Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PRIVATIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
SYSTEM IN THE PUNJAB, PAKISTAN: A SWOT ANALYSIS
By
Shoukat Ali 97-ag-1208
M.Sc. (Hons) Agri. Extension
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
Department of Agricultural Extension
DIVISION OF EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD
2009
Dedication
I dedicated my humble effort
to
“MY MOTHER”
Whose prayers develop the strength in me to
achieve the goal of life
I I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All acclamation and appreciation are for “Almighty Allah”, the most
beneficent, the merciful, whose blessings flourished my thoughts to have the
cherish fruit of my modest efforts in the form of this manuscript from the
blossoming knowledge. Also, the praises and thanks are for Holy Prophet
Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) who is forever a model of guidance for
humanity without whose guidance we are nothing. This manuscript is not an
outcome of sole effort. Many names are worth mentioning in this regard. I would
like to explicit my profound appreciation to my worthy Supervisor Dr. Munir
Ahmad, Associate Professor, and Chairman, Department of Agricultural
Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, under whose inspiring
supervision, valuable guidance, constructive criticism, I reached to undertake the
completion of this work and as a matter of fact, without his help and guidance it
would have been really difficult for me to accomplish this task. I am also obliged
to member of my supervisory committee Dr. Tanvir Ali, Professor, Department
of Agricultural Extension, for his trustworthy and friendly kindness, competent
guidance, encouragement and time to time positive criticism. I am also thankful to
the other member of my supervisory committee Dr. M. Iqbal Zafar,
Professor/Dean Faculty of Agri. Economics and Rural Sociology, University of
Agriculture, Faisalabad who guided me for this manuscript. I also acknowledge
the other respected teachers of my department who helped me in any way to
complete this manuscript. No acknowledgement could never adequately express
my feeling about my affectionate and beloved mother, brothers and sisters by
virtue of whose prayers and sacrifices I have been able to reach at this position. I
salute to my father (Late) whose commitment about education inspired me for
higher education. At the end, I would like to express the highest feelings of love
and thanks for my friends, whose encouragement, appreciation, love and heartiest
company facilitate me to fulfill this task.
Shoukat Ali
To
The controller of examinations,
University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad.
We, the member of the Supervisory Committee, certify that the contents and format of
the thesis submitted by Mr. Shoukat Ali, Regd. No. 97-ag-1208 have been found
satisfactory and recommended that it be processed for the evaluation by the External
Examiner (s) for the award of the degree.
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman: __________________________________ (Dr. Munir Ahmad)
Member: __________________________________ (Dr. Tanvir Ali)
Member: __________________________________ (Dr. M. Iqbal Zafar)
I
ABSTRACT
Globally, there is a trend towards privatization due to poor performance of public
extension services. Private agricultural extension system is considered demand-driven,
cost-effective with efficient and quality service. In Pakistan, Privatization of agricultural
extension system was started in 1988 when the then Government of Pakistan established
a commission to look into the causes of poor performance of agricultural sector and
suggest ways to improve its performance. The commission suggested the involvement of
the private sector in reshaping agricultural extension. It was a major policy shift, in which
the supply of inputs was shifted to private sector from public sector. Currently, 320
pesticide companies (private sector) are working in the Punjab. These companies not only
provide pesticide products to the farmers through dealers but also provide advisory
services to them. Privatization experiences in the world had mixed results. In some cases
it has positive results while in other location the results are discouraging. The present
study was conducted to analyze the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for
private extension system in the Pakistani context where the literature is either silent or
scanty about the performance of private sector extension. A cross-sectional research
design was used for the study. The study was carried out in the Punjab province which
comprises five cropping zones, out of which, three zones were selected purposively.
Multistage proportionate sampling technique was used for the selection of respondents. A
sample of 408 respondents was selected (136 from each zone) by using simple random
sampling technique. Sample size was determined by using Fitzgibbon table (Fitzgibbon
& Lynn, 1987). Similarly, a sample of 60 respondents from EFS of Syngenta (Pesticide
Company) were also selected randomly by using the same table. The data were collected
through personal interviews with the help of validated research instrument. The data, thus
collected were analyzed by using computer software (i.e. SPSS). The results showed that
a diagnostic skill of the EFS was strength of the system. Attributes of the EFS i.e.
politeness and good conduct with farmers were also rated as strengths. Group discussion
method was rated as strength of the system. However, subject matter coverage, target
beneficiaries, extension approach and functions, communication, competencies of EFS of
private extension found to be the weakness of the system. Limited opportunities existed
for the demand of advisory services for specific crops at specific location and fee-based
private extension system in the country. Overall it poses threat for the system. There were
great discrepancies observed between the perceptions of the farmers and the EFS about
the same questions. According to the EFS, the system has more strengths as compared to
weaknesses. It is suggested that the steps should be taken to mitigate the weaknesses and
ensure the strengths of the system. Similarly, threats should be converted into
opportunities.
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract I
Acknowledgments II
Table of contents III
List of tables X
List of figures XIV
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Pakistan: An Introduction 1
1.2 Agricultural Economy of Pakistan 3
1.3 Agricultural Extension in Pakistan: A Historical Perspective 5
1.3.1 Pre-Independence period 5
1.3.2 Post-Independence Period 6
1.3.2.1 Village-AID Program 6
1.3.2.2 Basic Democracy System 8
1.3.2.3 Rural Works Program 10
1.3.2.4 Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) 11
1.3.2.5 Training and Visit (T&V) system 13
1.3.2.6 Decentralized Extension System 15
1.4 Criticism of Public Sector Extension: Global Perspective 16
1.5 Criticism of Public Sector Extension: Pakistani context 19
1.6 Emergence of Private Sector Extension in Pakistan 20
1.7 Privatization Experience: Pakistani Context 21
1.8 Need for the Project/Rational for Study 22
1.9.1 General Objective 23
1.9.2 Specific Objectives 23
1.10 Assumptions of the Study 24
1.11 Limitations of the Study 24
IV
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 26
2.1 Importance of Review of Literature 26
2.2 Paradigms of Extension 26
2.2.1 Decentralized Approach 26
2.2.2 Farmer Field School Approach 27
2.2.3 Research-Extension Approach 28
2.2.4 Training and Visit Approach 29
2.2.5 Public-Private Partnership Approach 29
2.2.6 Private Extension through Contract Farming 30
2.3 Need to Reform Public Extension System 32
2.4 Forms of Private Extension System 38
2.5 Types of Advisory Services Provided by Private Extension System
44
2.6 Target Beneficiaries of a Private Extension System 46
2.7 Professional Competency of a Private Extension System 51
2.8 Extension Methods/Channels 52
2.9 Effectiveness of Communication 59
2.10 Attitude and Preferences towards Private Extension System 60
2.10.1 Preferences of Farmers 60
2.10.2 Preferences of Scientists 64
2.10.3 Preferences of Extension Personnel 65
2.11 Demand and Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Advisory Services 66
2.12 Generating Funds for Private Extension System 70
2.13 Technology Adoption through Private Extension Services 73
2.14 Impact of Private Extension System 76
2.15 Challenges of the Private Extension System 85
2.16 Favorable Factors for Privatization of Extension System 87
2.17 Job Satisfaction of Extension Field Staff 87
2.18 SWOT Analysis of Extension Systems 88
V
2.18.1 SWOT Analysis of Private Extension System 88
2.18.2 SWOT Analysis of Public Extension System 89
2.18.3 SOWT Analysis of Agri-Education System 95
2.18.4 SWOT Analysis of Public-Private Agri-Research 96
2.18.5 SWOT Analysis of Rural Development NGOS 97
2.18.6 SWOT Analysis of Agri-Development Organizations 100
2.19 Synthesis of Review of Literature 103
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 105
3.1 The Punjab: The Universe 105
3.1.1 Zone Classification of the Punjab 107
3.1.1.1 The Barani Zone 107
3.1.1.2 The Rice Zone 107
3.1.1.3 The Central Mixed Zone 108
3.1.1.4 The Semi Irrigated Zone 108
3.1.1.5 The Cotton Zone 108
3.2 Research Design 108
3.3 Selection of Pesticide Company: Syngenta 109
3.4 The population of the Study 110
3.5 Sampling procedure and sample size 112
3.6 Constriction of Research Instruments 113
3.6.1 The interview schedule for the farmers 113
3.6.2 The interview schedule for the EFS 115
3.7 Construction of scale 116
3.8 Validity of the instruments 116
3.9 Reliability of the instruments 117
3.10 Data Collection 118
3.11 Data Analysis 119
3.12 Conceptual Framework for SWOT Analysis 120
3.12.1 SWOT Analysis 121
VI
3.12.1.1 Elements of the SWOT analysis 121
3.12.1.1.1 Internal Factors: Strengths and Weaknesses 121
3.12.1.1.2 External Factors: Opportunities and Threats 122
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 125
4.1 PART 1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ---FARMER
RESPONDENTS
125
4.1.1 Section-I Demographic characteristics of the respondents 125
4.1.1.1 Age of the respondents 126
4.1.1.2 Educational level of the respondents 127
4.1.1.3 Size of landholding 128
4.1.1.4 Tenurial status 130
4.1.1.5 Social status 131
4.1.1.6 Source(s) of income 131
4.1.1.7 Type of advisory services provided by private sector 132
4.1.2 Section-II Strengths and weaknesses 135
4.1.2.1 Subject matter coverage 135
4.1.2.2 Target beneficiaries 137
4.1.2.3 Professional competency of EFS 139
4.1.2.4 Extension methods/channels 143
4.1.2.5 Characteristics of effective communication 145
4.1.2.6 Extension approach and function 147
4.1.2.7 Marketing mix 149
4.1.3. Section-III Opportunities and threats 152
4.1.3.1 Demand for agronomic advisory services 152
4.1.3.2 Demand for plant protection advisory services 154
4.1.3.3 Demand for miscellaneous advisory services 156
4.1.3.4 Willingness to pay (WTP) for agronomic advisory services 158
4.1.3.5 Willingness to pay (WTP) for plant protection advisory services
161
4.1.3.6 Willingness to pay (WTP) for miscellaneous advisory services 163
VII
4.1.3.7 Resources availability for the farmers 166
4.1.3.8 Willingness to participate in extension activities 169
4.1.4 Overall SWOT worksheet based on the response of farmer respondents
171
4.2 PART 2 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS--PRIVATE EXTENSION FIELD STAFF
173
4.2.1 Section-I Demographic Characteristics of the respondents 173
4.2.1.1 Job designation 173
4.2.1.2 Age of the respondents 174
4.2.1.3 Job experience 175
4.2.1.4 Education of the respondents 176
4.2.1.5 Type of advisory services 178
4.2.2 Section-II Strengths and weaknesses 180
4.2.2.1 Subject matter coverage 180
4.2.2.2 Target beneficiaries 181
4.2.2.3 Professional competency of EFS 184
4.2.2.4 Extension methods/channels 187
4.2.2.5 Characteristics of effective communication 189
4.2.2.6 Extension approach and function 191
4.2.2.7 Marketing mix 192
4.2.2.8 Infrastructural facilities provided to the respondents 195
4.2.2.9 Job design facilities provided to the respondents 196
4.2.2.10 Relation of management /administration with the respondents 198
4.2.2.11 Type of Training 199
4.2.3 Section-III Opportunities and threats 202
4.2.3.1 Demand for agronomic advisory services 202
4.2.3.2 Demand for plant protection advisory services 204
4.2.3.3 Demand for miscellaneous advisory services 205
4.2.3.4 Willingness to pay (WTP) for agronomic advisory services 206
4.2.3.5 Willingness to pay (WTP) for plant protection advisory services
208
VIII
4.2.3.6 Willingness to pay (WTP) for miscellaneous advisory services 209
4.2.3.7 Resources availability for the farmers 211
4.2.3.8 Willingness to participate in extension activities 213
4.2.4 Overall SWOT worksheet based on the response of the EFS 215
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
217
5.1 Summary 217
5.2 Conclusions 219
5.2.1 Demographic characteristics of the farmers 219
5.2.2 Internal factors as reported by the farmers 219
5.2.2.1 Strengths 219
5.2.2.2 Weaknesses 220
5.2.3 External factors as reported by the farmers 221
5.2.3.1 Opportunities 221
5.2.3.2 Threats 223
5.3.1 Demographic characteristics of EFS 223
5.3.2 Internal factors as reported by the EFS 224
5.3.2.1 Strengths 224
5.3.2.2 Weaknesses 225
5.3.3 External factors as reported by the EFS 226
5.3.3.1 Opportunities 226
5.3.3.2 Threats 227
5.4 Recommendations 229
5.4.1 For private agricultural extension system 229
5.4.2 For government of the Punjab 230
5.5 Recommendations for future research 323
IX
References 233
Appendices 246
A The Research Instrument (for farmers) 246
B The Research Instrument (for extension field staff) 251
C T-Test Tables 258
X
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page Part-I 125
4.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their age category 126 4.2 Distribution of respondents according to their educational level 127 4.3 Distribution of respondents according to their size of land holding 129 4.4 Distribution of respondents according to their tenurial status 130 4.5 Distribution of respondents according to their social status 131 4.6 Distribution of respondents according to their source(s) of income 132
4.7 Frequency and percentage of the respondents regarding various type of advisory services provided to them by private sector
133
4.8 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding subject matter coverage as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
136
4.9 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding clientele/target beneficiaries as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
137
4.10 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding competency of extension field staff concerning knowledge as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
139
4.11 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding competency of extension field staff concerning attitude as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
140
4.12 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding competency of extension field staff concerning skills as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
141
4.13 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding competency of extension field staff concerning attributes as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
143
4.14 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding extension methods/channels as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
144
4.15 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding effective communication as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
146
4.16 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding extension approach and function as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
148
4.17 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding marketing mix as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
149
XI
4.18 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning agronomic practices of various crops as reported by the respondents
153
4.19 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning protection technology of various crops as reported by the respondents
155
4.20 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning miscellaneous services as reported by the respondents
157
4.21 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning agronomic practices of various crops as reported by the respondents
159
4.22 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning plant protection technologies of various crops as reported by the respondents
162
4.23 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning miscellaneous services as reported by the respondents
164
4.24 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding resources availability at farmers’ disposal as reported by them
166
4.25 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to participate in organizational and extension activities as reported by the respondents
170
Part-II 173
4.26 Distribution of the respondents according to their designations 174
4.27 Distribution of the respondents according to their age category 174
4.28 Distribution of the respondents according to their job experience 175
4.29 Distribution of the respondents according to their Level of education and Family Background
177
4.30 Frequency and percentage regarding different type of advisory services provided to the farmers as reported by the extension field staff
178
4.31 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding subject matter coverage as strengths/weaknesses of private extension as reported by the extension field staff
180
4.32 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding clientele/target beneficiaries as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff
182
4.33 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding competency of extension field staff concerning knowledge as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by private EFS
184
4.34 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding competency of extension field staff concerning attitude as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the private EFS
185
4.35 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding competency of 186
XII
extension field staff concerning skills as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the private EFS
4.36 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding competency of extension field staff concerning attributes as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the private EFS
187
4.37 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding extension methods/channels as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff
188
4.38 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding effectiveness of communication as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff
190
4.39 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding extension approach and function as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff
191
4.40 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding marketing mix as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff
193
4.41 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding infrastructural facilities provided to the extension field staff as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by them
195
4.42 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding job design facilities provided to the extension field staff as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by them
197
4.43 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding relation of administration /management with extension field staff as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by them
198
4.44 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding training provided to the extension field staff as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by them
200
4.45 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning agronomic practices of various crops as reported by the extension field staff
202
4.46 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning plant protection technology of various crops as reported by the extension field staff
204
4.47 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning miscellaneous services as reported by the extension field staff
205
4.48 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning agronomic practices of various crops as reported by the extension field staff
207
4.49 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning plant protection technologies of various crops as reported by the extension field staff
208
XIII
4.50 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning miscellaneous services as reported by the extension field staff
210
4.51 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding resources availability at farmers’ disposal as reported by the extension field staff
211
4.52 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to participate in organizational and extension activities as reported by the extension field staff
213
XIV
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page
1.1 Map of Pakistan 2
3.1 Zone Classification of the Punjab 106
3.2 Study district of the Punjab 111
3.3 Organizational Analysis 120
3.4 Flow chart for SWOT work-sheet 123
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Pakistan: An Introduction
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan was founded on the 14th of August 1947.
Islamabad is the Republic’s capital and seat of the federal government is based in this
city. Pakistan is the land of the Indus River and this region served as a home to the
ancient Indus Valley Civilization. It is a land of burning deserts, snow-covered peaks,
irrigated plains and fertile mountain valleys. The country has an estimated population of
160.9 million (Govt. of Pak., 2008). Strategically, Pakistan is located at the crossroads of
Asia. Geographically, Pakistan comprises of three major regions, the mountainous North-
where three of the world’s great mountain ranges (the Hindukush, the Karakorams and
the Himalayas) meet, the enormous but sparingly populated plateau of Balochistan in the
South-West and of agricultural importance -- the Punjab and Sindh plains -- of the Indus
River and its main tributaries. Pakistan is bordered by China on the Northeast, India on
the East, Afghanistan on the Northwest while Arabian Sea in the South and Iran shares its
border in the Southwest. The borders of Pakistan encompass a total area of 7,96,095
square kilometers. Pakistan is divided into four provinces, two federally administered
areas and a federal capital territory (Govt. of Pak., 2006). Urdu is the national language
of Pakistan. Both languages i.e. Urdu and English are used in correspondence and official
matters. Most of people in Pakistan are bi-lingual, speaking their Local language and
Urdu with almost equal facility. Pakistan has a democratic system of government with a
bicameral Parliament i.e. Senate and National Assembly (ibid). Pakistan enjoys a
diversified climate, mostly subtropical and semi-arid.
2
Fig. 1.1 Map of Pakistan
PUNJAB
SIND
BALUCHISTAN
NWFP AZAZ JAMU &
KASHMIR
GILGIT
3
climate in summer, except in the mountainous areas: North and Northwestern high
mountain ranges, sis very hot with a maximum temperature of more than 400C, while the
minimum temperature in winter is a few degrees below the freezing point. The annual
average rainfall in the plains ranges from 13 cm in the northern parts of the lower Indus
plains to 89 cm in the Himalayan region. Average rainfall is 76 cm per annum. About 60
to 70% of the total rainfalls occur as heavy downpours in summer (monsoon) during July
to September and 30 to 40 percent in spring i.e. during March to April (ibid). The Indus
River forms the axis of the country and its tributaries drain whole of the country except
thinly populated province of Balochistan. The Indus River and its tributaries provide the
world’s largest network of canal system (ibid).
1.2 Agricultural Economy of Pakistan
Agriculture is the foundation of Pakistan’s economy. According to Davidson et al. (2001)
Pakistan’s economy is, and will continue to be based on agriculture in the foreseeable
future, unquestionably. In agriculture sector, nearly 21% of total output (GDP) and 44%
of total employment is generated. It substantially contributes to the Pakistan’s exports.
Agriculture provides raw materials to agri-based industry. It also serves as market for
industrial products. Not only country’s work force is employed in agriculture but also
more than two third’s of country’s rural population is dependent on agriculture for their
livelihood directly or indirectly. Agricultural growth not only affects the country’s
economic performance but a large segment of the population directly influenced by its
performance (Govt. of Pak., 2007).
The performance of agriculture during the fiscal year 2007-08 has not been up to the
mark. For example, against the target of 4.8%, last year’s achievement was 3.7% and
4
overall agriculture grew by 1.5 % in 2007-08. It happened due to poor growth of major
crops and forestry, and weaker performance of minor crops and fishery. Major crops,
accounting for 34% of agriculture and 7.1% of GDP, registered a decline of 3%. In the
Punjab province, the cotton crop was badly affected by the poor germination due to
heavy rainfall in May 2007. Pest attack especially mealy bug due to high temperature
during August and September 2007 resulted the shedding of fruit parts. Cotton crop
registered a negative growth of 9.3%. The wheat crop showed decline of 6.6% due to
various reasons including the shortage of irrigation water by 23.3% over normal supplies
during Rabi and undue price hike of DAP fertilizer. The rice production witnessed a
modest growth of 2.3%. Minor crops contribute 12% of agricultural value added showed
a growth of 4.9% against a negative growth of 1.3% last year. The performance of
livestock, the single largest sector accounting for 52.2% of agricultural value added
showed satisfactory growth of 3.8%. The fishery registered an impressive performance as
it grew by 11% in the year 2007-08. Forestry has been registering negative growth of
8.5% in 2007-08 (ibid). Hence, the performance of agri-sector has been disappointing
during the year 2007-08. Concrete steps need to be taken for the development of
agriculture. Agri-research, education and extension are the three pillars of agriculture
which need to be strengthened. All these three components had their own significance but
agri-extension has an edge over the two as it deals with the education of rural masses and
the dream of agricultural development can not be realized with out proper education of
farming community. In the educational process of rural masses, agri-extension occupies
the key position especially in the developing world including Pakistan.
5
1.3 Agricultural Extension in Pakistan: A Historical Perspective
Historically, the emergence of agri-extension in Pakistan can be discussed under the two
eras as below:
i. Pre-Independence period
ii. Post-Independence period
1.3.1 Pre-Independence period
In 1901, a Famine Commission was set up by the then rulers of the subcontinent to make
recommendations to the government for the development of agriculture. The commission
recommended the establishment of an Agricultural Department on scientific lines as a
pre-requisite for such development (Davidson & Ahmad, 2003). Agricultural Extension
work started in the Indian sub-continent in 1902 with the establishment of the
Department of Agriculture, Punjab (Ahmad et al., 2003). In 1905, on the
recommendation of the Commission, the Imperial Agricultural Research Institute was set
up at Pusa, Bihar (now in India), following the establishment of the provincial
Agricultural Extension Department in the same year (Davidson & Ahmad, 2003). In
order to meet the emerging demands of trained manpower in agriculture, Punjab
Agricultural College and Research Institute, Lyallpur (presently Faisalabad) came into
existence in 1906 (University of Agriculture Faisalabad, 2003). In addition, during the
1920s, village uplift (Dehat Sudhar) program was initiated under the supervision of
F.L.Brayne who was the then Deputy Commissioner of Gujrat district in the Punjab,
India. The program mainly aimed at improving village life as a whole with special
emphasis on farming through dissemination of improved farm practices among farmers.
The extension techniques employed for this purpose included stage drama, skits, role-
6
playing, popular songs, slogans, posters and personal influence (Ahmad et al., 2003).
Brayne’s program could not achieve lasting success: it was successful as long as he was
there but collapsed soon after his transfer from the district (ibid). In 1928, the Royal
Commission on Agriculture was set-up with the objective to suggest ways and means of
assisting the advance of the rural community to a fuller life (ibid). Its recommendations
emphasized on creating an environment in which the farming community could make the
full use of the advice and help offered by the Department of Agriculture and other allied
agencies. Consequently, the Imperial Council of Agriculture Research was set-up in 1929
(Davidson & Ahmad, 2003).
1.3.2 Post-Independence period
Traditionally, in Pakistan, agricultural extension has been the mandate of provincial
Government organized under the Ministry of Agriculture. Since independence, several
extension programs have been tried for agricultural development including the Village
Agricultural and Industrial Development Program (Village-AID Program), Basic
Democracies System (BDS), Rural Works Program, Integrated Rural Development
Program (IRDP), and, Training and Visit system. These met with partial success and
abolished one after the other. A brief overview of these programs is given below:
1.3.2.1 Village-AID program
In Pakistan, the first effort of Agricultural Extension was undertaken in the form
of Village Agricultural and Industrial Development (Village-AID) program in the early
1952 (Lodhi, 2003). It was a multipurpose program; the main objectives were to i) raise
rural income through cottage industries and improved farming, ii) create a sense of self-
help, initiative, and cooperation among rural people and iii) provide the rural areas with
7
the needed community services (Waseem, 1982). The village level workers were given
training in the fields of agriculture, animal husbandry, and other areas of social work to
perform their job and improve their livelihood (Lodhi, 2003). Method and result
demonstrations were the methods, used for technology dissemination regarding improved
varieties of crops, fertilizers, farming practices and livestock production, to increase the
income of farmers (ibid). This program was rolled back in 1962 (Ahmad et al. 2003).
a) Strengths of Village-AID
The strengths of this program as reported by Malik (1990), Davidson et al. (2001),
Choudhry (2002), Davidson & Ahmad (2003) and Malik (2003) include:
i. It was a sole linkage between governmental department and rural people
ii. Village-AID workers were given special training to perform the multipurpose
duties regarding rural development.
iii. Extension workers were supposed to provide advisory services in a friendly
environment.
iv. This program was based on a holistic approach and tried to raise rural living
standards through modernization of agriculture in addition to a special focus on
education, health, credit facilities, building roads, and creating marketing
opportunities for rural masses.
v. The focus of the Village-AID program was to inculcate the sense of self-help
among rural people.
8
b) Weaknesses of Village-AID
The following weaknesses of this program were reported by Waseem (1982),
Malik (1990), Muhammad (1994), Mullah (1997), Davidson et al. (2001), Choudhry
(2002), Davidson & Ahmad (2003) and Malik (2003):
i. The structure of Village-AID program was weak.
ii. Poor co-ordination between the departments involved in developmental process.
iii. Practically, this program ignored the stakeholders’ participation in decision
making processes and followed a top down approach.
iv. Lack of sufficient trained staff to perform their technical duties.
v. Lack of program specialists, and it was expected from Village- AID extension
workers to perform multi-dimensional duties.
vi. Volunteer work was expected from rural people without empowering them at the
village level.
1.3.2.2 Basic Democracy System
After the termination of Village-AID, Basic Democracy System (BDS) was
phased in to achieve the objectives of rural development by ensuring the maximum
participation of the rural people in the development process. The main objectives of this
program were i) participation of rural people in community development programs and ii)
provide them an opportunity to supplement the governmental efforts in developmental
process (Mullah, 1997). A primary feature of BDS was the decentralization of authority,
with responsibility delegated to lower levels of the organization. The lower levels (i.e
Union Councils) did not performed properly for agri-development and relied on passing
9
merely resolutions on which practically no action was taken. The BDS was abolished
after the change of government in 1970 (Davidson et al., 2001).
a) Strengths of Basic Democracy System The strengths of this program as reported by Waseem (1982), Malik (1990),
Davidson et al. (2001), Choudhry (2002), Davidson & Ahmad (2003) and Malik (2003)
include:
i. The focus of the program was to develop local leadership and awareness among
rural community.
ii. This program was also based on a holistic approach as the developmental process
was carried out in agricultural sector including education, building up rural
infrastructure and sanitation.
iii. It was a decentralized program and powers were delegated to the lower level of
the system.
iv. This program tried to bring the efforts together in the realm of community
development and political development.
b) Weaknesses of Basic Democracy System
The weaknesses of this program as reported by Waseem (1982), Malik (1990),
Davidson et al. (2001), Choudhry (2002), Davidson & Ahmad (2003) and Malik (2003)
include:
i. The program had little emphasis on agricultural development.
ii. There was inadequate local leadership with little competency to perform
developmental duties.
iii. There was lack of sufficient funds required for rural development.
10
iv. Practically, the autonomy of the program was no more remained viable.
v. There was little participation of rural people in developmental process.
vi. The primary motive of the program remained political rather than developmental.
1.3.2.3 Rural Works Program
Rural Works Program was launched in 1963 in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)
and West Pakistan with the objective to enable rural communities to participate in
development efforts of developing infrastructure i.e. roads, bridges, irrigation channels,
etc. and to create employment opportunities for rural peoples. It was abruptly launched in
the entire country to strengthen the newly established system of Basic Democracies
(Malik, 1990). In 1972, after its failure, the government launched this program with the
name of Peoples Works Program to ensure the participation of people in the execution of
development projects (Choudhry, 2002).
a) Strengths of Rural Works Program
The strengths of this program as reported by Waseem (1982), Malik (1990),
Mullah (1997) and Choudhry (2002) include:
i. Judicious utilization of resources to develop rural services and infrastructure i.e.
more projects were implemented with limited resources.
ii. This program created employment opportunities for rural masses.
iii. This program ensured the participation of rural people in need identification and
plan preparation.
iv. The focus of the program was to improve the social and economic conditions of
people through developing infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and irrigation
channels.
11
v. This program was implemented in the entire country to build the national capacity
without discrimination.
b) Weaknesses of Rural Works Program
The weaknesses of this program as reported by Waseem (1982), Malik (1990),
Mullah (1997), Choudhry (2002) and Lodhi (2003) include:
i. Practically, the participation of the local people was ignored and decisions
regarding developmental activities were made by the governmental officials and
elected representatives.
ii. In this program there was lack of monitoring and evaluation as the local leaders
were not accountable to the rural masses.
iii. There was lack of proper funds utilization as the funds were utilized for other
purpose rather then development by local leaders.
iv. Lack of technically skilled persons and supervision was noted.
v. The program was biased toward large-scale projects rather then small-scale
projects.
1.3.2.4 Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP)
In 1970, with the change in political regime, the then-government decided to try
another program named “Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP)”. This approach
was mainly based on the idea of close coordination and cooperation among all public
agencies involved in the process of rural development (Davidson et al., 2001). The
objectives of the program were to facilitate farmers for increased agricultural production
by using the latest technology and to strengthen physical and social infrastructure
(Government of Pakistan, 1983). IRDP remained in operation for about a decade then
12
was ultimately abolished in 1977 and was subsumed into the department of local
government.
a) Strengths of Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP)
The strengths of this program as stated by Waseem (1982), Malik (1990),
Davidson et al. (2001), Choudhry (2002), Davidson & Ahmad (2003) and Malik (2003)
include:
i. The development of agriculture was a central force behind this program.
ii. The frontline extension workers were Agri. graduates, and had relevant
competencies to fulfill their responsibilities.
iii. This program integrated the functioning of various line departments involved in
agricultural and farm delivery service.
iv. The objective of the program was to focus the small and medium size farms and
provide them credit, storage and marketing facilities.
b) Weaknesses of Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP)
The weaknesses of this program as stated by Waseem (1982), Malik (1990),
Davidson et al. (2001), Choudhry (2002), Davidson & Ahmad (2003) and Malik (2003)
include:
i. Lack of co-ordination and co-operation between line departments to provide
services and facilities to the rural masses.
ii. Misuse of resources and a lack of systematic assessment of local needs.
iii. Practically, the program was run in bureaucratic style.
iv. Lack of agreed objectives between participatory line departments and their
conflict of interests.
13
1.3.2.5 Training and Visit (T&V) System
In Pakistan, T&V system was launched in Punjab and Sindh provinces of the
country in 1978 and 1979, respectively (Gondal, 1989). The objectives of the T&V
system were to: i) establish demonstration plots to disseminate the latest technologies ii)
strengthen the mobility of the extension staff and iii) strengthen the in-service and on-the-
job training for field assistants (FAs). Within the T&V system, field extension personnel
were relieved of non-extension duties such as selling pesticides, seeds and other
agricultural inputs; paved the road to privatization of agricultural extension services.
T&V was based on a two-step flow of information – from extension personnel to contact
farmers and then from contact farmers to the farming community (Davidson et al., 2001).
One impotent characteristic of this program was an over reliance on contact farmers
which hampered the diffusion process of agri. technologies.
a) Strengths of Training and Visit System
The strengths of this program as reported by Jalvi (1981), Davidson et al. (2001),
Davidson & Ahmad (2003) and Malik (2003) include:
i. Regular farm visits by extension workers according to the given schedule.
ii. Knowledge and expertise of EFS was up-to-date through fortnightly training and
message formulation.
iii. Adaptive research farms were established to build up linkages with research.
iv. Teaching aids (i.e. audio-visual –aids) were induced for agricultural technology
dissemination.
v. Facilities like mobility and residences provided to the extension field staff.
14
vi. Extension field staff was relieved of non-extension duties i.e. selling agricultural
inputs, and giving them a target to educate the farmers and disseminate
agricultural technology.
b) Weaknesses of Training and Visit System
The weaknesses of this program as reported by the Lodhi & Khan (1988),
Davidson et al. (2001), Davidson & Ahmad (2003) and Malik (2003) include:
i. Repetition of the same extension messages created dis-attraction for the farming
community.
ii. Contact farmers did not take interest to transfer agricultural technology to their
fellow farmers which was the basic assumption of T&V system.
iii. There was biasness in the selection of the contact farmers.
iv. Front line extension workers were not trained in using group-teaching techniques.
v. The system was too rigid to follow the fortnightly schedule of visits.
vi. The system was based on top-down approach in the sense of technology package
formulation and information dissemination.
vii. Lack of farmers’ participation in planning and extension programs.
viii. Lack of effective use of mass media in communication and technology transfer
process.
ix. Gradual decrease in operational budget as the ratio of the salary and operational
budget was reduced.
x. Lack of proper facilities for regular back-up training.
15
1.3.2.6 Decentralized Extension System
In 1999, the Ministry of Agriculture changed its strategy regarding extension
work. Contact farmers were no longer used as the information conduit in the extension
system. Instead of addressing the individual/contact farmers, the public sector now
deploys its agents to organize group meetings as its preferred method for the
dissemination of agricultural technology. Consequently, on August 14 (Independence day
of Pakistan) 2001, the then president of Pakistan announced a new system named as
Devolution Plan to ensure the maximum participation of rural people at a grassroots level
and shifted the authority to the elected representatives. Under this plan, with respect to
agriculture, all service delivery line departments including agricultural extension were
devolved from provinces to the elected district government (Lodhi et al., 2005). Luqman
(2004) stated that the new system replaced the 158-years old system in the country. It is
interesting to know that Devolved/Decentralized System is closer to United States county
agricultural extension model (Lodhi et al., 2005). Under this new set up, each district of
Pakistan is administering its agricultural related activities where the function of all sister
departments such as fisheries, water management, soil conservation, livestock, forestry,
agricultural extension, etc. under the administrative control of one administrator called
the Executive District Officer of Agriculture (EDOA). Luqman (2004) conducted a
scientific study to assess the effectiveness of a decentralized extension system and
claimed that respondents felt no significant improvement in the system. In the recent
years government has embarked on a Farmer Field School Approach in agricultural
extension to provide the bloodline in the existing setup.
16
a) Strengths of a Decentralized Extension System
The strengths of this decentralized extension system as reported by Malik (2003)
include:
i. Monitoring and evaluation by the elected local representatives.
ii. Solution of agricultural issues at local level.
iii. Participation of people in planning and monitoring
iv. The system is demand driven rather then supply oriented.
v. Effective coordination among the line departments.
vi. Effective and efficient extension efforts by avoiding duplication of message,
wastage of time, energy, and other resources.
b) Weaknesses of Decentralized Extension System
The weaknesses of this program as reported by Malik (2003) include:
i. Extension services marginalized due to a Lack of budget, recognition, importance,
and training facilities to the Extension Field Staff.
ii. Elected representatives inclination towards civil works rather than agriculture.
iii. Weak research-extension-education linkages.
iv. Abrupt merger of departments, i.e. livestock, dairy, fisheries, poultry, forestry,
water management, etc., caused confusion and chaos.
v. Demoralized and demotivated staff due to poor career advancement in the
absence of new rules, regulations and proper service.
1.4 Criticism of Public Sector Extension: Global Perspective
Globally, agricultural extension is in crisis (Davidson, 2002). Worldwide, serious
reservations are being expressed about the capability and performance of public
17
extension systems that has raised the questions about the future of the public extension.
For example, Rogers (1987) stated that in developing countries, the performance of
public sector extension has been unsatisfactory and has remained unsuccessful to
disseminate agricultural technologies among the farming community. This might be due
to a number of reasons like poorly motivated staff, inadequate operational funds, a
preponderance of non-extension duties, top-down planning, lack of relevant technology, a
general absence of accountability in the public sector and centralized management
(Baxter et al., 1984; Antholt, 1994).
The general impression about public extension system in Asia and the Pacific is there is a
number of staff; consuming substantial government budget yet neither too efficient nor
too effective; top-down organization and operations; and low adoption of improved
technologies owing to poor extension services (Qamar, 2006). In Nigeria, public
extension system was neither effective in improving the farmers’ knowledge nor it
accelerated the adoption of latest farm practices (Ilevbaoje, 1998).
The public extension system in Turkey has been criticized for its excessive emphasis on
message transfer that hindered the farmers from developing their own skills in acquiring
and analyzing information (Kumuk & Crowder, 1996). The public extension system is
also under criticism in Sri Lanka as well due to rigidity of system as fixed visit schedule
to end users could not be adhered to; contact farmers were not passing the information to
the fellow farmers; extension workers had to do non- extension functions; extension tools
were too expensive and a large number of extension workers were required; use of mass
media for extension was very low; emphasis on contact farmers neglected the natural
groups in the farming community; and top down approach instead of bottom up approach
18
of extension (Wadduwage, 2006). The public extension system in the India is heavily
burdened with performance of multifarious activities in the field and is under severe
criticism for delivering the services (Reddy & Jaya, 2002), due to its rigid bureaucracy
and unaccountability (Radhakrishnan & Karippai, 2001). Therefore, the performance of
public extension service is generally far from satisfactory (Saravanan & Gowda, 2003).
The public extension system in Bangladesh has a number of limitations such as lack of
participation of farmers and field-level extension workers in the planning process;
extension programs rarely took care of the small and marginalized farm families; the
massage did not "trickle down" from the contact to the non-contact farmers as was
expected under the T&V system; linkage between research and extension education was
also inadequate; farmers’ technology and indigenous knowledge was not taken care of in
the system; and information needs of the farmers were not considered (Rahman, 2006).
Overall, public extension services have partially succeeded to deal with the problems of
the farmers and their site-specific needs (Ahmad, 1999). By considering the relatively
poor performance record of the public extension system in Pakistan and elsewhere,
extension specialists, politicians, and industry experts have been suggesting a thorough
reformation of extension service delivery as the public extension system was not doing it
well, enough and not being relevant (Rivera, 1991). Not only did extension systems come
under public scrutiny and political attack but, as well, were confronted by heightened
competitive interests from the private sector. Public sector extension was criticized for
various reasons: for not being relevant, for insufficient impact, for not being adequately
effective, for not being efficient and in some cases, for not pursuing programs that foster
19
equity. Meanwhile, global forces reverberated with particular intensity, strongly
supporting the urge toward the privatization of public sector services (Rivera, 1997).
1.5 Criticism of Public Sector Extension: Pakistani Context
Public agricultural extension in Pakistan is a hierarchic top-down system of
administration where decisions are made without much involvement of other
stakeholders. Linkages of extension with agricultural education and research are
operationally very weak (Khan, 2006). In Pakistan, the public extension system has been
criticized due to the failure to deal with the needs of the farmers as reported by Ahmad et
al., (2000) and Sofranko et al. (1988). The reasons for failure include: lack of knowledge
of EFS (Tahir, 1981); irregular visits of EFS to farmers’ field (Munir, 1982); lack of
interest in extension activities and acquaintance with farmers; (Hussain, 1983); Lack of
proper monitoring system, irregular and selective visits, poor knowledge and skill level of
EFS (Khan & Akbar, 1985); Visits never paid by AOs (Iqbal, 1989); Poorly conducted
meetings and field demonstrations (Malik et al., 1991); lack of communication skills and
training of EFS (Ahmad, 1992); not using extension methods effectively (Chaudhry et
al., 1993); Lack of training facilities to train EFS (Khan, 1991); scanty, irregular and ill
planned training of EFS (Aslam & Khan, 1984); top-down extension approach and lack
of fundamental facilities like transportation, accommodation, special incentives and
technical knowledge for EFS to perform their job (Zehri, 1993); repetition of the
extension messages, biased selection of contact farmers, poor performance of contact
farmers, EFS was not competent to use group teaching methods, and not attending
training program by EFS. Majority of the farmers were dissatisfied with the performance
of EFS (Munir, 1982; Khan 1982; Khan & Akbar 1985; Ahmad, 1992).
20
1.6 Emergence of Private Sector Extension in Pakistan
In Pakistan, the role of private sector in agricultural extension was limited until
1988, when due to an overall lack of success of public sector extension, the then
Government of Pakistan appointed a Commission on Agriculture, to look into poor
agricultural performance and make recommendations for strengthening the agricultural
sector. After conclusion, the Commission suggested the inclusion of the private sector in
reshaping agricultural extension. It was a major policy shift, in which the supply of inputs
was shifted to private sector from public sector. According to the Commission:
The most important shift needed in the provision of inputs is to encourage the private sector to provide the total package and not just the sale of a specific input ... similarly, the companies selling insecticides can offer a total plant protection service, consisting of agronomic, biological and chemical protection (Govt. of Pak., 1988:418).
Furthermore, the Commission recommended that the participation of the private sector is
inevitable for the agricultural development process by writing to the Government such as:
The traditional role of the private corporate sector in providing material agricultural inputs and services needs to be strengthened and expanded to cover newly emerging needs such as specialized cultivation operations, spraying, and harvesting and to provide total package services rather than single inputs (Govt. of Pak., 1988:432).
In the push towards privatization, not only have private business companies such as
Syngenta entered into extension work, but also a large number of NGOs (e.g., Agha Khan
Rural Support Program, National Rural Support Program, Punjab Rural Support Program
etc.) and farmers’ cooperatives (e.g., Salt Land Water Users Association) entered into
vogue.
21
1.7 Privatization Experience: Pakistani context
In Pakistan, the process of privatization in agriculture especially the involvement of
corporate sector in agri-extension started with the announcement of agricultural policies
in 1980s. Consequently a Commission on agriculture was constituted by the then
government of Pakistan which strongly recommended that the private sector be involved
in agri-extension. However literature is either silent or scanty concerning the performance
of private sector with special reference to Pakistan. Little work seems to have been done
in this regard. For example Abbas (2005) concluded that majority of the respondents was
not at all satisfied with the working of private sector. However, about 20 and 15% of the
respondents were partially and fully satisfied respectively. He further concluded that
Private extension sector was highly effective as an information source. Respondents rated
the effectiveness of communication skills, sociability, ability to persuade, usefulness of
information, credibility, technical knowledge, dedication/devotion of private sector
between medium and high category. Similarly, Imran (1991) reported that only 32% of
the respondents adopted pesticides/insecticides due to the advisory services of the private
extension field staff.
A study conducted by Ashraf (2001) regarding communication methods used by the
private sector revealed that overwhelming majority of the respondents were considered
that communication methods as most effective. According to Davidson et al. (2001)
public and private extension systems in Pakistan offer conflicting, competing and
overlapping programs. Both private and public extension relies on a strategy of using
contact farmers, which severely limits the flow of information from contact farmers to
ordinary farmers. A private extension system is more inclined to serve the needs of
22
resource-rich and big farmers because of its primary interest in earning more and more
profits; this approach excludes small and resource poor farmers from the information
delivery system. In Pakistan, so far, no comprehensive study has been conducted to
analyze the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of private sector extension
services particularly in the context of small farmers.
1.8 Need for the Project/Rational for Study
Since its inception, Pakistan has experienced different models of agricultural
extension and has tried to provide extension services at farmers’ doorstep, and looking
for better efficiency of agricultural extension services. Pakistan is a developing country
already burdened with large external and internal debt load. Majority of the farming
community of Pakistan is small, marginalized and resource poor farmers. According to
Government of Pakistan (2000), there were 6.62 million farms having an area of 20.41
million hectares in the country. Eighty six percent of these farms had less than 5 hectares.
It accounted for 44% of the total farm area. Only 16 percent farmers, have more then 5
hectares cultivating 56% of area. It is obvious that major land resources of Pakistan are
occupied by a small percentage of large farmers. As mentioned earlier, serious
reservations are being expressed, that private extension sector undermines the small scale
and resource poor farmers. This situation may be worse in a country like Pakistan, as
Rivera & Cary (1997) stated that the weaknesses of privatization are more apparent in the
context of developing countries. But in the present day context of globalization, the
change is worldwide and Pakistan cannot isolate itself. World over suggestion is to
privatize extension services and Pakistan is no exception. There is a global push towards
efficient delivery channels and economic efficiency in services. More demand–driven
23
approach rather than supply – driven, that is considered one of the strengths of private
extension, but weaknesses are there (Shankar, 2001). Private sector may exclude and
undermine the majority of small farmers in agricultural extension processes. Davidson &
Ahmad (2003) found that neither the public nor the private extension systems were
reaching the majority of the farming community. Their findings suggest that there is an
urgent need to rethink agricultural extension services in Pakistan. In the reformation
process, it is important to consider farmers’ needs and their well-being in addition to
addressing the sustainable agricultural practices that are more cost-effective in the long
term and inclusive of environmental imperatives. Hence, it was imperative to perform a
SWOT analysis of existing private extension system in Pakistan, as it is a useful strategic
planning and institutional analysis tool to reform agricultural extension ( Alonge, 2006).
Strengths of an organization create opportunities and weaknesses pose threats for it
indicating the need for conducting analysis of private extension. This analysis is direly
needed in our country where literature is either scanty or silent with respect to SWOT
analysis of extension services/ organization. Keeping this in view, the present study was
planned and conducted with the following objectives.
1.9.1 General Objective
Privatization of agricultural extension system in the Punjab, Pakistan: A SWOT
analysis
1.9.2 Specific Objectives
Following specific objectives were formulated for the attainment of general
objective:
§ To find out the demographic characteristics of the respondents.
24
§ To identify the strengths of private extension system.
§ To know the weaknesses of private extension system.
§ To find out the opportunities for private extension system.
§ To know the threats for private extension system.
§ To compile the suggestions of respondents for the improvement.
1.10 Assumptions of the Study
The study was conducted with the following assumptions:
a) The respondents were willing to participate in the study and to provide the
relevant information correctly.
b) The population of study was a normal population.
c) The stakeholders i.e. private extension field staff, and farmers would be the best
source of information for conducting the study.
d) Although the study was conducted in Punjab province but the results of the study
would be equally applicable to the other provinces of the country.
e) Face to face structured interviews would generate more reliable data then any
other technique.
f) The respondents had the ability (i.e. cognitive, communication) to analyze the
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of private extension system.
1.11 Limitations of the Study
Following were the limitations of the study:
a) The study was confined to the Punjab province.
b) The reliability of the responses was limited to the extent of accuracy of information
provided by the respondents.
25
c) The study was limited to the quantitative data provided by stakeholder i.e. farmers
and private extension field staff.
26
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Importance of Review of Literature
The review of literature occupies an important position in scientific research. It is
a tool for getting knowledge in particular field. It includes locating, critically reading and
evaluation of research studies, reports and opinion that relate to research projects. It
provides foundations for scientific study by considering what others have done and what
remains still to be done in particular area of study. Thus the literature in any field forms
the foundation upon which all future must be built (Borg & Gall, 1989). It helps the
researcher to define the research problem clearly and talk about the research possibilities.
This chapter describes the paradigms of agricultural extension system, the need to reform
public extension system, emergence of private extension and finally SWOT analysis of
various extension organizations.
2.2 Paradigms of Extension
Agricultural extension has various paradigms/approaches. These include
decentralized public extension, farmer-field-school, research-extension approach, training
and visit approach, public-private partnerships and private extension. These paradigms
are presented in the following lines.
2.2.1 Decentralized Approach Khan (2006) stated in a study entitled “Strengthening education-research-
extension linkages for effective agricultural extension services: Experience of Pakistan”
that agricultural extension in Pakistan was a hierarchic top-down system of
administration. Decisions were taken by the top administration without much
involvement of other stakeholders and implemented by the field staff which did not fit
27
well into the current requirements of more progressive, intensive and integrated
agriculture. However, the system had now slightly been decentralized. He concluded that
agricultural extension planning in Pakistan was an example of a centralized program
planning where local people and representatives of other stakeholders were seldom
involved. After decentralization of agricultural extension system, the district had now
become isolated, as it did not have any linkage with other districts even within the same
province. It was a supply rather than demand driven program-planning approach. As a
result, the feed back to research and planning was inadequate. He added that linkages of
agricultural extension with research and education in public, private, NGOs and corporate
sectors were operationally very weak. Resultantly, the farmers failed to get timely
information about the latest technologies and other input supply requirements i.e. seeds,
fertilizers, pesticides, credit, etc. which could increase necessarily agricultural
productivity and the researcher did not get feedback which was necessary for planning
future research activities.
2.2.2 Farmer Field School (FFS) Approach Stock (1995) stated that in the Philippines, regarding integrated pest management,
the training of farmers, based on discovery learning techniques were carried out. The
central objective of the trainings was to educate and equip the farmers. After one year of
training, a study was conducted to investigate the increased farmers' capacity to learn and
their approaches towards sustainable agriculture. Data were collected through
participatory group activities and interviews. It was revealed that farmers had more
understanding of agro-ecosystem and the pests of the crop. However, for sustainable
28
agriculture, the presence of policy support, strong farmers' organization and mechanisms
for sustaining participatory research would play a vital role.
