Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Effects of Extension Services


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Effects of Extension Services

  1. 1. Effects of Extension Services on TechnologyAdoption and Productivity among female and Male Farmers: Evidence from Ethiopia Catherine Ragasa, Guush Berhane, Fanaye Tadesse, and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse IFPRI ESSP-II Improved evidence towards better food and agricultural policies in Ethiopia November 02, 2012 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 the AGP baseline survey 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 IIGender Indicators – household headship and who makes decisions on each plotExtension - 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 meetingsTechnology – Use of fertilizer, improved seed, herbicides , pesticides, soil conservation method and row plantingProductivity – 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 ICommunity level information on change in extension service inthe 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 IExtension services – household level 70 60 50 40 30 Male 20 Female 10 0 Farm community DA visit (last DA visit (last 5 demonstration meetings year) years) plots 8
  9. 9. Descriptive Statistics IExtension services – plot level60504030 Male20 Female10 0 DA advice on fertilizer DA advice on planting DA advice on land seeds preparation 9
  10. 10. Descriptive Statistics II Input use and technologies- plot level3530252015 Male Female1050 chemical improved herbicide pesticide irrigation soil row planting fertilizer seed 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 IGender 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 are more likely to be visited by extension agents• Male heads are 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 IIGender 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 IIIGender 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. Conclusion1. 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 channels2. 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. Conclusion3. 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