Concepts and practices in agricultural extension in developing ...

level. The ‘push’ is the temptation for other agencies to use extension because it is the most widelydistributed apparatus for contact with rural communities. The ‘pull’ is that the agents are willing to takeon other duties, especially input distribution, because such tasks often increase an extension agent’sinfluence over farmers, as well as providing opportunities to extract rents which compensate for lowsalary. Both have implications for the effectiveness of the extension service.Operating resources and fiscal sustainabilityInadequate public funding has been a historic problem confronting the service delivery function ofextension. According to Antholt (1994), the T&V extension system actually exacerbated operationalfunding problems by increasing staffing, and typically cost 25–40% more than multipurpose extension(Feder and Slade 1993).Much information disseminated by extension is a ‘public good’, and dissemination costs cannot beeasily recovered from individuals. Thus there is direct dependency on direct public funding. Fixed costfor salaries is very high, and operating costs are treated as a residual, which makes them vulnerable in abudget shortage. If the government has to cut the operating budget, there are obvious consequences foreffectiveness if extension agents cannot get to the field, causing operational as well as moral problems(Axinn 1988).Interaction with knowledge generation (Research–Extension, Extension–Farmer linkages)Insufficient relevance of new technology necessary to improve productivity is one of the most commonconstraints in extension, and a major constraint in rainfed, resource-poor environments (Axinn 1988;Purcell and Anderson 1997). The inherent problem is that extension disseminates information and advicegenerated by a knowledge-generating system which is generally not under extension management. Veryoften research and extension tend to compete for power and resources, and fail to see themselves as partof a broader agricultural technology system. This is further aggravated by donors in many circumstances.Kaimovitz (1991) identified the following obstacles to effective research–extension links:• Historical perceptions: Policy makers still fail to recognize research and extension as closelyinterdependent activities. The generally higher status of researchers tends towards patronizingbehaviour that is resented by extension agents.• Resistance to coordination: Coordination is perceived as limiting autonomy by both sides.• Goals may differ: The two organizations may not share the same goal. Researchers are moreinterested in producing scientific papers, and therefore may not generate research relevant tofarmers. On the other hand, extension agents may be more rewarded by distributing inputs andcredit.• No pressure: Lack of effectively organized outside pressure groups, such as national policymakers, donors, farm organizations, or private companies may hamper cooperation.Some of the mechanisms tried by selected countries in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) to enhanceresearch–extension linkages are summarized in Table 2.2.Generic problems cannot be seen in isolation. They are interrelated and often represent conflictingimperatives. Pressures may exist to maximize coverage while minimizing costs, to emphasize firmmanagement control while ensuring bottom–up participation, and increase human resource competencewhile exploiting cost-saving potential of mass media (World Bank 1990). Kaimovitz (1991) recordedthat low salaries, limited operating resources, an unclear mandate led to general decline in morale. This40