Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Extension services and multifunctional agriculture. Lessons learnt from

the French and Dutch contexts and approachesq
Pierre Labarthe*
National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA), UMR SAD-APT, 16, rue Claude Bernard, 75 231 PARIS Cedex 05, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Today’s acknowledgement of the multifunctionality of agriculture (MFA) implies the production of new
Received 28 February 2007 knowledge to integrate different functions at farm level (primary production, environmental protection,
Received in revised form food safety, etc.). At the same time, agricultural sectors of European countries have recently faced
21 November 2007
changes in the organisation of their R&D activities, including a trend of commercialisation and privati-
Accepted 9 November 2008
sation of advisory services for farmers. To assess the consequences of these changes on support for
Available online 8 February 2009
innovations related to MFA, this paper explores the potential of combining two analytical frameworks: an
institutional economic approach (IEA) and a sociological network approach (SNA). This potential is
Keywords:
Multifunctional agriculture illustrated by a historical analysis of advisory services in France and the Netherlands from 1945 until
Agricultural extension now. This analysis stresses the importance of collective procedures for the accumulation of technical
Privatisation knowledge in agriculture. It also shows that these procedures could not be analysed from a strictly
Agricultural knowledge and information technical perspective. They are the expression of institutional arrangements involving social groups of
system farmers and the state, and are grounded in national contexts. A historical perspective also enables us to
Institutional analysis understand better why the privatisation of extension services cannot meet the requirements of support
for farm innovations in the MFA context.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
This paper considers the transformations of technical agricul-
tural extension services in France and in the Netherlands. These are
advisory services supporting technical changes in production
systems at farm level. The aim of the paper is to explore the potential
of combining two research frameworks – a sociological network
analysis (SNA) and an institutional economic analysis (IEA) – in
order to describe the transformations of extension services in
changing agricultures.
Why address such a question in a pluri-disciplinary project on
multifunctional agriculture (MFA)? First of all, because the new
requirements associated with the acknowledgment of MFA have
created some needs for new knowledge. Fulfilling the requirements
of MFA implies to design and validate innovative agricultural
production systems. The unfolding of MFA reflects the fact that
agriculture is nowadays expected to support the development of
q I want to thank Prof. Anne W. van den Ban, Prof. Cees Leeuwis, and Laurens
Klerkx (all from the Research Department ‘‘Communication and Innovation
Studies’’ of Wageningen University) for their comments, which helped me to
improve the quality of this text.
* Tel.: þ33 1 44 08 72 54; fax: þ33 1 44 08 16 57.
E-mail address: pierre.labarthe@agroparistech.fr
rural areas through functions other than primary ones only. These
functions imply the guarantee of food safety and quality, the fight
against pollution, the conservation of biodiversity, the contribution
to economic and social cohesion of rural areas, the maintenance of
landscapes, etc. The integration of these different functions at farm
level creates a need for new technical knowledge for farmers.
This can be illustrated with the case of barley production.
Knowledge is available for the development of production systems
which allow for yielding increases. However, there is a lack of
knowledge to technically support a productive cultivation of barley
of a quality suited to beer production, while limiting the use of
inputs (fertilisers and chemicals) and preserving the biodiversity of
hedgerows and streams surrounding the barley fields.
The production of new knowledge is thus needed to validate the
efficacy of production systems for the integration of different
functions of agriculture at farm level. Historically, extension
services have played a key role in the accumulation and validation
of technical knowledge. Agricultural sectors of western European
countries have the characteristic of being composed of very small
production units, mainly family farms. Furthermore, agriculture is
a sector with high production costs. As a result, the validation of
innovations is hardly feasible individually by farmers. During the
post-WWII period, the need for collective investments in the
production of new technical knowledge emerged and was fulfilled.

