Results

vul-nerability and livelihood assessments. The neglect of the spatial dimension of social support networks, however, runs the risk of omitting relevant aspects of rural livelihoods, especially in the context of migration and mobility.

On a general level, the review identifies the following challenges to adequately addressing the role of social networks in the resilience of rural communities in the Global South:

• First, social network research tend to focus on network outcomes and has difficulties with assessing network dynamics.

• Second, whilst studies tend to overemphasize network structure, the role of agency in shap-ing and reproducshap-ing social networks remains vague.

• Third, the neglect of the spatial dimensions of social relations poses a significant shortcoming given the highly mobile character of many rural societies.

Based on this assessment, the authors of the review propose linking future research with the concept of translocality. A translocal social network perspective addresses the embeddedness in and con-nectedness between places shifts the focus of research from bounded entities toward the connections between places; it takes into account the dynamic interrelationship between structure and agency and provides a multidimensional conception of social relations. Hence, the authors argue, it offers a framework well suited to the complexity of rural-urban realities in the Global South.

5.2 Socio-spatial patterns of households’ network capital (Article II)

Participatory network mapping provides fine-grained insights into the social composition and spatial distribution of households’ network capital, aggregated by support type and socio-economic status across three study sites. Tie composition (bonding / bridging) and tie distribution (local / translocal) are presented in terms of frequency and importance for household livelihoods. This network data is enriched by quantitative data on household characteristics and qualitative information recorded during network mapping activities.

On a general level, the assessment underlines that translocal network capital is a relevant source of rural livelihoods, since a considerable extent of support available to rural households is provided through translocal ties. Of pronounced relevance to rural livelihoods are migration-related translocal ties, in particular among poor households. On a more disaggregated level the network assessment highlights that translocal network capital is functionally and socio-economically differentiated.

Translocal network capital is a context-specific source of resilience which is not equally viable for different types of support and not equally accessible for all households.

Translocal support networks are functionally differentiated as they matter less in terms of labor, more in terms of advice and in particular in terms of financial support. Labor is predominantly pro-vided through local ties, in particular through local bonding ties with relatives who make up the big-gest share in labor support and are valued as a highly important source of labor. Local bridging ties with neighbors and agricultural service providers also account for a considerable share in labor sup-port; however, they are of relatively lesser importance.

Advice is more translocal than labor, although the local level continues to be the most frequent source of advice. Local advice is of generally greater importance than translocal advice, and mostly provided through local bonding ties with local relatives. Translocal advice, instead, is predominantly provided through translocal bridging ties with district institutions, such as the district branch of the Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE). Like local formal sources of advice, these translocal bridging ties are considered as being of low importance.

Finance is the most translocalized type of support. Translocal financial support is not only more fre-quent, but also considerably more important than local financial support. Translocal financial sup-port is predominantly provided through translocal bonding ties with migrating household members and relatives at national and international levels, which are considered highly important sources of finance. Also translocal bridging ties to financial institutions, such as the Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), provide considerable financial support, but are of relatively lower importance than migration-related translocal ties. At the local level, financial support is predomi-nantly provided through local bridging ties to neighbors and, in particular, local financial institutions, such as village funds and saving groups. However these sources of local finance are generally of low importance.

Translocal networks are socio-economically differentiated as they are unequally distributed among and of different relevance for poor and better-off households: poor households have less translocal capital at their disposal, but rely more critically on limited translocal networks than better-off households do. At the same time, frequent local capital of poor households turns out to be of lower efficiency than among better-off households. Local networks are the dominant source of support available to poor households, in particular in terms of labor. While preferably drawing on local bond-ing ties, poor households also draw frequently on local bridgbond-ing ties with neighbors and local institu-tions, in particular in terms of labor and financial support. However, for poor households, local bridg-ing ties are associated with relatively higher costs (e.g. for hirbridg-ing labor) and low efficiency (e.g. in terms of credit volume). Under these circumstances, poor households critically rely on their relative-ly limited translocal capital. Migration-related translocal networks are of critical relevance to poor households, in particular for accessing financial support, as expressed by a high share and pro-nounced importance of translocal bonding ties with migrating household members and relatives.

The reliance on migration-related translocal capital is particularly pronounced, as poor households are lacking access to formal translocal networks, expressed by a particularly low share of translocal bridging ties to financial institutions, such as the BAAC.

