Translocal networks and adaptive capacity

rice broadcasting. As the technique of rice broadcasting and, related to this, the technique of rice cutting, were introduced in an experimental trial-and-error fashion, the author considers them to be an expression of adaptive rather than coping capacity.

On a more abstract level, the decisions to implement particular agricultural changes could be inter-preted in terms of coping with peer pressure (Foster and Rosenzweig 1995; Monge et al. 2008). As reported by interviewees, peer pressure in the form of persuasion and social influence is relevant in the context of cash-crop farming. For the case of sugarcane farming, successful sugarcane farmers (mostly larger-scale farmers) are role models for smaller-scale farmers, who are tempted to adopt sugarcane for the sake of quick and easy cash income. As patterns of translocal innovation networks suggest, adoption decisions driven by peer pressure are more likely to be facilitated through local ties, in particular strong local ties.

This assertion corresponds with critical voices blaming public extension programs for their low effi-ciency and a one-sided top-down approach resulting in a lack of ownership among farmers (Bryant and Gray 2005; Fielding and Aung 2018).In contrast, the high importance of translocal bonding ties with migrating household members and relatives is in line with studies underlining the role of migra-tion-related social remittances in adaptive capacity, for example as a source of ideas and knowledge about agricultural crops and practices. However, at the same time, their limited frequency supports the notion that migration-related social remittances, in the rural areas of Northeast Thailand, are the exception rather than the norm (Peth and Sakdapolrak 2020b).

The innovation network perspective

Looking at adaptive capacity from the perspective of translocal innovation networks (Article III) pro-vides a more nuanced understanding of the role of translocal networks in agricultural change. While reiterating the role of local networks of knowledge creation and social learning (Genilo 2007), find-ings from research into innovation networks highlight the relevance of translocal innovation trans-fers, and provide a structural understanding of how and under what conditions translocal networks are driving agricultural innovation processes.

Translocal innovation transfers are particularly effective in the context of highly centralized net-works. The assessed advice-sharing network on sugarcane represents a typical example of a central-ized extension-driven innovation system, in which top-down innovation flows are mediated through mostly weak and formalized translocal ties between extension staff and elite farmers acting as trans-local brokers and role models in strong trans-local networks (Fielding and Aung 2018). Given its sparse but effective structure (Isaac 2012), the sugarcane network fosters rapid translocal innovation flows and, consequently, the rapid shift from small-scale rice farming to extensive sugarcane farming. The spread of sugarcane farming, however, cannot be simply interpreted as an expression of adaptive capacity, understood as the ability to learn and to take measures in order to mitigate future problem.

Instead, it is more likely that farmers’ decisions to change from rice to sugarcane farming are influ-enced by a combination of social learning in networks (Conley and Udry 2001), the accommodation to social pressure (Foster and Rosenzweig 1995; Monge et al. 2008), and economic and political in-centives (Feder et al. 1985; Feder and Umali 1993).

The shift towards sugarcane production has to be explained against the backdrop of international market developments and national policies promoting the production of bio-energy as an attempt to reduce Thailand’s dependency on rice production. This includes the introduction of market price regulations, the promotion of processing facilities, and the professionalization of agricultural exten-sion services (Fielding and Aung 2018; Pipitpukdee et al. 2020). Sugarcane farming requires high up-front investments (for labor, inputs, and machinery), and, in order to be economically viable, requires economies of scale. This is the reason why better-off households with sufficient land and means of investment are more likely to be involved in large-scale sugarcane farming. However, as network analysis reveals, adoption rates are also high among small-scale farmers. This broad innovation spread is possible because, at the local level, centrally positioned large-scale farmers provide incen-tives for small-scale farmers to adopt sugarcane. Large-scale farmers not only enact peer pressure as role models, but actively outsource production to small-scale farmers in order to fulfill their own quotas with sugarcane factories. A further reason that explains the adoption rate among small-scale farmers lies in the fact that larger-scale farmers not only offer seed and inputs, but in some cases also take over the whole process of planting and harvesting, and thereby reduce costs and risks for in-volved smallholders.