0301-4797/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.021
S194 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202
Agricultural extension services were one of these investments.
Their role in the diffusion of innovation within agriculture was
described in the mid-80s already (Van den Ban, 1984).
More recently, various investigations have indicated that MFA,
which implies an integration of sector-based and territorial issues,
has generated new and specific problems for extension services
(Laurent et al., 2006). These difficulties are partly linked to the
technical requirements of MFA: needs for new services (how to take
into account different goals at farm level?), constraints for the
global organisation of agricultural R&D, etc.
But these difficulties are also connected to ongoing trans-
formations of extension services themselves. Extension services
have had to adjust to major changes in many European countries
since the 1990s, corresponding mainly to trends of privatisation
and commercialisation of services. Privatisation has been embodied
here in the substitution of public actors by new private-sector
actors (private consultants, growing importance of agro-industry,
etc), while commercialisation has meant that farmers are nowa-
days more and more often charged directly for services.
The consequences of these changes have been partly studied in
terms of financial efficiency for the farmers, by cost–benefit ana-
lysis of different schemes for financing extension (Dinar, 1996;
Rivera and Zijp, 2002). In this perspective, it has often been
considered that agricultural extension systems of industrialised
countries, characterised by their diversity in the post-WWII
decades (Arnon, 1989), have become obsolete and should be
replaced by a private consultancy model (Knutson and Outlaw,
1994; Rivera, 2000). Nevertheless, the consequences of such
a change have hardly been addressed by taking into account the
problems linked to MFA.
The privatisation of extension services can clearly not be
reduced to a problem of costs for farmers, since it has deeply
changed the landscape of agricultural extension services (diversi-
fication of services and suppliers, changes in the investments of
these suppliers, of their connexions with other agricultural R&D
organisations, etc.).
A thorough understanding of the transformations of extension
services is thus highly relevant in view of the new challenges that
the development of MFA presents, requiring innovations and new
technical knowledge. In this respect, we consider that it is neces-
sary to examine the analytical approaches of extensions services in
the social sciences.
We propose to combine two approaches: an institutional
economic analysis (IEA) and a sociological network analysis (SNA).
In the remainder of this paper, first the similarities and specificities
of the two approaches are discussed (Section 2). Then the potential
of combining these two approaches is illustrated by a historical
analysis of agricultural extension services in France and the
Netherlands from the post-WWII decades (Section 3). This histor-
ical perspective enables to highlight possible failures of privatisa-
tion as far as MFA issues are concerned (Section 4).
2. Analytical framework
The idea of combining a network and an institutional analysis
has emerged from the fact that they could be complementary for
the representation of the evolution of the contribution of extension
services to innovations in the agricultural sector. This combination
allows us to analyse the impact of ongoing changes in agricultural
extension services, on MFA-related innovation patterns.
In this perspective, a joint INRA–WUR project on MFA (2003–
2006) afforded the opportunity to explore the potential of
combining the outcomes of approaches from different disciplines.
The first approach is a Sociological Network Analysis (SNA) of
extension services developed by the Communication and
Innovation Studies Department of Wageningen University (Leeuwis
and Van den Ban, 2004). The second one is an Institutional
Economic Analysis (IEA) proposed by researchers from the INRA
Department Sciences for Action and Development (Labarthe, 2006).
2.1. SNA and IEA: two compatible approaches
Combining these approaches is possible as they are grounded in
compatible conceptions of the role of extension services regarding
innovations in the agricultural sector. In both approaches, innova-
tions are not considered as exogenous to agricultural actors, but
rather as a co-production between diverse actors (farmers, exten-
sion services, applied research institutes, etc.).
From the SNA point of view, the contribution of extension is
integrated into a systemic conception of innovation within the
agricultural sector (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2006a,b). Innovation is not
a linear process in which technical knowledge is produced by
research organisations and diffused to farmers (Geels, 2004).
Innovations require deliberate efforts to create effective linkages
between different R&D organisations and farmers (Leeuwis and
Van den Ban, 2004). Smits and Kuhlman (2004) stress the fact that
organisations innovate not separately but in the context of
a system. Moreover, they consider that the performance of this
system, for innovation, depends on the quality of the linkages
between organisations within it. Röling and Engel (1991) and Engel
(1995) have applied this idea to the agricultural sector. They
formulated the concept of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation
System (AKIS), defined as: ‘‘a linked set of actors – individual, orga-
nisation or institutions – that emerges (or is strengthened) as a result
of networking for innovation’’ (Engel and Van den Bor, 1995). The
AKIS approach has contributed to a reconceptualisation of the role
of extension within agricultural R&D (Sundberg, 2005). Extension
thus participates in the creation of linkages for the co-production of
knowledge within the agricultural sector.
Such a conception is compatible with the representation of the
technical contribution of extension to innovation in the IEA
proposed by Labarthe (2006). In this analytical framework, the
production of innovations relies on a knowledge base shared by
diverse actors. A knowledge base (Dosi, 1988) is composed of
information as well as scientific or specific knowledge linked to
agricultural production and to innovations in that production. The
construction of such a knowledge base implies the development of
specific procedures which can allow collective experiments,
building and testing of prototypes, and securing the implementa-
tion of innovations. These procedures enable the construction of
a shared vision within a set of actors (researchers, farmers, advisers,
etc.). The economic sectors are characterised by specific knowledge
bases, but also by different modalities for their construction.
These differences stem partly from the relations between
production units and R&D activities and organisations. In the
agricultural sector the situation is very specific. Both in France and
in the Netherlands, farms are rather small production units which
cannot directly undertake R&D activities on their own. The question
of the linkages between farms, R&D organisations, and interme-
diary organisations (such as extension services for instance) is thus
crucial. That is why agricultural extension plays a key role in the
accumulation of technical knowledge and in the support for
innovation.
2.2. SNA and IEA: two complementary frameworks?
The SNA and IEA analytical frameworks are compatible as both
consider that innovations within the agricultural sector are the
product not of a linear process but of the intensive use of shared
knowledge and information, according to collective rules and
 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202
