Purpose: The impact of agricultural knowledge transfer (KT) is related to the access to and the quality of services available. Within this context, the allocation of resources in terms of KT offices and the number of advisers are important considerations for understanding KT impact. This quantitative study evaluates the impact of KT resources on farm profitability for clients in Ireland during the recessionary period 2008–2014.
Design/Methodology: Teagasc, the public KT service provider in Ireland, experienced significant office closures (43%) and a reduction in advisers (38%) during the economic crisis, yet client numbers declined only slightly (4.5%). Administrative data are merged with a panel data set on farm-level performance to evaluate the impact through Random Effects estimation.
Findings: The results show that clients gained a 12.3% benefit to their margin per hectare over the period. However, there was a negative effect of 0.2% for each additional client assigned to the adviser which averaged at 9.6%.
Practical Implications: The quantitative findings provide a measure of impact that represents the value for money for the KT service. The key implication is that the client ratio for advisers should be considered when allocating resources and lower ratios would positively impact client margins.
Theoretical Implications: This article outlines the value of quantitative studies to estimate impact in a clear translatable manner which can aid the policy discussion around resource deployment.
Originality/Value: This study evaluates the impact of KT during a recessionary period when resources were constrained, and uses client ratios to examine the spatial effects.
21 Pages, Purpose: The article examines the implementation and effects of the model farmer-based approach of farmer-to-farmer extension delivery that is in use in Ethiopia.
Methodology: The study used mixed methods, combining focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and a household survey.
Findings: The model farmer approach has increased extension coverage, improved the possibility for information and technology dissemination, and enabled the inclusion of virtually all farming households in extension and advisory networks. Simultaneously, the approach has become a mechanism for the top-down control of farmers, for the identification and favouritism of better-off farmers, and those with political commitments.
Practical implications: The findings show that there is a need to critically reflect on who model farmers are, how they are selected, what their historical and current roles and impact have been, as well as follower farmers’ feedback on the approach in order to avoid perpetuating the misuse of the approach.
Theoretical implications: The article argues that the Ethiopian context that rewards rapid increase in production and productivity, modernisation of agriculture, competitive commercialisation, and a context that allows the continued entanglement of extension delivery with politics have enabled such misuse of the approach to proliferate. The article questions the extent of applicability of the core farmer-to-farmer extension principles that relate to social ties, reciprocity, collaboration, and minimal social hierarchies in such a context.
Originality/value: The study generates important insights about the effects of model farmer-based extension approach, its political dimensions, and the importance of context for successful farmer-to-farmer extension.
