Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

Examining Actors in Privately-led Extension in Developing Countries

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige

Hier ansehen

1 von 18 Anzeige

Examining Actors in Privately-led Extension in Developing Countries

Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen

Presented at the 2nd Annual International Conference on Global Food Security. October 14, 2015. By Miguel Gomez, Benjamin Mueller, and Mary Kate Wheeler

Presented at the 2nd Annual International Conference on Global Food Security. October 14, 2015. By Miguel Gomez, Benjamin Mueller, and Mary Kate Wheeler

Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Andere mochten auch (15)

Anzeige

Ähnlich wie Examining Actors in Privately-led Extension in Developing Countries (20)

Aktuellste (20)

Anzeige

Examining Actors in Privately-led Extension in Developing Countries

  1. 1. Examining actors in privately led agricultural extension in developing countries Samyuktha Kannan (Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University) Work with: Mary-Kate Wheeler and Miguel I Gomez (Cornell University) Ben Mueller (University of Illinois and MEAS) Presentation at the 2nd International Conference on Global Food Security Oct 14th 2015 We acknowledge the support of MEAS, USAID in funding this project
  2. 2. 2 I. Context : Trends in Agricultural Extension II. Research objective : A survey of the nature and practices of private actors in agricultural extension III. Discussion of preliminary findings IV. Summary of findings V. Scope for further research Contents :
  3. 3. 3 Context : The Privatization Debate • Role in facilitating agricultural growth by aiding the transition from resource-based to technology-based cultivation. • Importance of public provision of extension • Public Good • Externalities • Infant industry • Information asymmetry • Importance of traditional extension functions • Training and Visit Methodology • Staple crops • Un-sustainability of traditional models of resource transfer • Inadequate funding, incentives and low response rates, coordination with research
  4. 4. 4 • Trends influencing the shift in models of extension delivery: Source: Swanson, FAO 2008 Context : The Privatization Debate
  5. 5. 5 • An analysis of organizational characteristics can help us answer the following questions: • What are the organization’s incentives for undertaking extension? • What are their extension objectives and methods? Are they different from traditional extension? • Who is the target audience? • What is the content of information transferred? • What is the relationship between these trends and macro variables like the socio-economic, political and natural environment? Context : The Privatization Debate
  6. 6. 6 • We examine organizations involved in privately-led extension systems in order to understand various extension strategies and the determinants of performance • Survey of 101 respondents from 4 continents (primarily Africa) • Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services (MEAS) workshop – June 2015 • Survey Sections (1) Organizational structure (2) Partnerships (3) Extension Activities (4) Extension Educator Training (5) Objectives and Outcomes (6) Best Practices Research Objective :
  7. 7. 7 Preliminary Findings Organization Type Implementation and Funding Position on the Value Chain Source of income Geographic Region Private (For Profit) Majority Private Upstream Farmer fee Africa NGO Majority NGO Downstream Membership fee Latin and Central America FBO – Farmer Based Organization Shared Support Private Business Operation Asia and Pacific Social Enterprise Producer Public Revenue North America Research Institution NGO fundraising Public Organization Direct Donations Other Table 1. Organizational Characteristics Studies
  8. 8. 8 45% 37% 7% 5% 5% 1% Organizational Type Private Business Non-profit Organization Farmer Based Organization Social Enterprise Research Institution Public Organization Private (For Profit) NGO Other Upstream 52% 38% 10% Downstream 68% 21% 11% Support 57% 31% 11% Producer 47% 37% 16% Profile of Organizations in the Study Table 1a. Organization type by Value Chain Position 53% organizations reported having more than one position of influence on the value chain
  9. 9. 9 Profile of Organizations in the Study Funding Majority Private Majority NGO Shared Implementation Majority Private 10% 1% 4% Majority NGO 3% 2% 5% Shared 18% 9% 30% Majority of the organizations had equitably shared funding and implementation across multiple actors
  10. 10. 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Technical Assistance Business Development Value Chain Development Financial Assistance Education and Empowerment Nutrition and Food security Natural Resources Management Community Development Humanitarian Relief Research and Development Proportionoforganizationsinvolved Fig 1: Extension Functions by Organization Type Private NGO Total A larger proportion of NGOs tend to include broader extension objectives Analysis of extension strategies: Extension Functions
  11. 11. 11 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Field Demos Farmer Field Schools Lead Farmer Approach Provision of inputs Participatory Research F2F network F2B network Producer Groups Contract Farming Financial Services Linking farmers to markets Business development ICTs Proportionoforganizationsinvolved Fig 2. Extension Methods Used by Organization Type Private NGO Total However, businesses tend to adopt more non-conventional tactics Analysis of extension strategies: Extension Methods
  12. 12. 12 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Targets smallholder farmers (<5a) Targets women and youth Targets leaders and educators Targets owners of livestock Targets staple crops Targets international markets only Proportionoforganizationsinvolved Fig 4. Selected Inclusiveness Indicators by Organization Type Private NGO Other Total There are no major differences in selected inclusiveness Analysis of extension strategies: Inclusiveness
  13. 13. 13 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Increase productivity Improve product quality Increase market access Provide reliable supply Improve quality of life for farmer Better environmental management Better farm business management Technology adoption Reduce poverty Improvements for marginalized groups Successful Overall Proportionoforganizationswithverygoodsuccess Fig 5. Self Reported Performance by Organization Type Private NGO Total Private businesses report higher instances of achievement of extension targets but the proportion of these conducting external evaluations is much lower than among NGOs Analysis of extension strategies: Performance
  14. 14. 14 Stated Goal/Outcome Basis of differences: Increase productivity - Majority Private funding, + Majority Private Implementation Improve product quality + Downstream, ++ Majority Private Implementation Increase market access - - Majority NGO Implementation Provide reliable supply ++ Majority Private Implementation Improve quality of life for farmer + Support Table 2. Other areas where statistically significant differences occur in performance Analysis of extension strategies: Performance
  15. 15. 15 Stated Goal/Outcome Basis of differences: Better environmental management - Majority NGO Implementation Better farm business management - Shared Implementation, - Majority NGO Funding Technology adoption + Upstream, + Majority NGO Implementation Reduce poverty + Majority Private Implementation, Improvements for marginalized groups + Shared Implementation, ++ Majority NGO funding, Successful Overall (very good performance in more than 50% of targets) - Producer, + Support Analysis of extension strategies: Performance Table 2. Contd
  16. 16. 16 Private Business Control • Prime Strengths • Use of non-traditional extension methods • Use of ICTs • Prime Weaknesses • Little external evaluation NGO Control • Prime Strengths • Broader extension objectives • Prime Weaknesses • Lagging behind in use of newer methods Partnerships and shared control • Prime Strengths • Traditional extension with better performance • Prime Weaknesses • Need to broaden extension objectives to keep up with NGOs Summary of Findings
  17. 17. 17 Scope for Further Research • Determinants of performance • Econometric Model • Use of objective rather than self reported measures of performance and impact • Hypotheses for future research: • Lack of support for the inclusiveness argument • NGO extension pitfalls – similarity to public extension • Influence on input/product/crop choice of farmers – potential impacts on nutrition and ecology • Suggestions based on preliminary findings • External evaluation of private extension • The need for regulating and developing NGO potential • The case for collaboration in agricultural extension systems • Target livestock, educators
  18. 18. 18 Questions & Comments Acknowledgement MEAS Tata Cornell Initiative (TCi) Samyuktha Kannan ssk265@cornell.edu

×