A Comprehensive Study on Agricultural Extension Reforms and Its Impact

This report provides a comprehensive overview of agricultural extension reforms and their impact on farmers globally. It begins with an introduction to current agricultural monitoring practices and the role of extension reforms in improving agricultural practices and farmer development. The report then traces the evolution of agricultural extension, from the initial top-down models to farming systems research and participatory approaches. It critically examines the issues associated with each model, including the limitations of the top-down approach, the challenges faced by farming systems research, and the critiques of the Training and Visit model. The analysis covers a global perspective, highlighting the importance of agricultural extension for agricultural development and addressing the challenges faced by farmers in developing countries. The report emphasizes the need for constant research and the adoption of innovations to improve agricultural practices and the quality of life for rural people.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Farmers at present uses different agricultural monitoring practices that are being suggested by
the government and making available to them with the help of extension reforms more than a
decade. These reformed are being performed by government of India by launching several Agri-
clinics and Agri-business center schemes. This is so because their dependence on agriculture is
not only for food but also to make a livelihood, in order to meet diversified growing needs born
out of modernization (Shekara, 2001). The main aim of performing this research is to determine
the effect that extension reform brought to the farmers and manner in which it is working toward
improving the agricultural practices performed by the farmers. In addition to this it also support
in determining the main factors that work toward development of farmers. These developments
demand new and diverse learning needs from the farming community (Kapoor, 2010). In
response to the changing needs, agricultural extension reforms were introduced across the globe,
particularly in developing countries, with a new scope of seeking to alleviate poverty through
extension, by providing the marginal and poor farmers in particular with appropriate knowledge,
information, technologies and management practices through a market oriented concept.
The way in which agricultural extension has been organized and provided to meet these challenges has
changed over time, with remarkably similar trends across the globe. These changes have been linked to
general trends in development thinking and practice. A strong belief in the role of the state—as the major
actor of development—characterized the economic policies of many developing nations after they
reached their independence. The establishment of public sector extension services fitted well into this
paradigm. The Training and Visit (T&V) system, promoted by the World Bank in more than 50 countries,
became a major model for providing and managing extension (Purcell and Anderson, 1997; Anderson,
Feder, and Ganguly 2006). The disenchantment with the role of the state in development— reflected in
the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s and 1990s—led to a downsizing of agricultural extension
in many countries. The T&V system was finally abandoned in the late 1990s. The question remains
whether the major reason was the lack of fiscal sustainability, the inadequacy of the model for many
situations in which it was promoted, or its inconsistency with the growing emphasis on the role of the
state as a facilitator rather than a provider of public services
The meaning of extension has been evolved as the “process of disseminating, need-based and
demand-based knowledge and skills to rural people in a non-formal, participatory manner, with the
objective of improving their quality of life” (Qamar, 2005). Extension services can be in any field;
when the extension services are implemented in the field of agriculture, it is called agricultural
extension. On the other side, extension is basically refers to the implementation of scientific
research as well as knowledge over the agricultural practices by educating farmers. This field of
extension has now become more improved within India as now government has integrated several
new sort of communication as well as learning activities for educating the rural people regarding
1

agricultural practices through several professionals that belongs to different discipline such as
agricultural marketing, health or business studied that get specialized in the field of agriculture.
The success of the extension services lies in two critical factors: one is constant research, and the
other is to encourage the farmers in adopting the innovations of the research into practice. These
extension practices later were operated with broader objectives such as generating rural
employment, poverty alleviation, etc. However, extension services are perceived in a negative
way in many of the developing countries due to various reasons such as weak extension lobby,
lack of confidence in the research, and inadequate parameters to measure the service of the
professionals. Developed nations like the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Denmark have advanced
practices of agriculture due to extension services which are facilitated by both public and private
agencies which were initially controlled by public agencies (Qamar,2005).
1.3 Agricultural extension– a global perspective
Agricultural extension is important for agricultural development. Its work has a “venerable, albeit,
largely unrecorded history” (Jones and Garforth, 1997), and its origin can be traced in “man's
quest for improving agriculture” (Sulaiman, 2003:1). The modern form of Agriculture had its
origin in the 19th century.
In many of the less industrialized countries, agriculture development remains the main concern,
especially the increase of population is aggravating, the problem of food insecurity and
intensifying the rural poverty (Rivera, Qamar, 2003a, Rivera, Qamar, 2003b, Ponniah et al., 2008).
Due to the non-availability of technology, farmers in the underdeveloped and developing
countries have to face various problems due to improper integration or adoption of technology.
For instant, India is a developing country and agriculture is consider as a center piece of economy
of India while remaining a main source of livelihood for majority of people but still this sector
stands at technologically backward. This includes inadequate farm equipment, distribution
challenges due to intermediaries among the farm to fork, inadequate transportation are some of
the common issues that are involve in Indian agricultural sector due to lack of technical
development.
The scope of the extension services not only ‘expanded’ after the 1950s (Anholt, 1994), but also
received financial support and aid from the donor agencies by acknowledging its crucial role in
the agriculture development (Purcell and Anderson, 1997, Anderson, 2008).
This chapter involves a discussion regarding the practices related with the agricultural extension
and development that become possible from such practices. This discussion will be mentioned in
literature review section as well as data analysis section where information will examined in the
context of an emerging development paradigm. A brief view of the extension development for
the past sixty years until the most recent reform have been categorized by different authors in
2

different ways. Farrington (2002) and Ponniah (2008), in their reviews, classified it according to
different periods of evolution. Haug in his review (1999: 264, 265) drawn from the work of Pretty
and Chambers (1993), categorized extension theory into four stages, on the basis of its approach
and the major disciplinary influence. Similarly, King, (2000) in Bukenya (2010: 6), identified
extension world views, for the past years linking each world view to the corresponding impetus,
agenda, and focus (Table 1.1).
Traditionally technology transfer through extension was made in a linear, top-down manner
(Sulaiman and Hall, 2002a, 2002b, Ponniah et al., 2008) by diffusion of innovations from research
to the farmers (Roling, 1988, Farrington, 2002). The research focused on ‘technology generation’,
whereas extension focused on ‘adoption of the technologies’ by the farmers (Qamar, 2005: vii).
The objectives of extension were usually framed as a 'predetermined' (Bukenya, 2010)
'interveners' (Roling, 1988: 39) targets, basically with the ‘production’ goals (Garforth and
Lawrence, 1997, Farrington, 2002), and so success was measured in terms of ‘increased
production’ and the ‘rate of adoption’ (Christoplos, 1996: 3) by the farmers. The primary
objective of the extension was to attain food security (Haug, 1999, Farrington, 2002: 6), by
transferring uniform package of services to all the farmers irrespective of their landholding and
socioeconomic condition due to 'political determination' (Roling, Jong, 1998: 146).
1.3.1 The issues in the Top-Down Model
The top-down model was in the practice which grossly ignored the needs of the farmers,
therefore it was viewed that this model was dominated by the ‘researchers’ perceptions’
(Farrington, 2002: 6), as agricultural research was “seen as the fountain head of technological
innovations” (Röling, 1996 in Bukenya, 2010), and innovations of the farmers were not
considered by treating them the passive and mere receivers of the technology (Davis. 2010). Pro-
innovation approach, which was dominated by the bureaucratic structure, could not bring the
women, rain fed, and risk-prone farmers into the ambit of extension services. Even the
knowledge dissemination to the farmers was hampered to a greater extent.
However, farmers are the significant entity in agriculture extension services system, and their
needs have to be paid utmost attention by the extension managers. In this regard, the personnel
of the extension services needs strong collective, social, and innovative skills to reach the farmers
and understand their concerns (Roling, 1988, Ban, 1997: 1639, Davis, 2010) since the aim of the
extension services are not to change the individual behaviour but to bring a qualitative change in
the society (Christoplos, 1996).
1.3.2 Farming Systems Research and Extension
The information and knowledge impasse, created by the diffusion of innovation research,
towards the risk-prone farmers has led to the evolution of ‘systems approach’, in order to reach
more number of farmers (Ponniah, 2008: 34, Farrington, 2002: 6). The linear model of the
extension was replaced by the two-way communication model (Haug, 1999, Ponniah, 2008).
3

