See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233713174

Comparative Study of Agricultural Extension Systems: A Systemic View

Article  in  Outlook on Agriculture · December 2009

DOI: 10.5367/000000009790422133

CITATIONS READS
21 11,620

2 authors:

Hossein Azadi Glen Filson

University of Guelph
312 PUBLICATIONS   5,479 CITATIONS   
50 PUBLICATIONS   429 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

VN PhD View project

PhD Thesis: The Impacts of Industrialization on Farmer’s Livelihoods, Land Use and the Environment in Ethiopia: The Cases of Gelan and Dukem Towns View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Glen Filson on 21 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparative study of
agricultural extension
systems
A systemic view
Hossein Azadi and Glen Filson

Abstract: An increasing volume of literature deals with different meanings of the

term ‘extension’ due to the many different agricultural extension systems (AESs) in
use. Acknowledging the diversity of AESs, the authors recognize that there is
usually a bias towards some specific aspect of these interventions that indicates a
need to consider a systemic framework for comparative studies. The main purpose of
this contribution is therefore to identify such a systemic view, which could be
applied to comparative studies of AESs. Three levels of analysis should be
scrutinized for considering a systemic view: micro (institutional), meso (national)
and macro (international). At the most basic level, all AESs are involved in both
intra-actions and interactions of the extension institution. For this reason, the aim
of many studies has been to evaluate the institutional functions of extension
practices. The functions at this lowest level are used to predict not only how
extension professionals think and act, but how they react to their different target
groups. The main question at the micro level is therefore to understand how a
country can reach its agri-rural development goals through extension institutions
and what institutional arrangements and funding trends help to achieve those goals.
At the meso level, the most important considerations are national expectations,
which lead to governmental support for or restrictions on the extension institution.
Socioeconomic conditions and their consequences largely determine what the
extension tasks should be. The main question at this level is why a country needs
extension services, which define the different missions for them in different
countries. Finally, at the macro level of analysis, it is important first to consider
international components and their impact on the level of socioeconomic
development of particular countries and, then, the extension missions. The main
issue at this level is therefore to understand what international forces and
considerations affect the present situation of a country and hence create new
expectations of the extension system.

Keywords: agricultural extension systems; comparative study; systemic view

Dr Hossein Azadi is with the Centre for Development Studies, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University
of Groningen, PO Box 800, Landleven 1, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands.
E-mail: hos.azadi@gmail.com. Glen Filson is Professor of Capacity Development and Extension at the
School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Canada.
E-mail: gfilson@uoguelph.

Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4, 2009, pp 337–347 337

Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
Many serious efforts have been made to develop the
agricultural sector under the label of ‘extension’, which
traditionally comprises notions of ‘partnership agencies’
(Wilson, 1952), ‘learning by doing’ (Kelsey and Hearne,
1955), ‘accelerating factors’ (Mosher, 1976),
‘communicational tools’ (Roling, 1979), ‘non-formal
education’ (Boone, 1989), ‘adult education’ (Rivera,
1998a), ‘bridges between scientists and farmers’ (Timmer,
1982), ‘transfer of technology’ (Chambers and Ghildyal,
1985), ‘transferring knowledge (Roling, 1988) or
information’ (Umali and Schwartz, 1994), ‘clientele
orientation’ (Tooker, 1987), ‘simulating factors’ (van den
Ban, 1986), ‘persuasive communication’ (Melkote, 1998),
‘advisory services’ (Percy, 1999), ‘helping farmers to learn
how to organize themselves effectively’ (Azadi and
Karami, 1999) and ‘policy instruments’ (van den Ban and
Hawkins, 1988). This label is then augmented by terms
such as: ‘as a part of the Agriculture Knowledge and
Information System (AKIS)’ (Roling, 1988), a ‘preparing
approach’ (Patton, 1993), ‘development support
communication’ (Melkote, 1998), ‘farmer-led’
(Scarborough et al, 1997), ‘empowering farmers’ (Shahvali
and Azadi, 1999a), ‘promoting deprived rural people
participation’ (Oakley and Marsden, 1985; Bayer and
Bayer, 1994; Pretty et al, 1995; Wilson, 1992; Chambers,
1997) and ‘institutional input’ (Davidson et al, 2001).
Extension has most recently been termed ‘capacity
building’ (Faure and Kleene, 2004), ‘social learning’
(Leeuwis, 2004), ‘customer-demand’ (Rivera and Zijp,
2002), ‘demand-driven’ (Bernet et al, 2001; Gustafson,
2004; Lightfoot, 2004; Rivera and Alex, 2004), ‘demand-
led’, ‘contracting extension’ (Rivera and Zijp, 2002) and
‘responsive institution’ (Garforth, 2004). Public
agricultural extension services around the world are being
forced to adapt to new funding constraints and a
changing agricultural sector. The global perspective on
extension is no longer that of a unified public sector
service, but of a multi-institutional network of knowledge
and information support for rural people (Swanson and
Pehu, 2004). In discussions of what extension really is,
there is usually considerable confusion in that current
practice is not distinguished from ideal practice (Rivera et
al, 1989). While the most vital element of the extension
process is constituted by objectives (Karami, 1994), the
emphasis on various extension objectives differs from
country to country (van den Ban, 1986). The goals, for
example, shift from the creation of surpluses for a
metropolitan context only, to providing income-
generating opportunities for small farmers; to increasing
equity in rural areas; to broad, integrated rural
development; or to organizing rural people to allow them
to bring about their own development and countervail
exploitative forces (Roling, 1982).
An important question is how countries promote and
achieve the changes in extension (Table 1) that will
advance extension’s potential to enhance agricultural and
rural development in the twenty-first century (Rivera,
1997).
As Warner and Christenson (1984, p 124) have stated,
‘extension needs to understand “what is” before it can
predict where the agency “ought to be” in the future’. To
show the importance of this question, Roling (1982, p 87)
discussed how, when extension objectives change, other
338
Table 1. Public sector extension areas likely to be subjected to
change in the next decade.
Area of change Challenge for the next few years
The advice itself Complement the focus on agricultural
production with attention to rural
income, but with increasing concern
for sustainability of natural resources
and the environment, plus the
organization of farmers into relevant
associations.
The stakeholders Promote the participation of farmers in
extension programme development
activities (programme planning,
implementation and evaluation), and
perhaps widen the present focus on
farmers to include the rural poor.
The source of Complement the present focus on
information agricultural research as the exclusive
source of information with a
capitalization on local knowledge,
public–private dialogue and
international networking.
Information channels Complement the dominant role of
face-to-face extension with
information technology, both for
cost-effective delivery and for
empowerment of the rural poor.
Institutional Move from evaluation of performance-
management related extension to result-related
extension; and facilitate interrelations
coordination of public and private
extension services.
The concept of transfer Shift away from a linear, sequential
model of generation, transfer and
utilization of technology towards a
model that recognizes each
stakeholder’s ability to gather and
apply new information, and thus shift
away from a message-oriented and
target-oriented audience approach to
concern for the quality of the
interactions and the role of
government in providing a platform
for those interactions.
Funding Balance public support for extension
with farmers‘ and private
contributions, whereby government
funding is primarily justified by
positive externalities, poverty
targeting and infant industry support.
Source: Adapted from Rivera, 1997.
elements, including ‘target group, offering, method, and
organization’ may also change, because they all form an
interconnected set. In fact, the systemic character of this
process has been insufficiently understood and has led to
the comparison of individual fundamental notions in
attempts to gain a better understanding of agricultural
extension systems (AESs). Since a comparative study of
agricultural extension should provide a holistic insight
and, thereby, a powerful basis for practical action, it is
important to avoid probable biases and understand
all aspects of an AES by taking a systemic view into
account.
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4
 Comparative study of agricultural extension systems

