'E’EI 89 * BEBE . 908mm 86355 [.9 99 (N) TQJmLPPd a501) FPPMZLPIIH # aIdures 839nm J0 amen #01 39 '[9 303th 2 x8583 <8 3an 288 Hmmcmm p83 n m3 mmpfimmamnmz u z 588$ 365 u may, .anm HIV 955 m >9 @38ch mun counpmfivommm m>Hummmc ..E 3me TL msHa m .3 BHMUHUCH mH 9063 .m 5H3 mdeHug m mo covaHOOmmm m>HpHmoa Hz 862 + + BLOubmu I I + + + + + + + @663 maofiumm + 3906mm “3* I I mgoubmm + + magnum» I I I I Huofimm *coflmwom % W W now w m m a u u w m m. u u M w w w w m 906mm Hmcowofifio wwemw www.mxmm.ww9wm m U. .w. ..L d run \I ..w. P m U; 2 O w W. m P. m: e m m M m ) m m m ) m m m m .... ) ) m. .... m. A WM)(mmmcmmmlmmmmmmmm n ( I\ m ( ( a 8 \I x- UT... 8 m 8 L L L L L L L L I. L 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 a 0 6 8 L 9 9 .fl 6 Z ..L 0 6 8 L 9 9 .fl 6 Z T. # 2583 2 883V <8 38H. 289 BOT Hmwcmm pmmz .I. m3 33.38966: u z Emmvmfim 6965‘. u “2.. £me HIV mafia 6 >9 cmvmoflofi mH GOHHMHoowmm 05.363: .2 3me At msHa m zn 63.865 mH «866% m. 5.3 mmeHH> .6 mo GOHHMHUOmmm 93ng E "mpoz 906mm 906mm 906mm 9069mm 906mm 906mm H 906mm m Loyomm H 906mm N") FIN"): HHHm HHu (HM) PBUIS OOI LOT (8M) qsnodtexv 66 fiOT (8M) 'FlnTBH 86 SOT ( 8M) SWISS L6 ZOI (GM) 95990 96 TOT (8M) E’PE’ON 96 (8M) IPMBN andunua 001 116 66 (8M) FmQEI 86 86 (8M) Pl—TPH 36 [.6 (8M) 0119101 I6 (8M) mow-armsfiuel 96 06 96 (8M) mdsvpurm 68 116 88 (8M) aIOdJPLIPU'FI‘ (8M) [9%ququ - w 86 L8 (8M) Emluepmedrew as 98 I6 (8M) PBuepnmsm 98 06 (8M) «Indqsnraen 118 68 (8M) STOW 88 88 (8M) 910W 8 Z [.8 I8 $(8M) “9‘19 " 8 " 1911“ mo, 633% 98th Hmcowofiho # aTde’S eBPTTFA J0 anIE‘N #(II A.PHE8V 2 $06an <5 3an 290 Hmmcwm “663 u m3 Ehpnmwpmfiz u x Emmvmpm 8:65. n 0%.. 6me HIV manna: 6 ma 668085 3 COHpMHUOmmm 6596mm: 2 mcmHm A: mSHQ m .5 68.888 mun p086...“ M £33 mMMHHH> .6 mo 8330896 m>HpHmoa Hz "307. I + mnoubmm mucubmm 39083 I I I I + I I maofimm >* + + + + + + + + + + NLOpomm I I I I I Hpoubmm mgoubmm I I 1908mm. I I I I I mpouumm Em + + + + + + + + + + + + + mucubmm Hpofimm I I I I I I I 98339“ mwmwmmm%%w%%mmmmwwwmm85335880 S S N H L N P W n1 H N WWWEMWWWIWWQQWWWW mm s m m p I ..w m. .o a ...m... Pewtéom wwwwaI o \I \.I \.I \l \l \I \I/ d D. . d \l P. _ T3 mmmmmmwmmmmmmffimm. \I I.\ O \I 1. on \I ( _ TL m m m. m I m. m e m I a m. I.\ I\ M \I ( Ga ) a \l M m I m c m m m m I.\ I.\ m \I S m m a. T. .m. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a 0 6 8 L 9 9 .fl 6 Z I 0 6 8 L 9 9 h. 6 Z .L an 3:663 2 x8865 <8 3an 291 Hamcmm 683 u mg 392888. u 2 £825 865 n ma: .cme HIV mSCHE m >A.UmuMUHUCH mH COHHmHoommm m>wumwmc Hz mcme A+V maHQ 6 ha UGPMOHQGH mH povomu m npflz QwMHHH> m.mo CCHpMHUOmmm m>HpHmoa Hm "mpoz I + w hOmem I I m 90pomm m Legumm I + :houfimm I I I I m neuumm H>m + + , + + + + + + + m QOpUmm H nevumm T. T. T. T. T. T. T. * COHHMpom mwmmmmm%%w%%mmmmmmmw m 8888:8058 cu ab mu nu q. u“ Im mm P” "N ”w u“ M“ ”w Mm Mm ..mmpjmmm: mimic...” 33mmgpm.eom wwflwmamflo ) .\.l\l\.l )\.I\.I d P.d 9.1. mmmmwmwmmmammqwmmmmmgm m m. mmmpMIm mew (\ \I a) M 3 \I M (M)au m w wmc )s ...m. ..L m%%w%%%%mm%m%om.%%mwmm# TFE8V A< 888v <3 389 APPENDIX B Openationalization and Measurement Procedures of Variables Note: Letter symbols preceding the questions indicate the f0110wing: V = Village Information Schedule VL = Village Leader SChedule VLW = Village Level worker Schedule AED = Agriculture Extension Officer Schedule BDO = Block Development Officer Schedule 292 Data Location (Data Loo.) Data Locz51zl+2,2 u3,3 an” (decimal after LI2) Variable #1: Man-land ratio (er #1) Density of Population Per Acre The population of village was divided by net area sum and area sown nore than once. The population of village was obtained from the District Census Handbook, 1961. Net area sown and area sown more than once were obtained from the Block DevelOpment Office. The data refer to 1966. Mean 1.75 S.D. 1.95 Skewness .03 lCard nunber 2Column nunber 3001mm nunber l4 Column nunber (India Diffusion Project Data Phase I, Project #731) Note: Variables #1 through #81 are based on Phase I data (Project #731). Variables #82 througm #97 are based on Phase II data (Project #732). 293 Data loc:7:31 Variable #2: Political parties in the village (Pp #2) This variable is constructed from the following questions asked of the village PanChayat President. The quest ions: V #91A Are there any political parties in the village? No Yes (IF YES, ASKz) V #918 What are their names? Who are their leaders? Narres Leaders Scoring procedure: 0 No political party in the village 1 = One political party in the village 2 = Two political parties in the village 3 = Three or nore political parties in the village Descriptive statistics: Political Village party score frequency Percent 0 “2 38.89 1 28 25.93 2 30 27.78 3 8 7.82 Total N = 108 Mean 1.06 S.D. 1.06 Skewness .81 298 Data locz8zuu,u5 Variable #3: Percent voting in national election, 1967 (Nv #3) This variable is constructed on the fOllowing question asked of the village pandhayat president. The question: V #130 Would you give He your-best estimate of the percentage of voters who voted in the last NATIONAL elections (1967)? _____3 Descriptive statistics: Percent voted in Village national election frequency Percent 2 1 .93 5 1 .93 2O 2 1.85 32 2 1.85 35 1 .93 38 2 1.85 HO 1 .93 50 7 6.88 52 l .93 55 l .93 60 13 12.0” 66 l .93 68 1 .93 70 7 6.88 75 15 13.89 78 u 3.70 80 18 16.67 85 8 7.H1 87 1 .93 88 2 1.85 89 1 .93 90 9 8.33 92 2 1.85 95 3 2.78 97 2 1.85 98 2 1.85 Total ... N II H C) CD Mean = 71.31 S.D. = 19.34 Skewness = —1.31 295 Data locz8zu6,u7 Variable #4: Percent voting in pagdhayat (local government) election (Pv #H) This variable is based on the following qUestion asked of the village Randhayat President. The question: V #131 What percentage of eligible voters voted in the village Pandhayat election last year (1966)? _____3 Descriptive statistics: Percent voted in Pandhayat (local govt.) Village election frequency Percent 00 1 .93 HO 1 .93 H5 1 .93 50 2 1.85 52 1 .93 65 1 .93 7O 2 I 1.85 72 1 .93 75 5 8.63 77 1 .93 80 11 10.19 85 u 3.70 87 1 .93 88 l .93 9O 10 9.26 92 1 .93 95 11 10.19 96 2 1.85 97 2 1.85 98 MS ”1.67 N-NA = 10” Missing values ... NA = u Total ... N = 108 Mean = 88.39 S.D. = 15.09 Skewness = -2.78 296 Data loc:9:13,ll+ Variable #5: Percent of village cultivable land owned by the top ten cultivators in the village (Lo #5) The question: V #139 Would you please give ne the nanes of the ten biggest land-owners who live in the village and the nunber of acres that each owns? I? Nane res Ommflmwcwwk’ : o o H Scoring procedure: The extent of land owned by the number of persons was suImed. This sum was divided by the nunber of land- owners for which there was information; this figure was multiplied by 10 and was divided by the net area sown in the village, and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Percent of land owned by Village the top 10 cultivators frequency 01 — 10 6 11 - 20 27 21 - 30 2M 31 - I+0 18 Ml - 50 7 51 - 6O 6 61 - 7O 7 71 - 80 1 81 - 90 3 91 - 100 6 N—NA = 103 Missing values . . . NA = 5 Total N = 108 Mean = 35.50 S.D. = 23.149 Skewness = 1.18 297 Data loc:9:15,16 Variable #6: Draught animal index (Danix #6) It is the ratio of bullocks (draught animals) to total cattle population