Technologies were designed through an ‘inter-disciplinary perspective’ (Friis-Hansen, 1994: 23),
by involving the agronomists and economists (Haug, 1999). Farmers’ perceptions and
understandings were given due recognition (Farrington, 2002; Haug, 1999; Jones and Garforth,
1997) by taking into consideration different agro ecological and socioeconomic conditions of the
farmers (Farrington, 2002), so that the newly designed technology could meet the farmers’
requirements in a holistic way (King, 2000 in Bukenya, 2010). This approach served as a guide for
the holistic and systems thinking concept as seen in Table 1.1 (King, 2000 in Bukenya, 2010), and
it was named as Farming Systems Research (FSR) (Haug, 1997, Farrington, 2002). In recognition of
the key role played by extension in feeding information into the research system, it was named as
Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR&E) (Ponniah, 2008, King, 2000 in Bukenya, 2010).
1.3.3 Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension(FSR&E)
The farming systems concept showed its relevance in practice, with its holistic thinking and a
multidisciplinary approach in dealing with farmers’ concerns. However, it suffered from ‘inability
to shift domain’ (Farrington, 2002: 6) by the researchers to leave their conventional mode of
operation (Farrington, 2002) and maintaining control over the ‘research agenda’ (King, 2000 in
Bukenya, 2010). The approach remained mostly extractive rather than participatory as farming
was looked upon merely in the economic context by tailoring the design of farming conditions
and showing more impact on the farm income rather than on production technologies (Friss-
Hansen and Kisauzi, 2004). The systems approach still remained distant from the involvement of
the people, in setting the research and extension agenda (Farrington, 2002: 8), and was generally
weak at recognizing and mitigating situations of conflict (Friis-Hansen, 2004). There was a
growing recognition that ‘technological changes’ can be attained through the social participation
of the people, as it can bring about social movement, and always has a ‘social impact’ (Roling,
1988, Ban, 1997, Christoplos, 1996: 7) on the people.
1.3.4 Training and Visit model and critique
The farming systems concept has reflected in Training and Visit model (T&V) which was initiated
in the 1970s, with the funding support of World Bank (Purcell and Anderson, 1997, Farrington,
2002; Anderson and Feder, 2003: 17). This model was adopted in more than fifty countries across
the world and was regarded for its contribution of specific packages to wider geographical areas.
Nevertheless, since it was succeeded in promoting the application of uniform technology, it was
criticized on the grounds of “irrelevant, inefficient, ineffective technologies irrespective of its
suitability” (Davis, 2009: 48 in Davis, 2008), especially with respect to resource-poor
environments (Rivera and Sulaiman, 2009).
1.3.5 Participatory approaches
From the 1980s, participatory approaches were prioritised as seen in Table 1:1, by highlighting
the participation of the farmer in the research process along with the scientists and extension
staff as participation with the researchers and extensionist as “social actors in the social practice
4

of agriculture production” (Haug, 1999: 265). This period played a crucial role in fusing the gaps
between a small business which is seen as neoclassical thinking of farming, and multifunctional,
which is perceived as liberal socialist view of (Haug, 1999) performer of rural development.
Farmers were encouraged to share their knowldege by introducing the indigenous knowledge
they have so that by using this actions can be performed toward the technology development
(Haug, 1999: 265) depending on the farming system. A fusion of professionals like
anthropologists, agro-ecologists, and geologists marked this era with their novel contributions to
environmentally sustainable farming practices (Haug, 1999). A new environmentally sustainable
approach, Farmer field school was evolved under the leadership of these professionals (Roling
and Jong, 1998).
1.3.6 Women’s Participation
Farm activities in the rural areas were conducted by both the men and women, however, the
extension approaches available in the past were biased which included only men by ignoring the
women farmers by “default or by design”(Saito &Weiderman, 1990 in Haug, 1999: 268)
(MANAGE, 2007). The contribution of the women to agriculture sector started receiving the
acknowledgement in the early 1980s (Jafry & Sulaiman, 2012).
Since ages women had limited access or were devoid of various agricultural extension services,
like access to technological resources and various agricultural inputs, necessary equipment and
land. It was due to the constraints imposed by culture, customs, and traditions of the society,
and women failed to claim their stake. Above all, “nontangible assets, such as social capital,
human capital, rights, and decision making power, were more difficult for women to access”
(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2011).
Though rural women are usually engaged in multiple household activities to amplify various
livelihood strategies (FAO, 2011), however, these crucial contributions of women such as the
production of crops, livestock and harvesting cash crops (Manfre et al., 2013) are not considered
to be economically active employment (FAO, 2011). The past extension approaches during the
1950s and ‘60s, simply aimed at the dissemination of new agricultural knowledge to farmers. The
Training and Visit (T&V) extension system during the 1970s viewed women as beneficiaries in the
welfare schemes/sense, but not as actors in their own right in the agricultural production system
(World Bank, 2009). One of the key factors identified for the underperforming of agriculture, in
many developing countries, is the non-inclusion of women farmers and creating the resources
and opportunities for them (FAO, 2011).
1.4 Preparatory Period for Extension Reforms
5

With the changing economic scenario during the late 1990s, and in view of the ‘neoliberal
philosophies’ (Christoplos et al, 2001: 15), accelerated the ‘rolling back of the states’ from
(development), provision of agricultural extension services (Sulaiman and Holt, 2002: 1,
Christoplos et al, 2001: 15, Farrington, 1994). The structural adjustments have heavily impacted
on public extension, creating a “glum situation" (Haug, 1999: 266), due to reductions in public
spending (Farrington, 1994). These situations have contributed to the emergence of significant
innovative approaches across the globe, which include focusing on the empowerment of the
people through participation, pluralistic mode of operation (by involving wider players), cost
recovery for some of the inputs supplied, decentralization, improving the extension
management, privatizing some of the service aspects, fee for services provision to suitable
clients, improving the information and communication technologies (ICT) to inter connect rural
people, focus on specific commodities, involving NGO’s and farmer’s organisations, capacity
training of farmers and extension providers (Swanson, 2008, Anderson, 2007, Birner & Anderson,
2007, Rivera and Alex 2005, Rivera, et al, 2001, Feder et al, 1999).
The mid-1990s is categorized as an institutional stage (Haug, 1999), and also viewed as a period
of ‘uncertainty’, created by ‘human activity’ with the changing ‘economy’ on the globe (Roling
and Jong, 1998: 147). The term ‘uncertainty’ (Roling and Jong, 1998: 147) in contemporary
extension, ‘conjures up various approaches from the past and juxtaposes into an amorphous
umbrella’ (Christoplos, 2010: 2), of different actors and activities, which provide information and
advice to both men and women farmers, as per their demands and requirements in agricultural
and rural development. Therefore, they are termed as agricultural advisory services. This period
paved the way for addressing various social and economic developments of the rural areas
through extension (Garforth and Harford, 1997; Bukenya, 2010).
1.4.1 Wider role for extension
In view of the wider role for the extension, Swanson (2008) and Swanson &Rajalahti (2010),
identified four major objectives, which include:
1) Technology transfer for the staple food crops production
2) Human capital development for improving farm income, by providing farmers with
knowledge, technical and management skills
3) Building social capital for carrying out specific activities
4) Educating farmers for the sustainable management of natural resources.
On similar lines, Christoplos (1996) identified three objectives for attaining social change, which
includes:
1. Environmental sustainability
2. Poverty alleviation
6

3. Empowerment.
From the information presented by Christoplos, it can be observed that the objectives of
extension have moved towards the broader perspective of attaining sustainability of agriculture
by improving rural livelihoods through empowerment.
According to Roling, 1996, when the practice of extension becomes very diverse and is meant to
serve different purposes, then it becomes essential for the extension to be served in different
ways.
In relation to this aspect, Swanson and Rajalahti (2010: 2) identified four major paradigms for
organizing the extension, 1) Technology transfer 2) Advisory services 3) Non-formal education
and 4) Facilitation. These four paradigms show the integral relationship between the theory and
practice of agricultural advisory services.
1) Extension as Technology transfer approach: was practiced to reduce food cost (Swanson and
Rajalahti, 2010), by increasing the food production, through persuasive methods of teaching. This
was a key function which was continued for attaining national food security (Swanson, 2010).
a) Impact of Extension Services on National Food Security
Self-sufficiency in terms of food is an inevitable objective of every country. In the second phase of
20th-century efforts were made to achieve food security to meet the food needs of a growing
population in both urban and rural areas. Adequate attention was paid on the primary crops by
providing the extension services in increasing the yield of these primary crops based geographical
regions of various countries like rice, wheat, tubers, oil seeds, pulses and maize were given due
importance. With the availability of green revolution technologies many countries showed
positive impact in well endowed areas increasing the productivity of the primary crops through
transfer of technology approach. However, this approach left agricultural research and extension
from government support because of the long term concentration on agricultural productivity,
besides leaving nearly millions of people undernourished affecting the household food security
and the rural livelihoods.
At the same time changes in the food pattern in transforming economies like China and India
demanded a variety of crops like fruits, livestock, and fisheries. And appropriate technology and
management methods have to be incorporated to meet the growing food needs since there is
pressure on the land and water resources. Countries which could not compete in tapping the land
and water resources were prone to large scale food security problems, especially at the
household level.
b) Improving Rural Livelihoods and Achieving Household Food Security
7