International

National

Institutional

Macro Meso Micro Institutional intra-action and interaction, tasks, Micro Meso Macro
performance, arrangements, structural
tendencies, finances…

Extension institution
Food security, export, equity…

General goals of agri-rural development

International forces, demands, challenges…

International exchanges

Figure 1. The proposed framework: to make a systemic comparison of agricultural extension systems, three different levels – micro
(institutional), meso (national) and macro (international) should be considered.

The goal of this paper
An ideal goal of the comparative research effort presented
here is to build a systematic framework for all comparable
cases and hence to generalize the findings as much as
possible. This paper aims therefore to set up an
appropriate systemic framework and to help policy
makers think through what it takes to design successful
ones. This can also help ‘researchers’ to ascend from the
initial level of exploratory case studies to the more
advanced level of general theoretical models (Routio,
2006), and in so doing aid those policy makers who are
concerned with where changes are needed and where
resources might best be allocated (Rivera et al, 1989).
A systemic view
The comparative study of AESs is a truly interdisciplinary
venture (see Blackburn, 1989). Analysing the causes and
consequences of extension interventions requires crossing
the conventional boundaries of extension approaches
(Axinn, 1988) because they shape and are shaped by
institutional intra/interaction, socio-political
arrangements and the international economy. The
working area of extension is broad and it is difficult to
discount the importance of any of these aspects.
Explaining an AES is further complicated by the fact
that each discipline is composed of subdisciplines, sub-
areas and subfields that tend to emphasize one particular
slice of agricultural and rural development (see
Blackburn, 1989). It is therefore important to understand
both inter and intra elements of AESs and their functions
in emphasizing a holistic view. These elements can be
distinguished by their levels of analysis, which are mainly
‘micro’ (institutional), ‘meso’ (national) and ‘macro’
(international), as shown in Figure 1.
Each level of analysis identifies particular sets of causal
factors. According to Jaffee (1998), the socioeconomic
considerations of a systemic view might include the
attitudes and values of individuals, the system of
industrial relations, the rules and logic governing the
economic system, the policies of the state, or a nation’s
position in an international interaction. These
independent variables, or predictors of AES functions, are
observed at different levels of analysis. The attitudes and
values of an extension agent, for instance, operate at the
level of his or her professional ‘extension/institution’ role.
The institution also establishes some intra/interrelations,
which should be considered when comparing two or more
AESs.
Micro level: institutional
At the most basic level, all AESs are involved in both
intra- and interactions of the extension institution. For this
reason, the aim of many studies has been the evaluation of
the many institutional functions of the extension system.
The functions at this lowest level can be enlisted in the
prediction not only of how extension staff think and act
within their formal and informal institutional interactions
(Agunga and Ojomo, 1997), but also in how they react to
their different target groups, which might be involved in
other agri-rural development subsystems, mainly research
institutions. Since socioeconomic, political and technical
changes inevitably impact on the institution of
agricultural extension and also bring pressure on it to
change (Rivera, 1997), the main question at the micro level
is therefore to understand how a country can reach its

Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4 339

Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
agri-rural development goals through extension and what
institutional arrangements need to be created to achieve
these goals. The basic issues at this level might thus
include ‘what kinds of reward and structural
arrangements might differentially influence the
performance of different kinds of extension professionals’
and ‘what kinds of role playing might differentiate
different kinds of the professionals for training and
selection purposes’.
Van den Ban (1986) asks whether the task of the
extension service is to help farmers to learn how to
organize themselves effectively, or whether this should be
a function of some other governmental or non-govern-
mental organization. He believes this to be a politically
sensitive and important question. While in many
developed countries, farmers’ organizations play
important roles in the economic and political life of the
country (Esman and Uphoff, 1988; Chamala and Mortiss,
1990; Kislev et al, 1991; Fulton, 1995; Kimhi, 1996;
Cristóvão and Pereira, 2004), the issue has not yet been
clearly addressed for developing countries (Azadi and
Karami, 2001).
Assessments at the institutional level also show that,
unlike tasks undertaken by organizations, which are
predefined, and the functions identified in accordance
with these tasks, the agent is not only concerned with the
nature of the tasks themselves, but rather with the inter/
intra processes involved in the organization. On the other
hand, extension agents, in the role of government
representatives in the village, are often asked to perform
other functions, such as input distribution and tax
collection (Boone, 1989; Swanson et al, 1990). Neverthe-
less, many studies have analysed the influence of
institutional attributes on the performance of extension
staff (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; Ntifo-Siaw and
Agunga, 1994) and indicated why institutional attributes
should be considered as functional roles of extension
agents.
Considering the institutional performance of extension
staff, van den Ban (1986) for instance, points to
McGregor’s X and Y theories. Theory X implies that
extension staff will only work if they are forced to do so,
whereas theory Y implies that the staff will only work if
they are mainly motivated by their desire to do their jobs
well.
Van den Ban (1986) also points to the theory of rate of
investment return. Remarking on a study by Evenson, he
believes that investments in agricultural research and
extension often produce a higher rate of return than
investments in infrastructure, though the amounts
invested in the latter are much larger than the amounts
invested in extension and research. Investments in
infrastructural works, however, remain politically more
attractive because they are more visible. The challenge is
to establish institutional arrangements that ensure clients
receive advisory and other services that satisfy their own
demands within parameters compatible with government
policy (Garforth et al, 2003).
Yet most case studies are less concerned with the
specifics of the agent’s role, for example, his/her
techniques and methods, and more with making
institutional changes that will lead to extension service
providers being more responsive to what clients want
340
(Bernet et al, 2001; Rivera and Zijp, 2002; Gustafson, 2004;
Lightfoot, 2004; Rivera and Alex, 2004). In most cases,
they involve changing the distribution of power and
responsibilities among three key actors: (i) clients,
(ii) those who deliver the service and (iii) government.
Many others have responsiveness to client demand high
on their list of objectives, which is a primary rationale for
privatization (Garforth, 2004).
In short, a few countries will follow one current
tendency to ‘privatize’ national public sector extension
systems; others will probably take major steps to
‘revitalize’ (Tchouamo and Steele, 1997) or otherwise
reform their national extension systems. Still others will
choose to ‘decentralize’ their system structurally, fiscally
or managerially (Rivera, 1997). In the meantime, the
public versus private distribution of AESs has usually been
a source of debate. In the past decade or so, there has been
a significant reduction in publicly funded AESs and a
dramatic increase in the privately funded sector. Many of
these privatized systems present information provided by
agribusinesses such as seed companies, which may be
biased towards the particular company dispensing the
information.
In order to understand how the privatization of
extension systems relates to globalization and agricultural
industrialization, it is useful to consider how capitalism’s
third agricultural revolution, which occurred in several
waves, developed. In the 1890s, mechanization, using
steam and later fossil fuel-based tractors, was followed by
chemical farming in the 1950s and food manufacturing in
North America and later Western Europe in the 1960s and
70s, all of which accelerated the industrialization of
agriculture worldwide. As agriculture became more
industrialized, it became more concentrated (integrating
increasingly large farms with food processing) and
specialized (as particular products accounted for more of
each region’s output) (Bowler, 1992).
‘The pace of globalization increases as production
becomes more internationalized, capital becomes more
mobile, nation-states are eroded, internet communica-
tion technologies become widespread, and ideology
increasingly emphasizes trade and investment
liberalization [and] privatization.’ (Filson, 2004, p 37)
Similar processes are under way internationally within
agricultural extension, even though agriculture is not
industrializing uniformly worldwide. Although publicly
funded agricultural extension has existed in some form
for close to a thousand years (Mazoyer and Roudart,
1997), it became elaborated in North America and Europe
in the nineteenth century as legislation was passed to
improve the state of agriculture through education. In
Ontario, Canada, for instance, agricultural representatives
(or extensionists) were being hired by the provincial
government as early as 1906 (Blackburn and Vist, 1989).
Just as the International Monetary Fund launched its
Structural Adjustment Programme in 1983, which among
other major changes involved extensive privatization of
public resources in developing countries (Drafor et al,
2000), developed countries also often privatized their
extension systems massively (Kidd et al, 1999). In both the
North and the South, public extension budgets collapsed,
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4