of the village. The question: V #l|+2 What is the cattle pOpulation of this village? Buffaloes Cows Bullocks Scoring procedure: The figures given for buffaloes, cows, and bullocks were sunned. This figure was divided into nunber of bullocks and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Percent of bullocks to Village total cattle pOpulation frequency 01 - 20 10 21 - 3O 12 31 - RD 26 U1 — 50 15 51 — 60 17 61 - 70 11 71 - 8O 5 81 - 90 1 N—NA = 97 Missing values . . . NA = 11 Total ... N = 108 Mean = ”2.9” S.D. = 15.79 Skewness = .13 298 Data loc:9:l7,18 Variable #7: Multiple crop index (Mucix #7) It is the extent of land sum twice or nore. Percent of land under nore than one crop in a year (Multi—crop). The questions: V #llI3 that is the net area sum last year (1966)? V #149 What is the area sum more than once last year (1966)? Scoring procedure: Area sum more than once was divided by the net area sum and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Percent of area under ' Village more than one crop frequency 00 - 00 15 Ol - 10 3M 11 - 20 1M 21 - 30 8 31 - M0 6 H1 - 50 2 51 — 60 1 61 - 70 2 71 - 80 H 81 — 90 H 91 - 100 1 N—NA = 91 Missing values . . . NA = 17 Total ... N 108 Mean = 19.143 S.D. = 1.95 Skewness = 1.60 299 Data loc:9:21,22 Variable #8: Male agricultural occupation index (Agocxm #8) This is the proportion of workers engaged in agricultural occupation out of the total workers (male) in the village. The questions: V #171A Hun many workers (males) are in the village? V #172 How many are cultivators (self—employed male farners)? V #173 Hun many are agricultural laborers (males)? Scoring procedure: Cultivators and agricultural laborers were suImed. This sum was divided by total male workers in the village and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Percentage of male agricultural workers to total male workers in Village village frequency 01 - 10 1 11 - 20 2 21 - 30 1 31 - #0 0 M1 - 50 3 51 — 60 9 61 - 70 10 71 - 80 21 81 - 90 39 91 — 100 26 N-NA = 107 Missing values . .. NA = 1 Total N = 108 Mean = 78.18 S.D. = 17.69 SkeImess = —l.7l+ 300 Data loc:9:23,2LI Variable #9: Female agricultural occupation index (Agocxf #9) This is the proportion of female workers engaged in agricultural occupation out of the total female workers in the village. The questions : V #1718 HOW many female workers are in the village? V #17213 Hun many are cultivators (self-employed female farners)? V #1738 Hue many are agricultural female laborers? Scoring procedure: Cultivators and agricultural laborers were armed. This sum was divided by total female workers in the village, and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Percentage of female agricul- tmflal workers to total female Village workers in the village frequency 00 — OO 6 01 - 10 3 11 - 2O 2 21 - 3O 2 31 — HO 2 1+1 - 50 u 51 - 60 7 61 - 7O 5 71 - 80 9 81 - 90 22 9O - 100 HR N—NA = 106 Missing values . . . NA = 2 Total ... N = 108 Mean = 7u.61 S.D. = 29.37 Skewness = -l.|43 301 Data loc:9:25-28 Variable #10: Tenure index (Tenix #10) This gives the number of agricultural laborers for each self- employed cultivator. The questions: V #172 Hun many cultivators are in the village? V #173 How many agricultural laborers are in in the village? Scoring procedure: Total nunber of agricultural laborers was divided by the nunber of cultivators. Descriptive statistics : N = 108 Mean = 0.72 S.D. = 0.59 Skewness = 0.86 302 Data loc:9:29,30 Variable #11: Male literacy (Litem #11) This gives the number of males who reported that they could read andwwrite expressed as percent to total Hales in the village. The questions: V #182A. How many males are literate according to 1961 Census enumeration in this village? V #183A What is the total number of males in the 196 Census? , Scoring procedure: The figure fOr literate males was divided by the figure fOr total males, and expressed as percent. Percent of literate Village males to total males frequency 1 — 10 10 11 - 20 21 21 - 30 19 31 - 40 33 H1 - 50 21 51 - 60 3 N—NA = “1‘0"?— Missing values ... NA = 1 Total ... N = 108 Mean = 29.17 S.D. = 12.6H Skewness = -0.07 303 Data loc:9:31,32 Variable #12: Female literacy (Litfem #12) This gives the number of females who reported that could read and write expressed as percent to total females in the village. The questions: V #1828 Hun many females are literate according to 1961 Census enun'beration in this village? V #1838 What is the total nunber of females in the 1961 Census? Scoring procedure: The figure for literate females was divided by the figure for total females and expressed as percent. Percent of literate Village females to total females frequency 00 - 00 5 l - 10 60 ll - 20 32 21 - 30 9 31 ~ HO 1 N-NA = 107 Missing values . . . NA = 1 Total ... N = 108 Mean = 9.69 S.D. = 7.98 Skewness = 0.77 30” Data loc:9:37,38 Variable #13: Boys' primary education index (Prinem #13) This gives the number of boys in the village who attend school up to the 5th grade. ' The questions: V #18LIA Would you tell Ire the nunber of boys from this village who are actually attending school in primary (1 to 5) grades? V #183A What is the total number of persons enunerated (male) in the village in 1961 Census? Scoring procedure: Total nunber of boys attending primary school is divided by the total nunber of males enmrerated in 1961 Census, and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Ratio of boys in primary school to total male pOp- Village ulation (in percent) frequency 00 — 00 1 l - 10 50 11 - 20 H7 21 - 30 6 31 - H0 1 1+1 - 50 l N—NA = 107 Missing values . . . NA = 1 Total ... N = 108 Mean = 11.86 S.D. = 7.57 Skewness = 2.01 305 Data loc:9:39,HO Variable #lH: Girls' primary education index.(Primef #1u) This gives the number of girls in the village Who attend school up to 5th grade. The Questions: V #18LIB Would you tell ne the nunber of girls from this village who are actually attending Sohool in primary (1 to 5) grades? V #1838 What is the total number of persons enumerated (females) in 1961 Census in the village? Scoring procedure: Total number‘of girls attending primary Sohool was divided by the total nunber‘of'fenales enumerated in 1961 Census and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Ratio of girls in primary sdhool to total female Village population (in percent) frequency 00 - 00 l 01 — 10 82 ll — 20 12 21 — 30 l 31 - HO 1 N-NA = 105 Missing values ... NA = 3 Total ... N = 108 Mean = 5.87 S.D. = 5.u9 Skewness = 2.35 306 Data loc:9:l-I1,LI2 Variable #15: Boys' middle school education index (Midem #15) This gives the number of boys in the village who attend school 6 to 8th grade. The questions: V #185A Would you tell me the number of boys from this village who are actually attending middle school (6 to 8) grades? V #183A What is the total number of persons (males) enumerated in the village in 1961 Census? Scoring procedure: The figure for number of boys attending middle school is divided by the total number of males enumerated in 1961 Census, and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics : Ratio of boys in middle school to total male population of the village Village ' (percent) frequency 00 - 00 37 