Nathaniels (2005) presented a short qualitative study entitled “Cowpea, farmer
field schools and farmer-to-farmer extension: A Benin case study”. He concluded that
through this FFS, farmers had the opportunity to test alternative cowpea management
practices, adopting, modifying or rejecting those practices. But in this developmental
process the influential and rich farmers had more advantage. Although they made an
effort to share information with their friends and relatives such efforts were not extended
to the resource poor farmers. He further added that the FFS technologies were partially
compatible with the participants’ needs. Some treatments in the FFS seemed to be unclear
within the test plots, as farmers would gain maximum knowledge from the experiments.
In first phase of the FFS pilot program in Benin, there were not sufficient linkages with
other stakeholders. The second phase had taken different steps to strengthen the linkages
and collaboration with other stakeholders in agricultural development. He also stated that
monitoring and evaluation strategies should ensure better access by resource poor farmers
to FFS. Attention should be focused more seriously on the techniques, tools and
curriculum used in FFS and opportunities offered by complementary media and
organizations.
2.2.3 Research-Extension Approach Muhamad & Idris (1995) conducted a study entitled “Research-extension
approach: Its impact on Malaysian cocoa smallholders' technology utilization”. They
stated that cocoa was the third main important crop of Malaysia. The government
supported the industry through research and extension. A survey was conducted in
29
Malaysia to identify the appropriate approach for cocoa technology generation and
dissemination to small farmers. The study also assessed the usefulness of recommended
practices. The sample consisted of 499 randomly selected cocoa small farmers from the
six main cocoa growing regions. The study showed that the research-transfer model was
utilized for the generation and dissemination of cocoa technology. Through the strategy
of training and visit schedules, most of the cocoa farmers received recommended
practices regularly generated by the research institutions. The researcher concluded that
the use of recommended cocoa technology was still relatively low.
2.2.4 Training and Visit (T&V) Approach Ilevbaoje (1998) conducted a study entitled ‘Effectiveness of training and visit
extension system: Preliminary results in Nigeria”. This study was conducted to determine
the extent of effectiveness of the training and visit extension system regarding
improvement of knowledge about latest technologies, adoption of technologies, farm
productivity and farm income of the farmers. The findings indicated that the T&V system
had beneficial effects on farm productivity and income of farmers as non-contact and
contact farmers differed significantly with respect to these variables.
2.2.5 Public-Private Partnership Approach Quispe and Jimenez-Sanchez (2001) conducted a study entitled “Experiences of
public sector collaboration for scaling up non governmental organization (NGO) rural
development projects in Mexico”. This study identified some facts of the scaling-up
results. Methods such as interviewing and observation were used for data collection of
the coordinators of the projects, small farmers, technicians, and representatives of the
state programs. Results showed that two projects out of six were very successful for
30
scaling-up their experiences due to the successful linkages. For two other projects, there
were fairly successful scaling-up experiences and for the last one, there were no
significant scaling-up results. Eight factors were identified that influenced the results of
the project. These were the quality performances of the NGO staff, the financial and other
resources of NGOs, the degree of participation and organization of the farmers, the
degree of communication between the project and program personnel, the expectations of
the new beneficiaries of the technologies and experiences, the resource availability of the
government programs, the nature of the introduced technologies and organization and the
socio-economic and political context in which the projects were operating.
2.2.6 Private Extension through Contract Farming
Saravanan & Gowda (2003) stated in a study entitled “Contract farming: Where
we gain and lose?” that India’s public extension service is one of the largest network in
the world with 1, 10,000 extension staff. However, the performance of the public
extension service is generally far from satisfactory. They added that major problems
faced by rural Indian farmers were farm inputs, i.e. seeds, fertilizers and plant protection
chemicals, seasonal production, market information and intelligence, storage and post
harvest processing and government policy support. In the existing scenario, multi
national corporations (MNCs), agri-business firms and processing industries were
entering into the agricultural sector for the purpose of contract farming in India. Contract
farming referred to contractual arrangements between farmers and companies specifying
the conditions of production and marketing of the agricultural commodities. But contract
farming had its own advantages and limitations. The advantages of contract farming
described were economic security of farmers, effective technology transfer, timely input
31
supply, infrastructure facilities, investment on agricultural research and development,
efficient and effective national agricultural production system. The limitations of contract
farming created socio-economic imbalance in the region. Moreover, farmers decision-
making role was likely to be reduced, insecurity and problems i.e. high cost of
transportation, delays in payment, etc. unsustainable farm practices and food security of
the nation was reported to be at a risk due to more emphasis on non-cereal crops.
Obaa et al. (2005) conducted a study entitled “Prioritizing farmers’ extension
needs in a publicly funded contract system of extension: A case study from Mukono
District, Uganda” to assess the effectiveness of private service provider advisory system.
Data were collected through the observation and selection meetings. In addition to these
methods, 120 farmers were selected to determine their perceptions about the new system.
Research findings indicated that the needs identification process of the contract extension
system ignored the needs of minority and primary groups. They further concluded that
some of the enterprise selection criteria tended to be academic i.e. with no real practical
value. Although technology transfer to the farmers was considered important but it was
not a sufficient prerequisite for agricultural development. They further stated the
implications that there was a need to promote broad-based multipurpose farmers’
organizations as a strategy for building strong farmers’ institutions. There was a need for
more flexibility in the system to reach and cater for a broader range of farmers, by means
of decentralizing extension program planning from sub-county level to primary farmers’
group level. They suggested that the selection criteria for the contract extension system
should be greatly simplified to ensure the farmers’ participation in the process. There
should be more emphasis on the use of the farmers’ own criteria. The farmers’ needs such
32
as credit and other related inputs should be examined critically and suitable measures
adopted for their provision.
2.3 Need to Reform Public Extension System
Lowdermilk (1985) stated that basically extension is a process to educate farmers
by transferring the latest information and technologies for their benefits. The extension
model is one of several inputs necessary for the effective transfer of technology to the
farmers. Although public extension is a powerful model for agricultural development no
single public or private extension system is a solution to address the multidimensional
advisory needs of the farming community in India. Therefore, strong functional linkages
among all private and public advisory service providers, knowledge creation centers and
policy makers are compulsory to provide latest agricultural technologies to the farmers.
Kumuk & Crowder (1996) conducted a study entitled “Harmonizing T&V
extension: Some experiences from Turkey”. They stated that the T&V extension
approach had been criticized for its excessive emphasis on message transfer only. This
approach discouraged the farmers’ organizations and their participation in the extension
process. This study discussed possible modifications to re-orient the extension system on
the participatory lines according to the local circumstances. The design of such an
extension system is required to harmonize the T&V system with a new extension team
approach (ETA).
Pezeshki-Raad et al. (2001) conducted a study entitled “agricultural extension
problems in Iran: Opinions of extension authorities”. This study assessed the perceptions
of extension authorities regarding the importance and seriousness of problems faced by
agricultural extension system. It used descriptive survey research methodology. A mail
33
survey was used for data collection from the 29 provinces of the country. Descriptive
statistics were used to analyze the data. Findings of the study revealed that lack of
technical training, technology and mobility were considered the most serious problems
with the highest priority as perceived by the extension directors. Lack of linkages
between extension and other institutions was also a problem. The heads of authorities
perceived that some problems were more serious and important faced by the extension
system. Regarding seriousness of the problems, the both types of respondents agreed but
disagreed to each other regarding the priority of the problems.
Jaya & Reddy (2003) stated in a study entitled “Strategies for management of
change in agricultural extension” the national agricultural extension system of India had
so many challenges that included the capacity building of extension professionals in new
trends like globalization and bio-technology/environmental issues, adoption of
participatory and farming-situation-based extension methodologies, identification and
promotion of suitable farming systems, making use of information technology, liaison
among research-education-extension-market and farmers i.e. inter-institutional linkages,
enrichment of extension role with market information, assignment of a proper status to
the extension profession, make small holdings into viable units of agricultural enterprises
and ensure sustainable agricultural development. They also identified the constraints to
meet the emerging challenges. These constraints were multiplicity of technology transfer
systems, lack of farmer focus and feedback, narrow focus of the agricultural extension
system, inadequate technical capacity within the extension system, weak research-
extension linkages, need to intensify farmer training, poor communication capacity,
financial sustainability and inadequate operating resources. They called for public-private
34
partnership, intensification, diversification, research on consumer preferences, natural
resource management and continuous capacity building of all the stakeholders in the
agricultural development.
Alex et al. (2004) presented views based on the ideas discussed on a workshop of
about 70 extension experts. They stated that extension is a function that has a broader role
beyond the provision of agricultural advice to rural people. An established system has
characteristics of pluralistic extension system of extension donors and service providers.
However, the public sector must coordinate the operations and support the system with
funds. They further stated that the public sector should invest for poverty alleviations.
Extension strategies should be re-oriented to define differences between the public
extension system and other providers. Stakeholder coordinating mechanisms were
important to provide a common strategy in which all actors could operate. They also
added that building capacity of the public sector and other service providers was essential
to empower the clients and develop the pool of competent service providers. Extension
services should be a part of the decentralization and devolution plan, ensuring the full
participation of local government and grass root levels organizations. There was a general
lack of awareness of funds and fiscal transfers that had a strong focus on the poor
community. There was greater scope for cost-sharing and fee-for-service extension
system. Reforms should encourage fee-for-service extension system. However, they were
of the view that total privatization was not realistic even for commercial agriculture.
Agricultural extension, either public or private, could not properly function without
continuous interventions from local, national and international levels. Knowledge
creation and access to the farmers was poor in most developing countries. All extension
35
service providers should assess the outcomes and provide feed back to policy and
coordination units.
Davidson (2006) described in a study entitled “Integrated, multidisciplinary and
holistic rural development approach for effective agricultural extension services” that
agricultural extension was in crisis throughout the world. The trend towards privatization
and downsizing of the public sector, including its agricultural extension services, raised
many questions about whether or not agricultural extension–in any form− was in fact
obsolete. Worldwide, agricultural extension has an important role in the development of
agriculture and its delivery is the responsibility of the state. However, now it was
commonly perceived that the public extension system was too much expensive, inflexible
and unresponsive to the specific needs of the farmers. He added that the private extension
system might be useful for the resource-poor farmers, if the system proved itself to be
location specific, multi-dimensional, integrated, holistic and most importantly flexible.
He further stated that a revitalization of existing extension such as T&V system was
unlikely and ill advised. Though the emergence of an elitist pluralism should not be
favored where only resource rich farmers are assured of access to information and
innovative practices. He suggested that there was a middle approach in line with the term
“flexible specialization” emphasizing on segmentation, equity and integration. This
approach was based on vertical decentralization using flexible resources, appropriate
technologies and education. This holistic approach would be worthwhile for agricultural
extension but without addressing the issues of targeted beneficiaries disparities would
continue.
36
Qamar (2006) stated in a study entitled “agricultural extension in Asia and the
pacific: Time to revisit and reform” that in developing countries the public extension
system that was initiated during 1950s administered under the Ministry of Agriculture
with the public funds. Demonstrations, individual contacts, home visits, farm visits,
group contacts, mass media and published materials were used to disseminate the
technology. The flow of information was from national to village level and biased
towards big farmers. He further stated that general feelings about public extension system
were that, large number of staff was utilizing the considerable public budget with no
significant efficiency and effectiveness. In the top-down operations, the farmers generally
complained that extension workers did not visit them regularly resulting in low adoption
level of improved technologies. He also described that in many developing countries
institutions and services were gradually transferred to the private sector. The main
argument behind privatization was the poor performance of public agricultural extension
systems. Another argument was that the beneficiaries should contribute the cost of
advisory services. Another argument in the favor of privatization was that as the private
sector is actively involved in selling farm inputs and machinery, it should also advise
farmers on agricultural matters as they were supposed to be more efficient than the public
sector. Healthy competition among service providers was also considered as an argument
as it would lead to better quality and less cost effective.
Rahman (2006) stated in a country paper entitled “Bangladesh” the T&V system
in a country had a number of limitations i.e. lack of participation of farmers and field-
level extension worker in the planning process, less emphasis on the small and marginal
farm families, the message was not passed on from the contact farmers to non-contact
37
farmers, inadequate linkages between research-extension-education, lack of consideration
of farmers’ technology and indigenous knowledge and lack of need oriented approach.
To overcome the limitations, the revised extension approach was mainly based on
decentralization, responsiveness to farmers’ needs and working within groups by using a
range of extension methods. He further added that the methodologies used to disseminate
the extension messages to the farming community were program planning, meeting,
farmers’ training, farm walks, demonstration and field days, motivational tours and visits,
and FFS. But, limitation of the methodology was that low level of literacy and awareness
among the farming community did not allow them to raise their voice in prioritizing the
real problems, they faced. Field extension workers generally emphasized the large and
medium farmers for dissemination of technology. On the other hand, the socio-
economical status of small and marginal farmers did not allow them to adopt latest
technologies; there existed a gap among the farmers. Lack of accountability further
exacerbated the problems. The FFS concept had some limitations to bring significant
benefit for integrated farming particularly for small, poor and marginal farmers.
Taweekul (2006) stated in a country paper entitled “Thailand” that concerning
agriculture, the investment cost needed to be reduced to meet international standards.
Therefore, developments of production technologies including agro-processing and
marketing needed to improve. These activities certainly needed the skill of agricultural
extension to push the policies operated at the farmers’ level. Various organizations i.e.
public and private sector were involved in the agricultural extension system. Various
methodological tools were applied to agricultural extension. The important ones were
farmers’ meetings, field visits, trainings, demonstrations and farmer schools. The auther
38
suggests that the business sector should participate and get involved in agricultural
extension in terms of providing business skills, technologies and financial support to
agricultural extension.
Wadduwage (2006) stated in a country paper entitled “Sri Lanka” that the T&V
system had developmental impacts on agriculture extension, research extension linkages
and training of extension staff. Positive results of the implementation of a T&V system
were: an increased number of extension workers, coverage of all farmers without any
biasness, appropriate monitoring of the extension program, appointment of subject matter
officers, research-extension linkages, training of extension staff and establishment of
adaptive research centers. But a T&V system was also criticized because of several
factors which included: rigidity of the system, limitation of contact farmers, non-
extension functions of extension workers, requirement of large number of extension
workers, less emphasis on the use of mass media and top down approach in public
extension system.
2.4 Forms of Private Extension System
Kidd et al. (2000) described some experiences of privatization and
commercialization of extension systems. A variety of experiences with private
agricultural extension delivery in the south were discussed in the study. Regarding the
contracting subject-matter specialists in China, he stated that farmers associations
contracted technical services from public officials (research institutions, universities,
individual scientists) who received bonuses from the clients. In the contracts the rewards
were related to results. But experience told that the system had limited access to subject
matter specialists. In Ecuador the sharecropping for profit approach was adopted in which
39
farmers were provided with labor, land and water. The extension agents provided
technical advice and inputs that they purchased from suppliers in exchange for a share in
the harvest. In this form of privatization, the system had limited access to extension staff
with limited scope of extension services. The system was also found to be biased towards
large and medium-scale farmers due to profit-making interests. There was no proper
legitimization to save the farmers from traditional exploitative practices. Voucher scheme
was implemented in Costa Rica. The government allocated a certain budget to support
several basic extension services by private extension staff. Arrangements consisted of
providing vouchers worth amounts of individual and group technical assistance.
Vouchers were awarded to farmers on the basis of their type of farm and level of
technology. But there was a problem problem with this type of commercialization were
the original allocation of vouchers and the institutional arrangements regarding their
usage and regulation of the trade in vouchers. The availability and quality of private
extensionists were also observed. Sub-contracting and voucher scheme in Chile was
adopted. It was market oriented national system for the transfer of technology. Delivery
of public financed extension services contracted out to private system. In this system
some farmers received extension for free, some received advice in groups by contributing
25% of the costs, and commercial producers paid full costs of extension services. This
Voucher scheme (farmers received vouchers to contract an organization for extension)
failed because of a limited availability of private extension professionals’ inadequate
supervision and monitoring. This resulted in widespread abuse. Privatized service
centers’ approach was practiced in Ethiopia. In this system, the farmers associations used
part of their benefits obtained from collectively managed grain banks and paid
40
membership fees to the service center which provided inputs and advice on the use of
these inputs. In this system caveat were that it was feasible with market-oriented farms
only and not compatible with subsistence-dominated farming systems. In Kenya, contract
farming was experienced. In this farming the contracting private firms provided extension
advice to the contracted farmers. The problems in this system were firm determined
commodity oriented contracts and the integrated extension packages (planting material,
fertilizers, credit, and assistance with marketing) only for commodity production, not for
integrated farm development. Farmer service center approach was initiated in Sri Lanka.
It was a platform for the identification, organization, financing and quality control of
farmer-driven service delivery. This was intended to be highly decentralized, farmer-
governed units for the co-ordination of linkages among users and service providers. This
system had a caveat i.e. it required a high level of farmer organization, basic economic
frame conditions and a high level of stakeholders consultation.
Prasad (2001a) stated that the private sector included consultancy firms,
producers’ associations, contracting firms, non-governmental organizations, media
organizations and so on. Thus, private extension has broader avenues including all
relevant groups than the narrow spectrum of corporate sector. Private extension as an
approach for providing support to the farmers is increasingly becoming popular among
farming communities in many countries including India. There is significant potential for
initiating fee-based-extension services for high value crops and big farmers. However,
there are technical, legal and institutional changes that are needed for promoting
privatization of extension services. Privatization of extension service in India has adopted
a variety of approaches by the participation of different stakeholders. Most of the input-
41
supplying agencies perform the function of marketing in addition to extension related
functions. The involvement of private extension organizations in extending extension
support to farmers will initiate the competition among the various extension providers. It
will take care of the need of consumer welfare, public interest competitive advocacy and
competition culture for quality services. Resultantly, the private extension providers
become more efficient. The efficiency of private extension agencies would lead to profit
maximization, cost minimization and optimal use of resources which are the prerequisite
in a competitive environment.
Prasad & Khan (2001) described in a study entitled “Privatization of extension
services– international experiences and its relevance in Indian context”, the experiences
regarding private extension from various countries. He stated that privatization is a
process that reduces the involvement of public sector and brings in divestiture i.e. sole by
the state of the whole or part of its holding of the equity share of government owned
enterprises to private sector. Complete privatization may not be the solution to existing
poorly performing extension system, but a public-private partnership may, to some extent,
provide the solution of the problem. A variety of forms of privatization in different
countries have been observed. For example, in New Zealand: Complete
commercialization of public extension; in Netherlands: cost recovery from clients; in
Germany: complete or partial subsidized privatization and voucher system; in Denmark:
Extension services provided by farmers’ organization; in Ecuador: share cropping
between farmers and extension agents for a profit; in Costa Rica: voucher system; in
Chile: Sub contracting and voucher system; in Ethiopia: Privatized service centers; in
42
Turkey: cost sharing of advisors; in Kenya: Extension associated with contract out
grower schemes.
Shekara (2001a) stated in a study entitled “Private extension: Indian way”, that a
private extension service provider is an individual or organization other than government
who provides a single service or integrated services to the farmers. In the Indian context
many service providers were identified. These included agricultural consultants/firms,
para-technicians, progressive farmers, unemployed agricultural graduates, farmers’
organizations/co-operatives, Krishi Vignana Kendras (KVK’s), agri-business companies,
non-governmental organizations, input dealers, agricultural magazines, newspapers,
private television channels, internet, private sector banks and donor agencies. He further
stated that agri-business companies are the main pillar of agricultural development. They
have a key position in agriculture in the post-green revolution period and will be playing
a more significant role in the liberalized period. There was no scientific survey conducted
to estimate the number of agri-business companies. However, their participation in input
distribution and providing services to the farmers was dominant in Indian agriculture.
They worked dominantly in seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, machineries, information,
finance, processing, and trading. A survey was conducted to identify the private
extension potential of agri-business companies. The survey filled out by 15 randomly
selected companies revealed that the companies operated in seeds, fertilizers, pesticides,
remote sensing, processing, marketing and biotechnology. An average number of farmers
approached by each company were 11 lakhs (1.1 million). Extension approaches adopted
were road shows, seminars, personal contact, meetings, harvest days, wall paintings,
tours, newsletters, institutional visits, participatory approaches, working through self help
43
groups, demonstrations, field days, mass media campaign, training, exhibitions,
dealers/distributors training, jeep campaigns, mass contact programs, posters, stickers and
banners. On average, 238 extension personnel worked with each company. The average
turn over of companies was 331.31 crores (33.1 million). The results indicate that the
geographical coverage of agri-business companies was wide. Companies working in
various sectors of agriculture reached a large number of clients with fewer numbers of
extension agents, use of variety of extension approaches and had good financial turn over.
Shekara recommended that women, marginal farmers and dry land agriculture should be
given emphasis by private extension or public extension support to private extension in
these areas of work. Quality service and accountability should be ensured by private
extension. Private extension service should be demand driven and farmers should have
control over the extension system. The integrated services in terms of credit, marketing
and agro-processing should be provided to the farmers.
Chapman & Tripp (2003) stated in a study entitled “Changing incentives for
agricultural extension: A review of privatized extension in practice” that private
extension delivery is subject to a range of interpretations. A number of experiences in
industrialized and developing countries provide opportunities for examining the
advantages and limitations of a privatization strategy for extension. The examples include
purely market-based extension service, private provision of inputs and extension services
to the farmers, and partially subsidized public extension through private providers. The
finding of the study indicates that private extension is not an isolated part but it is on
integral part of a whole. They further concluded that a key to understand private
extension is that it is possible to separate the provision of funding from the provision of
44
service. It is very important to develop a new incentive system in which the extension
services were more responsive to farmers’ needs. He further added that private extension
system would only be effective if there were able and well-trained extension agents
willing to respond to the farmers’ priorities. Similarly, farmers’ capacity to contract and
evaluate the service providers was more important in private extension scenarios. This
capacity can build through farmers’ associations and localized political system. The
authors suggest that an evolution towards private extension system should begin with the
farmers’ priorities and environmental protection as well.
2.5 Types of Advisory Services Provided by Private Extension System
Modi & Chapke (2001) presented an overview of three agri-business companies.
First, Mahindra Krishi Vihar launched a one-stop shop business which has three
components such as agri-input sale (fertilizer, pesticide and seed), equipment hiring (e.g.
combine harvester) and farm consultancy (e.g. how to increase rice yield per acre).
Mahindra Krishi Vihar was providing efficient as well as cost-effective consultancy to
the farmers to increase their farm yield. Secondly, ITC-IBD Choupals which had
implemented three projects such as soya choupal, aqua choupal and coffee club. Benefits
delivered to the farmers through Soya choupal were better prices, less transportation and
other related costs and weather related information provision, latest farm practices and
current market prices. Benefits delivered through Aqua choupal were market information,
prices and advantages to fix competitive prices in relation to the export prices through
this site. Through Coffee Club the benefits were information about the buying price of
raw coffee of various coffee trading organizations, international prices of coffee and
expert comments. Third, TATA Kisan Kendra (TKK) was launched in 1998 as an
45
integrated educational and training institution. The mission of TKK was to provide the
farmer with a package of inputs and services for optimum utilization of balanced primary
nutrients, water, plant protection chemicals, post-harvest services, seeds and to develop a
genuine partnership with the farmer. The main services offered by TKK were diagnostic
services such as soil, facilitating access to farm credit and insurance, water and plant
testing, post-harvest management services such as locating a proper market for farm
produce, extension education programs including training of farmers and rural women to
enhance family income and organizing the farmers’ meetings.
Pawar & Patel (2001) present an overview of AGROCEL: An agri-business
company. The company was launched in 1988, with a mission to make all agri-inputs
available to farmers at the right time and at reasonable price with all necessary technical
guidance under one umbrella so that farmers’ farm yield and income can be enhanced to
meet the national demand. AGROCEL offered advisory services in all required areas and
made the necessary inputs available to farmers according to their demand and needs.
Regarding crop improvement the areas included were seeds of improved and hybrid
varieties, organizing crop production programs for buyers, value addition to farm
production and the promotion of organic farming. Concerning the land and water
management, the areas were land preparation, soil structure and fertility management,
soil reclamation and irrigation systems. Relating to nutrient management the areas were
crops and cropping systems, soil and water testing, use of organic manures, proper and
balanced use of fertilizers. With respect to pest and disease management, the areas were
identification and forecasting, prevention and cure of the pests and disease problems,
judicious use of bio and chemical pesticides, use of integrated pest management
46
technologies, training and education on pests, diseases, weeds and pesticide use. The
company also organized farmers’ education tours. One of the most worthwhile
experiences of AGROCEL was its integrated cotton management program through the
group of the farmers. Farmers were advised to grow cotton in their fields by following the
integrated crop management (ICM) and organic practices. The raw cotton is purchased
from farmers at 8-10% higher prices than the existing market price.
2.6 Target Beneficiaries of Private Extension System
Davidson et al. (2001) concluded that the public and private extension systems
offer competing, conflicting and overlapping programs and both extension system use a
strategy of contact farmers, which severely limits the flow of information. They further
concluded that private extension system was biased towards big and rich farmers. It
ignores the small and resource poor farmers because of its primary interest in generating
profits and public sector extension is biased towards educated farmers, although not
necessarily towards big farmers.
Reddy & Rao (2001) stated in a study entitled “Privatization of agricultural
extension: An analysis” that the private extension services usually concentrated in
horticulture, floriculture and other commercial crops which have both domestic and
global markets. Only big landholders and well-off farmers can afford to pay for extension
services. This system would totally ignore the small and poor farmers. This would create
a gap between the rich and poor farmers. Asian policy makers are mainly drawing
privatization experiences of European and Western countries wherein only 5-10% of their
population are engaged in farming whereas in contrast 70% of the Indian population
depends on agriculture for their livelihoods, out of which again 65-70% of them are small
47
and poor subsistence farmers. These farmers grow crops such as rice, oilseeds and pulses
that are recognized to ensure food security. Privatization is bound to ignore these less
profitable crops pushing the governments to meet the food requirements of the population
through imports. The authors further state that the private extension agents do not advice
sustainable practices for agriculture instead they promote the maximum exploitation of
natural resources. In full swing commercialization, traditional agriculture would shift to
high value crops leaving a huge gap between the demand and supply of the commodities.
They recommend that the government should conduct thorough market research and find
out the gaps in production and explore the possible markets at national and international
levels. The government can encourage contract farming in this regard. They further add
that the competency of extension workers can be enhanced through training and by
replacing the existing unqualified staff with well-qualified extension agents.
Saravanan (2001) described the concept of privatization of extension systems. He
pointed out three aspects: extension personnel of the agency, clients are expected to pay
for the service (it may not expect fee from clients. e.g. NGOs) and this system act as
supplementary to public extension service. He further described the reasons behind
privatization. It included financial burden on government, poor performance of public
sector extension and commercialization of agriculture. The assumptions behind private
extension were stated that the extension generated new income and became on economic
input. It provides demand-driven service, it becomes more cost effective with efficient
and quality service, it increases the voice of farmers in the extension system,
complements or supplements the efforts of public extension, private extension increases
staff professionalism, clients are more committed to the service and extension personnel
48
become more accountable to the clients. Saravanan (2001) further added that private
extension is not suitable to small and marginal farmers as it concentrates on big farmers
of the localities having a favorable environment. Private extension is less education
oriented and more commercial in nature and does not concentrate on food security.
Private extension limits the flow of information. The author added that private extension
mostly focus on big farmers, and commercial crops, areas having a favorable
environment like fertile and irrigated areas. They are not interested in investing in small,
marginal and resource poor farmers because private agencies are more interested in
generating profits. Farmers of rain-fed areas and with less income in subsistence
agriculture may not be able to afford to pay for the services. He further added that profit
oriented services included not only technology transfer but also input supply and private
consultancy mostly employees personal contact methods for delivery services.
Satapathy & Mangaraj (2001) stated that in the privatization context the variables
like marketability of product, social demand, infrastructure facility, cost benefit ratio and
knowledge about market can be analyzed. With analysis of these variables it could be
concluded that a small number of farmers in a few selected areas can afford a fee-based
extension services. The authors presumed that the consequences of the privatization of
extension services would lead to the social distance, social conflict, social dis-equilibrium,
higher gap between the haves and the have nots, selectiveness of technologies for
adoption, commercialization with human value, shortage of essential food grain and with
temptation to act as middleman rather than food producers. He further added that factors
like training, experience, commitment, sincerity and objective oriented action could
contribute in the success of privatization.
49
Bajwa (2004) concluded that both sectors i.e. public and private have their
strengths and weaknesses. The public extension system has poorly motivated staff,
inadequate operational funds, lack of relevant technology, top-down planning, centralized
management and weak accountability systems. Therefore, it is not delivered to the
majority of small farmers. On the other hand the private extension system target big
farmers and are primarily triggered by the profit maximization motive. Bajwa (2004)
presents a model of public-private partnership arguing that similar models could be
adopted to make agricultural extension services work for the benefit of small farmers.
Mahaliyanaarachchi (2004) concluded that both respondents i.e. extension
personnel and the agri. scientists have a similar response about most of the constraints
statements. He considered that the privatization of agricultural extension was hindered in
Sri Lanka due to highly variable agro-climatic and socio-economic imbalances, and a
large majority of poor and small farmers. A majority of the farmers in Sri Lanka had a
view that privatization was not the solution for the problems of poor farmers and it would
lead to a socio-economic and regional imbalance. Farmers, extension personnel and
scientists had a view that profit-oriented privatization would not deal efficiently with
poor and small farmers. Resources of poor or small-scale farmers would be neglected by
the private agencies. They would consider only rich and large farmers who could afford
to pay for the services. Poor farmers who could not afford to pay for the service would be
automatically excluded from the system.
Labarthe (2005) conducted a study entitled “Performance of services and unequal
access to agricultural extension: Study case in Ain (France) and Zeeland (Netherlands)”.
The purpose of the study was to assess the effect of the changes on the efficiency of
50
extension service providers and the direct impact on clients. The data were collected
about the performance of extension agencies by considering the access and utilization of
extension services by the farmers. The results of the study showed that the privatization
of extension services had a strong impact on the performance of the system but such
performance could also lead to inequalities regarding quantitative and qualitative access
to extension services among the farming community.
Sulaiman et al. (2005) conducted a study entitled “Effectiveness of private sector
extension in India and lessons for the new extension policy agenda”. He stated that
Mahindra Subhlabh Services Limited (MSSL) had initiated one-stop farm solutions
centers called Mahindra Krishi Vihar (MKV) in selected districts of India. The findings
of the study indicated that farmers were willing to pay for the delivery of an integrated set
of advisory services providing them access to quality inputs, credit and advice on the
latest technology. They further concluded that the increase in yields and income is
attributed to field-specific technical advice from the private extension provider regarding
the application of the right type of inputs at the right stage of crop growth while a private
extension approach focus mainly on large land holders. They added that a private
organization is able to develop a sustainable and profitable business selling extension
services which go beyond the traditional task of providing production technology, to
include market services and linkages. They also state that the policy implications that
private extension is a useful and viable alternative to public services for large land
holders growing valuable crops but is likely to ignore the poor farmers. The authors
suggest that efforts should be made to encourage private delivery in areas where there is
great demand for extension services. In the same geographical areas the public sector
51
should concentrate on small and poor farmers as well as on alternative roles such as
regulating the quality of private services and to better prices ensure for their commodities.
2.7 Professional Competency of a Private Extension System
Swamy (2001) stated in a study entitled “Human resource development among
professionals as an approach and a challenge for privatization of extension in India” that
to develop competency among private extension professionals, five key areas need to be
considered i) developing efficiency among professionals to select appropriate innovations
for diffusion, ii) developing knowledge-skill-attitude and attributes among professionals,
iii) developing communication ability among professionals for effective communication,
iv) training of professionals to meet the demands of private extension system and v)
developing entrepreneurship among professionals. He further summarized that
knowledge, attitude, skills and attributes are needed for professional competency
development among private extension agents. Knowledge areas include subject matter,
farming systems, inputs and marketing, farm and farm families, farmers’ problems, farm
economics and extension methods. Concerning attitude, the areas were such as serving
clients, technical know-how, fieldwork, organization, farmers’ interest, problem solving
and self-development. On the topic of skills, areas include as communication,
technological, training, diagnostic, problem solving, organizational and demonstration.
Finally, attributes of self-confidence, conduct, empathy, experience, flexibility and self-
development were identified as important.
52
2.8 Extension Methods/Channels
Imran (1991) conducted a study entitled “To determine the effectiveness of
various pesticide agencies in the adoption of recommended plant protection practices by
the cotton growers of tehsil Depalpur, district Okara, Pakistan”. He concluded that 92%
of the respondents used insecticides and pesticides as they said they are satisfied with
their work. Only 32% of the respondents reported that they used pesticides and
insecticides due to the advisory services of the private extension field staff. The most
important reasons for not adopting a normal dose of insecticides and pesticides were lack
of awareness about the recommended dose of that particular product. The survey
indicated the lack of advisory services to be provided to the farmers by extension field
staff regarding input utilization. He further concluded that 80% of the respondents
reported private extension field staff as most important source of information, followed
by public extension staff (72%). He added that the most important extension methods
used by private extension field staff were group meeting and individual contacts.
Ladebo et al. (1997) conducted a study to assess the use and effect of radio
program on farmers' knowledge in Ogun state. Eighty farmers (N=80) were randomly
selected from four villages through a two-stage sampling procedure. The data were
collected using both personal interviews and structured questionnaires. Chi-square
statistics were used to determine the relationships between the dependent and
independent variables. Findings showed that 72. 5% of the respondents owned radio sets.
About 48.7% of the respondents reported that their source of information regarding farm
information was radio.
53
Omotayo et al. (1997) conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of radio in
Nigeria regarding the dissemination of information on improved farming practices”.
From five farming systems zones in Nigeria, two states were selected. Five hundred
farmers were randomly selected from each of the ten states. The data were collected
through questionnaires. Information was also obtained from radio, research institutes and
state agricultural development projects. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics
and ordinary least square multiple regression analysis. The analysis showed that 28% of
the respondents owned radios while about 48% had access to the radio sets. The
programs on agriculture were least interesting as perceived by the farmers. The
respondents pointed out that the evening time was the most suitable for farm broadcasts.
Between 40 and 50% of the radio set owners indicated that they obtained information
regarding farming practices through radio. Radio was considered an effective tool in the
dissemination of farming technologies among the farming community. The effectiveness
of radio was influenced by certain demographic characteristics and certain types of radio
programs as revealed by data. It was suggested that radio broadcasts regarding farm
practices should be made available to the farmers.
Ogunwale & Laogun (1998) conducted a study entitled “Analysis of sources of
farm information and improved technologies used by farmers in Nigerian agricultural
development programs”. The study assessed the sources of information of the farmers
regarding agricultural information. Data were collected from 120 randomly selected
farmers. The analysis revealed that the primary source of information of the farmers was
village extension workers. Other sources were fortnightly training meetings, radio
programs, friends and neighbors, demonstration sites and contact farmers. The
54
respondents also pointed out that there was less emphasis on mass media methods. None
of the farmers pointed out the use of shows, agricultural films and television broadcasts
to obtain agricultural information. There was no statistically significant relationship
between the age of farmers and various sources of information used by farmers. The
researchers recommended that a combination of extension methods should be used to
disseminate information about farm technologies.
Squire (1998) conducted a study entitled “A study of the attitudes of traditional
farmers toward the usefulness of selected channels for communicating agricultural
technology in Botswana”. The purpose of study was to investigate the attitudes of
subsistent farmers towards the use of selected channels to disseminate the latest
agricultural technologies in Botswana. The objectives of the study were to describe the
Botswana subsistent farmers, their attitude and awareness about the usefulness of selected
channels to disseminate agricultural technologies. In this study, 150 farmers were
selected from 12 random extension areas. The results revealed that a majority (57%) of
the respondents were in the age category of 41-50 years. About 55% of the respondents
were female, 60% mixed farmers, 53% single, 80% were heads of households and 59%
never attended schools. The most useful channels for delivering agricultural technology
as perceived by the respondents were the male and female technical assistants and most
of the respondents were aware of the channels for transferring agricultural technologies in
Botswana.
Blum & Katz (2000) conducted a study to assess the extent of use of three
different types of written and verbal information sources used by the dairy farmers. Dairy
farmers’ magazine was the major written source of information. The most important
55
verbal source was the extension workers. Statistical correlation was found between the
frequency of use of the different information sources and level of agricultural education
of the farmers. This was the explanatory factor with respect to high milk yield in
Kibbutzims family farms. Comparatively, educated farmers sought the latest information
but less educated farmers mostly followed the advice received from extension agents.
Narayana (2001) presented a paper entitled “Agricultural extension through
newspapers, agricultural journals and TV channels”. The author confirmed that there was
always demand from the public staff for their better pay scales, facilities and promotions.
There was fast deterioration in the public extension services due to the lack of incentives.
With the increase in pay scales, 85% of the budget was spent on salaries and there was
very little amount provided to execute the extension activities or to develop infrastructure.
He further stated that, now a days the daily newspapers and agriculture related journals in
local languages of India had access to nook and corners of rural areas. Radios were
available in almost all villages. TVs were also used in rural settings. Thus, the print and
audio-visual media were very useful and important sources for fast communication of
agricultural technology to rural people. The print and audio-visual media had gained
popularity and had attracted the people particularly when it covered the issues faced by
the farmers and provided the solutions as well. The author suggests that in spit of the
profit oriented interest, the private media and organizations should have a keen look upon
the national interest and interest of their clients.
Padre (2001) presented a study entitled “self-help journalism- a successful bottom
up approach”. He described the deficiencies and drawbacks of the existing farm
journalism. He stated that most of the write-ups of agricultural articles were library-borne
56
as field contact was evidently lacking. Exaggeration and passing half-truths as reality was
another serious issue in the farm journalism. Scientists who were not able to
communicate simply and effectively contributed most of the articles. Most of the scientist
except the extension people had not been trained for this. Moreover, it was always one-
way communication. Productive experiences of the farmers were not taken into account
by the extension system for further spreading. In spite of all this the system preferred to
enforce technology generated by the public research centers. It was needed to hand over
pen to the farmers who were the real practitioners. This was the objective with which
Krishikara Kaige Lekhani - KKL (meaning handing over pen to farmers, in Kannada)
was started. Trainees were selected among the applicants after screening. Workshops
were arranged for the participant. The lectures, exercises and field assignments were
conducted to identify issues and to extract the useful information from fellow farmers.
These farmers wrote their experiences for the magazines. Over a decade’s observation, it
was found that for many of farmers’ issues their own counterparts had the best answer.
Radhakrishnan & Karippai (2001) conducted a study entitled “the role of
newspaper in transfer of agricultural technologies”. They stated that public extension had
proved less effective due to its rigid bureaucratic nature and unaccountability. Extension
system, which forms the lifeline of agriculture, needed to be revitalized. On the other side,
the governments had reduced the funds for public extension system and private extension
had emerged as an alternative approach. Among the private extension services the mass
media such as newspapers played an important role in technology transfer. But mostly
press got involved in highlighting the political and other related issues. Another well-
identified constraint was that print medium which was generally found urban-biased in its
57
content and treatment. They further added that newspaper was preferred by more than
86% of the respondents. This proved the superiority of the newspaper over other medium
like magazines and leaflets. It was also found that about 81% of the readers consult the
farm pages regularly every week. They also identified the different constraints in
transferring the message. Constraints at encoding level were faulty perception of
audience profile by the author as perceived by the reader, defective identification of
message units, improper selection of message, confusing style of writing and
inappropriate title of the message. The constraints at transmission level were untimely
reached to the audience, incomplete messages, inadequate use of illustrations, lack of
clarity in printing and improper layout and design. Constraints with respect to decoding
included irrelevance to attributes of innovation, lack of credibility of the farm and
magazine/newspaper etc.
Abbas (2005) conducted a study entitled “role of pesticides companies in the
dissemination of plant protection technologies among cotton grower in tehsil Rejanpur,
Pakistan”. He concluded that private sector was highly effective as an information source.
Respondents rated the effectiveness of communication skills, sociability, ability to
persuade, usefulness of information, credibility, technical knowledge and
dedication/devotion of private sector between medium and high category. He reported
that effectiveness of farm visits was rated between low and medium category while the
effectiveness of group meeting, method demonstration, result demonstration and printed
materials was rated in low category by the respondents. He further reported that the
contribution of private sector regarding plant protection measures of cotton crop i.e.
chemical control of pests/diseases and use of resistant varieties rated between low and
58
medium category. Similarly, contribution regarding chemical weed control, seed
treatment and manual weed control tended toward low and very low category. He added
that majority of the respondents was not at all satisfied with the work of private sector.
However, about 20 and 15% of the respondents were partially and fully satisfied
respectively. More than half (52%) of the respondents suggested that private extension
field staff should follow regularity, punctuality in their visits to the farmers.
Hedjazi et al. (2006) stated in a study entitled “factors affecting the use of ICTs
by Iranian agriculture extension specialists” that Information technology was a most
important development axis in the world. Agricultural extension had a great
responsibility to share information between the farmers and the several other actors. This
study described the importance and inevitability of informational and communication
technologies (ICTs) in agricultural extension. The population of the study was 104
extension experts (staff member) who worked for the Ministry of Agriculture. The results
of the study revealed that there was significant difference between skills to produce and
skills to use ICTs with their using ICTs and working experience. The comparative result
showed that extension experts used more information and communication technologies
than other specialists.
59
2.9 Effectiveness of Communication
Chatha (1984) conducted a study entitled “teaching effectiveness of results
demonstrations conducted by Ciba- Geigy to introduse Dicuron M.A. 60 W. P. in wheat”.
He concluded that an outcome of result demonstrations conducted by the private
extension field staff of Ciba-Geigy (now Syngenta) included a great majority (91.67%) of
the respondents adopting the demonstrated weedicides. Majority (71.82%) of the
respondents used recommended dose of weedicides. Level of education and size of land
holding were positively associated with the adoption of weedicides. Lack of finances was
the main hurdle in adopting the demonstrated weedicides as reported by 80% of the non-
adopters. High cost of weedicides and carelessness were other factors of not using the
weedicides as reported by 20 and 30% of the non-adopters respectively. It was clear that
result demonstration method used by private extension field staff was highly effective.
Ashraf (2001) conducted a study entitled “a study into the effectiveness of
communication methods used by pesticide companies to popularize their products among
the farmers of tehsil Arifwala, Pakistan”. He concluded that 90% of the respondents
agreed that farm and home visits paid by private extension field staff were properly
planned and conducted. However, the visits appeared to be relatively weak regarding
follow up. All the respondents were of the view that the time for conducting result
demonstrations was appropriate. He further concluded that all the respondents reported
that the extension field staff arranged discussion meetings, at appropriate time and
subject matter for discussion, was based on the audience’s interest. He further added that
a vast majority (above 80%) of the respondents agreed on the literature used by the
private extension field staff to disseminate agricultural information, was nicely prepared
60
and had attraction for the readers. It was adequately dressed up with picture/diagrams and
provided complete information in a simple and easy language.
2.10 Attitude and Preferences towards Private Extension System
The attitude and preferences of stakeholders towards private extension reflects its
need and importance. The attitude and preferences of farmers, extension personnel and
researchers for private extension are presented in the following lines.
2.10.1 Preferences of Farmers
Kalra and Virk (2001) conducted a study entitled “privatization of agricultural
extension services in Punjab: An experiment”, with the aim that what type of
privatization should be tried in India. The data for the study were collected from 200
progressive farmers: Members of Punjab Kisan Club. The data were analyzed by
calculating frequencies and percentages. Analysis of the data revealed that more than
60% of the respondents were in favor of privatization of institutional training courses i.e.
one year course for farmers and farm women, three months course for young farmers,
other short term courses of 2-15 days duration, village training camps, method and result
demonstrations. Respondents felt that the clients did not recognize the worth of free
training. They further concluded that about 80% of the farmers were ready to pay soil
testing fee and warehouses fee. Similarly, regarding certified seed about 92% of the
farmers were found ready to pay its cost. Farmers were also willing to pay for
consultancy services for the technology of new beneficial crops and its marketing e.g.
commercial floriculture and vegetable production, etc. The data also revealed that a large
number of the respondent (60-90%) were not in favor of withdrawal of subsidies of
61
inputs such as pesticides, seed, fertilizers, gypsum, weedicides, cattle-feed, storage bins
and engineering goods.
Singh (2001) conducted a study entitled “Multi-national corporations (MNCs) and
agricultural technology transfer: A case study of contract farming in the Indian Punjab”.
This study evaluated the role and performance of an agri-business MNC in tomato
production technology transfer through contract farming in the Indian Punjab. Basically
contract farming deals with the pre-agreed price, quality, acreage and time. In contract
farming, the contracting firm provides all the inputs to the farmer who become the
contributor of the land and labor. He added that farmers might prefer contracts because
they are flexible and easy to terminate. Such types of contracts were more attractive to
the farmers that provided additional financial sources and buyer share risk with the
farmers in adverse situation. Farmers also got easy access to the latest technology and
inputs which otherwise may be beyond their reach. The companies printed and
disseminated the booklets in simple languages that provided specific details about the
crops. Even schedules of pesticide spray were specified along with the names of
chemicals and dose to be given each time for spray. The extension workers of the
company regularly visited the fields of the farmers and gave them recommendation about
agricultural practices. The firms also provided training to the selected clients where they
were exposed to the latest production technology with the help of modern teaching
methods. Farmers were also given a demonstration of the various agricultural implements.
This study was conducted in Punjab and based on the interviews of contract farmer and
the company officials. Results of the study indicated that in spite of facing some
problems, the farmers were happy with contracting. About 62% of the farmers wanted to
62
continue their contracts and many other farmers showed their concern to get into contract
with MNC.
Kumar et al. (2001) conducted a study entitled “privatization of agricultural
extension system in India: Preferences and constraints”, to know the preferences of
farmers, extension workers and researchers towards privatization of agricultural
extension and to identify the perceived constraints of respondents in privatizing the
agricultural extension service. The study was carried out in Coimbatore district of Tamil
Nadu. The study area was selected because of its progressiveness in agriculture. The
study was conducted with three categories of the respondents i.e. researcher, extension
workers, and farmers. To explore the preferences of the extension workers and
researchers a questionnaire was prepared, whereas the data from the farmers were
collected through interview schedule. The collected data were analyzed and simple
percentages were calculated for comparison. About 28.89% of the farmers favored the
privatization of commercial crops whereas 13.33% of them favored the privatization of
horticultural crops and only 11.11% of the farmers favored the privatization of all the
field crops. It means that majority of the farmer had the view to privatize the commercial
and horticultural crops. From both commercial and horticultural crops, higher profit
could be obtained, this might be one of the reasons for preferring the privatization of
theses crops. They further added that 22.22% of the respondents preferred the
privatization for large farmers only. Regarding the approaches of privatization, 26.67% of
the farmers had preferred the privatization plus government subsidy approaches whereas
15.56% of them preferred sharecropping. Perceived constraints as reported by the
respondents towards privatization of agricultural extension service were small and
63
marginal farmers, input subsidies, political background of the country, threat for socio-
economic inequality and regional imbalance, inadequate and untrained personnel
available with private agencies, unsatisfactory collaboration between the research and
private extension system.
Jegadeesan et al. (2002) conducted a study entitled “factors influencing the
attitude of farmers towards privatization of agricultural extension services”. This study
was conducted in Dindigul district in Tamil Nadu. This region was selected based on
existence of private consultancy centers for agriculture. A sample of 120 respondents was
selected and data were collected through interview schedule. For data analysis correlation
and multiple regression analysis were performed. The results of the study revealed that
the variables like annual income and innovativeness had positive significant correlation
with the dependent variable at 1% level of probability. Where as the variables i.e.
decision making ability showed positive significant correlation at 5% level and
occupation showed negative significant correlation with attitude of the respondents at 5%
level in private agricultural extension system (PAES). The result pointed out that the
respondents who had higher annual income would be interested towards PAES. To get
services farmers had to pay fee to PAES and meet their needs. It is obvious that the
farmers who had more annual income might prefer PAES to further increase their farm-
income. Innovativeness and decision making ability reveal positive significant relation
towards the PAES. The farmers with innovative nature may try to find latest agricultural
technology from all possible sources including private sector. They added that when the
services of the public extension system were available free of cost definitely farmers
would not prefer private extension services. It is evident from results that the factors
64
such as innovativeness and decision making ability and annual income had shown
maximum positive direct effects on the dependent variable attitude. The variables like
farm size and farming experience and management orientation had maximum indirect
effects on the dependent variables’ attitude. It could be concluded from the results that
decision-making ability, innovativeness and annual income were the crucial variables on
the attitude towards PAES.
2.10.2 Preferences of Scientists
Gowda & Saravanan (2001) conducted a study entitled “attitude and preferences
of agricultural scientists towards privatization of agricultural extension service”. The
investigation was conducted in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu State, India. A sample
of 40 scientists represented the agricultural social science disciplines such as agricultural
extension, agricultural economics that were much exposed to agricultural development
and policy issues were selected from the universe. The results of the study revealed that a
good number of scientists (50%) had a favorable and most favorable (22.50%) attitude.