procedures. Extension services play a key role in the settlement of
these procedures. Nevertheless, the two approaches put a different
focus on this role of extension.
The SNA is focused on the analysis of interactions and networks.
Within this analytical framework, ‘‘linkages’’ and ‘‘linkage mecha-
nisms’’ play an essential role (Engel and Salomon, 1997). Linkages
enable actors to exchange immaterial resources, while linkage
mechanisms are the arrangements that facilitate these exchanges.
According to Engel (1995), these forms of arrangement set up to
facilitate innovation may lead to the development of a ‘‘configura-
tion of innovation’’. This is defined as a pattern of more or less
lasting interactions among a number of social actors who perceive
one another as relevant to some or to all of their concerns. It
embodies the accepted views, procedures and ground rules of
collective behaviour with respect to one or more particular types
of innovation. SNA researches have studied the contribution of
extension services on linkage mechanisms within the innovation
process, and identified different configurations of innovation in
different contexts.
Nevertheless, the IEA points out the fact that extension services
cannot be considered from a technical point of view only, but also
as the expression of institutional arrangements between the state
and groups of farmers on the evolution of the agricultural sector
itself. In this respect, in many European countries (France,
Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, etc.) the history of extension
services is inseparable from that of farmers’ unions. The question of
the evolution of agricultural extension can therefore be addressed
through an institutional analysis embedded in the régulationniste
theory (Boyer, 1986). This implies an understanding of the rules
which set the social, economic and technical conditions for access
to agricultural extension services (costs, belonging to certain
groups of farmers, property of data and knowledge, etc.). It can be
considered that these rules are the expression of institutionalised
arrangements (following Delorme, 1984) between the state and
farmers’ unions. These arrangements are not organisational rules;
they rather express balances of power (Théret, 2000) between
groups of farmers for access to relevant knowledge. They can be
a major force for change or inertia in the contribution of agricul-
tural extension to innovation patterns within the sector: ‘‘the
economic performance of a technical system is dependent on societal
factors [.]: it is mainly institutional arrangements which define
socio-technical trajectories characterised by both reversible and irre-
versible phenomena’’ (Boyer, 1989).
To conclude, the SNA and IEA frameworks are compatible as
they share the same conception of innovations within agricultural
sectors. Agricultural innovations are considered to be neither
exogenous to the agricultural sector nor linear and transmitted
from research to farmers. In both frameworks, it is rather consid-
ered that collective procedures are needed for the production and
accumulation of technical knowledge. Nevertheless, the two
analytical frameworks shed light on different aspects of these
collective procedures. The SNA framework focuses more on the
technical efficacy of extension services, relative to the linkage
mechanisms supporting the contribution to configurations of
innovation within the agricultural sector. The IEA framework, on
the other hand, pictures extension services as a technical expres-
sion of institutional arrangements between groups of farmers and
the state over the development of each country’s agricultural
sector.
The two approaches offer complementary frameworks for the
analysis of the organisational and institutional contribution of
agricultural extension to innovations within the agricultural sector.
The potential of combining these two frameworks can be illustrated
through the historical analysis of extension services in France and
in the Netherlands from 1945.
S195
3. A historical analysis of extension services in France and
the Netherlands
France and the Netherlands offer a sharp contrast in terms of
systems of agricultural extension, but also in terms of the recent
evolution of these systems. In France, one of the main suppliers of
agricultural extension since the 1960s has been the Chambers of
Agriculture. Their services, goals, management, and financial
support have changed considerably in the last few decades. The
Netherlands is an emblematic case of the commercialisation of
technical agricultural extension in Europe. These two national
situations also differ in terms of distribution and diversity of farms,
and in terms of their structures, economic sizes, and production
systems. Thus, the proportion of economically large farms is much
greater in the Netherlands than in France. Building the research on
a comparison between these two countries was promising, as
singular national paths seemed to exist for technical agricultural
systems which had evolved in different social contexts.
3.1. The post-WWII decades (1945–1990)
During the post-WWII decades, the target of agricultural
national policies in European countries was to obtain food security
by increasing agricultural production and productivity. These
policies consisted of various forms of support to farmers, which
were embodied in material and immaterial investments aimed at
sustaining the growth of productivity.
The construction of agricultural extension services was one of
these investments. Both in France and in the Netherlands, agri-
cultural extension systems were built at national level and devel-
oped through public investments. Nevertheless, the conception,
financing and organisation of agricultural extension have often
been pictured as very different in the two countries (Elegoet and
Van Gils, 1989). As stated by Van den Ban (1981), semantics is a first
indication of such differences: ‘‘the French term, ‘vulgarisation’,
suggests the popularization of knowledge whereas the Dutch ‘voor-
lichting’ can literally be translated as lighting the way’’.
The agricultural knowledge systems of the two countries and
the contribution of extension services to these systems can be
represented as proposed in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively for France and
for the Netherlands. In both countries, the post-war decades were
a period of deep transformation of extension services and of their
contribution to innovation within the agricultural sector.
3.1.1. Extension services and the rise of intangible investments
in agriculture
First of all, the public investments in extension services did
result in an increase in the resources available to farmers within
extension services. The number of advisers available to farmers
increased sharply during this period. In France, there was one
adviser available for 900 farmers in 1949, one for 560 farmers in
1967, and one for 145 in 1982. In the Netherlands, there was one
adviser available for 350 farmers in 1949, one for 120 farmers in
1967, and one for 100 in 1982. It is important to note that the ratio
[number of farmers/number of advisers] has decreased at least as
steeply as the number of farmers itself, especially in France. The
ratio [number of farmers/number of advisers] decreased by a factor
of 3.9 in France between 1967 and 1982, whereas the number of
farmers only decreased by a factor of 1.8.
However, investments in agricultural extension could not be
reduced to an increase in the number of advisers available to
farmers. A new configuration of innovations had emerged, both at
the level of the agricultural knowledge system and at that level of
extension services suppliers. Before this period, innovations within
agricultural extension services were based on the possibility of
S196 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202

