Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 309-322 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Public Administration and Development |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Publication status | Published - 9 Oct 2002 |
Abstract
This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost-effectiveness and prospective cost-benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost-effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start-up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)
- Development
- Social Sciences(all)
- Public Administration
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Public Administration and Development, Vol. 22, No. 4, 09.10.2002, p. 309-322.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Transforming top-down agricultural extension to a participatory system
T2 - A study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt
AU - Fleischer, Gerd
AU - Waibel, Hermann
AU - Walter-Echols, Gerd
PY - 2002/10/9
Y1 - 2002/10/9
N2 - This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost-effectiveness and prospective cost-benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost-effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start-up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes.
AB - This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost-effectiveness and prospective cost-benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost-effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start-up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036774061&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/pad.233
DO - 10.1002/pad.233
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0036774061
VL - 22
SP - 309
EP - 322
JO - Public Administration and Development
JF - Public Administration and Development
SN - 0271-2075
IS - 4
ER -