Rural livelihood through improving the households, especially the marginal farm families, has
been the recent extension objectives in many nations, especially, in Sub-Saharan Africa and South
Asian Regions.
After examining the rural livelihood in Asian Countries, it was perceived that marginal farmers
can be benefitted with farm income. Therefore for increasing the farm income, more emphases
toward diversification of high value crops, fisheries and livestock must be put which not only
support in improving the farmers' income but also support in fulfilling the need of people lives in
urban areas. This is so because it is a labor intensive farm activity which mainly addresses the
problems related with unemployment in rural areas. This in turn also support in reducing the
migration of people to the developed area for sake of employment and livelihood. Farmer
producer groups as farmers and farm women as the members are necessary to fulfill the
objectives mentioned above since it enables them to avail the best of technology, management
methods, and market access. Hence, by organizing farm women into Self Help Groups it become
easier to improve the quality of lives in rural areas with better education, health, and nutrition.
2) Extension as Advisory services: shows its justification in contemporary form by moving beyond
its traditional role of mere training and communicating messages, to assume a much broader role
of improving farm business as an enterprise (Bukenya, 2010). The main strategy of this paradigm
is to increase farm income (Swanson, 2010), by improving livelihood options. Farmers are advised
to solve the identified constraint or problem by seeking advice from various service providers to
solve their problems.
3) Non-Formal Education (NFE): traditionally served as one of the means of training for the farmers
who do not have formal education facilities. Nevertheless, the focus of contemporary extension
has shifted towards training the farmers on specific management or technical skills which
improve the production as seen in integrated pest management (IPM), and Farmer's field schools
(FFS).
4) Facilitation of extension: Changing the role of the extension worker from advisor/teacher to facilitator.
Extension agencies are no longer only providers of technologies and advice but create conditions for a
broader flow of information and knowledge. ‘Extension workers’ are being transformed into ‘farm
advisors’ who engage their client farmers in critical thinking about their agricultural endeavours and about
the management of their farming enterprises. It focuses on the common interest of the farmers by
organizing and work more closely together through participatory approaches to achieve both
individual and common objectives. It engages farmers through an active learning process through
experimentation to improve their problem-solving skills, which is in line with the “human
resource development view of extension” (Swanson, 2008: 26). This approach helps the farmers
to intensify and diversify their farming systems according to the market demands and helps them
in driving towards the economic opportunities to improve their farm household income. More
8

significantly, women farmers are also identified to participate in the facilitation process and work
in groups to attain specific purposes.
Swanson and Rajalahti (2010) opined that however to both increase farm
income and improve rural livelihoods among the rural poor, it will be
necessary for most public extension organizations to transition toward greater
use of facilitation and Non Formal Extension (NFE) extension methods. In
particular, small-scale men and women farmers, including the landless, can
begin organizing into community or farmer groups and then learn the
necessary technical, management, and marketing skills that will be necessary
to help them progressively diversify into higher-value crop, livestock, or other
enterprises that will increase their farm household income. At the same time,
as the agricultural sector in countries develop (i.e., becomes increasingly
commercialized), technology transfer and advisory services tend to be
increasingly privatized. Therefore, in the process, it is important to build
strong public–private partnerships that will further enhance agricultural
productivity growth, as well as to increase the incomes and improve the
livelihoods of small-scale and landless farm households. Another important
change is the shift from a more linear technology transfer model toward a
more holistic approach in understanding how and where farmers get their
information and technologies. For example, the current move toward an
agricultural innovations systems approach arises through an interactive,
inclusive process relying on multiple sources and actors (World Bank 2006b).
Especially when the goal is to intensify and diversify farming systems, both
innovative farmers and extension can play a significant, joint role in working
together to introduce new market-driven crop and/or livestock systems to
small-scale men and women farmers. Therefore, extension, in effect, serves as
a facilitator or knowledge broker; this transition has implications for the
technical, professional, and entrepreneurial skills that extension agents will
need to be effective in this new role (Rajalahti, Janssen, and Pehu 2008).
The institutional period marked the beginning of paying increased attention to women
empowerment (MANAGE, 2007). Many of the developing countries, under the revitalized
extension system, aimed at a much broader objective of improving rural livelihoods, beyond
mere agricultural productivity (Swanson &Rajalahti, 2010). This shift to “livelihoods oriented
approach” has opened up wide opportunities to women, by “strengthening women’s leadership
skills” to participate and articulate their extension needs (Gallina, 2010), by social capital
formation. Besides that, the rise in ‘Female empowerment’ laws had provisions of increased
opportunities for women in accessing and acquiring ownership of various valuable assets. It also
enhanced ‘mobility and personal decision making’ of women (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2011), which
9

were lacking in the past system due to discriminatory social norms against women. Above all,
challenging gender inequality rather than complaining, increases efficiency and productivity in
the agricultural sector through extension, and thereby contributes towards growth and poverty
reduction (Christoplos, 2010; World Bank, 2009).
TABLE 1:1 Different extension world views during the 20th century
Haug (1999)
Ki
n
g
(
2
0
0
0
)
in
B
u
k
e
n
y
a
(
2
0
1
0
)
Extension
‘world view.’
Impetus Agenda Theoretical foci
Production stage1900-
1975, extension
approaches were top-
down, one-way transfer
of technology model,
farmers, were viewed as
recipients, and major
pioneering disciplines
Pre 1960’s
Transfer of
technology
Extending
research
findings
Production
(changing farms)
Message
transmission
1960’s The
diffusion of
innovations
era, transfer
Address poor
uptake of
technology
result of
Market-oriented
farm enterprise
(changing
farmers)
Adult learning
nature of
learning
adoption
10

were crop breeding and
animal breeding.
of
technology
differential
adoption rates
behaviour
Economic stage 1975-1985,
the farming systems
approach were pioneered
by economists and
agronomists, and farmers
were viewed as a major
source of information and
technology design,
1970’s Farming
systems
research
Heterogenous
environment
(both physical
and social)
Systems-
oriented
innovations
(changing
farming
systems)
Holistic thinking
Systems
thinking
Ecological stage 1985-1995,
pioneering disciplines
were Anthropology,
Agroecology and
Geography, farmers were
treated as both victims
and cause of
environmental
unsustainable
development.
1980’s
Participatory
technology
development
Inequity
Inappropriat
e
technologies
Social justice
(south)
Changing
indigenous
knowledge
(south and
north)
(changing
practice)
Power
community
development
gender(south)
Organizational
learning group
work team
building (north)
Institutional stage 1995
onwards, Psychologists,
organizational
sociologists, scientists and
training specialists and
educators pioneered the
system, and farmers were
viewed as collaborators of
research and extension.
Early 1990’ s
Facilitating
participatory
learning.
Extension’s
role and
practice
questioned
farmer
knowledge
Ecological
sustainability
(changing
institutions)
Communicative
rationality
Late 1990’s
Facilitating
social learning
Systems are
embedded in
other systems
Merging social
justice and
ecological
sustainability
(changing
relationships)
Systems
thinking,
cognitive
process,
constructivism
helped
practitioners
think critically
about
knowledge
Source –from Haug (1999) and King (2000) in Bukenya (2010)
1.4.2 Agricultural Innovation System
Furthermore, the thinking of the agricultural advisory services, focused on the inclusion of the
‘Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS)’ and the ‘Agricultural Innovation Systems
(AIS)’, under one framework known as ‘Agricultural Innovation’ systems (Berdegue and Escober,
11

2002, Sulaiman and Hall, 2004, Leeuwis and Aarts, 2009). These systems supported in fulfilling
the diversified information and knowledge need of rural people by providing it through several
sources in a systematic manner which contribute toward developing the organization learning
and making them capable to adopt the changes effectively. This also supported in expanding the
horizons of understanding related with the agricultural extension which contrasting the
traditional approach used by farmers for performing agricultural practices without considering
several sources to gather information. It is recognized that rural population consists of a mixture
of people who not only depend on agriculture for their livelihood but also depend on other non-
agricultural activities, some as part-time agricultural laborers (Farrington et al; 2002, Rivera and
Alex, 2004, Bukenya, 2010) who require information and knowledge from different agricultural
knowledge and information systems to meet their livelihood. Further extension in a much
broader role is targeted to meet various social challenges such as poverty alleviation, natural
resource management, social equity (gender) and a focus on food security at the national level,
and at the individual and community level. Hence extension offers a solution to the social
challenges by involving a wider set of stakeholders to meet the varied needs of the farmers
(Christoplos, 2010, Swanson, 2006, Rivera and Alex, 2004, Swanson et al.; 1997, Bukenya, 2010).
Rivera (1997).
The capacities of extension and advisory services are strengthened to play much wider roles to
increase their relevance to contemporary agriculture and rural development needs, which are
termed as ‘extension plus’ concept (Sulaiman and Hall 2004a, 2004b, Sulaiman 2012). Although
success has been achieved in designing gender sensitive extension system, if the agricultural
technologies developed, and disseminated are not in accordance with the needs and preferences
of women, the system cannot be sustained. Therefore, a “gender-responsive agricultural
research, development, and extension system has to address the needs of women and men as
both of them are clients and actors” (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2011) in the development process.
1.4.3 Supporting the Rural Livelihood
Since the evolution of modern agricultural extension services, endless debates were mooted on
the nature of the ‘role’ of extension, and on ‘work’ of extension (Davis, 2008:16, Farrington,
2002:6, Roling, 1988, Christoplos, 1996: 5), for advancing new techniques, new knowledge and
new technology to the farmers from the research, for the purpose of increasing the agricultural
production. Nonetheless, the present extension system is confronted with the challenges of ‘who
it is serving’ and “how sustainable are the livelihoods that it is supporting” (Christoplos, 1996: 3).
In support of the broader view of the extension agenda, the focus shifted from mere transferring
of technology to supporting rural livelihood
The goals of extension always guided towards the action and customized to the ‘specific life
situations, power positions, and developmental philosophies’ (Nagel, 1997). Since the inception
12