01 - 10 60 11 - 20 I4 N-NA = 101.l Missing values . . . NA = Q Total N = 108 Mean = 3.07 S.D. = 14.11 Skewness = 1.97 307 Data loc:9:143,m+ Variable #16: Girls' middle school education index (Midfem #16) This gives the number of girls in the village who attend school 6 to 8th grade. The questions: V #1858 Would you tell me the number of girls from this village who are actually attending middle sdiool (6 to 8) grades? V #1838 What is the total number of persons (females) enumerated in the village in 1961 Census? Scoring procedure: The figure for number of girls attending middle school is divided by the total number of females enumerated in 1961 Census in the village, expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics : Ratio of girls in middle school to total female population of the village Village _ (percent ) frequency 00 - 00 1+1 01 — 10 53 11— 20 1+ N-NA = 98 Missing values . .. NA = 10 Total .. . N = 108 Mean = 2.68 ' S.D. = 3.76 Skewness = 1.95 308 Data loc:9:|+5,LI6 Variable #17: Boys' high school education index (Him #17) This gives the number of boys in the village who attend high school (9 to 12 years). The questions: V #186A Would you tell me the number of boys from this village who are actually attending high school (9 to 12 years)? V #183A What is the total number of persons (males) enumerated in the village in 1961 Census? Scoring procedure: The figure for number of boys attending high school is divided by the total number of males enumerated in 1961 Census, and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Ratio of boys in high school to total male population of Village the village (percent) frequency 00 — 00 58 01 - 0M ”1 05 - 09 5 N-NA = 10H Missing values . . . NA = '4 Total . . . N = I08 Mean = 0.99 S.D. = 1.63 Skewness = 2.51 309 Data loc:9:147,l+8 Variable #18: Girls' higi school education index (Hifem #18) This gives the number of girls in the village who attend high school (9 to 12 years). The quest ions: V #1868 Would you tell me the number of girls from this village who are actually attending high school (9 to 12 years)? V #1838 What is the total number of persons (females) enumerated in the village in 1961 Census? Scoring procedure: The figure for number of girls attending my school is divided by the total number of females enumerated in 1961 Census, and expressed as percent. Descriptive statistics: Ratio of girls in high school to total female population Village of the village (percent) frequency 00 - 00 91 01 -— 01+ 12 N—NA = 103 Missing values . . .NA = 5 Total .. . N = 08 Mean = 0.25 S.D. = 0.65 Skewness = ”.5 310 Data loc:9:61,62 Variable #19: Infant mortality rate (Infmart #19) It gives the number of children under one year died in 1966 as a proportion of children born. The questions : Hun many children were born in this village in 1966? How many children less than one year old died in this village in 1966? Scoring procedm'e: Number of children under one year died divided by number of children born and expressed per hundred. Descriptive statistics : Infant mortality measure Village (per 100) frequency 00 - 00 22 01 - 10 1+0 11 - 20 27 21 - 30 5 31 - '40 1+ l+1 - 50 1 N-NA = 99 Missing values . .. NA = 9 Total N = 108 Mean = 9.1+5 S.D. = 9.19 Skewness = 1.61 311 Data loc:9:63,6u Variable #20: Crude birth rate (Birth #20) The questions: How many Children were born in this village in 1966? What is the total number of persons enumerated in 1961 Census? Scoring procedure: Number of born children multiplied by 1000 E . = xpressed 1n nearest integers Population of village Descriptive statistics: Birth rate (per Village thousand persons) frequency 00 - 00 1 01 — 10 12 11 - 20 16 21 — 30 23 31 — MO 17 H1 - 50 10 51 - 60 5 61 - 70 2 71 - 80 1 81 — 90 1 91 — 100 1 Total N = 108 Mean = 29.90 S.D. = 16.29 Skewness = 1.06 Variable #22: Mean 312 Data loc:ll:22 Village agricultural development (Agladb #22) Rating by the block development officer on a seven-step ladder. The questions: EDD #16 to #19 Here is a ladder of seven steps. Suppose on the tOp step of the 7 ladder is the village in your block 6 in which the Community Development 5 programs in agriculture have been MOST successful. . . .and on the bottom 1+ step of the ladder is the village in 3 your block in which these programs have been LEAST successful. ‘ 2 Where on this ladder would you place —l'—- Village #1, #2, #3, and #14? Scoring procedure: If the village is marked belm first step then score = 0 " " on the first step then score = l " " on the second step then score = 2 " " on the third step then score = 3 " " on the fourth step then score = 1+ " " on the fifth step then score = 5 " " on the sixth step then score = 6 " " on the seventh step then score = 7 Descriptive statistics: Village Development rating frequency Percent l 12 11.11 2 10 9.26 3 20 18.52 1+ 18 16.67 5 15 13.89 6 11 10.19 7 10 9.26 N—NA = 96 Missing values NA = 12 11.11 Total N = 108 3.93 S.D. = 1.71 Skewness = 1.83 313 Data loc:ll:23 Variable #23: Village health and family planning development (prladp #23) Rating by the block develOpnent officer on a seven—step ladder. The questions: EDD #20 to #23 Here is a ladder of seven steps. Suppose on the tOp step of the pp 7 ladder is the village in your block 6 in which the Community Development programs in health and family 5 planning have been MOST successful lI . . . .and on the bottom step of the ladder is the village in your block 3 in which these programs have been 2 LEAST successful. 1 Where on this ladder would you place Village #1, #2, #3, and #lI? Scoring procedure: If the village is marked beluv first step then score " " on the first step then score " " on the second step then score " " on the third step thenscore " " on the fourth step then score " " on the fifth step then score " " on the sixth step then score " " on the seventh step then score II II II II II II II II \ImmrwNI—‘O Descriptive statistics : Health and family plan- Village ning development rating frequency Percent 0 2 1.85 1 26 29.07 2 12 11.11 3 18 12.96 H 15 13.89 5 8 7.U1 6 6 5.56 7 7 6.48 N-NA = 90 Missing values . .. NA = 18 16's? Total ... N = 108 Mean = 3.06 S.D. = 1.79 Skewness = 0.149 318 Data loc:ll:26 Variable #2”: Village agricultural development (Aglada #2”) Rating by the Agricultural Extension Officer on a seven-step ladder. The questions : ABC #26 to #29: Here is a ladder of seven steps. Suppose on the top step of the ladder is the village in your block in which the Community Development programs in agriculture have been MOST successful. . . .and on the bottom step of the ladder is the village in your block in which these programs have been LEAST successful. ‘~J (I) (11 L' (A) P\J |. Where on this ladder would you place Village #1, #2, #3, and #H? Scoring procedure: If the village is marked belud first step then score " on the first step then score on the second step then score " " on the third step then score " " on the fourth step then score " " on the fifth step then score " " on the sixth step then score " on the seventh step then score II II II II II II II II -J (37 (11 -C: (A) P\) P" (:3 Descriptive statistics: Agricultural Village development rating freqLency Percent 0 0 0 1 9 8.33 2 11 10.19 3 18 16.67 H 30 27.78 5 13 12.0“ 6 11+ 12 . 