FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXTENSION SERVICES IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA
Click here to download our android mobile app to your phone for more materials and others
COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL COST 5000 NAIRA OR $10 ,
. A FRESH TOPIC NOT LISTED ON OUR WEBSITE COST 50,000 NAIRA ( UNDERGRADUATE) OR 100,000 FOR SECOND DEGREE STUDENTS. $500. PLUS FREE SUPPORT UNTIL YOU FINISH YOUR PROJECT WORK. CONTACT US TODAY, WE MAKE A DIFFERENT. DESIGN AND WRITING IS OUR SKILLED. DESIGN AND WRITING IS OUR SKILLED.
Note: our case study can be change to suit your desire location . we are here for your success.
ORDER NOW
Account Name : Chi E-Concept Int’l
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0115939447
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631
Foreign Transaction For Dollars Payment :
Bank Name: GTBank
Branch Location: Enugu State,Nigeria.
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Number: 0117780667.
Swift Code: GTBINGLA
Dollar conversion rate for Naira is 175 per dollar.
ATM CARD: YOU CAN ALSO MAKE PAYMENT USING YOUR ATM CARD OR ONLINE TRANSFER. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR BANKER SECURITY GUIDE ON HOW TO TRANSFER MONEY TO OTHER BANKS USING YOUR ATM CARD. ATM CARD OR ONLINE BANK TRANSFER IS FASTER FOR QUICK DELIVERY TO YOUR EMAIL . OUR MARKETER WILL RESPOND TO YOU ANY TIME OF THE DAY. WE SUPPORT CBN CASHLESS SOCIETY.
OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.
form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS LESS THAN 2 HOURS
How to transfer from your bank account to All Nigeriabanks
1. Access Bank:
—-*901#
2. EcoBank:
—-*326#
3. Fidelity Bank:
—-*770#
4. FCMB:
—-*389*214#
5. First Bank
—-*894#
6. GTB:
—-*737#
7. Heritage Bank:
—-*322*030#
8. Keystone Bank:
—-*322*082#
9. Sky Bank:
—-*389*076*1#
10. Stanbic IBTC:
—-*909#
11. Sterling Bank:
—-*822#
12. UBA:
—-*389*033*1#
13. Unity Bank:
—-*322*215#
14. Zenith Bank:
—-*966#
15. Diamond Bank
—-*710*555#
To know your BVN, dial
—-*565*0#.
E.g for First bank… *894 *Amount *Acct. No. #
Please dail d code from d number u used to register d account from the bank
CALL OKEKE CHIDI C ON : 08074466939,08063386834.
AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO
08074466939 or 08063386834, YOUR PROJECT TITLE YOU WANT US TO SEND TO YOU, AMOUNT PAID, DEPOSITOR NAME, UR EMAIL ADDRESS,PAYMENT DATE. YOU WILL RECEIVE YOUR MATERIAL IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS ONCE WILL CONFIRM YOUR PAYMENT.
WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
ABSTRACT
The delivery of Agricultural Extension Services vis-à-vis their effectiveness has been of great concern in Nigeria. This study was therefore designed to analyze and compare both the public and private extension organizations with a view to highlighting their performances. The study identified the relationships between personal and demographic characteristics of beneficiaries of both the public and selected private extension organizations on their perception of extension as well as benefits derived from these organizations.
A three stage sampling technique was used for the study. The first stage was the random selection of three states namely: Ogun, Osun and Oyo
States from the six states in South Western Nigeria. The second stage was a random sampling of three extension organizations comprising of two private extension outfits namely Justice Development and Peace Movement Rural
Development Programme (JDPM –RUDEP) and Farmers’ Development
Union (FADU) out of the four existing private extension outfits in the region and public extension outfit in each of the sampled state. The third stage was a random selection of 30 respondents in each of the three selected organizations in the three states. A total of 270 respondents were sampled for the study. Data collected were analyzed with Spearman’s rank correlation analysis to establish the relationships between farmers’ selected personal characteristics and their attitude as well as benefits derived from the organizations. Kruskal Wallis test of difference was used to examine the degree of difference in benefit and attitude of respondents to extension programmes of public and private extension organizations.