of the extension the goals have changed continuously, starting from the simplest, ‘narrow
technical’ (Nagel, 1997), ‘performance oriented’ (Rivera, 1997: 30) concept, to the most recent
broader ‘result-oriented’ (Rivera, 1997: 30), aiming at the ‘socio-economic’ development (Nagel,
1997), of various ‘agricultural and rural development’ (Rivera, 1994: 30, Rivera et al 2001). In
view of the broader role of the extension, addressing both the agricultural and rural problems, for
creating “effective and environmentally sustainable development” (Davidson, 2006: 3), many of
the authors have proposed for the broader agenda for contemporary role of the extension, as
‘Extension for Agricultural and Rural development’ (Rivera et al, 2001, Sulaiman and Hall, 2002,
FAO 2000, Christoplos, 2010, Sulaiman and Hall, 2004a, b, Sulaiman, 2012). However, an
‘inseparable mixture’ of goals was framed on the same lines since its inception, and the
achievements and shortcomings of the various extension approaches differed according to the
situations (Nagel, 1997).
1.4.4 Human Resource Development Model
The objectives framed till now, usually were ranged on a two-point continuum (Nagel, 1997), on
one end of the continuum lies the ‘persuasive’ (Davis, 2008: 16) technology transfer model, and
at the other end lies the ‘facilitative’ (Davis, 2008: 16, Birner et al, 2006: 2) or human resource
development model, in between the two models lie the advisory and adult education function
Coutts 1995 in (Sulaiman and Hall, 2002: 1). Technology transfer model aimed at attaining food
security by introducing the new technologies from the research. Adult education model helped in
communicating the farmers the new innovations, mostly through non-formal teaching methods,
as it was basically meant to educate the rural farmers. Though human resource development
remained a ‘far cry’ (Tripathi, 2003) in the past approaches, it has drawn much attention under
the present scenario, by facilitation and capacity building of the farmers in order to make them
overcome the changing risk patterns in the agriculture development (Christoplos, 2010). This
expanded concept of the extension towards the provision of human resource development, by
enhancing the support and facilitation to the people, and helping them in solving their problems,
by advising them with the required knowledge, skills and information, for improving their
livelihoods hence they are termed as the ‘Agricultural advisory services’ (Birner et al, 2006: 2,
Davis, 2008: 16, Swanson, 2008), and has been acknowledged by the world development report
2008 (Anderson, 2007).
There was a growing recognition that, institutions are fundamental to the economic change
(Sulaiman, 2003), and therefore in accordance with this, Hoffmann (2009:21) has expressed, that
extension cannot be easily built, once the “institutional and human capacities are deleted from
the extension practice”. Hence further challenge for extension is the much needed investment in
human and social capital for the rural development as a whole, by empowering farmers by
making them learn about managing their farms through critical thinking and problem-solving
13

skills through participation and group approaches for the better impact of the extension practice
(Christoplos, 2010).
1.4.5 Economic effects of extension
“The history of economic development shows that few countries have achieved sustained
economic growth without first, or simultaneously, developing their agricultural sector”
(Birkhaeuser et al.1989). However, in almost all the developing countries agriculture is a very
important sector in generating employment, income, even foreign exchange. For these countries,
it is difficult to afford the development model based on any other sector by ignoring the
agriculture sector which fulfils the food needs of the people.
Birkhaeuser et al. 1989 conducted studies in seventeen countries and another study comprising
24 countries concluded that extension services have a significant impact on the agriculture
output. “There is limited evidence regarding the profitability of investment in extension from a
social welfare perspective. Nonetheless, the few studies which were undertaken demonstrate
that investment in extension can have very high rates of return in both developing and developed
countries.” (Birkhaeuser et al. 1989). It was concluded in this paper that technology and research
had supplemented the input in the growth of agriculture production.
Evenson & Mwabu during 1998 conducted studies in various countries of Africa pertaining to
extension services reveals that the impact of extension services was determined by yields of the
crop, literacy rate of the farmers, soil quality, labour, fertilizer inputs, agro-ecological conditions.
The managerial abilities of the farmers are observed to be boosted. The training of the farmers,
public funded markets were made available to the farmers, land holding of the farmers, agro-
ecological conditions were identified to be the crucial factors influenced by the extension
services.
Thus, it can be concluded that, the extension theory and practice are under continuous renewal
process, starting from the classic one way transfer of technology model, with production goals,
viewing the farmers as mere recipients, to the participatory approaches, referred to as
transformative decade (Feder et al, 1999), acknowledging the farmers’ participation in the
technology development, as social actors in the practice of the agriculture production’ (Haug,
1999). Institutional period during the 1990s, witnessing the representation of the farmers as
active participants, and extension specialists as advisors and facilitators, towards aiming the
bigger thrust of improving the rural livelihoods (Swanson, 2008), through facilitation and advice,
for attaining social justice and ecological sustainability through empowerment and human
resource development, involving diverse players (Sulaiman& Hall, 2002), which is in contrast to
the top-down approaches. Further, the concept of extension towards improving the rural
livelihoods, beyond mere agricultural productivity (Swanson &Rajalahti, 2010), has opened up
14

wide opportunities towards reducing the vulnerability of the poor (Christoplos et al, 2000), by
providing improved access to information on wider livelihood choices and institutional support
(Sulaiman& Hall, 2002), through client demand for services (Neuchatel group, 2006; Farrington et
al, 2002), and thereby improving the ways for increasing the income for the poor.
1.5 Indian Scenario
India is still an agrarian rural economy where 60 percent of the population depends on this
sector. However, the contribution of the agrarian sector to the GDP has been reduced from 50%
in the 1950s to 18% in 2007-2008. During the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-2012), 4% growth rate was
the goal, and sizable laborers were intended to be shifted from the agriculture sector to the
industry sector by prioritizing the agriculture productivity. Consequently, skill development was
emphasized for the rural population. However, the agrarian economy was acknowledged as the
potential avenue to alleviate rural poverty. Therefore, Planning Commission of India opines,
“expansion of farm income continues to be the most potent weapon for reducing the poverty of
the country” (Planning commission, 2011).
As farm activity is the basis for the rural economy, the innovation and technology dissemination
to the farming community is identified as one of the important initiatives. Gulati et al. 2018,
opine, “extension services have a positive impact on farm productivity, and farm output, farm
earnings, technology adoption, technology diffusion and knowledge acquisition. There is a Rich
empirical literature supporting the association between investment in agriculture Research
&Education and extension service with farm productivity leaves little doubt that investing in
Research & Education and extension can be a resounding success in India as well”.
The achievements of agriculture sector cannot be portrayed negatively since it has been
successfully fulfilling the rising food needs of the growing population as it "nearly tripled from
350 million to one billion during the same period” while the production of food grains “has been
quadrupled since the early 1950s from 51 million tons to over 210 million tons in 2002”. “The
green revolution has been the cornerstone of India's agricultural achievement transforming the
country from one of food deficiency to self-sufficiency” (Sharma, 2002).
As far as agriculture extension in India is concerned, ‘Department of Agriculture’ (DOA) continues
to be the only public sector extension agency with its presence in all the districts across the
country (Sulaiman, 2003: 237). For the past fifty years the country has adopted a single system of
public sector services as a ‘rule rather than the exception’ (Ameur, 1994: v), Pertaining to the
provisions of services to the farmers, this agency faced severe challenges in the areas of
“relevance, accountability and sustainability”(DAC, PFAE, 2000: 1.1). Correspondingly
bureaucratic culture of the past extension systems together with incentive problems often
15