justified by the claim that they were often irrelevant to
farmers’ needs or that they were inefficient relative to the
private sector (Anderson and Feder, 2004). One of the
biggest criticisms in developed capitalist countries was
that public extension systems were incapable of
responding to the specialized needs of farmers who were
now, more often than before, concentrating their
production on a few, particular types of products
(Davidson and Ahmad, 2003).
This notion that public extension services are no longer
adequate to meet the changing needs of farmers in many
developing countries is increasingly emphasized in the
literature and reflected in the strategies of development
agencies (Fleischer et al, 2004). For instance, problems
encountered with the once popular Training and Visit
(T&V) system have generated frustration among donor
agencies and caused an unwillingness to invest further in
large-scale public agricultural extension programmes. To
some, the solution is seen to lie in strengthening the role
of the private sector in the delivery of information and
services (Umali-Deininger, 1997; van den Berg, 2001).
Indeed, since the early 1980s, important changes have
been taking place in both higher- (the North) and lower-
income countries (the South) with regard to the
involvement of public and private sectors in the financing
and provision of extension. The central idea is that
farmers should be given opportunities for obtaining the
advice and information they seek from those most able
and willing to provide it. It is postulated that with
reduced public involvement, private professionals will fill
the gap of information delivery, while competition would
encourage them to do this at as low a cost as possible
(Maalouf et al, 1991; Rivera and Gustafson, 1991).
Others argue that the public sector should maintain its
role in knowledge and information transfer. The emerging
renaissance of agricultural and rural development, as
reflected in updated strategies of major donors such as the
World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural
Development and others, is likely again to draw the
attention of public policy makers to public goods delivery,
involving food security, poverty alleviation and
sustainable management of natural resources.
Government extension services are one important vehicle,
if not the primary one, for reaching out and gaining access
to rural communities. Universal privatization of extension
may find its limitations where market failures, such as a
monopolized supply structure and bundled services
occur, or where incremental social benefits such as
environmental externalities play a large role (Hanson and
Just, 2001).
In many countries, existing agricultural extension
institutions are squeezed between the legacy of the T&V
scheme (Benor and Harrison, 1977) and the demands for
new, more participatory approaches that respond better to
the actual needs of clients (Shahvali and Azadi, 1999b).
This situation has several dimensions in terms of
organizational structure and culture, partnerships and
finances. Generic problems of centrally managed and
highly bureaucratic extension agencies included a lack of
accountability to clients; poorly maintained linkages to
knowledge generation; few resources for training and
operations; and a top-down orientation towards
technology transfer (Feder et al, 1999).
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4
Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
In fact, any prediction concerning the structural
tendency of extension hinges critically on the mobilization
of additional funds. New extension approaches that are
participatory and more responsive to client needs (Rivera
and Zijp, 2002) must demonstrate their superiority over
old approaches, including superior economic
performance. Financial sustainability of extension is
especially crucial in times of scarcity of public funds
(Quizon et al, 2001). However, data on the costs and
benefits of extension services have been particularly
scarce (Fleischer et al, 2004; Azadi, 2007).
Among the other major structural issues in the existing
extension system is the source of research problems and
the technology being generated. It has too often been
assumed that research and technology are value-neutral
(Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). This assumption has been
questioned several times (Roling et al, 1976; Goss, 1979;
Melkote, 1998). Research, like any other institution, grows
competitively by patronage and has over the years
become progressively more expensive. Research
institutions thus grew, and some became centres of
excellence. The least developed countries could not afford
such high-priced luxuries and had to depend on more
developed nations. In agriculture, this has turned out to
be disastrous for the disadvantaged, who are today the
majority of the rural population in the less developed
countries (UNFPA, 2005). Agricultural research
institutions oriented towards the problems of the rich
farmers in rich countries have become distanced from the
problems of poor farmers in the poor countries (Shahvali
and Azadi, 1999b). Thus, technologies developed in
internationally funded research stations such as IRRI (the
Philippines), CIMMYT (Mexico), ICRISAT (India),
Rothamsted (UK) or the Royal Tropical Institute
(Netherlands), while being designed to save whole
countries if not the world, were sometimes irrelevant to
small farmers (Roy, 1982).
The importance of an appropriate inter-linkage
between research and extension systems is well
recognized (Cernea et al, 1985; Roling, 1988, Bennett, 1989;
Kaimowitz et al, 1989; Merrill-Sands and Kaimowitz, 1989;
Pray and Echeverria, 1989; Bennett, 1990; Uquillas and
Navas, 1993; Falvey and Forno, 1997; Shahvali and Azadi,
1999b; Ison and Russell, 2000), as is the intra-linkage
between the partners in some systems such as farming
systems research and extension work (Shaner et al, 1982;
Sands, 1986; Dolly, 1997; Shahvali and Azadi, 1999b;
Schmitz, 2004). Nonetheless, the linkages between the
agricultural education system and agricultural researchers
(Falvey and Maguire, 1997), market managers, credit
providers and agricultural input suppliers tend to be
minimal, and the prevailing pattern throughout much of
the world is to have them administered separately by
different government agencies, although some systems,
such as the Cooperative Extension Systems, have a better
record of research/extension integration than others.
Generally speaking, close functional relationships need to
be established and maintained (Rivera, 1998b).
In short, research and extension are often built into the
lowest unit of implementation. Problems and projects
emerge from the target group. One realizes that, given the