However, more than one fourth proportion of the scientist respondents had least positive
attitude towards privatization of agricultural extension system. Regarding positive
attitude towards privatization of agricultural extension system the results show that about
47.5% of the scientists preferred privatization in all the crops. Almost same percentage
(45%) of scientists preferred privatization only for commercial and horticultural crops.
Majority of the scientists (55%) had positive attitude toward privatization for all the
categories of farmers and about 45% of the scientists favored privatization only for big
farmers. Majority of the scientists (75%) preferred privatization in all agro-climatic
regions. The results revealed that, scientists had two different types of opinions. Majority
65
of scientists favored privatization for big farmers and wet land areas only in commercial
and horticultural crops.
2.10.3 Preferences of Extension Personnel
Hanchinal et al. (2001) conducted a study entitled “privatization of extension
service: Attitudes and preferences of extension personnel”, to assess the attitude and
preferred area of services of extension personnel regarding privatization of extension
service. The research work was conducted in Haveri district which was selected
purposively because about 70 private agencies involved in providing extension service
and agricultural inputs were actively engaged in the area. From a total of 16 villages,
overall 60 extension personnel were selected for the study. The data were collected from
the respondents by personal interviews through structured interview schedule. The data
showed that the respondents were almost equally distributed in less favorable (33.33%),
favorable (35.00%) and more favorable (31.67%) categories of attitude. The overall mean
attitude score was 89.77. It could be concluded that majority of the extension personnel in
the study area were sure about the advantages of privatization of extension service. It was
found that mean attitude score of private extension personnel (93.36) was higher than that
of public extension personnel (79.87). The‘t’ value obtained was significant (1% level of
probability). They further concluded that majority (70%) of the respondents preferred
private extension system to extend advisory service in the area of cultivation of flowers
followed by cultivation of vegetables (66.67%), seed-production (63.33%), cultivation of
fruit crops (61.67%) and post- harvest technology (51.67%) which depicted that the
extension worker had tendency towards involvement of private sector in horticultural
66
crops, seed-production and post-harvest technology. They further added that 61.67% of
the respondents possessed bachelor degree in agriculture.
2.11 Demand and Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Advisory Services
Saravanan & Resmy (2000) presented a study entitled “private agri-clinic”. They
stated that Bangalore (India), a sanitary and airy city, had equable climate and rich wealth
of colorful plant life. Over the years, charisma of garden city added through the
establishment of gardens in the premises of houses, layouts, industrial and commercial
firms etc. This environment provided generous opportunities to private consultancy
regarding garden development and maintenance. One such private agricultural
consultancy, naming Private Agri-Clinic, was established in 1995 in Bangalore (India) to
provide consultancy regarding agriculture and related aspects i.e. garden development
and maintenance, orchards and plantations, pest control for domestic purpose and
providing garden plants on a hire basis. Personal contact method was used widely for
communication. For the study, data were collected through personal interview method to
understand the function of consultancy. Data indicated that agri-clinic performed
successfully and generally served for nonagricultural sector people. But very few farmers
were approached for consultancy service. They were reluctant to pay for the services.
Clinic was located at interior of the city that might be one of the reasons for farmers not
approaching the consultancy. Consultant had also not taken any serious efforts to
popularize the consultancy firm among farmers.
Saravanan & Shivalinge (2000) presented a study entitled “status of functioning
of the two private consultancy firms in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu”. For the study
two registered agricultural consultancy firms i.e. Pan Horti Consultants (P) Ltd.and Viji
67
Hi-tech: Agri-Horti Liaison Project in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu state (India)
were selected. The data were collected with the help of interview schedule. Primary
objective of Pan Horti Consultants (P) Ltd. was to disseminate technology in horticulture
and other related aspects. Firm recruited post-graduate and under-graduate personnel
from horticulture and agricultural disciplines to serve the firm. Subject matter specialists
disseminate the specialized technologies regarding irrigation, horticulture, entomology
etc. Extension Methods such as Personal contacts, telephone, e-mail were widely used for
communication. The problems expressed by the consultancy were that only a small
number of big farmers and more non-agricultural people approached for the consultancy.
Fluctuated market price of agricultural commodities and lack of assurance about
commercialization of agriculture affected the consultancy service. Viji Hi-tech: Agri-
Horti Liaison Project was started in 1998 with the prime objective to transfer agricultural
technology among farming community. The consultants generally used personal contact
methods. Consultants made very few visits to farmers’ field in relation to seed production
and pest control. Some farmers approached the firm for consultancy but they were not
willing to pay for the services.
Shekara (2001b) stated in a study entitled “private extension in India: Myths,
realities, apprehensions and approaches” that agricultural extension varies from simple
transfer of information to facilitate the process of total human development. The services
are mainly funded and delivered by government in India. But there are private agencies
that also provide extension services. The process of provision of extension services by
private individuals or organizations is called private extension. In private Extension,
stakeholders were agricultural consultants, agricultural consultancy firms, progressive
68
farmers, farmer’s organization or co-operatives, non-governmental organizations
(NGO’s), Krishi Vignana Kendra’s (KVK’s), agri-business companies, input dealers,
newspapers, agricultural magazines, private television channels, private sector banks,
internet and donor agencies. Private extension is considered necessary due to the lack of
ability of the public extension to provide service to all farmers in time by covering all the
agriculture related aspects i.e. input supply, market support, and processing, etc. Public
extension system has limitation of less number of extension personnel to cover very wide
geographical area in India i.e. 1: 1000. Lack of professional expertise of extension agents
with confined role to provide advisory services regarding process of production is also
one of the causes of the genesis of private extension. He pointed out that private
extension has an important role to play in future in the Indian agricultural development.
International experiences regarding privatization of extension system indicated that
private extension reduces the fiscal burden of the governments and increases the
accountability and efficiency of extension services. It is possible to prevent the farmers
being exploited by private extension agents by proper legislation. He further reported that
50% of the scientists had favorable and 22.5% most favorable attitude towards
privatization. About 42.8% of the extension workers preferred privatization of all crops
and 66.67% were agreed with the advantages of privatization. About 30.2% of the
farmers were willing to pay Rs. 25/- as fee to extension agents, followed by Rs.10/-
(27.3%), Rs.50/- (21%), Rs.20/- (11.2%) and Rs. 100/- (10.3%). However, that also
depends on cultivated crops, demand and quality of services.
Soam (2001) stated in a study entitled “A case study of extension services for
organic farming in UK: Options for private extension in India”, that private extension can
69
work as double-edged instrument by providing technological information, services and
institutional support to the organic farmers and putting feedback about production
problems to the private and public research institutions, turn in providing answers to the
farmers’ queries. Private extension system needed to extend the existing knowledge of
conventional growers. He further added that the studies regarding willingness to pay
(WTP) for agricultural services indicated that livestock farmers were willing to pay for
services at various annual prices. The WTP was influenced by socioeconomic factors.
The rich and poor farmers’ WTP cannot be alike. He concluded that the linkages among
public extension-research- private organizations- farmers’ associations improve the
effectiveness and cost sharing for extension. In turn, it provides the opportunities for
private extension system.
Chukwuone & Agwu (2005) conducted a study entitled “Financing agricultural
technology delivery in Nigeria: Would farmers be willing to pay? This study ascertained
the willingness of farmers in Nigeria to pay for technology delivery services. For this
study, a randomly selected 300 farmers from six states, represented each of the
geopolitical zones in the country. The data were collected by questionnaire and analyzed
to investigate the willingness of the farmers to pay for extension services. The finding of
the study show that the mean amount farmers were willing to pay annually for technology
delivery was 330.73 Naira (2.25 $). Location of the respondents, household size, number
of years of farming experience farm income and major occupation, significantly
influenced the willingness to pay for services. They suggested that the fee-based
extension system should be introduced step by step in Nigeria.
70
2.12 Generating Funds for Private Extension System
Chandrakandan & Karthiikeyan (2001) stated that India has the largest extension
system in the world with 1, 17,603 paid extension agents providing services to the more
than 90 million farm families. Commercial service providers are actively engaged in the
fertile and resourceful areas and they normally ignore the rain fed and resource-poor
areas, where there is least possibility to make profits. The factors which have been
considered for privatization of agricultural extension services in India were types of
cultivated crops, socio-economic status of the farmers i.e. tenancy, ownership, leased,
small, marginal, medium and large farmers categories, suitability of the approaches
experienced in world, rainfall pattern of the area, floods and cyclone etc. He further
stated that there are different ways in which farmers can contribute to the costs of a
privatized extension service i.e. they can pay for each visit, a levy can be charged on
certain agricultural commodity, membership fees can be paid to the farmers’ association
to meet the costs of extension delivery, the extension service can obtain a specific share
of the income a farmer earned as a result of advisory services given by the extension
agent.
Hochmuth & Maynard (2002) presented a study entitled “Generating private-
sector funding for extension programs”. They stated that traditional sources i.e.
government, cannot meet up the expenses for the delivery of modern extension programs.
Successful extension educational programs would require relying on non-traditional
sources to fund educational programs. They concluded that fees charged to attendees
were one of the means of covering costs of delivering programs. They further added that
the University of Florida is partnering with the agriculture industry and trade journal
71
publishers to provide resources, publishing for extension, educational programs and
materials.
Hedjazi & Soltani (2005) conducted a study entitled “Factors effecting of cotton
farmers’ tendency to participate in financing agricultural extension services in Iran”.
They stated that farmer’s contribution in the cost sharing for agricultural extension
services is being increasingly transformed into a new paradigm for the rural development.
This study was conducted to analyze the farmers’ tendency to contribute in financing
agricultural extension. The study consisted of 294 cotton farmers from 15 villages of
Varamin district. Data were collected through interviews. The kronbach for the main part
of the questionnaire was found to be 0.76. Findings indicated that factors related to
farmers’ tendency to contribute in financing agricultural extension were age, level of
education, area of the land under cultivation, experience in cotton farming and demand of
services.
Chukwuone et al. (2006) conducted a study entitled “constraints and strategies
toward effective cost sharing of agricultural technology delivery in Nigeria: Perception of
farmers and agricultural extension personnel”. This study ascertained the perception of
farmers and extension agents on the constraints and strategies towards effective cost
sharing of agricultural technology delivery in Nigeria. The study was carried out in six
geopolitical zones of Nigeria. Multistage random sampling technique was used in the
selection of respondents. A sample of 267 farmers and 272 agricultural development
program (ADP) staff was drawn for the study. Means, standard deviation, exploratory
factor analysis and t-test statistics were used in realizing the objectives. The results
showed that the major constraints to effective cost-sharing of agricultural extension
72
service in Nigeria were weak institutional development, extension system lapses, lack of
cooperation by farmers, uncertainties in agriculture, conflicts and corruption. The major
strategies for effective cost-sharing arrangement include building political support for
cost-sharing, establishment of farmers’ organizations for fee collection, creating and
enabling legislation for cost-sharing and increasing the number of extension agents. The
study recommended the proper information delivery on cost-sharing before
implementation, enabling legislation, building the capabilities of extension staff and
decentralizing extension system.
Foti et al. (2007) conducted a study entitled “Seterminants of farmer demand for
“fee-for-service” extension in Zimbabwe”. They stated that the complex phenomenon of
African agriculture had increased the pressure on agricultural education and extension
system. By acknowledging the productive role of agricultural extension, many African
countries had devoted a lot of resources for the development of agricultural extension
system. This however is at odds with the increasing fiscal deficits and the poor
governance of public programs in these countries. As a result, tendency has been
increased towards making extension less burdensome to the governments and more
relevant to the farmers, needs. In Zimbabwe, several studies have focused to describe the
function and usefulness of the current public dominated extension system. Insignificant
work has been done to assess the potential for the establishment of a private and fee-
based extension system. The purpose of this study was to find out the factors that affect
the establishment of a fee-based extension system in Zimbabwe and to give
recommendations for a commercial agricultural extension system to serve the small
farmers in Zimbabwe. A logistic regression model of binary choice was used as the major
73
analytical tool. The study found out that the degree of commercialization of farm
enterprises, farmer income, urban or rural farmers’ background, farm size, and risk
attitude of the farmer significantly affected the demand for fee-based extension system
and it was concluded that these variables should be considered when targeting farmers for
provision of private extension services.
2.13 Technology Adoption through Private Extension Services
Prasad (2001b) conducted a study entitled “Dissemination of pepper production
technology, supply and services through Kurumulaku Samrakshana Samities (KSS) in
Kerla” with the objective to find out extent of adoption, the training needs of the farmers
and to elicit the training strategies perceived by the farmers. The Government of Kerala
started kurumulaku samrakshana samities (as NGO) to solve the problems of black
pepper growers in Kerala state. The mandate of the samiti was to rejuvenate the disease
affected pepper gardens, adoption of latest management practices, reducing the cost of
production and arrange the technical programs for the farmers as directed by the
government. The Study conducted in four districts of Kerala viz. Wynad, Calicut,
Cannanore and Idukki that were selected at random. Three villages were selected at
random from each district. A sample of 120 farmers was selected at random from twelve
villages. Data were collected with the help of interview schedule. The results of the study
indicated that majority (61%) of the samiti members had positive view regarding the
function of samiti. Respondents felt the need to strengthen and restructure the samiti for
more effective work. He further concluded that farmers adopted the practices in the
following order: harvesting stage, inter cropping, processing of pepper, improved
varieties, recommended standards, gap filling, FYM application, cultural practices,
74
pepper cuttings/ha, spacing, fertilizers application and plant protection measures etc. He
further added that few farmers felt that the supply of inputs was adequate (29%),
information delivery was continuing (24%) and supply of services was regular (23%).
Sarmah (2001) conducted a study entitled “Private-public collaborative extension
program–experience of Assam Agricultural University”. The study was regarding
collaborative extension program. Under this program, Assam Agricultural University
(AAU) provided technical services and the TATA Tea Company supplied the material
inputs to the farmers. The objective of this program was to acquire and apply the
knowledge and skills through farmer’s organization. The operational area of the AAU –
TATA Tea Company collaborative program comprised of the five districts of Assam, out
of which on district Jorhat was selected for the study. Out of 280 registered rice growers
from 11 adopted villages, a sample of 90 farmers selected for the study. The first set of
data was obtained from benchmark survey. The second set of data was collected during
the study through the interviews. The results of the study indicated that 87.77% farmers
found cultivating the high yielding varieties (HYVs) of sali rice against 56.66% before
the program started. Seed selection was adopted by all farmers in both pre and post
program period. No significant change was observed in the adoption of transplanting
practice before and after the program period. The extent of adoption of practices was not
found statistically significant except the adoption of HYVs. This means that the program
could make slight affects on the adoption process. He further added that combining all
the nine practices of sali rice production 42.22% farmers had sufficient knowledge before
the introduction of the program. The percentage was increased to 68.37% after the
program, an increase of 26.00%. But numbers of farmers adopting these nine practices
75
were 34.69% and 48.83% before and after introduction of the program respectively.
Thereby the increase was only 14.00%. This means that 12.00% of the farmers having
good knowledge on the practices did not adopt the practices at all. The reasons for low
adoption, stated by the researcher were top-down approach and lack of experience of
officials of the tea estates, in the bottom-up approach.
Singhal (2001) conducted a study entitled “participatory irrigation management –
a study of WUAs in Haryana”. The main objective of the study was to find out the
farmer’s participation in planning, implementation and management of irrigation systems.
He stated that now it has been generally accepted that participation of farmers plays vital
role in the management of irrigation. This study evaluated the function participatory
irrigation management (PIM) that was started in 1995 by the government of Haryana
(India). The PIM attempts to organize farmers, mobilize their skills and resources to
encourage them to take an active role in operation and maintenance for watercourses
where farmers were willing to form WUAs and takeover maintenance responsibilities for
effective functioning of WUAs. The sample of the study was constituted of 21 functional
and 2 non-functional WUAs. The data were collected through Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) method. About 15-20 farmers from each WUA area were interviewed
individually and in groups. The results of the study indicated that the water use efficiency
had increased due to pucca channels in most of the cases. The farmers revealed that the
area under irrigation has been increased from 25% to 50%. The tail-enders started getting
sufficient irrigation water. As a result of sufficient water availability the cropping pattern
has changed. The agriculture production has also increased. He suggested that for
optimum utilization of water, efficient extension services should be provided by
76
specialized departments like agriculture, horticulture, soil conservation and forest etc. to
increase the crop production.
2.14 Impact of Private Extension System
Rivera (1993) presented a study entitled “impacts of extension privatization” that
extension privatization has been taking place on a global basis since the mid-1980s as a
result of severe attacks on public sector extension systems. Studies revealed that
privatization of extension systems in many countries had negative effects particularly on
small farmers. In Netherlands, a first step toward privatization was completed in 1990. It
was noted that the high level of cooperation among public and private sectors exists no
longer. The commercialization of the extension services had created tensions between
extension agents and their clients due to less opened, uneven knowledge and information
delivery. Similarly, in New Zealand the system was totally commercialized in 1987. The
private extension was distinguished on the basis of accountability, clients, services and
responsibility for the outcomes. Subsequently a reaction from poor and small-scale
farmers, who could not pay for the contracted services demanded by the private extension
system, created second thoughts among public policy makers. Because it has become
clear that the private sector had biasedness toward large landlords, big farm enterprises,
and the small farmers have less access to agricultural information. He further added that
profit oriented commercialization of agricultural sector would prove injurious to
environmental health and further contribute to the environmental pollution and
degradation. He indicated the consequences of privatization, which included the tendency
to reduce the flow of information between extension organizations and the farmers, the
trend to encourage large-scale farming and to discourage the small-scale farming and
77
initiation of the more pay more earn principle, knowledge would become a salable
commodity.
Schwartz (1994) concluded in a study entitled “The role of the private sector in
agricultural extension: Economic analysis and case studies” that extension by commercial
companies has commonly been associated with input supply and with their ability to
capture part of the benefits of extension through input or output markets. Although there
were some examples in which private extension providers had worked with smallholders
but profit oriented factors direct them towards large and resource rich farmers particularly
in the areas of good infrastructure. He further concluded that while farmers' associations
have been widely promoted in the North, their strengths in developing countries are
usually associated with marketed commodities, though in some cases they provide
services for a range of crops on an area basis. Cases are noted in which farmers’
associations have acted as a watch dog on relations between commercial companies and
farmers. He added that pluralistic extension systems are becoming increasingly popular in
which government and NGOs take on extension functions for the farmers and
geographical areas that have been ignored by private service providers. Given these
differing circumstances, direct comparisons of efficiency between public and private
extension are hazardous. He further added that in many countries, the adoption of more
open policies towards processing, input supply and marketing would facilitate a stronger
role by the private commercial sector in extension related to these areas.
Jasu (2001) described in a study entitled “Extension approaches, strengths and
weaknesses of private extension services – experiences of Ramakrishna Math” that the
involvement of the organizations outside the public extension system and especially
78
private advisory services through NGOs was considered very useful institutional input for
efficient transfer of technology. Private sector like NGOs has limited infrastructure, staff,
funds and area of operation. In spite of all the limitations they can play a very effective
and useful role in the dissemination of technology. The Divyayan participatory
management model for rural development achieved the group action, village-based
capital formation, technology transfer through mass media, mechanics of horizontal
diffusion and empowerment of women. The issues emerged from experience of farmer
participatory technology development and dissemination were fragmentation of land, use
of random application of chemical fertilizers and crop protection measures, lack of
tendency towards organic substitutes, biological pest control and unavailability of quality
seeds.
Markanday & Chinnadurai (2001) presented a study entitled “Vocational training
programs, its’ scope and importance in private extension services- an experience”, which
dealt with a single vocational course i.e. “artificial insemination and veterinary first aid”.
The beneficiaries of this course, as private extension practitioners, are providing a great
service to the farm families involved in dairy farming. During this course the participants
learned techniques by using them to start a private veterinary health care practices in their
own villages. Every year about 80-100 participants (rural youth) complete this vocational
training program. About 60-75% successful participants started the practice in their own
villages. Main objective of the program was to train the manpower that would satisfy the
needs of the dairy farming community. After the completion of the course the
beneficiaries became the private extension functionaries at rural areas as they started their
79
own private practice. They acted as a linkage between the extension and farming system
of the country.
Rajeev (2001) conducted a study entitled “Role of farmers’ organization in
extension service - a case study in Calicut district, Kerala”. The study based on a pilot
survey aimed to identify farmers’ organizations recently established to deliver and
support extension services in rural community in Calicut district of Kerala state. The
result show that there were around 60 farmers’ organizations of different sizes and
functions working in the district. An exploration carried out with 6 selected groups. Three
groups namely Karshaka munnetta samithy (peruvannamuzhi village), Darsanam
karshika Mriga Samrakshana vedi (Kalandithazham village) and Karshaka munnetta
samithy (Chakkittappara village) were smaller in size with average membership of less
than 70 people. These organizations served a jurisdiction of a single village. In the
remaining 3 groups the membership had relatively vast ranged from 200-300 farmers.
The remaining 3 groups were serving a jurisdiction of panchayat (a cluster of villages).
The compositions of all the groups were cosmopolite with respect to age, educational
qualification and holding size. In three organizations, women were also given
memberships. The activities of each group were identified in this survey. The function of
Karshaka munnetta samithy included organizing seminars and training, formations of self
help groups and settlement of the labor issues. The activities of Darsanam Karshika
Mriga Samrakshana vedi, were awareness seminars, formation of milk producers’ unions,
and to run government aided projects. The role of farmers relief forum (Chakkittappara)
was identified as to organize educational seminars, arbitration to settle labor, boundary
disputes of members, group discussions and meetings. The actions of the farmers relief
80
forum (Anakampoyil) included the training programs on scientific agriculture, organizing
educational seminars, arbitration with labor unions, collective procurement of inputs,
recreation club, dealing with legal issues and mobilization of loan relief fund. The
functions of Kerala Karshaka Samithy (Thiruvambadi) were collective procurement of
input seeds, collective management of agricultural operations like pest control,
organizing local market during festival season and organizing crop competitions. The
activities of Pulloorampara Karshaka samithy identified were organizing seminars,
group meetings and collective procurement of inputs.
Rajendran & Santhoshkumar (2001) presented an overview in an article entitled
“Paruthikkavu Nellulpatada Padasekhara Samithy (PNPS)– a case study, of a farmers’
organization”. They stated that there is need to review and restructure the existing
agricultural extension system to make it more efficient and responsive to the farmers
demand. By presenting an overview he stated that about 25 farmers of Kerala region
started a Karshaka Charcha Samithy (KCS): A farmers discussion forum, in 1980 as a
farmers group to tide over, normalize the situation and make farming a profitable activity
through technological and advisory inputs. In 1990, the samithy was registered as a group
of farming samithy under the present name and its membership increased significantly.
The intensive agriculture, practiced by the members as a result of the activities of PNPS,
was put to more scientific basis by testing the soil at regular intervals and updating the
soil map prepared by the samithy. The fertilizer recommendations were adopted in the
line of technical advices. Application of organic and farmyard manures were emphasized
to protect the soil structure and texture and trim down the effects of synthetic fertilizers.
The members were advised to cultivate daincha during the fallow season to decrease
81
their dependency on external organic manures. The members are taken out for field visit
to other areas once in a year. They further added that experiences from the samithy
included the impact of interpersonal relationships with developmental agencies
supporting roles, leadership patterns, financial and credit management, input mobilization
and resource management, technological backup and value oriented extension systems.
The samithy concentrated on the value added advisory systems that enhanced the skills,
competency, and confidence of the farmers by developing the trends of self learning.
“You never know unless you try” was the value system adopted by the samithy.
Rao (2001) presented a study entitled “Issues of research-extension linkage of
privatized extension system: A case of the seed industry”. He stated that target oriented
services to the specific clients such as big, small and marginal farmers were lacking and
technology transfer by seed companies was limited to the delivery of the seed to the
distributors. Extension efforts are carried out till the market is developed. After
establishment of market, their extension and service support was reduced to increase
returns for a rupee of investment. Technology dissemination was limited to input supply;
the advisory services were rarely delivered. There was unhealthy competition among
extension personnel of private seed companies with respect to their function and a
responsibility to farmer’s needs. Emphasis was to build the markets. Unfair profits
generated by the private seed companies had been successfully stopped by the farmer’s
groups in Karnataka. The government did not have strategy to monitor and evaluate the
performance and social responsibilities of the seed industry. Their emphasis was only on
the marketing of seeds to earn profits. He further added that linkage problem in the
private seed industry has caused disruption in technology flow. Lacking of extension
82
material i.e. extension bulletins like folders, leaflets and extension related publications
was not available for the service areas concerned.
Roy (2001) presented a summary of a farmer's co-operative---working in tribal
areas--- entitled “Setting standards for tribal welfare: the role model of girijan co-
operative corporation”. He described that girijan cooperative corporation (GCC) was
launched in the year 1956, with the objective, to empower the tribal communities of
Andhra Pradesh (India) for effective participation in developmental process. The broad
activities of GCC comprised of procurement and marketing of forest and agricultural
produces, supply of essential commodities to the tribals at reasonable price and provision
of credit to the tribals for agricultural operations. GCC also provided the advisory
services to improve the productivity by the involvement of agricultural consultants to
promote agricultural technology, soil conservation, pest control methods, supply of
improved seeds and fertilizers at the appropriate time and imparting required training to
farmers. Village level liaison workers assisted the tribal farmers in the loaning operations
as well as advisory services under the guidance of agricultural consultants for bridging
the gap in levels of development between tribal areas and general areas. So far the impact
and progress of GCC is quite satisfactory. By summing up, he added that extension
system plays an important role in motivating tribals, in boosting agriculture and
extending a better price for the agricultural commodities.
Shankar (2001) concluded that the strengths of private agricultural extension
include efficiency of delivery channels and economic efficiency in services, more
demand-driven rather than supply-driven and closeness to markets e.g. input companies
and better linkages with research. This is so because the agencies were involved in
83
transfer of technology and extension work. Moreover, the strengths were better
competition among private agencies may be for the quality products or for reaching
clients effectively or for generating profits. Agencies were flexible in operation and
pragmatic in approach, thus served the site specific needs of the clientele. He further
added that the opportunities of private extension were availability of specific advisory
services to the specific clientele groups e.g. soil analysis, marketing information and
employment. Opportunities existed due to manpower requirement, concentration on
export oriented, value added crops to earn foreign exchange, increased accountability and
commitment of extension agents due to job demands and compulsion. Regarding the
threats of private extension he stated that market failure was due to multiplication of fake
and spurious delivering agencies providing sub standard products. It was an unhealthy
practice among the actors for profit motto.
Swanson & Samy (2002) stated that in most developing countries private sector is
actively involved in delivering advisory services and marketing agricultural inputs such
as agrochemical, fertilizers, seeds, feed, drugs, tools, equipments and machinery. In order
to promote new input/technology and sale and technical representatives of agribusiness
firms provide technical and advisory services to ensure the effective use of new input. In
addition some firms provide advisory services regarding other crops and livestock as
complementary services to promote and strengthen customer loyalty and expand their
business share. They further stated that the private sector could provide better quality
services than public sector. Since, private sector only serves those who can pay it so these
advisory services are not appropriate for community group such as small scale, marginal,
and women farmers; who could not afford it. He suggested that government should
84
promote the competition of agribusiness firms and ensures quality control through
systematic monitoring and regulatory system. They also identified the comparative
strengths of public, private and NGOs sector in technology transfer. The strength of
public sector is dealing with natural resources and farm management issues. Private
sector has better access to superior technologies and can provide efficient extension
services. While the strength of NGOs is to assist the recourse poor, small scale, marginal,
and women farmers. They proposed that to strengthen the national extension system, the
national policy should reflect the comparative strengths of public, private and NGOs
sector.
Galaa & Obeng (2004) stated in a study entitled “Public-private sector
partnerships for improved agriculture services delivery: How do we make them work?”
that one of the development challenges in Ghana was the delivery of extension services,
marketing, input supply, credit and other agricultural support to small scale farmers.
Institutional reforms and economic liberalization had reduced the role of the government
in providing some type of services and private sector was supposed to provide these
services through the authorization of the government. This study investigated the nature
of partnership arrangements in the agricultural sector. The findings revealed that although
the quality and scope of advisory services could be improved, few partnership
arrangements existed in the agricultural sector. Although private service delivery was
flexible, it was difficult to enforce the collaborative agreements. The lack of legitimacy
created problems in the collaborative arrangement and partnership management.
Dinar et al. (2007) attempted in an article entitled “Evaluating the impact of
agricultural extension on farms' performance in Crete: a nonneutral stochastic frontier
85
approach” to integrate the result oriented and efficiency-based approaches for
investigation of the impact of extension on farms yield and income. The results of the
study supported the view that result oriented and efficiency-based extension work was
statistically significant to minimize the gaps between technology and management.
Public and private extension system had healthy competition and complement to each
other to minimize the technical inefficiency. Those farmers which had received services
from the both extension system achieved a higher level of technical efficiency than those
farmers who received services from either public or private extension system. The farmer
who did not received extension services were identidied as least efficient.
2.15 Challenges of the Private Extension System
Praveen et al. (2001) stated that in a study entitled “Private extension to transfer
marketing technologies for globalization of Indian agriculture” that private extension
services were required to guide the farmers for adopting the farming methods according
to the market needs and to reduce the losses occurring in marketing. Private marketing
extension need help farmers to supply the commodity at right place, right time, right
ways, right quality and right quantity considering the demands of the markets. Private
marketing extension system had to prepare itself to face the challenges of 21st century.
These challenges included the accountability and sustainability in marketing, control,
developing a comprehensive marketing extension strategy, marketing education for
clientele, women extensionists for marketing technology transfer, effective
communication approach, strengthening the private delivery of marketing services and
consideration of current priorities in private marketing extension system.
86
Fami (2006) stated in a country paper entitled “Islamic Republic of Iran” that the
financial crisis of public extension system as well as the pressure on the government to
maintain the vast extension networks are two main factors stimulating the emergence of
private extension agencies in Iran. Regarding privatization, one of the first attempts
towards privatization of agricultural extension system in Iran was initiated in Hamadan
province through the establishment of private agencies. Since the year 2001, eight private
extension agencies have been established in different cities of the province. A study
regarding the performance of these private extension agencies revealed that private
extension faced some problems that had decreased the efficiency of these agencies. Some
of the main problems were lack of access to transportation facilities, teaching aids,
skillful SMS, funds, independence in policy making, public-private coordination and
unfavorable attitudes of the farmers and public extension agents towards private
extension system. He further described major challenges of agricultural extension
systems in Iran. These challenges were to equip extension centers with phone line and
computer, equal gender participation in extension work, to educate rural girls as a part of
future farmers of Iran, to establish a reliable database emphasizing the gathering of
gender segregated data, to train extension workers on facilitation skills and PRA methods,
to clarify the goals and responsibilities of public extension sector as compared with
private extension sector, to develop the management capabilities of extension system and
to regulate, monitor and facilitate private extension system. The researcher suggested that
along with public extension system due importance should be given to the specialized
and privatized extension system.
87
2.16 Favorable Factors for Privatization of Extension System
Gowda (2001) stated in a study entitled “Micro level opportunities and challenges
for privatization of agricultural extension” the favorable factors as well as challenges for
privatization of agricultural extension in India. He described that in most of the countries
agricultural extension is publicly funded. Increasing financial difficulties have made
these countries to think about the ways to reduce support services to agriculture.
Privatization represents one of several alternatives to activate the inefficient or budget
starved public extension services. The favorable factors for privatization of agricultural
extension in India included technological advancement in the areas of communication
and information technology, opening out of public research and educational institutes to
part with the technologies, changing-cropping trend, emergence of contract farming, need
to earn more from smaller holdings, loss of credibility in the existing extension system
and inability of the public extension system to reach the large target client system. He
further described the challenges for privatization of agricultural extension in India. The
factors included were larger area under subsistence farming, need for location specific
technologies, women dominated rural work force and competition among private
extension agencies lead to contradictory messages.
2.17 Job Satisfaction of Extension Field Staff
Rezvanfar & Vaisy (2006) conducted a study entitled “Job satisfaction amongst
agricultural extension personnel in Kurdistan province of Iran”. To investigate the job
satisfaction level and influential factors for job satisfaction of extension personnel, a
sample of 74 respondents from Kurdistan province of Iran was randomly selected. The
data were collected about selected personal variables and analyzed by using statistical
88
methods such as percentage, frequencies, mean values, standard deviation, product
moment correlation and regression analysis. The findings of the study revealed that the
majority of the extension personnel (51.4%) belonged to high level of job satisfaction,
followed by 35.0 and 13.5% belonging to medium and low job satisfaction respectively.
The reasons for low job satisfaction were confused promotion policy and low salary.
Regression analysis showed that education level, salary and level of job diversity had
positive contribution in the job satisfaction among extension personnel.
2.18 SWOT Analysis of Extension Systems
SWOT analysis is viewed as a very effective tool designed to be employed in the
preliminary stages of decision-making and as a precursor to strategic planning (Chen &
Chen, 2002). The SWOT analysis was deemed as an appropriate methodology to define
advantages and disadvantages of the current situation in the system. In the agricultural
and extension education field some researchers have reported using the SWOT analysis
technique for analyzing extension systems and agricultural knowledge system. The
literature is either very little or silent with respect to SWOT analysis of private
agricultural extension system. However, the SWOT analysis of some agricultural
extension systems and related rural development organizations are presented in the
following lines.
2.18.1 SWOT Analysis of Private Extension System
Literature indicates that SWOT analysis was used as a tool for the analysis of private
extension organizations.
Hanyani-Mlambo (2002) conducted a study entitled “Strengthening the pluralistic
agricultural extension system: A Zimbabwean case study”. This study examined the
89
current status of local extension system, and aimed to develop a joint strategy to ensure
its efficiency. The study used the rapid appraisal of agricultural knowledge systems
(RAAKS) methodology in addition to qualitative research techniques. There was great
diversity among organizations in terms of their inspiration for extension activities,
extension approaches and programs, sources and sustainability of funding, geographic
coverage, target beneficiaries, subject matter coverage, mobility capacity and
effectiveness of the activities. The population of the study was key informant farmers,
technical officers in farmers’ organizations, senior extension staff, field extension agents,
NGO representatives and the heads of both private and public extension system. A
SWOT analysis indicated the strengths regarding private extension system as abundant
financial resources, collaborative tendency and desire to maximize profits. The
weaknesses were poor in-service training, numerous but uncoordinated interventions and
poor grassroots representation. Opportunity was identified as improved impact on the
ground through greater comprehension. The threat regarding private extension system
was unfavorable socioeconomic environment for the system’s operation.
2.18.2 SWOT Analysis of Public Extension System
Public extension system was also analyzed by some researchers by using SWOT analysis
technique.
Bedo (2004) conducted a study entitled “Education, research, and extension: An
evaluation of agricultural institutions in Tunisia”. The focus of the study was on the
transfer of technology and innovations from the research organizations to the farmers
through extension efforts. The researcher interviewed 37 respondents including
researchers, administration, extension personnel, professors and farmers. The respondents
90
were asked to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of
the agricultural institutions as a system. The strengths of agricultural system were focus
on catering farmer needs, research and extension centers, university system, emphasis on
diversity specifically with respect to women, a look towards the future through attempts
to improve the agriculture system, extension programming offered through the
professional organization, fishing sector and various methods to convey useful
information. The weaknesses that hinder diffusion of innovations within the agricultural
system included excessive government involvement, lack of independent farmer
organizations, unrealistic private and professional extension efforts, lack of formal
accountability, no mechanism for organized and formal training in extension and
educational methods. The most prominent opportunities were technological innovations,
working with farmers and encouraging them to work together, farmers as an integral tool
of agricultural development and developing relationships with other countries. Finally,
the factors i.e. tight international competition, European import policies, water quality
and quantity were considered as threats.
Alonge (2006) conducted a study entitled “Bringing stakeholders into agricultural
extension reform agenda: A participatory SWOT analysis of the Trinidad national
agricultural extension service”. The setting of the study was a national workshop on
extension reform in Trinidad. All the participants (75 extension personnel) took part in
the SWOT analysis. Data were collected and underpinned by the qualitative research
methodology. An open ended SWOT analysis survey was adopted for data collection.
Factors identified as strengths were a well-endowed human capital base, use of
information technology, strong farmer organizations, regional collaboration,
91
decentralized structure, farmer field schools, focus on commodity, farmer incentive
program and subject matter specialists. Institutional weaknesses included the inadequate
funding, poor government policy, poor incentive /pay, poor infrastructure, decentralized
training, poor communication and time lag in implementation, inadequate personnel, poor
access road, poor research-extension linkage, poor farmer incentive, poor technology and
high cost of advanced training. New opportunities identified were youth program,
expansion of clientele base to non-traditional commodity groups, building the capacity of
farmer organizations, use of IT to link rural and regional knowledge centers, crop
insurance and expanded FFS. Finally, privatization, the loss of extension personnel to the
private sector, diminishing clientele base, low government priority for agriculture, pests
and diseases, chemical companies, aged extension worker, globalization and free trade,
poor program to strengthen farmer organizations and lack of youth’s interest in
agriculture were listed as threat to the institutional survival of the national extension
system. The researcher stated that the study provided a practical demonstration of
application of the SWOT analysis as a useful strategic planning and institutional analysis
tool in agricultural extension system.
Darr (2006) stated the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT)
of extension approaches used in South Asia. The strengths of FFS included the
empowerment of farmers and group learning. Weaknesses were scaling up, and relatively
high cost. Opportunity was that favorable policies can further promote FFS and threats
were high demands of facilitators’ social skills and cooperation with traditional extension
system needed. Strength of promoting farmer innovations (PFI) was appropriate
innovations that address farmers’ needs and weakness was local innovations like no
92
panacea to all problems. Similarly, opportunities included successful scaling-up through
Institutionalization of PFI/partnerships with GOs/NGOs and threats were gender inequity
and ordinary farmers may feel un-obliged. Similarly, strength of farmer-to-farmer
extension was high credibility of farmer extensionists and weakness was additional
workload on farmer-extensionists. Opportunity identified was continuity of extension
advice after project termination and threat was that ordinary farmers might feel
misguided.
Ravikumar & Chander (2006) conducted a study entitled “Extension educational
efforts by state department of animal husbandry (SDAH), Tamil Nadu: SWOT analysis”.
In order to ensure the views of different stakeholders, personnel interviews were carried
out by the researcher with 40 veterinary assistant surgeons (VASs), 40 livestock
inspectors (LIs) and 160 livestock owners (LOs) from four districts of Tamil Nadu state.
Total sample size was 240. Sixteen veterinary dispensaries (VDs) were also selected from
the same districts. The parameters such as organizational structure, infrastructure
facilities, clarity regarding extension functions, sensitivity and promotion of extension
program, number of veterinary institutions, in-service training program, level of contact
by livestock owners, and number of veterinary personnel were considered for the study.
The strengths of the SDAH identified in the results were separate directorate for Animal
Husbandry, broadcast preparing unit and artists, livestock population coverage by each
VI, clarity on the concept of extension by top management, availability of printing unit,
collaboration with international agencies, regularity in providing training to field
functionaries and promotion of various extension related program. The weaknesses were
the less number of veterinarians serving in the SDAH, less frequent training of the LOs,
93
messages delivered to LOs were mostly not need oriented, less number of extension
personnel, poorly facilitated extension staff, multitude tasks and responsibilities, poor
funding for extension activities, lack of conducive working environment and poor clarity
on the concept of extension education by field functionaries. Opportunities included
increased farm diversification, untapped LOs, requirement of information, reenergizing
small holders, value addition to livestock products, and untapped export potential. The
threats identified were poor leadership, more pressure on natural resources, incompetent
extension personnel and presence of more personnel in livestock sector.
Republic of Croatia (2006) performed a SWOT analysis of agricultural and
fisheries production sector, food and processing sector and rural areas in a study entitled
“SAPARD program agriculture and rural development plan, 2005-2006”. Strengths were
identified in the analysis of agricultural and fisheries production sector with respect to
environment and resources were high quality of agriculture, fishery and aquaculture
resources. The strengths regarding socio-economic context were the importance of
agriculture and fisheries sector in the national economy, significant contribution in
employment, organic production capacity, good aquaculture diversification and access to
international investment funds. Strengths regarding human resources were well-
structured system and decentralized agricultural extension system. The strengths
regarding administration/governance were existence of agricultural administration and
access to international capacity building programs. The analysis identified a number of
weaknesses regarding environment and resources. These included large cultivable areas
under minefields, disagreement between national and EU standards with respect to
welfare, hygiene standards and relatively low number of heads due to the war in the
94
country. Weaknesses regarding socio-economic context were over-aged agricultural labor
force, fragmented and small production structure of family holdings impede profitability
and competitiveness hindrance due to small land holding, inadequate fisheries
infrastructure, unequipped fishing ports, high investment costs, low investment capacity
and high insurance risks. Weaknesses regarding human resources were identified as lack
of skills in agricultural population and inadequate specialized agricultural vocational
training system. Weaknesses regarding administration/governance were high production
costs, weak policy formulation capacities and lack of coordination among authorities.
Factors which were considered as opportunities regarding environment and resources
included well-preserved ecosystems, favorable soil and climatic conditions, high
environmental potential for developing marine aquaculture, availability of freshwater and
marine aquaculture. Opportunities regarding socio-economic context were stable
macroeconomic environment, existing network of local bank branches, long tradition of
production system, high diversification potential for the agricultural sector, more demand
for quality products and strong tourism sector in the county. Qualified teaching staff was
considered only opportunity regarding human resources category and regarding
administration/governance, the opportunity like good general technical knowledge of the
staff in the agricultural administration. In the analysis, the threats regarding environment
and resources were slow progress in clearing mines, increasing environmental pressure
due to settlements, road constructions and pollution etc. Threats regarding socio-
economic context were legal problems in solving agricultural land registration, slow
progress in developing infrastructure, existence of subsistence agriculture and slow
progress in securing land for fishery production infrastructure. Existence of disparities
95
between the input prices and the prices of agricultural services, as compared to the selling
price of agricultural products and weak administration were identified as possible threat
regarding administration/governance.
Tenorio & Aganon (2006) stated in a country paper entitled “Philippines” that
several agricultural extension agencies including private agri-business companies were
working in the country. A SWOT analysis of the farmers information technology services
(FITS) centers indicated the strengths and opportunities. The major strength of the
centers was the immediate training and technical assistance to clientele. Some of the
opportunities were noted as the potential for expansion of the services and thus generated
employment through the support of local officials.
2.18.3 SOWT Analysis of Agri-Education System
SWOT analysis is also being used as a technique for the analysis of the functioning of
agri-education systems.
Nimbalkar et al. (nd) undertook a SWOT analysis in a study entitled “Distance
agricultural education: Perspectives in agricultural development in India”. Strengths
identified were large number of youth population waiting for higher education, low cost
of the education within reach of rural people and in-service students, plenty of individual
had learning opportunities and less expenditure on salaries. Weaknesses in distance
education system were poor investment, lack of practical and field hands on experiences
and teacher-student interaction, poor faculty and human resource for higher education,
dependence on contract services and poor use of electronic media. Opportunities for
distant education were abundant technological and cyber culture, opportunity to enroll
youth, possibility of getting adequate funds from government, internet and multimedia
96
networking and high accessibility. Finally, the factors that were considered as threats
included establishment of non-grant agricultural schools and colleges and large number
of dropouts of NGOs running schools.
2.18.4 SWOT Analysis of Public-Private Agri-Research
A SWOT analysis of decentralized and privatized agricultural research was conducted by:
Piters et al. (2005) in a study entitled “The public and private agricultural research
discourse in Sub-Saharan Africa: A case of Romeo and Juliet?” According to the study
the strengths of decentralized agricultural research were more cost-effective system, need
oriented research, relationship between client contribution and research outputs and
enhanced ownership of results. The weaknesses included unawareness from national and
international research, duplication due to lack of co-ordination, limited financial
resources and strategic research. Opportunities included demand-driven and more holistic
research agenda and stakeholder control leading to efficiency. Finally, representations of
peasant community and career development research at risk were considered as threats to
public agricultural research. Similarly, regarding SWOT analysis of privatized
agricultural research the strengths were leading to efficiency, reduced public costs,
transparent and accountable systems and strong link with international research. The
weaknesses were the focus of privatized research on cash commodities, targeting the rich
farmers, input-based production and export and loss of holistic approach. The
opportunities for privatized agricultural research system were strong role of producer
organizations and strengthening of economic chains. Research agenda determined by
traders/industry and the consideration of only short-term issues were perceived as threats.
97
2.18.5 SWOT Analysis of Rural Development NGOS
Literature indicates that researchers use SWOT analysis not only for the analysis of
public and private organizations but also being used for determining the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats of non governmental organizations (NGOs)
Mishra & Pandey (2001) conducted a SWOT analysis entitled “Roles of various
non-government organisations in participatory rural development in India”. For this study,
two NGOs in Basti and Sant Kabir Nagar Districts (India) i.e. BAIF (Bhartiya Agro
Industrial Foundation) and Gram Vikas Sansthan (GVS) were purposively selected. BAIF
was primarily involved in animal husbandry activities while GVS covered the rural
development activities with respect to agriculture. The two major agro-ecological
situations (AESs) based on soil type and sources of irrigation were identified to draw
sample. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) technique was adopted for data collection.
Commodity wise SWOT analysis of agriculture was performed. The strengths regarding
paddy crop were agro-ecologically suitability, major land areas under paddy, involvement
of farmwomen in different operations, assured irrigation facilities and inclination of
farmers towards cultivation of export quality, hybrid and HYVs. Strengths concerning
wheat were fit-in paddy based crop rotation, major land areas under wheat and almost
assured irrigation facilities. The weaknesses with respect to paddy were less availability
of seed of improved productive varieties, lack of technical know-how, severe occurrence
of khaira and blight diseases, increasing weed problem and less input use efficiency. The
weaknesses relating to wheat were late sowing due to late harvesting of preceding rice
crop, lack of resources and mixed cropping with mustard. Similarly, the opportunities
regarding paddy were high density of population, demand of export quality rice,
98
availability of high yielding hybrid varieties and prevalence of success stories. The
opportunities concerning wheat were local and external demand, farmers organized
cooperative societies for sale of produce and small industry for making of flour. The
threats with respect to paddy were stagnation in productivity, water logging, floods,
restricted drainage and acute problem during transplanting due to migration of labor in
city. Finally, the threat relating to wheat was identified as stagnation/decline in
productivity.
Wigforss (2002) conducted a study entitled “scaling up the impact of rural
development NGOs in Nepal: A case study of FORWARD”. A case study approach was
adopted in this study to understand the issues of scaling up impact for a service-providing
Nepalese NGO engaged in the rural development sector, namely forum for rural welfare
and agricultural reform for development (FORWARD). The tools used in the study
belonged to the vast menu of PRA methods. Using participatory methods, the researcher
captured the perceptions of NGO staff, donors, project participants including farmers and
collaborating organizations in order to form a holistic overview of the NGO. Altogether
34 interviews and workshop sessions were held during the study process. For the
purposes of assembling and analyzing the important issues that emerged in the findings, a
SWOT analysis technique was used. The analysis identified a number of strengths at
organizational level as financial transparency, team spirit, open working environment,
motivated staff and learning organization. Strengths at program level were staff
competency in technical aspects of agricultural development, good field presence of staff,
participatory approaches, improved agricultural livelihoods and built in criteria for
women’s participation. Strengths at organizational network level were extensive
99
organizational network, good working relations with donors and coordination with other
NGOs and GOs in the field. The analysis pinpointed the weaknesses at organizational
level as lack of timely organized staff meetings at management level, lack of female staff
members, lack of staff welfare cover, tight financial budget no full-time gender specialist,
lowered overheads from donors. Weaknesses at program level were lack of staff’s skills
in social mobilization, poor report writing skills, lack of flexibility of donors to provide
funding for emerging demands of participants, poor documentation of field experiences
in community development programs, lack of skills range outside agricultural
development, lack of staff’s knowledge about gender issues and lack of manpower in the
field. Weakness at organizational network level was lack of financial sustainability.
Opportunities at organizational level were restoring the habit of timely staff meetings,
provision of better staff welfare conditions, expansion of organization to an optimal size,
employment of more female staff members, employment of full-time gender specialist
and provision of gender training to staff. At program level, the opportunities were
provision of social mobilization training, discussion on remaining community needs with
donors/GOs, provision of report writing training, development of qualitative gender
sensitive monitoring and evaluation system. Opportunities at organizational network were
expanded national, international network and self financed programs. The analysis
identified numbers of threats at organizational level including communication breakdown,
poor welfare cover for staff and may jeopardize output quality due to rapid organizational
expansion. Threats at program level were output quality and sustainability of programs,
extra demands on donors/GOs might strain existing relationship with FORWARD, poor
report writing might damage FORWARD’s image as competent NGO and inadequately
100
of women’s needs. Threats at organizational network were getting entangled in
politicized relationships that might damage FORWARD’s image and the withdrawal of
donor funding.