Ministry of Agriculture

Co- Agronomic research

(INRA) Agronomy Agricul-
management engineering tural
schools education
Animal prod. Plant prod.
A.N.D.A.
Production of scientific
knowledge
Financing
Co- Applied research (P institute)
management
Animal prod. Plant prod.

Co-production of technical references

Chambers of Agriculture

Technical
Department Department extension
National
of of
federation
Animal prod. Plant prod.
of
farmers’ Technical extension
unions
(FNSEA)

(CETA,
Farms GVA)

Technical extension

Animal prod. Plant prod.

Input cooperatives and traders

State or public organisation Organisation co-managed by

the state and farmers
Organisation controlled by Other organisations
farmers

Fig. 1. Agricultural extension systems and agricultural knowledge system in France (in 1985).

producing new knowledge through the competences and skills of
advisers, who were mainly teachers.
After the Second World War, innovations in agricultural exten-
sion services were based not only on the competences of advisers,
but also on new procedures for the production of knowledge. These
procedures were embodied in the relations between extension
services and other R&D organisations, such as the applied research
institutes that were founded during that period. In the two coun-
tries, both agricultural extension services and applied research
institutes were built at national level, and divided into departments
according to agricultural productions (cereals, milk, meat, etc.)
(Figs. 1 and 2). The relations between applied research institutes
and extension services have been a vector of innovation for the
agricultures of the two countries.
A major outcome of the SNA framework has been to show that
these relations should not be considered as a linear production of
innovation. Thus, Leeuwis and Van den Ban (2004) argue that
innovations were not generated by agricultural research and
transmitted to agricultural entrepreneurs by agricultural extension.
They were rather the result of a co-production of knowledge
though the links between diverse actors (farmers, extension
services, farmers’ unions, applied research institutes, etc.).
Three concrete illustrations can be given of how these relations
contributed to the establishment of procedures respectively for the
production, accumulation, and validation of knowledge.
1) In the post-WWII years there were national institutions – such
as the ‘‘liaison office’’ in the Netherlands – which used to
contribute to the coordination of the different R&D organisa-
tions and to reinforcing the effectiveness of the linkages
between them (Wielinga, 1988).
2) Experimental stations and networks of experimental farms
contributed to the validation of technical knowledge through
numerous experiments with a diversity of innovations. In both
countries, these experimental farms and stations were co-
financed by the Ministry of Agriculture and by farmers’ unions.
 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202 S197

Ministry of Agriculture

Agricultural research and

Discussions universities Agricul-
tural
education
Animal prod. Plant prod.

Production of scientific knowledge

Landbouw-
Financing of Applied research
schap
experimental Liaison
farms. Animal prod. Plant prod. office

Co-production of technical references

Service for agricultural extension

Discussions Technical
Department of Department of plant extension
animal production production

Technical extension
Catholic farmers union

Groups
Protestant farmers union Farms of
farmers

Liberal farmers union

Technical extension

Animal prod. Plant prod.

Input cooperatives and traders

State or public organisation Organisation co-managed by

the state and farmers

Organisation controlled by Other organisations

farmers

Fig. 2. Agricultural extension systems and agricultural knowledge system in the Netherlands (in 1985).