world’s present store of traditional and modern
technology, very small alterations and optimal selection of
341
Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
technologies are sufficient to solve most local problems,
maximally utilizing local people’s motivation, knowledge
and skills (Roy, 1982).
As we see, at an institutional level, there are many
factors that have been investigated by different
researchers that are based primarily on their own view or
research problems. As a result, two important issues are
evident at this level: the diversity of factors and the
number of completed research projects, often with a
variety of theoretical perspectives.
Meso level: national
Jaffee (1998) argues that the performance of organizations
is influenced by the national environment, which mainly
includes social opportunities, norms, rules, etc, and can
influence the function of all organizations. This environ-
ment and consequently the goals may change from time to
time, especially due to new international relations, which
are discussed at the macro level. Sometimes, improving
the performance of the extension efforts or, alternatively,
diminishing it, provides a better environment.
The most important factors at this level are concerned
with national expectations within a society with regard to
the extension institution. These may, for example, be
expressed in governmental support for, or restrictions on,
the institution. The general economic conditions in a
country and their consequences (behind the economic
processes) would largely determine what the extension
tasks should be. The main question at this level is
therefore to understand why a country needs the extension
institution. The above argument results in different
missions for extension between and sometimes within
(mostly democratic) countries such as the USA and
Canada, and case studies are required to recognize the
national goals for agri-rural development and
consequently the extension missions.
Roling (1982), for instance, believes that the most
common reason for a government to employ an extension
service is probably to guarantee the nation’s food security
at first and export crop production thereafter. Only a
national objective such as this can legitimize the spending
of taxpayers’ money to assist a specific professional
category. Even when alternative objectives are embraced
by the national extension service, the need to increase
national agricultural production usually remains very
much in evidence. One could propose that a focus on
small farmers is the best way to increase national
production in poor countries where many small-scale
farmers produce a large amount of agricultural
production. In practice, however, short-term
considerations render the orientation to national
production inconsistent with one source of the small
farmer ’s income. With an outlook on national food and
export crop production, targets are set, and success is
measured by, for example, the amount of surplus
production. With such a measure, it is rational for
extension to focus on the optimal performance of either
small or large-scale farmers. On the other hand, increasing
farmer incomes can be a real alternative to increasing
national production when the benefit to the farmer
becomes the central issue: success is measured at the farm
level, and the focus is not only on increasing production
on a large number of hectares, but also on increasing
342
production on a large number of farms. In fact, most
nations would nowadays try to avoid those policies that
deliberately impoverish rural areas to boost metropolitan
consumption. Furthermore, most nations realize that,
notwithstanding the fact that farmers must pay for
national development including, for example, civil service
salaries, one cannot expect them to do so without reaping
some benefit for themselves.
Van den Ban (1986, p 93) believes that to use extension
as a policy instrument to stimulate development, several
questions should be posed:
(1) Which developments are desirable?
(2) Are the same developments desirable for all groups of
farmers? If not, which group should the extension
service try to help most?
(3) In which circumstances does national interest
coincide/conflict with the interest of farmers?
(4) To what extent are the policy makers themselves an
important target group for the extension service?
While in many developing countries, poverty alleviation
is nowadays an important goal of agricultural develop-
ment policies (van den Ban, 1986), Blackburn et al (1982)
have shown, in a socioeconomic case study in Ontario,
that much of Canada’s agricultural policy, along with
those of many other nations, has traditionally been based
on theories of ‘a rational economic man’, which can easily
be followed by a private extension service. Most private
extension services are, however, not interested in helping
poor subsistence farmers. This can only be done by
governments, but it requires that extension workers are
rewarded for working with these farmers, who are often
hard to reach. In general, the choice of the goals for an
extension service depends on the reasons why the desired
kind of modern agriculture has not yet been achieved
(van den Ban, 1986). Still others are morally committed to
equitable policies because of ideological convictions and
because of the realization that rural areas must be viable
in their own right, since adequate alternative, non-rural
employment opportunities will not be forthcoming in the
foreseeable future (Roling, 1982).
With regard to equitable policies, Kumar and Roy
(1979, cited in Roy, 1982) ask: ‘What are the new social
organizations needed, to re-structure the development of
poverty groups?’ Roy (1982) points to one participative
planning study, which showed that even among the
landless and near-landless, not all members are interested
or involved in the same project. One group of landless
and marginal farmers may be involved in a tube-well
cooperative, another in a fishery cooperative, a third in a
dairy project, and a fourth in weaving. There may be some
overlap in families belonging to two cooperatives, but the
skills needed, the management, marketing, financing and
repayment schedules are all very different. One group
may be distributing water and repairing diesel pumps,
while a second may be catching fish every day in half a
dozen tanks and getting them to market at dawn. The
optimal size of unit needed and the most economic
federation of units have to evolve over time as each
cooperative expands or declines. The term ‘non-formal
structure’ is purposely somewhat contradictory, as it is
meant to reflect a certain hesitance in being able to predict
or prescribe the form an organization will take.
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4