2.18.6 SWOT Analysis of Agri-Development Organizations
Some researchers also used SWOT analysis as a research tool to analyze the functioning
of agri-development organizations.
Kumar et al. (2001) conducted a study entitled “Exploring the agricultural export
potential of Andhra Pradesh: A SWOT Analysis”. They performed a SWOT analysis of
Andhra Pradesh agriculture in the context of export potentialities. The strengths were
large cultivated land, livelihood dependence of large population on agriculture,
industrious farmers and diverse soil types, strategic location, favorable climate, second
largest coast line, rich natural resources, rich livestock and poultry, good scope for
marine cultivation, rich bio-diversity and support from the State Agricultural University.
The weaknesses were cyclones and storms along coast, high percentage of illiteracy
(66%), rain-fed farming on 60% area, limited irrigation infrastructure, low investment
capacity of the farmers, lack of adequate technical manpower and infrastructure, high
domestic consumption, disintegrated land holdings and poor roads in rural areas,
inadequate power supply with high cost and lack of proper marketing infrastructure. The
opportunities identified were the existing diversified agro-climatic conditions, soils and
cropping pattern, favorable environment for direct foreign investment, geographical and
strategic location of state, the spread of information technology sector, the establishment
of biotechnology industries, greater scope for private enterprises participation, abundant
herbs and medicinal plants and large extension network system. The threats were erratic
101
distribution of rainfall, droughts and floods/cyclones, limited scope for expansion of area
under agriculture, threats of extremism, absentee landlordism and superstitious believes
of the farmers.
Sonnvik (2002) conducted a study entitled “From coping to development in a
peripheral rural community: A case study from Drevdagen in Sweden”. A case study
approach was adopted in this study to assess the local people’s perceptions of the village
work regarding the forest resources. SWOT analysis of the coping strategies were
conducted together with three villagers after the field work in connection with a
presentation of preliminary results of the research. The SWOT analysis, regarding the
coping strategy concerning the development project was one of the three research themes.
Identified strengths were development of project based on a document that has a wide
local support and gathers old plans, and authorities had understood that nobody steps on
village. The weaknesses were the document did not contain plans/modes of procedures,
“vision” instead of “plan” and time constraints. Possibilities/opportunities identified were
the further development of the village, only the banks were against the plans, there was
an international trend towards local management of natural resources whole forest under
one authority. The factor that was considered as threat was less participation of the
villagers.
Piggin (2003) conducted a study entitled “Working group SWOT analysis on
agricultural development in East Timor”. The setting of the study was a workshop on
agriculture. During the workshop, a working group session was held to discuss and
consider appropriate research and development directions to support future agricultural
development in East Timor. Four working groups of 15 to 20 people addressed the
102
various sectors of agriculture to perform a SWOT analysis. In the analysis the strengths
regarding field crop sector were potential of cereals/legumes and tubers, available land,
large number of farmers, crop diversity, domestic markets, support of NGOs and donors,
regional/international network and free trade. The strengths regarding cotton crop were
large land potential, availability and easy access to seed. The weaknesses were low
quality varieties, lack of agricultural supplies, low-skilled farmers, lack of markets, lack
of maps and meteorological information, lack of extension facilities, lack of well-
structured government systems, lack of transportation, lack of irrigation and lack of crop
management information. The weaknesses regarding cotton crop were lack of processing
technology, low quality and low skilled farmers. Opportunities were export potential,
domestic markets, NGOs and government, support from donors, quality improvement,
increased export research facilities and dual purpose crops for humans and livestock. The
opportunities regarding cotton crop were availability of local market, oil source for
cosmetics and use in cloth industry. The threats were pests and disease, free trade,
natural resource degradation and decrease in foreign assistance. The threats regarding
cotton crop were import competition from abroad and diseases/pests.
Irianto et al. (2006) conducted a SWOT analysis entitled “Supply chain
management assessment to improve the performance of contract farming between a
multi- national company (MNC) and smallholders in East Java”. They claimed the
success of contract farming between PT-Pioneer: A MNC in seed corn production. They
stated that the MNC had ability to reduce the costs due to easy access of small farmers to
seed corn market. In addition, small-scale farmers received high quality advisory services
from the MNC. One possible reason for this successful contract farming was the
103
durability and although sensitivity of contracted cop at certain growth stages and
resultantly low yield variation. Results of the SWOT analysis offered strategies to
improve the supply chain for the benefit of both parties.
2.19 Synthesis of Review of Literature
There are various paradigms of agri-extension for information delivery. These
include research-extension approach, training and visit approach, decentralized public
extension approach, farmer-field-school approach, public-private partnerships and private
extension approach. Traditional public extension system is under heavy criticism due to
top-down in nature and poor research-extension-education linkages. Literature shows that
It could not deal with the site-specific needs of the farmers due to lack of knowledge and
skill level of EFS, irregular and wrongly selected visits of EFS to farmers’ field, lack of
acquaintance with farmers, lack of proper monitoring system, poorly conducted meetings
and field demonstrations, lack of communication skills, scanty, irregular and ill planned
training of EFS, not using extension methods effectively, lack of fundamental facilities
like transportation, accommodation, special incentives and technical knowledge for EFS
to perform their job. Therefore, literature reflects the need to reform public extension
system and suggest alternative extension approaches including privatization of
agricultural extension system. Private extension has various forms/styles for extension
delivery. These include contracting subject matter specialists, share-cropping for profit
approach, voucher scheme, private delivery through funds, privatized service center
approach, contract farming, farmers service center approach and consultancy firms.
Various stakeholders i.e. MNCs, NGOs and media organizations are involved in private
extension delivery. Privatization of agricultural extension system had different
104
experiences in different countries. Some countries had positive results of privatization but
reservation had also been expressed in other countries. A general trend in literature is that
privatization has shown more encouraging results in developed countries as compared to
developing and under developed world. In developing countries, it again had positive
results in the resource-rich and agricultural commercialized areas. Literature agreed that
PES is biased towards big farmers, resource-rich and commercialized areas. Literature
confirms that world over SWOT analysis technique is being used for the investigation of
the performance of organizations including agricultural extension services. For the
analysis of extension organizations, the variables such as target beneficiaries, competency
of extension personnel, selection, and effectiveness of extension method(s), demand and
willingness to pay for advisory services of various crops and resources availability were
used with some variations depending upon the local situation to analyze the organizations.
105
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Methodology is a pre-requisite for sound and comprehensive scientific research.
The validity and reliability of empirical evidence depend on the proper planning and
execution of research methodology. A number of decisions must be made concerning the
research design, population of the study, sample size, development of instruments,
reliability and validity of the instrument, data collection and data analysis procedure. In
this chapter, these methodological issues are discussed in detail.
3.1 The Punjab: The Universe
The origin of the name of the Province of the Punjab derives from the precious
commodity, water. In this province, five rivers flow -- the Indus, Jehlum, Chenab, Ravi
and Sutluj. This land has been given the name of PUNJAB -- the land of five rivers. The
total area of this province is 205.34 thousand sq. Kms. (Govt. of Pak., 2006) or 20.63
million hectares, which is 25.8% of the total area of Pakistan. According to the
population census 1998 about 55% of the total population lives in this province (Govt. of
Pak., 2006). As the most populous province of the country, it has a population density of
359 persons per sq. Kilometer. Administratively, Punjab is divided into 35 districts,
which further divided into 121 tehsiles. About 69% population of Punjab is living in rural
areas.
This province is known as ‘the bread basket’ and granary of the subcontinent (Nasir &
Hyder 1987; Ijaz & Davidson, 1997). Majority of its population lives in rural areas (there
106
Fig. 3.1: Zone Classification of the Punjab
Barani Zone
Rice Zone
Central Mixed Zone
Semi Irrigated Zone
Cotton Zone
107
are almost 25000 villages) and engaged in agriculture directly or indirectly. There are 332
pesticide companies working in the Punjab province (Government of Punjab, 2007). All
these companies are registered and have license to operate in the province. For the
registration of the company, in addition to other requirements, it is compulsory for the
company to employ minimum 10 agricultural graduates to provide technical and advisory
services to the farmers (ibid). It rationally implies that in the Punjab, there is a network of
at least 3320 (320x10) personnel of technical staff which are working for private
extension delivery. Ahmad (2004) reported that a number of pesticide agencies are
working but Syngenta is one of the largest multinational companies (MNC), which
supplies not only agricultural inputs but also offers advisory services regarding
production and protection technologies to farming community in Pakistan. This province
is divided into 5 cropping zones. The zone classification of the province is given below:
3.1.1 Zone Classification of the Punjab
Due to the variation in climate, soil, irrigation facilities of the province, different
crops dominate in a cropping pattern of certain areas. In order to understand these typical
cropping patterns, the province has been classified into five zones (Younis et al., 1990) as
under:
3.1.1.1 The Barani Zone comprises 6 districts namely Rawalpindi, Chakwal, Jehlum,
Attock, Gujrat and Mandi-Bahauddin. Wheat is an important food crop of this zone.
Other crops cultivated in this zone are Jawar, Pulses, maiz, groundnut, and fodder, etc.
3.1.1.2 The Rice Zone of the Punjab also comprises 8 districts viz-a viz Gujaranwala,
Hafizabad, Sialkot, Narowal, Sheikhupura, Nankana-Sahib, Lahore, and Kasoor. The
wheat rice based farming system exists in this zone. Rice is the most important food and
108
cash crop of the area. Gujaranwala is the leading district regarding rice production in
Punjab. The other crops in this zone cultivated are fodder, sugarcane, pulses, and maize,
etc.
3.1.1.3 The Central Mixed Zone comprises 8 district namely Faisalabad, Jhang,
Sargodha, Khushab, Toba-Tek-Singh, Okara, Sahiwal and Pakpattan. Wheat crop is
dominated in the cropping pattern of zone. Jhang district has maximum area under wheat
cultivation. Sugarcane, cotton, and rice, and maize are also important cash crops of this
zone. Other crops cultivated in this area are fodder, and gram etc.
3.1.1.4 The Semi Irrigated Zone comprises 6 districts namely Mianwali, Bhakar,
Muzafargarh, Leiyya, Dera-Gazi-Khan, and Rajanpur. The main sources of irrigation of
this zone are perennial canal, tube well, while significant area is under rain fed
cultivation. The gram is the most important crop of this zone. Also wheat is food and
cotton is cash crop of the zone. The other crops cultivated in the zone are sugarcane,
fodder, pulses, and rice etc.
3.1.1.5 The Cotton Zone of the Punjab comprises 7 districts Multan, Lodhran,
Khanewal, Vehari, Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar, and Rahim-Yar-Khan. Cotton is the most
important cash crop of this area. District Rahim Yar Khan is leading in cotton
production. Wheat is other important food crop of the zone. Other crops being grown in
this zone include sugarcane, rice, rape, and mustard, etc.
3.2 Research Design
A cross-sectional research design was used in this study. Survey research
methodology is the most appropriate in determining the behavior, expectations,
perceptions and interests of the respondents. The cross sectional design facilitates
109
collecting information from a sample at a single point in time. Brog & Gall (1989)
considered that cross-sectional survey was best suited to find out correlation between two
or more variables and could be analyzed by a variety of methods.
3.3 Selection of Pesticide Company: Syngenta
Historical roots of Syngenta go back to Ciba (Ahmad, 2004) which started its
business as a pioneer crop protection MNC in Pakistan (Shakeel, 2007). In 1988 it
became the single largest pesticide providing company for plant protection measures in
the country (Ahmad, 2004). In 1996, Ciba and Sandoz announced the largest corporate
merger in the history of agriculture and created Novartis. In November 2000, it came to
be known as “Syngenta Limited” with amalgamation of Novartis and Astra Zeneca
(Shakeel, 20007). It employs more than 21000 people world wide. For Asia Pacific, its
head quarter is in Singapore. In Pakistan, its head-office is in Karachi and business-office
in Multan. It employs 250 people in Pakistan including field force of more than 150
personnel which related with sales and advisory services. In Punjab its extension field
staff is about 71 (ibid). Syngenta has the biggest net work of Naya Swaira (sales outlets)
in the agricultural industry of Pakistan. It has 700 outlets (Franchise) for sales in the
country. For this it has won the Global Award of Excellence. In Pakistan its market share
is 20%, it amounting Rs. 2750 million/per annum (ibid). Its popular brands are Polytrin-
C, Topik, Curacron, Ridomil gold, Supracide, etc. Syngenta claims for top quality brand
for all crops under the one platform. According to Country manager (Research and
Development) Syngenta, Pakistan, company uses alternative extension methods to
provide complete package of field advisory service to the farmers. It organizes the
farmers meeting, group discussion, harvest field day, training workshops and seminars,
110
and demonstration plots. It also distributes the educational literature, hand bills, brochure
and charts among farming community. It was claimed that, in 2007-2008, company had
communicated with 50,000 farmers (Shakeel, 2007). Keeping in view the dominant role
of Syngenta, the extension personnel of the company were selected and interviewed by
the researcher for conducting SWOT analysis.
3.4 The population of the Study
The population of this study comprised the following:
· All the farmers living in three zone of the Punjab i.e. cotton zone, rice zone and
central mixed zone
· Extension personnel of the pesticide agency i.e. Syngenta
111
Fig. 3.2 Study Districts of Punjab
GRW
FSD
GRW
FSD
RYK
112
The reason for the inclusion of the extension field staff of Syngenta was to consider
the point of view of both stakeholders i.e. client (farmers) and service providers
(EFS). The other reason for interviewing the EFS was that it was more appropriate to
ask from EFS about the strengths and weaknesses regarding infrastructural and job
design facility, training provided to EFS and attitude of top
management/administration of private extension system. It was thought that such data
would be useful in interpreting the results and making comparison between the
difference of perception (if any) of both type of respondents regarding SWOT of
private extension system.
3.5 Sampling procedure and sample size
The sample for this study was drawn by using multistage sampling technique.
Three zones i.e. cotton-zone, rice-zone and central-mixed-zone were selected purposively
on the basis of maximum involvement of the companies in theses zones. Hanchinal et al
(2001) also used the same basis for purposive sampling. During the first stage three
districts namely Rahim Yar Khan, Gujranwala and Faisalabad were selected (one district
from each zone) by simple random sampling. During the second stage, three tehsils
namely Liaqat Pur, Wazirabad and Faisalabad were randomly selected (one tehsil from
each district). During the third stage 12 villages were selected (four villages from each
tehsil) through simple random sampling. A sampling frame was prepared by enlisting all
the farmers residing in the selected villages (Hanchinal et al. 2001). The sample size was
determined by using a table developed by Fitzgibbon et al. (1987) for the selection of
sample from a given population. Thirty-four (34) farmers were drawn from each selected
113
village by using simple random sampling technique thereby making the sample size of
408 respondents.
From the second population of extension personnel, a sample size of 60 was drawn from
the population of 71 by using Fitzgibbon et al. (1987) table. The data were collected
through personal interviews.
3.6 Constriction of Research Instruments
Considering the objectives of the study, two separate interview schedules were
developed, one for farmer respondents and other for the extension field staff.
Interview schedules were developed by the researcher from the synthesis of the review of
literature and discussion with experts and personnel involved in private extension system.
The statements regarding strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/threats were sorted
out/selected from the review of literature. Each statement was structured by using action
and precise words. All statements were positive or in the form of strengths or
opportunities. Both interview schedules comprised three sections:
A. demographic characteristics of the respondents
B. strengths and weaknesses
C. opportunities and threats
3.6.1 The interview schedule for the farmers
The description for the each section of the interview schedule for the farmers is
given below.
A. demographic characteristics of the respondents
This section was designed to collect information regarding demographic
characteristics of the respondents. Farmer were asked about their age, educational level,
114
size of land holding, type of tenure, social status, sources of income and kind of advisory
services which they got form private EFS.
B. strengths and weaknesses
This section consisted of seven general themes and logical topics related to the
strengths and weaknesses of private extension system. These general themes and logical
topics included:
i. subject matter coverage
ii. beneficiaries
iii. professional competency of EFS
iv. alternative extension methods
v. effectiveness of communication
vi. extension approach and function
vii. marketing mix
The statements were grouped under the above seven headings. There were total 58
statements/items which could be rated as a strengths or weaknesses by the farmers. The
respondents were asked to rate the statements as a strength or weakness of the system on
four point scale ranging from 1 to 4. The scale scoring was:
1= great weakness 2= weakness 3= strength 4=great strength
C. Opportunities and threats
Like strengths and weaknesses this section comprised eight general themes related
to the opportunities and threats of private extension system. These general themes and
logical topics were:
i. demand for agronomic advisory service
115
ii. demand for plant protection advisory service
iii. demand for miscellaneous advisory service
iv. willingness to pay for agronomic advisory service
v. willingness to pay for plant protection advisory service
vi. willingness to pay for miscellaneous advisory service
vii. resources availability
viii. willingness to participate in extension activities
The items/statements were grouped under the above eight headings. There were total 57
items/statements which could be rated as opportunities or threats by the farmers. The
respondents were asked to rate the items/statements on four point scale ranging from 1 to
4.
3.6.2 The interview schedule for the EFS
A. demographic characteristics of the respondents
This section was designed to ask the questions regarding characteristics of the
respondents such as designation, age, job experience, educational level, and kind of
advisory services which they provide to the farmers.
B. strengths and weaknesses
This section was comprised of the same statements/item as in the strengths and
weaknesses of the farmers. In addition to the seven mentioned themes, four additional
themes were included for private EFS. These themes included:
i. infrastructural facility
ii. job design facility
iii. management administration characteristics
116
iv. type of training received
Fifty-seven items/statements were grouped under these four themes. Hence, in this
section, the total items/statements were 115 which were asked to be rated as strengths or
weaknesses on a four point scale. The scale for all statements/items was as under: 1=
great weakness 2= weakness 3= strength 4=great strength
C. Opportunities and threats
This section for private EFS was developed the same as the opportunities and
threats section in the interview schedule of the farmers.
3.7 Construction of scale
To determine the SWOT of private agricultural extension system, the scale used
by Vega (2004) was adopted for this study. He used the likert scale to measure the
strengths and weaknesses of an organization. A Four-point scale was also used by Kyazze
(2006) for conducting SWOT analysis. During pre-testing of the interview schedule it
was found appropriate to use four-point scale. On the four point scale 1 for great
weakness, 2 for weakness, 3 for strength and 4 for great strength just like 1 for strongly
disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for agree, and 4 for strongly agree. The four point scale was
used to measure opportunities and threats on the same pattern as in the strength and
weaknesses case.
3.8 Validity of the instruments
Validity is concerned with measuring what one intends to measure (Nachmias &
Nachmias, 1992). To ensure the content validity of the research instrument, the
researcher made an extensive review of the literature related to private agricultural
extension system to develop appropriate instrument content. To ensure further validity
117
researcher also contacted various experts who were involved practically in private
agricultural extension. For example researcher contacted the Regional Manager of
Syngenta of the Faisalabad region, explained the purpose of the study and shared the
useful information. The researcher also visited the Faisalabad and Okara districts territory
of Syngenta and contacted with the Technical Sales Officer (TSO) and Sales Officer
(SO), discussed with them the private extension related matters to be incorporated into
the instruments. The researcher also approached the extension personnel of public
extension system of Faisalabad and consulted with them the contents of the instrument.
The researcher also discussed the issues with the farmers. The objective was to collect a
maximum number of ideas and to include the best of these in the instrument in order to
develop a valid instrument. Finally the panel of experts looked into the instrument
critically, at UAF Pakistan, included two professors, one associate professor and two
assistant professors. The members of the panel were requested to judge the
appropriateness of the SWOT statements. The panel was given a detailed presentation of
the objectives and the methodology of the study. Penal was also briefed about the
construction of scale to be used in the research instrument. They were requested to
suggest any change based on the relevance of the contents. The experts determined
whether the instrument contained clear and appropriate content as deemed necessary to
measure the study objectives. Judgment was based on the relationship between study
objectives and study items. A number of changes were suggested by the experts such as
using action word and precise statements rather than weak words and broader statements
to be assessed on likert-scale. The researcher then incorporated mutually agreed upon
points into the final draft of the research instrument.
118
3.9 Reliability of the instruments
Reliability is the level of internal consistency of the instrument (Borg and Gall
1989). Reliability indicates the degree to which a survey instrument is consistent with
what it
measures (Litwin, 1995). A number of methods such as interrater, test-retest, alternative-
form, split half and coefficient alpha, can be used to measure the reliability of the
instruments (Dane, 1990); and De Vaus (1995). Cronbach’s alpha (coefficient of internal
consistency) is commonly used to measure the reliability for instrument (Schuster et al.,
1997; Lodhi, 2003; Idrees, 2003; Hedjazi & Soltani, 2005) similar to the one used in this
study. In the present study two separate interview schedules were used for data
collection: one for farmers and second for private extension workers. For this purpose,
twenty farmers, and 5 private extension workers, who were not the member of the
selected sample but similar to the study population, were interviewed. The researcher
personally interviewed the farmers and private extension worker. The Cronbach’s alpha
was calculated from the responses for whole instruments using the computer program
Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). The overall coefficient produced for both
instruments: farmers and private extension workers were with average values of 0.79 and
0.86 respectively. The researcher discussed the calculated two figures of Cronbach’s
Alpha with his supervisory committee. All the members of the committee were of the
view that the instrument proved reliable enough to go into the field for data collection.
3.10 Data Collection
The respondents were directly asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the
private extension system. The respondents rated each statement as a strength/great
119
strength or weakness/great weakness. Similarly respondents were asked about their
demand and willingness to pay for the extension services. They were also asked about the
available resources and their willingness to participate in the extension activities. Their
positive responses were considered opportunities and the negative one as threats for
private extension system. Each sub-statement for strength/weakness or opportunity/threat
was placed under the major heading. The overall response of the sub-statements
constituted the response of major heading.
Personal interviews were conducted with the help of interview schedules for the
collection of data. Researcher spent about three months in the research area (about one
month in each zone). The data collection was started in the first week of May, 2007 and
this job was accomplished in the first week of August, 2007. All the respondent farmers
(408) in the study were personally interviewed. The face to face interaction with the
respondents provided the opportunity to establish a good rapport with them. Besides
asking the written questions given in interview schedule, informal discussions were also
conducted with the interviewees to record their opinions, suggestions and experiences
about private extension system. No major problem was encountered during the
interviewing process. The respondents were enthusiastic to participate in the study. Their
co-operation was really encouraging. After the completion of data collection, the
researcher returned back to university for data analysis. The respondents i.e. EFS were
interviewed at the annual conference of Syngenta held at Serena Hotel, Faisalabad.
3.11 Data Analysis
The data were analyzed by using computer software Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS). Percentages, mean and standard deviation were calculated. After
120
analysis, tabulation process was done by researcher. After completing the tables the data
were discussed and interpreted analytically and logical conclusions were drawn. Finally,
SWOT worksheets were constructed based on the results of the study. All parameters
were placed in a SWOT worksheet which was the crux of the findings. The SWOT
worksheets were framed for the responses of the both type of the respondents categories
i.e. farmers and extension field staff.
3.12 Conceptual Framework for SWOT Analysis
A conceptual framework is important to understand the SWOT analysis of private
extension system. From environmental scan to SWOT worksheet the following figures
elaborate the various steps.
INTERNAL FACTORS EXTERNAL FACTORS Fig. 3.3: Organizational Analysis
* Subject matter coverage * Target beneficiaries * Professional competency * Extension method/channel * Effectiveness of communication * Management characteristics * Type of training * Extension approach and function * Marketing mix * Infrastructural facilities * Job design facilities
*Demand for plant protection technology
*Willingness to pay for plant protection
services
*Dem
and for agronomic advisory services
*Willingness to pay for agronomic services
*Willingness to participate
*Dem
and for credit services
*Dem
and for crop insurance services
*Dem
and for marketing
services
*WTP for credit services *WTP for marketing services
*WTP for crop insurance services
*Resources availability
*Demand for agronomic practices
121
3.12.1 SWOT Analysis
SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
(Cardarelli, 2002; Joerger, 2004).
3.12.1.1 Elements of the SWOT analysis
SWOT analysis has four elements (Karppi et al., 2001).
i. Strength = a resource or capacity the organization can use effectively.
ii. Weaknesses = a limitation, fault or defect in the organization
iii. Opportunity = any favorable situation in the organization’s environment.
iv. Threat = any unfavorable situation in the organization’s environment.
The actions to be undertaken that can be deduced from these four elements are: Build on
strengths; Eliminate weaknesses; Exploit opportunities; and mitigate the effect of threats
(Dealtry, 1992).
3.12.1.1.1 Internal Factors: Strengths and Weaknesses
Figure 3.3 shows that in an organizational analysis, identified internal factors
were included subject matter coverage, target beneficiaries, professional competency,
extension method/channel, effectiveness of communication, management characteristics,
type of training, extension approach and function, marketing mix, infrastructural and job
design facilities for extension field staff. The strength and weakness concerns are internal
features that critically affect an organization’s success and measured relative to
competition (Jackson et al., 2000). Strengths and weaknesses exist internally within a
firm, or in key relationships between the firm and its customers. Strengths of an
institution are its competitive edge and are only meaningful if they are useful in satisfying
the needs of a customer. At this point, the strength becomes a capability for the institution
122
(Joerger, 2004). Thus, it is imperative that institutions consider strengths from both the
view of the firm as well as from the customers that are dealt with.
A customer-focused SWOT may also uncover a firm’s potential weaknesses. Weaknesses
are limitations, faults, or defects in the farm business that restrict it from reaching its
potential (Joerger, 2004). Although some weaknesses may be harmless, those that relate
to specific customer needs should be minimized as much as possible. Weaknesses should
also be considered from an internal and external viewpoint. It is important that listing of a
firm’s weaknesses is truthful so that they may be overcome as quickly as possible.
Delaying the discovery of weaknesses that already exist within a company will only
further hurt the firm. Therefore, a focus on a firm’s strengths is important to increase
awareness in areas that a firm excels in. This method not only evokes a positive response
within the minds of the consumer, but pushes the weaknesses further from the decision
making process (Joerger, 2004).
3.12.1.1.2 External Factors: Opportunities and Threats
Figure 3.3 elaborates the external factors that were identified in an organizational
analysis. These included demand for agronomic and plant protection advisory services,
farmers’ willingness to pay for agronomic and plant protection advisory services,
resources availability, farmers’ willingness to participate in extension activities, etc.
Threats and opportunities relate to the wider external influence (Jackson et al., 2000). An
opportunity is an external condition that could positively impact the performance of the
company. The company's competitive advantage is enhanced if the opportunity is acted
upon in a timely manner (Joerger, 2004). Threats, on the other hand, are external
conditions that could negatively impact the performance of the company in the future
123
(ibid). The strategy for any institution should therefore be to maximize its strengths and
take advantage of opportunities and minimize its weakness and avoid its threat (Jackson
et al., 2000).
ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
Internal Factors Analysis External Factors Analysis
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
SWOT Worksheet S W O T
Fig. 3.5: Flow chart for SWOT work-sheet Figure 3.5 elaborates the various steps for SWOT worksheet. After identification of
internal and external factors, internal factors analysis segregates the strengths and
weaknesses of private extension system while external factors analysis segregates the
124
opportunities and threats for the system. The four elements of SWOT analysis served for
a worksheet which is the crux of the study results.
125
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data gathered from farmers and private extension field staff (EFS) through
two separate interview schedules were analyzed using statistical package for social
sciences (SPSS). In addition, qualitative data was collected and recorded through
observation and informal discussion during interviews. This chapter deals with the
analysis and tabulation, interpretation, discussion and synthesis of these data acquired
during the interviews. This chapter is divided into two parts. The part-1 covers the data
acquired from the farmer respondents and the second part describes the responses of the
EFS respondents. Each part is sub-divided into three sections as given below.
Section: 1 Demographic characteristic of the respondents
Section: 2 Strengths and weaknesses
Section: 3 Opportunities and threats
4.1 PART 1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS - --FARMER RESPONDENTS This part deals with the quantitive analysis of the data gathered from farmer respondents.
It consists of three sections. Section-I describes the data regarding the demographic
attributes of the respondents. Section-II deals with the strengths and weaknesses whereas
section-III describes the opportunities and threats.
4.1.1 SECTION 1 ---DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTIC OF THE RESPONDENTS
The literature on agricultural extension generally reflects that the demographic
characteristics of farmers have a bearing on their behavior, attitudes, and interaction with
others as well as their access to agricultural information sources. These, in turn, are
assumed to influence the rate of agricultural development (Shanker, 1979; Sher, 1994).
126
The data relating to selected demographic variables including age, educational level, size
of land holding and tenurial status of the respondents were collected and are presented in
the Tables 4.1.1 through 4.1.6.
4.1.1.1 Age of the respondents
Age is an important attribute that has a consequence, either positive or negative, on the
behavior of an individual (Sher, 1994). However, the literature shows contrary
information on this important factor. The data regarding the age of the respondents were
collected and are presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their age
Response Age (years) f %
< 30 119 29.2
30 to 40 111 27.2
> 40 178 43.6
Total 408 100
Mean age = 41.48 SD = 14.44
The data presented in table 4.1 show that majority of the respondents (43.6%) belonged
to old age category i.e. more then 40 years. Only 27.2% of the respondents were between
the age category of 30-40 (middle age). About 29.2% of the respondents were young age
i.e. less than 30 years. Relatively small percentages of the farmers belonged to young
(29.2%) and middle (27.2%) age categories indicate that in the recent decades, probably
young people were reluctant to join the agriculture as a profession, and probably
preferred some other profession. This might be because of the low profit margin in
agriculture. Majority of the farmers belonged to old age, hardly adopt the innovations in
agriculture. It might be one of the reasons for conventional and subsistent agricultural
practices in the country. There is need to introduce incentives in agriculture to attract the
127
young professionals in the profession of agriculture.
4.1.1.2 Educational level of the respondents
The term education is defined as a positive change in the behavior of the people (Khan,
1992). Education is considered an important decisive factor in making decisions in the
life of an individual. The number of years of formal education completed by an
individual is regarded as a significant factor in gaining access to better ideas, innovations
and technologies. Therefore, it was thought that the level of education would contribute
to understanding differences in the perceptions of the respondents. The data regarding
this characteristic were collected and are presented in the Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Distribution of respondents according to their educational level
Response Educational level (years of schooling) f %
Illiterate (No schooling) 106 26 Primary (5) 53 13 Middle (8) 60 14.7 Matric (10) 126 30.9 FA (12) 32 7.8 Graduation and above (14 and above) 31 7.6 Total 408 100 Mean education = 6.99 SD = 4.75
Table 4.2 shows that 26% of the farmers were illiterate. About 31% of the
respondents had 10 years of schooling (Matric). Only 7.6% of the farmers were Graduate
and above. Of greater interest is the fact that 58.6% (13+ 14.7 + 30.9) of the farmers
were matric/under materic. Imran (1991) reported almost similar results that about 38%
of the respondents were illiterate and 16% were above matric. While 20 and 26% of the
respondents were up to matric and middle level respectively.
The number of years of formal education completed by an individual is regarded as a
significant factor in gaining access to better ides, innovations and technologies (Ijaz &
128
Davidson, 1997; Perraton et al., 1983). Therefore, it was thought that the less education
in the farming community might be the reason of subsistence and conventional
agriculture because less formally educated farmers had little inclination towards adoption
of innovation and modern technologies.
Similarly, illiterate and less educated farmers could not take decision regarding technical
issue of agriculture i.e. insect/pest identification and dose of pesticide for spraying in the
field. Uneducated farmers did not know their rights, which they could claim by legal
procedure. This may be one of the reasons that the subsidies provided by the government
did not trickle to the farmers. The middle men i.e. dealers of pesticides, seeds and
fertilizers could exploit farmers by giving them sub standard inputs. So, illiteracy is the
menace for agriculture. If government wants, to develop the agriculture on modern lines,
it is pre-requisite to educate the farmers and provide incentive in agriculture that educated
persons join agriculture as a profession.
4.1.1.3 Size of landholding
Farm size is an economic indicator representing a farmer’s financial position. As
farmers were much reluctant to tell their annual income, it was thought that size of land
holding will serve the purpose to assess the economic condition of the farmers. It was
anticipated that information about farm size would also help to identify any biasness of
the private sector toward big farmers. The information regarding this aspect is presented
in Table 4.3.
129
Table 4.3 Distribution of respondents according to their size of land holding
Response Size of land holding (acres) f %
< 12.5 217 53.2
12.5 – 25 113 27.7
> 25 78 19.1
Total 408 100
Mean farm size = 20.97 SD = 27.89
Table 4.3 indicates that 53.2% of the farmers had less then 12.5 acres land. Of
more important is the fact that 80.9% (53.2+27.7) of the farmers had equal to or less than
25 acres of land. A small %age (19.1%) had land more than 25 acres. The results are
inline with the study conducted by Imran (1991) who reported that 52% of the
respondents possessed land up to 5 hectares and 30% owned land form 5-10 hectares.
The remaining 18% of the farmers were big land holders with more than 10 hectares of
land. According to Government of Pakistan only 14% of the farmers have more than 12.5
acres (5 hectares) and these 14% of the farmers cultivating the 56% cultivable land of the
country (Govt. of Pak., 2000). It indicates that majority of the farmers (86%) is in the
category of small landholders. Such data not only indicate the need of land reforms,
which was never implement in the history of Pakistan practically but it also pointed out
the need to save the interest of the small land holders.
Better agricultural practices and living standards of the small farmers directly means the
adoption of modern agricultural practice and well being of small farmers, which
constitute about 70% of Pakistan’s population. It also indicates the need of co-operative
farming, which is need of the hour to decrease the cost of production and increase the
profit-margin and would ensure the sustainability of the profession. The government
130
should give incentives, subsidies to small farmers and introduce the welfare schemes for
the small landholders as well.
4.1.1.4 Tenurial status
Tenurial status means the legal proprietary rights of an individual to a piece of
land (Ahmad, 1988). In Pakistan, there are primarily three types of tenurial systems;
owner cultivators, tenants and owner-cum-tenants/ lease state landholders. The data
pertaining to this aspect are presented in the Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Distribution of respondents according to their tenurial status
Response Category f %
Owner 325 79.7
Tenant 11 2.7
Owner-cum-tenant 72 17.6
Total 408 100
Table 4.4 shows that overwhelming majority (79.7%) of the respondents owned
cultivators. About 17.6% of the farmers were in the category of owner-cum-tenant i.e.
they do share cropping with other farmers besides owning their land. Only 2.7% of the
respondents were tenant cultivators. The results of the study are inline with that of Butt
(2004) who reported that large majority (80%) of the respondents were owners. However
tenants and owner-cum-tenants were 3.3 and 16.7% respectively. It indicates that the
trend of sharecropping is not popular in the farming community. It might be due to less
profit-margin in agriculture and farmers preferred to do some other business instead of
cultivating land as a tenant. Only those farmers involved in the profession who had their
own land and there is little trends to cultivate the leased state land. One of the reasons for
this trend is that, for cultivation tenant/leaser improves and develops the land and after
131
development and improvement, it eventually becomes the property of landowner.
Without investing in the land tenant/leaser could not get the high yield and in case of
investment he could not get the full benefits of the investment.
4.1.1.5 Social status
Social status of the farmers is also an important characteristic in a social system
which indicates a position held by an individual in a society. The data regarding this
aspect will highlight the classes and any discrimination in the provision of advisory
services by private sector. The data concerning this aspect are presented in the table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Distribution of respondents according to social status
Response Social status f %
Nazim 2 0.5 Councilor 8 2.0 Numberdar 10 2.5 Ordinary farmer 382 93.6 Teacher 6 1.5 Total 408 100
Table 4.5 indicates that overwhelming majority of the respondents (93.6%)
belong to category of ordinary farmers, about 2% councilors and 2.5% Numberdars (head
of the village) were also the part of the sample. The percentage of influential farmers with
respect to social status was about 5 percent. Imran (1991) reported in his study that 82%
of the respondents were ordinary farmers and 4% were Numberdars. It means with out
targeting the ordinary farmers the private sector could not cover the entire farming
community to provide advisory services.
4.1.1.6 Source(s) of income
Source of income is an important economic indicator representing the farmer’s
dependence on agricultural profession. It was thought that it will provide information that
132
whether agriculture profession fulfills the economic need of the farmers or they are
forced to join another profession to meet their economic need. The data relating to this
aspect are presented in table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Distribution of respondents according to source(s) of income
Response Source of income f % Farming 297 72.8
Farming and govt. service 48 11.8
Farming and business 63 15.4
Total 408 100
Table 4.6 shows that majority of the farmers had farming as their source of
income. About 11.8 and 15.4% of the respondents also did government service and
business other them farming, respectively. Hamid (2006) reported almost same results
that 83.3% of the respondents had farming as a source of income. About 9.2 and 7.5% of
the respondents were engaged in business and job respectively in addition to farming. It
means majority of the farmers engaged all the time in the farming and only about 27%
farmers consider the farming as a part time business. It can be thought that farmers are
very serious in farming practices and they want to increase their yields. They also try
their best to act on the advice of the agricultural experts, because farming was the single
source of income of the farmers. So any supposition that farmers are not willing to adopt
latest agricultural practices may not reflect the reality.
4.1.1.7 Type of advisory services provided by private sector
Respondents were asked about the type of advisory services provided by the
public sector. All (408) the respondents were asked about the services but only 260
respondents reported that they received advisory services from the private sector. The
133
data regarding this aspect are presented in table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Frequency and percentage of the respondents regarding various type of advisory services provided to them by private sector n=260
Response Type of advisory service
a) Agronomic practices Yes % No %
soil analysis 22 8.5 238 91.5 Seedbed preparation 34 13.1 226 86.9 Selection of crop varieties 31 11.9 229 88.1 Sowing time 35 13.5 225 86.5
Sowing methods 44 16.9 216 83.1 Seed treatment 53 20.4 207 79.6 Spacing and seed rate 46 17.7 214 82.3 Manures and fertilizers 86 33.1 174 66.9 b) Plant protection Identify weed problems 234 90.0 26 10.0 Weed control 238 91.5 22 8.5 Identify disease problems 227 87.3 33 12.7 Disease control 231 88.8 29 11.2 Identify insect/pests problems 256 98.5 4 1.5 Insect/pests control 256 98.5 4 1.5 c) Irrigation 141 54.2 119 45.8 d) Post –harvest handling 46 17.7 214 82.3 e) Marketing Marketing information 8 3.1 252 96.9 Marketing assistance 8 3.1 252 96.9
Table 4.7 indicates that 90% of the respondents reported that they got advisory
services from PES with respect to weed identification and weed control (91.5%), disease
identification (87.3%) and disease control (88.8%) and insect pest identification (98.5%)
and insect pest control (98.5%). While majority of respondents replied in negative
regarding the provision of advisory services with respect to agronomic practices, post
harvest handling and marketing.
This might be due to the fact that pesticide companies mainly involved in the business of
weedicide, fungicide and insecticide. That’s why their EFS go to the field for the
134
promotion of sale of their products and provide the services regarding their use. Private
companies generally ignore the equally important services i.e. agronomic practices;
because they have no benefit directly in the provision of these services. Almost similar
results were reported by Ahmad (2004) who found that 94 and 100% of the respondents
received messages form private EFS regarding identification of insect-pest and their
control respectively. About 53% of the respondents received services regarding irrigation.
He further reported that 81.4% of the respondents were aware that private EFS provide
extension services to the farmers regarding manures and fertilizers. He added that 90.6%
of the respondents suggested that Pesticide Company should also provide the services
relating to agronomic practices in addition to plant protection services.
135
4.1.2 SECTION-II--- STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESS
The strength and weakness concerns are internal features that critically affect the
success of the system. Strengths and weaknesses exist internally within an extension
system, or in key relationships between the system and its clients. Thus, it is imperative
that the strengths should consider from both the view of the system itself as well as from
the clients that are dealt with. Hence, both category of stakeholders i.e farmers and
extension field staff were interviewed to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the
system. Farmers were directly asked about the strengths and weaknesses of extension
system under various themes. Farmers rated their responses at four-point likert scale i.e.
1=great weakness, 2= weakness, 3=strength, 4=great strength. As mentioned earlier
under section-I (Pp: 133-134) 260 farmer respondents reported that they got
advisory/extension services from private sector, that is why the number of respondents
who gave response regarding the strengths/weaknesses of the system was 260 instead of
408. The data regarding farmers’ responses are presented in this section.
4.1.2.1 Subject matter coverage
Subject matter coverage refers to the coverage of entire farming system and the
promotion of sustainable agricultural practices for the sake of agri-development. Several
reservations had been expressed about the private extension system that it only focus on
the promotion and sales of pesticides and generally neglect the sustainable practices in
the farming system. Keeping this in view, the data were collected from the respondents
about this aspect of PES and are presented in table 4.8.
136
Table 4.8 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding subject matter coverage as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great
weakness weakness strength Great
strength Central tendency
Subject matter coverage
Extension field staff provide extension services/information regarding: f % f % f % f % `X SD Cultural and physical control
190 73.1 63 24.2 7 2.7 0 0 1.30 0.51
Mechanical control 190 73.1 63 24.2 7 2.7 0 0.0 1.30 0.51 Biological control 202 77.7 53 20.4 5 1.9 0 0.0 1.24 0.47 Judicious use of pesticide 101 38.8 102 39.2 53 20.4 4 1.5 1.85 0.80 Farm yard manure (FYM) 180 69.2 54 20.8 18 6.9 8 3.1 1.44 0.76 Green manure (GM) 184 70.8 58 22.3 14 5.4 4 1.5 1.38 0.66 Overall mean 1.42 0.62
Scale: 1= great weakness 2 = weakness 3 = strength 4 = great strength
The data presented in table 4.8 show the weakness of PES with respect to subject
matter coverage. The overall mean value was 1.42 with SD 0.62 which depicts the great
weakness of the system. All items presented in table rated by the farmers in the range of
weakness and great weakness. Regarding cultural and physical control, mechanical, and
biological control, the mean values were below 2 which indicate that pesticide companies
are less interested in these services, but it was surprising, when farmers rated that private
extension staff had a weakness ( =1.85) regarding judicious use of pesticide. Farmers
told in the informal discussion that main intentions of sales officers were to advise the
farmers to apply maximum number of applications with possible high dose for their own
sale interest. One farmer said that TSOs did not consider the threshold levels of insect-
pest attack. They advised the farmers only to purchase poison and spray on the field.
Piters et al. (2005) reported that lack of holistic approach is the weakness of private
sector. Reddy & Rao (2001) reported that privatization does not care for sustainability
instead advocate exploitation of natural resources to the maximum extent. Ahmad (2004)
suggested that Pesticide Company should also emphasize on biological control.
137
With respect to application of FYM and GM, farmers rated the both items with mean
value below 1.5 which depicts the great weakness. It reflects that EFS did not care about
the overall farming system instead they were interested in the maximum sale of their
companies’ products i.e. pesticides. The data displayed in above table reveal that PES
discourages the organic farming, which is now considered very important for human
health and environmental protection. In WTO regime, excessive use of pesticide would
ultimately adversely affect the export volume as well. So, there is a need to introduce the
trend of organic agricultural practices among farming community by focusing on
judicious use of pesticides and private sector should play its role in this regard.
4.1.2.2 Target beneficiaries
A common criticism on private extension system is that it neglects the small,
resource-poor, marginalized and uneducated farmers in favor of a small group of big and
resource rich farmers. Private extension system is also under criticism due to limited
attention towards women farmers. About the target beneficiaries of PES, the data were
collected and are presented in table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding clientele/target beneficiaries as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents n = 260
Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
Beneficiaries Extension field staff:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Contact with poor farmers 64 24.6 114 43.8 82 31.5 0 0 2.07 0.75 Contact with small land holders
60 23.1 122 46.9 78 30 0 0 2.07 0.73
Contact with uneducated farmers
68 26.2 111 42.7 73 28.1 8 3.1 2.08 0.81
Deal all farmers on equality basis
140 53.8 101 38.8 19 7.3 0 0 1.53 0.63
Contact with women farmers/labors
231 88.8 24 9.2 5 1.9 0 0 1.13 0.39
Overall mean 1.78 0.66
138
Data in table 4.9 reflect that private EFS did not contact with poor, small land holders and
uneducated farmers with a mean values and standard deviations of =2.07 with
SD=0.75; =2.07 with SD=0.73; and =2.08 with SD=0.81 respectively. Similarly,
respondents had a view that private EFS did not deal all farmer on equality basis with
=1.53 and SD=0.63 and did not contact with women farmers/laborers. All the separate
items’ mean values represent the weaknesses of the system. The overall mean value of
clientele/target beneficiaries was 1.78 with SD=0.66 indicates the weakness of the
private extension system. Various studies conducted to analyze the performance of
private sector extension revealed that its target beneficiaries are rich, big and resourceful
farmers and this system is biased toward big farmers (Piters et al., 2005; Kidd et al.,
2000; Saravanan, 2001; Rivera, 1993; Sulaiman et al., 2005). This sector neglects the
small, poor and marginal farmers (Saravanan, 2001). In a study conducted by Gowda &
Saravanan (2001) reported that about 45% of the scientists preferred privatization only
for large farmers. kumar et al. (2001) reported that about 23% of the respondents
preferred that privatization for large farmers only.
During the interviews farmers reported that private EFS mainly focuses on big farmers
and they mostly ignores the poor and small farmers. In qualitative discussion with top
management personnel of a well reputed pesticide company, elaborated that to contact
with big farmers is a business limitation for TSOs. Because, TSO can sales more quantity
of pesticides by convincing one big farmer rather than ten small farmers. In spite of the
limitation, private EFS claim that doing group discussion in a village, all the farmers are
treated equally without any discrimination. But farmers had a view that when EFS
conducted group discussion meetings, they only invite the big farmers to discuss their
problems relating to crop management. It might be due to business interest of a company,
139
because private sector is mainly interested in sales of the products and extension services
were considered as a tool to promote the sales. Shekara (2001a) suggested that private
extension should be given emphasis on women, small and marginal farmers.
4.1.2.3 Professional competency of EFS
Narayana’s Lotus Model (Swamy, 2001) described four areas, i.e., knowledge,
attitude, skills, and attributes to develop competency among private extension
professionals. To assess the professional competencies of private extension field staff,
Narayana’s Lotus Model was adopted with some modifications. The respondents were
asked about different aspects of the competency which are discussed as under.
i) Knowledge
Private extension professional should have or retain knowledge of subject matter,
farming systems, input, farmers’ problems and marketing to guide them properly and
timely (Swamy, 2001). The data regarding these aspects are presented in table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding competency of extension field staff concerning knowledge as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
EFS has knowledge about:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Subject matter 48 18.5 127 48.8 74 28.5 11 2.18 2.18 0.78 Farming systems 49 18.8 126 48.5 74 28.5 11 2.18 2.18 0.78 Inputs 45 17.3 118 45.4 86 33.1 11 2.18 2.24 0.78 Farmers problems 59 22.7 132 50.8 58 22.3 11 2.18 2.08 0.78 Marketing 102 39.2 120 46.2 35 13.5 3 1.76 1.76 0.72 Overall mean 2.09 0.77 Knowledge competency of EFS was determined by asking 5 questions as depicted
in table 4.10. The mean values of the response of the respondents were slightly over 2
except marketing as knowledge sub area which was 1.76. The overall mean value of
knowledge competency was 2.09 with standard deviation 0.77. This means that
140
knowledge competency of EFS of private sector extension was rated as weakness of the
system. This might be due to the fact that private sector employs fresh graduates having
less exposure of field knowledge. Butt (2004) reported that only 1.7% of the respondents
agreed that EFS was technically sound. Wigforss (2002) reported that private extension
staff lacks skills. Kidd et al. (2000) stated that experience show that private extension
system has limited access to subject matter specialists. Fami (2006) concluded that due to
lack of access to skillful subject-matter-specialists private extension agencies had
decreased their efficiencies.
ii) Attitude
EFS should have favorable attitude towards serving clients, field work and
problem solving (Swamy, 2001). The data concerning these aspects were collected and
are presented in table 4.11.
Table 4.11 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding competency of extension field staff concerning attitude as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great weakness
weakness Strength Great strength
Central tendency
EFS has favorable attitude towards:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Serving clients 58 22.3 111 42.7 77 29.6 14 5.4 2.18 0.84 Field work 50 19.2 106 40.8 90 34.6 14 5.4 2.26 0.83 Problem solving 75 28.8 97 37.3 80 30.8 8 3.1 2.08 0.84 Overall mean 2.17 0.84 Attitude competency of EFS was analyzed by asking 3 questions as presented in
table 4.11. The mean values of the response of the respondents were slightly over 2. The
overall mean value of attitude competency was 2.17 with standard deviation 0.84. This
means that attitude competency of EFS of private sector extension was rated as weakness
of the system by the respondents. Abbas (2005) reported that farmers rated the interest of
EFS towards farmers’ problems with a mean value of 2.85 (between low and medium)
141
with standard deviation of 0.81. He further suggested on the behalf of 52% of the
respondents that private extension field staff should follow regularity, punctuality in their
visits to guide the farmers. With respect to satisfaction, he reported that 20 and 15% of
the respondents were partially and fully satisfied, respectively. Similarly Butt (2004)
reported that 98.3% of the respondents were not at all satisfied with the working of EFS.