While innovations in sugarcane farming are primarily driven by market development and policies and are facilitated through extension and local elite farmers, migration-related innovations play a

minor role. A different picture is revealed for rice farming. Migration-related translocal innovation transfers do matter in rice farming. As network analysis reveals, not only is translocal advice on changes in rice faming more frequent and provided by a more diverse set of actors at different geo-graphical scales; translocal advice on changes in rice farming is also more equally received by local farmers of different socio-economic statuses. The observed shift from transplanting rice to broad-casting rice in combination with the application of rice-cutting techniques serves and an illustrative example of how return migrants can act as incubators of agricultural change, even in the absence of direct translocal advice sharing, through the mechanism of observation. Early adopters of broadcast-ing and cuttbroadcast-ing gained inspiration for changbroadcast-ing rice-farmbroadcast-ing practices from observbroadcast-ing farmers in other regions of Thailand during migration, but did not seek translocal adoption or implementation advice from them. As return migrants implemented the observed agricultural practice in a trial-and-error fashion, the spread of rice broadcasting and rice cutting, can hence be interpreted as an exam-ple of a bottom-up innovation that underlines the role of local farmers’ creative potential in agricul-tural innovation (Genilo 2007).

Although broadcasting rice comes at the cost of relatively lower productivity (particularly if applied by hand) and intensified weed growth, the shift from transplanting to broadcasting rice is attractive to small-scale farmers, as it significantly reduces time and labor costs (Genilo 2007). Broadcasting can also be applied on plots that lack sufficient irrigation due to variable rainfall patterns. The tech-nique of rice cutting helps to control weed growth and, if applied properly, improves yields while reducing the need for herbicides on broadcasted fields. In combination, broadcasting and rice cutting can be considered as an adaptive strategy, which on the one hand accommodates rice farming to an ageing farming population and the lack of agricultural labor, and on the other hand helps to adapt to variable rainfall patterns, reduces the ecological footprint of rice farming, and increases food safety.

Considering the multiplicity of barriers potentially hampering the transfer of social remittances (Peth and Sakdapolrak 2020b), how can the migration-related knowledge transfer around rice broadcast-ing and rice cuttbroadcast-ing be explained? For migration to induce agricultural change, it has been argued, knowledge acquired during migration needs to be applicable to the local context of smallholder farm-ing systems (Peth and Sakdapolrak 2020b). For applicable knowledge to lead to the decision to adop-tion new crops or practices, farmers need to be able and willing to invest and take risks. As small-holder farmers are confronted with multiple and complex risk contexts, however, they tend to bal-ance livelihood risks for their agricultural activities (Eitzinger et al. 2018; Binder and Schöll 2010).

In particular for Northeast Thailand, it has been shown that households with less favorable socio-economic standing tend to rely on financial remittances for sustaining agricultural activities rather than taking the risk of changing agricultural activities (Porst and Sakdapolrak 2020).

An important reason why return migrants have been successfully in facilitating the adoption of broadcasting and rice cutting techniques among local farmers in the study site lies in the fact that these techniques do not require high up-front investments, are independent of extension or market-ing infrastructure, can be implemented gradually alongside existmarket-ing practices of rice farmmarket-ing, and are adaptable to locally specific agro-ecological conditions. According to these attributes, rice broadcast-ing and rice cuttbroadcast-ing can be defined as incremental innovations. Incremental innovations increase functional capacity through small-scale improvements and enhance competence by extending exist-ing skills (Henderson and Clark 1990; Kaine et al. 2008). A further advantage of rice broadcastexist-ing and rice cutting is the fact that these techniques can be explored in a trial-and-error fashion and can be easily imitated by observing neighboring peers, and hence, do not necessitate active advice-seeking. This latter fact is of particular relevance, since farmers in the research study site prefer to observe their peers rather than actively seeking advice.