The participative planning structure for working with
poverty groups that employs a non-directive mode of
developing priority problems into feasible projects has, of
necessity, to be extremely flexible, but is also time-
consuming. The optimal size of a group, the type of
projects it undertakes, the non-formal education required
for skills transfer and raising the consciousness and
horizons through ‘key’ words, all begin to reveal a unique
character to each group project. The diffusion of approach
among similar poverty groups is likely to be achieved by
members of the poverty groups themselves. The
measurement of success and failure would be on a mix of
material and non-material criteria and would change over
time (Roy, 1982).
Macro level: international
According to Jaffee’s (1988) framework, it is important to
consider international priorities and their impacts on the
level of socioeconomic development of particular
countries first and of the extension’s missions last. The
main question at this level is therefore to understand what
international forces and functions affect the present
situation of a country and finally create new expectations
from the extension. These relations can influence, both
directly and indirectly, the national goals and
consequently the objectives of the extension institution.
Unfortunately, international relations and their impacts on
extension (Azadi and Gorjievsky, 2005) have received little
attention, while, in contrast, numerous studies have been
done at both the meso and especially the micro level.
Starting from the idea that general social, economic and
political processes manifest themselves in ever changing,
historically specific shapes, the reports imply that the
impact of economic restructuring, the significance of
governance at various levels and the conditional use of
social capital are critical elements for those wishing to
supplement their knowledge of globalization, economics,
labour, technology and the extension institution.
Karami (1986), for example, has argued that the
diffusion of capital, technology, social values and
institutions may be seen to occur on three scales, which
are mainly macroscale (metropolis to satellite), mesoscale
(urban to rural) and microscale (within rural). He believes
that, at the macroscale, this model clarifies that
development occurs through the transfer of capital from
developed to underdeveloped countries. Nonetheless,
most available statistics, including those compiled by the
official agencies of developed countries, show precisely
the opposite. Frank (1971) observed that the developed
countries transferred to the underdeveloped countries
only those technologies that were consistent with their
interest. There are, however, more altruistic transfers of
technology among developed countries and among
underdeveloped countries, in addition to technology
transferred from underdeveloped to more economically
developed countries (Mazoyer and Roudart, 1997).
Ethnobotany, for example, is a field that has recognized
that substantial traditional ecological and agroecological
knowledge can be utilized for environmental
management, thus showing that Northern-based science
has no monopoly on environmental management
knowledge (Freeman, 1992). On the other hand, some
pharmaceutical companies have often appropriated the
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4
Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants and trees to
create expensive drugs, without remunerating the
indigenous peoples in developing countries who
discovered the medicinal value of these plant extracts in
the first place (Zweifal, 1996).
In explaining the international components and their
influence on extension, Karami (1986) concluded that
throughout sociology’s history, the two general theoretical
perspectives for the study of development have been
ubiquitous: equilibrium and conflict. The equilibrium
approach has been classified into that adopted by
behaviourists, psycho-dynamicists and diffusionists,
while the conflict approach has been used by
structuralists. If one accepts the underlying assumption of
the diffusionist approach, development issues are largely
to do with mainly technical solutions to the problem of
increasing rates of growth. In most underdeveloped
countries, in his opinion, the consequences of application
of a diffusionist approach in agricultural extension can be
explained as follows:
(1) The objectives of extension services are frequently
limited to the problem of increasing production.
(2) The agricultural extension strategy is designed to
create a group of so-called ‘progressive’ farmers
through whom new ideas and techniques can be
diffused.
(3) In order to access the impact of theoretical
assumptions of the diffusionist approach, not only the
‘how’ extension processes should be criticized, but
also the ‘what’ of the extension content has to be
scrutinized.
(4) Furthermore, diffusion of Western technology will
increase dependency relations. As Frank notes, these
relations lead to continued enrichment of
metropolises and the perpetual stagnation and
poverty of satellites.
In the aftermath of the collapse of communism, Russian
and Ukrainian large, former state and collective farms
were privatized to varying degrees. Under the communist
system, extension was largely an internal matter occurring
within each state and in collective farms with very little
connection to the relatively abundant agricultural research
institutes. In the post-Soviet period, small farmers in
particular had limited funds to hire agricultural
consultants. Under these conditions, there was a growing
demand for publicly funded forms of agricultural
extension, as it was reckoned that ‘the main condition for
the sustainability of extension centres is government
support’ (Gomeniuk, 2006, p 109). The growth of public
agricultural systems in the former USSR, China (Filson et
al, 2003) and Vietnam (van Linh, 2001) runs counter to the
tendency in many other parts of the world.
Abell (cited by Karami, 1986) criticized most
internationally aided extension programmes and claimed
that only a few of these programmes could extend
tangible benefits to the rural people in the so-called
developing countries. Roling (1982) believed that some
governments embraced such objectives because that was a
condition for getting support from major donor countries
and international agencies. As part of a ‘new policy
agenda’ among many donors and international
institutions, a fundamental review of the overall role of
343
Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
the state in society is under way in many countries in the
North (Cary, 1993) and the South (Rivera, 1997). Still
others feel that it is only by way of such objectives that
the purchasing power of the modal inhabitants of the
country can be increased, which is a prerequisite for
industrial development. Karami (1986) deems that these