The experimental programmes carried out on these farms and
stations were designed by various R&D organisations (applied
research organisations, extension services) and farmers’
associations.
3) There have been many joint technical publications between
diverse R&D organisations, for instance local bulletins speci-
alised in cereal production, co-edited by extension services and
applied research, and based on the results of experimental
farms. These publications have enabled an accumulation of
knowledge about agricultural production systems.
Although the conceptions and financing of agricultural exten-
sion services remained different in France and the Netherlands
during the post-WWII decades, the technical organisation of these
services had many similarities. In both countries new procedures
emerged, which enabled a real co-production of knowledge
between applied research, extension services, and farmers. These
procedures were embodied in new relations between agricultural
extension and applied research bodies. They were grounded at
national level, and contributed to the support for innovations
leading to a specialisation and intensification of agriculture.
3.1.2. Extension services as the expression of institutional
arrangements specific to each country
The evolution of agricultural extension services during the post-
WWII decades cannot be analysed from a purely organisational
point of view. The IEA has shown that these services were also the
technical dimension of broader institutional arrangements
between the state and groups of farmers, concerning the
modernization of agricultural sector. Both in France and the
Netherlands, modernization was basically targeted towards an
increase of the agricultural sector’s productivity in the two coun-
tries. Nevertheless, the arrangements between the state and
farmers were specific to national contexts. They had to take into
account the diversity of farms, in terms of size, production systems
and farmers’ skills. As a result, these arrangements allowed certain
S198 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202
groups of farmers to have a privileged access to means of produc-
tion (land, credit, and knowledge).
The French knowledge system was a public–private one, co-
financed and co-managed by the state and farmers’ unions, which
were grouped together within the National Association for Agri-
cultural Development (ANDA). Two consecutive laws (in 1959 and
1966) transferred the responsibility for agricultural extension from
the government administration to the Chambers of Agriculture.
These Chambers are at the centre of the political representation of
farmers in France, through farmers’ unions elections. The transfer
of the responsibility of extension services to such Chambers can be
analysed as an institutional arrangement that allowed the domi-
nant farmers’ union of this period to play a key role within the
French knowledge system. This union represented mainly one
social group of farmers: professional farmers who ran family farms
(cf. Appendix 1). These farmers were consequently the target group
of extension in France. They were a productive base for the devel-
opment of the sector, but also the most important contributors to
investments in agricultural extension through a system of taxes
(Labarthe, 2006). Reciprocally, the beneficiaries of services from the
Chambers of Agriculture were characterised as ‘‘full-time farmers –
part-time farmers are quasi excluded – young, more often educated,
and with responsibilities in farmers’ unions’’, as shown by a survey
over 2500 farms realised by the Statistical Service of the French
Ministry of Agriculture (SCEES, 1983: 11).
This can be illustrated through the predominant role of exten-
sion circles, such as the Centres for the analysis of agricultural
techniques (CETA). These circles consisted of small local groups of
farmers, and were the main beneficiaries of extension services.
They were highly effective for the sharing and accumulation of
technical knowledge between their members. Nevertheless, they
were also responsible for cumulative effects of exclusion of other
farmer groups. Not only were these circles not easily accessible to
certain groups of farmers, but the knowledge gradually accumu-
lated was less and less relevant to the excluded farmers: ‘‘groups of
farmers, study clubs, or extension groups such as CETA can play a key
role in the implementation of agronomic research. They allow for an
exchange of experiences and ideas between farmers and advisers, and
also with researchers. Nevertheless, as farmers enter these clubs to
learn from one another, the ones from whom innovative ideas are
expected are particularly welcome in these clubs. As a consequence,
the more traditional and poorer farmers tend to be excluded from
these clubs.’’ (Van den Ban, 1984: 34).
In the Netherlands, apart from similarities with the French
situation, some compensatory mechanisms did exist, which
enabled some small or less-modernised farms to have access to
agricultural extension. For instance, there was a specific govern-
ment organisation to support small farm development (Dienst voor
de Kleine Boerenbedrijven, literally, service for small farms). This
organisation proposed technical and managerial extension services
to farmers, either to specialise and intensify their production
system, or else to quit agriculture through a safe transition (Somers,
1991).
This specificity of the Dutch situation can be explained not only
by the modalities of farmers’ unions’ participation in the
construction of extension systems, but also by the representation of
the actual diversity of farms in farmers’ unions (cf. Appendix 1). In
the Netherlands, farmers’ representation in farmers’ unions and the
organisation of extension services were segregated: it was the state
that financed and implemented the activities of technical exten-
sion. This enabled it to develop specific services for farms (small
ones for instance) or for less-modernised regions with a strong
potential for increasing productivity (Devienne, 1989). Neverthe-
less, even though farmers’ unions did not have a direct responsi-
bility for agricultural extension, they had a consultative role
through a commission, the Landbouwschap, which contributed to
the integration of diverse beneficiaries into agricultural extension
schemes.
This was possible owing to a plurality of farmers’ unions in the
Netherlands. There used to be three – a catholic farmers’ union,
a protestant farmers’ union, and a liberal farmers’ union – repre-
senting a geographical and structural diversity of farms (Frouws,
1991). For instance, the catholic farmers’ union represented mainly
small farms from the south of the country. These three unions were
equal partners in the discussions about national agricultural
development within the Landbouwschap. This had contributed to
the fact that the extension system produced specific knowledge for
diverse groups of farmers.
Combining a network analytical framework and an institutional
analytical framework has led to original findings about the evolu-
tion of agricultural extension. The post-WWII period has often been
described as one of heterogeneity of national extension systems
from the point of view of their technical organisation. However, the
SNA analysis highlights significant similarities between French and
Dutch agricultural knowledge systems from a technical point of
view. In both countries the post-WWII decades were one of
intensive creation of linkages between the organisations within
agricultural R&D. This contributed to new collective procedures for
the production and accumulation of technical knowledge within
agricultural sectors. Differences did exist between national exten-
sion systems, but they were more institutional than technical. The
IEA has made it possible to show such specificities of each national
situation. Extension services were the expression of institutional
arrangements peculiar to each country. These arrangements had an
impact on the speed and direction of technical change within
agricultural sectors.
3.2. Recent developments (1990–2005): privatisation of extension
and deconstruction of collective procedures for knowledge
production
Since the 1990s the organisation of agricultural extension has
changed profoundly in European countries. The knowledge systems
of the two countries are presented in Figs. 3 and 4 for the year 2000.
First of all, public investments in extension services have decreased.
This decrease is much smaller in France than in the Netherlands,
where public expenditures on agricultural extension were reduced
by 90% between 1990 and 2000. During that period, Dutch exten-
sion services were privatised, and the Dutch agricultural knowl-
edge system underwent many changes. By contrast, France is one of
the European countries in which extension services have had the
fewest changes.
There has nevertheless been a deep crisis in the French system
of co-management of extension services. This crisis has led to the
dismantling of the institution in charge of this co-management, the
National Association for Agricultural Development (ANDA). It is
important to note that this crisis was partly due to the emergence of
new themes for extension related to the acknowledgement of
multifunctional agriculture. The state pushed for a reorganisation
of the Chambers of Agriculture, towards territorial issues (fight
against pollution, protection of biodiversity, etc.). These issues
involve now far more advisers of the Chambers than before
(Table 1). At the same time, farmers’ unions were still preoccupied
by new sector-based issues (productivity and the impact of CAP on
prices, quality standards of products, etc.).
In the Netherlands, changes within extension systems have
been much bigger. There has been a full commercialisation of
services, and a partial privatisation (emergence of private actors
such as consultants, agro-industry, etc.). Agricultural extension is
currently characterised by a wide diversity of suppliers: farmers’
 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202 S199

Ministry of Agriculture

Agronomic research Agronomy Agricul-

(INRA) engineering tural
schools education
Animal prod. Plant prod.

Production of scientific
knowledge

Applied research (Technical institute)

Animal prod. Plant prod.

Co-production of technical references

Chambers of Agriculture

Farmers’
unions Department Department
of of
Animal prod. Plant prod.
Technical extension

Farms

Technical extension

Animal prod. Plant prod.

Input cooperatives and traders

State or public organisation Organisation co-managed by

the state and farmers

Organisation controlled by Other organisations

farmers

Fig. 3. Agricultural extension systems and agricultural knowledge system in France (in 2005).