resulted in state failures and were main obstacles to the reform of public sector agencies
(Birner& Anderson, 2007).
1.5.1 Emerging Extension Paradigm in India in the light of global extension reforms
‘JAI JAWAN’ ‘JAI KISAN’, which means ‘Hail Soldiers’ and ‘Hail Farmers’, the second line ‘JAI
KISAN’ emphasises on the importance of farmer. This famous slogan was coined in a speech by
the then Prime Minister of India Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri during the year 1965, which is being
remembered even today to mark the respect of the country for the farmers.
In the light of the recent global developments, the agricultural extension is once again placed on
the development agenda to meet the contemporary needs, and the reform measures are being
actively perceived by many of the developing countries. Being a developing, and agrarian nation,
India is also perceiving the reforms in view of the global forces of change, to demonstrate and
refresh its ‘long-standing commitment’, towards providing and supporting the extension services
for the agriculture development (Birner& Anderson, 2007: 33) and for the people involved with it.
The history of agricultural extension in India, witnessed paradigm shifts similar to the ones across
the globe, starting from the diffusion of innovations in the 1960s, to constraint identification in
1970s, and to the ‘improved management’ approaches in 1980s (Sulaiman, 2003: 230). Right
from the beginning of its independence, the country has adopted a single system of public sector
services as a ‘rule rather than the exception’ (Ameur, 1994: v), and so the agricultural extension
services were delivered and funded by the public sector (Sulaiman and Hall, 2002), as they were
treated as for 'public good' (Sulaiman and Holt, 2002: 5).
1.5.2 Training and Visit period
The introduction of T&V system by the World Bank during the mid-1970s (Sulaiman and Hall,
2002: 228, Macklin, 1992: ix), was marked as an “important milestone in the history of extension
in India” (Singh et al, 2012: 1, Hall et al, 2000: 6, MANAGE, 2007: 6). And this model attempted to
tackle some of the inherent weaknesses of the public extension system (Anderson et al., 2006:
12, Anderson and Feder, 2004: 49, Purcell and Anderson, 1997). The project reflected the belief
that the “role of the state as the main actor in development” (Ferroni and Zhou, 2011: 6).
Subsequently, its entities have become institutionalized as state agricultural extension services
(Macklin, 1992).
The project geared up its programme towards ‘strengthening extension management’ system
(Swanson and Rajalahti, 2010: 12, Feder et al, 1999: 13; Purcell and Anderson, 1997) by
improving the funding and manpower intensity (Sulaiman, 2003: 231), and stressed for
‘organisational change’ (Sulaiman and Hall, 2002: 228) through a ‘unified command’ approach
(Sulaiman, 2003: 231, Sulaiman and Holt, 2002) to deal with accountability, in providing timely
16

delivery of the messages to the farmers, with strict predetermined training and visit schedules
(Anderson and Feder, 2004: 49). It aimed at strengthening research and extension linkages
(Raabe, 2008), by addressing the technical issues at the farm level, through a key set of messages
(Anderson and Feder, 2004: 49).
Though the model attempted to strengthen the public extension to some extent, at the same
time it also exacerbated other weaknesses, among which the cost of provision of services,
through newly structured extension system increased up to 25-40% more than the replaced
systems (Anderson and Feder, 2004: 49, Anholt, 1994, Feder and Slade, 1993). As the project
exclusively aimed for information dissemination characterized by the linear transfer of
technology approach, it has failed to show the ‘wider innovation’ options availability (Sulaiman
and Hall, 2002: 226). Because of the strict hierarchal, top-down, centralized operations, has led to
low levels of farmers’ participation in articulating their priorities, with inadequate ‘farmer driven
and farmer accountable’ feedback systems (DAC, 2000: 2.3). With its one size fits all research and
extension approach (Raabe, 2008: 1), the project showed a positive impact in irrigated areas, at
the same time showed serious limitations in the rain-fed and disadvantaged areas, which further
lacked focus on the location specific needs where holistic farming systems approach was
required. Above all, India has adopted an ‘externally generated blueprint’ institutional
innovation, which was developed in different cultural context (Sulaiman and Hall, 2002), and
hence could not be sustained. The system was finally abandoned in late 1990’s because of the
disenchantment of the donors, due to the muddle created because of its inconsistency with its
emphasis on the role of the state as the major actor in the development rather than as a
facilitator, or due to the lack of fiscal sustainability, or its inadequacy in meeting different
situations (Birner and Anderson, 2007).
1.5.3 Post Training and Visit period
By the early 1990s, many of the systemic problems were apparent in the public extension (Singh,
2009), which were well documented (DAC, 2000). Though the necessities of rural families and
farmers demand, beyond the production technologies (Sulaiman and Hall, 2002), on par with the
global changes, in order to meet food and nutritional security, poverty alleviation, diversified
market needs, export opportunities and environmental concern (DAC, 2000: 1.2), but the
emphasis of the extension approaches continued to be supply driven rather than on the
diversification or market driven (Singh et al, 2009), emergence of breakthrough technologies has
ceased to evolve (Planning commission, 2007).
Because of the top-down hierarchical structure views of the farmers were rarely considered,
hence could not meet the demands of the farming community. Though wider innovation options
were available, they were viewed as competitors rather than as partners in the service provision,
neglect of the farming systems approach was observed because of the absence of integration
17

with other line departments (Singh et al., 2009). The linkages between research, extension and
farmers remained weak or nonexistent. Similarly, the system could not meet with success the
challenges of Natural Resource Management and sustainable agricultural practices such as
Integrated Nutrient management and diversified agriculture such as diversifying into high-value
horticulture or animal husbandry its activities.
In addition to these various generic problems were identified across the globe, which was also
relevant in India (Sulaiman, 2003: 237). These are related to the inability of the public extension
service, in meeting the scale and complexity of agricultural production, weak linkages between
extension and research, broader policy environment, public duties other than knowledge
transfer (Feder, Willet et al 2001), complex information needs of the farmers, inability in tracing
cause and effect relationship between extension input and its impact, lack of political
commitment for the extension, lack of accountability in meeting different needs of the clients,
poor coordination in larger policy environment, lack of relevance of the technology generated,
and lack of fiscal sustainability, above all generic problem is still worsened by the high cost of the
system (Feder et al, 1999, Anderson, 2007, Birner& Anderson, 2007).
Though the conventional extension approaches have imparted dynamism, in transforming the
country from food deficiency to self-sufficiency (DAC, 2000: 1.2), at the same time left it with
poverty and malnutrition widespread in less endowed areas (Ferroni and Zhou, 2011: 11),
especially affecting rainfed, small and marginal and women farmers. Accordingly, it has become
increasingly evident that public extension alone can no longer meet the “multifarious demands of
farming systems” (DAC, 2000: 1.4, Sulaiman, 2003: 248), moreover, the system envisaged an
extension service more “broad-based and holistic in content and scope, beyond agricultural
technology transfer” (DAC, 2000: 3.1), which may further marginalize the extension, if the system
fails to make an impact on such a wider role (Sulaiman, 2003: 247).
In addition, bureaucratic culture of the past extension systems together with incentive problems
often resulted in state failures and were main obstacles to the reform of public sector agencies
(Birner& Anderson, 2007). The procedures prevailed in the past systems made it difficult for
extension agents, to respond flexibly to local demands and often discouraged the coordination
with other departments. A culture of mistrust developed from attitudinal problems of extension
agents, obstructing in building partnerships with the private sector and civil society organisations
also affected reaching the socially excluded groups (Birner& Anderson, 2007; Raabe, 2008). In
addition, the morale of the extension agent was often affected due to their lower social status
and lower rank in the civil service system. Usually faced with capacity problems to keep their
knowledge up to date and also did not have enough operational funds needed to go to the
fieldwork effectively (Birner& Anderson, 2007; Raabe, 2008).
18

The broader shift in global thinking of enhancing the role of extension in agriculture as ‘pro-poor
development’ (Birner et al., 2006: 12), changed the view of scope and services to be offered by
the contemporary extension. Many developing countries have ‘reaffirmed’, and ‘redefined’ the
extension services (Anderson, 2007: 1, Alex et al. 2002: 2, Sulaiman and Holt, 2002), and the role
of present-day extension is an important ‘development intervention’ (World Development
Report, 2008; Anderson, 2007 ), in view of improving overall rural livelihoods.
During the 1990s, it was felt inevitable to initiate the reforms in the agricultural extension on par
with the global practices by incorporating a decentralised, pluralistic and demand-driven
agricultural service delivery system (DAC, 2000).
National agriculture policy announced in June 2000 highlighted the need for restructuring the
agricultural extension for addressing the issues of T&V system constraints suggesting for the
strengthening of research-extension linkages to improve their quality and effectiveness,
extension system should be broad-based and revitalised in content and scope and introducing
the decentralised institutional changes to make the extension system farmer driven and farmer
accountable.
Policy Framework for Agricultural Extension (PFAE), accorded the reforms introduced by the
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC, 2000). Policy reforms aimed at broader aspects
from transferring technology to making the extension agents more proactive to interact with the
farmers by facilitating service incentives and capacity building.
1.5.4 Agricultural Management Technology Agency (ATMA) - An embodiment of Reforms
Taking into consideration of National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and Policy Framework for
Agricultural Extension (PFAE), in the late 1990s, in the context of meeting holistic needs of
increasing agricultural production and key constraints faced by extension system, the reforms
were introduced by Innovations in Technology Dissemination (ITD) component of National
Agricultural Technology Project (NATP), in seven states in the country through four project
districts in each state through Agricultural Technology Management Agency’ (ATMA) to evaluate
the technology dissemination process in India between 1998-2005, with the help of World Bank
(Raabe, 2008: 16; Swanson et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2009; Hall et al., 2000; MANAGE, 2007). After
the pilot projects it was later extended across India in 2005-06 (MANAGE, 2007), through a ‘Policy
Framework for Agricultural Extension’ (PFAE), drafted during the year 2000, aiming for the “major
reform and reorientation” of the entire extension system of the country, in line with the
emerging international paradigm (DAC, 2000). Despite extension being a state-level concern,
many reforms have come from the central government in a number of different projects. One
such project is the 2005 - 06 Support to State Extension Programs for Extension Reform (SSEPER).
1.5.5 Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA)
19