96 7 13 12.0” N = 108 Mean = ”.18 S.D. = 1.75 Skewness = -0.005 315 Data loc:ll:II6 Variable #25: Improved seed utilization index (Sedgut #25) This gives the percentage of cultivators who bought improved seeds for food and cash crops. The question: VLW #87 What percentage of cultivators growing two major food crops and one major cash crop bought improved seeds for the last cropping season from official sources like the Community Development organization? Foodcrop........ 96 Food crop. . . . . 8 Cash crop. . . . . ”6' Scoring procedure: Villages where no farmers bought improved seeds for food and cash crops .. .. . . scored as 0 Villages where 10% or more of the farmers bought improved seed for lst food crop only .. . . scored as 1 Villages where 10% or more of the farmers bougmt improved seed for lst and 2nd food crops only . . . . scored as 2 Villages where 10% or more of the farmers bought improved seed for lst food crop, 2nd food crop, and a cash crop . . scored as 3 Descriptive statistics: Improved seed Village utilization score frequency Percent 0 63 39.81 1 27 25.00 2 20 18.52 3 18 16.67 N = 108 Mean = 1.12 S.D. = 1.11 Skewness = 0.1I9 316 Data loc:ll:76 Variable #26: Agricultural implement utilization index (Imple #26) This gives the percentage of cultivators in a given village using the most recommended agricultural implements. The questions: VLW #123 What three implements are most recommended for this village? Implement 1 ........ Implement 2........ Implement 3........ VLW #125 What percentage of the cultivators is using them? Implement l ........ % using Implement 2 ........ % using Implement 3 ..... .. . % using Scoring procedure: Villages where no farmers used any of the recommended agricultural implements . . scored as O Villages where 1% or more of the culti- vators used the lst recommended implement . . . . . . . . scored as 1 Villages where 1% or more of the culti- vators used lst and 2nd recommended implement . . . . . . . . scored as 2 Villages where 20% or more of the culti- vators used lst, 2nd, and 3rd recommended implement . . . . . . scored as 3 Descriptive statistics: Implement utilization Village score frequency Percent 0 16 III . 81 1 19 17 . 59 2 [I 8 MI . MI 3 25 2 3 . 15 N = 10 8 Mean = 1.19 S.D. = 1.82 Skewness = 1.02 Variable #27: This gives the location of the village measured in terms of the number of compost pits dug, percentage of cultivators using green manure, number of poultry birds supplied to the village, number of improved cattle supplied to the village and number of artificial or 317 Data loc: l2 :LI5 Cattle and manure adoption index (Catman #27) improved natural inseminat ions . The questions: VLW #130 VUW #128 VLW #132 VLW #126 VLW #138 VLW #135 Hun many compost pits have been dug so far in this village? What percentage of the cultivators of this village is using green manure on their fields? Hun many improved birds have been supplied to this village during the last 5 years? Hm many heads of improved cattle have been supplied by development agencies to this village so far? Hum many artificial inseminations have been administered? ' Hm many cums have been inseminated by improved bulls in a natural way? Scoring procedure: Villages where no manure and cattle adoption . . . . scored 0 Villages where one or more compost pits are dug . . . . . . scored 1 Villages where one or more compost pits are dug and 10% or more of the cultivators are using green manure . . . . . . . . scored 2 Villages where one or more compost pits are dug, 10% or more of the cultivators are using green manure, and l or more poultry birds are supplied . . . . . . scored 3 318 Variable #27 (cont'd.) Villages where one or more compost pits are dug, 10% or more of the cultivators are using green manure, l or more poultry birds are supplied, and l or more improved cattle are supplied . . . . . . . . scored LI Village where one or more compost pits are dug, 10% or more of the cultivators are using green manure, 1 or more poultry birds are supplied, and l or more improved cattle are supplied, and 20 or more artificial inseminations or improved natural inseminations . . . . . . scored 5 Descriptive statistics : Catt 1e and manure Village adOption score frequency Percent 0 6 5.56 1 2 8 2 5 . 9 3 2 27 25.00 3 2 7 2 5 . 00 H 17 15.7U 5 3 2.78 N = 10 8 Mean = 2.28 S.D. = 1.214 Skewness = 0.13 319 Data 10C:12:lI7 Variable #28: Plant protection adOption (Plantpro #28) This gives the location of the village in terms of the number of acres under seed treatment. ‘ The quest ion: VLW #137 Hun many acres were treated with plant protection measures last year for each of the two major food crops and one major cash crop? Food crop ........ acres Seed Treatment Food crop. . . ..... acres Cash crop........ acres Scoring procedure: Villages with no seed treatment for foranycrop .. .. .. .. score 0 Villages with 50 acres or more of seed treated for lst food crop . . . . score 1 Villages with 50 acres or more of seed treated for lst food crop and 5 acres or more of seed treated for 2nd food crop . . . . . . . . score 2 Villages with 50 acres or more of seed treated for lst food crop, 5 acres or more seed treated for 2nd food crop, and 1 acre or more of seed treated for cash crop .. .. .. .. score 3 Descriptive statistics: Plant protection Village score frequency Percent 0 61+ 59 . 26 1 22 20 . 37 2 18 16 . 67 3 H 3. 70 N = 10 8 Mean = 0.65 S.D. = 0.88 Skewness = 1.07 320 Data loc:l3z31 Variable #29: Village progress index (Prize #29) This refers to the receipt of certificate or prize by a village from outside agency as mark of progress. The quest ion: VLW #189 Has this village ever received a certificate or prize as a progressive village? No Yes Scoring procedure: If the village has no certificate or prize .. .. .. .. score 0 If the village has a certificate or prize . . . . . . . . score 1 Descriptive statistics : Village Progress score frequency Percent 0 88 81.148 1 19 17.60 N—NA = 107 Missing values NA = l .93 Total N = 108 Mean = 0.18 S.D. = 0.38 Skewness = 3.1I0 321 Data loc:13:35—37 Variable #30: Seed distribution index (Sedix #30) This gives improved seed rate as a percentage of the standard recommended seed rate for the fOOd crOp in the village. The questions: VLW #86 How.mudh improved seed‘was distributed in this village last cropping season by the Community Development organization and other sources for the two major food crops and one major cash crop? Food crop ........ Kilograms Food crop........ Kilograms Cash crop ........ Kilograms VLW #1H5 to #155 Food crop........ Acres ........ Acres ........ Acres ....... . Acres Scoring procedure: Divide acreage forIfirst crop for WhiCh there was complete infbrmation reported, into Kilograms of seed distributed for that crop, and express this Kilogram.per acre figure as percent of recommended seeding rate, N—NA = 102 Missing value ... NA = 6 Total... DJ: 108 Mean = 0.28 S.D. = 0.5” Skewness = 3.63 Variable #31: Mean This gives the villages with leaders who take different roles and suggested Specific action. The questions: 322 Data loc:18z75 Empathy index of village leaders (Emp #31) VL #87 VL #88 VL #89 If you.were president of the panchyat here in your village, what would you do in the next year? to improve your income? If you were the Block Development Officer of this blodk, what program of agriculture would you make or conduct? If you were an average cultivator, what would you do Scoring procedure: Descriptive statistics: 6.69 For eadh question in eaCh village the percentage of leaders who took role and suggested Specific action was calculated. The number of leaders in eaCh village was 8. centage was summed.across all the three questions and an average was calcultated and scored as follows: If the percentage was 00 — 10 - 20 - 30 - HO - 50 - 60 — 70 - Leader empathy score 00 01 02 03 OH 05 06 07 08 H H H H H Village 09 19 29 39 H9 59 69 79 score 80 and more frequency 00 00 01 02 05 09 15 H8 28 H Percent 00 00 .93 .85 .63 .33 .89 .HH .93 This perb 0 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 Skewness -.92 Variable #32: 323 Data loc:3H:20,2l Index of favorableness toward new programs or Changes (Change norm #32) This gives the degree of acceptance of norms favorable to Change. The questions: VL#H7 VL # H8 VL # H9 VL # 72 VL # 73 VL #109 What is your opinion on improved agricultural practices and programs to promote them? Very favorable Favorable Unfavorable Very unfavorable Do not know What is your opinion on health practices and programs to promote them? Would you say Very favorable Favorable Unfavorable Very unfavorable Do not know What is your opinion on family planning practices and programs to promote themfi Would you say Very favorable Favorable Unfavorable Very unfavorable Suppose that a man in the village would have an operation in order to keep frcmlhaving any more children. What would you say that people would think of him? would most people encourage or discourage a housewife who tried to learn how to read and write? Encourage Not care Dis courage Do not know I have talked with a cultivator who used a new type of plough that is quite profitable fOI'hiHh However, in order to get the plough repaired, he had to break the jajman's relationship with the village blacksmith. This still troubled him a bit. Did he do right, or wrong, in buying and using the new plough? Why do you think so? Right Wrong 32H Variable #32 (cont'd.) Scoring procedure: For responses to Questions #H7, H8, H9 the scoring pro- cedures w& as folluds: ' Very unfavorable score 0 Unfavorable score 1 Favorable score 2 Very favorable score 3 The responses to Question #72 were scored as folluds: All disapprove--genera1 disapproval score 1 2 Most disapprove , minority favor score Some approve; some don't, evenly divided score 3 Most approve; minority do not score H General approval; people welcome it all encourage score 5 In each village, leaders numbering 8 were interviewed. For each question an average score was computed for each village based on 8 responses. The score was rounded to the nearest whole number. The reSponses to Question #73 were scored as folludsz Dis courage score 0 Not care score 1 Encourage score 2 In each village, 8 leaders were interviewed. Percentage of leaders who would encourage housewives to learn to read and write was computed for each village. Each village was assigned a score based on this percentage according to the folluding procedure: If a village had 0 or less than 1% leaders who would encourage housewives to learn to read and write . . . . . . score " " 1 to 10% . . .. score " " 11 to 20% .. .. score " " 21 to 30% . . . . score " " 31 to H0% . . . . score " " H1 to 50% .. . . score " " 51 to 60% .. .. score " " 61 to 70% .. . . score " " 71 to 80% .. .. score " " 81 and more . . . . score LOmQOWUW-CwMI—‘O 325 Variable #32 (cont'd.) The responses to Question #109 were scored as follms: No or wrong score 0 Conditional answer score 1 Yes or right score 2 In each village, 8 leaders were interviewed. Percentage of leaders who said yes or right was computed to each of 108 villages. Each village was assigned a score based on this percentage according to the follu/Jing procedure: If the village had a percentage of leaders who said yes or right to Question #109 ranging 0 to 9 score 0 " 10 to 19 score 1 " 20 to 29 score 2 " 30 to 39 score 3 " H0 to H9 score H " 50 to 59 score 5 " 60 to 69 score 6 " 70 to 79 score 7 " 80 to 89 score 8 " 90 and more score 9 To obtain an index of favorableness toward new programs for each village, the score for each of the questions (#H7, H8, H9, 72, 73, and 109) was summed to give a composite score on favorableness tuvard new programs. Descriptive statistics: Composite score on favorableness Village tmard new programs frequency Percent 0 8 l . 9 3 09 l . 9 3 l2 3 2 . 78 13 H 3. 70 1H 1 . 9 3 15 3 2 . 78 16 H 3 . 70 17 H 3 . 70 18 8 7 . H1 Variable #32 (cont'd.) Mean 20.62 19 20 21 22 23 2H 25 26 27 326 6 l7 7 11 8 ll 5 7 7 N = 108 S.D. = H.17 ’I—l |._.I OVGIOQOGUWUW H .56 .7H .H8 .19 .H1 .19 .63 .H8 .H8 Skewness —.63 327 Data loc:3H:22,23 Variable #33: Leaders' economic orientation index (Ecorient #33) This gives belief orientations of village leaders with reference to Choosing alternatives in investment decisions, job decisions, and career changes . The questions : VL #105 Some time ago I met a cultivator who saw good possibilities to increase his income by establishing a fruit orchard. In order to do this he needed more capital. The only way to get this capital was to sell an acre of land that he had rented to somebody else. This he did. Did he do right or wrong? No Yes VL #106 Suppose it is profitable for a cultivator with money to start a dairy operation. Should a cultivator who would have to borrow most of the money start such an Operation? No Yes V1. #107 If you had an opportunity to double your income by selling your farm and investing in another business, would you do it? No Yes VL #108 If you are offered a job in a city which would give you about double the income as you nun receive, would you move to that city? No Yes Scoring procedure: In each village 8 leaders were interviewed. For each village the percentage of leaders who responded "yes" to Questions #105, #106, #107, #108 was computed each separately. 