Results indicated that in public extension, age was related to benefit (r=0.254, p<0.05) and attitude (r=0.180, p<0.10) of the beneficiaries. Significant relationship (r=0.279, p<0.10) was indicated between attitude and benefits derived by respondents. In JDPM-RUDEP, result showed that age
(r=0.254, p<0.05) was significantly related to attitude of beneficiaries towards the extension programmes of the organization. Also, in FADU organization, age (r=0.254, P<0.05) was significantly related to attitude while there is significant relationship (r=0.290, p<0.10) between attitude and benefit in the organization. Results of Kruskal Wallis test of difference ( 2 =0.709) indicates no significant different between farmers’ attitude towards the extension programmes of public and private extension organizations. However, there was a significant difference ( 2=12.074) in the benefit
derived by the respondents which include increased quantity of crops produced, farm income, skill acquisition and improved education in public and private extension organizations. Based on these results, it could be
3
inferred that age of respondents relate to benefits derived and attitude to extension programmes in public extension organization. In (JDPM-RUDEP), age and marital status were related to beneficiaries’ attitude to the extension programme. Strong relationship also exists between attitude and benefit in
FADU organization. Beneficiaries of private extension organizations (JDPM-RUDEP and FADU) achieved more levels of benefit from their extension programmes than in public extension organization.
The study had clearly shown that public extension services were deficient in their performances which have therefore led to private extension organizations’ involvement in extension services in order to disseminate their research findings and benefits to the rural people. Synthesis of public and private sectors efforts is therefore recommended in Nigeria. This is because government cannot completely hand-off her responsibilities in extension provision due to limited scope of coverage by private organizations especially in South Western Nigeria.
| CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION | ||
| 1.1 | Background to the Study | 1-3 |
| 1.2 | Statement of the Problem | 3-7 |
| 1.3 | Objectives of the Study | 8-9 |
| 1.4 | Hypotheses of the Study | 9-10 |
| 1.5 | Significance of the Study | 10-11 |
| 1.6 | Limitation of the Study | 11 |
| 1.7 | Definition of Terms | 11-15 |
| CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW | ||
| 2.0 | Introduction | 16 |
| 2.1 | Concept of Agricultural Extension | 16-22 |
| 2.2 | Evolution of Extension Provision | 22 |
10
| 2.3 History and Development of extension in Nigeria | 22-35 |
- The Unified Agricultural Extension services (UAES)
| in Nigeria | 35-36 | |
| 2.5 | Public sector Extension Delivery | 36 |
| 2.6.1 | Criticism of the Public Extension | 37-8 |
| 2.5.2 | Private Organization in Extension Provision | 38-42 |
- Extension Roles Agricultural Development
| and Farm Business Management | 42-53 | ||
| 2.7 | The concept of participation | 54-55 | |
| 2.8 | The Concept of Attitude | 55-58 | |
| 2.9 | The concept of Achievement | 58-61 | |
| 2.10 | Hybrid Sector – Alliance between Public and | ||
| Private Sector | 61-71 | ||
| THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK | |||
| 2.11 | Theory of Community Development | 72 | |
| 2.12 | Theory of Farmers’ Participation | 72-74 | |
| 2.13 | System Theory | 75 | |
| 2.14 | Diffusion of Innovation | 76-77 | |
| 2.15 | Synthesis of Theory | 78 | |
| 2.16 | Conceptual Explanation of Extension Delivery | 78-84 | |
| 2.17 | Conceptual | framework for the study | 85 |
| CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY | |||
| 3.1 | Area of Study | 86 | |
| 3.1.1 | Geographical Location | 86 | |
11
| 3.1.2 | Climate and Vegetation | 87 | |
| 3.1.3 | People and Occupation | 87 | |