ATMA is one of the registered society responsibility related with the technology dissemination at
district level. It put main emphasis over integrating the marketing as well as research extension in
order to allow extending the project fund by getting enter into agreement and maintaining the
revolving account (http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/agriculture-technology-management-
agency-atma). ATMA is found to be a major reform initiative in public sector extension in India
after the fall of T&V (Sulaiman, 2012). The fundamental aim of the programme is to develop a
demand-driven, farmer accountable and bottom up agricultural service delivery system
particularly targeting poor and women (PFAE, 2000). ATMA embodies several of the reform
initiatives in accordance with the governments’ policy frame work, which is sound and
indispensable (Christoplos, 2003) for agricultural modernisation, in meeting poverty eradication,
decentralisation, pluralistic service provision, empowerment of the people in decision making for
development process for increasing public sector coordination and accountability (PFAE, 2000,
Birner& Anderson, 2007). ATMA emphasises on decentralisation to bring the extension service
provision to the local level, in this regard issues of power and ‘voice’ will be addressed by the
extension to become genuinely pro-poor (Christoplos, 2003, PFAE, 2000). ATMA enables
pluralistic model of service provision to meet the specific needs of the rural poor to improve
relevancy and accountability towards them (Christoplos, 2003, PFAE, 2000). Capacity training
sessions are stressed upon for the farmers to demand the services, and capacity training of
extension officers to respond to the demands of farmers (Anderson, 2007, Raabe, 2008, Birner
and Anderson, 2007, PFAE, 2000) through market orientation, by paying a special attention to the
women empowerment (PFAE, 2000; Christoplos, 2003). Simultaneously the policy reforms also
aimed to address the formal civil service rules and informal bureaucratic culture prevailing in the
system, by strengthening the capacities of extension functionaries and addressing the staff
incentive problems (DAC, 2000).
As per the information presented by Singh, K.M. and Meena, M.S. and Singh,
R.K.P. and Kumar, Abhay and Kumar, Ujjwal (2009) the World Bank as well as Indian
government stated exploring new approaches for extension so that it support in addressing the
problems as well as constrains present in agricultural sector. As a result of which a new
decentralised extension approach has been introduced which mainly focuses over directing the
agricultural diversification along with increasing the rural employment and farm income. An
institute also get established named as ATMA which get introduced at district level. This model
get succeed which get determined under ITD component of NATP for which the government of
India has initiate a new Centrally Sponsored Scheme with the support of State Extension
Programmes related with extension reform. In addition to this government of India also funded
setting up of ATMA within 588 rural district in India.
On the other hand as per the information presented by the Mercy Thomas, 2011, it has
been identified that the success story of ATMA can be determined through the development that
a district of Kerala state of India get. The functioning of ATMA within Thrissur district adjust
several type of activities in line department which includes Animal Husbandry, Agriculture, Dairy
development, Soil Conservation and Fisheries. In addition to this ATMA also provided agricultural
extension services which is related with the sustainable agricultural development within the area
that comes under a Agro ecological situation. As a result this district of India is consider to be best
20

ATMA district as around 51 farmers of ATMA achieved the awards which inspire other farmers
regarding making use of new models for allied as well as agricultural sector
On the other side as per the information presented by Prasad, Bhedu, 2011, the highly
determined constraints within the agricultural sector are lack of communication between the
farmers as well as agricultural officer, non availability of information, poor educational
background of farmers, low technical guidance, poor transport problem, improper training at
grass root level etc. were the major limitation that are being faced by beneficiaries while
participating in several different activities of ATMA. But in order to overcome the above
mentioned constraints, it is suggested by the beneficiaries that information must be presented in
timely manner by making regular contact with farmers as well as agricultural officer,
transportation facilities should be improved and training activities must be organised for creating
knowledge among the farmers as well as creating technical knowledge about the ATMA
activities.
Framework for Agricultural Extension represents the paradigm of public sector reform that
emerged in the “post–Washington Consensus” era (Williamson 2000), and this paradigm
acknowledges the role of the state in overcoming market failure, but it envisions a facilitating and
enabling role for the state (Wolfensohn and Bourguignon 2004). The ATMA Institution represents
numerous reform elements (Birner& Anderson, 2007), in the form of decentralized, pluralistic
‘demand-driven and farmer-accountable’ (DAC, 2000, sec. 3.3.1.5), public extension delivery as
envisioned in the Neuchâtel Principles 2003. This principle consist of six major principles that are
being formulated by the Sub-Saharan Africa countries toward the agricultural development which
get set up in 1995 and being hosted by Swiss Cooperation Agency of Neuchâtel. This principle is
consider by ATMA in order to enhance its level of development at agricultural area for ensuring
its progress.
The main focus of thesis after this is over several factors that are involve within the ATMA agency
related with the agricultural development in order to ensure effective growth and development
of rural area. Further thesis contains the extended information that revolve around the influence
of ATMA over agricultural reforms that get initiated by government for determining the growth
and development that are being experienced by a farmers after the anticipation of ATMA.
1.5.5.1 Decentralisation
Decentralisation is one of the important principles which were adopted as a strategy by the
ATMA to overcome the failures of the state, to make “public extension more responsive to local
needs” (Birner, 2007: 16). And more attention was paid on decentralisation, as its structural,
fiscal and management aspects within the system to enhance institutional responsiveness and
accountability, conferring the power of decision making at the local level (Birner& Anderson,
2007, Raabe, 2008, Swanson & Singh, 2006, (Rivera, 1996, Raabe, 2008), and to improve the
efficacy of the extension activities (Glendening & Babu, 2011).
21

Decentralisation is an essential part where the personnel of the extension services has to be
arranged to fulfill the goals like accountability, meeting the demands, setting the bottom-up
approach. “Public extension functionaries in the form of subject matter specialists will function
only to the block level, below the block, extension activities will be carried out by the private
sector providers, Agri-Business and Agri Clinics and Farmers Organisations” (Sharma, 2002).
Raabe, 2008 made remarks that Demand driven services as the high priority, there were
initiatives to bring changes in at the institutional and procedural level, these changes largely
benefitted the process of decentralisation with planning, implementation, and coordinating the
departments. With the decentralization mechanism, ATMA could motivate the farmers to switch
their crops from regular crops to high valued nonfood grain crops to increase their income
significantly through agriculture diversification methods. ATMA significantly contributed to
establishing coordination between research, extension services, farmers, and market. This
coordination facilitated the farmers to adopt low-cost technologies, agronomic practices, and
intermediate products. As per the requirement of geographical areas, intensified research was
undertaken.
Although, ATMA has been highlighted as an innovative example of agricultural extension (Singh
and Swanson 2006; Swanson 2006; Anderson 2007; Davis 2008; Swanson & Singh et al. 2008),
according to Swanson, 2006, the implementation was slowed down due to the bureaucratic
process. The issues of bureaucratic implementation were identified with weak research,
organizational problems, and lower number of personnel (Sulaiman and Holt 2002; Raabe 2008;
Sulaiman and Hall 2008). As Swanson (2006) observes, “to decentralize public extension in India is
difficult because the bureaucracy is highly entrenched: After decades of operating within a
centralized, top-down, technology-driven extension system, it is difficult to convince national and
provincial- or state-level extension directors and senior managers to delegate decision-making
authority to more junior-level staff members at the district and sub district levels (Swanson and
Rajalahti, 2010 p53). Decentralisation leads to welfare losses due to local elite capture and
administrative failures” (Anderson, 2007).
1.5.5.1.1 Bureaucratic structure obstacle to reform:
The chair of the ATMA model is has made the extension system more bureaucratic because the
chair of the district ATMA committee is the magistrate (administrative head) of the district, a
move away from the agriculture department to an administrative system. District action plans
have to be approved by the chair, who doesn’t have much knowledge and time about the
agricultural innovations and activities.
Since the government agencies are able to interact with the farmers in the rural areas, there is a
chance of misusing them campaigning for the ruling parties. There is a chance by, extension
officers who still treat farmers as state subjects/ simple beneficiaries of government programmes rather
than as clients, customers, or citizens. Due to the bureaucratic structure, farmers may be compelled
22