discussions take us logically to the major question of what
development is. Considering the three main questions of
Seers (1982): ‘What has been happening to poverty? What
has been happening to unemployment? What has been
happening to inequality?’ Todaro (1977) believes that such
questions are mainly concerned with the policies of
economic development. The policies induce governments,
either directly or indirectly, to dictate some new missions
for extension (Kidd et al, 1999). Economic theory and the
concepts of public and private goods can also frequently
be used to decide what extension services should finally
be rendered (Umali and Schwartz, 1994; Beynon, 1996).
Issues of good governance also add to the pressure for
decentralization and a reduced role for extension services
(Kidd et al, 1999). So it is obvious that the basic problem
of agricultural development policy is also a problem of
adjusting farming to socio-cultural changes in a changing
world (Eltahir Eltayeb, 2005).
Conclusion
Throughout this paper, the emphasis has been on the
multitude of factors that need to be considered in
comparative studies of agricultural extension systems.
The conclusion is drawn that the avoidance of probable
biases in such studies requires an understanding of all the
aspects of AESs, for which a systemic view involving
three (micro, meso and macro) levels of analysis is
needed. We believe that this systemic process has not yet
been sufficiently understood.
The number of studies and the investigated factors
identified clearly decrease as the three levels progress
and become particularly sparse at the meso and micro
levels. Thus, it is seen that most extension professionals
are, for the most part, committed to the investigation of
intra-/inter-institutional factors that are easier to source
and evaluate (and are more readily understood) and
they tend to neglect meso and macro level extension
issues
To establish how to promote and adjust extension
efforts within the framework of an AES, we recommend
that both extension professionals and policy makers
employ a systemic approach to the task. But the issues
included for consideration must incorporate notions of
the level of development of the systems of agricultural
production employed within the economy being studied.
References
Agunga, R., and Ojomo, C. (1997), ‘Burnout, job satisfaction and
work situation as perceived by district extension officers, Ondo
State, Nigeria’, Journal of International Agricultural and Extension
Education, Vol 4, No 1, pp 47–56.
Anderson, J. R., and Feder, G. (2004), ‘Agricultural extension:
good intentions and hard realities’, The World Bank Research
Observer, Vol 19, No 1, pp 41–60.
Axinn, G. H. (1988), Guide on Alternative Extension Approaches,
FAO, Rome.
Azadi, H. (2007), ‘Influencing the financial support of agricultural
344
extension on the yield of wheat and barley: an economic
assessment’, Jihad (Agricultural Extension and Rural Development
Journal), Vol 27, pp 38–53.
Azadi, H., and Gorjievsky, M. (2005), ‘Factors influencing on
success of immigrant entrepreneurship: a conceptual frame-
work’, Proceedings of the European Congress of Work &
Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), 12–15 May, Istanbul.
Azadi, H., and Karami, E. (1999), ‘Constructs affecting the
success of mechanization associations in Fars province’, A
Quarterly Journal of Rural Development Studies, Vol 3, No 2,
pp 27–64.
Azadi, H., and Karami, E. (2001), ‘Comparison of mechanization
unit of rural cooperatives, production cooperatives and
mechanization companies in Fars province, Iran’, Journal of
Science and Technology of Agriculture and National Resources, Vol
5, No 3, pp 33–48.
Bayer, A. W., and Bayer, W. (1994), Planning with Pastoralists: PRA
and More. A Review of Methods Focused on Africa, German Agency
for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Eschborn.
Bennett, C. (1989), ‘Improving coordination of extension and
research’, in Blackburn, D. J., ed, Foundations and Changing
Practices in Extension, University of Guelph, Guelph,
pp l18–128.
Bennett, C. (1990), Cooperative Extension Roles and Relationships for
a New Era: A New Interdependence Model and Evaluation Synthesis
to Foster Work with Other Agencies and Organizations, Extension
Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC.
Benor, D., and Harrison, J. (1977), Agricultural Extension: The
Training and Visit System, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Bernet, T., Ortiz, O., Estrada, R. T., Quiroz, R., and Swinton, S. M.
(2001), ‘Tailoring agricultural extension to different production
contexts: a user-friendly farm household model to improve
decision-making for participatory research’, Agricultural
Systems, Vol 69, pp 183–198.
Beynon, J. (1996), Financing of Agricultural Research and Extension
for Smallholder Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, ODI Natural
Resource Perspectives No 15, ODI, London.
Blackburn, D. J. (1989), Foundations and Changing Practices in
Extension, University of Guelph, Guelph.
Blackburn, D. J., Brinkman, G. L., and Driver, H. C. (1982),
‘Understanding behavioural and economic characteristics in
working with operators of small farms: a case study in Ontario,
Canada’, in Jones, G. E., and Rolls, M. J., eds, Progress in Rural
Extension and Community Development, Vol 1, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, pp 171–188.
Blackburn, D. J., and Vist, D. L. (1989), ‘Historical foundations
of extension’, in Blackburn, D. J., ed, Foundations and
Changing Practices in Extension, University of Guelph, Guelph,
pp l–10.
Boone, E. J. (1989), ‘Philosophical foundations of extension’, in
Blackburn, D. J., ed, Foundations and Changing Practices in
Extension, University of Guelph, Guelph, pp l–9.
Bowler, I. R. (1992), The Geography of Agriculture in Developed
Market Economies, Wiley, New York.
Cary, J. W. (1993), ‘Changing foundations for government support
of agricultural extension in economically developed countries’,
Sociologica Ruralis, Vol 33, No 3/4, pp 336–347.
Cernea, M. M., Coulter, J. K., and Russell, J. F. A. (1985), Research,
Extension Farmer: A Two-Way Continuum for Agricultural Develop-
ment, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Chamala, S., and Mortiss, P. D. (1990), Working Together for Land
Care: Group Management Skills and Strategies, Australian
Academic Press, Brisbane.
Chambers, R. (1997), Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last
First, Intermediate Technology Publications, Bath Press,
London.
Chambers, R., and Ghildyal, B. P. (1985), ‘Agricultural resource-
poor farmers: the farmer-first-and-last model’, Agricultural
Administration, Vol 20, pp 1–30.
Cristóvão, A., and Pereira, F. (2004), ‘Portugal: extension reform
in the interior north of Portugal’, in Rivera, W., and Alex, G.,
eds, Demand-Driven Approaches to Agriculture Extension. Case
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4

