Effects of Extension Services on Technology
Adoption and Productivity among Female and
Male Farmers: Evidence from Ethiopi...
Introduction I
•

Agricultural extension emphasized by development
experts as crucial for achieving agricultural developme...
Introduction II
•

However, recent reports still point to the persistence of
gender inequality in rural services, includin...
Data and Methods I
•

This study uses an AGP dataset collected by the Central
Statistics Agency (CSA) of Ethiopia

•

The ...
Data and Methods II
Gender Indicators – household headship and who makes
decisions on each plot
Extension
- Visits by and ...
Data and Methods III
•

The framework used is a standard empirical agricultural
production model.

•

Production output ex...
Descriptive Statistics I
Community level information on change in extension service in
the past two years
90.0
80.0
70.0
6...
Descriptive Statistics I
Extension services – household level
70
60
50
40
30

Male

20

Female

10
0

Farm
demonstration
p...
Descriptive Statistics I
Extension services – plot level
60
50
40
30

Male
Female

20

10
0

DA advice on fertilizer

DA a...
Descriptive Statistics II
Input use and technologies- plot level
35
30
25
20
Male

15

Female
10
5
0
chemical
fertilizer

...
Descriptive Statistics III
•

On average, the value of production per hectare of male
headed farming household is 14 perce...
Results I
Gender difference in access to extension services
•

Controlling for other factors, clear difference between fem...
Results II
Gender difference in technology adoption and input use
•

input use and adoption of improved management practic...
Results III
Gender difference in productivity
•

Gender of household head and of the decision maker of the
plot are not si...
Conclusion
1. Systematic and statistical gender difference in access to
different channels of extension services
•

Female...
Conclusion
3. Gender variable not significant in explaining productivity
levels.
•

Differentiated access to quality exten...
Policy implications
•

Observed gender related welfare differences can be
addressed by working on improving endowment of w...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Effects of Extension Services on Technology Adoption and Productivity among Female and Male Farmers: Evidence from Ethiopia

156

Published on

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI). Conference on "Towards what works in Rural Development in Ethiopia: Evidence on the Impact of Investments and Policies". December 13, 2013. Hilton Hotel, Addis Ababa.

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
156
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Effects of Extension Services on Technology Adoption and Productivity among Female and Male Farmers: Evidence from Ethiopia

  1. 1. Effects of Extension Services on Technology Adoption and Productivity among Female and Male Farmers: Evidence from Ethiopia Catherine Ragasa, Guush Berhane, Fanaye Tadesse, and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse IFPRI ESSP-II December 13, 2013 Hilton Hotel, Addis Ababa 1
  2. 2. Introduction I • Agricultural extension emphasized by development experts as crucial for achieving agricultural development • In Ethiopia, the government has been actively investing in its agricultural extension system in the past years. • Ethiopia’s extension system has one of the highest extension agent–farmer ratios found in the world. • On the gender frontier, various attempts to reach more women farmers have been implemented 2
  3. 3. Introduction II • However, recent reports still point to the persistence of gender inequality in rural services, including extension (Mogues et al, 2009). • Limited understanding on how such disparities in extension services contribute to improved technology adoption and productivity levels. 3
  4. 4. Data and Methods I • This study uses an AGP dataset collected by the Central Statistics Agency (CSA) of Ethiopia • The survey was conducted in 2011 • Covers the four major regions of Ethiopia—Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and SNNP with a sample size of 7,927 households. • A statistical representation of female headed households in the population (30 percent of selected households are female headed). 4
  5. 5. Data and Methods II Gender Indicators – household headship and who makes decisions on each plot Extension - Visits by and advice received from extension agents; - Access to radio, newspaper and bulletins - Farmers visit to demonstration plots and government offices and - Farmers’ participation in community meetings Technology – Use of fertilizer, improved seed, herbicides , pesticides, soil conservation method and row planting Productivity – value of yield per Hectare 5
  6. 6. Data and Methods III • The framework used is a standard empirical agricultural production model. • Production output expressed as a function of land, capital, inputs and other factors. • Extension variables and gender indicator are directly added into the production function. 6
  7. 7. Descriptive Statistics I Community level information on change in extension service in the past two years 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated
  8. 8. Descriptive Statistics I Extension services – household level 70 60 50 40 30 Male 20 Female 10 0 Farm demonstration plots community meetings DA visit (last year) DA visit (last 5 years) 8
  9. 9. Descriptive Statistics I Extension services – plot level 60 50 40 30 Male Female 20 10 0 DA advice on fertilizer DA advice on planting seeds DA advice on land preparation 9
  10. 10. Descriptive Statistics II Input use and technologies- plot level 35 30 25 20 Male 15 Female 10 5 0 chemical fertilizer improved seed herbicide pesticide irrigation soil row planting conservation technique
  11. 11. Descriptive Statistics III • On average, the value of production per hectare of male headed farming household is 14 percent higher than female headed households • There are significant gender differences in crop choice. • Female heads are significantly more likely to grow maize, Enset, potatoes and fruits; while male heads are more likely to grow Teff and other pulses. 11
  12. 12. Results I Gender difference in access to extension services • Controlling for other factors, clear difference between female and male heads in access to visits and advice from development agents • Male heads  5 percent more likely to be visited by extension agents  25 percent more likely to attend community meetings • Education, wealth indicators, distance to market and location dummies - affect access to extension services • Female headed households with higher proportion of male members are more likely to have been visited by extension agents. 12
  13. 13. Results II Gender difference in technology adoption and input use • input use and adoption of improved management practices are not significantly different between female and male heads. • Extension service provision in the form of advice from DAs is a significant factor explaining input adoption. • Receiving advice on fertilizer and improved seed • increases fertilizer adoption by 31 percent • Increases improved seed adoption by 2.5 percent • difference in terms of access to resources, education and access to extension services 13
  14. 14. Results III Gender difference in productivity • Gender of household head and of the decision maker of the plot are not significant in explaining productivity difference • productivity differences explained by intensity of use of traditional inputs as well as adoption of modern inputs • Plots of female heads and female plot managers are as equally productive as their male counterparts if they faced the same level of inputs and access to improved technologies and services. 14
  15. 15. Conclusion 1. Systematic and statistical gender difference in access to different channels of extension services • Female heads and plot managers are less likely to get extension services through various channels 2. Receiving advice from DA a major factor that explain the likelihood of technology adoption and rate of input use • Beyond the influence of gender indicator through extension variables, gender indicators appear to be insignificant in the technology adoption and input use models 15
  16. 16. Conclusion 3. Gender variable not significant in explaining productivity levels. • Differentiated access to quality extension, access to input, and quality of plot and not gender per se that explain productivity differences. 16
  17. 17. Policy implications • Observed gender related welfare differences can be addressed by working on improving endowment of women • Closing the gender gap in agricultural productivity requires programs that • reach both women and men farmers with quality extension services – gender target • close the persistent women bias in access to productive resources and inputs 17
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×