Venkatakumar et al. (2001) also reported that inadequate and under-trained personnel
were employed by private agencies. Piters et al. (2005) concluded that private sector
address the short term issues and generally ignores the long term constraints.
iii) Skills
The extension agents should have abilities like technological skill, training skill,
diagnostic skill and skill in finding solutions (Swamy, 2001). The data with respect to this
area are presented in table 4.12.
Table 4.12 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding competency of extension field staff concerning skills as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
EFS has skills like:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Technological 44 16.9 110 42.3 86 33.1 20 7.7 2.32 0.84 Training 61 23.5 106 40.8 85 32.7 8 3.1 2.15 0.82 Diagnostic 33 12.7 63 24.2 100 38.5 64 24.6 2.75 0.97 Finding solution of problems
59 22.7 98 37.7 83 31.9 20 7.7 2.25 0.89
Overall mean 2.37 0.88 Skills competency of EFS was determined by asking 4 questions as presented in
table 4.12. The mean values of the response of the respondents were slightly over 2
except diagnostic as skill sub area which was 2.75. The sole skill i.e. diagnostic was rated
toward the sphere of strength. The overall mean value of skill competency was 2.37 with
standard deviation 0.88. This means that skill competency of EFS of private sector
142
extension was rated as weakness of the system. Wigforss (2002) reported that staff of
private sector (NGO) lacks skills in social mobilization. Mishra & Pendy (2001) reported
that private EFS is lacking technical know-how. Reddy and Rao (2001) reported that the
professionalism relating to private extension field staff can be incorporated by enhancing
competency of extension workers through training and by replacing the present
unqualified field staff with well-qualified grass root level workers. Similarly, Ahmad
(2004) reported that about 99.3% of the respondents suggested that pesticide company
(Syngenta) should build the capacity of EFS. Parsad (2001) reported that most of the
agro-input firms perform the function of marketing in which the marketing personnel also
oversee extension related functions. It might be one of the reason for low competency of
private EFS.
iv Attributes
The EFS should have the attributes like politeness, good conduct, empathy
towards farmers and flexibility (Swamy, 2001). The data regarding this aspect are given
in the next table.
143
Table 4.13 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding competency of extension field staff concerning attributes as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
EFS has Attributes Like:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Politeness 7 2.7 9 3.5 161 61.9 83 31.9 3.23 0.64 Good conduct 3 1.2 13 5 164 63.1 80 30.8 3.23 0.59 Empathy towards farmers 60 23.1 109 41.9 67 25.8 24 9.2 2.21 0.90 Flexibility 54 20.8 129 49.6 63 24.2 14 5.4 2.14 0.80 Overall attributes mean 2.70 0.73 Overall professional competency mean 2.33 0.81
Attribute competency of EFS was analyzed by asking 4 questions as depicted in
table 4.13. The mean values of the response of the respondents regarding politeness and
good conduct were rated slightly over 3. The mean values of the items i.e. empathy
toward farmers and flexibility were rated slightly above 2. The overall mean value of
attribute competency was 2.70 with standard deviation 0.73. This means that rated
attributes competency of EFS of private sector extension was skewed toward strength of
the private extension system. Similar results were also reported by the Abbas (2005).
Farmers rated these attributes (politeness and good conduct) at the mean value of 4.26
(on the scale of 5) with standard deviation of 0.68.
4.1.2.4 Extension methods/channels
The effectiveness of extension methods/channel is largely determined by their
wise choice and skillful use by the extension workers (Muhammad, 2001). Thus the
extension workers need to use a variety of extension methods/channels to communicate
extension messages effectively to the farmers. Private sector implies variety of extension
methods according to varied situations. Many companies also publish printed material to
distribute among farmers. Shekara (2001) reported that extension methods adopted by
144
private extension system were personal contact, village level meetings, demonstrations,
mass media, exhibitions and printed materials, etc. Therefore, farmers were asked about
this aspect of the private extension system. The data collected are presented in the table
4.14.
Table 4.14 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding extension methods/channels as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great
weakness weakness Strength Great
strength Central tendency
Extension method/channel f % f % f % f % `X SD Group discussion 4 1.5 - - 151 58.1 105 40.4 3.37 0.57 Farm & home visit 206 79.2 8 3.1 42 16.2 4 1.5 1.40 0.81 Method demonstration 242 93.1 14 5.4 4 1.5 - - 1.08 0.33 Result demonstration 228 87.7 9 3.5 23 8.8 - - 1.21 0.59 Exhibitions 249 95.8 11 4.2 0 0 - - 1.04 0.20 Telephone calls 104 40.0 20 7.7 109 41.9 27 10.4 2.23 1.10 Printed material 177 68.1 25 9.6 58 22.3 - - 1.54 0.83 Audiovisual aids 249 95.8 7 2.7 4 1.5 - - 1.06 0.29 Radio 241 92.2 7 2.7 4 1.5 8 3.1 1.15 0.59 TV 62 23.8 35 13.5 155 59.6 8 3.1 2.42 0.88 Overall mean 1.65 0.62 The data presented in table 4.14 indicated that group discussion was a more
strength of the system with a mean value 3.37 and standard deviation 0.57. Davidson and
Ahmad (2004) reported similar results that Pesticide Company (syngenta) relied heavily
on group discussion as reported by the 96% of the contact farmers. Imran (1991) also
reported that group discussion was the most common method used by private extension
system as reported by the 78% of the respondents. Telephone call ( =2.23, SD=1.10)
and use of TV ( =2.42, SD=0.88) was no more strengths of the system. While all the
remaining items were rated by the respondents between mean values 1 and 1.5 which
depicts great weakness of the system. Fami (2006) concluded that due to lack of access to
145
appropriate teaching aids private extension agencies had decreased their efficiencies.
Such results show the overall weakness for using alternative extension methods and
channels for disseminating agricultural technologies. Ahmad (2004) stated in a study that
100% of the respondents suggested that mass media should be effectively used by the
private sector. Shankar (2001) also reported that less emphasis on mass media is the
weakness of the private extension system. Regarding telephone calls, about 10.4% of the
farmers reported that it was a great strength of the system. It means private ESF has a
strong telephone contact with a small percentage of farming community. During
interviews farmers pointed out that EFS has telephone contact with only big farmers. This
data provide evidence to the farmers’ claim that private EFS only contact with few big
land holders. Private EFS frequently used group discussion method. It provides support to
the claim of EFS that they invite all farmers in group discussion meeting without any
discrimination of land holding. Low mean values show that private extension system had
great weakness regarding conducting method and result demonstrations which are the
most effective extension methods. Such results show the need of use of variety of
extension methods as indicated in table.
4.1.2.5 Characteristics of effective communication
Swamy (2001) described that for effective communication messages should be
very clear, contain sufficient information, based on real need that helps to solve problem.
Message should also be delivered on time and repeated till understanding, hence
satisfying the clientele. To assess the effectiveness of communication, the data regarding
this aspect are presented in table 4.15.
146
Table 4.15 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding effective communication as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great
weakness weakness strength Great
strength Central tendency
Characteristics of effective communication Message: f % f % f % f % `X SD Based on real needs 45 17.3 129 49.6 76 29.9 10 3.8 2.20 0.76 Contains sufficient information
45 17.3 135 51.9 70 26.9 10 3.8 2.17 0.75
Help to solve problem 59 22.7 121 46.5 70 26.9 10 3.8 2.12 0.80 Meanings are very clear 48 18.5 129 49.6 73 28.1 10 3.8 2.17 0.77 Delivered on time 55 21.5 120 46.2 71 27.3 14 5.4 2.17 0.82 Repeated till understanding
61 23.5 142 54.6 50 19.2 7 2.7 2.01 0.73
Satisfies the farmers 94 36.2 89 34.2 70 26.9 7 2.7 1.96 0.86 Overall mean 2.11 0.78
The data presented in table 4.15 showed that farmers rated all the items between 2
and 2.5. It shows that effectiveness of communication was not considered as strength of a
system. The rating regarding the respondents’ satisfaction with respect to message
delivery with mean value of 1.96 and Standard deviation 0.86 expressed the weakness of
the system. Overall mean vale (2.11) depicts the weakness of the system. In reporting the
weakness of private extension system Shankar (2001) stated that contradictory messages
flows from competing sources due to advertisement and publicity techniques lead to
unnecessary confusion. He further added that advertisement by private companies tended
to be deceptive rather than informative. Gowda (2001) reported that competition among
private extension systems leading to contradictory messages. In informal discussion,
farmers pointed out that PEFS only talk about the products of their companies.
Researcher observed that farmers measure the effectiveness of message in relation to the
result of the products which they used on the recommendation of EF personnel. If results
were not positive, farmers felt that message was not need-based and contained
insufficient information to solve the problem. One farmer said that “there is something
147
wrong in message content and message delivery because it seldom proved useful for us”.
In a study conducted by Butt (2004), he concluded that only 1.7% of the farmers agreed
that information provided to them by private extension system was useful. Hanyani-
Malmbo (2002) reported that numerous but uncoordinated interventions create confusion
for clients. According to Saravanan (2001) private extension restricts flow of information
due to corporate interest of the system. During interview when the researcher asked a
question to farmers “do you think that meaning of message are very clear?” He answered,
yes! It is very clear to me that message of EFS is all to promote the products of the
companies. The results show that it is not sufficient to deliver a message but most
important is to pursue the message till yielding results to wine the trust of the farmer for
effective communication.
4.1.2.6 Extension approach and function
Extension approach and function means whether the focus of extension activities
is simply technology transfer or to increasing the skills and knowledge of the farmers
which ultimately increase the farm income. The farmers were asked about this aspect and
data are presented in table 4.16.
148
Table 4.16 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding extension approach and function as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great
weakness weakness strength Great
strength Central tendency
Extension approach and function EFS focus to: f % f % f % f % `X SD Increase farmers' skill 72 27.7 142 54.6 43 16.5 3 1.2 1.91 0.69 Increase farmers knowledge
72 27.7 142 54.6 43 16.5 3 1.2 1.91 0.69
Increase farmers' profit 82 31.5 111 42.7 64 24.6 3 1.2 1.95 0.78 Provides greater chance to the farmers for sharing their experience
79 30.4 121 46.5 49 18.8 11 4.2 1.97 0.81
Overall mean 1.94 0.74 The data presented in table 4.16 show that farmers rated all the items with mean
just below 2. It depicted the weakness of the system regarding extension approach and
function. Farmers had a view that private extension system had a weakness regarding
their skills, knowledge and profits in farming with mean values of 1.91, 1.91 and 1.95
respectively. Such results put a serious question on the function of private extension
system and provide support to the farmers’ reservations discussed in last table. In
reporting the weakness of private extension system Shankar (2001) stated that general
education and imparting knowledge to farmers regarding environmental and ecological
issues would be missing in this system. Private extension is less education oriented and
more commercial in nature (Saravanan, 2001). In qualitative discussions most of the
respondents told that private extension system had contributed in decreasing their profit
because expensive use of pesticides have increased their cost of production and they
seldom get expected results of the crops. One farmer said that “in last 5 years he did not
use pesticide on crops and his profit margin was not less than those who used pesticides
to control insect”. Literature showed that private extension system is more interested in
selling pesticides. Farmers’ education should be the basic approach and function of
149
private EFS because it is deemed important for the survival of private extension as well.
4.1.2.7 Marketing mix
The word marketing refers to the selling of pesticide products (insecticide,
weedicide) by private companies directly or indirectly to the farmers. Major selling
activities are running by the dealership or through franchise system. Rarely companies by
pass the dealers or franchise for providing pesticide products to the farmers. In this table
farmer respondents rated the strengths and weaknesses of the marketing activity of
private extension system. The data presented in table 4.17.
Table 4.17 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding marketing mix as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the respondents
n=260 Great
weakness weakness strength Great
strength Central tendency
Marketing mix
f % f % f % f % `X SD Good quality of product 66 25.4 76 29.2 103 39.6 15 5.8 2.26 0.90 Compensation in case of product failure 175 67.3 85 32.7 - - - - 1.33 0.47 Follow up 161 61.9 80 30.8 19 7.3 - - 1.45 0.63 Low/affordable price of quality product 175 67.3 85 32.7 - - - - 1.33 0.47 Regulated price 141 54.2 94 36.2 25 9.6 - - 1.55 0.66 Provides product on credit 46 17.7 10 3.8 121 46.5 83 31.9 2.93 1.03 Easy terms and conditions of credit 204 78.5 49 18.8 7 2.7 - - 1.34 0.49 Promotion images leads to right advice 160 61.5 90 34.6 10 3.8 - - 1.42 0.58 EFS sale products directly to farmer 246 94.6 10 3.8 4 1.5 - - 1.07 0.31 Provide products at farmers door-step 246 94.6 10 3.8 4 1.5 - - 1.07 0.31 Overall mean 1.57 0.58 The data presented in table 4.17 showed that farmers rated all the items of
marketing below 2 except two items i.e. good quality and provision of products on credit.
Both the items were rated at 2.26 and 2.93 mean values with standard deviation of 0.90
and 1.03, respectively. Both items relatively tended towards strengths of the private
extension system. Overall mean value of marketing system was 1.57 which tended
150
toward great weakness of the system. Although dealers provided products on credit but
low/affordable price of quality products was rated at 1.33 which reflect the great
weakness. Ahmad (2004) stated that the price of the pesticide products should be
affordable. Imran (1991) also concluded that the cost of pesticide is very high and there is
adulteration in pesticide as reported by 72 and 90% of the respondents. During interviews
farmers pointed out that, in providing pesticide products on credit, dealers charged 50 to
100% profit on printed price. Shankar (2001) reported in a study that in private extension
system exploitation and manipulation of farmers have become the order of the day.
Shekara (2001) stated that it is possible to prevent the farmers being exploited by private
extension agents by proper legislation. About 78.5% of the farmers reported that
regarding terms and conditions of the credit provided by the dealers was a great weakness
of the system. Farmers told that they had not sufficient financial resources to purchase the
inputs including pesticide products. On a question of why they got products from dealers
on credit when government is providing credit to the farmers on reasonable terms and
conditions to the farmers on one window operation basis? On this question majority of
the farmers reply “bribery and nepotism are the menaces in the getting loan”. If we
ultimately succeeded to get loan from banks it is so much time consuming process that
the proper time to purchase and apply the inputs on crop is over and we did lost”. So, we
have no option to purchase those products on credit from dealers. He exploited our
miserable financial condition and got high percentage of profits. Farmers rated the good
quality of the products as a weakness of the system ( =2.26). Shankar (2001) reported
that provision of product by pesticide agencies with no emphasis on quality resulting
market failure. Farmers pointed out that the dealers also preferred to sell substandard
products because they got high profit margin of profit in such products. Abbasi (1986)
151
also suggested that effective steps for checking the purity of pesticides should be taken by
the government. When researcher tried to probe into the problem and asked different
questions to randomly selected dealers, all dealers answered almost in the same tune.
They told that farmers did not apply the recommended methods for spraying of pesticides
on the crops. Dealers claimed that farmers were responsible for not getting good results
of the pesticide products. Again, it is the responsibility of the private extension system to
educate the farmers regarding pesticide application. Regarding product failure and follow
up, farmers rated the both items with mean values 1.33 and 1.45, standard deviations 0.47
and 0.63, respectively which depicted the great weaknesses of the system. Ashraf (2001)
reported that visit by extension staff of pesticide agencies appeared to be relatively week
regarding follow up. “Compensation in case of product failure” was rated as a great
weakness ( =1.33). Shankar (2001) reported that payment could not be deferred nor
based on the impact of pesticide and it was the weakness of the system. He further added
that private extension system provide product with no emphasis on quality. In case of
product failure in getting desired results, companies should compensate the farmers and it
is only possible through proper follow up of the product performance. Praveen et al.
(2001) stated that private marketing extension should help farmers to supply the produce
at right time, right place, right way, right quality and right quantity looking to the
demands of markets. In doing so companies would be able to win the trust of the farmers
that is main threat to the private extension system.
152
4.1.3. SECTION III---OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS
Opportunities and Threats relate to the wider external influence. Opportunities
positively affect and threats negatively affect the extension system in the future. The
strategy for any system should therefore be to take advantage of opportunities and
minimize its threats. In this section, opportunities and threats are measured through
different parameters. Farmers rated their response on a four-point likert scale. To avoid
misleading, the data were presented zone-wise in this section. Because in cotton-zone
there was not demand for rice advisory services and in rice zone, there was not demand
for cotton advisory services. The average mean values for each crop could mislead in the
Overall (Punjab) data.
4.1.3.1 Demand for agronomic advisory services
Farmers were asked about their demands for agronomic advisory services. For
data collection purpose agronomic advisory services were included the services regarding
seed bed preparation, selection of seed varieties, sowing time, sowing methods, seed
treatment, spacing, seed rate and fertilizer application. Farmers rated their demand on
four-point likert scale. More demand reflects the opportunities for private extension
system and vice versa.
153
Table 4.18 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning agronomic practices of various crops as reported by the respondents
n=408 Advisory Services regarding Crop
Very low demand
Low demand
High demand
Very high demand
Central tendency
i. Cotton Zone f % f % f % f % `X SD Cotton 1 0.7 3 2.2 11 8.0 121 88.9 3.85 0.46 Wheat 19 13.9 3 2.2 11 8.0 103 75.7 3.46 1.07 Rice 109 80.1 1 0.7 11 8.0 15 11.0 1.50 1.04 Sugarcane 36 26.4 7 5.1 11 8.0 82 60.2 3.02 1.31 Maize 117 86.0 4 2.9 4 2.9 11 8.0 1.33 0.88 Fruit 119 87.5 4 2.9 1 0.7 12 8.8 1.31 0.87 Vegetables 108 79.4 1 0.7 4 2.9 23 16.9 1.57 1.15 ii. Rice Zone Cotton 135 99.2 1 0.7 1.02 0.26 Wheat 3 2.2 1 0.7 43 31.6 89 65.4 3.60 0.62 Rice 1 0.7 1 0.7 43 31.6 91 66.9 3.65 0.54 Sugarcane 97 71.3 1 0.7 18 13.2 20 14.7 1.71 1.17 Maize 136 100.0 - - - - - - 1.00 0.00 Fruit 136 100.0 - - - - - - 1.00 0.00 Vegetables 106 77.9 - - 16 11.7 14 10.2 1.54 1.05 iii. Central Mixed Zone Cotton 89 65.4 - - 7 5.1 40 29.4 1.99 1.38 Wheat 12 8.8 12 8.8 28 20.5 84 61.7 3.35 0.97 Rice 95 69.8 8 5.8 33 24.2 1.85 1.31 Sugarcane 39 28.6 12 8.8 18 13.2 67 49.2 2.83 1.31 Maize 24 17.6 12 8.8 27 19.8 73 53.6 3.10 1.15 Fruit 131 96.3 - - - - 5 3.6 1.11 0.57 Vegetables 96 70.5 - - 13 9.5 27 19.8 1.79 1.25 Overall (Punjab) Cotton 225 55.1 3 0.7 18 4.4 162 39.7 2.29 1.45 Wheat 34 8.3 16 3.9 82 20.1 276 67.6 3.47 0.91 Rice 205 50.2 2 0.5 62 15.2 139 34.1 2.33 1.38 Sugarcane 172 42.2 20 4.9 47 11.5 169 41.4 2.52 1.39 Maize 277 67.9 16 3.9 31 7.6 84 20.6 1.81 1.24 Fruit 386 94.6 4 1 1 0.2 17 4.2 1.14 0.61 Vegetables 310 76 1 0.2 33 8.1 64 15.7 1.63 1.16 Overall Mean 2.08 1.16
Scale: 1= Very low demand 2= Low demand 3= high demand 4= Very high demand The data presented in table 4.18 indicate that in cotton-zone farmers rated cotton,
wheat and sugarcane crop with 3.85, 3.46 and 3.02 mean values and standard deviation
0.46, 1.07 and 1.31 respectively which shows the demand for advisory services. Similarly
154
in case of rice-zone the mean values of 3.65 and 3.60 with standard deviation of 0.54 and
0.62 indicated the demand for agronomic services regarding wheat and rice crop,
respectively. In case of central-mixed-zone farmers rated wheat and maize crop with 3.35
and 3.10 mean values with standard deviation of 0.97 and 1.15 respectively which
indicated the demand for agronomic practices. Above data show the opportunity for
private extension system to provide advisory services for specific crops in specific zones.
In case of overall (Punjab) demand with respect to agronomic practices, farmers rated
wheat crop with mean value of 3.47 and standard deviation 0.91. This mean value
showed a trend toward great opportunity for private extension system. The other crops
such as maize, fruits and vegetables were rated below 2, which represented that threat
regarding demand in Punjab for extension system.
4.1.3.2 Demand for plant protection advisory services
Plant protection advisory services include the services regarding identification of
weeds, disease and insect/pest problems and their control. Farmers were asked to rate
their demand for plant protection advisory services on the given scale. The data collected
regarding this aspect are presented in table 4.19.
155
Table 4.19 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning plant protection technology of various crops as reported by the respondents n=408
Advisory Services regarding Crop
Very low demand
Low demand
High demand
Very high demand
Central tendency
i. Cotton Zone f % f % f % f % `X SD Cotton 1 0.7 3 2.2 3 2.2 129 94.8 3.91 0.41 Wheat 19 13.9 3 2.2 3 2.2 111 81.6 3.51 1.07 Rice 109 80.1 1 0.7 3 2.2 23 16.9 1.56 1.15 Sugarcane 40 29.4 3 2.2 3 2.2 90 66.1 3.05 1.37 Maize 119 87.5 1 0.7 - - 16 11.7 1.36 0.97 Fruit 118 86.7 4 2.9 1 0.7 13 9.5 1.33 0.90 Vegetables 111 81.6 1 0.7 3 2.2 21 15.4 1.51 1.11 ii. Rice Zone Cotton 136 100.0 - - - - - - 1.00 0.00 Wheat 4 2.9 1 0.7 45 33.0 86 63.2 3.57 0.66 Rice 2 1.4 1 0.7 46 33.8 87 63.9 3.60 0.59 Sugarcane 97 71.3 1 0.7 19 13.9 19 13.9 1.71 1.16 Maize 135 99.2 - - - - 1 0.7 1.02 0.26 Fruit 136 100.0 - - - - - - 1.00 0.00 Vegetables 107 78.6 - - 15 11.0 14 10.2 1.53 1.05 iii. Central Mixed Zone Cotton 88 64.7 - - 7 5.1 41 30.1 2.01 1.39 Wheat 12 8.8 13 9.5 29 21.3 82 60.2 3.33 0.97 Rice 95 69.8 - - 8 5.8 33 24.2 1.85 1.31 Sugarcane 39 28.6 13 9.5 17 12.5 67 49.2 2.82 1.31 Maize 24 17.6 12 8.8 26 19.1 74 54.4 3.10 1.16 Fruit 131 96.3 - - - - 5 3.6 1.11 0.57 Vegetables 98 72.0 - - 14 10.2 24 17.6 1.74 1.21 Overall (Punjab) Cotton 225 55.1 3 0.7 10 2.5 170 41.7 2.31 1.47 Wheat 35 8.6 17 4.2 77 18.9 279 68.4 3.47 0.92 Rice 206 50.5 2 0.5 57 14 143 35 2.34 1.39 Sugarcane 176 43.1 17 4.2 39 9.6 176 43.1 2.53 1.41 Maize 278 68.1 13 3.2 26 6.4 91 22.3 1.83 1.27 Fruit 385 94.4 4 1 1 0.2 18 4.4 1.14 0.63 Vegetables 316 77.5 1 0.2 32 7.8 59 14.5 1.59 1.13 Overall Mean 2.17 1.17
The data presented in table 4.19 indicate that in cotton-zone farmers rated cotton, wheat
and sugarcane crop with mean 3.91, 3.51 and 3.05 and standard deviation 0.41, 1.07 and
1.37, respectively which shows the demand for plant protection technology services.
156
Similarly in case of rice-zone the mean values of 3.57 and 3.60 with standard deviation
0.66 and 0.59 indicated the demand for protection technology advisory services regarding
wheat and rice crop respectively. In case of central-mixed-zone farmers rated wheat and
maize crop with 3.33 and 3.10 mean values and standard deviation of 0.97 and 1.16,
respectively which indicated the demand for plant protection technology services. Above
data show the opportunity for private extension system to provide advisory services
regarding plant protection technology for specific crops in specific zones. In case of
overall
(Punjab) data presented in table revealed that demand of extension services regarding
plant protection technology of wheat crop is considered as an opportunity (with mean
vale of 3.47 and standard deviation 0.92) for private extension system. The crops i.e.
maize, fruit and vegetable were rated below 2. These values indicated the level of threat
for private extension system regarding the demand for protection technology. Overall
mean value was 2.17 and standard deviation 1.17. This value expressed an overall threat
for private extension system. Because rice crop is almost not cultivated in cotton zone, so
farmers rated its demand with a mean value of 1 which depicts great threat. In cotton-
zone only few farmers cultivate rice for domestic consumption, so, they rated the demand
for extension services regarding rice crop below 2 which depicts the threat for extension
system. In central-mixed-zone, both crops i.e. cotton and rice indicated the same trend for
demand regarding plant protection technology of both crops and rated below the mean
value of 2.
4.1.3.3 Demand for miscellaneous advisory services
The data were collected for the demand of advisory services regarding post
harvest technology, soil analysis, marketing and credit services under the heading of
157
miscellaneous services. Farmers were asked to rate their demand for the mentioned
services at the given scale. High demand reflects the opportunities and low demand
reflects the threats for the private extension system. The data regarding this aspect are
presented in table below.
Table 4.20 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning miscellaneous services as reported by the respondents
n=408 Advisory Services regarding
Very low demand
Low demand
High demand
Very high demand
Central tendency
i. Cotton Zone f % f % f % f % `X SD Post harvest tech. 128 94.1 5 3.7 - - 3 2.2 1.10 0.48 Soil analysis 24 17.6 1 0.7 9 6.6 102 75.0 3.39 1.15 Marketing services 6 4.4 1 0.7 15 11.0 114 83.8 3.74 0.69 Credit services 6 4.4 1 0.7 12 8.8 117 86.0 3.76 0.68 Crop insurance 2 1.5 1 0.7 20 14.7 113 83.1 3.79 0.52 ii. Rice Zone Post harvest tech. 136 100.0 - - - - - - 1.00 0.00 Soil analysis 1 0.7 7 5.1 30 22.1 98 72.1 3.65 0.61 Marketing services 1 0.7 1 0.7 33 24.3 101 74.3 3.72 0.51 Credit services 1 0.7 1 0.7 32 23.5 102 75.0 3.73 0.51 Crop insurance 1 0.7 1 0.7 32 23.5 102 75.0 3.73 0.51 iii. Central Mixed Zone Post harvest tech. 118 86.8 - - 4 2.9 14 10.3 1.37 0.96 Soil analysis 20 14.7 8 5.9 27 19.9 81 59.6 3.24 1.09 Marketing services 29 21.3 14 10.3 16 11.8 77 56.6 3.04 1.24 Credit services 26 19.1 10 7.4 21 15.4 79 58.1 3.13 1.19 Crop insurance 30 22.1 8 5.9 19 14.0 79 58.1 3.08 1.24 Overall (Punjab) Post harvest tech. 382 93.6 5 1.2 4 1 17 4.2 1.16 0.63 Soil analysis 45 11 16 3.9 66 16.2 281 68.9 3.43 0.99 Marketing services 36 8.8 16 3.9 64 15.7 292 71.6 3.50 0.93 Credit services 33 8.1 12 2.9 65 15.9 298 73 3.45 0.89 Crop insurance 33 8.1 10 2.5 71 17.4 294 72.1 3.53 0.87 Overall Mean 3.01 0.86
The data presented in table 4.20 show almost same trend in three separate zones. The
mean values for miscellaneous items in Punjab given in table were above 3 in all items
i.e. soil analysis ( =3.43 and SD= 0.99), marketing services ( =3.50 and SD=0.93),
credit services ( =3.45 and SD=0.89) and crop insurance ( =3.53 and SD=0.87) except
158
post-harvest technology ( =1.16 and SD=0.63) as reported by the farmers. Such results
showed great opportunities for private extension system to provide extension services
regarding soil analysis, marketing, credit and crop insurance. In spite of the fact that post-
harvest losses is major issue in crop management but farmers did not demand extension
services regarding post-harvest technology with mean value of 1.16 and standard
deviation 0.63. It not only reflect the great threat for private extension system but also
indicate the need to aware and educate the farmers about the importance of post-harvest
technology. There are great opportunities for extension services regarding marketing and
credit. This reflects the difficulties of the farmers being confronted in these areas. As
farmers pointed out in table 4.24 that they hardly get loan from the banks and they did not
get reasonable price of their commodity. Private sector should also focus on other areas
of extension services i.e. soil analysis, marketing services, credit services and crop
insurance. Because, there is a great potential which need to be exploited for the
modernization of agriculture and agricultural extension system.
4.1.3.4 Willingness to pay (WTP) for agronomic advisory services
Experiences in different countries have shown that inefficiencies are unavoidable
if a service such as agricultural extension is provided free of charge to the end-users.
Therefore, free lunch may be finished. The farmers must pay for the services they get
from extension agencies. The respondents were directly asked about their WTP for
advisory services and data are presented below:
159
Table 4.21 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning agronomic practices of various crops as reported by the respondents n=408 Advisory Services regarding Crop
Strongly unwilling
unwilling willing Strongly willing
Central Tendency
f % f % f % f % `X SD i. Cotton Zone Cotton 26 19.1 31 22.8 55 40.4 24 17.6 2.57 0.99 Wheat 44 32.4 31 22.8 45 33.1 16 11.1 2.24 1.04 Rice 114 83.6 10 7.4 8 5.9 4 2.9 1.28 0.71 Sugarcane 60 44.1 23 16.9 41 30.1 12 8.8 2.04 1.05 Maize 122 89.7 10 7.4 3 2.2 1 0.7 1.14 0.46 Fruit 121 89 3 2.2 8 5.9 4 2.9 1.23 0.69 Vegetables 109 80.1 3 2.2 19 14 5 3.7 1.41 0.86 ii. Rice Zone Cotton 135 99.3 1 0.7 0 0 0 0 1.01 0.08 Wheat 18 13.2 20 14.7 86 63.2 12 8.8 2.68 0.81 Rice 16 11.8 21 15.4 87 64 12 8.8 2.70 0.79 Sugarcane 102 75 5 3.7 23 16.9 6 4.4 1.51 0.92 Maize 136 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 0.00 Fruit 136 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 0.00 Vegetables 111 81.6 4 2.9 21 15.4 0 0 1.34 0.73 iii. Central Mixed Zone Cotton 109 80.1 4 2.9 21 15.4 2 1.5 1.38 0.80 Wheat 72 52.9 10 7.4 53 39 1 0.7 1.88 0.97 Rice 111 81.6 6 4.4 18 13.2 1 0.7 1.33 0.73 Sugarcane 87 64 12 8.8 36 26.5 1 0.7 1.64 0.90 Maize 78 57.4 11 8.1 46 33.8 1 0.7 1.78 0.95 Fruit 130 95.6 4 2.9 1 0.7 1 0.7 1.07 0.35 Vegetables 105 77.2 4 2.9 26 19.1 1 0.7 1.43 0.82 Overall (Punjab) Cotton 270 66.2 36 8.8 76 18.6 26 6.4 1.65 0.99 Wheat 134 32.8 61 15 184 45.1 29 7.1 2.26 1.00 Rice 241 59.1 37 9.1 113 27.7 17 4.2 1.77 0.99 Sugarcane 249 61 40 9.8 100 24.5 19 4.7 1.73 0.98 Maize 336 82.4 21 5.1 49 12 2 0.5 1.31 0.70 Fruit 387 94.9 7 7.7 9 2.2 5 1.2 1.10 0.45 Vegetables 325 79.7 11 2.7 66 16.2 6 1.5 1.39 0.81 Overall mean 1.60 0.84
Scale 1= strongly unwilling 2=unwilling 3=willing 4= strongly willing The data presented in table 4.21 show that whether farmers are willing to pay for
extension services regarding agronomic practices or not. Zone-wise comparative analysis
160
indicates that cotton growers were willing to pay for extension services with mean value
2.57 value and standard deviation 0.99, which depicted the opportunity for private
extension system in cotton-zone only. Similarly, in case of rice-zone the mean value was
2.70 with standard deviation 0.79 indicating an opportunity for paid extension services.
In central-mixed-zone the mean values for all crops were below 2 which reflect the threat
for private extension. The small land holdings might be a reason that farmers were not
willing to pay for the services due to their low farm income and less interest in the
farming. It is clear from the table 4.21 that overall mean values of all crops concerning
WTP were below 2 except wheat crop. This means that if private sector intended to
charge for extension services to the farmers there is little opportunity for it. Rather, it
poses a threat for private extension. The results are in line with Saravanan (2001) who
reported that farmers with less per capita income in subsistence agriculture may not allow
them to pay for the extension service. Hanchinal et al. (2001) also reported that majority
of farmers were unwilling to pay for the service rendered irrespective of agency.
Sarvanan & Shivalinge (2000) reported that some farmers were approached for
consultancy regarding technologies but they were not willing to pay for the services.
Saravanan & Resmy (2000) also concluded that very few farmers were approached for
consultancy service but they were reluctant to pay for the service. Reddy & Rao (2001)
reported that only progressive and wealthy farmers would be utilizing these services as
they can afford to pay for the services. It would create a great imbalance among the
farmers and widen the gap already existing between the rich and poor farmers.
Jegadeesan et al. (2002) stated that when the services of the public extension system are
available on free of cost, certainly farmers would not be willing to pay for private
extension services.
161
4.1.3.5 Willingness to pay (WTP) for plant protection advisory services
The farmers were asked about their willingness to pay for plant protection advisory
services of various crops. The data regarding this aspect were collected and are presented
in the table 4.22:
162
Table 4.22 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning plant protection technologies of various crops as reported by the respondents
n=408 Advisory Services regarding Crop
Strongly unwilling
unwilling willing Strongly willing
Central Tendency
f % f % f % f % `X SD i. Cotton Zone Cotton 22 16.2 28 20.6 56 41.2 30 22.1 2.69 0.99 Wheat 40 29.4 28 20.6 46 33.8 22 16.2 2.37 1.07 Rice 114 83.8 3 2.2 10 7.4 9 6.6 1.37 0.88 Sugarcane 61 44.9 15 11 38 27.9 22 16.2 2.15 1.17 Maize 121 89 7 5.1 3 2.2 5 3.7 1.20 0.66 Fruit 120 88.2 3 2.2 8 5.9 5 3.7 1.25 0.73 Vegetables 112 82.4 18 13.2 6 4.4 0 0 1.40 0.88 ii. Rice Zone Cotton 136 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 0.00 Wheat 19 14 20 14.7 81 59.6 16 11.8 2.69 0.86 Rice 17 12.5 20 14.7 83 61 16 11.8 2.72 0.83 Sugarcane 102 75 5 3.7 23 16.9 6 4.4 1.51 0.93 Maize 135 99.3 1 0.7 0 0 0 0 1.01 0.17 Fruit 136 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 0.00 Vegetables 108 79.4 3 2.2 25 18.4 0 0 1.39 0.78 iii. Central Mixed Zone Cotton 106 77.9 6 4.4 22 16.2 2 1.5 1.41 0.81 Wheat 72 52.9 10 7.4 53 39 1 0.7 1.88 0.97 Rice 111 81.6 6 4.4 18 13.2 1 0.7 1.33 0.73 Sugarcane 87 64 12 8.8 36 26.5 1 0.7 1.64 0.90 Maize 79 58.1 11 8.1 45 33.1 1 0.7 1.76 0.94 Fruit 131 96.3 4 2.9 0 0 1 0.7 1.05 0.30 Vegetables 103 75.7 5 3.7 22 16.2 6 6 1.49 0.92 Overall (Punjab) Cotton 264 64.7 34 8.3 78 19.1 32 7.8 1.70 1.03 Wheat 131 32.1 58 14.2 180 44.1 39 9.6 2.31 1.02 Rice 242 59.3 29 7.1 111 27.2 26 6.5 1.81 1.04 Sugarcane 250 61.3 32 7.8 97 23.8 29 7.1 1.77 1.04 Maize 335 82.1 18 4.4 49 12 6 1.5 1.32 0.74 Fruit 387 94.9 7 1.7 8 2 6 1.5 1.10 0.47 Vegetables 323 79.2 8 2 65 15.9 12 2.9 1.43 0.86 Overall mean 1.64 0.88
The data presented in table 4.22 indicate that in cotton-zone, the mean value for
WTP regarding protection technology of cotton crop was 2.69 with standard deviation
163
0.99 indicating the diversity in the response of the respondents. This mean value reflects
an opportunity in cotton-zone for private sector, which could be exploited. Similarly, in
case of rice-zone, the mean value for WTP regarding protection technology of rice crop
was 2.72 with standard deviation of 0.83. It also reflects the opportunity for private
extension system. In central-mixed-zone, the mean values below 2 pose a threat for
private extension system regarding fee for extension service. It might be due to the reason
the very small Land area was under cash crops i.e cotton and rice crop. The crops such as
maize, fruit and vegetable in three zones were also rated by the farmers below the mean
value of 2 which expressed the threat for private extension system. The overall WTP
mean values concerning all crops were rated below 2 except wheat crop, which reflects
that farmer were not willing to pay for plant protection advisory services. This means that
charging for extension services poses a threat for private extension system. Chukwuone
& Agwa (2005) concluded that farmers were willing to pay annually for technology
delivery. Shekara (2001) reported that 30.2% of the respondents were willing to pay Rs.
25/- as fee to extension advisor followed by Rs.10/- (27.3%), Rs.50/- (21.0%), Rs.20/-
(11.2%) and Rs. 100/- (10.3%). However, that also depends on quality of information,
crop cultivated and demand of farmers. Chandrakanda & Karthiikeyan (2001) stated that
there are different ways in which farmers can give the costs of a privatized extension
service, i.e., they can pay a fee for each visit; a levy can be charged on certain
agricultural products; costs can be met from membership fees paid to farmers’
association; the extension service can receive a specific portion of the extra income a
farmer earns as a result or advice given by the extension agent.
4.1.3.6 Willingness to pay (WTP) for miscellaneous advisory services
Credit, marketing and agro-processing should be well integrated for providing
164
value oriented extension services for the farmers (Shekara, 2001). Therefore farmers
were asked about their willingness to pay for the advisory services regarding post-harvest
technology, soil analysis, marketing, and credit services. The data regarding this aspect
are presented in table 4.23.
Table 4.23 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning miscellaneous services as reported by the respondents
n=408 Advisory Services regarding
Strongly unwilling
unwilling willing Strongly willing
Central Tendency
i. Cotton Zone f % f % f % f % `X SD Post harvest tech. 129 94.9 3 2.2 3 2.2 1 0.7 1.09 0.41 Soil analysis 28 20.6 4 2.9 59 43.4 45 33.1 2.89 1.09 Marketing services 13 9.6 4 2.9 69 50.7 50 36.8 3.15 0.87 Credit services 13 9.6 3 2.2 65 47.8 55 40.4 3.19 0.88 Crop insurance 9 6.6 3 2.2 67 49.3 57 41.9 3.26 0.80 ii. Rice Zone Post harvest tech. 136 100.0 1.00 0.00 Soil analysis 6 4.4 7 5.1 73 53.7 50 36.8 3.23 0.74 Marketing services 2 1.5 4 2.9 76 55.9 54 39.7 3.34 0.61 Credit services 2 1.5 4 2.9 76 55.9 54 39.7 3.34 0.61 Crop insurance 2 1.5 4 2.9 74 54.4 56 41.2 3.35 0.61 iii. Central Mixed Zone Post harvest tech. 114 83.8 5 3.7 16 11.8 1 0.7 1.29 0.70 Soil analysis 44 32.4 10 7.4 74 54.4 8 5.9 2.34 1.00 Marketing services 48 35.3 10 7.4 70 51.5 8 5.9 2.28 1.02 Credit services 47 34.6 12 8.8 69 50.7 8 5.9 2.28 1.01 Crop insurance 49 36.0 11 8.1 68 50.0 8 5.9 2.26 1.02 Overall (Punjab) Post harvest tech. 379 92.9 8 2 19 4.7 2 0.5 1.13 0.48 Soil analysis 78 19.1 21 5.1 206 50.5 103 25.2 2.82 1.02 Marketing services 63 15.4 18 4.4 215 52.7 112 27.5 2.92 0.96 Credit services 62 15.2 19 4.7 210 51.5 117 28.7 2.94 0.97 Crop insurance 60 14.7 18 4.4 209 51.2 121 29.7 2.96 0.96 Overall Mean 2.55 0.88
The data presented in table 4.23 show that whether or not farmers are willing to
pay for extension services such as post-harvest technology, soil analysis, marketing, and
credit services. In cotton-zone, farmers rated the marketing services, credit services and
165
crop insurance services with mean values 3.15, 3.19 and 3.26 and standard deviation
0.87, 0.88 and 0.80, respectively which depicts that farmers were willing to pay for these
services in cotton-zone. Farmers were also willing to pay for soil analysis as they rated it
with mean value 2.89 and standard deviation 1.09. Such data indicate an opportunity for
private extension system in cotton-zone. Similarly in rice-zone, the mean values for four
items i.e. soil analysis, marketing services, credit services and crop insurance services
were above 3 which indicate the willingness of the farmers to pay for these services. The
data reflect the opportunity for private extension system in rice-zone. While in central-
mixed-zone, the mean values for WTP regarding all the items were below 2.34 which
depict that farmers were not willing to pay. It reflects the threat for private extension
system regarding the paid services in central mixed zone. It can be concluded from above
data that limited opportunities existed in specific location for specific fee based advisory
services for private extension system. Sulaiman et al (2005) reported that farmers were
willing to pay for the delivery of integrated set of the services giving them access to
quality inputs, credit and procurement services and field based advice on technology use.
Shankar (2001) pointed out that in private extension system, specialized services would
be available to specific clientele group. The overall (Punjab) mean values for the items
presented in table were above 2.5 except willingness to pay for post-harvest technology.
Four items given in table except post-harvest technology expressed the trend toward
opportunity for PES to charge for paying extension services. Private sector has lot of
opportunities in the soil analysis, marketing services, credit services and crop insurance.
Now-a-days, in Pakistan, pesticide companies are diverting their business toward seed
sector due to the introduction of boi-control methods for insect-pest controlling. These
companies can also provide extension services regarding these four items. Farmers are
166
also willing to pay. If private sector initiates the extension services particularly in
marketing, credit and crop insurance services, it would be a good step toward
modernization of agricultural system of Pakistan.
4.1.3.7 Resources availability for the farmers
It was important to ask about the available resources at the farmers’ disposal.
Available resources define the opportunities for private extension system. The data were
collected about various aspect of resources availability and are presented in table 4.24.
Table 24 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding resources availability at farmers’ disposal as reported by them
n=408 To very
low extent To low extent
To high extent
To very high extent
Central tendency
Resources availability
f % f % f % f % `X SD Soil is fertile - - - - 33 8.1 375 91.9 3.92 0.27 Soil supports to multifarious crops
3 0.7 3 0.7 112 27.5 290 71.1 3.69 0.52
Sufficient canal water is available
28 6.9 112 27.5 112 27.5 156 38.2 2.93 0.96
Underground water is fit for crops
6 1.5 20 4.9 91 22.3 291 71.3 3.63 0.65
Sufficient family labor 14 3.4 59 14.5 168 41.2 167 40.9 3.20 0.81 Labor can be hired easily 15 3.7 84 20.6 159 39 150 36.8 3.09 0.84 Labor can be hired at low cost
20 4.9 95 23.3 152 37.3 141 34.6 3.01 0.88
Improved/quality seed is available easily
89 21.8 134 32.8 160 39.2 25 6.1 2.30 0.88
Quality fertilizers are available easily
78 19.1 157 38.5 153 37.5 20 4.9 2.28 0.83
Farmer gets reasonable price of his commodity
271 66.4 112 27.5 23 5.6 2 0.5 1.40 0.62
There is an easy access to credit
157 38.5 104 25.5 112 27.5 35 8.6 2.06 1.00
Terms and condition of credit are acceptable
302 74.0 97 33.8 8 2.0 1 0.2 1.28 0.51
Extension personnel are accountable to farmers
369 90.4 38 9.3 1 0.2 - - 1.10 0.30
Overall mean 2.61 0.71 Scale: 1= to very low extent 2 = to low extent 3 = to high extent 4 = to very high extent
167
Overall resources availability mean value 2.61 and standard deviation of 0.70 as
presented in table 4.24 indicated a trend of opportunities for private extension system.
With respect to different items presented in table, first seven items represented the
opportunities and last six items represented the threats for private extension system.
About 91.9 and 71% of the farmers reported that their soil was fertile and support to grow
multifarious crops to very high extent with mean 3.92 and 3.69 and standard deviation
0.27 and 0.52, respectively. The data represented the great opportunity regarding soil
resources which can be exploited by the efforts of private extension system.
Venkatakumar et al. (2001) reported that rich fertile soil and cropping pattern was an
opportunity for private sector. Regarding canal and underground water, farmers rated the
both items at the mean values of 2.93 and 3.63 with standard deviation of 0.96 and 0.65
respectively. Although water shortage is an emerging problem in Punjab but in random
selection from three different zones, selected farmers were not much more concerned
with the shortage of water. With respect to canal water, below 3 mean value and standard
deviation (0.96) expressed the emerging problem to some extent. In the research area
under-ground was reported fit for irrigation by the farmers. Farmers meet the water
requirement from both sources i.e. canal water and under-ground water. In Punjab labor
is not an issue. Average family sizes of the farmers provide family labor for agriculture.
Females and young ones of farming families also assisted the farmers in different farming
activities. Other then family labor, respondents reported that labor can be hired easily at
low cost with mean values 3.09 and 3.01 and standard deviation 0.84 and 0.88,
respectively. Such results showed an availability of cheap labor which is an opportunity
and could be exploited in productive way by the private sector. With respect to the
availability of improved/quality seed and quality fertilizers, farmers rated both items with
168
mean values 2.30 and 2.28 and standard deviation of 0.88 and 0.83 respectively. It
expressed the extent of threat for private extension system. Because, low quality seed and
fertilizers, which are basic input in agriculture, adversely affect the agricultural system
and the stakeholders as well. Therefore, it is not only a threat for the private extension
system but also to the farmers itself and the country. About 90% (66.4+27.5%) of the
farmers reported the item i.e. farmer get reasonable price of his commodity, in the threat
range (great threat and threat). For sustainable agriculture it is deemed necessary that
farmer should get reasonable price of his commodities to earn profit, otherwise farmers
would left the agricultural occupation and divert to the some other business. During
interviews researcher observed that most of the interviewees had intension to leave this
occupation (agriculture) for some other business due to economic loss or very low profit
margin. So, the mean value of 1.40 with standard deviation 0.62 is a great threat for
agricultural extension system as farmers reported that they got reasonable price of their
commodities to a very low extent. Ali (2000) reported that about 74.07% of the
respondents told that the major reason of their low farm income was low commodity
prices. Similarly, farmers rated the both items i.e. i) there is an easy access to credit and
ii) terms and conditions of credit are acceptable, were rated with mean 2.06 and 1.28
standard deviation 1.00 and 0.51, respectively, which showed an unfavorable external
climate (threat) for agriculture. Ali (2000) reported that only 11.10% of the respondents
got loan in first attempt. About 73% of the respondents claimed that official asked for
undue favor (Mansoor, 2000). Ali (2000) pointed out that 38.71% of the respondents had
not applied for loan due to complicated and time consuming procedure. He further
reported that 80% of the respondents were charged fee for loan more than the rate
recommended by the government. He added that 38% of the respondents complained
169
about the delayed delivery of loan. Monsoor (2000) reported that more than 53% of the
respondents said that interest rate on loan was too high. He further pointed out that 78.4%
of the respondents said that they faced difficulties and problems in getting loan. He added
that 81.6% of the respondents suggested that the procedure should be made easy and
simple. Overwhelming majority (98.43%) of the respondents suggested that markup rate
on loan should be decreased (Ali, 2000). This situation regarding loan facility is very
alarming.