328 Variable #33 (cont'd.) If the percentage of leaders in a village ranged 0 to 9 score 0 " 10 to 19 score 1 " 20 to 29 score 2 " 30 to 39 score 3 " H0 to H9 score H " 50 to 59 score 5 " 60 to 69 score 6 " 70 to 79 score 7 " 80 to 89 score 8 " 90 and more score 9 These scores were summed for each village across questions #105, 106, 107, 108 making a composite score indicating the village leader's economic orientation. Descriptive statistics: Village leader economic orientation Village score frequency Percent 06 l .93 08 2 1.85 09 H 3.70 11 5 H.63 13 6 5.56 1H 7 6.H8 15 12 11.11 16 11 10.19 17 8 7.Hl l8 7 6.H8 19 17 15.7H 20 7 6.H8 21 2 1.85 22 7 6.H8 23 H 3.70 2H H 3.70 25 l .93 26 l .93 28 l .93 3O 1 .93 N = 108 Mean = 17.25 S.D. = H.36 Skewness = 0.02 329 Data loc:3H:2H Variable #3H: Sacred-secular index (Sac #3H) This gives the psychological tendency of the leaders underlying the behavior patterns to be rational and use of science—technology based justifications. The questions: VL # 97 When a member of your family fell seriously 111 last time, did you go to the temple and take a vow? No Yes VL # 98 Can evil spirits cause disease? No Yes VL # 99 Have you made sacrifice to prevent sickness? No Yes VL #100 Should Harijans be allowed to draw water from.all wells in the village? No Yes VL #101 Should Harijans and other Children take meals together in school? No Yes VL #102 If your son wanted to marry a lower caste girl would you alluv it? No Yes VL #103 Do you think Harijans should be allowed to worship in all temples of the village? No Yes VL #10H In your Opinion, is an illiterate village Brahmin superior to a lower caste B.A. or M.A.? No Yes 330 Variable #3H (cont'd.) Scoring procedure: Responses to Questions #97, #98, #99, and #lOH were scored as follows: No score 1 Yes score 0 ReSponses to Questions #100, #101, #102, and #103 were scored as follows: Yes score No score OH These scores were summed across all the 8 questions and across all the eight leaders in eaCh village, and an average score per leader in eaCh village was computed, and rounded to the nearest whole number. Average sacred secular leader Village score frequency Percent 2 3 2.78 3 5 H.63 H 7 6.H8 5 31 28.70 6 39 36.11 7 20 18.52 8 3 2.78 N = 108 Mean = 5.57 S.D. = 1.23 Skewness = -.75 Variable #35: Mean 331 Postal accessibility (Postac #35) Data loc:3H:26 This gives the physical distance between the village and the postal facility. The question: V #3H How far is the post office facility fromIthe village? miles Scoring procedure: 10 miles or over score 0 5 to 9.9 miles score 1 l to H.9 miles score 2 Under 1 mile score 3 In village score H Descriptive statistics: Postal accessibility Village score frequency Percent 0 2 1.85 l 6 5.56 2 H3 39.81 3 1H 12.96 H H3 39.81 N = 108 = 2.83 S.D. = 1.06 Skewness = —0.29 332 Data loc:3H:27 Variable #36: Library accessibility (Libac #36) This gives the distance of library facility from the village. The question: V #H6 How far is the library facility available to this village? miles Scoring procedure: 10 miles or over score 0 5 to 9.9 miles score 1 l to H.9 miles score 2 Under one mile score 3 In village score H Descriptive statistics: Library accessibility Village score frequency Percent O 8 7.Hl l 13 12.0H 2 29 26.85 3 8 7.H1 H HH H0.7H N—NA =102 5 56 Missing data . . . NA = 6 ° Total.. N 2108 Mean 2 2.68 S.D. = 1.31 Skewness = -0.HH 333 Data loc:3H:28 Variable #37: Access to cinema (Cinedist #37) This gives the distance between the village and the location of the cinema house. ‘ The question: V #56 How far is the cinema facility available to this village? miles Scoring procedure: 10 miles and more score 0 5 to 9.9 miles score 1 1 to H.9 miles score 2 Under 1 mile score 3 In village score H Descriptive statistics: Cinema accessibility Village score frequency Percent 0 52 H8.15 1 32 29.63 2 20 18.51 3 0 00.00 H H 3.70 N = 108 Mean = 0.81 S.D. = 0.98 Skewness = 1.31 33H Data loc:3H:56,57 (Decimal point between 56 and 57) Variable #38: Official residence ratio (Office #38) This gives the number of officials residing in village per 1000 population. The question: VLW #200 How many government officials reside in this village? V #183 What is the total number of persons enumerated in this village in 1961: Scoring procedure: For each village, the figure for number of officials was divided by the total number of persons enumerated and multiplied by 1000. Rate of officials residing in the village per Village 1000 persons frequency 00 — 02 91 03 — 05 31 06 - 08 19 09 - 11 5 l2 - 1H H 20 - 22 0 23 — 25 H 26 - 28 l 29 - 61 0 62 — 6H 2 N—NA = 97 Missing values ... NA = 11 Total ... N = 108 Mean = 6.6 S.D. = 9.18 Skewness = H.19 335 Data loc:3H:68,69 Variable #39: Index of access to tranSport facilities (Transix #39) This gives the degree of accessibility to different modes of transport available to the village. The questions: V #7 How far is this village frcm1the nearest all-weather road? miles V #8 How far fromIthe nearest bus station or stop? miles V #9 How far fromIthe nearest railway station? miles Scoring procedure: Responses to each of the Questions #7, #8, and #9 were scored.as follows: lOmflesamimmr same 0 5 to 9.9 miles score 1 l to H.9 miles score 2 Under 1 mile score 3 In village score H The scores fer'the three questions were summed for eaCh village to obtain a composite score of access to transport facilities. Descriptive statistics: Access to transport facilities Village score frequency Percent 00 1 .93 01 2 1.85 02 6 5.56 03 9 8.33 0H 23 21.30 05 11 10.19 06 20 18.52 07 9 8.33 08 1H 12.96 09 7 6.H8 10 H 3.70 12 l .93 N-NA = 107 Missing value ... NA = 1 Total... N = 108 Mean— _ 5. 59 S.D. = 2.31 Skewness = .16 Variable #HO: Mean 336 Data loc:3H:70 Land—oriented conservatism.of leaders (Land consori #HO) This gives the percentage of village leaders who are inclined The question: V #105 Some time ago I met a cultivator~who saw good possi- bilities to increase his income by establishing a fruit orChard. In order to do this he needed more capital. The only way to get this capital was to sell an acre of This he did. land that he had rented to somebody else. Did he do right or wrong? No Yes Scoring procedure: In eaCh village eight leaders were interviewed. Question #107 was computed. If the percentage is O H 10 H 20 II 30 H ‘40 H 50 II 60 II 70 II 80 II 90 Descriptive statistics: 5.65 Land—oriented conservatism score LOGJQGU'T-CMNHO to to to to to to to to to an 9 score 0 19 score 1 29 score 2 39 score 3 H9 score H 59 score 5 69 score 6 79 score 7 89 score 8 drmmtascore 9 Village frequency 2 1 ll 9 0 23 19 20 16 7 N=T‘8’ S.D. = 2.17 Percent l. .93 .19 8. 0. 21. 17. .52 .81 6. 10 18 1H 85 33 00 30 59 H8 Skewness The per- centage of leaders in eaCh village who said "Yes" to —0.70 337 Data loc:3Hz71 Variable #Hl: Credit—risk orientation (Creditori #Hl) This gives a measure of the propensity of the leader in homing and investing. The question: V #106 Suppose it is profitable for a cultivator with money to start a dairy operation. Should a cultivator who would have to borrow most of the money start such an operation? No Yes Scoring procedure: In each village eight leaders were interviewed. The per— centage of leaders in each village who said yes to Question #106 was computed and rounded to the nearest whole number. If the percentage is 0 to 9 score 0 " 10 to 19 score 1 " 20 to 29 score 2 " 30 to 39 score 3 " H0 to H9 score H " 50 to 59 score 5 " 60 to 69 score 6 " 70 to 79 score 7 " 80 to 89 score 8 " 90 and more score 9 Descriptive statistics: Credit-risk orientation Village score of leaders frequency Percent 0 0 0 1 l .93 2 3 2.78 3 6 5.56 H 2 1.85 5 12 11.11 6 22 20.37 7 27 25.00 8 19 17.59 9 l6 lH.81 N =‘i‘6’8 Mean = 6.57 S.D. = 1.82 Skewness = -l.08 338 Data loc:3H: 72 Variable #H2: Land—risk orientation Of leaders (Riskori #H2) This gives the percentage Of village leaders who are inclined to risk landed assets in favor Of higher income fromother sources. Mean The question: V #107 If you had an Opportunity to double your income by selling your farm and investing in another business, would you do it? No Yes Scoring procedure: In each village eigit leaders were