Studies of International Initiatives, Agriculture and Rural Devel-
opment Discussion Paper 10, Extension Reform for Rural
Development, World Bank Publications, Vol 3, World Bank,
Washington, DC, pp 96–103.
Davidson, A. P., and Ahmad, M. (2003), Privatization and the Crisis
of Agricultural Extension: The Case of Pakistan, Ashgate Publish-
ing Ltd, Aldershot.
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.
Dolly, D. (1997), ‘Accuracy, congruency, and agreement among
researchers, extension workers and pigeon pea farmers in
Trinidad and Tobago’, Journal of International Agricultural and
Extension Education, Vol 4, No 1, pp 21–30.
Drafor, I., Filson, G. C., and Goddard, E. W. (2000), ‘Cereal
producers and the structural adjustment programme in Ghana:
a welfare analysis of the first decade of SAP’, Development
Southern Africa, Vol 17, No 4, pp 489–499.
Eltahir Eltayeb, M. (2005), ‘Agricultural extension in Sudan,
policies and reality. The case of Khartoum state’, Master ’s
thesis, Department of Rural Development and Agroecology,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Esman, M. J., and Uphoff, N. T. (1988), Local Organizations.
Intermediaries in Rural Development, Cornell University Press,
New York.
Falvey, L., and Forno, D. (1997), ‘Institutional arrangements in
agricultural education, extension and research: lessons for
international development’, Journal of International Agricultural
and Extension Education, Vol 4, No 1, pp 7–14.
Falvey, L., and Maguire, C. (1997), ‘The emerging role for agricul-
tural education in producing future research’, Journal of
International Agricultural and Extension Education, Vol 4, No 1, pp
15–20.
Faure, G., and Kleene, P. (2004), ‘West Africa: management advice
for family farms – the role of producers’ organizations in the
delivery of sustainable agricultural extension services’, in
Rivera, W., and Alex, G., eds, Demand-Driven Approaches to
Agriculture Extension. Case Studies of International Initiatives,
Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 10,
Extension Reform for Rural Development, World Bank
Publications, Vol 3, World Bank, Washington, DC,
pp 104–113.
Feder, G., Willett, A., and Zijp, W. (1999), Agricultural Extension –
Generic Challenges and Some Ingredients for Solutions, World Bank
Policy Research Working Papers No 2129, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Filson, G. C. (2004), ‘Social implications of intensive
agriculture’, in Filson, G. C., ed, Intensive Agriculture and
Sustainability: A Farming Systems Analysis, UBC Press,
Vancouver, pp 34–50.
Filson, G. C., Stoskopf, N. C., Simpson, J., and Kannenberg, L.
(2003), ‘Agroforestry extension and the Western China develop-
ment strategy’, in Nielson, W. A. W., and Ding, L., eds, West
China Development: Domestic Strategies and Global Implications,
Centre for Asia-Pacific Initiatives, University of Victoria, British
Columbia, pp 11–12.
Fleischer, G., Waibel, H., and Walter-Echols, G. (2004), ‘Egypt:
how much does it cost to introduce participatory extension
approaches in public extension services?’ in Rivera, W., and
Alex, G., eds, Demand-Driven Approaches to Agriculture Exten-
sion. Case Studies of International Initiatives, Agriculture and
Rural Development Discussion Paper 10, Extension Reform for
Rural Development, World Bank Publications, Vol 3, World
Bank, Washington, DC, pp 40–49.
Frank, A. G. (1971), Sociology of Development and Underdevelopment
of Sociology, Pluto, London.
Freeman, M. M. R. (1992), ‘The nature and utility of traditional
ecological knowledge’, Northern Perspectives, Vol 20, No 1,
Website: http://www.carc.org/pubs/v20no1/utility.htm.
Fulton, M. (1995), ‘The future of Canadian agricultural
cooperatives: a property rights approach’, American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol 77, pp 1144–1152.
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4
Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
Garforth, C. (2004), ‘Demand-led approaches’, in Rivera, W., and
Alex, G., eds, Demand-Driven Approaches to Agriculture
Extension. Case Studies of International Initiatives, Agriculture and
Rural Development Discussion Paper 10, Extension Reform for
Rural Development. World Bank Publications, Vol 3, World
Bank, Washington, DC, pp 1–6.
Garforth, C., Angell, J., Archer, and Green, K. (2003), Improving
Farmers’ Access to Advice on Land Management: Lessons from Case
Studies in Developed Countries, Agricultural Research and
Extension Network (AgREN) Paper No 125. Overseas Develop-
ment Institute, London.
Gomeniuk, M. (2006), ‘The role of extension centers in innovation
activities of AIC enterprises. Problems and perspectives of
agricultural extension services development’, Conference
Proceedings, Sudak, Crimea, Tavria State Agrotechnical Academy/
Pennsylvania State University/National Association of Extension
Services of Ukraine (DORADA), pp 101–109.
Goss, K. F. (1979), ‘Consequences of diffusion of innovations’,
Rural Sociology, Vol 44, No 4, pp 754–772.
Gustafson, D. J. (2004), ‘Kenya: supporting the demand for
change – recent project experience with farmer learning grants’,
in Rivera, W., and Alex, G., eds, Demand-Driven Approaches to
Agriculture Extension. Case Studies of International Initiatives,
Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 10,
Extension Reform for Rural Development, World
Bank Publications, No 3, World Bank, Washington, DC,
pp 22–30.
Hanson, J., and Just, R. E. (2001), ‘The potential for transition
to paid extension: some guiding economic principles’,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 83, No 3,
pp 777–784.
Ison, R., and Russell, D. (2000), Agricultural Extension and Rural
Development: Breaking Out of Traditions, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Jaffee, D. (1998), Levels of Socio-Economic Development Theory,
Praeger, Westport, CT.
Karami, E. (1986), ‘Agricultural extension in development theory’,
Journal of Extension Systems, Vol 2, No 2, pp 61–69.
Karami, E. (1994), ‘Alternative agricultural extension objectives’,
Agricultural Progress, Vol 68, pp 15–24.
Kaimowitz, D., Snyder, M., and Engel, P. (1989), A Conceptual
Framework for Studying the Links between Agricultural Research
and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries, ISNAR, The
Hague.
Kelsey, L. D., and Hearne, C. C. (1955), Co-operative Extension
Work, Comstock Publishing Association, Ithaca, NY.
Kidd, A. D., Lamers, J. P. A., Ficarelli, P. P., and Hoffmann, V.
(1999), ‘Privatising agricultural extension: caveat emptor ’,
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol 16, pp 95–102.
Kimhi, A. (1996), ‘Farmers’ time allocation between farm and off-
farm work and the importance of unobserved group effects:
evidence from Israeli cooperatives’, Agricultural Economics, Vol
14, pp 135–142.
Kislev, Y., Lerman Z., and Zusman, P. (1991), ‘Recent experience
with cooperative farm credit in Israel’, Economic Development
and Cultural Change, Vol 39, No 4, pp 773–790.
Leeuwis, C. (2004), Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking
Agricultural Extension, 3 ed, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Lightfoot, C. (2004), ‘East Africa: catalytic action for the
emergence of farmer empowerment for “demand-driven”
extension’, in Rivera, W., and Alex, G., eds, Demand-Driven
Approaches to Agriculture Extension. Case Studies of International
Initiatives, Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion
Paper 10, Extension Reform for Rural Development, World
Bank Publications, No 3, World Bank, Washington, DC,
pp 16–22.
Maalouf, W. D., Contado, T. E., and Adhikarya, R. (1991),
‘Extension coverage and resource problems: the need for
public–private co-operation’, in Rivera, W. M., and
Gustafson, D. J., eds, Agricultural Extension: Worldwide
Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Mazoyer, M., and Roudart, L. (1997), Histoire des agricultures du
345
Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
Monde: Du neolithique a la crise contemporanine [History of
Worldwide Agriculture. Neolithic Times to the Contemporary Crisis],
Seiul, Paris, and Monthly Review Press, New York.
Melkote, S. R. (1998), Communication for Development in the Third
World: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, London.
Merrill-Sands, D., and Kaimowitz, D. (1989), The Technology
Triangle: Linking Farmers, Technology Transfer Agents, and
Agricultural Researchers, ISNAR, The Hague.
Mosher, A. T. (1976), Thinking about Rural Development,
Agricultural Development Council, New York.
Ntifo-Siaw, E., and Agunga, R. A. (1994), ‘A comparative study of