It definitely would have adverse effects on private agricultural extension system. At the
end, there is great threat existed with respect to “extension personnel are accountable to
farmers”. The supporter of private extension system advocates that this system provide an
opportunity to the farmers that extension personnel would be accountable to them
(Shankar, 2001). But in the present study, about 90.4% of the farmers perceived that it
was a great threat rather than opportunity. Its mean value was 1.10 with standard
deviation of 0.30. Shekara (2001) stated that farmers should have control on extension
system and accountability and quality service should be ensured by the private extension.
Without farmers’ participation and without realizing them that they have control on
extension process, it is hardly possible to wine the trust of the respondents over
agricultural extension system. So, private extension system should formulate a strategy,
in which farmers should be given control on extension services.
4.1.3.8 Willingness to participate in extension activities
Farmers were asked about their willingness to participate in the extension
activities, training programs for production technologies and modern agricultural
practices. Farmers rated their responses at four-point scale. Farmers’ willingness to
participate in these activities provides an opportunity to the private extension system and
170
vice versa. The data regarding this aspect are presented in table 4.25.
Table 4.25 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to participate in organizational and extension activities as reported by the respondents
n=408 Strongly unwilling
unwilling willing Strongly willing
Central Tendency
Activity Farmer’s willingness to: f % f % f % f % `X SD Participate in extension activities
10 2.5 32 7.8 95 23.3 271 66.4 3.54 0.74
Participate in training program
10 2.5 31 7.6 89 21.8 278 68.1 3.56 0.74
Learn modern agricultural practices
10 2.5 25 6.1 95 23.3 278 68.1 3.57 0.72
Act as team work during activity
42 10.3 112 26.5 160 39.2 94 23 2.75 0.92
Involve his female worker(s) in training programs/activity
258 63.2 84 20.6 44 10.8 22 5.4 1.58 0.88
Cultivate the farms by cooperative farming
199 48.8 75 18.4 75 18.4 59 14.5 1.98 1.12
Overall mean 2.83 0.85 The data presented in table 4.25 indicated that farmers rated first three items i.e.
participate in extension activities, participate in training programs, and learn modern
agricultural practices with 3.54, 3.56 and 3.57 mean values and standard deviation 0.74,
0.74 and 0.72, respectively. The results show that farmers were willing to participate in
the above mentioned activities which depict the trend toward great opportunities for
private extension system. Farmers wanted to participate in extension activities and private
sector should exploit this favorable environment (opportunity) to educate the farmers. By
exploiting the opportunity both stakeholders i.e. private sector and farmers would be able
to get the benefits. Regarding a question that farmers wanted to act as a member of team?
farmers rated the question with a mean value of 2.75 with standard deviation 0.92. These
values showed a trend that there is need to inculcate the spirit of team working among the
farmers. Without team working attitude, it is hard to cultivate the farms by cooperative
171
farming. Farmers rated this item with a mean value 1.98 and standard deviation 1.12
which show the unwillingness of the respondents. The items i.e. farmer want to involve
his female workers in learning programs, farmers rated it with mean value 1.58
(unwilling) and standard deviation 0.88. It showed an unfavorable attitude (threat) of the
male farmers towards their female workers. It is a gender balance and gender
mainstreaming issue because if female work in the fields then there should be their
involvement in extension programs. There is need to create the awareness in the society
that getting to be trained for both males and females with respect to farming
techniques/methods is pre-request for modernizing agriculture.
4.1.4 Overall SWOT worksheet based on the response of farmer respondents
Great Strengths/ Strengths `X Great Weaknesses/Weaknesses `X
- - Subject matter coverage 1.42 - - Clientele/target beneficiaries 1.78 - - Professional competency 2.27 - - Alternate extension methods 1.65 - - Effectiveness of communication 2.11 - - Extension approach and function 1.94 - - Marketing mix 1.55 Opportunity `X Threat `X
Demand miscellaneous service 3.01 Demand for agronomic practice of crops
2.08
Willingness to pay for miscellaneous service
2.55 Demand for crop protection technology
2.17
Resources availability 2.61 Willingness to pay for agronomic practices
1.60
Willingness to participate in extension activities
2.83 Willingness to pay for crop protection technology
1.64
Table shows the mean values of each parameter, which were used to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the PES. It is clear from the data that overall PES has
weaknesses regarding subject matter coverage, target beneficiaries, professional
competency, alternative extension methods, effectiveness of communication, extension
172
approach/function and marketing mix. It did not mean that PES had absolute weaknesses,
as various sub-parameters show the strength of the system that were described in the
discussion of individual tables in Part-I of this chapter.
Table also shows the mean values of each parameter, which were used to evaluate the
opportunities and threats of the PES. It is obvious from the table that overall external
environment has both opportunities and threats for PES. Opportunities existed regarding
demand and willingness to pay for the advisory services of miscellaneous items (credit,
crop insurance, commodity marketing and soil analysis). Resources availability mean
value also reflect the opportunity for the system. Similarly farmers were willing to
participate in the extension activities that reveal the existence of opportunities for the
PES. With respect to demand for crop agronomic and plant protection advisory services,
threats were found for PES. Threats were also existed regarding fee-based agronomic
and plant protection advisory services, as farmers were not willing to pay for the services.
But some individual sub-parameters show the opportunities in this regard as it was
discussed in the discussion of individual tables in Part-I of this chapter.
173
4.2 PART 2 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS--PRIVATE EXTENSION FIELD STAFF For conducting SWOT analysis, it is important to include the point of view of the
organization and the clients of the organization. To know the point of view of extension
personnel of private sector, the extension personnel were selected, interviewed and their
responses constituted this part.
This part divided into three sections, which include:
Section: 1 Demographic characteristic of the respondents
Section: 2 Strengths and weaknesses
Section: 3 Opportunities and threats
4.2.1 SECTION 1---DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The review of literature in the field of human resources indicates that
demographic characteristics of the employees of an organization have a bearing on their
behavior, attitudes, thinking and interaction with each other and their clientele. These
characteristics affect the performance of the employees positively or negatively
(Besterfield et al., 2004). It was also thought that these characteristics may affect the
responses of the respondents (kongklai, 1987). Such information of the employees is,
therefore, considered useful in analyzing their perception about private extension system.
The data relating to key demographic variables including job designation, age, job
experience, education and family background are presented in Table 4.2.1 through 4.2.5.
4.2.1.1 Job designation
The respondents (Private EFS) were asked about their designation. The data
concerning this aspect are presented in Table 4.26.
174
Table 4.26 Distribution of the respondents according to their designation
Response Designation f %
Technical Sales Officer (TSO) 26 43.3
Senior Technical Sales Officer (STSO) 20 33.3
Territory Sales Supervisor (TSS) 14 23.3
Total 60 100
Table 4.26 indicates that about 43% the EFS were working as a TSO. About 33
and 23% of the respondents were working as STSO and TSS respectively. Extension field
personnel join the company as a TSO and after some experience they become STSO and
are promoted to the TSS, which was most experienced person.
Majority of the EFS (43.3 + 33.3 = 76.6%) was in the rank of TSO and STSO reveals that
the field staff a company was a fresh or less experienced. Only 23.3% of the field staff
was experienced personnel. It might be due to the reason that companies appoint the fresh
graduates at relatively low package except few people at supervisory level.
4.2.1.2 Age of the respondents
The respondents were asked about their age. The data were categorized into three
categories and presented in table below.
Table 4.27 Distribution of the respondents according to their age category
Response Age (years) f %
<30 30 50.0
30-40 24 40.0
>40 6 10.0
Total 60 100
The data presented in Table 4.27 show that 50% of the respondents belong to age
category of less than 30 years. About 40% of the EFS were in the age category of 30-40
175
years and only 10% belonged to the category of more than 40. Such data support the view
presented in Table 4.26 that company prefer to work with the youngster in the field. It
may be one of the reasons that youngsters have more energy and passion to do field
work.
Fresh and inexperience graduate could compromise on less salary. The charm of four-
wheel vehicle also attracts the youngster to join pesticide companies. When they earn
experience and understand the reality that why company has given them vehicle, than
they leave the company for some other reasonable job with high salary package. When
experienced personnel leave the company, the new graduates are ready to join the
company. This is probably the reason that 50% of the extension field staff working with
company having age less than 30 years. This support the claim/response of the farmer
respondents at page numbers 139 &141 that professional competencies regarding
knowledge and skills of extension personnel are the weaknesses of the private extension
system.
4.2.1.3 Job experience
Job experience expresses the number of years spent by an individual in working
in certain organization. It was thought that length of the service of an individual helps
him to understand the internal and external forces of an organization. It was, therefore,
felt necessary to collect information regarding this aspect and data are presented in table
below.
176
Table 4.28 Distribution of the respondents according to their job experience
Response Job Experience
f % <5 33 55.0
5 to 10 17 28.3
11 to 15 4 6.7
16 to 20 4 6.7
> 20 2 3.3
Total 60 100
The data presented in table 4.28 show that 55% of the respondents had less than 5
years job experience. About 28% of the respondents had job experience between 5-10
years. About 6.7% of the respondents had job experience between 11-15 years. Similarly,
6.7% respondents had experience between 16-20 years. Only 3.3% of the respondents
had job experience more than 20 years. Such data coincide with the table 4.26 and 4.27.
About 43.3% of the respondents were TSO and 55% of the field staff had job experience
less than 5 years. It can be safely stated that the field personnel of 4 or 5 years experience
were promoted as STSS.
4.2.1.4 Education of the respondents
Education can be defined as the process of developing knowledge, wisdom,
desirable qualities of mind, character and general competency especially by a source of
formal instruction (khan, 2000). Adam (1982) defined formal education as “the
chronologically graded and structured system of teaching at institutions from primary
school to university level”. Therefore, it was thought that the level of education would
help to understand the responses of the respondents. The private extension field staff was
asked regarding their educational level. The respondents were further asked to identify
177
their family back ground. The term family back ground was categorized into two type i.e.
rural background having farming background and urban background having no back
ground or exposure to farming. The data regarding both aspects are presented in table
below.
Table 4.29 Distribution of the respondents according to their Level of education and Family Background
Response Level of Education (years of schooling) f %
BSc (Hons) 21 35.0
MSc (Hons) 39 65.0
Total 60 100
Family back ground
Rural 36 60.0
Urban 24 40.0
Total 60 100
The data presented in table 4.29 show that majority (65%) of the EFS had master
degree in Agriculture and 35% of the EFS had graduation in Agriculture. Khan (2000)
reported almost similar results. He stated that majority (59.07%) of the respondents had
master degree in agriculture and 37.98% had B.Sc. (Hons) agriculture dagree. It can be
safely stated that Syngenta has a qualified field staff.
Similarly about 60% of the respondents had rural background, which helps the EFS to
tackle the issues in rural areas. The data displayed in the tables indicate that EFS had
technical education with rural background and such staff is capable to provide advisory
services in the rural settings.
178
4.2.1.5 Type of advisory services
The respondents were asked that what type of agronomic, plant protection and
other services they provide to the farmers. The data were collected and are presented in
table 4.30.
Table4.30 Frequency and percentage regarding different type of advisory services provided to the farmers as reported by the extension field staff n=60
Response Type of advisory service yes %
a) Agronomic practices soil analysis - - seedbed preparation 50 83.3 Selection of crop varieties 50 83.3 Sowing time 50 83.3 Sowing methods 50 83.3 Seed treatment 50 83.3 Spacing and seed rate 50 83.3 Manures and fertilizers 60 100 b) Plant protection Identify weed problems 60 100 Weed control 60 100 Identify disease problems 60 100 Disease control 60 100 Identify insect/pests problems 60 100 Insect/pests control 60 100 c) Irrigation 60 100 d) Post –harvest handling 4 6.7 e) Marketing Marketing information 57 95.0 Marketing assistance 13 21.7
The data presented in table 4.30 show that 100% of the EFS reported that they
provided advisory services to the farmers regarding plant protection technology i.e.
identify weed problem, weed control, identify disease problem, disease control, identify
insect/pest problem and insect/pest control. Similarly regarding agronomic practices,
100% of the respondents reported that they provided advisory services for manures and
fertilizers application. Other agronomic advisory services i.e. seed bed preparation,
179
selection of crop verities, sowing time, sowing method, seed treatment, and spacing and
seed rate were provided to the farmers as reported by the 83.3% of the respondents. With
respect to soil analysis, post-harvest handling and marketing assistance, EFS reported that
they generally did not provide these services to the farmers.
The data displayed in the table reveal that the main focus of the EFS was on plant
protection and manures and fertilizers. A T-test was run to find out if there was any
difference in the mean value of the responses given by the two groups of the respondents
regarding kind of advisory services. T-values regarding identification (T=0.97) and
control of insect/pest (0.97) was non-significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-I, 258) that
indicate that farmers and EFS have same opinion.
180
4.2.2 SECTION II---STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
In this section, the perceptions of the private EFS were described regarding
strengths and weaknesses of private extension system. The EFS was asked to rate the
various internal factors of the system at four-point likert scale. In addition to the
questions which were asked from the farmer respondents, the questions regarding
infrastructural facilities, job design facilities, role of management and administration, and
types of training were also asked from the EFS. The data were collected and are
presented and discussed in this section.
4.2.2.1 Subject matter coverage
It has been already described about the subject-matter coverage under the section
4.1.2.1 in Part-I. To know the breadth of subject matter coverage, the questions were
asked from the EFS regarding cultural, physical, mechanical, and biological control.
Similarly, with respect to judicious use of pesticide and application of FYM and GM, the
respondents were asked and data are presented in table 4.31.
Table 4.31 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding subject matter coverage as strengths/weaknesses of private extension as reported by the extension field staff n=60
Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
Subject matter coverage Extension field staff provide extension services/information regarding: f % f % f % f % `X SD Cultural and physical control
6 10.0 16 26.7 38 63.3 - -
2.57 0.83
Mechanical control 6 10.0 19 31.7 33 58.3 - - 2.47 0.83 Biological control 58 96.7 2 3.3 - - - - 1.37 0.88 Judicious use of pesticide - - - - - - 60 100 3.83 0.53 Farm yard manure (FYM) - - - - 33 55.0 27 45.0 3.08 0.83 Green manure (GM) - - - - 33 55.0 27 45.0 2.68 1.10 Overall mean 2.67 0.81
Scale: 1= great weakness 2 = weakness 3 = strength 4 = great strength
The data presented in table 4.31 show the strength of the PES with respect to
181
focus on judicious use of pesticide ( =3.83) farm yard manure ( =3.08) and a trend of
strength regarding green manure ( =2.68), as practiced by the EFS themselves.
Moreover, EFS claimed that focus on cultural, physical and mechanical control was no
more weakness of PES, that they advise the farmers to control the insect-pest with these
practices. But farmers did not agree with the view and they considered these aspects as
the weakness of the system. EFS reported that advisory services with respect to
Biological-control was the weakness ( =1.37) of the system. A T-test was run to find
out if there was any difference in the mean value of the responses by the two group of the
respondents regarding subject matter coverage. T-value (T=17.78) was significant at 0.05
level (Appendix C-II, p: 258) which indicates that farmers and EFS have different
opinions. The farmers’ point of view might be according to the real situation, because it
is not realistic approach to expect from the EFS that they do not believe in judicious use
of pesticide and they do not advise the farmers for application of FYM.
It is need of the hour that despite of the business interest of private extension system, it
should advise the farmers to apply control measures other than pesticide application.
Because pesticide application leaves very hazardous effect on human health and it also
disturb the agro-ecosystem. Private sector should shift the paradigm towards the organic
farming inputs and advisory services, because with out adopting them we may be left
alone in the world market of food and fibrous products in the regime of WTO and
globalization.
4.2.2.2 Target beneficiaries
It has been already stated under the section 4.1.2.2 about the biasness of PES
towards big farmers. It was felt necessary to ask the questions from EFS with respect to
target beneficiaries of PES. About this aspect, the data were collected and are presented
182
in table 4.32.
Table 4.32 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding clientele/target beneficiaries as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff n=60
Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
Beneficiaries Extension field staff:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Contact with poor farmers - - 47 78.3 13 21.7 - - 2.68 0.95
Contact with small land holders - -
47 78.3 13 21.7 - -
2.68 0.95
Contact with uneducated farmers
3 5.0 3 5.0 19 31.7 35 58.3 3.45 0.72
Deal all farmers on equality basis
3 5.0 55 91.7 2 3.3 - -
1.97 0.61
Contact with women farmers/labors
47 78.3 9 15.0 2 3.3 2 3.3 1.32 0.70
Overall mean 2.42 0.81
The data in table 4.32 express the clientele/target beneficiaries of private
extension system as reported by the EFS with respect to contact with uneducated farmers
with mean value 3.45 and standard deviation 0.72 which depicts the strength of the
system. It means private extension system did not discriminate between the educated and
uneducated farmers, but comparatively discriminate the poor ( =2.68) and small land
holders ( =2.68) which expressed the weakness of the system. Davidson et al (2001)
concluded that private sector extension is more concerned with serving the needs of
larger, resource-rich farmers to the exclusion of other farmers because of its primary
interest in generating profits. Bajwa (2004) reported that private sector extension services
target at big farmers and are primarily triggered by a profit maximization motive.
Mahaliyanaarachchi (2004) concluded that in privatization process, poor farmers will be
automatically eliminated form the system. So, these advisory services are not appropriate
for small scale marginal and women farmers (Swanson & Samy, 2002).
183
Researcher asked a question via personal interview from the majority of the PE personnel
that why they are reluctant to provide services to the poor and small farmers? The answer
was almost common, that, it is more difficult to convince 10 small farmers than a single
big farmer to sell out the same quantity of pesticide. When researcher asked the same
questions to the top management officer, he replied that, “we arrange and conduct group
discussions at village-level and our meetings are open to all farmers with out any
discrimination. The poor and small farmers also attend our group meetings. But in the
Part-I, it has been found that farmers did not agree with the view. A T-test was used to
determine the differences in the mean value of the responses given by the both group of
the respondents regarding target beneficiaries. T-value (8.00) was significant at 0.05 level
(Appendix C-III, P: 259) which indicates that the respondents were from different
population. Farmer respondents reported that in group discussion, only big farmers have
been invited and small farmers feel hesitation to go in the meeting place with out
invitation, as it is cultural taboo of the society. Farmers’ views were also supported by the
EFS’s response regarding dealing all farmers on equality basis as it was rated at mean
value of 1.97 which expresses the weakness of the system. Another taboo of the society is
the restriction on female to join agriculture as a profession independently. With respect to
contact with women farmers it was rated at mean value of 1.32 which expresses the
weakness. In contrary Wigforss (2002) reported that private development system (NGO)
has inbuilt criteria for women participation. EFS were observed to be hesitated to contact
women as they felt that they would loose their repute in the territory. It is another taboo
of the society. This finding has significant implications for determining where the PES
should focus to minimize the effect of weakness in the system.
184
4.2.2.3 Professional competency of EFS
As already discussed under section 4.1.2.3, Narayana’s Lotus Model (Swamy,
2001) described four areas, i.e., knowledge, attitude, skills, and attributes to develop
competency among private extension professionals. To assess the professional
competencies of private extension field staff, Narayana’s Lotus Model was adopted with
some modifications. The data collected regarding this aspect are presented and discussed
in the following lines.
iii) Knowledge
Knowledge is sub-divided into 5 sub-headings i.e. subject matter, farming
systems, input, farmers’ problems and marketing. The respondents were asked to rate
these statements at the given scale. The data regarding these aspects are presented in table
4.33.
Table 4.33 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding competency of extension field staff concerning knowledge as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by private EFS n=60
Great weakness
weakness Strength Great strength
Central tendency
EFS has knowledge about:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Subject matter - - - - 14 23.3 46 76.7 3.80 0.40 Farming systems - - - - 16 26.7 44 73.3 3.73 0.45 Inputs - - - - 16 26.7 44 73.3 3.73 0.45 Farmers problems - - - - 16 26.7 44 73.3 3.63 0.49 Marketing - - - - 30 50.0 30 50.0 3.50 0.57 Overall knowledge mean 3.68 0.47
Self perceived knowledge competency of EFS was determined by asking 5
questions as depicted in table 4.33. The mean values of the all the responses of the
respondents were above 3.50 which depicts the strength of the system. The overall mean
value of knowledge competency was 3.68, standard deviation 0.47. This means that
knowledge competency of EFS of private sector extension was perceived as great
185
strength of the system. A T-test was run to find out if there was any difference in the
mean value of the responses given by the two groups of the respondents regarding
knowledge. T-value (T=16.61) was significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-IV, p: 259)
which indicates that farmers and EFS have different opinions.
Attitude
Attitude is sub-divided into 3 sub-headings i.e. serving clients, field work and
problem solving. The respondents were asked about their response. The data concerning
these aspects were collected and are presented in table 4.34.
Table 4.34 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding competency of extension field staff concerning attitude as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the private EFS n=60
Great weakness
weakness Strength Great strength
Central tendency
EFS has favorable attitude towards:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Serving clients - - - - 11 18.3 49 81.7 3.82 0.39 Field work - - - - 9 15.0 51 85.0 3.85 0.36 Problem solving - - - - 11 18.3 49 81.7 3.78 0.42 Overall attitude mean 3.82 0.39
Self perceived attitude competency of EFS was analyzed by asking 3 questions as
presented in table 4.34. The mean values of the responses regarding these questions were
above 3.78. The overall mean value of attitude competency was 3.82 with standard
deviation 0.39. This means that attitude competency of EFS of private sector extension
was perceived as great strength of the system by the respondents. A T-test was used to
determine the difference in the mean value of the responses given by the two groups of
the respondents regarding attitude. T-value (T=15.40) was significant at 0.05 level
(Appendix C-IV, p: 259) which indicates that farmers and EFS have different opinions.
186
iii) Skills
The skill competency was divided into 4 sub-headings i.e. technological skill,
training skill, diagnostic skill and skill in finding solutions of problems. The data with
respect to this aspect is presented in table 4.35.
Table 4.35 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding competency of extension field staff concerning skills as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the private EFS
n=60 Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
EFS has skills like:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Technological - - - - 9 15.0 51 85.0 3.85 0.36 Training - - - - 15 25.0 45 75.0 3.82 0.39 Diagnostic - - - - 9 15.0 51 85.0 3.85 0.36 Finding solution of problems - - - -
11 18.3 49 81.7 3.82 0.39
Overall skills mean 3.84 0.38 Skills competency of EFS was determined by asking 4 questions as presented in
table 4.35. The mean values of the responses of the respondents were rated above 3.80.
The overall mean value of skill competency was 3.84, standard deviation 0.38. This
means that skill competency of EFS of private sector extension was rated as great
strength of the system. Wigforss (2002) found that staff competence in technical aspect of
agricultural development is the strength of private rural development agency (NGO). A
T-test was run to find out if there was any difference in the mean value of the responses
given by the two groups of the respondents regarding skills. T-value (T=13.69) was
significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-IV, p: 259) which indicates that farmers and EFS
have different opinions.
iv Attributes
The attributes competency was sub-divided into 4 questions about politeness,
good conduct, empathy towards farmers and flexibility. The respondents were asked
187
about their responses. The data regarding this aspect are given below in table 4.36.
Table 4.36 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding competency of extension field staff concerning attributes as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the private EFS n=60
Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
EFS has Attributes Like:
f % f % f % f % `X SD Politeness - - - - 5 8.3 55 91.7 3.70 0.46 Good conduct - - - - 5 8.3 55 91.7 3.87 0.34 Empathy towards farmers - - - -
17 28.3 43 71.7 3.77 0.43
Flexibility - - - - 49 81.7 5 8.3 3.12 0.49 Overall attributes mean 3.62 0.43 professional competency mean 3.74 0.11
Self perceived attributes competency of EFS was analyzed by asking 4 questions
as indicated in table 4.36. The mean values of all the items presented in table were rated
by the respondents above 3.70 except flexibility which was rated at mean value of 3.12
and standard deviation 0.43. This means that flexibility was perceived as strength while
remaining three items were perceived as great strength. The overall mean value of
attribute competency was 3.73 with standard deviation 0.49. This means that attributes
competency of EFS of private sector extension was perceived as great strength of the
private extension system. A T-test was used to determine the differences in the mean
value of the responses given by the both group of the respondents regarding attributes. T-
value (11.30) was significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-IV, P: 259) which indicates that
the respondents have different point of views.
4.2.2.4 Extension methods/channels
For technology dissemination, PES uses alternative extension methods/channels.
Companies also publish printed material to distribute among farmers. It was important to
ask from the EFS about the communication methods/channels used by the PES. The data
188
were collected and are presented in the table 4.37.
Table 4.37 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding extension methods/channels as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Great
weakness weakness strength Great
strength Central tendency
Extension method/ Channel f % f % f % f % `X SD Farm & home visit - - - - 52 86.7 8 13.3 3.45 0.50
Group discussion - - - - - - 60 100 3.93 0.25 Method demonstration - - - - 27 45.0 33 55.0 3.60 0.49 Result demonstration - - - - 35 58.3 25 41.7 3.50 0.50 Exhibitions - - 45 75.0 15 25.0 - - 2.53 0.77 Telephone calls - - - - - - 60 100 3.92 0.28 Printed material - - - - - - 60 100 3.93 0.25 Audiovisual aids 36 60.0 24 40.0 - - - - 1.92 1.06 Radio - - - - 60 100 - - 3.07 0.69 TV - - - - 57 95.0 3 5 3.28 0.45 Overall mean 3.31 0.66
The data in table 4.37 show that EFS rated all items above 3 except audiovisual
aids. The only item which was rated at 1.92 (Audio visual aids) depicts the weakness of
the system, while all other items presented in table expressed the strength of the system.
The three item i.e. group discussion, telephone calls and printed material, were rated at
3.93, 3.92 and 3.93 respectively. This high rating depicts the great strengths of the system
regarding three items. Regarding use of audio visual aids, both i.e. farmers and EFS,
respondents were agreed that it was a weakness of the system. Similarly, regarding group
discussion, telephone call and use of TV there is a converging trend of agreement that
these were the comparative strengths of the system. But in all remaining items the great
discrepancy in the responses of farmers and EFS was observed. A T-test was used to
determine the differences in the mean value of the responses given by the both groups of
the respondents. T-value (0.96) was non-significant at 0.05 level which indicates that
189
respondents have same opinion regarding group discussion. But T-value was significant
at 0.05 level with respect to all remaining items (Appendix C-V, P: 260) that indicates
that the respondents were from different population. The data presented in table 4.35 was
the response of the extension personnel of the pesticide company “Syngenta” which is
well-reputed multinational company and has a good channel of working, but farmers
gave their perception regarding any company with which they had experience to observe
its working style, attend its meetings and to use its products. It may be the reason that
most of the companies did not conduct method and result demonstrations, exhibitions and
use printed materials in the field. The sales officers even seldom visit fields. They
regularly visit dealers and convince them to sell out their products to the farmers by
earning high profit margins. The data presented in table show that Syngenta conduct
method and result demonstrations, exhibitions, use printed material, radio and TV as a
media of education and advertisement of the product.
4.2.2.5 Characteristics of effective communication
As already discussed under the section 4.1.2.5, (Swamy, 2001) described that for
effective communication message should be very clear, contain sufficient information,
based on real need that help to solve problem. Message should also be delivered on time
and repeated till understanding, hence satisfying the clientele. To assess the effectiveness
of communication, the data regarding this aspect are presented in table 4.38.
190
Table 4.38 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding effectiveness of communication as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff n=60
Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
Characteristic of effective communication f % f % f % f % `X SD Based on real needs - - - - - - 60 100 3.90 0.30 Contain sufficient information - - - -
3.0 5.0 57 95.0 3.73 0.45
Help to solve problem - - - - - - 60 100 3.87 0.34 Meaning are very clear - - - - - - 60 100 3.90 0.30 Message on time - - - - - - 60 100 3.87 0.34 Repeated till understanding - - - -
19 31.7 41 68.3 3.55 0.50
Farmers satisfied with message - - - -
28 46.7 32 53.3 3.32 0.60
Overall mean 3.73 0.30 The data in table 4.36 show that, EFS rated all the items between 3.32 and 3.90
which expressed the strength and great strength of the system. This claim of EFS is
supported by the data presented in table 4.43 where EFS reported that company
conducted training programs regarding communication skills.
A T-test was run to find out if there was any difference in the mean value of the
responses given by the two groups of the respondents regarding effectiveness of
communication. T-value (T=16.64) was significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-VI, p: 260)
which indicates that farmers and EFS have different opinions.
This difference may be due to the reasons discussed in last table. Researcher also
observed in the field that most of the dealers had hired their personal promotion field
staff. These personnel have a qualification of about intermediate or less and no technical
background knowledge.
They simply visit the field, go to the farmers and suggest them to purchase pesticide from
the dealers which they represent. They also tried to extend advisory services and give
191
right and wrong advice to the farmers. Such types of extension workers are also
responsible to shatter the image of private EFS in farming community. It may be one of
the reasons that the response regarding effectiveness of communication from farmers was
very poor. The above discussion emphasizes the need of check and balance system. The
government should provide permission letters to extension service providers, if they
fulfill the necessary requirement for the services. There should also be coordination
between extension service providing agencies to make their communication effective.
4.2.2.6 Extension approach and function
It has been described about extension approach and function under section 4.1.2.6
in Part-I. It was felt necessary to ask from EFS regarding extension approach and
function of PES. The data were collected and are presented in table 4.39.
Table 4.39 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding extension approach and function as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Great
weakness weakness Strength Great
strength Central tendency
Extension approach and function EFS focus to:
f % f % f % f % `X SD
Increase farmers' skill - - - - - - 60 100 3.77 0.43 Increase farmers knowledge - - - - - -
60 100 3.77 0.43
Increase farmers' profit - - - - 5 8.3 55 91.7 3.73 0.45 Provides greater chance to the farmers for sharing their experience - - - -
9 15.0 51 85.0 3.53 0.57
Overall mean 3.70 0.11
The data presented in table 4.39 express the claim of the EFS that approach and
function of their extension services is to increase farmers’ skills ( =3.77) knowledge (
= 3.77), profit ( = 3.73) and to provide greater chances to the farmers for sharing their
experience ( = 3.53). Wigforss (2002) found that participatory approach was the
192
strength of private rural development agency (NGO). The mean values of all the items
depict the strength of the system. The overall mean (3.70%) is also indicating the strength
regarding extension approach and function. But in this table there is also discrepancy
between the views of farmers and EFS, as farmers rated the same items below mean
value 2, which indicated the weaknesses of the system. A T-test was used to determine
the differences in the mean value of the responses given by the both groups of the
respondents regarding extension approach and function. T-value (18.46) was significant
at 0.05 level (Appendix C-VII, P: 260) which indicates that the respondents were from
different population.
The basic approach and function of the extension system, should be to increase farmers
skills, knowledge and profits, because it is the spirit of extension system. If private sector
would not bother about the spirit it would loose its credibility in the field. So, there is
need to integrate the efforts and to regulate the extension activities in such a way that
farmers feel that private extension activities are contributing in increasing their skills,
knowledge and profit.
4.2.2.7 Marketing mix
Marketing mix is a set of characteristics that an organization offers to satisfy the
needs of their clients. Its main components are product, price, promotion and place.
Product covers the quality, features and guarantee of the product. Price covers list of
price, discount and credit terms. Promotion includes advertisement and personal selling.
Finally, place covers the location and transport facility for product. The questions were
asked about the four aspects of marketing-mix. The data collected are presented in table
4.40.
193
Table 4.40 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding marketing mix as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Great
weakness weakness strength Great
strength Central tendency
Marketing mix
f % f % f % f % `X SD Good quality - - - - - - 60 100 4.00 - Compensation in case of product failure - - 40 66.7 20 33.3 - - 2.63 0.58
Follow up - - 0 0 47 78.3 13 31.7 3.37 0.49 Low/affordable price of quality product - - 16 26.7 38 63.3 6 10.0 2.70 0.83
Regulated price - - - - 3 5.0 57 95.0 3.90 0.30 Provides product on credit 60 100 - - - - - - 1.03 0.18 Easy terms and condition of credit 60 100 - - - - - - 1.13 0.50
Promotion images leads to right advice - - - - - - 60 100 3.77 0.43
EFS sale products directly to farmer 34 56.7 26 23.3 - - - - 1.62 0.72
Provide products at farmers door-step 31 51.7 29 28.3 - - - - 1.50 0.68
Overall mean 2.56 1.17 With respect to marketing, EFS rated the quality of the product (good quality) at
the mean value of 4.00 with zero SD. It means 100% of the respondents claimed that the
product witch they sold was the great-strength of the system. It is strange all the
extension personnel rated the value of 4 unanimously. It may reflect the biasness of the
EFS towards their product. It is quite rational that no company could accept that its
product was not of good quality. But farmers rated the same item at mean value of 2.33
with SD of 0.92 that indicate the discrepancy in the perception of farmers and EFS as
there existed significant difference with t-value 14.07 (Appendix C-VIII, p: 261) between
the perceptions of both type of respondents. Like dealers, as it was discussed in Part-I in
Table 4.17, EFS also claimed that if product failed to achieve the desired results, the
farmer is responsible for that because be did not apply the poison properly. But fact is
194
that, what were the reasons, product quality is to be considered as the weakness of the
system by 51.2% (22.8+28.4) of the farmers. So, there is need to address the problem,
either by improving the quality of the product or by educating the farmers that how to
apply the poison properly. The same discrepancy trend was observed in the items, i.e.
compensation in case of product failure, follow up, low and affordable price of quality
product, regulated prices and promotion images leads to right advice. Only item i.e. “easy
terms and conditions of credit” showed non-significant t-vale 1.63 (Appendix C-VIII, p:
261) Farmers reported that whatever EFS described about the features of the product, it
seldom proved to be true; product rarely meets the features told by the EFS. It means the
image, that was created by the EFS to promote the product did not lead towards right
advice to the farmers, as farmers rated it as a great-weakness ( =1.37) but EFS rated it
at mean value 3.77 with SD 0.43 that express the strength of the system. There is need to
mitigate this weakness and it is possible by follow-up, farmers rated it as a great-
weakness ( =1.43) of the system but extension field staff rated the same item at mean
3.37, which depicts the strength of the system. There is need to follow the product
application and to correlate the results and expected results of the products at field
situation to minimize the discrepancy among farmers and EFS with respect to product
sale. EFS rated the item i.e. EFS sales product directly to the farmers, and provide
product at farmers’ door step, at mean values of 1.62 and 1.50, which depicts the
weakness of the system. Private sector should provide the product directly to the farmers
by eliminating the role of dealers. It would ensure the quality of product at regulated and
affordable price.
195
4.2.2.8 Infrastructural facilities provided to the respondents
Infrastructural facilities refer to the material facilities provided to the EFS by the
private sector (i.e. employer). It was felt necessary to ask the respondents about
infrastructural facilities provided to them for the efficient delivery of extension services.
The data regarding this aspect were collected and are presented in table 4.41.
Table 4.41 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding infrastructural facilities provided to the extension field staff as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by them n=60
Great weakness
Weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
Infrastructure Extension system provides facilities to extension field staff like: f % f % f % f % `X SD Vehicles - - - - - - 60 100 4.00 0 Fuel expenses of conveyance
- - - - - - 60 100 4.00 0
Repair and maintenance of conveyance
- - - - - - 60 100 4.00 0
Computer facility 60 100 - - - - - - 1.00 0 Residence - - 3 5.0 40 66.7 17 28.3 3.23 0.46 Office 60 100 - - - - - - 1.00 - Mobile phone - - - - - - 60 100 4.00 - Sufficient printed material to distribute among farmers
- - - - - - 60 100 4.00 -
Chalk board 60 100 - - - - - - 2.30 1.50 White board - - - - - - 60 100 4.00 - Clipboards - - - - - - 60 100 4.00 - Audio Aids 48 80.0 12 20.0 - - - - 1.73 1.07 Visual Aids 48 80.0 12 20.0 - - - - 1.73 1.07 Stationary - - - - 2 3.3 58 96.7 3.87 0.34 Overall mean 3.06 1.22
The data presented in table 4.41 show that extension field staff rated the items i.e.
vehicle, fuel expenses of conveyance, mobile phone, sufficient printed material to
distribute among farmers, white board and clip board at the mean values of 4. This data
show the great strength of the system with respect to above mentioned infrastructural
196
facilities. These facilities are very important to have an extension worker for a fieldwork
and for effective communication in group discussion. But, two important items i.e.
Audio-aids and video-aids were rated at mean value of 1.73 which depicts the weakness
of the system. The use of audio-visual aids increases the interest of the farmers and
effectiveness of communication. Similarly, extension field staff rated the items i.e.
computer and office facility at 1.00, which expressed the great weakness of the system.
Fami (2006) stated that to equip private extension staff with a facility of computer is
necessary for smooth working of the system.
This means that EFS does not bear any personal office and computer facility. It is quite
rational that EFS should have an office and sit in the office one or two days in a weak. It
would help the farmers to go in the office and discuss their problems of urgent nature.
Similarly computer and Internet facility is very important in 21st century to keep them up-
to-date. The data displayed in table indicate the need to provide audio-visual aids, and
office equipped with computer and Internet facility to improve the working efficiency of
EFS.
4.2.2.9 Job design facilities provided to the respondents
Job design facilities refer to the facilities and incentives provided to the EFS with respect
to their job i.e. salary, TA, DA, incentives and job security, etc. The questions were asked
about this aspect and data are presented in table in table 4.42.
197
Table 4.42 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding job design facilities provided to the extension field staff as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by them
n=60 Great
weakness weakness strength Great
strength Central tendency
Job design Extension system facilitate extension field staff with: f % f % f % f % `X SD Competitive salary - - 16 26.7 26 43.3 18 30.0 3.12 0.61 Traveling allowance (TA) - - - - 17 28.3 43 71.7 3.85 0.36 Daily Allowance (DA) - - - - 17 28.3 43 71.7 3.85 0.36 Rewards in return of effective work/bonus
- - - - 14 23.3 46 76.7 3.82 0.39
Well-defined duties - - - - 10 16.7 50 83.3 3.90 0.30 Funds to serve clients - - - - 8 13.3 52 86.7 3.77 0.43 Medical facility - - - - 46 76.7 14 23.3 3.30 0.70 Insurance - - - - 52 86.7 8 13.3 3.18 0.60 Participation in policy making
- - 3 5.0 51 85.0 6 10.0 3.10 0.35
Promotions on merit - - 2 3.3 35 58.3 23 38.3 3.33 0.54 Job security - - 2 3.3 55 91.7 3 5.0 2.68 0.72 Overall mean 3.44 0.41
The data presented in table 4.42 with respect to service-structure facilities
provided by private sector to EFS show that EFS rated the items TA, DA, bonus, well-
defined duties and funds to serve clients, with the mean value over 3.5, which reflects the
great strength of the system. EFS performed their well-defined duties of fieldwork and
they were not assigned extra and irrelevant duties, which could interrupt their working
plan of field work. EFS is provided traveling allowance when they travel in the field and
daily allowance during field work coupled with the funds which EFS spent to serve their
clients i.e. farmers. The items, i.e. competitive salary, medical facility, insurance,
participation in policy making, and promotion on merit, were rated below 3.5, which did
not depict the great strength but only strength of the system. About 26.7% of the
respondent reported that with respect to competitive salary, it was the weakness of PES.
They were bound to obey the structured policy formulated by top management.
198
Regarding job security 91.7% of the respondent reported that it was strength and not a
great strength of the system. It reflects the satisfactions of the respondents about job
security but they were not fully satisfied about this matter. This data reflect the need that
private sector should consider the areas which need the attention of policy makers and
private sector.
4.2.2.10 Relation of management /administration with the respondents
In an organization, the relationship between senior administration and their sub-
ordinates is very important for the effective working. It was felt necessary to ask
questions for EFS about this aspect. The data were collected and are presented in table
4.43.
Table 4.43 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding relation of administration /management with extension field staff as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by them n=60
Great weakness
weakness strength Great strength
Central tendency
Management /administration characteristics f % f % f % f % `X SD Administration act as a role model
- - - - 24 40.0 36 60.0 3.75 0.44
Timely decision making regarding extension services/campaign
- - - - 8 13.3 52 86.7 3.90 0.30
Effective leadership - - - - 15 25.0 45 75.0 3.85 0.36 Trust on subordinate - - - - 24 40.0 36 60.0 3.78 0.42 Comfortable working relationship
- - - - 41 68.3 19 31.7 3.35 0.55
Listen EFS’s point of view - - 2 3.3 42 70.0 16 26.7 3.28 0.58 Provide support whenever needed
- - 2 3.3 33 55.0 25 41.7 3.53 0.57
Assist in organizing the extension activities
- - 2 3.3 30 50.0 28 46.7 3.42 0.56
Overall mean 3.61 0.24 The data presented in table 4.43 indicate that timely decision-making by
administration regarding extension activities and campaign is the great strength of PES.
199
Similarly, EFS rated the other items i.e. effective leadership, trust on sub-ordinate, and
administration acts as role model with the mean values of 3.85, 3.78 and 3.75
respectively, which depict the great-strength of the system. EFS rated the remaining item
at equal or below mean value 3.5, which express the strength and not the great strength of
the system. Timely decision-making regarding extension activities/campaign is very
critical because extension campaign is mainly a seasonal activity and a delay of even a
couple of weeks negatively affects the extension activities. Private sector is very
conscious regarding this aspect and makes timely decision to go into the field and serve
to the farmers. Administration acts as a role model as administrative personnel
themselves go to the field and work with their sub- ordinates. In doing this, sub-ordinates
take inspiration and work efficiently. Administration also trusts in its sub-ordinates and
they are authorized for decision making according to field situations. EFS rated the item
i.e. Listen EFS point of view, at comparatively low mean value i.e. 3.28. It indicates that
the point of view of EFS is less considered to develop policy lines for extension
work/campaign.
4.2.2.11 Type of Training
Training is the process of acquiring specific skills to perform a job effectively
(Jucious, 1963). It helps people to become qualified and proficient in doing some jobs
(Dahama, 1979). Usually an organization facilitates the employees' learning through
training. There are various types of training which private EFS were provided by the
private extension system. The data were collected regarding this aspect and are presented
in table 4.44.
200
Table 4.44 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding training provided to the extension field staff as strengths/weaknesses of private extension system as reported by them
n=60 Great
weakness weakness Strength Great
strength Central tendency
Type of Training Training was given to the extension personnel about: f % f % f % f % `X SD Orientation just after appointment
- - - - - - 60 100 3.93 0.25
Rules and regulation set by the government for job and organization
- - 17 28.3 24 40.0 19 31.7 3.37 0.76
Financial transaction - - 5 8.3 17 28.3 38 63.3 3.60 0.62 Communication skills - - - - - - 60 100 4.00 - Leadership ability - - - - - - 60 100 3.87 0.34 Linkage mechanism with other related organizations
- - 23 38.3 35 58.3 2 3.3 2.97 0.69
Report writing - - - - 2 3.3 58 96.7 3.77 0.62 Production technology of seasonal crops
- - - - - - 60 100 4.00 -
Modern technology - - - - - - 60 100 3.83 0.38 Overall mean 3.70 0.34 The data presented in table 4.44 show that the training component of private
extension is very strong. EFS rate the training items i.e. communication skills, and
production technology of seasonal crops with the mean values of 4.0 with zero SD, which
depicts the great strength of the system. EFS told that company did organize seasonal and
annual training programs in five-star hotels and highly qualified and expert trainers
provide training to EFS regarding expected field conditions, expected problems and their
possible solutions. Private extension system gives great importance to extension
personnel that they should be equipped with field knowledge and communication skills.
Similarly, EFS rated the other remaining items at above or below the mean value of 3.5
that expressed the strength of the system. The overall mean value of training is 3.70 with
standard deviation 0.34 which depicts the trend towards great strength of the system. But
after getting such comprehensive training, why farmers were not satisfied with the
201
competency and skills regarding field work. It is clear that farmers’ response was not
exclusive for the selected company. Other companies may not have such strong training
components like Syngenta. There is need to conduct research study, which should explore
the training activities of other companies.
202
4.2.3 SECTION III---OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS
Opportunities and Threats are the external factors which influence the organization in
positive or negative way. Opportunities affect positively and threats affect negatively.
The Section-III describe the response about various aspects of the external forces i.e.
demand and willingness to pay for advisory services, resources availability and
willingness to participate in the extension activities. The data were collected regarding
this aspect and are presented in the following lines.
4.2.3.1 Demand for agronomic advisory services
EFS were asked to rate their perception regarding demands for agronomic advisory
services by the farmers. For data collection purpose, agronomic advisory services were
included the services regarding seed bed preparation, selection of seed varieties, sowing
time, sowing methods, seed treatment, spacing, seed rate and fertilizer application. The
data regarding this aspect are presented in table 4.45.
Table 4.45 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning agronomic practices of various crops as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Very low demand
Low demand
High demand
Very high demand
Central tendency
Advisory Services regarding Crop
f % f % f % f % `X SD Cotton 9 15.0 3 5 25 41.7 23 38.5 2.58 1.18 Wheat 0 0.0 3 5 33 55.0 24 40.0 2.97 1.02 Rice 26 43.3 3 5 15 25.0 16 26.7 2.35 1.27 Sugarcane 35 58.3 3 5 9 15.0 13 21.7 2.02 1.20 Maize 37 61.7 3 5 9 15.0 11 18.3 1.83 1.12 Fruit 24 40.0 3 5 12 30.0 21 35.0 2.22 1.28 Vegetables 0 0.0 3 5 22 36.7 35 58.3 3.02 1.11 Overall mean 2.43 0.45
With respect to demand for agronomic practices, the data in table 4.45 show that
EFS rated the vegetables and wheat crops, at the mean values of 3.02 and 2.97
respectively, which represent the opportunities regarding agronomic practices demand.
203
Regarding cotton crop, EFS rated it at 2.58, which depict the trend leaned towards
opportunity, while demand for agronomic practices of other remaining crops included in
the table was viewed (rated) as a threat to private extension system. The overall mean
value i.e. 2.43 with SD 0.45 also depicts the threat. During qualitative discussion, EFS
told that farmers were not ready to pay attention about the agronomic practices, because
they felt that they better understand the structure and texture of their soil to apply the
number of cultivation, number of irrigations and bags of fertilizers, etc. They followed
their traditional mindset in the agronomic practices. But some farmers understood the
importance of modern agronomic practices, such as regarding cotton about 80%
(41.7+38.5=80.2%) of the EFS rated it as an opportunity of private extension system. The
almost same trend was seen in wheat, rice, fruit and vegetable. The overall mean value
(2.45) and standard deviation (0.45) depicts that there was growing trend towards an
opportunity regarding this aspect. A T-test was used to determine the differences in the
mean value of the responses given by the both groups of the respondents regarding
demand for agronomic advisory services. T-values regarding cotton (T=1.51), rice
(T=0.10) and maize (0.14) crops were non-significant that indicates that respondents have
same opinion. While T-values regarding wheat (T=3.94), sugarcane (T=2.68), fruits
(T=10.65) and vegetables (T=8.68) were significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-IX, p:
261) which indicates that the respondents were from different population. There is a need
to educate the farmers, and to inculcate in their minds that agronomic practices provide a
base for plant protection and particularly insect-pest control. Because with out creating
awareness about the matter, the demand for agronomic practices could not be created in
the field, and the observed threat would remain a threat for private extension system.
204
4.2.3.2 Demand for plant protection advisory services
Plant protection advisory services are sub-divided into identification of weeds,
disease and insect problems and their control. EFS were asked to rate their perceptions
regarding demand for plant protection advisory services by the farmers on the given
scale. The data were collected regarding this aspect and are presented in table 4.46.
Table 4.46 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning plant protection technology of various crops as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Very low demand
Low demand
High demand
Very high demand
Central tendency
Advisory Services regarding Crop
f % f % f % f % `X SD Cotton 9 15.0 - - 3 5.0 48 80.0 3.48 1.08 Wheat - - - - 5 8.3 55 91.7 3.90 0.30 Rice 26 43.3 - - 3 5.0 31 51.7 3.13 1.32 Sugarcane 35 58.3 - - 3 5.0 22 36.7 2.98 1.38 Maize 37 61.7 - - 3 5.0 20 33.3 2.58 1.46 Fruit 24 40.0 - - 5 8.3 31 51.7 3.00 1.35 Vegetables - - - - 3 5.0 57 95.0 3.93 0.25 Overall mean 3.28 0.50
The data presented in table 4.46 show a very similar trend with that of column “very low
demand” in the last table 4.45. All the percentages against each crop are similar to the last
table. These respondents may be from that area where the trend to cultivate these crops
was not common. For example in the cotton zone, rice crop is rarely grown and in rice
zone, cotton crop is rarely cultivated. The EFS working in these zones might view this
trend as a threat to private extension system. But if we look at the overall mean value
(3.28) and standard deviations (0.50), it is obvious that there was an opportunity with
respect to demand for agronomic practices regarding plant protection.
