284 Communities and Social Capital
these marginal areas. Compared with the HCN, those groups are characterized by
closer social connectedness, because participants have a clear innovation objective,
and tend to share production tools and managerial responsibilities. Many phe-
nomena are addressed by these groups, including collaborative buying, group
orchards, tobacco and herb plantations, and joint investment for machinery. Such
focused group learning is often driven by a central household who takes charge of
innovation initiatives, organization and harmony.
One example is Wang’s vegetable production group, which now accounts for
about half of the village’s vegetable production for the county market. This is one
of three informal groups within the village. They are the most successful because
Mr Wang was a pioneer in adopting and improving greenhouse techniques for
vegetable production, as well as promoting a volunteer organization for innovation
diffusion. As a result, his greenhouse has become both a free ‘training school’ and
an ‘experimental plot’ for new technology, which attracted a large number of his
neighbours and outside farmers. During the long and very cold winters, more than
20 people regularly assemble in Mr Wang’s house for discussions and celebratory
meals. As a result, a stable cooperative relationship has emerged among partici-
pants, which Mr. Wang oversees as ‘leader’, while his greenhouse is referred to as
‘xiao tian di’, meaning a small but very convenient place like a warm family.
Not limited to greenhouse or vegetable production, innovation groups are very
common for cash cropping which relies on frequent communication, intensive
labour and management inputs. However, it would be wrong to assume that all
groups are similar to Wang’s group. Some innovation groups are dominated by
kinship, in which non-family neighbours are absorbed but are distant from group
decision making. The next case indicates an important fact: technology diffusion
in the marginal areas is not always determined by the factor of ‘physical distance’
but sometimes by ‘social distance’, in which social connectedness again plays a key
role.
Two remote villages are close to each other (only 3km apart). Village A has a
strong advantage in apple orchards, as all residents have established their own
orchard to share knowledge from an expert living in the same village. By contrast,
the neighbouring village B had just begun to develop orchards (three households
only). Surprisingly, the technical sources in village B were not from nearby village
A, but from a distant village C in another township (10km away). This inefficient
technology transfer was mainly because of two factors: (i) the scale demand for
services from villagers – seldom would a graft technician go to a village if the scale
of the orchard was too small (less than 5mu); (ii) the price of the graft service – the
normal price of 6 yuan per tree was too expensive for most of the farmers in Village
B. Village B might not have adopted apples had not a farmer’s relative (brother-in-
law) resident in village C offered a cheap service (only 2 yuan per tree).
Several conclusions can be drawn from the field findings. First, the physical
environment influences but is not the sole determinant of household innovation
capacity. Beyond the conventional extension system, there are many types of farmer
innovation circles existing in marginal areas, through which the poor join together