Getting information to agricultural communities in Viet Nam: the role of social networks

Development programmes try to improve the spread of agricultural information by involving communities in extension practices. Participation alone cannot ensure success, however. Programmes must consider the social networks that influence access to information and reflect the power relations in rural communities.

Village communities have complex social networks. Thesecan be described as ‘social capital’, which support, control and provide accessto benefits such as agricultural information. Successfully getting informationto all community members requires an understanding of these social networks,especially in less developed rural communities. Research from the University ofEast Anglia in the UK uses a case study from northViet Nam to explore how social networks influence access to agriculturalinformation.

In Phieng Liengvillage, Viet Nam, government extension workers usually pass agricultural informationonto farming communities. Such systems have been criticised for not reachingpoorer farmers, as ‘contact’ farmers are usually local leaders and wealthierfarmers. Formal agricultural extension systems may not benefit the majority offarming households directly, but information runs through informal channels,such as networks of kinsmen, neighbours and friends. This is of criticalimportance to farming activities. The research shows:

• Only 27 of 73 respondents knew who was in chargeof agriculture and forestry in their community; only local leaders knew theextension worker.
• Half the respondents had never participated inextension activities; 28 percent had taken courses two to seven times. Thesepeople were mostly local government workers and their families.
• Extension services provided by large companiesand non-governmental organisations are also important, with 30 percent ofrespondents crediting such projects with increased income.
• Kinship networks are vital for accessinginformation: half the respondents attending training discussed it withrelatives.
• Neighbour networks are also significant inspreading technological innovations.

Participatory approaches have tried to bring more localpeople into agricultural extension, but these fail to consider differenceswithin communities, such as age, economic situation, religion, class, ethnicityand gender. Phieng Liengremains community-oriented, with most farming business discussed withinfamilies, including with spouses, and advice is also taken from local leaders.

The authors classify Phieng Lieng into Type A, B and C households, based on ahousehold’s ability to meet rice needs from paddy land:

• Type A includes self-sufficient,long-established, influential households with strong and extensive networks.
• Type B households make up half the village; theydo other work to support farming (such as local government) and may be relatedto Type A households.
• Type C households are mainly recent immigrantsor locals from unimportant families, with few resources and weak networks.

Most villagers consult Type A and B households, thoughthey may get information from young, educated Type C members who work for localgovernment. There is a correlation between household socioeconomic status andaccess to information, with Type C members often missing out.

Extension agents must appreciate the important role ofsocial networks, and how they work, to successfully reach their intendedbeneficiaries. It may be easier to reach Type A and B farmers, but they may notpass information on to those who most need it. Extension workers need tounderstand community dynamics and focus on reaching poorer, Type C groups.