management effectiveness under the training and visit and
general extension systems in Ghana’, Journal of Agricultural
Education, Vol 35, No 4, pp 36–41.
Oakley, P., and Marsden, D. (1985), Approaches to Participation
in Rural Development, International Labour Organization,
Geneva.
Patton, M. Q. (1993), ‘World trends and challenges in extension’,
Proceedings Australia Pacific Extension Conference, 12–14 October,
Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia, pp 644–654.
Percy, R. (1999), ‘Gender analysis and participatory rural
appraisal: assessing the current debate through an Ethiopian
case study involving agricultural extension work’,
International Journal of Educational Development, Vol 19, pp 395–
408.
Pray, C., and Echeverria, R. (1989), Private-Sector Agricultural
Research and Technology Transfer Links in Developing Countries,
Linkages Paper No 3, ISNAR, The Hague.
Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson, J., and Scoones, I. (1995), IIED
Participatory Methodology Series. Participatory Learning and
Action, a Trainer’s Guide, Russell Press, Nottingham.
Quizon, J., Feder, G., and Murgai, R. (2001), ‘A note on the fiscal
sustainability of agricultural extension: the case of the farmer
field school approach’, Journal of International Agricultural
Extension and Education, Vol 8, No 1.
Rivera, W. M. (1997), ‘Agricultural extension into the next
decade’, European Journal of Agricultural Extension, Vol 4, No 1,
pp 29–38.
Rivera, W. M. (1998a), ‘Agricultural extension as adult education:
institutional evolution and forces for change’, International
Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol 17, No 4, pp 260–264.
Rivera, W. M. (1998b), ‘Preparing and upgrading the extension
workforce: a comparative analysis of higher agricultural
education in Honduras, Malaysia, Nigeria and Peru’, in
Crowder, L., ed, Training for Agriculture and Rural Development
(TARD), FAO Corporate Document Repository, Rome, Website:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9699e/w9699e10.htm.
Rivera, W. M., and Alex, G. (2004), Demand-Driven Approaches to
Agriculture Extension. Case Studies of International Initiatives,
Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 10,
Extension Reform for Rural Development, Vol 3, World Bank
Publications, Washington, DC.
Rivera, W. M., and Gustafson, D. J. (1991), Agricultural Extension:
Worldwide Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Rivera, W. M., Seepersad, J., and Pletsch, H. (1989), ‘Comparative
agricultural extension systems’, in Blackburn, D. J., ed, Founda-
tions and Changing Practices in Extension, University of Guelph,
Guelph, pp 139–148.
Rivera, W. M., and Zijp, W. (2002), Contracting for Agricultural
Extension: International Case Studies and Emerging Practices, CABI
Publishing, Oxford.
Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971), Communication of
Innovations, Free Press, New York.
Roling, N. (1979), ‘The logic of extension’, Indian Journal of
Extension Education, Vol XV, No 3&4, pp 1–8.
Roling, N. (1982), ‘Alternatives approaches in extension’, in Jones,
G. E., and Rolls, M. J., eds, Progress in Rural Extension and
Community Development, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp 87–
115.
Roling, N. (1988), Extension Science: Information Systems in
Agricultural Development, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
346
Roling, N., Ascroft, J., and Chege, F. W. (1976), ‘The diffusion of
innovation and the issue of equity in rural development’,
Communication Research, Vol 3, pp 155–170.
Routio, P. (2006), ‘Comparative study’, available from Website:
http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi/172.htm.
Roy, P. (1982), ‘Extension with the disadvantaged: a radical view’,
in Jones, G. E., and Rolls, M. J., eds, Progress in Rural Extension
and Community Development, Vol 1, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, pp 71–85.
Sands, D. M. (1986), ‘Farming systems research: clarification
of terms and concepts’, Experimental Agriculture, Vol 22, pp 87–
104.
Scarborough, V., Killough, S., Johnson, D. A., and Farrington, J.
(1997), Farmer-Led Extension: Concepts and Practices, Intermediate
Technology Publications, London.
Seers, D. (1982), ‘The meaning of development’, in Jones, G. E.,
and Rolls, M. J., eds, Progress in Rural Extension and Community
Development, Vol 1, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp 7–24.
Schmitz, H. (2004), ‘Brazil: problems and possibilities in building
partnerships among farmers, researchers, and extensionists in
Para State’, in Rivera, W., and Alex, G., eds, Demand-Driven
Approaches to Agriculture Extension. Case Studies of International
Initiatives, Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion
Paper 10, Extension Reform for Rural Development, World
Bank Publications No 3, Washington, DC, pp 33–40.
Shahvali, M., and Azadi, H. (1999a), ‘Investigating philosophical
schools of thought to explain human development’, A
Quarterly Journal of Rural Development Studies, Vol 2, No 4,
pp 21–56.
Shahvali, M., and Azadi, H. (1999b), ‘Designing of extension
research on the basis of paradisciplinary approach’, A Quarterly
Journal of Agricultural Development, Vol 6, No 24, pp 139–175.
Shaner, W. W., Philip, P. F., and Schmehl, W. R. (1982), Farming
Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for Developing
Countries, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Swanson, B. E., Farner, B. J., and Bahal, R. (1990), ‘The current
state of agricultural extension worldwide’, in Global Consulta-
tion on Agricultural Extension, FAO Report, FAO, Rome, pp
42–76.
Swanson, J., and Pehu, E. (2004), ‘Foreword’, in Rivera, W., and
Alex, G., eds, Demand-Driven Approaches to Agriculture Exten-
sion. Case Studies of International Initiatives, Agriculture and
Rural Development Discussion Paper 10, Extension Reform for
Rural Development, World Bank Publications, No 3,
Washington, DC, p viii.
Tchouamo, I. R., and Steele, R. E. (1997), ‘Educational impacts of
the training and visit extension system on small farmers in the
west province of Cameroon’, Journal of International Agricultural
and Extension Education, Vol 4, No 1, pp 31–37.
Timmer, W. J. D. (1982), The Human Side of Agriculture, Vantage
Press, New York.
Todaro, M. (1977), Economic Development in the Third World,
Longmans, London.
Tooker, N. E. (1987), ‘Universal principles of extension’, Proceed-
ings of the Australian Agricultural Extension Conference, Brisbane,
Australia.
Umali, D. L., and Schwartz, L. (1994), Public and Private Agricul-
tural Extension: Beyond Traditional Frontiers, World Bank
Discussion Paper No 236, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Umali-Deininger, D. (1997), ‘Public and private agricultural
extension: partners or rivals?’ The World Bank Research Observer,
Vol 12, No 2, pp 203–224.
UNFPA (2005), ‘Population & demographic dynamics’, available
from Website: http://www.unfpa.org/sustainable/
demographics.htm.
Uquillas, J. E., and Navas, B. G. (1993), Linking Research, Extension
and Agricultural Education: An Experience in Ecuador, ODI
Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network
Paper No 39, ODI, London.
van den Ban, A. W. (1986), ‘Extension policies, policy types,
policy formulation and goals’, in Jones, G. E., ed, Investing in
Rural Extension: Strategies and Goals, Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers, London.
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4

van den Ban, A. W., and Hawkins, H. S. (1988), Agricultural
Extension, Longman, London.
van den Berg, M. (2001), The Agricultural Knowledge Infrastructure:
Public or Private? FAO, Rome.
van Linh, N. (200l), ‘Agricultural innovation: multiple grounds
for technology policies in the Red River Delta of Vietnam’,
doctoral dissertation, Wageningen Universiteit, Wageningen.
Warner, P. D., and Christenson, J. A. (1984), The Cooperative
Extension Service: A National Assessment, Westview Press,
Boulder, CO.
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38, No 4
View publication stats
Comparative study of agricultural extension systems
Wilson, J. (1992), Changing Agriculture: An Introduction to Systems
Thinking, Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst, Australia.
Wilson, M. L. (1952), Community Development Programme in India,
Ministry of CD and Co-operation, Government of India, New
Delhi.
Zweifal, H. (1996), ‘Biodiversity and the appropriation of
women’s knowledge’, Indigenous Knowledge and
Development Monitor, Vol 5, No 1, available from
Website: http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/5-1/articles/
zweifel.htm.
347