interviewed. The per- centage Of leaders in each village who said "Yes" to Question #105 was computed and rounded to the nearest whole number. If the percentage is 0 to 9 score 0 " 10 to 19 score 1 " 20 to 29 score 2 " 30 to 39 score 3 " H0 to H9 score H " 50 to 59 score 5 " 60 to 69 score 6 " 70 tO 79 score 7 " 80 to 89 score 8 " 90 and more score 9 Descriptive statistics: Land—risk orientation Village score Of leaders frequency Percent 0 l7 15.7H l 25 23.15 2 25 23.15 3 1H 12.96 H 5 H.63 5 13 12.0H 6 8 7.Hl 7 l .93 8 0 .00 9 __9_ .00 N = 108 2.38 S.D. = 1.88 Skewness = .61 339 Data loc:3Hz73 Variable #H3: Occupational mobility-risk orientation (Occupmobi #H3) This gives a measure Of the tendency of the village leaders to shift occupation giving more income. The quest ion: V #108 If you are Offered a job in a city which would give you about double the income as you nuv receive, would you move to that city? NO Yes Scoring procedure: In each village eight leaders were interviewed. The percentage Of leaders who said "Yes" to the question #108 above was com— puted and rounded to the nearest whole number. If the percentage range is O to 9 score 0 " 10 to 19 score 1 " 20 to 29 score 2 " 30 to 39 score 3 " H0 to H9 score H " 50 tO 59 score 5 " 60 to 69 score 6 ” 70 to 79 score 7 " 80 to 89 score 8 " 90 and more score 9 Descriptive statistics: Occupational mobility Village orientation score frequency Percent 0 11 10.19 1 18 16.67 2 31 28.70 3 19 , 17.59 H 10 9.26 5 13 12.0H 6 5 ' H.63 7 O 0 8 l .93 9 0 0 N = 108 Mean 2 2.59 S.D. = 1.71 Skewness = .55 3H0 Data loc: 35:19, 20 Variable #HH: Agricultural adOption index (Agadopt #HH) This is a measure of prevalent practices related to agriculture in the village. ‘ The questions: VL #32 Do you (leader) use chemical fertilizer? Yes No Scoring procedure: If the leaders using fertilizer in a village number 0 to 5 score 0 6 score 1 7 score 2 8 score 3 VL #3H DO you (leader) use green manure? Yes NO Scoring procedure: If the leaders using green manure number 0 to 2 score 0 3 to H score 2 5 and more score 3 VL #36 Do you (leader) use new implements? Yes NO Scoring procedure: If the leaders using new implements in the village number 0 to 1 score 0 2 to H score 2 5 and more score 3 3H1 Variable #HH (cont'd.) VL #HO Do you (leader) use improved seeds? Yes NO Scorfng procedure: In the village, if the leaders using improved seeds number 0 to 3 score 0 H to 5 score 1 6 score 2 7 and more score 3 VL #H2 Do you (leader) use pesticides? Yes NO Scoring procedure: If the leaders using pesticides in the village number 0 to 3 score 0 H and 5 score 1 6 score 2 7 and more score 3 VL #HH Do you (leader) use new breeds Of cattle? ' Yes NO Scoring procedure: In the village, if the leaders using new breeds Of cattle number 0 score 0 l and more score 3 VLW #87 What percentage of cultivators growing two major food crops and one cash cr0p in the village bought improved seeds for the last cropping season from officials sources like the community development organization? % cultivators First fOOd crop 96 cultivators Second food crop % cultivators Cash crop 3H2 Variable #HH (cont'd.) VLW #87 (cont'd.) Scoring procedure: In the village, if the percent of cultivators buying improved seed (First fOOd crop) range 0 to 9 score 0 " 10 to 2H score 2 " 25 and more score 3 improved seed (Second crop) score same as in first fOOd crop improved seed (Cash crop) score same as in first fOOd crop VLW #123 What three implements are most recommended for this village? implement l implement 2 . ......... implement 3 .......... VLW #125 What percentage of the cultivators is using them? percentage Scoring procedure: In the village, if the percent of cultivators using first implement range 0 score 0 " l to 19 score 2 " 20 and more score 3 second implement score same as in first implement 3H3 Variable #HH (cmt ' d. ) VLW #126 How many heads Of improved cattle have been supplied by development agencies to this village so far? Heads Scoring procedure: In the village, if the number Of improved cattle is 0 score 0 " one or more score 3 VLW #128 What percentage Of the cultivators Of this village is using green manure on their ° 9 f 1e ldS - % cult ivators Scoring procedure: In the village, if the percentage Of cultivators using green manure range 0 to 9 score 0 " 10 to H9 score 2 " 50 and more score 3 VLW #130 How many compost pits have been dug so far in this village Scoring procedure: In the village, if the number Of compost pits dug is 0 score 0 " 1 to 9 score 1 " 10 to 89 score 2 " 90 and more score 3 VLW #13H What is the number Of artificial insemina- tions administered in this village? VLW #135 How many CW8 were inseminated by improved bulls in a natural way? Variable #HH (cont'd.) VLW #13H—135 (cmt'd.) Scoring procedure: 31m For each village a total figure of artificial inseminations and natural improved bull services were computed. If the number (total) in the village is 0 score 0 " l to 19 score 2 I! 20 and more score 3 VLW #137 How many acres were treated with plant protection measures last year for eadn Of the two major food crops and one major cash crop? First fOOd crop.......... acres Second food crop.......... acres Cash crop acres Scoring procedure: In the village, if the range 0 " 100 " 500 In the village, if the range 0 " 50 Scoring procedure: acres Of First food crop seed treated to 99 acres score 0 to H99 acres score 2 and more score 3 acres of Second food crop seed treated to H9 acres score 0 and more score 3 For each village, 1? items based on the questions mentioned (see pages ) were the basis for constructing the agricultural adoption index Of the village. Scores on each item for each of the villages were summed tO give a composite score Of agricultural adoption index Descriptive statistics Agricultural adoption Village score freqLency 00 - 09 12 10 - 19 28 20 - 29 H0 30 - 39 21 H0 — H9 7 50 - 51 0 N = 108 Mean = 22.92 S.D. 9.80 Skewness = -0.06 3H5 Data loc:35:HH,H5,H6 Variable #H5: Bicycle index (Bicy #HS) This gives the number of bicycles in the village per 10,000 population. I The question: V #70 Hun many bicyles are there in this village? bicyles V#l83 What is the total number Of persons enumerated in this village in 1961 census? Scoring procedure: Total number Of bicyles in the village were divided by the total population and multiplied by 10,000. N = 108 Mean = 20.08 S.D. = 205.13 Skewness = 2.0H 3H6 Data loc:35:H7,H8 Variable #H6: Electric pump index (Elecpump #H6) This gives the number Of electric pumps per 10,000 pOpulation. _ T'he question VLW #178 Hm many electric pumps are in Operation in this village? VLW #183 What is the total number Of persons enumerated in this village in 1961? . Scoring procedure: Total number Of electric pumps was divided by the total pOpula— tion in the village and the ration is expressed as rate per thousand. Descriptive statistics: Number Of electric pumps per thousand Village persons frequency Percent 00 73 067.59 OH 1 .93 06 1 .93 10 1 .93 12 1 .93 17 1 .93 21 2 1.85 23 1 .93 26 1 .93 28 1 .93 31 1 .93 3H 2 1.85 39 1 .93 H7 1 .93 6H 1 .93 76 1 .93 83 1 .93 98 or more 1 .03 N-NA.= Missing value . .. NA = ll'll NA.