cooperatives, private firms (which could belong to diverse actors:
farmers’ unions, etc.), agronomy universities, etc. This evolution of
extension leads to new problems in terms of its contribution to the
production and the accumulation of technical knowledge.
The SNA framework has shown that privatisation has weakened
the links between the different organisations and components of
agricultural R&D (Leeuwis, 2000). The following are two concrete
illustrations of these transformations of the procedures for the
validation of technical knowledge:
1) Investments in experimental stations and networks of
experimental farms have changed considerably. There has
been a disappearance of the systematic financing of exper-
imental farms by farmers’ unions. Financing is no longer on
a permanent basis but on the basis of short-term contracts,
and is submitted to competition. For instance, the associa-
tion of Dutch cereal producers recently financed a research
programme implemented by a Scottish research institute.
Furthermore, it appears through the analysis of the activity
of commercial consultancy firms that such suppliers tend to
substantially limit their investments in collective R&D
(Labarthe, 2006). As a result, they invest neither time nor
money in local experimental farms.
2) There has been a total dismantling of the national coordination
of the innovation systems of the agricultural sector. During the
post-war decades, specific organisations used to exist for
reinforcing the linkage mechanisms between extension
services and applied research institutes, such as the Liaison
Office in the Netherlands. This Liaison Office was converted into
an Innovation and Knowledge Centre in 2000, with huge staff
cuts, and finally disappeared in 2004 when it was transformed
into an expertise centre for the Ministry of Environment and
Agriculture.
From the IEA point of view, it is striking to observe that this
period of major changes within extension services coincides with
S200 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202

Ministry of Agriculture

Applied research Agronomy

Education
institutes university

Supply-chain
innovation brokers
Provinces

DLV advies Groep

Other
consultancy
Provincial Private Private firms
innovation advisory advisory Etc.
brokers for for
cereal horticul.
Technical consultancy

LTO
advies

Farms
LTO

Technical consultancy

Animal supply chain Plant supply chain

Input suppliers

State or public organisation Organisation co-managed by

the state and farmers
Organisation controlled by
farmers Other organisations

Fig. 4. Agricultural extension systems and agricultural knowledge system in the Netherlands (in 2005).

deep transformation of institutional arrangements between the

state and farmers’ unions. There are three major signs or charac-
Table 1
teristics of these changes.
Comparison of the distribution of French Chambers of Agriculture’s employees (%)
according to the main theme of their work in 1980 and 2000.
1) In the Ministries of Agriculture (particularly in the
Function Year
Netherlands), the conception of the role of public investments
in the agricultural knowledge system has changed radically. It 1980 2000
is now considered that it is the duty of each individual farmer Promotion of agriculture 7 4
to invest in the production of technical knowledge and in the Plant production/agronomy 26 13
Animal production 28 23
advisory services necessary for his or her activity.
Economy 22 4
2) There has been a crisis in the political representation of Environment 5 16
farmers. In the Netherlands, the three former farmers’ unions General farm problems 8 19
merged, and new ones emerged. During the same period the Local development 0 9
Landbouwschap was dismantled in the Netherlands, and the Other themes 4 12

