IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v8y2019i3p103-d217375.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Approach to Understand Rural Advisory Services in a Decentralised Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Julien Lamontagne-Godwin

    (CABI, Surrey TW20 9TY, UK
    School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AH, UK)

  • Peter Dorward

    (School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AH, UK)

  • Irshad Ali

    (CABI, Satellite Town, P.O. Box 8, Rawalpindi, Pakistan)

  • Naeem Aslam

    (CABI, Satellite Town, P.O. Box 8, Rawalpindi, Pakistan)

  • Sarah Cardey

    (School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AH, UK)

Abstract

As populations increase, so do the challenges in feeding the world. Rural Advisory Services (RAS) contribute positively to food security by ensuring rural populations have access to vital knowledge increasing yields and rural incomes. For historical reasons however, national RAS have often developed into complex networks of stakeholders which can confuse, and even in some cases provide conflicting advice. In order to improve internal and external knowledge of an advisory service, this article investigates the benefits and limitations of an approach that combines qualitative and quantitative stakeholder perception activities at a local and national level. Local and national workshops were held using focus group and open fora techniques in order to portray and visualise a crop health advisory system in Pakistan, a dynamic and complex case study. The approach manages to expose key differences between local and national perceptions of a crop health RAS: whilst both local and national workshop participants decidedly agree on the importance of local (provincial and district level) extension departments, local perceptions clearly identified the strength and value of private sector and community level interactions. At the national workshop, interpretations of ground level activities were vague, yet their mentions of microcredit initiatives, large scale Non-Government Organisation activities and semi-autonomous institutions demonstrate knowledge at a different scale. This approach demonstrates the value of an accessible methodology to measure and understand RAS. Whilst this approach is a key component in assessing the system’s dynamism prior to any future development initiative, it needs to refine its integration of gendered perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Julien Lamontagne-Godwin & Peter Dorward & Irshad Ali & Naeem Aslam & Sarah Cardey, 2019. "An Approach to Understand Rural Advisory Services in a Decentralised Setting," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:8:y:2019:i:3:p:103-:d:217375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/3/103/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/3/103/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shahbaz, Babar & Ali, Tanvir & Suleri, Abid Q., 2011. "Dilemmas and challenges in forest conservation and development interventions: Case of Northwest Pakistan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 473-478, July.
    2. Autio, Erkko & Kenney, Martin & Mustar, Philippe & Siegel, Don & Wright, Mike, 2014. "Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1097-1108.
    3. Khalid Chauhan, 2014. "Gender Inequality in the Public Sector in Pakistan," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-42647-5, October.
    4. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2015. "The State of Food Insecurity in the World Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress," Working Papers id:7595, eSocialSciences.
    5. Rashid Amjad & G. M. Arif & Usman Mustafa, 2008. "Does the Labor Market Structure Explain Differences in Poverty in Rural Punjab?," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 13(Special E), pages 139-162, September.
    6. Julie Ingram, 2008. "Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(3), pages 405-418, September.
    7. Amber Peterman & Agnes Quisumbing & Julia Behrman & Ephraim Nkonya, 2011. "Understanding the Complexities Surrounding Gender Differences in Agricultural Productivity in Nigeria and Uganda," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(10), pages 1482-1509.
    8. Nelson, Richard R. & Nelson, Katherine, 2002. "Technology, institutions, and innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 265-272, February.
    9. Nagrah, Aatika & Chaudhry, Anita M. & Giordano, Mark, 2016. "Collective Action in Decentralized Irrigation Systems: Evidence from Pakistan," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 282-298.
    10. Wahid, Abdul & Ahmad, Muhammad Shakil & Abu Talib, Noraini Bt. & Shah, Iqtidar Ali & Tahir, Muhammad & Jan, Farzand Ali & Saleem, Muhammad Qaiser, 2017. "Barriers to empowerment: Assessment of community-led local development organizations in Pakistan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1361-1370.
    11. John B. Casterline & John Bongaarts & John Cleland & Kazuyo Machiyama, 2017. "The Challenges Posed by Demographic Change in sub-Saharan Africa: A Concise Overview," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 43, pages 264-286, May.