Better-off households have more translocal capital at their disposal, but at the same time rely less critically on translocal networks than poor households do. Among rich households translocal ties are of high frequency and importance, in particular in terms of translocal bridging ties to financial insti-tutions, in particular the BAAC and other private credit providers, in order to sustain

capital-intensive cash-crop farming. Also in terms of advice, formal translocal ties to institutions, such as the DOAE, are frequent sources of support. Local capital is not only less frequent among better-off households than among poor households, but also more bridging in nature. Local bridging ties are particularly frequent in terms of labor. Unlike poor households, which lack access to financial sources, better-off households can draw on hired wage laborers and paid agricultural service provid-ers as a flexible and efficient source of labor required for planting and harvesting cash crops. In terms of advice, a relatively higher share and importance of local bridging ties underlines rich households’

networking capacities with local peers (e.g. other rich farmers) and institutional representatives (e.g. village head).

Contextualizing these networks patterns with literature on rural livelihoods and rural transfor-mation in Northeast Thailand, the authors conclude, that better-off households benefit more from their more abundant and diverse translocal network capital than poor households do. The plight of the poor, the authors argue, results not only from a limited availability of translocal bridging capital, but also from a one-sided reliance on migration-related translocal bonding ties in combination with less effective local bridging capital. Against this backdrop, the authors call for a more nuanced con-ceptualization of the spatially and functionally diversified nature of rural households’ network capi-tal in mobile and translocally connected societies of developing and emerging countries.

5.3 Structural features of and key actors in agricultural innovation networks (Article III) The assessment of translocal innovation networks (Article III) yields information on agricultural changes (over a time span of 5 yeas) and related advice-sharing networks regarding sugarcane and rice farming in a selected study site in Northeast Thailand. Quantitative network data comprises in-formation on tie distribution and composition and structural features, actor roles, and actor attrib-utes. Quantitative data is triangulated with qualitative information from semi-structured key-informant interviews in order to gain a deeper understanding of innovation processes and related innovation systems.

In quantitative terms, tie composition and distribution suggests that the local level is the major source of agricultural advice. Local advice is shared through sparse networks of strong ties between local farming peers. Nevertheless, advice sharing is far from being self-contained, as the considerable share of translocal advice regarding particular agricultural changes suggests.

Regarding the characteristics of translocal advice, network analysis reveals that translocal advice is mostly state- and market-related, whereas migration-related translocal advice plays a minor role in quantitative terms. Formal translocal ties with institutional representatives (e.g. staff of the Depart-ment of Agricultural Extension (DOAE) or private companies) account for the majority of translocal advice and, characteristically, are mostly weak. Informal translocal ties with individual actors (e.g.

migrating household members and relatives) account for a limited share of translocal advice and are equally strong and weak.

In more detail, the analysis of network features and involved key actors shows that, albeit limited in frequency, translocal ties can make difference, depending on the agricultural change and the related innovation system under study. As the spread of sugarcane farming in the study site demonstrates, in sparse but highly centralized translocal innovations networks in which translocal advice is driven by extension services and brokered by central and influential elite farmers, translocal innovation trans-fers can facilitate rapid agricultural change.

In less effectively structured translocal innovation networks too, such as the rice network, particular key actors can make a difference. As the shift towards rice broadcasting and cutting as well as the case of specialty rice farming demonstrate, translocal innovation transfers can materialize, if particu-larly boundary-spanning individuals broker advice between translocal and local levels. Even in the absence of boundary-spanning individuals, translocal innovation transfers can materialize, if return migrants pass on their embodied migration experience to local peers (either actively through advice sharing or passively through observation).

Finally, the analysis of qualitative data derived from semi-structured interviews points to the rele-vance of context. Sophisticated agricultural innovations, as observed in sugarcane farming, are only viable in the context of market developments and market infrastructure, regulating policies, and formalized agricultural extension support. As the analysis of innovations in rice farming suggests, migration-related innovation transfers are likely to be limited to incremental adaptive changes that are geared towards limited household resources and that are compatible with social practices of farming. This way migration-related innovation flows enable farmers that are potentially overlooked by formal extension systems to innovate. The viability of such migration-related innovation transfers, however, depends on the type of migration and the agro-ecological context of the area of destination.

In providing a detailed understanding of structural features of advice sharing, key actors involved and framing conditions of translocal innovation transfers, the findings enrich the ongoing discussion on the role of translocal networks in agricultural innovation. While underlying the relevance of trans-local innovation transfers, this study also challenges overly simplistic conceptualizations of social remittances as a driver of agriculture change.