quickly in the first several weeks, eventually reaching roughly double the initial figure. In contrast, the recall-surveyed households were asked at the end of the season to report on the household members who were working on each of the household plots; they reported an average of 2.8 workers per household. Figure 3 indicates that there are differences in the rates of increase by traits. Thus, women show a steeper curve, indicating that they tended not to be reported at the baseline, but were subsequently working on the plot during the season. Table 10 shows that, nonetheless, women were not systematically forgotten, except, perhaps, to a small degree in the recall ALT.

Second, although a person, by survey design, may not be more or less likely to be reported because of her or his gender, there is evidence that children, who may be less important in household farm production and who may be expected to be marginalized within the household, are more likely to be forgotten.

Third, there is little difference across arms of the study in those who self-identify as farmers, whereas we might expect that people who identify farming as their livelihood would be less likely to be forgotten in end-of-season surveys. Indeed, the share of farmers is statistically significantly larger in the recall ALT group than in the weekly visit data. However, given that most household members in the sample—whether identifying as farmers or not—are active in agricultural work, this occupational designation may have little practical meaning.

Finally, we look to actual work patterns to uncover the types of household members who may be underrepresented in the recall surveys. While the average number of household members working for an above-mean number of weeks is 1.7 in weekly visit households and 1.8 in weekly phone households, these data are much closer to but still somewhat lower than the 2.8 workers per household reported in recall surveys. Table 10 shows this finding more straightforwardly. Those who work infrequently during the season are dramatically underrepresented whether at the personplot-day level or the person-day level. For instance, according to the recall NPS, 13 percent of the household labor force works fewer than 10 days per person-plot, while weekly visit surveys report that 56 percent of household workers fall within this category. The total seasonal hours reported in weekly visit and weekly phone interviews that correspond to work for an above-mean number of weeks are similar to the number of hours reported in recall surveys overall (not reported), adding to support for the idea that those who work infrequently are likelier to be forgotten in recall surveys. Because of the paucity of person-plot weeks and days outlined in table 3 and because of the wide spacing of work events they suggest, the work schedules of people who work infrequently are almost certainly highly irregular and difficult both to remember and to make inferences about. Accordingly, it may be that the bulk of household members whom recall-surveyed households remember to report as active in agriculture are those who make large or consistent labor contributions during the season; meanwhile, there appears to be a subset of workers—perhaps those working little, infrequently, or irregularly—who risk being forgotten.

Here (by forgetting), as in the case of the mismeasurement of working time (by inference), it appears that the lack of a typical pattern of work serves to make end-of-season surveys more 18