EFS rated the demand of advisory services regarding wheat and vegetable crops at 3.90
and 3.93 which depict the great-opportunity. Similarly cotton, wheat, rice, fruit and
205
vegetables were rated with mean values more than 3, which indicate the trend of an
opportunity regarding these crops. There is a need to exploit the opportunities by
reaching at the farmers’ door steps and by providing them quality advisory services,
which would ensure the yield at the farms. It is primarily in the interest of farmers and
private extension system and ultimately in the interest of the country. A T-test was used
to determine the differences in the mean value of the responses given by the both groups
of the respondents regarding demand for plant protection advisory services. T-value
(13.84) was significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-X, p: 261) which indicates that the
respondents were from different population.
4.2.3.3 Demand for miscellaneous advisory services
The data were collected with respect to the demand for miscellaneous advisory
services i.e. post-harvest-technology, soil analysis, marketing and credit services. EFS
were asked to rate their perceptions regarding farmers’ demand for the miscellaneous
services. The data regarding this aspect are presented in table 4.47.
Table 4.47 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ demand for advisory service concerning miscellaneous services as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Very low demand
Low demand
High demand
Very high demand
Central tendency
Advisory Services regarding
f % f % F % f % `X SD Post harvest technology 52 86.7 3 5.0 - - 5 8.3 2.25 1.45 Soil analysis - - - - - - 60 100 3.90 0.40 Marketing services - - - - - - 60 100 3.97 0.18 Credit services - - - - - - 60 100 3.97 0.18 Crop insurance - - - - - - 60 100 3.97 0.18 Overall mean 3.61 0.76
The overall mean value (3.61) presented in table 4.47 show that there was a trend towards
great-opportunity with respect to the miscellaneous items. But it is interesting to know
that EFS rated the items i.e. marketing and credit services and crop insurance at the
206
highest level of 3.97. These three items are related with financial aspects. It indicated that
in the above mentioned three areas, farmers need assistance of a third party. It also
indicates the poor marketing and credit system of the country and farmers could not be
benefited from the both systems.
Similarly, agriculture is open field business and always under threat to the
climatic conditions/natural disasters. In case of destruction of their fields (source of
income), no body was there to compensate them. So, farmers really feel that their crops
should be ensured and for private sector it is an opportunity. Similarly, farmers have
awareness about the important of soil analysis in modern agriculture and they rated this
item at 3.90 that represent the great-opportunity for PES. But according to extension field
staff, farmers rated the demand for advisory services regarding post-harvest technology at
the mean value of 2.25 which depicts the threat for extension system. This trend is not
only threat to PES but also to the farmers and the country as well because a considerable
percentage of the production of the country decreased due to post harvest losses. A T-test
was used to determine the differences in the mean value of the responses given by the
both groups of the respondents regarding demand for miscellaneous advisory services. T-
value (8.91) was significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-XI, p: 262) which indicates that
the respondents were from different population. So, there is dire need to promote the
concept of post-harvest losses among farming community and PES should convert this
threat to an opportunity.
4.2.3.4 Willingness to pay (WTP) for agronomic advisory services
The willingness to pay is influenced by many factors; one important factor is
socio-economic condition of the farmers. The rich and poor farmers’ WTP can not be
alike (Soam, 2001). The data were collected regarding this aspect and are presented in
207
table 4.48.
Table 4.48 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning agronomic practices of various crops as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Strongly unwilling
unwilling willing Strongly willing
Central Tendency
Advisory Services regarding Crop
f % f % f % f % `X SD Cotton 15 25.0 24 40.0 19 31.7 2 3.3 1.88 0.83 Wheat 6 10.0 26 43.3 26 43.3 2 3.3 2.08 0.77 Rice 29 48.3 40 23.3 12 20.0 5 8.3 1.73 0.84 Sugarcane 38 63.3 11 18.3 9 15.0 2 3.3 1.58 0.81 Maize 40 66.7 9 15.0 8 13.3 3 5.0 1.47 0.72 Fruit 27 45.0 11 18.3 22 36.7 0 0.0 1.68 0.81 Vegetables 6 10.0 22 36.7 32 53.3 0 0.0 2.08 0.77 Overall mean 1.78 0.24
The data presented in table 4.48 show the opportunities/threats regarding
willingness to pay by the farmers for agronomic practices of various crops. The overall
mean value was 1.78 and SD 0.24 as rated by the EFS. This value indicates the threat
regarding paid services. It is interesting that overall mean value, as perceived by the
farmers is in line ( =1.60) with the EFS. Majority of the farmers could not pay for
services and EFS also perceived that farmers would not pay for the services. It might be
due to the miserable economic condition of the farmers. The farmers who could not
purchase the inputs at proper time due to lack of capital available at their disposal, how
can they would pay for extension services?
The second reason may be the misunderstanding of the farmers that the traditional
practices regarding agronomic practices are more authenticated than the method which
were told to them by the EFS. Farmers did not consider the importance of modern
agronomic practices. But by having a look at the data, with respect to percentages, there
were many extension personnel who perceived that farmers were willing to pay for
208
advisory services regarding cotton, wheat, rice, fruit and vegetable, 35 (31.7+3.3), 46.6
(43.3+3.3), 28.3 (20+8.3%), 36.7 and 53.3% of EFS perceived that farmers were willing
to pay and opportunities existed with respect to paid services. A T-test was used to
determine the differences in the mean value of the responses given by the both groups of
the respondents regarding WTP for agronomic advisory services. T-values regarding
fruits (T=8.24) and vegetables (T=8.24) were significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-XII,
p: 262) that indicates that respondents have different opinions. While T-values regarding
all remaining items were non-significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-XII, p: 262) which
indicates that the respondents were from same population.
4.2.3.5 Willingness to pay (WTP) for plant protection advisory services
Willingness to pay for advisory services by the farmers was considered important
to explore the opportunity and threat for private sector. The data regarding this aspect
were collected and are presented in the table 4.49.
Table 4.49 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning plant protection technologies of various crops as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Strongly unwilling
unwilling willing Strongly willing
Central Tendency
Advisory Services regarding Crop
f % f % f % f % `X SD Cotton 9 15.0 17 28.3 24 40.0 10 16.7 2.68 1.10 Wheat 0 0.0 17 28.3 35 58.3 8 13.3 2.88 0.85 Rice 26 43.3 14 23.3 18 30.0 2 3.3 2.30 1.11 Sugarcane 35 58.3 11 18.3 12 20.0 2 3.3 2.22 1.14 Maize 37 61.7 12 20.0 8 13.3 3 5.0 2.03 1.19 Fruit 24 40.0 6 10.0 18 30.0 12 20.0 2.52 1.27 Vegetables 0 0.0 17 28.3 26 43.3 17 28.3 2.98 0.91 Overall mean 2.52 0.35
The data presented in the table 4.49 indicate that EFS rated the items i.e. cotton,
wheat and vegetable with a mean values 2.68, 2.88 and 2.98, respectively. These values
reflect the trend of an opportunity regarding paid services in these crops. About 56.7 (40
209
+ 16.7), 71.6 (58.3 + 13.3) and 71.6% (43.3 + 28.3) of the EFS perceived that
opportunities existed in the field with regard to cotton, wheat and vegetables which can
be exploited. Similarly, regarding rice crop, which is the major and cash crop of rice-zone
33.3% (30 + 3.3) of the EFS perceived it as an opportunity for PES. A T-test was run to
find out if there was any difference in the mean value of the responses by the two groups
of the respondents regarding WTP for plant protection advisory services. T-value
(T=10.61) was significant at 0.05 level (Appendix XIII, p: 262) which indicates that
farmers and EFS have different opinions.
The insect-pest control is the major problem of the farmers, because insect-pest attack
and their remedy by using various types of pesticide is a common trend in agriculture of
Pakistan. For insect-pest identification and control farmers are dependent on agricultural
experts. It might be the reason that farmers were willing to pay with respect to plant
protection. It not only reflects the opportunity for private extension system to provide
services and earn profit, but also pointed out the need to educate the farmers how to
identify the pest and how to protect the crop from them because it is more important to
build the capacity of farmers than to provide them services by cost. So, Government
should set the priority and engage the private sector in the educational activities along
with service provision activities.
4.2.3.6 Willingness to pay (WTP) for miscellaneous advisory services
As stated in Part-I, credit, marketing and agro-processing should be well
integrated for providing value oriented extension services for the farmers (Shekara,
2001). Therefore, EFS was asked to rate their perceptions regarding the farmers’
willingness to pay for the miscellaneous advisory services i.e. post-harvest technology,
soil analysis, marketing, and credit services. The data regarding this aspect are presented
210
in table 4.50.
Table 4.50 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory service concerning miscellaneous services as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 Strongly unwilling
unwilling willing Strongly willing
Central Tendency
Advisory Services regarding
f % f % f % f % `X SD Post harvest technology 52 86.7 2 3.3 6 10.0 - - 1.87 1.17 Soil analysis - - - - 34 56.7 26 43.3 3.28 0.64 Marketing services - - - - 31 51.7 29 48.3 3.35 0.71 Credit services - - - - 31 51.7 29 48.3 3.35 0.71 Crop insurance - - - - 31 51.7 29 48.3 3.33 0.71 Overall mean 3.04 0.65
The data presented in table 4.50 show that EFS rated all the items, except post-
harvest technology with mean value above 3, which depicts the opportunity for private
extension system. Currently private extension system (Pesticide companies) is not
providing the services regarding marketing, credit, crop insurance and soil analysis but
respective mean values 3.35, 3.35, 3.33 and 3.28 showed that opportunities existed in the
field regarding these aspects. It is suggested that private sector should also include the
above mentioned services in their programs. But these services should also be provided
by the public sector along with private sector. It also indicates that how much difficulties
are felt by the farmers regarding getting loan, marketing their commodities and in
absence of crop insurance. Government also provides loan to the farmers but farmers told
that it was too difficult for them to get loan from banks and it was almost impossible with
out nepotism and bribery.
Similarly, in marketing the commodities, the commission agents play a negative role and
farmers seldom get the reasonable price of their crops. This might be the reason that
farmers were willing to pay by expecting that their difficulties might be mitigated. It is
211
not only the responsibility of the private sector but primarily it is the responsibility of the
state. The Government should facilitate the primary stakeholders of the country i.e. the
farmers because basically Pakistan is an agricultural country.
4.2.3.7 Resources availability for the farmers
The questions were asked from EFS about the available resources and their access
to the farmers. The data were collected about this aspect and are presented in table 4.51.
Table 4.51 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding resources availability at farmers’ disposal as reported by the extension field staff
n=60 To very
low extent To low extent
To high extent
To very high extent
Central tendency
Resources Availability
f % f % f % f % `X SD Soil is fertile 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 5.0 57 95.0 3.65 0.48 Soil supports to multifarious crops
0 0.0 0 0.0 42 70.0 18 30.0 3.25 0.44
Sufficient canal water is available
0 0.0 0 0.0 22 36.7 38 63.3 3.58 0.67
Underground water is fit for crops
0 0.0 0 0.0 22 36.7 38 63.3 3.37 0.61
Sufficient family labor 0 0.0 9 15.0 9 15.0 42 70.0 3.42 0.79 Labor can be hired easily 0 0.0 9 15.0 11 18.3 40 66.7 3.38 0.78 Labor can be hired at low cost
0 0.0 9 15.0 39 55.0 12 20.0 2.82 0.70
Improved/quality seed is available easily
0 0.0 33 55.0 27 45.0 0 0.0 2.58 0.50
Quality fertilizers are available easily
0 0.0 33 55.0 22 36.7 5 8.3 2.60 0.59
Farmers get reasonable price of commodities
12 20.0 38 63.3 5 8.3 5 8.3 2.10 0.63
There is an easy access to credit
27 41.7 27 45.0 8 13.3 0 0.0 2.02 0.81
Terms and condition of credit are acceptable
50 83.3 7 11.7 3 5.0 0 0.0 1.42 0.53
Farmer has control on extension services
55 91.7 0 0.0 5 8.3 0 0.0 1.33 0.57
Overall mean 2.73 0.80 Scale: 1 = to very low extent 2 = to low extent 3 = to high extent 4 = to very high extent
The overall resources availability mean value (2.73) shows the trend of
opportunity for private extension system. EFS rated the items i.e. soil is fertile and soil
212
support to multifarious crops, at the mean values of 3.65 and 3.25 with standard deviation
0.48 and 0.44, respectively. The data depict the opportunities for PES and farmers as
well. Similarly "underground water is fit for crops” was rated at 3.37. But the item i.e.
sufficient canal water is available, was rated with mean 2.38, standard deviation 0.67,
which indicate the extent of threat for PES and agriculture in Pakistan. To combat with
the water crisis it should be the top priority of the government. Lack of water resources is
the world over issue but being an agricultural country Pakistan faces water crisis. This
threat can be mitigated by introducing the varieties having less water requirement, by
applying non conventional methods of irrigation i.e. drip irrigation and sprinkle irrigation
and by constructing dams at the national level. Regarding water cries, PES should create
awareness among farming community to conserves the water at household and field
level. EFS reported that opportunities existed with respect to labor. Sufficient family
labor available ( =3.42) and labor can be hired easily ( =3.38) at low cost ( =2.82).
Like farmers, EFS also rated the items i.e. farmers get reasonable price of their
commodities, there is an easy access to credit, terms and conditions of credit are
acceptable and farmers have a control on extension system as it was rated in the rang of
threat and great threat. Such data support the farmers’ view that to get loan from bank it
is almost impossible for resource poor farmers. For sustainable agricultural profession,
government should fix the support prices of all the commodities and ensures the profit-
margin of the farmers as farmers also had a view that they seldom got reasonable price of
their commodities. There existed significant differences between the responses of the
both type respondents regarding all items presented in table 4.51 except the items i.e.
labor can be hired at low cost (T-value=1.66), there is an easy access to credit (T-
value=0.33), and terms and conditions of credit are acceptable (T-value=1.87) that
213
showed non-significant differences at 0.05 level (Appendix C-XV, p: 263). Government
should also make sure the access for all deserving farmers to credit with easy terms and
conditions. In the last, it is very important that farmers should have control of extension
services and PES should be accountable to the farmers. But this item was rated by EES at
the mean value of 1.33 which depicts the great threat for PES. It might be due to the fact
that accountability of the PES would ensure its sustainability in the field.
4.2.3.8 Willingness to participate in extension activities
EFS were asked about their perceptions regarding farmers’ willingness to
participate in the extension activities, training programs for production technologies and
modern agricultural practices. The questions were rated at four-point scale. Farmers’
willingness to participate in these activities explores the opportunity for PES and vice
versa. The data were collected and are presented in table 4.52.
Table 4.52 Frequency distribution and central tendency regarding farmers’ willingness to participate in organizational and extension activities as reported by the extension field staff n=60
Strongly unwilling
unwilling willing Strongly willing
Central Tendency
Activity Farmer’s willingness to: f % f % f % f % `X SD Participate in extension activities
- - - - 27 45.0 33 55.0 3.62 0.49
Participate in training program
- - - - 28 46.7 32 53.3 3.47 0.50
Learn modern agricultural practices
- - - - 17 28.3 43 71.7 3.43 0.67
Act as team work 3 5.0 30 50.0 25 41.7 2 3.3 2.38 0.78 Involve his female worker(s) in training programs
46 76.7 3 5.0 8 13.3 3 5.0 1.55 0.85
Cultivate the farms by cooperative farming
25 41.7 11 18.3 24 40.0 - - 1.85 0.92
Overall mean 2.72 0.91 EFS perceived that regarding capacity building of the farmers, opportunities existed in
214
the external environment such as farmers wanted to participate in extension activities
( =3.62), the training programs ( =3.47) and learn modern agricultural practices
( =3.43). The data show the encouraging trend that farmers wanted to be educated and
become skillful. There is need to design educational programs for the farmers to educate
them regarding agricultural system. PES should organize lecture meeting and hold group
discussions regularly at village level. But, with respect to the items i.e. cultivate the farms
by cooperative farming, EFS rated it at mean value of 1.85, which depicts the threat.
There is a need to create awareness that in cooperative farming, there is survival of
farmers particularly small farmers. So they should be flexible and have an attitude to act
as a team work as the land is dividing from generation to generation by traditional
inheritance Islamic laws, the small land holders could survive only by cooperative
farming. Similarly, due to social taboo, farmers were not willing to involve their female
partners in extension activities, such as this item was rated in the threat range ( =1.55).
Increasing the literacy rate in the society can mitigate this threat. A T-test was used to
determine the differences in the mean value of the responses given by the both groups of
the respondents regarding willingness to participate in extension activities. T-value
(T=1.36) was non-significant at 0.05 level (Appendix C-XVI, p: 263) which indicates
that the respondents have same opinions.
215
4.2.4 Overall SWOT worksheet based on the response of the EFS
Great Strengths/ Strengths `X Great Weaknesses/Weaknesses `X Subject matter coverage 2.67 Clientele/target beneficiaries 2.42 Professional competency 3.73 - - Alternative methods 3.31 - - Effectiveness of communication 3.73 - - Extension approach and function 3.70 - - Infrastructural facility 3.06 - - Job design facility 3.44 - - Administration role 3.61 - - Marketing mix 2.56 - - Training 3.70 - - Opportunity Threat Protection technology demand 3.28 Willingness to pay for agronomic
practices 1.78
Miscellaneous service demand 3.61 Demand for agronomic practice 2.43 Willingness to pay for protection tech 2.52 - - Willingness to pay for miscellaneous services
3.04 - -
Resources availability 2.73 - - Willingness to participate in extension activities
2.72 - -
This table shows the response of EFS regarding various parameters that were used
for the study. According to extension personnel, except clientele/target beneficiaries
(weakness), the system has strengths regarding subject matter coverage, professional
competency, alternative extension methods, effectiveness of communication, extension
approach and functions, infrastructural/job design facilities, administration role,
marketing mix and training. This data show the discrepancies between the response of
farmers and EFS. The possible reasons for these discrepancies were discussed in the
discussions of individual tables.
According to EFS more opportunities exists than threats. For PES, external environment
has opportunities regarding farmers’ demand and willing to pay for protection technology
and miscellaneous (credit, crop insurance, commodity marketing and soil analysis)
216
advisory services. Resources availability mean value also reflect the opportunity for the
system. Similarly farmers were willing to participate in the extension activities that reveal
the existence of opportunities for the PES. With respect to farmers’ demand and
willingness to pay for crop agronomic and plant protection advisory services, threats
were found for PES.
217
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
Traditionally, in Pakistan agricultural extension services has been the subject of
provincial government. Various models and approaches had been tried under the
umbrella of public sector but these efforts met with partial success to achieve the desired
goals. Experts have been advocating a thorough reconsideration of extension delivery as
the old system was not doing enough, well and relevant. Government is looking towards
alternative extension system including its privatization. Private extension is considered
demand-driven, cost-effective with efficient and quality service, and more client-
accountable. But, opponents of privatization argue that private sector is much more
interested in earning profits rather than serving the farming community. In Pakistan, the
role of private sector in agricultural extension was limited until 1988, when due to overall
lack of success of public sector extension, Government of Pakistan appointed a
commission on agriculture, to look into poor performance of agricultural sector and make
recommendations for strengthening it. The commission suggested the inclusion of the
private sector in reshaping agricultural extension. According to commission, the most
important shift needed in the provision of extension services is to encourage the private
sector to provide the total package and not just the sale of a specific input. Similarly, the
companies selling insecticides can offer a total plant production service, consisting of
agronomic, biological and chemical protection. In the push towards privatization, not
only have private business firms such as Syngenta entered into extension, but also a
multitude of NGOs (e.g., Agha Khan Rural Support Program, National Rural Support
Program, and Punjab Rural Support Program), and farmers’ cooperatives (e.g., Salt land
218
Water Users Association) entered into vogue. Generally, pesticide companies constitute
private extension system. Currently, 320 pesticide companies are working in the Punjab
province and providing advisory services to the farmers. So far no comprehensive study
has been conducted to analyze the performance of private extension system. Hence,
present study was designed to analyze the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats (SWOT). This study was direly needed in the country where literature is either
scanty or silent with respect to SWOT analysis of private extension services/
organization. It was hoped that the results of the study would be useful for policy makers,
extensionists and all stakeholder who are interested to overhaul and revitalize extension
service in Pakistan.
The study was carried out in the Punjab province which comprises five cropping zones,
namely cotton-zone, barani-zone, central-mixed- zone, semi-irrigated-zone and rice-zone.
Three zones i.e. cotton, rice and central-mixed- zone, were selected purposively. A cross-
sectional research design was used for the study. Multistage sampling technique was
used for the selection of respondents. During first stage, three districts were selected, one
from each zone by simple random sampling. During second stage, a sample of 408
respondents was selected (136 from each zone) by simple random sampling. Sample size
was determined by using Fitzgibbon table. Similarly from Punjab province 60 out of 71
extension personnel of Syngenta (Pesticide Company) were selected to include the
comparative view of the service providers. Two separate interview schedules were
constructed for each category of the respondents. The data were collected through
personal interviews with the help of validated research instrument. The data, thus
collected were analyzed by using computer software (i.e. SPSS). Percentage, frequency,
means and standard deviation were calculated to construct SWOT worksheet for drawing
219
conclusions.
5.2 Conclusions
5.2.1 Demographic characteristics of the farmers
· Majority of the respondents (43.6%) belonged to old age category i.e. more then
40 years. Only 27.2% of the respondents were between the age category of 30-40
(middle age). About 29.2% of the respondents belonged to young age category of
less than 30.
· Only 7.6% of the farmers were Graduate and above. About 58.6% of the farmers
were matric/under matric. About 53% of the farmers had less then 12.5 acres land.
· Majority (79.7%) of the respondents was owner cultivators and overwhelming
majority of the respondents (93.6%) belongs to category of ordinary farmers
considering their social status.
· Majority (72.8%) of the farmers had farming as their source of income and more
or less than 90% of the farmers reported that they got advisory services from PES
with respect to weed identification and weed control, disease identification and
disease control and insect pest identification and insect pest control.
5.2.2 Internal factors as reported by the farmers
5.2.2.1 Strengths
· Farmers reported that a diagnostic skill of the EFS was strength ( =2.75) of the
system. Attributes of the EFS i.e. politeness and good conduct ( =3.23) with
farmers were also rated as strengths.
· Group discussion method was rated as strength ( =3.37) of the system.
220
5.2.2.2 Weaknesses
· To provide extension services regarding subject matter coverage i.e.
cultural/physical and mechanical control ( =1.30), biological control ( =1.24),
judicious use of pesticide ( =1.85), FYM ( =1.44) and green yard manures GM
( =1.38) were rated as a weakness of the system.
· To contact with poor, small and uneducated farmers ( =2.07) and women
farmers ( =1.13), private extension system had a weakness. Similarly it was
rated as a weakness with respect to deal all farmers on equality basis ( =1.53).
· Farmers rated that EFS had weak knowledge regarding subject matter and
farming system ( =2.18), agri-inputs ( =2.24), farmers’ problems ( =2.08)
and marketing ( =1.76) of commodities. Regarding favorable attitude of EFS
towards serving clients ( =2.18), fields work ( =2.26) and problem solving
( =2.08), farmers rated it as weaknesses. Farmers also reported that EFS had
weak technological skill ( =2.32) and training skill ( =2.15). Similarly EFS
had also weak skills in finding solution of problems ( =2.25). Farmers rated
empathy ( =2.21) towards farmers and flexibility ( =2.14) of EFS as weakness
of the system.
· Farmers rated the use of alternative extension methods/channels i.e. farm and
home visits ( =1.40), method demonstration ( =1.08), result demonstration
( =1.21), exhibition ( =1.04), telephone call ( =2.23), printed material
221
( =1.54), audio-visual aids ( =1.06), radio ( =1.15) and TV ( =2.42) as a
weakness of the system.
· The farmers rated all the characteristics of effective communication as weakness
( ≤ 2.20) of private extension system.
· Farmer reported that to increase farmers’ skill and knowledge ( =1.91) and
increased farmers’ profit ( =1.95) through extension activities were rated as
weaknesses of the system. Similarly, to provide greater chance to the farmers for
sharing their experiences ( =1.97) was also considered as weakness of the
system.
· Farmers reported that regarding quality ( =2.26), affordable price ( =1.33) and
regulated price ( =1.55) of the products were regarded as weaknesses of the
system. Similarly, system had weakness in compensating the farmers in case of
product failure ( =1.33).
5.2.3 External factors as reported by the farmers
5.2.3.1 Opportunities
· Opportunities existed for private sector as farmers reported that they had
demand for agronomic advisory services ( =3.85) and plant protection
advisory services ( =3.91) of cotton, agronomic advisory services ( =3.46)
and plant protection advisory services ( =3.51) of wheat, agronomic
advisory services ( =3.02) and plant protection advisory services ( =3.05)
of sugarcane crops in cotton-zone. Similarly demands were found for
agronomic ( =3.60) and plant protection ( =3.57) advisory services of
222
wheat, and agronomic ( =3.65) and plant protection ( =3.60) advisory
services of rice crops in rice-zone. In central-mixed-zone, there were demands
for agronomic ( =3.35) and plant protection ( =3.33) advisory services of
wheat, and agronomic ( =3.10) and plant protection ( =3.10) advisory
services for maize crop.
· Private sector had opportunities as farmers reported that they had more
demand for advisory services regarding credit ( =3.45), crop insurance
( =3.53), commodity marketing ( =3.50), and soil analysis ( =3.43).
· Opportunities also existed for private sector, as farmers were willing to pay
for agronomic ( =2.57) and plant protection ( =2.69) advisory services of
cotton crop in cotton-zone. Similarly, farmers were willing to pay for
agronomic ( =2.68) and plant protection ( =2.69) advisory services of
wheat crop, and agronomic ( =2.70) and plant protection ( =2.72) advisory
services of rice crops in rice-zone.
· Private sector had opportunities as farmers were willing to pay for advisory
services regarding credit ( =2.94), crop insurance ( =2.96), commodity
marketing ( =2.92) and soil analysis ( =2.82).
· Agricultural resources were available at farmers’ disposal. Soil was fertile
( =3.92) and supportive to multifarious crops ( =3.69). Canal water
( =2.93) and under-ground water ( =3.65) was available and there was no
problem of labor ( =3.20). These are opportunities that can be exploited by
the private sector.
223
· Farmers reported that they were willing to participate in extension activities
( =3.54) and training programs ( =3.56). They were willing to learn
modern agricultural practices ( =3.57). Private sector has opportunities in
this regard.
5.2.3.2 Threats
· Threats were also found for private sector as farmers reported that they had
very low demand ( <2.4) for agronomic and plant protection advisory
services of fruit, vegetable crops. They were not willing to pay for the
advisory services of these crops. Farmers were not willing to pay for the
advisory services regarding post-harvest-technology ( =1.13).
· Private extension system has threats as farmers reported that improved quality
seed ( =2.30), quality fertilizer ( =2.28) and credit ( =2.06) were hardly
available to them. Farmers got reasonable commodity price to a very low
extent ( =1.40) that is another threat for extension system.
· Farmers were not willing to act as teamwork ( =3.54). Consequently they
were unwilling to cultivate their farms by co-operative farming ( =1.98). For
private extension system it was regarded as a threat.
5.3.1 Demographic characteristics of EFS
· About 43% the EFS were working as a TSO. About 33 and 23% of the
respondents were working as STSO and TSS respectively.
· Fifty percent of the respondents belong to age category of less than 30 years.
About 40% of the EFS were in the age category of 30-40 years and only 10%
belonged to the category of more than 40.
224
· Fifty five percent of the respondents had less than 5 years job experience. About
28% of the respondents had job experience between 5-10 years.
· Majority (65%) of the EFS had master degree in Agriculture and had rural
background (60%).
5.3.2 Internal factors as reported by the EFS
5.3.2.1 Strengths
According to EFS of PES:
· To provide extension services regarding cultural and physical control ( =2.57),
judicious use of pesticide ( =3.83), FYM ( =3.08) and GM ( =2.68) were
rated as strengths of the system.
· To contact with poor and small farmers ( =2.68) and uneducated farmers
( =3.45), private extension system had strengths. Similarly regarding
professional competency, EFS rated that it was strength ( =3.73) of the system.
· Extension methods such as group discussion ( =3.93), telephone call ( =3.92)
and printed material ( =3.93) were rated as a great strength while other methods
such as farm and home visits ( =3.45), method demonstrations ( =3.60) and
result demonstration ( =3.50), radio ( =3.08) and TV ( =3.27) were also
rated as strength of the system. Similarly, regarding effectiveness of
communication EFS reported that it was strength ( =3.73) of the system.
· The use of extension approach and function of private sector was regarded as
strength ( =3.70) of the system.
225
· Infrastructural facilities such as vehicle, its fuel and maintenance ( =4.00),
residence/ residence allowance ( =3.23), mobile phone facility ( =4.00),
printed material for distribution ( =4.00), white board ( =4.00), clip board
( =4.00) and stationary ( =3.87) provided to the EFS for smooth and efficient
extension work were rated as a strength of the system. Similarly, job design
( =3.44) of private extension system and role of top management/administration
( =3.61) were also rated as strength. Moreover, training provided to the EFS was
rated as strength ( =3.70).
· EFS reported that regarding quality ( =4.00), affordable ( =2.70) and regulated
price ( =3.90) of the products and follow up in case of product failure
( =2.63), system had strengths. Similarly Promotion images leads to right advice
( =3.77) and it was strength of the system.
5.3.2.2 Weaknesses
According to EFS of PES:
· To provide extension services regarding mechanical ( =2.47) and biological
control ( =1.37) system was rated as weaknesses of the system.
· Regarding contact with women farmers system had a weakness ( =1.32).
Similarly to deal all farmers on equality basis, system was rated as a weakness
( =1.97).
· Extension methods such as exhibition ( =2.53) and use of audio-visual aids
( =1.92) were rated as a weakness of the system.
226
· To provide infrastructural facilities such as computer ( =1.00) and audio-visual
aids ( =1.73) were rated as a weakness of the system.
· To provide product on credit ( =1.03) and to sale pesticide directly to the
farmers ( =1.62) and at their doorstep ( =1.50) was rated as weakness of the
system.
5.3.3 External factors as reported by the EFS
According to EFS of PES:
5.3.3.1 Opportunities
· Opportunities existed for private sector as EFS reported that farmers had
demand for agronomic advisory services of cotton ( =2.58), wheat ( =2.97)
and vegetable ( =3.02). Similarly opportunities existed regarding demand for
plant protection advisory services of cotton ( =3.48), wheat ( =3.90), rice
( =3.13), sugarcane ( =2.98), fruit ( =3.00) and vegetable crops
( =3.93).
· Private sector had opportunities as EFS reported that they had demand for
advisory services regarding credit ( =3.97), crop insurance ( =3.97),
commodity marketing ( =3.97) and soil analysis ( =3.90).
· Opportunities existed for private sector as farmers were willing to pay for
advisory service concerning plant protection technologies of cotton ( =2.68),
wheat ( =2.88) and vegetable ( =2.98) crops. They further identified the
opportunities regarding willingness to pay for advisory services concerning
227
credit ( =3.35), crop insurance ( =3.33), commodity marketing ( =3.35),
and soil analysis ( =3.28).
· EFS reported that soil was fertile ( =3.65) and supportive to multifarious
crops ( =3.25). Canal water ( =3.58) and under-ground water ( =3.37)
were available and there was no problem of labor ( =3.42). These were
opportunities that could be exploited by the private sector.
· EFS perceived that farmers would be willing to participate in extension
activities ( =3.62) and training programs ( =3.47). They were willing to
learn modern agricultural practices ( =3.43). These were also opportunities
for PES.
5.3.3.2 Threats
According to EFS of PES:
· Low demand for agronomic advisory services of rice ( =2.35), sugarcane
( =2.02), maize ( =1.83), and fruit ( =2.22) crops were perceived as
threat for private extension system. Farmers would not pay for the advisory
services of rice ( =1.73), sugarcane ( =1.58), maize ( =1.47), and fruit
( =1.68) crops as perceived by EFS. They further identified that farmers
would not pay for the advisory services regarding post-harvest-technology
( =1.87).
· Private extension system had threats, as credit was hardly available ( =2.02)
to the farmers. To get reasonable price of the commodities to a very low
extent ( =2.10) was also perceived as threat for private extension system.
228
· Farmers were not willing to act as teamwork ( =2.38). Similarly, they were
unwilling to cultivate their farms by co-operative farming ( =1.85). It was
perceived as a threat for extension system.
Synthesis of Findings
According to the perceptions of the farmers respondents, private extension system (PES)
has overall weaknesses regarding subject matter coverage, target beneficiaries,
professional competency, alternative extension methods, effectiveness of communication,
extension approach/function and marketing mix. Diagnostic skill, politeness and good
conduct, and Group discussion method were the strengths of PES. Opportunities existed
regarding demand and willingness to pay for the advisory services of miscellaneous items
(credit, crop insurance, commodity marketing and soil analysis), resources availability
and willing to participate in the extension activities. Threats were found with respect to
demand for crop agronomic and plant protection advisory services for private sector
extension. However analysis of the data collected from extension personnel indicated
that, except target beneficiaries (weakness), the system has strengths regarding subject
matter coverage, professional competency, alternative extension methods, effectiveness
of communication, extension approach & functions, infrastructural/job design facilities,
administration role, marketing mix and training. According to EFS, farmers’ demand and
willing to pay for protection technology, miscellaneous advisory services (credit, crop
insurance, commodity marketing and soil analysis) and resources availability were
considered as opportunities for PES.
229
5.4 Recommendations
5.4.1 For private agricultural extension system
· It was found that private extension system has weaknesses regarding contact
with small and resource poor farmers. PES should ensure the participation of
marginalized farmers when they conduct group discussions at village level.
· It was found that private extension system did not focus on cultural, physical,
mechanical, and biological control measures for insect/pest control and it
emphasize on pesticide use only. It leads human race towards serious health
hazards & resources depletion. Private sector should focus on IPM control
measures for sustainable agriculture.
· Farmers reported that private EFS are not enough competent to perform
extension services. PES should impart regular training and conduct refresher
courses for EFS to build their capacity and professional competency for
effective extension work.
· PES should use variety of extension methods /channels for technology
disseminations. Audio-visual aids should be provided to the EFS and
exhibitions should be organized regularly. Demonstrations should also be the
priority of PES to disseminate agricultural technology.
· In the field, farmers have demand for advisory services regarding soil
analysis, commodity marketing, credit from loaning agencies and crop
insurance. Farmers are also willing to pay for these services. PES should also
provide the above-mentioned services to facilitate the farmers and this is an
opportunity for the PES.
230
· Farmers were willing to participate in extension activities. So, there is great
potential to educate the farmers in a way that they would be able to make
decision for agricultural practices in respective circumstances.
· Farmers reported that in PES, extension field staff have interest to sale their
products and not to educate them. This opinion would ultimately damage the
credibility of PES among the farming community. It is need of the hour that
PES should also focus on increasing the farmers’ skills by using alternative
extension method.
· Women farmers should also be provided advisory services regarding women
related agricultural practices. For this purpose, PES should appoint Women
Extension Workers to perform extension activities.
5.4.2 For government of the Punjab
· Respondents expressed their reservations regarding quality, price, access and
promotion of product distributed by PES. Government should ensure the
availability of quality product with regulated price through the proper and
effective implementation of law and if new rules need may be enacted in this
regard.
· Farmers have ample agricultural resources except availability of certified
seed and fertilizers and irrigation water. Government should ensure the
regular availability of these inputs.
· Government should provide credit to the farmers at flexible and easy terms
and conditions. The procedure for getting loan should be made simple and
easy.
231
· The private sector should disseminate the clear messages that appeared in
electronic and print media and ensured that it lead to right advice for the
farmers. Government can monitor the publicity activities of the private sector
through a censor board.
· To minimize the role of pesticide dealers, the companies should provide the
products directly to the farmers through their fair-price-shops. The
government should direct the companies to establish their shops at regional
level.
· Government should impose levy on exported and imported agricultural
products to generate revenue for extension services and public extension
services should be provided to the farmers through the private delivery.
· Government should announce the support price for all crops, fruits and
vegetables at the sowing time considering the cost of production to ensure the
profit margin for the farmers. There is need to minimize the role of middles
man in the marketing of farm produce.
· Government should introduce the concept of co-operative farming at pilot
basis at least in each district to realize the importance of co-operative farming
among the farming community. If farmers are willing for co-operative
farming, PES has opportunities for corporate agriculture.
· Government should concentrate through public sector on resource poor areas
where private sector is not interested to establish its network to provide
advisory services to the farmers.
· Public extension system should focus on small and poor farmers, as it is the
neglected majority by the private sector.
232
· Public extension system should popularize the sustainable agricultural
practices by advocating the alternative pest control measures and application
of bio-fertilizers.
· The personnel of public extension system should listens the farmers’
complaints regarding private actors and their voice should be raised to the
higher and relevant authorities.
· Public extension system should recommend the reliable and affordable-price-
inputs to the farmers for agricultural use.
· Public extension system should guide farmers regarding soil analysis, credit
access and market their commodities.
5.5 Recommendations for future research
· Similar research studies should be conducted in other provinces of the country
to generalize the finding regarding the SWOTs of private extension system.
· Researcher should undertake the comparative study of public, private sectors
and other models of extension delivery to explore the possible SWOTs for
evolving most effective extension system.
233
REFERENCES Abbas, S. (2005). Role of pesticides companies in the dissemination of plant protection technologies among cotton grower in Tehsil Rajanpur. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Abbasi, I. J. (1986). Study of the effectiveness of results demonstrations conducted by the Granular (Pvt.) Limited to introduce their insecticides/pesticides among cotton growers of Khanewal District. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Adam, M. E. (1982). Agricultural extension in developing countries. Essex, Longman, U.K. Ahmad, M. (1988). Determination of adoption constraints of selected improved agricultural practices by the farmers of Toba Tek Singh Tehsil. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Ahmad, M. I. (2004). An investigation into the attitude of cotton growers regarding the working of private sector (pesticide agencies) in District Muzaffargarh. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Ahmad, M., Davidson, A. P. and Ali, T. (2000). Effectiveness of public and private sectors extension: Implications for Pakistani farmers. Paper presented at 16th annual conference of AIAEE held at Arlington VA, USA. Ahmad, M. (1999). A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of agricultural extension works by public and private sectors in Punjab, Pakistan. PhD thesis, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia. Ahmad, M. Z. (1992). Determination of credibility of training and visit extension programme among farmers of Lahore district. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Ahmad, M., Ali, T. and Lodhi, T. E. (2003). Pakistan: Country paper. In Sharma, V.P. (ed.), Enhancement of extension systems in agriculture, (Pp. 145-150). Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization. Alex, G., Byerlee, D., Helene-Collion, M. and Rivera, W. (2004). Extension and rural development: Converging views on institutional approaches? Agriculture and rural development: Discussion paper 4. Washington, D.C., World Bank. Ali, M. (2000). An evaluation of agricultural credit program (one window operation) of agricultural development bank of Pakistan as perceived by the loonies of Faisalabad District. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Alonge, A. J. (2006). Bringing stakeholders into agricultural extension reform agenda: A participatory SWOT analysis of the Trinidad national agricultural extension service. Paper presented at 22nd annual conference of AIAEE, held at Florida, USA.
234
Antholt, C. H. (1994). Getting ready for the twenty-first century: Technical change and institutional modernization in agriculture. World Bank Technical Paper No.217. Washington D.C. Ashraf, I. (2001). A study into the effectiveness of communication methods used by pesticide companies to popularize their products among the farmers of Tehsil Arifwala. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Aslam, M. and Khan, G. S. (1984). Attitude of extension workers towards in-service training. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 12(4.). Bajwa, R. (2004). Agricultural extension and the role of the private sector in Pakistan. National Rural Support Program, Islamabad, Pakistan Baxter, M. and Benor, D. (1984). Training and visit extension. World Bank, Washington D.C. Bedo, S. H. (2004). Education, research, and extension: An evaluation of agricultural institutions in Tunisia. M. Sc. Thesis, Agricultural Education, Texas A&M University, U.S. Bestetfield, D. H., Besterfield, M. C., Besterfield G. H. and Besterfield, S. M. (2004). Total quality management. Third (ed.) Pearson Education, Ltd., India. Blum, A. and Katz, M. (2000). Dairy farmers’ use of different knowledge sources. Journal of Extension Systems, 16(1): 39-46. Borg, W. R. and Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research. (5th ed.) Longman. New York. Butt, T. M. (2004). An investigation into the working of commodity specialized extension approach followed by Sugar Mills in Faisalabad District. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Cardarelli, A. (2002). National arts marketing project SWOT: Planning tool for the future: http://www.cultural- alliance.org/pubs/swot.htm Chandrakandan, K. and Karthiikeyan, C. (2001). Private extension in India: Issues and options. In Shekara, P.C (ed.), Private Extension in India: Myths, Realities, Comprehensions and Approaches, Pp:26-31. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Chapman, R. and Tripp, T. (2003). Changing incentives for agricultural extension: A review of privatized extension in practice. Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AGREN): Network Paper No. 132. The Overseas Development Administration (ODA). London. Chatha, M. A. (1984). Teaching effectiveness of results demonstrations conducted by Ciba- Geigy to introduce dicuron M.A. 60 W. P. in Wheat. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Choudhry, K. M. (2002). Community infrastructure services programme (CISP). Human Resource Development Manual. Department of Local Government and Rural Development, Government of Azad Jammun and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad. Choudhry, K. M., Tehseen, F. and Khan, B. B. (1993). Impact of extension education methods used by field veterinary staff for the adoption of improved livestock farming practices by the farmers. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 30(2):34-36.
235
Chukwuone, N. A. and Agwu, A. E. (2005). Financing agricultural technology delivery in Nigeria: Would farmers be willing to pay? Journal of extension systems, 21(2):69-85. Chukwuone, N. A., Agwu, A. E. and Ozor, N. (2006). Constraints and strategies toward effective cost-sharing of agricultural technology delivery in Nigeria: Perception of farmers and agricultural extension personnel. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 13 (1):29-41. Dahama, O. P. (1979). Extension and rural welfare. New Delhi: Ram Parsad and Sons. Dane, F. C. (1990). Research methods. Brooks/ Cole, California, USA. Darr, D. (2006). Participatory, farmer-to-farmer and other contemporary extension approaches in Eastern Africa: Are there any lessons for forestry extension in Europe?. Institute for International Forst-und Holzwirtschaft, Technische Universitat Dresden, Germany. Davidson, A. P. and Ahmad, M. (2003). Privatization and the crisis of agricultural extension: The case of Pakistan. Ashgate Publishing Limited, England. Davidson, A. P. (2006). Integrated, multidisciplinary and holistic rural development approach for effective agricultural extension services. In Sharma, V.P., (ed.), Enhancement of Extension Systems in Agriculture, Pp: 45-57. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Davidson, A. P. (2002). Privatization and the crises of agricultural extension in Pakistan. Paper presented in workshop entitled “Extension and rural development: A convergence of views on international approaches” held in Washington, D.C., USA. Davidson, A. P., Ahmad, M. and Ali, T. (2001). Dilemmas of agricultural extension in Pakistan: Food for thought. Network Paper No. 116, Agricultural Research and Extension, ODI, London, England. De Vaus, D. A. (1995). Surveys in social research. (4th edition), Allen & Unwin, NSW, Australia. Dealtry, T. R. (1992). Dynamic SWOT analysis. Developer’s Guide. Birmingham. Dinar, A. Karagiannis, G. and Tzouvelekas, V. (2007). Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension on farms' performance in Crete: A non-neutral stochastic frontier approach. Agricultural Economics 36 (2):135–146. Fami, H. S. (2006). Islamic republic of Iran: Country paper. In Sharma, V.P., (ed.). Enhancement of Extension Systems in Agriculture, Pp: 116-125. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Fitzggibbon, C. T. and Lynn. L. M. (1987). Table for determining sample size from the given population. How to design a program evaluation. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications. Foti, R., Nyakudya, I. Moyo, M., Chikuvire, J. and Mlambo, N. (2007). Determinants of farmer demand for “fee-for-service” extension in Zimbabwe. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 14 (1):95-104. Galaa, S. Z. and Obeng, F. K. (2004). Public-private sector partnerships for improved agriculture services delivery: How do we make them work?. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 19(2): 49-67.
236
Gondal, B. A. (1989). Punjab agricultural extension and adaptive research project phase II with regards to training component in Sargodha division. Deputy Director Agriculture (Training), Sargodha Division, Sargodha, Pakistan. Government of Pakistan. (1983). punjab extension and agricultural development project: PC-1 form. Directorate General Agriculture (Agricultural Extension and Adaptive Research) Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. Government of Pakistan. (1988). Report of national commission of agriculture. Islamabad, Pakistan. Government of Pakistan. (2000). Agricultural census report. Agricultural census organization, Islamabad. Government of Pakistan. (2006). Pakistan statistical pocket book 2006. statistics Division. Federal bureau of statistics, Islamabad, Pakistan. Government of Pakistan. (2007). Economic survey of Pakistan. Economic Advisors Wing, Finance Division, Islamabad, Pakistan. Government of Pakistan. (2008). Economic survey of Pakistan. Economic Advisors Wing, Finance Division, Islamabad, Pakistan. Government of Punjab. (2007). Checklist for registration as pesticides distributors in Punjab province. Agriculture House (Deputy Director, plant protection), Davis Road, Lahore, Pakistan. Gowda, M. J. C. (2001). Micro level opportunities and challenges for privatization of agricultural extension. In Shekara, P.C (ed.), Private extension in India: Myths, realities, apprehensions and approaches, Pp:18-25. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Gowda, N. S. S., and Saravanan, R. (2001). Attitude and preferences of agricultural scientists towards privatization of agricultural extension service. In Shekara, P.C (ed.), Private Extension in India: Myths, Realities, Comprehensions and Approaches, Pp: 81-84. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Hamid, A. (2006). Role of private sector in introducing IPM technologies with special reference to sugarcane crop in District Faisalabad. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Hanchinal, S. N., Sundaraswamy. B. and Ansari M. R. (2001). Privatization of extension service: Attitude and preferences of extension personnel. In Shekara, P.C (ed.),Private Extension in India: Myths, Realities, Comprehensions and Approaches, Pp:101- 107. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Hanyani-Mlambo, B. T. (2002). Strengthening the pluralistic agricultural extension system: A Zimbabwean case study. Agricultural Research Council (ARC), Zimbabwe. Hedjazi, Y. and Soltani, S. (2005). Factors effecting on cotton farmers’ tendency to participate in financing agricultural extension services in Iran. Journal of Extension Systems, 21(1):96-106. Hedjazi, Y., Rezaee, R. and Zamani, N. (2006). Factors affecting the use of ICTs by Iranian agriculture extension specialists. Journal of extension systems, 22(1):1- 15.