ANDA in France. As a result, discussions between the Ministries Source: ANDA, 1982 and APCA, 2001.
 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202
of Agriculture and farmers’ unions over the organisation and
goals of extension services have decreased at national level.
This tendency is particularly strong in the Netherlands, where
significant debates about extension services no longer exist at
national level.
3) Some institutional innovations have emerged within the agri-
cultural knowledge systems of the two countries. They consist
of attempts to recreate linkages between a diversity of R&D
organisations and farmers at levels other than the national
level. The nature and impact of such innovations (referred to as
‘‘knowledge brokers’’ in Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2006a, 2006b)
remain widely diverse. Nevertheless, these innovations do
correspond to two logics. Some of them are initiatives at the
regional or provincial levels, which try to recreate linkage
mechanisms between farmers, extension services, applied
research institutes and administration at the local level. The
sustainability and effectiveness of these institutional innova-
tions are however a matter of debate. Many of them depend on
short-term contracts (with provinces, farmers’ unions, or
European Union), and their human and financial resources are
often limited. The second logic is sector-based, which reflects
a trend of privatisation of the agricultural knowledge systems
characterised by the growing importance of agro-industries in
this system. There are many initiatives within supply chains
enabling new procedures for the validation and accumulation
of technical knowledge: creation of firms dedicated to the
production and management of technical data bases for input
suppliers (both at local and national level), new procedures of
financing applied research institutes by the agro-industry, etc.
4. Repercussions on extension services for MFA
Combining a network and an institutional framework of analysis
enabled us to better understand the consequences of the privati-
sation trend in the perspective of acknowledgement of MFA.
From a technical point of view, privatisation of extension
services has induced a deconstruction of the links within the
agricultural knowledge system. This could lead to a decrease of the
knowledge generated, especially as far as MFA issues are concerned.
Thus, several authors argue that increased competition has resulted
in the withholding of knowledge generated and exchanged in
agricultural R&D systems (Leeuwis, 2000; Nieuwenhuis, 2002). The
Dutch system of public provision of agricultural R&D was previ-
ously characterised by open exchanges of information, and by
procedures for the co-production of knowledge for support to
innovations. Nowadays, R&D organisations act much more strate-
gically with regard to the sharing of knowledge and information, or
even attempt to protect it through patents.
These tendencies highlight the fact that privatisation is not
likely to contribute to innovation in the line of MFA. Although there
is a need to integrate functions other than primary production, the
knowledge systems of the two countries’ systems seem to be driven
more and more by sector-based investments. There is a lack of
validation of innovative production systems for the integration of
different functions (productivity, fight against pollution, preserva-
tion of environment, and design of landscape) through experiments
and modelling at farm level. Appropriate services for farmers
enabling this integration are also lacking.
The institutional analysis has stressed the fact that privatisation
is a process embedded in the transformation of national institu-
tional arrangements between the state and groups of farmers.
These transformations are still grounded primarily in sector-based
issues; they do not seem likely to lead to a transformation of
agricultural systems towards an acknowledgement of the multi-
functionality of agriculture.
S201
5. Discussion and conclusions
To conclude, combining a network and an institutional frame-
work allows for a new understanding of the transformation of
extension services in France and in the Netherlands. In terms of
results, it has enabled us to propose an original perspective on the
similarities and divergences of extension services in the two
countries. Papers written in the late 1980s and early 1990s
described the diversity of the organisation of knowledge systems in
industrialised countries as a technical diversity. They also predicted
the emergence of a more standardised and effective system based
on commercialised extension firms (Knutson, 1986). Our analysis
has shown, on the contrary, that the post-WWII decades were
a period of strong similarities of agricultural knowledge systems in
France and the Netherlands from a technical perspective. The
differences between the countries were more the results of the
inclusion of extension services in institutional arrangements
specific to the social context of each country. In contrast, the
contemporary period is characterised by a growing divergence
between the technical organisation of the knowledge systems of
the two countries, in a context of transformation of the institutional
arrangements between the farmers’ unions and the state.
Producing such results has been possible as the two analytical
frameworks appear to be complementary from a scientific
perspective. The SNA is complementary to the IEA by proposing
a systemic framework which formalises how extension contributes
to innovations through links with other R&D organisations. The IEA
is complementary to the SNA by stressing the fact that extension
systems cannot be understood from a strictly technical point of
view. Extension services are also the expression of institutional
arrangements. These arrangements and their transformations are
specific to periods and national contexts. Combining the two
analytical frameworks offers a very promising perspective for
understanding the organisational and institutional transformation
of European agricultural R&D innovation systems.
This seems all the more necessary as extension services have
recently been mentioned as policy tools within the European
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The year 2003 was decisive for
the CAP (European Commission, 2003). A reform was accepted,
which established the principle of cross-compliance. In order to
benefit from European subsidies, farmers have to fulfil a set of
regulations concerning the different functions of agriculture:
environmental protection, biodiversity, landscape maintenance,
etc. At the same time, CAP reform has acknowledged the necessity
to produce technical knowledge for the integration of these func-
tions at farm level. This is embodied in the obligation for Member
States to create a National Extension System by 2008, in order to
bring technical support to farmers for the implementation of CAP
cross-compliance. The organisation and financing of these National
Extension Systems will nevertheless remain under the responsi-
bility of each EU Member State. But there is nowadays a strong trend
towards the deconstruction of the agricultural knowledge systems
of European countries, on a national scale. In this perspective, two
lessons can be learned from our research. Firstly, it is necessary to
rebuild links and collective procedures within agricultural R&D if
National Extension Systems are to support agriculture in integrating
the technical requirements of its multifunctionality. Secondly, these
collective procedures cannot be designed in a strictly technical
perspective. To be effective, they rather need to be thought in the
social and historical context of each country.
Appendix 1. Farmers’ unions and agricultural extension
In both countries, the history of farmers’ unions and the one
of extension services are closely linked. In this appendix, we
S202 P. Labarthe / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S193–S202
remind the main steps of this history and their links with the
one of extension services, in France and in the Netherlands.
Farmers’ unions were created in both countries during the XIX
century.
Farmers’ unions in France in the XX century
At the late XIX century, there existed in France two farmers’
unions, l’Union centrale des syndicats agricoles (union of big land
owners), and the Fédération Nationale de la mutualité et de la
coopération agricoles, who was a left-wing oriented farmers’
union. Nevertheless, both unions had debates mainly in Paris and
had a limited representation of the farmers in France at that time.