    12. Laurens Klerkx & Karin Grip & Cees Leeuwis, 2006. "Hands off but Strings Attached: The Contradictions of Policy-induced Demand-driven Agricultural Extension," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(2), pages 189-204, June.
    13. Robert Newcombe, 2003. "From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 841-848.
    14. Nuno Carvalho & Luísa Carvalho & Sandra Nunes, 2015. "A methodology to measure innovation in European Union through the national innovation system," International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(2), pages 159-180.
    15. Solveig Danielsen & Frank B. Matsiko, 2016. "Using a plant health system framework to assess plant clinic performance in Uganda," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(2), pages 345-359, April.
    16. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julien Lamontagne-Godwin & Peter Dorward & Naeem Aslam & Sarah Cardey, 2019. "Analysing Support towards Inclusive and Integrated Rural Advisory Systems," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Alex Koutsouris, 2012. "Exploring the emerging facilitation and brokerage roles for agricultural extension education," Working Papers 2012-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    3. Kinley Dorji & Judith Miller & Shubiao Wu, 2023. "Agricultural Interventions in the Bhutanese Context for Sustainability—A Documentary Analysis Using a Thematic Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Salembier, Chloé & Segrestin, Blanche & Berthet, Elsa & Weil, Benoît & Meynard, Jean-Marc, 2018. "Genealogy of design reasoning in agronomy: Lessons for supporting the design of agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 277-290.
    5. Isaac, Marney E., 2012. "Agricultural information exchange and organizational ties: The effect of network topology on managing agrodiversity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 9-15.
    6. Yang, Huan & Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2014. "Functions and limitations of farmer cooperatives as innovation intermediaries: Findings from China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 115-125.
    7. Bhatt, Brijesh & Singh, Anoop, 2020. "Stakeholders’ role in distribution loss reduction technology adoption in the Indian electricity sector: An actor-oriented approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    8. Abbasi Fatemeh & Esparcia Javier & Saadi Heshmat A., 2019. "From Analysis to Formulation of Strategies for Farm Advisory Services (Case Study: Valencia – Spain). an Application through Swot and Qspm Matrix," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 43-73, March.
    9. Vänninen, Irene & Pereira-Querol, Marco & Engeström, Yrjö, 2015. "Generating transformative agency among horticultural producers: An activity-theoretical approach to transforming Integrated Pest Management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 38-49.
    10. Prost, Lorène & Reau, Raymond & Paravano, Laurette & Cerf, Marianne & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène, 2018. "Designing agricultural systems from invention to implementation: the contribution of agronomy. Lessons from a case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 122-132.
    11. Kilelu, Catherine W. & Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2013. "Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 65-77.
    12. Menary, Jonathan & Collier, Rosemary & Seers, Kate, 2019. "Innovation in the UK fresh produce sector: Identifying systemic problems and the move towards systemic facilitation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Koutsouris, Alex, 2012. "Facilitating Agricultural Innovation Systems: A critical realist approach," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 114(2), pages 1-7, October.
    14. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    15. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    16. María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías & David Rodeiro-Pazos & Sara Fernández-López & Manuel Ángel Nogueira-Moreiras, 2021. "The effect of regional resources on innovation: a firm-centered approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 760-791, June.
    17. Cheng, Cheng-Feng & Chang, Man-Ling & Li, Chu-Shiu, 2013. "Configural paths to successful product innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2561-2573.
    18. Jyh-Wen Shiu & Chan-Yuan Wong & Mei-Chih Hu, 2014. "The dynamic effect of knowledge capitals in the public research institute: insights from patenting analysis of ITRI (Taiwan) and ETRI (Korea)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2051-2068, March.
    19. Leonid Gokhberg & Irina Kouznetsova, 2009. "Innovation in the Russian Economy: Stagnation before Crisis?," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 3(2), pages 28-46.
    20. Loïc Sauce, 2017. "Market process(es) and (un)knowledge," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 30(3), pages 305-321, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:8:y:2019:i:3:p:103-:d:217375. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.