# **3. Study design and context**

The data used in this paper were collected by the Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER) of the University of Ghana and the World Bank during the main rainy season (roughly March to September 2015) in the Mampong Municipal, Ejura Sekyedumasi, Nkoranza South, and Pru districts of Ghana. A random sample of 720 agricultural households was selected from 20 enumeration areas (henceforth denoted as villages) and then randomly assigned to one of three alternative survey designs. All households were administered a baseline survey at the beginning of the season, which collected a roster of plots and household members working in agriculture, and basic demographic and plot-specific information. After the main harvest, households were administered an endline survey, which was modeled after the design of the LSMS-ISA survey series (i.e. a multi-topic household survey with an agricultural production module).<sup>7</sup> In terms of capturing farm labor, the three survey designs differed as follows:

- **A. Weekly visit:** Following the baseline survey in March 2015, these households were visited weekly from April to September 2015, which in turn was followed by the endline survey in October/November 2015. At baseline (visit 0), households reported on the number of days worked and total number of hours worked, per person per plot, since starting preparing the plot for the season. During the season households were visited every week (visits 1-23), and asked to report on the number of hours worked on each day of the past week, per person per plot, and the range of activities (but not hours per activity).<sup>8</sup> At endline (visit 24), households report the total number of days and the average hours per day, per person per plot, since the last weekly visit. The design for this group minimizes recall periods and (mostly) avoids the need for complex aggregations and calculation of averages –farm labor estimates for this group are considered as the benchmark.

- **B. Weekly phone:** The design for this group is essentially the same as for the weekly visit group, what differs is the method of data collection. While households in the weekly visit group received weekly face-to-face visits during the season, households in the weekly phone group received weekly phone calls. The main purpose of this treatment arm was to explore the potential of soliciting high-frequency labor data using phone surveys, as a proof of concept, an aspect of the experiment that will be explored in a companion paper.

- **C. Recall:** For this group, there were no visits between the baseline in March 2015 and the endline in October/November 2015. In the endline survey, the agricultural labor module for this group identified the household members that worked on each of the household’s plots during the season, and for those members, data were collected on (i) total days per person per plot spent across the five activities and (ii) typical hours per day worked per person per plot on each activity. This group hence mimics the way LSMS-ISA and other agricultural surveys collect data on farm labor (see also section 2.2).

> 7 The baseline and endline surveys were timed as per the production calendar of maize, the most important crop in this area.

> 8 We distinguish between five activities - land preparation and planting; weeding; ridging, fertilizing and other nonharvest activities; harvesting; and supervision.

7