IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2129.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agricultural extension - generic challenges and the ingredients for solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Feder, Gershon
  • Willett, Anthony
  • Zijp, Willem

Abstract

Is agricultural extension in developing countries up to the task of providing the information, ideas, and organization needed to meet food needs? What role should governments play in implementing or facilitating extension services? Roughly 80 percent of the world's extension is publicly funded and delivered by civil servants, providing a range of services to the farming population, commercial producers, and disadvantaged target groups. Budgetary constraints and concerns about performance create pressure to show the payoff on investment in extension and to explore alternatives to publicly providing it. The authors analyze the challenges facing policymakers who must decide what role governments should play in implementing or facilitating extension services. Focusing on developing country experience, they identify generic challenges that make it difficult to organize extension: a) The magnitude of the task. b) Dependence on wider policy and other agency functions. c) Problems in identifying the cause and effect needed to enable accountability and to get political support and funding. d) Liability for public service functions beyond the transfer of agricultural knowledge and information. e) Fiscal sustainability. f) Inadequate interaction with knowledge generators. The authors show how various extension approaches were developed in attempts to overcome the challenges of extension: 1) Improving extension management. 2) Decentralizing. 3) Focusing on single commodities. 4) Providing free-for-service public extension services. 5) Establishing institutional pluralism. 6) Empowering people by using participatory approaches. 7) Using appropriate media. Each of the approaches has weaknesses and strengths, and in their analysis the authors identify the ingredients that show promise. Rural people know when something is relevant and effective. The aspects of agricultural extension services that tend to be inherently low cost and build reciprocal, mutually trusting relationships are those most likely to produce commitment, accountability, political support, fiscal sustainability, and the kinds of effective interaction that generate knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Feder, Gershon & Willett, Anthony & Zijp, Willem, 1999. "Agricultural extension - generic challenges and the ingredients for solutions," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2129, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:2129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/09/14/000094946_99060905321332/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fernando Lopez & Alessandro Maffioli, 2008. "Technology Adoption, Productivity and Specialization of Uruguayan Breeders: Evidence from an Impact Evaluation," OVE Working Papers 0708, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    2. Eduardo Nakasone & Maximo Torero, 2016. "A text message away: ICTs as a tool to improve food security," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(S1), pages 49-59, November.
    3. Pedro Cerdán-Infantes & Alessandro Maffioli & Diego Ubfal, 2008. "The Impact of Agricultural Extension Services: The Case of Grape Production in Argentina," OVE Working Papers 0508, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    4. Hu, Ruifa & Cai, Yaqing & Chen, Kevin Z. & Huang, Jikun, 2012. "Effects of inclusive public agricultural extension service: Results from a policy reform experiment in western China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 962-974.
    5. Birthal, Pratap S. & Kumar, Shiv & Negi, Digvijay S. & Roy, Devesh, 2015. "The Impact of Information on Returns from Farming," Policy Papers 345005, ICAR National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NIAP).
    6. Veronica González & Pablo Ibarrarán & Alessandro Maffioli & Sandra Rozo, 2009. "The Impact of Technology Adoption on Agricultural Productivity: The Case of the Dominican Republic," OVE Working Papers 0509, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    7. Cook, Brian R. & Satizábal, Paula & Curnow, Jayne, 2021. "Humanising agricultural extension: A review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    8. Annemie Maertens & Hope Michelson & Vesall Nourani, 2021. "How Do Farmers Learn from Extension Services? Evidence from Malawi," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 569-595, March.
    9. 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.

    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. Anderson, Kim B. & Mapp, Harry P., Jr., 1996. "Risk Management Programs In Extension," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Praneetvatakul, Suwanna & Waibel, Hermann, 2006. "Impact Assessment of Farmer Field School Using A Multi-Period Panel Data Model," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25499, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Mackinnon, John & Reinikka, Ritva, 2000. "Lessons from Uganda on strategies to fight poverty," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2440, The World Bank.
    5. Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Gulati, Kajal, 2015. "Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers' demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 223-251.
    6. Torres Franco, Nicolás Arturo & Dávalos, Eleonora & Morales, Leonardo Fabio, 2021. "Heterogeneous Effects of Agricultural Technical Assistance in Colombia," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 459-481, November.
    7. Mwambi, Mercy & Depenbusch, Lutz & Bonnarith, Uon & Sotelo-Cardona, Paola & Kieu, Khemrin & di Tada, Nicolas & Srinivasan, Ramasamy & Schreinemachers, Pepijn, 2023. "Can phone text messages promote the use of integrated pest management? A study of vegetable farmers in Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    8. Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Riesgo, Laura & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel, 2003. "Multi-Criteria Analysis Of Factors Use Level: The Case Of Water For Irrigation," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25836, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Parton, Kevin A., 2009. "Agricultural Decision Analysis: The Causal Challenge," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48150, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Rasmussen, Svend, 2003. "Criteria for optimal production under uncertainty. The state-contingent approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-30.
    11. Berg, Ernst & Starp, Michael, 2006. "Farm Level Risk Assessment Using Downside Risk Measures," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25400, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Hammida, Mustapha & Eidman, Vernon R., 1991. "Livestock And Poultry Production Risk In The United States," Staff Papers 14016, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    13. Gempesaw, Conrado M., II & Tambe, A.M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C., 1988. "The Single Index Market Model In Agriculture," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-9, October.
    14. Musser, Wesley N. & Tew, Bernard V., 1984. "Use Of Biophysical Simulation In Production Economics," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, July.
    15. J.C. Flinn & S. Jayasuriya & C.G. Knight, 1980. "Incorporating Multiple Objectives In Planning Models Of Low‐Resource Farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 24(1), pages 35-45, April.
    16. Bennett, Anne L. & Pannell, David J., 1998. "Economic evaluation of a weed-activated sprayer for herbicide application to patchy weed populations," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1-20.
    17. Gollin, Douglas, 2006. "Impacts of International Research on Intertemporal Yield Stability in Wheat and Maize: An Economic Assessment," Impact Studies 7657, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    18. Sinden, Jack A., 1978. "Estimation Of Consumer'S Surplus Values For Land Policies," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 22(2-3), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Munir Ahmad & Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry & Mohammad Iqbal, 2002. "Wheat Productivity, Efficiency, and Sustainability: A Stochastic Production Frontier Analysis," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 41(4), pages 643-663.
    20. Lajili, Kaouthar & Barry, Peter J. & Sonka, Steven T. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 1997. "Farmers' Preferences For Crop Contracts," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-17, December.

    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:wbk:wbrwps:2129. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    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.