to be at the receiving end, especially farm women, and farmers from marginalized sections are
subjected to the attitudinal problems. Block level leadership should involve/consider farmers
views for extension programme development rather than as mere end users.
Block level leadership is still not flexible in their decision making, in imparting the extension
activities as per the demands of the farmers as they have to be approved by District level ATMA
Project Director and the chair of ATMA. Women specific programmes and involvement of third
sector and private sector, are not considered at the block level, unless and until made compulsory
by the district leadership. Farmers are not involved in evaluation of extension programmes.
1.5.5.1.2 Farmer participation in management – subject of Elite capture
Birner & Anderson,2007 claimed that one of the other reasons which affected the efficacy of the
extension services is political interest capture. Large scale farmers, as the strongest lobby can
influence the decision of the political entities for their advantage by passing the interests of the
medium, small, and marginalized farmers. Even the extension services can be tailor-made to
serve the interest of large farmers than the other categories of the farmers.
Similarly in case of study area Telangana, perceived challenge to farmer-led extension is that
participatory planning is still dominated by leaders or a number of wealthier farmers as the voice
of poor farmers is neglected. Elite capture also depends on education, social status, socio
economic status, political affiliation, gender, livelihood strategy, land holding of the farmers, for
involving them in different activities by extension officers. There is also an influence of power
politics in selection of ATMA Farmer Advisory Committee (FAC) Members because of which
genuine, resourceful and knowledgeable farmers are not being considered into ATMA farmer
committees.
1.5.5.2 Pluralistic service provision
Another principle emphasised in policy reforms through ATMA was on Pluralistic extension
provision, with due consideration, this provision was taken up as a strategy to effectively
complement, supplement and wherever necessary to replace the public extension services,
(PFAE, 2000), to respond to diverse farmers and farming systems, thereby reducing the fiscal
burden of the state. ATMA operates with a basic concept that “different players may have a
comparative advantage for different functions”, to “tailor the services to meet the specific needs
of the farmers” (IFPRI, 2006: 2, PFAE, 2000). ATMA's role as the facilitator is to work in closer
partnerships with both private-sector firms and civil society organizations' (Swanson &Rajalahti,
2010, IFPRI, 2006), to meet the diverse information and knowledge needs of the farmers by
assisting them in negotiating terms of contracts, monitoring quality and financial control (Feder
et al, 1999). In practice, the private sector extension depends largely on the associated economic
opportunities (Birner et al., 2006: 2), by being selective in their services towards well-endowed
and commercial farmers. Whereas, NGOs serve as an important provider of third-sector
extension services, encouraged through contracting-out arrangements, seen as a useful
23

instrument to “generate, refine, and promote need-based” (Raabe, 2008) agricultural technology,
tailored accordingly to the needs of the hard to reach farmers (Feder et al., 1999). Unlike a public
extension, NGOs are very few in number and therefore their activities cannot cater to such a
diverse area. Though the pluralistic approach seems to be a genuine response to the
contemporary thinking of extension, but the level of preparedness by the public extension, to
work in a multi-institutional environment is not at all encouraging (Sulaiman, 2003: 248) due to
its “tendency to dominate the agenda” (Sulaiman& Holt, 2002), rather than establishing links with
private and third sector (Sulaiman, 2003: 248). Because of the complex nature of the sector by
small and marginal farmers, the public extension still continues to play a major role in providing
its services. Despite the increasing prevalence of private and NGO extension service, there is no
inventory of those institutions, as they work in isolation from each other (Sulaiman& Holt, 2002).
1.5.5.3 Demand-driven and farmer accountable mechanism
Due to the top-down approach, technology dissemination dominated the scenario by ignoring
the significant concerns of the small and marginal farmers. PFAE suggests that demand-driven
extension system is an ideal mechanism to address the concerns of the small, and marginal
farmers in terms of the production system, and marketing (DAC,2000).
The feedback system can be channeled through organizing farmers into the groups such as
Farmers organisations, Farmer Interest Groups, and Commodity groups, at village level and by
designating Farmer Advisory Committee (FAC) members at various levels of the block, district and
state for demanding the extension services. These organisations and committees serve as an
effective mechanism for demanding the technology as per their farming systems and also serve
as technology dissemination to the small and marginal farmers and reciprocate with valid
feedback for the extensive research. Thus farmers can be placed as the decent stakeholders in
the decision-making process and can monitor implementation of extension services at local,
regional, state and national level.
Demand driven concept is one of the key elements in the extension reform of India, as the
demand is defined as the things people say they ‘want’ (Garforth, 2004), they ‘need’ and ‘value’
(Neuchatel Initiative, 2006) so much, that they are willing to invest for the information, advice
and other services, that have content and quality for what they ask (Garforth, 2004; Neuchatel
Initiative, 2006). The demands of the clients have to be met through the services offered by
different stakeholders in terms of knowledge and information (Garforth, 2004). Thus, “in view of
the fact that the extension services are to be provided in line with the demands of farmers, the
demand-driven process empowers the farmers and makes service-providers accountable to
them’, which is in contrast to the supply-driven approaches” (Qamar, 2011). Therefore, the
demand-driven service remains a major challenge in the reform process of extension through
ATMA, for making extension more responsive to meet the needs of different farmers, including
women, poor and marginalized.
Capacity building will help the farmers to seek good governance and makes the government
officials accountable in supplying information and services as per the demands of the farmers.
24

1.5.5.4 Thrust on marketing
Exploring the market linkages through ATMA, also has become one of the important components
for the farmers to improve their incomes. In the earlier period of technology dominated
extension services, accessing the markets was significantly ignored. Even today, it is criticized that
the public extension agents are poorly equipped with the knowledge of the market, which has to
be made dynamic with the trading regime under WTO (Sharma,2002).
Marketing methods can be brought to the farmers with the involvement of public, private
partnerships by employing multi-agency extension strategies to address the specific concerns of
the farmers.
1.5.5.5 Facilitation
As the policy ATMA appears to be a sincere effort to shed light upon the facilitation by not
remaining a mere medium of technology transfer. It focuses on the empowerment of the farmers
by taking various aspects into account such as, non-formal education to the farmers, encouraging
them to form associations and cooperation, enabling them to access the market, facilitating them
with credit policy, etc. Extension agent is no longer seen as an expert who has all the technical
knowledge and information rather farmers are made to participate in problem diagnosis, system
description, search for appropriate technology, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of
extension and feedback.
Therefore in the changing situation after the reforms the extension workers becomes a facilitator
rather than an expert (DAC, nd). Its role as a facilitator of agricultural knowledge system would
only increase as more participants from private sector would get involved in extension (Sulaiman
and van den Ban, 2000). To act as facilitator apart from technical skills, extension workers needs
several social science skills. A facilitator is a person that is not necessarily an expert on a specific
issue but an expert on process. (Farrington et al, 1998).
As facilitation is a new concept, due attention should be given on this aspect for developing
facilitation skills of extension personnel to get desired results from ATMA. Special inservice
training should also be organized for extension personnel to develop facilitation skills (Barman
and Kumar, 2011).
1.5.5.6 Economic effects of ATMA
The monitoring and evaluation report of pilot districts of ATMA by Indian Institute of
Management, Lucknow (Lucknow 2004a, 2004b;Tyagi and Verma 2004) uncovered the empirical
evidence of the impacts from pilot districts of ATMA. The study revealed an increase in
25

diversification of crops and a 14 percent increase in yields in ATMA pilot districts. Highlighted a
24 percent increase in the level of farm income in pilot districts compared to 5% increase in non
ATMA districts. Overall, the evidence on the economic and financial rate of return suggests that
reform initiatives as a whole succeeded in promoting agricultural and rural development (Raabe,
2008).
Thus it can be concluded that ATMA emerged as the 21st century dawned and designed
according to the contemporary thinking of the extension practice as visualised in Global Good
Practices.
1. “Decentralised service provision: to make it more accountable to the farmers and
local stake holders, by bringing the decision making to the local level.
2. Multi agency extension strategies: by involving the public/ private and third party
extension providers, to tailor the specific needs of the farmers, hence pluralistic in
service provision.
3. Farmer centric extension: Supports group based approaches, through capacity
building and empowerment, to position the farmers in such a way, that they can
put their demands on the extension system, hence demand driven and farmer led.
4. Farming systems approach: by moving towards integrated and broad based
extension delivery, by diversification and intensification of the activities, to
increase the farm income and to improve the livelihoods.
5. Main streaming gender concern: as women are often among the neglected
category in the past approaches, due attention is paid to woman’s needs, by
mobilising them through capacity building.
6. Sustainability of extension services: revolving of the funds, through a beneficiary
contribution from the beneficiary oriented activities.”
Conclusion
In view of the existing evaluation studies mainly highlighting the ‘economic effects of reform
initiatives rather than identifying the impact or effects of the reforms’ (Raabe, 2008: 25), the
present research tries to study the effects of the reforms under implementation, by focusing on
the scope and outreach of the extension reform initiatives through Decentralised, coordinating
and demand driven approach in comparison to Global Good Practices. An attempt will be made
to find out whether the implementation of ATMA has improved extension and extension
outcomes for farmers in terms of livelihood improvement through intensification and
diversification of their farms. Besides that, also tries to investigate the factors that have
contributed to and constrained the improvement in extension service provision and outcomes at
the farmer level. The study also aimed to reveal the relationship between selected independent
variables and process implementation and outcomes at the farmer level.
26