In the early XX century and in middle WWII period, there were
lots of tension between three farmers’ unions: la Fédération
Nationale des Syndicats d’Exploitations Agricoles (FNSEA), la Coor-
dination Générale de l’Agriculture (CGA), who regrouped diverse
left-wing farmers’ associations, and the Jeunesse Agricole Chré-
tienne (JAC), created by young Christian modernist farmers. After
WWII, four farmers’ unions remained: the FNSEA, la Confédération
Nationale des Jeunes Agriculteurs (CNJA), la Confédération Pay-
sanne, et le Mouvement de Défense des Exploitants Familiaux
(MODEF). Every five years, there are elections in each French
department for the Chambers of Agriculture. Each of four farmers’
unions can present lists to these elections. The FNSEA has the
majority in these chambers in almost every French department.
These Chambers are also one of the main suppliers of extension
services for farmers, and benefit from public subsidies. Beside
farmers’ unions, there is a representation of the farmers on a sub-
sector base, through associations of producers (such as the Asso-
ciation Générale des producteurs de Blés merging wheat
producers.). At the national level, only the FNSEA and the CNJA
and the AGPB were represented within the ANDA until the 2000s,
the association that managed the national fund for agricultural
extension.
Farmers’ unions in the Netherlands in the XX century
In the Netherlands, the situation is slightly different. In the end
of the XIX century, there were three farmers unions. The first union,
the Nederlandse Landbouw Comitee was created in 1884. It was the
result of the merging of different provincial agronomic societies.
Then, the Nederlandse Boerenbond, a catholic farmers’ union, was
created in 1896, whereas the Christelijke boeren-en Tuiderbon,
a protestant farmers’ union, was created in 1918. This leads to the
existence of three farmers unions after WWII: one liberal farmers’
union (the Koninklijk Nederlandse Landbouw Comite – KNLC),
a catholic farmers’ union (the katholieke Nederlandse Boeren-en
Tuidresbond – KNBTB), and a protestant farmers’ union (the Neder-
lands Christelijke Boeren-en Tuinersbond – NCBTB). These farmers’
unions represented different groups of farmers. The catholic
farmers’ union (KNLC) represented essentially the southern regions
of the country, whereas the two other unions (KNBTB and NCBTB)
were mainly composed of farmers from the seaside regions. These
differences between the three farmers’ unions also stem for
differences in terms of the social groups of farmers represented. For
instance, the liberal farmers’ union (KNLC) was composed mainly of
big farms, whereas the catholic farmers’ members ran in average
much smaller farms. These three farmers’ unions were equally
represented in the Landbouwschap. The Landbouwschap was
dismantled in the early 2000s. In the same period, the three
farmers’ unions merged in the Land-en Tuinbouw Organisatie (LTO).
Besides, the farmers are still organised as in France in associations
of producers according to sub-sectors (milk, cereals, etc.).
References
Arnon, I., 1989. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer. Elsevier Applied
Science, London.
Boyer, R., 1986. la théorie de la régulation, une analyse critique. La Découverte, Paris.
Boyer, R., 1989. Histoire des techniques et théories économiques. Vers un nouveau
programme de recherche? CEPREMAP, 8903.
Delorme, R., 1984. Compromis, Etat inséré et crise de l’Etat inséré. Crit. de l’écon.
polit. 26–27, 149–160.
Devienne, S., 1989. Systèmes de production du lait et politique agricole aux Pays-
Bas. INAP-G, Paris.
Dinar, A., 1996. Extension commercialization: how much to charge for extension
services. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78, 1–12.
Dosi, G., 1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomics effects of innovation. J.
Econ. Lit. 26 (3), 1120–1171.
Elegoet, F., Van Gils, L., 1989. Agriculture en Hollande. L’intelligence efficace. Tud Ha
Bro, Plabennec.
Engel, P.G.H., 1995. Facilitating Innovation: an Action-oriented Approach and
Participatory Methodology to Improve Innovative Social Practices in Agricul-
ture. Wageningen University, Wageningen.
Engel, P.G.H., Salomon, M., 1997. Facilitating Innovation for Development: a RAAKS
Resource Box: the Social Organization of Innovation – a Focus on Stakeholder
Interaction. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.
Engel, P.G.H., Van den Bor, W., 1995. Agricultural education from a knowledge
systems perspective: from teaching to facilitating joint inquiry and learning.
Eur. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 1 (4), 1–23.
European Commission, 2003. Proposition de règlement du conseil établissant des
règles communes pour les régimes de soutien direct dans le cadre de la Polit-
ique Agricole Communes et établissant des régimes de soutien aux producteurs
de certaines cultures. Commission européenne, Brussels.
Frouws, J., 1991. Les syndicats agricoles aux Pays-Bas. In: Hervieu, B., Lagrave, B.-M.
(Eds.), Les syndicats agricoles en Europe. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp. 186–207.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems:
insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory.
Res. Policy 33 (6–7), 897–920.
Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2006a. Matching demand and supply for innovation support
services: experiences with intermediary organizations in the privatized Dutch
agricultural knowledge and information system. In: 7th European IFSA
Symposium, Wageningen.
Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2006b. Balancing multiple interests: innovation brokers in
the market for innovation support services. In: 7th European IFSA Symposium,
Wageningen.
Knutson, R.D., 1986. Restructuring agricultural economics extension to meet
changing needs. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 68, 1297–1306.
Knutson, R.D., Outlaw, J.L., 1994. Extension’s decline? Rev. Agr. Econ. 16, 465–475.
Labarthe, P., 2006. La privatisation du conseil agricole en question. Evolutions
institutionnelles et performances des services de conseil dans trois pays
européens (Allemagne, France, Pays-bas). Thèse de doctorat en sciences écon-
omiques de l’Université de Marne-la-Vallée soutenue le 19 septembre 2006,
Paris.
Laurent, C., Cerf, M., Labarthe, P., 2006. Agricultural extension services and market
regulation: learning from a comparison of six EU countries. Eur. J. Agric. Educ.
Ext. 12 (1), 5–16.
Leeuwis, C., 2000. Learning to be sustainable, does the Dutch agrarian knowledge
market fail? J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 7 (2), 79–92.
Leeuwis, C., Van den Ban, A.W., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation:
Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Nieuwenhuis, L.F.M., 2002. Innovation and learning in agriculture. J. Eur. Ind. Train.
26 (6), 283–291.
Rivera, W.R., 2000. Confronting global market: public sector agricultural extension
reconsidered. J. Ext. Sys. 16, 33–54.
Rivera, W., Zijp, W., 2002. Contracting for Agricultural Extension. International Case
Studies and Emerging Practices. CABI Publishing, Cambridge (USA).
Röling, N.G., Engel, P.G.H., 1991. IT from a knowledge system perspective: concepts
and issues. In: Bos, D., Röling, N.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Seminar
on Knowledge Management and Information Technology Wageningen.
SCEES, 1983. Le conseil en agriculture. Structures et environnement des exploita-
tions agricoles, p. 128.
Smits, R., Kuhlman, S., 2004. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy.
Int. J. For. Innnov. Policy 1 (1&2), 4–30.
Somers, B.M., 1991. Small Farmers and Agricultural Extension. PhD thesis, Wage-
ningen University.
Sundberg, J., 2005. Systems of innovation theory and the changing architecture of
agricultural research in Africa. Food Policy 30 (1), 21–41.
Théret, B., 2000. Institutions et institutionnalismes: vers une convergence intra et
interdisciplinaire des conceptions de l’institution. Colloque Organisations et
institutions: règles, coordination, évolution., Amiens.
Van den Ban, A.W., 1981. International experience in communication and innova-
tion. In: Crouch, B.R., Chamala, S. (Eds.), Extension Education and Rural
Development, vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 293–307.
Van den Ban, A.W., 1984. Les courants de pensées en matières de théories de la
diffusion des innovations. Econ. Rurale 159, 31–36.
Wielinga, E., 1988. The Agricultural Extension System in the Netherlands. Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries, The Hague.