=108 Mean = 10.16 S.D. = 22.72 Skewness = 2.67 3H7 Data loc:35:H9,50 Variable #H7: Oil engine index (Oilengi #H7) Mean This gives the number Of Oil engines per 1000 persons. The question: VLW #180 Hm many Oil engines, such as pumps are there in use in this village? VLW #183 What is the total number Of persons enumerated in this village in 1961? Scoring procedure: Tbtal number Of Oil engines in the village was divided by the total number'of persons in the village and the ratio was expressed as a rate per-thousand persons. Descriptive statistics: Number Of Oil engines in the village Village per 1000 persons frequency 00 56 01 to 09 13 10 to 19 ll 20 to 29 9 30 to 39 6 H0 to H9 3 50 to 59 2 60 tO 69 2 70 to 79 l 80 to 89 0 90 to 98 3 N-NA = 106 Missing values .. .NA = 2 N = 108 13.22 S.D. = 21.52 Skewness = 2.2H Variable #H8: Mean 3H8 Data loc:35:51,52 Grain mill index (Grainm #H8) This gives the number Of gain mills per thousand population. The question: VLW #180 Hm many grain mills are there in this village? VLW #183 Total number Of persons enumerated What is the total number of persons enumerated in the village in 1961 census? JI‘SORS Scoring procedure: Total number Of grain mills in the village were divided and expressed as a rate per thousand. Descriptive statistics: Number Of grain mills per thousand 00 - 01 — 12- 23- Missing 5.35 perscns 00 11 22 33 89 N-NA values . . .NA N S.D. Village frequency II II H O H I_I C) m = 10.8 Skewness = H.6H 3H9 Data loc:35:53,55 Variable #H9: Magazine index (Mag #H9) This gives the nImber Of monthly magazines per thousand population . - The qtest ion: V # 78 Hm many copies Of magazines and news papers are received regularly in this village? V #183 What is the total number Of persons enumerated in this village? Scoring procedure: The total number of magzines and newspapers received in the village was divided by the total number Of persons in the village and rate was expressed per thousand. Descriptive statistics: N = 108 Mean .= 58 S.D. = 89.36 Skewness = 3.65 Variable #50: and grain mills in the village. Mean 350 Data loc: 35:58,59 Machine index (Machine #50) This gives the sum of the number Of electric pumps, Oil engines The question: VLW #178 Hm many electric pumps are in Operation in this village? VLW #179 Hm many Oil engines, such as pumps are there in use in this village? VLW #180 Hm many grain mills are there in this village? Scoring procedure: The number Of machines mentioned in response to each of the above questions were summed across all the three. Descriptive statistics: Number of machines 00 01 to 05 06 tO 10 11 to 15 16 tO 20 21 to 25 91 to 98 Missing values . . 5.73 Village frequency 3H 38 Nw-czoo N-NA =I — . NA = S.D. ll H (A) (A) C3 Skewness = 5.15 351 Data loc:35z62 Variable #51: Availability of electricity (Elec #51) This gives the presence or absence Of electricity in the village. The question: VLW #190 Is there electricity in this village? Yes NO Scoring procedure: If the response is "NO" score 0 If the response is "Yes" score 1 Descriptive statistics: Electricity Village score frequency Percent 0 73.15 1 ' 25.93 N =108 g Variable #52: Mean 352 Data loc:35:67,68 or mare (Tax #52) The question: V #129 How many families were taxed in the village? Range of tax Number of families Scoring procedure: Percent of families who paid rupees 10 or nore taxes was calculated for each village. Descriptive statistics: Percent of families paying Village Rs 10 or more frequency 00 01 to 05 06 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 31 to 35 36 to 50 N—NA Missing values . . .NA N H H O 00 H.765 S.D. = 7.36 Skewness Percent of families paying Rs 10 (approximately $1.50) = 3.2” 353 Data loc:35:69,70 Variable #53: Cattle index (Catt #53) This gives the number'of‘cattle per 100 population. The question: V #192 What is the cattle population of this village? V #183 What is the total number of persons enumerated in 1961 census? Scoring‘procedure: The figure for cattle was expressed as the number per 100 population. Descriptive statistics: Number of cattle per 100 of village Village population frequency 00 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 26 NO to H9 15 50 to 59 9 60 to 69 11 70 to 79 80 to 89 H 90 and more 12 N—NA = ID? Missing value . .. NA = 5 N = 159' Mean = 99.53 S.D. = 27.12 Skewness = 0.36 359 Data loc:38:13,l|+ Variable #su: Institutional development of the village (Instigut #50.) This gives the neasure of the degree of operation of educational, health and other service institutions of the village. The question: V # 12 How far is this village from the nearest high school? V # 28 How far is this village from the nearest co-Operative society? V # 30 How far is this village from godown facilities for seeds and fertilizers? V # 32 How far is this village from the location of youth club? . V # 31+ How far is this village from the location of Post Office V # 142 How far is this village from the location of the Panchyat headquarters? V # 50 How far is this village from the repair shop for bicycles? V # 65 Hm far is this village from a retail market? V # 66 How far is this village from the location of a temple, church, or mosque? V #121 Do the stores in the village stock and sell groceries? Scoring procedure: If the facility was available in the village or within one mile distance of the village it was scored 1 If the facility was absent in the village or beyond one mile it was scored . 0 355 Variable #su (cont ' d.) The facilities were assigned the fOllowing scores on a Gutman scale: Position on the Institution Gutman scale Panchyat l Temples 2 Village store 3 Co-operative society u Youth clUb 5 Post Office 6 Retail manket 7 Godown 8 Bicycle repair Shop 9 High school 10 If a village had a high school it was assigned score 10. 'That neant that it had all the nine other institutional facilities for the village. Descriptive statistics: Institutional Village development score frequency Percent 01 2 , 1.85 02 2 1.85 03 5 H.63 0H 6 5.56 05 22 20.37 06 11 10.19 07 22 20.37 08 8 7.u1 09 15 13.89 10 15 13.89 N=‘l‘d'zT Mean = 6.70 S.D. = 2.25 Skewness = —0.26 356 Variable #55: Village store items (Visgut #55) This measures the degree tow which the village stores sell different articles of consumption. The quest ion: Data loc:38:15 V #121 Do the stores in this village stock the following items? Cigarettes ..... Metal pots and pans . . . Torch light and accessories . . . . . Paper and stationery . . . . . Clothing . . . . . Shoes . . . . Cosmetics . . . . . Agricultural implements ..... Biscuits . . . Insecticides . . . . . Common medicines Scoring procedure: Seven of the above items were positioned into a Gutman scale ranging from 0 to 7. Descriptive statistics: Village store Village score frequency 0 15 1 9 2 13 3 15 1+ 10 5 l3 6 0 7 12 N = 1753' Mean = 3.75 S.D. = 2.93 Percent 13.89 8.33 12.0” 13.89 9.26 12.09 00.00 20.37 Skewness -0.10 357 Data loc:38z31 Variable #56: Caste status of the village leaders (Caste #56) This gives the locus of the caste status occupied by the village leaders in traditional hierarchy of the caste system in the village. The question: V #6 What is your caste? Scoring procechlre: Mainly upper caste (Brahmin, l