As per the study performed above related with the success and limitation of ATMA it has been
identified that this program plays a significant role in enhancing the socio economic status of
farmers by increasing awareness and knowledge regarding the improved method of performing
their farming activities in order to increase the food basket of tribal farmers. In addition to this it
is crucial to put more emphasis toward improving the communication practices among the
farmers and agriculture experts so that right amount of information can be presented to the
farmers. This help in educating the farmers by providing them some practical as well as technical
knowledge to them so that they become able to perform their operations in more significant
manner.
1.6 Problem statement:
ATMA is an equitable service provision through decentralized, pluralistic, demand driven and
farmer - accountable approach (DAC, 2000). ATMA prototype aims to decentralize extension
service provision and makes it more market-oriented (Singh and Meena, 2011), through
intensification and diversification of farming systems and thereby increasing farm income and
rural employment, by demanding and controlling advisory services through capacity building of
the farmers to the extent of influencing and control advisory services.
It is pivotal to evaluate the impact of ATMA in alleviating rural poverty with information and
knowledge provision since this program is perceived to be a revolutionary paradigm shift in the
attitude of the stakeholders in rather treating farmers as “simple beneficiaries of government
programs to treating them as partners in development and custodians of food security”
(Swaminathan, 2006).
Although the policy reforms have made some of the right type of indications for reforming the
extension system of the country, it has underplayed crucial implementation problems (Sulaiman
& Hall, 2002, Sulaiman & Hall, 2008). Though the reforms were introduced more than a decade
ago, they have not been fully recognized, due to the organizational and capacity challenges in its
implementation, along with the prevailing ‘bureaucratic culture’ of the past extension
approaches (Anderson, 2007, Birner & Anderson, 2007: 15). Despite pluralistic extension
approaches in India, the coverage and use of these services are limited (Glendenning et al, 2010).
Though concept of farmer organizations is a positive and necessary step in providing cost-
effective extension services that will increase the income and employment of small-scale and
marginal farm households, but rural women and other disadvantaged groups still need more
representation (Singh et al, 2012). More over extension support to farmers’ groups mostly
remained focused on provision of technical support, rather than on marketing and hand holding
support (Sulaiman, 2012). With the overall policy focus shifting to reduction in poverty levels,
there have been no specific extension programmes to target the poor (Sulaiman & Holt, 2002).
Glendenning & Babu (2011), identified commitment for the concept orientation and capacity
building to implement demand-driven and participatory processes involving farmers needs to be
27

addressed. However, an ‘understanding of the variance between the intended guidelines and the
actual implementation of the reforms is still lacking’ at the field level (Babu et al, 2013: 161).
A few research studies conducted on monitoring & evaluation of project activities, impact and
assessment studies on ATMA activities have not concentrated on implementation processes. As
ATMA represents an institutional reform, but the performance of institutions and processes was
not considered (Birner and Anderson 2007; Raabe 2008). Nevertheless, the impact of the pilot
study was not uniform across states and depended on the state government’s commitment to
the program (Sulaiman 2003b). Additionally, the capacity and motivation of the project director
were seen to greatly influence the dynamism of ATMA activities. A number of authors have
drawn attention to deficiencies in the impact analysis, which may have overestimated the
benefits of ATMA due to selection bias, the poor pairing of districts for comparison, restricted
sample data indicators, and less statistical control for non-project effects (Anderson 2007; Birner
and Anderson 2007). Furthermore, the study did not address endogeneity problems or identify
the mechanisms or institutions that brought about ATMA benefits. Income gains with reference
to landholding size were not considered, so the impact on small and marginal farmers has not
been evaluated. Human capital development was evaluated based on the number of training
courses and groups organized, but the quality of training and group make up was not considered
(Raabe 2008). As agriculture remains the main source of income to about half of India’s
population, who significantly depend for their livelihoods on some form of the farm activity there
is limited evidence of ATMA’s contribution to social change and rural transformation.
By considering the above fact, the aim of the thesis is set not only to examine the ATMA concept
but also to learn which elements of the ATMA prototype may or may not work in the conditions
experienced by its clients/ farmers. This observation is intended to support changes within the
programme that make it better adapted to clients’ circumstances. Accordingly, it is felt
imperative to study how the ATMA prototype for extension actually works out in practice.
The findings of this study would help extension practitioners and policymakers, to strengthen the
existing extension system to enable it to realise the farmers’ role in developmental process by
enabling them to meet contemporary needs in agriculture, by improving their livelihood and to
serve better the small and marginal and women farmers who constitute over 80 percent of farm
households.
1.6.2 Research Questions
In view of the problem statement stated above, after more than a decade of implementation of
the extension reform policy through ATMA, this study mainly aims at the ‘Investigation of the
effects of agricultural extension reforms in India’, in order to identify key factors that could help
in further strengthening the extension system. Hence to observe the effects of reforms through
ATMA, the main research question addressed in this thesis is: To find out whether the
implementation of ATMA has improved extension, and extension outcomes, for farmers, and the
factors that have contributed to and constrained the improvement? The following specific
objectives are framed to demonstrate outcome areas:
28

Objective 1) To assess ATMA principles and implementation against the global extension
‘good practice’.
1.1) To identify changes in service provision brought about by the implementation of
ATMA against these principles.
1.1.1) Do the farmers’ find any improvement in relevance and responsiveness of
extension service applications through ATMA?
1.1.2) What are the farmers’ perceptions about convergence approach applied
through ATMA. Do they find them used and effective?
1.1.3) What are farmers’ perceptions of the opportunities and constraints
through the decentralised approach of ATMA?
1.1.4) Farmers’ satisfaction on the accountability of extension through ATMA?
1.1.5) Farmers’ satisfaction with the coordinating and facilitating role of ATMA
in contracting out the range of service providers, to meet their timely
information and knowledge requirements?
1.1.6) What is farmers opinion on group approach through ATMA? Has the establishment of
Farmers’ organisations through ATMA, enabled to better demand services and
improve marketing? What are the various constraints identified by the farmers’ in
group approaches which are hindering them in demanding the services?
1.1.7) How do the farmers perceive the ATMA programme, in responding to the
women farmers’ needs? Do they find any difference in the extension approach of
ATMA towards them?
1.1.8) To elicit the constraints and suggestions of farmers by participating in ATMA activities?
1.2) Identifying factors contributing to and constraining change in extension and outcomes.
1.2.1) How aware are the extension staff of the aims and approaches of ATMA?
1.2.2) How successfully do they think ATMA has been in meeting farmers’
demands and in being more demand responsive and accountable to
farmers?
1.2.3) Extension officers’ perception of factors influencing the implementation
29

of ATMA? How are these influencing effectiveness of ATMA?
Objective 2) To identify the change in outcomes at farmer level.
2.1) What are farmers’ opinions on the feasibility of different on farm and off farm livelihood
practices promoted by ATMA? Do they find any improvement in income levels from these?
2.2) Overall satisfaction of the farmers with the process implementation and process
outcomes from the ATMA approach.
1.6.3 Presentation of the study:
This thesis will be performed in a systematic manner which mainly consist of six chapter that are
mentioned below:
Chapter 1: Introduction:- This chapter put emphasis toward highlighting the need for extension
reforms across the globe in general, ATMA prototype emergence in India in response to the
reforms across the world, scope and objectives and structure of the thesis of the study. The main
aim of this chapter is to increase understanding of reader about the study.
Chapter 2: Literature Review:- This chapter deals with the literature review of ATMA
implementation and outcomes by making use of secondary information so that detailed
understanding can be developed in this regard and manner in which it is helpful to the success of
agricultural extension. The main purpose of literature review is to identify the gap or conflict in
previous studied.
Chapter 3: Case study and methods:- Describes the rural conditions of the study county/district
in general and specific conditions of the study sub counties and demographic characteristics of
the selected ATMA benefited farmers. The main aim of this section is to explains about methods
used for performing this investigation effectively.
Chapter 4 & 5: Empirical findings and discussion:- This chapter involves the discussion as well as
findings in term of basic key aspects of ATMA process implementation in relation to Global Good
Practices focusing on i) demand driven aspect through Decentralized decision making, ii)
coordination with different stake holders by establishing linkages iii. factors contributing to and
constraining the ATMA implementation.
Chapter 6: Conclusion:- Shows the findings of process outcomes at farmer level through i)
intensification and diversification of farming systems and ii) benefits identified by participating in
ATMA activities iii) changes in income levels iv) overall satisfaction of the farmers with the
process implementation and outcomes at the farmer level. The main aim of this section is to
present an overview of findings, and then attempts a synthesis directed towards the central
question of the study.
30

REFERENCES
Online
Singh, K.M. and Meena, M.S. and Singh, R.K.P. and Kumar, Abhay and Kumar,
Ujjwal. 2009. Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA): A
Study of its Impact in Pilot Districts in Bihar, India [Online] Available through:
<https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/45549/>
Thomas. M., 2011. PREFACE. [Online] Available
through:<http://www.atmathrissur.gov.in/index.php/achievements/success-stories>./
Prasad, Bhedu. 2011. “IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (ATMA)
ON SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF TRIBAL FARMERS IN SURGUJA DISTRICT OF
CHHATTISGARH”. [Online] Available through:
<https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/80696>./
Reimagining Indian Agriculture: How Technology Can Change The Game For Indian Farmers.
2018. [Online] Available through: <http://www.businessworld.in/article/Reimagining-
Indian-Agriculture-How-technology-can-change-the-game-for-Indian-farmers-/24-11-
2018-164502/>./
31