237
Hochmuth, G. J. and Maynard, D. N. (2002). Generating private-sector funding for extension programs. HortTechnology, 12(3):495-498. Hussain, A. (1983). An appraisal of working image of extension field staff as perceived by the local councilors of Chichawatni. Tehsil. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Idrees, M. (2003). Developing a strategy for mobilizing rural youth for the development of agriculture in NWFP, Pakistan. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Ijaz, K. and Davidson, A. P. (1997). Baseline socio-economic survey: Joint Satiana Project. UNDP and AUSaid publication no. 166, IWASRI, Lahore, Pakistan. Ilevbaoje, I. E. (1998). Effectiveness of training & visit extension system: Preliminary results in Nigeria. Journal of extension systems, 14(2): 9-21. Imran, M. Z. (1991). To determine the effectiveness of various pesticide agencies in the adoption of recommended plant protection practices by the cotton growers of Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Iqbal, M. (1989). Study of the credibility developed by the extension field staff among the farming community of Tehsil Bori, Lorlai district. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Irianto, B., Yuniarti, and Santoso, P. (2006). Supply chain management assessment to improve the performance of contract farming between a multi national company and smallholders in East Java. Acta Horticulturae, 699: 227-233. Jackson, M. C., Hastings, G., Wheeler, C., Eadies, D. D. and MacKintosh, A. M. (2000). Marketing alcohol to young people. Implications for industry regulation and research policy, 95 (12). Jalvi, G. A. (1981). Training and visit system of agricultural extension. Paper presented in the second agriculture conference by PARC, Islamabad, Pakistan. Jasu, A. K. (2001). Extension approaches, strengths and weaknesses of private extension services: Experiences of ramakrishna math. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp: 137-149. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Jaya, G. and Reddy, M. N. (2003). Strategies for management of change in agricultural extension. Manage Extension Research Review, 4(1):1-9 National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management. hyderabad, india. Jegadeesan, M., Rathkrishnan, T. and Selvaraj, G. (2002). Factors influencing the attitude of farmers towards privatization of agricultural extension services. Manage Extension research Review, 3(1): 136-139. National institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad Joerger, P. (2004). How to position for tomorrow and beyond. Agricultural news and views. Economics. Retrieved on November 20, 2005 from http//www.noble/org/Ag/Research/Economics. Jucious, M. J. (1963). Personnel management (5th ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
238
Kalra, R. K. and Virk, G. S. (2001). Privatization of agricultural extension services in Punjab: An experiment. In Shekara, P.C. (ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp: 46-55. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Karppi, I., Kokkonen, M. and Lahteenmaki-Smith, K. (2001). SWOT-analysis as a basis for regional strategies. Nordregio Working Paper: 4. Nordregio - the Nordic Center for Spatial Development, Stockholm, Sweden Khan, A. (1991). An analysis of the impact of extension work of hill farming development project on maize production in Tehsil Muzaffarabad, Azad State of Jammun and Kashmir. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Khan, A. A. (2006). Strengthening education-research-extension linkages for effective agricultural extension services: Experience of Pakistan. In: Sharma, V.P., (ed.) Enhancement of Extension Systems in Agriculture, Pp: 145-150. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Khan, M. A. (2000). Identification of the factors affecting the working efficiency of agriculture (extension) department, government of the Punjab. P.hD. Thesis. Department of Agricultural Education, Extension and Short cources. Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Pakistan. Khan, M. and Akbar, M. J. (1985). An evaluation of working of agriculture department (extension) as perceived by the farmers. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 22 (2):81-85. Khan, R. A. R. (1982). The role of agriculture in the economy of Pakistan. Pakistan Agriculture. Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department. Doc. Center No. 22774. Khan, S. A. (1992). An introduction to extension education, In Extension Methods. (eds) Memon, R.A. and Bashir, E. National Book Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan. Kidd, A. D., Lamers, J. P. A., Ficarelli, P. P. and Hoffmann, V. (2000). Privatizing agricultural extension: Caveat emptor. Journal of Rural Studies, 16:95-102. kongklai, C. (1987). Job performance effectiveness of the Thai community development workers. Dissertation abstract international, Humanities and Social Sciences 48(05): 1088. Kumar, K. N. R., Lakshmi, K. S. and Kumar, K.V. K. (2001). Exploring the agricultural export potential of Andhra Pradesh: A SWOT analysis. Manage Extension Research Review, 2(2): 27-40. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management. Hyderabad, India. Kumuk, T. and Crowder, L. V. (1996). "Harmonizing" T & V extension: Some experiences from Turkey. Journal of Extension Systems, 12(2): 1-15. Kyazze, F. B. (2006). Perceptions towards a mid-career adult educational program: The case of the bachelor of agricultural extension education (BAEE) at Makerere University, Uganda. Ph.D. Thesis. Graduate School of the Ohio State University. Labarthe, P. (2005). Performance of services and unequal access to agricultural extension: Study case in Ain (France) and Zeeland (Netherlands). Journal of extension systems, 21(2): 12-26.
239
Ladebo, O. J., Kassal, B. I. and Banjoko, O. C. (1997). Effect of radio farm broadcasts on farmers knowledge of improved farm practices. Journal of Extension Systems, 13(1): 121-127. Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. California: Sage Publications Inc. Lodhi, T. E. (2003). Need for paradigm shift from top-down to participatory extension in the Punjab, Pakistan: Perception of farmers, change agents and their supervisory staff. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Lodhi, T. A. and Khan, S. A. (1988). Bench mark survey: Punjab extension and agricultural development project. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Luqman, M. (2004). A study into the effectiveness of decentralized agricultural extension system in district Muzaffargarh. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Lodhi, T. E., Luqman, M. and Hassan, Z. Y. (2005). Decentralization of agricultural extension reforms. Economics and Business Review, Agriculture and Technology, P:III. The Dawn Lowdermilk, M. K. (1985). A system process for improving the quality of agricultural extension. Journal of Extension Systems, 1(1):45-54. http;//edoc.hu-berlin.de/conferences/eunis/2001/a/Magiera/PDF/Magiera.pdf Mahaliyanaarachchi, R. P. (2004). Attitudes of agricultural scientists, extension personnel and farmers towards commercialization of agricultural extension service: A study in Sri Lanka, Commercialization of agriculture in Sri Lanka. Faculty of agricultural sciences, Sabaragamuwa university of sri lanka. Malik, N. H., Khan, S. A., Choudhry, K. M., Akbar, J. and Ahmad, M. (1991). Education as a significant variable in the application of extension methods with special reference to demonstration techniques. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 28(1):34-36. Malik, W. (1990). A Systems Paradigm. A study of agricultural knowledge system in Pakistan. Leo Books, Islamabad, Pakistan. Malik, W. (2003). Operationalizing agricultural extension reforms in South Asia: A case of Pakistan: Country paper. Presented at Regional Workshop Held in New Delhi, India. Organized by Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India In Collaboration with the World Bank. Mansoor, Z. (2000). Problems and prospects of agricultural credit with reference to small farmers in District Sialkote. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Markanday, J. C. and Chinnadurai, S. (2001). Vocational training programmes, its’ scope and importance in private extension services: An experience. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences Pp:207-210. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Mishra, B. and Pandey, G. (2001). In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp:161- 174. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India.
240
Modi, P. and Chapke, M. (2001). Redefining the rural market. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences Pp:61-65. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Muhamad, M. and Idris, K. (1995). Research-extension approach: Its impact on Malaysian cocoa smallholders' technology utilization. Journal of Extension Systems, 11(2): 1-22. Muhammad, S. (2001). Agricultural extension: Strategies and skills. Unitech Communications, 498-B, Peoples Colony # 1, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Muhammad, S. (1994). An effective communication model for the acceptance of new agricultural technology by farmers in the Punjab, Pakistan. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Reading, Reading, England. Mullah, U. (1997). Extension programme in Pakistan. In Memon, R.A. and Bashir, E. (eds.) Extension Methods (Pp: 35-60). National Book Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan. Munir, M. A. (1982). An evaluation of mobile farm extension services (MFES) project in Tehsil Lodhran (Ckak Abdullah), District Multan. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Nachmias, F. and Nachmias, D. (1992). Research methods in the social sciences. (4th edition), Edward Arnold, London, U. K. Nasir, M. S. and Hyder, S. K. (1987). Economic problems of Pakistan. IImi Book House, Lahore, Pakistan. Narayana, R. V. (2001). Agricultural extension through newspapers, agricultural journals and TV channels. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences Pp:113-119. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Nathaniels, N. Q. R. (2005). Cowpea, farmer field schools and farmer-to-farmer extension: A Benin case study. Agricultural research and extension network (AGREN): Network Paper No. 148. The Overseas Development administration (ODA). London. Nimbalkar, S. A., Patil, V. D. and Ingle, P. O. (nd). Distance agricultural education: perspectives in agricultural development in India. Obaa. B., Mutimba, J. and Semana, A. R. (2005). Prioritizing farmers’ extension needs in a publicly-funded contract system of extension: A case study from Mukono district, Uganda. Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AGREN): Network Paper No. 147. The Overseas Development administration (ODA). London. Ogunwale, A. B. and Laogun, E. A. (1998). Analysis of sources of farm information and improved technologies used by farmers in Nigerian agricultural development programmes. Journal of extension systems, 14(2): 72-83. Omotayo, A. M., Chikwendu, D. O., Zaria, M. B., Yusuf, J. O. and Omenesa, Z. E. (1997). Effectiveness of radio in Nigeria in dissemination of information on improved farming practices. Journal of Extension Systems, 13(1): 103-120.
241
Padre, S. (2001). Self-help journalism: A successful bottom up approach. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp:127-136. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Pawar, C. S. and Patel, H. G. (2001). AGROCEL: Agro service centers: A bloom from desert. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences Pp:56-60. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Perraton, H., Jamoson, D.T., Jenkins, J., Orival, F. and Wolff, L. (1983). Basic education and agricultural extension: Costs, effects and alternatives. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 564. World Bank, D.C. Pezeshki-Raad, G., Aghahi, H. and Ukaga, O. (2001). Agricultural extension problems In Iran: Opinions of extension authorities. Journal of Extension Systems, 17(1): 1- 14. Piggin, C. (2003). Working group SWOT analysis on agricultural development in East Timor. In Costa,H., Piggin, C., Cruz, C.J. and Fox, J. J. (eds), Agriculture: New Directions for a New Nation East Timor (Timor-Leste). Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. Piters, B. S., Heemskerk, W. and Pol, F. (2005). The Public and private agricultural research discourse in Sub-Saharan Africa: A case of Romeo and Juliet?. In Ruben, R. and Piters, B.S.(eds.) Rural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policy Perspectives for Agriculture, Sustainable Resource Management and Poverty Reduction. Bulletin 370, Royal Tropical Institute, KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Prasad, M. V. (2001b). Dissemination of pepper production technology, supply and services through Kurumulaku Samrakshana Samities in Kerla. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp:90-96. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Prasad, R. M. (2001a). Private extension system: Options and issues. In Shekara, P.C (ed.), Private Extension in India: Myths, Realities, Comprehensions and Approaches, Pp: 39-44. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Prasad, T. K and Khan, M. S. (2001). Privatization of extension services: International experiences and its relevance in Indian context. In Shekara, P.C (ed.),Private Extension in India: Myths, Realities, Comprehensions and Approaches, Pp: 135-153. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India Praveen. N, Swamy, B. K. N and Ravi, P.C. (2001). Private extension to transfer marketing technologies for globalization of Indian agriculture. In Shekara, P.C (ed.),Private Extension in India: Myths, Realities, Comprehensions and Approaches, Pp:129-134. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Qamar, M. K. (2006). Agricultural extension in Asia and the Pacific: Time to revisit and reform. In Sharma, V.P., (ed.), Enhancement of extension systems in agriculture, Pp: 21-33. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Quispe, A. and Jimenez-Sanchez, L. (2001). Experiences of public sector collaboration for scaling up non-governmental-organization (NGO) rural development projects in Mexico. Journal of extension systems, 17(2): 41-51.
242
Radhakrishnan, D. and Karippai, R. S. (2001). The Role of newspaper in transfer of agricultural technologies. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp:120-126. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Rahman, M. H. (2006). Bangladesh: A country paper. In Sharma, V.P., (ed.). Enhancement of Extension Systems in Agriculture, Pp: 81-90. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Rajeev, P. (2001). Role of farmers’ organization in extension service: A case study in Calicut district, Kerala. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp:103-106 National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Rajendran, P. and Santhoshkumar, A.V. (2001). Paruthikkavu Nellulpatada Padasekhara Samithy(PNPS): A case study of a farmers’ organization. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp:97-102. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Rao, V. J. (2001). Issues of research extension linkage of privatized extension system: A case of the seed industry. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences, Pp:200-206. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Ravikumar, R. K. and Chander, M. (2006). Extension educational efforts by state department of animal husbandry (SDAH), Tamil Nadu: SWOT analysis. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18(9): http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd18/9/cont1809.htm Reddy, M. N. and Jaya, G. (2002). Market-led agricultural extension challenges & future strategy. Manage Extension research Review, 3(1): 1-8. National institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad Reddy, P. G. and Rao, P. P. (2001). Privatization of agricultural extension: An analysis. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp:222- 226. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Republic of Croatia. (2006). SAPARD programme agriculture and rural development plan, 2005-2006. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Croatia. Rezvanfar, A. and Vaisy, H. (2006). Job satisfaction amongst agricultural extension personnel in Kurdistan province of Iran. Journal of extension systems, 22(1): 32- 35. Rivera, W. M. (1997). Confronting the global market: public sector agricultural extension reconsider. Paper presented at the IICA workshop, The current situation in and the outlook for the technology transfer, Technical Assistance and Agricultural Extension Complex, held Hqs in San José, Costa Rica. Rivera, W. M. (1993). Impacts of extension privatization. Journal of extension, 31(3). Rivera, W. M. (2006). Contemporary experiences in extension reform: Insights from Pakistan and Mozambique. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 13 (1):29-41
243
Rivera, W. M. (1991). Agricultural extension worldwide: A critical turning point. In W. M. Rivera and D.J. Gustafson (eds) Agricultural extension: Worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam Rivera, W. M. and Cary, J. (1997). Privatizing agricultural extension. Agricultural Extension: Reference Manual, Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome. Rogers, W. L. (1987). The private sector: Its extension systems and public/private co- ordination. In W.M. Rivera and S.G. Schram (eds) Agricultural extension worldwide: Issues practices and emerging priorities. Croom Helm, London. Roy, A. K. (2001). Setting standards for tribal welfare: The role model of Girijan co- operative corporation. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp:107-112. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Saravanan, R. and Gowda, N. S. S. (2003). Contract farming: Where we gain and lose?. Manage Extension Research Review, 4(1): 32-43. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management. hyderabad, india. Saravanan, R. (2001). Privatization of agricultural extension. In Shekara, P.C (ed.), Private extension in India: Myths, realities, apprehensions and approaches, Pp:60-71. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Saravanan, R. and Resmy, C. (2000). Private agri-clinic: A report presented at national seminar on private extension: Approaches and challenges in the millennium. MANAGE, Hyderabad, India. Saravanan, R. and Shivalinge Gowda, N. S. (2000). Status of functioning of the two private consultancy agencies in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu. Presented at National Seminar on Private Extension: Approaches and Challenges in the Millennium. MANAGE, Hyderabad, India. Sarmah, R. C. (2001). Private-public collaborative extension programme : Experience of Assam agricultural university. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private Extension: Indian Experiences Pp: 66-80. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Satapathy, C. and Mangaraj, A. K. (2001). Privatization of extension: An answer to rural poverty. In Shekara, P.C (ed.), Private extension in India: Myths, realities, apprehensions and approaches, Pp:45-52. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Schuster, F. E., Morden. D. L., Baker, T. E., Mckay, I. S., Dunning, K. E. and Hagan, C. M. (1997). Management practice, organization climate, and performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33 (2):209-226. Schwartz, L. A. (1994). The role of the private sector in agricultural extension: Economic analysis and case studies. Agricultural research and extension network (AGREN): Network Paper No. 48. The Overseas Development Administration (ODA). London. Shakeel, M. A. (2007). Syngenta: Its contribution toward development and promotion of plant protection technologies in agriculture of Pakistan. A seminar organized by Young Entomological Society (YES), Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
244
Shankar, K. R. (2001). Private extension in India and a SWOT analysis. In Shekara, P.C. (ed.), Private extension in India: Myths, realities, apprehensions and approaches. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Shanker, R. (1979). Literacy and adoption of improved agricultural practices. Indian Journal of Adult Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 31-38. Shekara, P. C. (2001b). Private extension in India: Myths, realities, apprehensions and approaches. In Shekara, P.C (ed.), Private extension in India: Myths, realities, apprehensions and approaches, Pp:1-17. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Shekara, C. P. (2001a). Private extension: Indian way. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences Pp:1-32. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Sher, M. (1994). An effective communication model for the acceptance of new agricultural technology by farmers in Punjab, Pakistan, Ph. D. thesis, Reading University. Singh, S. (2001). Multi-national corporations and agricultural technology transfer: A case study of contract farming in the Indian Punjab. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences Pp:33-45. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Singhal, C. S. (2001). Participatory irrigation management: A study of WUAs in Haryana. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences Pp:81-89. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Soam, S. K. (2001). A case study of extension services for organic farming in UK: Options for private extension in India. In Shekara, P.C.(ed.), Private extension: Indian experiences Pp:211-221. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Sofranko, A. J., Khan, A. and Morgan, G. (1988). Insights into farmer-extension contacts: Evidence from Pakistan. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 30(4): 293–307. Sonnvik, P. (2002). From coping to development in a peripheral rural community: A case study from Drevdagen in Sweden. Masters Thesis No. 18, Department of Rural Development Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. Squire, P. J. (1998). A study of the attitudes of traditional farmers toward the usefulness of selected channels for communicating agricultural technology in Botswana. Journal of extension systems, 14(2):59-71. Stock, T. (1995). Farmer field schools: Impact for integrated pest management in the Philippines: Implications for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Extension Systems, 11(2):46-60. Sulaiman V. R., Hall, A. and Suresh, N. (2005). Effectiveness of private sector extension in India and lessons for the new extension policy agenda. Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AGREN): Network Paper No. 141. The Overseas Development administration (ODA). London. Swamy, B. K. N. (2001). Human resource development among professionals as an approach and a challenge for privatization of extension In India. In Shekara,
245
P.C. (ed.), Private extension in India: Myths, realities, apprehensions and approaches, Pp:108-128. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad, India. Swanson, B. E. and Samy, M. M. (2002). Developing an extension partnership among public, private and non-governmental organizations. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 9(1):5-10. Tahir, M. A. (1981). A study of the gap between research recommendations and information’s level of agricultural extension field staff with special reference to sugarcane cultivation in district Sheikhupura. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Taweekul, K. (2006). Thailand: Country paper. In Sharma, V.P., (ed.). Enhancement of extension systems in agriculture,Pp:168-172. Asian Productivity organization, Tokyo, Japan. Tenorio, M. A. and Aganon, T. M. (2006). Philippines: Country paper. In Sharma, V.P., (ed.). Enhancement of Extension Systems in Agriculture, Pp: 151-159. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan. University of Agriculture Faisalabad. (2003). Undergraduate prospectus. University of Agriculture, Press. Faisalabad, Pakistan. Vega, P. J. (2004). Strategic analysis and recommendations for XYZ research corporation: A case study. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida. Venkatakumar, R., Anandaraja, N., Sripal, K. B. and Sriram, N. (2001). Privatization of agricultural extension system in India: Preferences and constraints. In Shekara, P. C. (ed) Private extension in India: Myths, realities, apprehensions and approaches. Pp:91-100. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India. Wadduwage, P. (2006). Sri Lanka: Country paper. In Sharma, V.P., (ed.). Enhancement of extension systems in agriculture, Pp:160-167. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Waseem, M. (1982). Local power structure and the relevance of rural development strategies: A case study of Pakistan. Community Development Journal, 17(3): 225-233. Wigforss, N. (2002). Scaling up the impact of rural development NGOs in Nepal: A case study of FORWARD. M.Sc. Thesis No. 17, Department of Rural Development Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. Younis, M., Ahmad, M. and Ali, Z. (1990) Agricultural economics research study. Agricultural economics section, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Zehri, N. (1993). Determination of effectiveness of agricultural extension field staff in the diffusion of agricultural information in the farmers of district Jafferabad. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis. Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
251
Appendix B Research Instrument (For Extension Field Staff)
PRIVATIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEM IN THE
PUNJAB PROVINCE, PAKISTAN: A SWOT ANALYSIS SHOUKAT ALI
Ph. D. Student, Department of Agricultural Extension University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Demographic characteristics
# Characteristic Response 1 Name (optional) 2 Name of company/sector 3 Name of district 4 Designation 5 Age (years) 6 Total job experience as an extension worker
(years)
7 Highest level of education a. B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture Yes No b. M.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture Yes No c. Ph.D. Yes No d. Any other (please specify) Yes No 8 Family background a. Rural Yes No b. Urban Yes No
9 Type of various advisory services provided by
private sector regarding crop management like: 1.
Yes 2.
No a Agronomic practices i soil analysis 1 2 ii seedbed preparation 1 iii selection of crop varieties 1 2 iv sowing time 1 v sowing methods 1 2 vi Seed treatment 1 2 vii spacing and seed rate 1 2 viii manures and fertilizers 1 2 b Plant protection i identify weed problems 1 2 ii weed control 1 2 iii identify disease problems 1 2 iv disease control 1 2 v identify insect/pests problems 1 2 vi insect/pests control 1 2 c Irrigation 1 2 d Post –harvest handling 1 2 e Marketing
252
i marketing information 1 2 ii marketing assistance 1 2
10. The strengths and weaknesses of Extension System Scale 1………great weakness 3………strength 2………weakness 4………great strength
10.1 Subject matter coverage Extension field staff provide extension services/information regarding:
Response
i Cultural and physical control 1 2 3 4 ii Mechanical control 1 2 3 4 iii Biological control 1 2 3 4 iv Judicious use of pesticides 1 2 3 4 v Farm yard manure 1 2 3 4 vi Green manure 1 2 3 4
10.2 Beneficiaries
Extension field staff: i Contact with poor farmers 1 2 3 4 ii Contact with small land holders 1 2 3 4 iii Contact with uneducated farmers 1 2 3 4 iv Deal all farmers on equality basis 1 2 3 4 v Contact with women farmers/labors 1 2 3 4
253
10.3 Professional Competency of EFS a Knowledge
Extension field staff has knowledge about:
Response
i Subject matter 1 2 3 4 ii Farming systems 1 2 3 4 iii Inputs 1 2 3 4 iv Farmers problems 1 2 3 4 v Marketing 1 2 3 4 b Attitudes
Extension field staff has favorable attitude towards: i Serving clients 1 2 3 4 iii Field work 1 2 3 4 iii Problem solving 1 2 3 4 c Skills
Extension field staff has abilities/skills like: i Technological 1 2 3 4 ii Training 1 2 3 4 iii Diagnostic 1 2 3 4 iv Finding solution of problems 1 2 3 4 d Attributes
Extension field staff has characteristics/qualities like: i Politeness 1 2 3 4 ii Good conduct 1 2 3 4 iii Empathy towards farmers 1 2 3 4 iv Flexibility 1 2 3 4
10.4 Extension method/channel
EFS uses the following extension method/channel for message delivery
Response
i farm & home visit 1 2 3 4 ii Group discussion 1 2 3 4 iii Method demonstration 1 2 3 4 iv Result demonstration 1 2 3 4 v Exhibitions 1 2 3 4 vi Telephone calls 1 2 3 4 vii Printed material 1 2 3 4 viii Audiovisual aids 1 2 3 4 ix Radio 1 2 3 4 x TV 1 2 3 4
254
10.5 Effectiveness of communication
Message: i Based on real needs 1 2 3 4 ii Contain sufficient information 1 2 3 4 iii Help to solve problem 1 2 3 4 iv Meaning are very clear 1 2 3 4 v Message on time 1 2 3 4 vi Repeated till understanding 1 2 3 4 vii Farmer is satisfied with message 1 2 3 4
10.6 Extension approach and function
extension field staff focus to: 1 2 3 4
i Increase farmers’ skill 1 2 3 4 ii Increase farmers knowledge 1 2 3 4
iii Increase farmers’ profit 1 2 3 4 iv Provides greater chance to the farmers for
sharing their experience 1 2 3 4
10.7 Marketing mix Response
i Good quality of product 1 2 3 4 ii Compensation in case of product failure 1 2 3 4 iii Follow up 1 2 3 4 iv Low/affordable price of quality product 1 2 3 4 v Regulated price 1 2 3 4 vi Provides product on credit 1 2 3 4 vii Easy terms and conditions of credit 1 2 3 4 viii Promotion images leads to right advice 1 2 3 4 xi EFS sale products directly to farmer 1 2 3 4 x Provide products at farmers door-step 1 2 3 4
10.8 Infrastructure/Job Design Facilities a Infrastructure
Extension system provides facilities to extension field staff like:
Response
ii Vehicles 1 2 3 4 iii Fuel expenses of convince 1 2 3 4 iv Repair and maintenance of convince 1 2 3 4 v Computer facility 1 2 3 4 vi Residence 1 2 3 4 vii Office 1 2 3 4 viii Mobile phone 1 2 3 4 ix Sufficient printed material to distribute among
farmers 1 2 3 4
x Chalk board 1 2 3 4 xi White board 1 2 3 4 xii Clipboards 1 2 3 4 xiii Audio Aids 1 2 3 4 xiv Visual Aids 1 2 3 4
255
xv Stationary 1 2 3 4
b Job design Extension system facilitate extension field staff with:
i Competitive salary 1 2 3 4 ii TA 1 2 3 4 iii DA 1 2 3 4 iv Rewards in return of effective work/bonus 1 2 3 4 v Well-defined duties 1 2 3 4 vi Funds to serve clients 1 2 3 4 vii Medical facility 1 2 3 4 viii Insurance 1 2 3 4 ix Participation in policy making 1 2 3 4 x Promotions on merit 1 2 3 4 xi Job security 1 2 3 4
10.9 Management/Administration characteristics Response
i Administration act as a role model 1 2 3 4 ii Timely decision making regarding extension
services/campaign 1 2 3 4
iii Effective leadership 1 2 3 4 iv Trust on subordinate 1 2 3 4 v Comfortable working relationship 1 2 3 4 vi Listen extension field staff’s point of view 1 2 3 4 vii Provide support whenever needed 1 2 3 4 viii Assist in organizing the extension activities 1 2 3 4
256
10.10 Training of extension field staff
Training was given to the extension personnel about:
Response
i Orientation just after appointment 1 2 3 4 ii Rules and regulation set by the government. for
job and organization 1 2 3 4
iii Financial transaction 1 2 3 4 iv Communication skills 1 2 3 4 v Leadership ability 1 2 3 4 vi Linkage mechanism with other related
organizations 1 2 3 4
vii Report writing 1 2 3 4 viii Production technology of seasonal crops 1 2 3 4
xi Modern technology 1 2 3 4 11. The opportunities and threats of Agricultural extension system Scale for demand: 1= Very low demand 2= Low demand 3= high demand 4= Very high demand Scale for willingness to pay: 1= strongly unwilling 2=unwilling 3=willing 4= strongly willing
11.1 Advisory Services regarding Crop Demand Willingness to pay
a Agronomic practices i Cotton 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ii Wheat 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iii Rice 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iv sugarcane 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 v Other crops (maize, pulses, mustard
etc.) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
vi Fruit 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 vii Vegetables 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 b Protection technology i Cotton 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ii Wheat 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iii Rice 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iv Sugarcane 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
257
v Other crops (maize, pulses, mustard
etc.) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
vi Fruit 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 vii Vegetables 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Miscellaneous services i Post harvest technology 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ii Soil analysis 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iii Marketing services 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iv Credit services 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 v Crop insurance 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
11.2 Resources availability at the farmers’ disposal Scale: 1=to very low extent 2= to low extent 3=to high extent 4=to very high extent
11.2 Resources availability Resource i Soil is fertile 1 2 3 4 ii Soil supports to multifarious crops 1 2 3 4 iii Sufficient canal water is available 1 2 3 4 iv Underground water is fit for crops 1 2 3 4 v Sufficient family labor 1 2 3 4 vi Labor can be hired easily 1 2 3 4 vii Labor can be hired at low cost 1 2 3 4 viii Improved/quality seed is available easily 1 2 3 4 ix Quality fertilizers are available easily 1 2 3 4 x Farmer gets reasonable price of his commodity 1 2 3 4 xi There is an easy access to credit 1 2 3 4 xii Terms and condition of credit are acceptable 1 2 3 4 Farmer has control on extension services 1 2 3 4
11.3 farmers’ willingness to participate in extension activities Scale: 1= strongly unwilling 2=unwilling 3=willing 4= strongly willing
11.3 Activities Farmer want to:
Response
i Participate in extension activities 1 2 3 4 ii Participate in training programme 1 2 3 4 iii Learn modern agricultural practices 1 2 3 4 vi Act as team work 1 2 3 4 v Involve his female worker(s) in training
programmes 1 2 3 4
vi Cultivate the farms by cooperative farming 1 2 3 4 Suggestions
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
246
Appendix A Research Instrument (For Farmers)
PRIVATIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEM IN THE
PUNJAB PROVINCE, PAKISTAN: A SWOT ANALYSIS SHOUKAT ALI
Ph. D. Student, Department of Agricultural Extension University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
District: ______________ Demographic characteristics
1 Name of the respondents (optional) 2 Name of village 3 Age of respondent (years) 4 Education (years of schooling) 5 Size of land holding (acres) 6 Tenurial status 1. Yes 2. No
i) Owner 1 2 ii) Tenant 1 2 iii) Owner- cum-tenant 1 2 7 Social status i) Nazim 1 2 ii) Counselor 1 2 ii) Numberdar 1 2 iii) Ordinary farmer 1 2 iv) Teacher 1 2 8 Source of income i) Farming 1 2 ii) Farming & Government service 1 2
iii) Farming & Business 1 2
9 Annual income (Rs)
12 Type of various advisory services provided by private sector regarding crop management like:
1. Yes
2. No
a Agronomic practices i soil analysis 1 2 ii Seedbed preparation 1 2 iii Selection of crop varieties 1 2 iv sowing time 1 2 v sowing methods 1 2 vi seed treatment 1 2 vii Spacing and seed rate 1 2 viii Manures and fertilizers 1 2
247
b Plant protection i Identify weed problems 1 2 ii Weed control 1 2 iii Identify disease problems 1 2 iv disease control 1 2 v Identify insect/pests problems 1 2 vi insect/pests control 1 2 c Irrigation 1 2 d Post –harvest handling 1 2 e Marketing i marketing information 1 2 ii marketing assistance 1 2
13. The strengths and weaknesses of Extension System Scale 1………great weakness 3………strength 2………weakness 4………great strength
13.1 Subject matter coverage Extension field staff provide extension services/information regarding:
Response
i Cultural and physical control 1 2 3 4 ii Mechanical control 1 2 3 4 iii Biological control 1 2 3 4 iv Judicious use of pesticides 1 2 3 4 v Farm yard manure 1 2 3 4 vi Green manure 1 2 3 4
13.2 Beneficiaries
Extension field staff: i Contact with poor farmers 1 2 3 4 ii Contact with small land holders 1 2 3 4 iii Contact with uneducated farmers 1 2 3 4 iv Deal all farmers on equality basis 1 2 3 4 v Contact with women farmers/labors 1 2 3 4 13.3 Professional Competency of EFS a Knowledge
EFS has knowledge about:
Response
i Subject matter 1 2 3 4 ii Farming systems 1 2 3 4
248
iii Inputs 1 2 3 4 iv Farmers problems 1 2 3 4 v Marketing 1 2 3 4 b Attitudes
EFS has favorable attitude towards: i Serving clients 1 2 3 4 iii Field work 1 2 3 4 iii Problem solving 1 2 3 4 c Skills
EFS has abilities/skills like: i Technological 1 2 3 4 ii Training 1 2 3 4 iii Diagnostic 1 2 3 4 iv Finding solution of problems 1 2 3 4 d Attributes
EFS has characteristics/qualities like: I Politeness 1 2 3 4 ii Good conduct 1 2 3 4 iii Empathy towards farmers 1 2 3 4 iv Flexibility 1 2 3 4
13.4 Extension method/channel
EFS uses the following extension method/channel for message delivery
Response
i Farm & home visit 1 2 3 4 ii Group discussion 1 2 3 4 iii Method demonstration 1 2 3 4 iv Result demonstration 1 2 3 4 v Exhibitions 1 2 3 4 vi Telephone calls 1 2 3 4 vii Printed material 1 2 3 4 viii Audiovisual aids 1 2 3 4 ix Radio 1 2 3 4 x TV 1 2 3 4
13.5 Effectiveness of communication
Message: i Based on real needs 1 2 3 4 ii Contain sufficient information 1 2 3 4 iii Help to solve problem 1 2 3 4 iv Meaning are very clear 1 2 3 4 v Delivered on time 1 2 3 4 vi Repeated till understanding 1 2 3 4 vii Satisfies the farmers 1 2 3 4
249
13.6 Extension approach and function EFS focus to:
1 2 3 4
i Increase farmers’ skill 1 2 3 4 ii Increase farmers knowledge 1 2 3 4
iii Increase farmers’ profit 1 2 3 4 iv Provides greater chance to the farmers for
sharing their experience 1 2 3 4
13.7 Marketing mix Response
i Good quality of product 1 2 3 4 ii Compensation in case of product failure 1 2 3 4 iii Follow up 1 2 3 4 iv Low/affordable price of quality product 1 2 3 4 v Regulated price 1 2 3 4 vi Provides product on credit 1 2 3 4 vii Easy terms and conditions of credit 1 2 3 4 viii Promotion images leads to right advice 1 2 3 4 xi EFS sale products directly to farmer 1 2 3 4 x Provide products at farmers door-step 1 2 3 4
14. The opportunities and threats of private extension system Scale: Scale for demand: 1= Very low demand 2= Low demand 3= high demand 4= Very high demand Scale for willingness to pay: 1= strongly unwilling 2=unwilling 3=willing 4= strongly willing
14.1 Advisory Services regarding Crop Demand Willingness to pay a Agronomic practices i Cotton 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ii Wheat 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iii Rice 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iv Sugarcane 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 v Other crops (maize, pulses, mustard
etc.) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
vi Fruit 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 vii Vegetables 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 b Protection technology i Cotton 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ii Wheat 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
250
iii Rice 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iv Sugarcane 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 v Other crops (maize, pulses, mustard
etc.) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
vi Fruit 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 vii Vegetables 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 c Miscellaneous services i Post harvest technology 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ii Soil analysis 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iii Marketing services 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 iv Credit services 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 v Crop insurance 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
14.2 Resources availability at the farmers’ disposal Scale: 1=to very low extent 2= to low extent 3=to high extent 4=to very high extent
Resources availability Response i Soil is fertile 1 2 3 4 ii Soil supports to multifarious crops 1 2 3 4 iii Sufficient canal water is available 1 2 3 4 iv Underground water is fit for crops 1 2 3 4 v Sufficient family labor 1 2 3 4 vi Labor can be hired easily 1 2 3 4 vii Labor can be hired at low cost 1 2 3 4 viii Improved/quality seed is available easily 1 2 3 4 ix Quality fertilizers are available easily 1 2 3 4 x Farmer gets reasonable price of his commodity 1 2 3 4 xi There is an easy access to credit 1 2 3 4 xii Terms and condition of credit are acceptable 1 2 3 4 xii Farmer has control on extension services 1 2 3 4
14.3 farmers’ willingness to participate in extension activities Scale: 1= strongly unwilling 2=unwilling 3=willing 4= strongly willing
Activities Farmer want to:
Response
i Participate in extension activities 1 2 3 4 ii Participate in training programme 1 2 3 4 iii Learn modern agricultural practices 1 2 3 4 vi Act as team work 1 2 3 4 v Involve his female worker(s) in training programmes 1 2 3 4 vi Cultivate the farms by cooperative farming 1 2 3 4
Suggestions
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
258
APPENDIX-C T-Test Tables Appendix C-I: T-Test considering various kinds of advisory services provided to the respondents by private sector
Kind of advisory service EFS (n=60) Farmers (n=260)
T-value
a) Agronomic practices Soil analysis 0.00 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.36 2.33 * Seedbed preparation 0.77 ± 0.43 0.13 ± 0.34 12.47 * Selection of crop varieties 0.77 ± 0.43 0.12 ± 0.32 13.07 * Sowing time 0.77 ± 0.43 0.15 ± 0.40 10.66 * Sowing methods 0.77 ± 0.43 0.18 ± 0.43 9.53 * Seed treatment 0.77 ± 0.43 0.20 ± 0.40 9.63 * Spacing and seed rate 0.83 ± 0.38 0.19 ± 0.43 10.60 * Manures and fertilizers 0.97 ± 0.18 0.33 ± 0.47 10.27 * b) Plant protection Identify weed problems 1.00 ± 0.00 0.90 ± 0.30 2.57 * Weed control 1.00 ± 0.00 0.92 ± 0.28 2.35 * Identify disease problems 1.00 ± 0.00 0.87 ± 0.33 2.94 * Disease control 1.00 ± 0.00 0.89 ± 0.32 2.74 * Identify insect/pests problems 1.00 ± 0.00 0.98 ± 0.12 0.97 NS Insect/pests control 1.00 ± 0.00 0.98 ± 0.12 0.97 NS c) Irrigation d) Post –harvest handling 1.00 ± 0.00 0.54 ± 0.50 7.09 * e) Marketing 0.37 ± 0.49 0.18 ± 0.38 3.28 * Marketing information 0.80 ± 0.40 0.03 ± 0.17 22.99 * Marketing assistance 0.18 ± 0.39 0.03 ± 0.17 4.64 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-II: T-Test considering subject matter coverage
Subject matter coverage
Extension field staff provide extension services/information regarding:
EFS (n=60) Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Cultural and physical control 2.57 ± 0.83 1.30 ± 0.51 15.16 * Mechanical control 2.47 ± 0.83 1.30 ± 0.51 13.95 * Biological control 1.37 ± 0.88 1.24 ± 0.47 1.52 NS Judicious use of pesticide 3.83 ± 0.53 1.85 ± 0.80 18.43 * Farm yard manure (FYM) 3.08 ± 0.83 1.44 ± 0.76 14.91 * Green manure (GM) 2.68 ± 1.10 1.38 ± 0.66 11.99 * Overall values 2.67 ± 0.54 1.42 ± 0.48 17.78 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
259
Appendix C-III: T-Test considering clientele/target beneficiaries Beneficiaries Extension field staff: EFS (n=60)
Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Contact with poor farmers 2.68 ± 0.95 2.07 ± 0.75 5.44 * Contact with small land holders 2.68 ± 0.95 2.07 ± 0.73 5.55 * Contact with uneducated farmers
3.45 ± 0.72 2.08 ± 0.81 11.99 *
Deal all farmers on equality basis
1.97 ± 0.61 1.53 ± 0.63 4.82 *
Contact with women farmers/labors
1.32 ± 0.70 1.13 ± 0.39 2.80 *
Overall values 2.42 ± 0.56 1.78 ± 0.56 8.00 * NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-IV: T-Test considering competency of extension field staff concerning knowledge, attitude, skills and attributes
Professional competency a) EFS has knowledge about: EFS (n=60) Farmers
(n=260) T-value
Subject matter 3.80 ± 0.40 2.18 ± 0.78 15.58 * Farming systems 3.73 ± 0.45 2.18 ± 0.78 14.82 * Inputs 3.73 ± 0.45 2.24 ± 0.78 14.18 * Farmers problems 3.63 ± 0.49 2.08 ± 0.78 14.69 * Marketing 3.50 ± 0.57 1.76 ± 0.72 17.42 * Overall values 3.68 ± 0.41 2.09 ± 0.71 16.61 * b) EFS has favorable attitude towards:
Serving clients 3.82 ± 0.39 2.18 ± 0.84 14.72 * Field work 3.85 ± 0.36 2.26 ± 0.83 14.51 * Problem solving 3.78 ± 0.42 2.08 ± 0.84 15.16 * Overall values 3.82 ± 0.37 2.17 ± 0.81 15.40 * c) EFS has skills like: Technological 3.85 ± 0.36 2.32 ± 0.84 13.80 * Training 3.82 ± 0.39 2.15 ± 0.82 15.40 * Diagnostic 3.85 ± 0.36 2.75 ± 0.97 8.66 * Finding solution of problems 3.82 ± 0.39 2.25 ± 0.89 13.33 * Overall values 3.83 ± 0.36 2.37 ± 0.81 13.69 d) EFS has Attributes Like:
Politeness 3.70 ± 0.46 3.23 ± 0.64 5.36 * Good conduct 3.87 ± 0.34 3.23 ± 0.59 7.97 * Empathy towards farmers 3.77 ± 0.43 2.21 ± 0.90 12.99 * Flexibility 3.12 ± 0.49 2.14 ± 0.80 8.99 * Overall values 3.61 ± 0.30 2.70 ± 0.60 11.30
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
260
Appendix C-V: T-Test considering extension methods/channels used by private sector Extension method/channel
EFS (n=60) Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Group discussion 3.45 ± 0.50 3.37 ± 0.57 0.96 NS Farm & home visit 3.93 ± 0.25 1.40 ± 0.81 23.90 * Method demonstration 3.60 ± 0.49 1.08 ± 0.33 48.02 * Result demonstration 3.50 ± 0.50 1.21 ± 0.59 27.89 * Exhibitions 2.53 ± 0.77 1.04 ± 0.20 27.53 * Telephone calls 3.92 ± 0.28 2.23 ± 1.09 11.91 * Printed material 3.93 ± 0.25 1.54 ± 0.83 21.93 * Audiovisual aids 1.92 ± 1.06 1.06 ± 0.29 11.36 * Radio 3.07 ± 0.69 1.15 ± 0.59 22.07 * TV 3.28 ± 0.45 2.42 ± 0.89 7.33 * Overall values 3.31 ± 0.38 1.65 ± 0.33 34.33
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-VI: T-Test considering effectiveness of communication
Characteristics of effective communication Message:
EFS (n=60) Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Based on real needs 3.90 ± 0.30 2.20 ± 0.76 16.96 * Contain sufficient information 3.73 ± 0.45 2.17 ± 0.75 15.41 * Help to solve problem 3.87 ± 0.34 2.12 ± 0.80 16.58 * Meaning are very clear 3.90 ± 0.30 2.17 ± 0.77 17.07 * Delivered on time 3.87 ± 0.34 2.17 ± 0.82 15.69 * Repeated till understanding 3.55 ± 0.50 2.01 ± 0.73 15.45 * Satisfies the farmers 3.32 ± 0.60 1.96 ± 0.86 11.57 * Overall values 3.73 ± 0.30 2.11 ± 0.74 16.64
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-VII: T-Test considering extension approach and function
Extension approach and function EFS focus to:
EFS (n=60) Farmers (n=260) T-value
Increase farmers' skill 3.77 ± 0.43 1.91 ± 0.69 19.83 * Increase farmers knowledge 3.77 ± 0.43 1.91 ± 0.69 19.83 * Increase farmers' profit 3.73 ± 0.45 1.95 ± 0.78 17.03 * Provides greater chance to the farmers for sharing their experience
3.53 ± 0.57 1.97 ± 0.81 14.10 *
Overall values 3.70 ± 0.40 1.94 ± 0.71 18.46 NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
261
Appendix C-VIII: T-Test considering marketing mix Marketing mix
EFS (n=60) Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Good quality of product 4.00 ± 0.00 2.26 ± 0.90 14.07 * Compensation in case of product failure 2.63 ± 0.58 1.33 ± 0.47 18.49 *
Follow up 3.37 ± 0.49 1.45 ± 0.63 23.71 * Low/affordable price of quality product 2.70 ± 0.83 1.33 ± 0.47 15.85 *
Regulated price 3.90 ± 0.30 1.55 ± 0.66 25.52 * Provides product on credit 1.03 ± 0.18 2.93 ± 1.03 10.84 * Easy terms and conditions of credit 1.13 ± 0.50 1.34 ± 0.49 1.63 NS Promotion images leads to right advice 3.77 ± 0.43 1.42 ± 0.58 32.48 *
EFS sale products directly to farmer 1.62 ± 0.72 1.07 ± 0.31 10.10 * Provide products at farmers door-step 1.50 ± 0.68 1.07 ± 0.31 8.66 * Overall values 2.57 ± 0.20 1.53 ± 0.37 21.02 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-IX: T-Test considering demand for agronomic practices
Advisory Services regarding Crop EFS (n=60) Farmers
(n=260) T-value
Cotton 2.58 ± 1.18 2.29 ± 1.45 1.51 NS Wheat 2.97 ± 1.02 3.47 ± 0.91 3.94 * Rice 2.35 ± 1.27 2.33 ± 1.38 0.10 NS Sugarcane 2.02 ± 1.20 2.52 ± 1.39 2.68 * Maize 1.83 ± 1.12 1.81 ± 1.24 0.14 NS Fruit 2.22 ± 1.28 1.14 ± 0.61 10.65 * Vegetables 3.02 ± 1.11 1.63 ± 1.16 8.68 * Overall values 2.43 ± 0.82 2.17 ± 0.56 3.08 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-X: T-Test considering demand for plant protection services
Advisory Services regarding Crop EFS (n=60) Farmers
(n=260) T-value
Cotton 3.48 ± 1.08 2.31 ± 1.47 5.97 * Wheat 3.90 ± 0.30 3.47 ± 0.92 3.58 * Rice 3.13 ± 1.32 2.34 ± 1.39 4.17 * Sugarcane 2.98 ± 1.38 2.53 ± 1.41 2.35 * Maize 2.58 ± 1.46 1.83 ± 1.27 4.21 * Fruit 3.00 ± 1.35 1.14 ± 0.63 17.63 * Vegetables 3.93 ± 0.25 1.59 ± 1.13 16.02 * Overall values 3.29 ± 0.63 2.17 ± 0.58 13.84 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
262
Appendix C-XI: T-Test considering demand for miscellaneous services Advisory Services regarding
EFS (n=60) Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Post harvest tech. 2.25 ± 1.45 1.16 ± 0.63 10.07 * Soil analysis 3.90 ± 0.40 3.43 ± 0.99 3.63 * Marketing services 3.97 ± 0.18 3.50 ± 0.93 3.88 * Credit services 3.97 ± 0.18 3.54 ± 0.89 3.70 * Crop insurance 3.97 ± 0.18 3.53 ± 0.87 3.77 * Overall values 3.05 ± 0.42 2.40 ± 0.55 8.91 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-XII: T-Test considering WTP for advisory services
Advisory Services regarding Crop EFS (n=60)
Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Cotton 1.88 ± 0.83 1.65 ± 0.99 1.72 NS Wheat 2.08 ± 0.77 2.26 ± 1.00 1.35 NS Rice 1.73 ± 0.84 1.77 ± 0.99 0.27 NS Sugarcane 1.58 ± 0.81 1.73 ± 0.98 1.08 NS Maize 1.47 ± 0.72 1.31 ± 0.70 1.66 NS Fruit 1.68 ± 0.81 1.10 ± 0.45 8.24 * Vegetables 2.08 ± 0.77 1.39 ± 0.81 6.21 * Overall values 1.79 ± 0.61 1.60 ± 0.52 2.53 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-XIII: T-Test considering WTP for plant protection services
Advisory Services regarding Crop EFS (n=60) Farmers
(n=260) T-value
Cotton 2.68 ± 1.10 1.70 ± 1.03 6.83 * Wheat 2.88 ± 0.85 2.31 ± 1.02 4.12 * Rice 2.30 ± 1.11 1.81 ± 1.04 3.40 * Sugarcane 2.22 ± 1.14 1.77 ± 1.04 3.09 * Maize 2.03 ± 1.19 1.32 ± 0.74 6.27 * Fruit 2.52 ± 1.27 1.10 ± 0.47 16.31 * Vegetables 2.98 ± 0.91 1.43 ± 0.86 12.98 * Overall values 2.52 ± 0.87 1.64 ± 0.55 10.61 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-XIV: T-Test considering WTP for miscellaneous services
Advisory Services regarding Crop EFS (n=60)
Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Post harvest tech. 1.87 ± 1.17 1.13 ± 0.48 8.69 * Soil analysis 3.28 ± 0.64 2.82 ± 1.02 3.43 * Marketing services 3.35 ± 0.71 2.92 ± 0.96 3.31 * Credit services 3.35 ± 0.71 2.94 ± 0.97 3.18 * Crop insurance 3.33 ± 0.71 2.96 ± 0.96 2.90 * Overall values 2.38 ± 0.59 1.86 ± 0.53 7.03 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
263
Appendix C-XV: T-Test considering resources availability
Resources availability
EFS (n=60) Farmers (n=260)
T-value
Soil is fertile 3.65 ± 0.48 3.92 ± 0.27 6.33 * Soil supports to multifarious crops
3.25 ± 0.44 3.69 ± 0.52 6.18 *
Sufficient canal water is available
3.58 ± 0.67 2.93 ± 0.96 4.75 *
Underground water is fit for crops
3.37 ± 0.61 3.65 ± 0.63 3.21 *
Sufficient family labor 3.42 ± 0.79 3.20 ± 0.81 1.98 * Labor can be hired easily 3.38 ± 0.78 3.09 ± 0.84 2.55 * Labor can be hired at low cost 2.82 ± 0.70 3.01 ± 0.88 1.66 NS Improved/quality seed is available easily
2.58 ± 0.50 2.30 ± 0.88 2.47 *
Quality fertilizers are available easily
2.60 ± 0.59 2.28 ± 0.83 2.87 *
Farmer gets reasonable price of his commodity
2.10 ± 0.63 1.40 ± 0.62 8.13 *
There is an easy access to credit
2.02 ± 0.81 2.06 ± 1.00 0.33 NS
Terms and condition of credit are acceptable
1.42 ± 0.53 1.28 ± 0.51 1.87 NS
Extension personnel are accountable to farmers
1.33 ± 0.57 1.10 ± 0.30 4.85 *
Overall values 2.96 ± 0.31 2.83 ± 0.42 2.35 * NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Appendix C-XVI: T-Test considering farmers’ willingness to participate in organizational and extension activities
Activity Farmer’s willingness to: EFS (n=60) Farmers
(n=260) T-value
Participate in extension activities
3.62 ± 0.49 3.54 ± 0.74 0.81 NS
Participate in training program 3.47 ± 0.50 3.56 ± 0.74 0.91 NS Learn modern agricultural practices
3.43 ± 0.67 3.57 ± 0.72 1.40 NS
Act as team work during activity
2.38 ± 0.78 2.75 ± 0.92 2.92 *
Involve his female worker(s) in training programs/activity
1.55 ± 0.85 1.58 ± 0.88 0.27 NS
Cultivate the farms by cooperative farming
1.85 ± 0.92 1.98 ± 1.12 0.89 NS
Overall values 2.72 ± 0.50 2.83 ± 0.62 1.36 NS NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
