- 14 -


what some have called a "technological gap." This "technological gap" is seen

by the governmental change agents as a potential source.of higher productivity;

but despite efforts to close this "gap," the farmers have not adopted the new

technology.

 In such typical situations, resistances to adoption tend to fall into

three broad categories:

 (1) those which revolve around the farmers themselves;

 (2) those which are associated with the technology or innovation itself;

 (3) those which are external both to the farmer and the innovation but

which are situational, environmental, or institutional [Hsieh and Ruttan, 1967].

 In examining each category, two careful distinctions must be kept in mind:

 First, a careful distinction must be made among the different viewers of

the phenomena in question, especially between the farmer and the change agent.

 Second, an equally important distinction is best seen as the difference

between "subjective perception" and "objective reality."

 The "objective reality" may be that a new technology will increase yields

by 25 per cent with a 95 per cent probability, but the "subjective perception"

of the new technology may be a 15 per cent increase in yield with only a 75 per

cent probability. It should be emphasized that there is no reason why the

"objective reality" could not in fact be higher than the "subjective perception"

in various cases.

 When these two distinctions are joined, one can readily see the divergences

which can take place when a new innovation is being promoted and

is being considered. A hypothetical example is given in Table 1 on rice yields

per hectare with a new technology. Let us assume that the outsider in this

case is the extension agent. His subjective perception of the new technology

is a yield per hectare of 5.4 metric tons and a probability of 95 per cent but