| 3.2 | Population of the Study | 88 | |
| 3.3 | Sampling Procedure | 89 | |
| 3.4 | Development of Instrument | 90 | |
| 3.5 | Validity and Reliability of Research Instrument | 91 | |
| 3.5.1 | Validity Test | 91 | |
| 3.5.2 | Reliability Test | 92 | |
| 3.6 | Measurement of Variables | 93 | |
| 3.6.1 | Independent variables | 93 | |
| 3.6.2 | Dependent Variable | 97 | |
| 3.7 | Data Analysis | 98 | |
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
| 4.1 Introduction | 102 |
- Personal and Demographic Characteristics of
| Farmers | 102 | |
| 4.2.1 | Age of Respondents | 103 |
| 4.2.2 | Gender of Respondents | 104 |
| 4.2.3 | Marital Status of Respondents | 105 |
| 4.2.4 | Religion of Respondents | 106 |
| 4.2.5 | Level of Education | 107 |
| 4.2.6 | Cosmo politeness of the respondents | 108 |
| 4.2.7 | Sources of Agricultural Information | 109 |
12
| 4.2.8 | Farming Experience of the farmer | 110 | ||
| 4.2.9 | Size of Farm Holdings | 113 | ||
| 4.2.10 | Land Ownership Pattern | 113 | ||
| 4.2.11 | Farming System | 114 | ||
| 4.3 | Beneficiaries Participation in Extension Works | 115 | ||
| 4.4 | Reason for choice of organization s’ programme | 117 | ||
| 4.5 | Frequency of Extension Agent/Farmers Contacts | 119 | ||
| 4.6 | Performance Rating of Extension Personnel | 120 | ||
| 4.7 | Beneficiaries Attitude to the Extension Strategies | 122 | ||
| 4.8 | Achievement of Beneficiaries | 125 | ||
| 4.9 | Testing of Hypotheses | 130 | ||
| 4.9.1 | Hypothesis One | 130 | ||
| 4.9.2 | Hypothesis Two | 135 | ||
| 4.9.3 | Hypothesis Three | 138 | ||
| 4.9.4 | Hypothesis Four | 141 | ||
| 4.9.5 | Hypothesis Five | 143 | ||
| 4.9.6 | Hypothesis Six | 144 | ||
| 4.9.7 | Hypothesis Seven | 145 | ||
| CHAPTER FIVE: | SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND | |||
| RECOMMENDATIONS | ||||
| 5.1 | Summary | 148 | ||
| 5.2 | Summary of Major Findings | 151 | ||
- Personal/Demographic Characteristics 151
5.2.2 Socio-economics characteristics 152
13
| 5.2.3 | Tested Hypotheses | 155 | |
| 5.3 | Conclusions | 156 | |
| 5.4 | Recommendations | 158 | |
| 5.5 | Suggestions for further studies | 159 | |
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
- Questionnaire
- Emergence of Hybrid Sector
- Authors Conceptual Framework
- Organizations Frame of Operation
- Correlation matrices
14
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 1 Distribution J.D.P.M. – RUDEP
Beneficiaries
84
Table 2 FADU Beneficiaries
85
Table 3 Public Extension Benefit
85
Table 4 Total sample size of Beneficiaries
According to the Organizations
in the three states of study
97
Table 5 Distribution of beneficiaries
responded (Questionnaire returned)
98
Table 6 Personal Characteristics (age, marital
status, Religion and family size and
Gender)
102
Table 6b Distribution of respondents by level
of Education, and Cosmopoliteness
Table 7 Distribution of respondents by sources
of Agricultural Information, Years of
15
Family Experience and size of Farm
Holding
107
Table 8 Distribution of respondents by pattern of
land acquisition and types of farming
system
109
Table 9 Distribution of respondents’
participation Level
111
Table 10 Distribution of respondents by reason
for choice of extension organization
113
Table 11 Distribution of respondents by frequency
of extension agents/farmers contacts
116
Table 12 Performance rating of Extension agents
117
Table 13 Summary of Performance rating of
Extension Agents
117
Table 14 Distribution of Respondents Based on
attitude to extension programmes
119
16
Table 15 Distribution of respondents based
on achievement from organizations’
extension programme
122
Table 16 Distribution of respondents
based on benefit/achievement category
123
Table 17 Correlation matrix of relationship
between benefit and selected
personal characteristic in public extension
126
Table 18 Correlation matrix of relationship
between benefit and selected
personal characteristic in JDPM-RUDEP
127
Table 19 Correlation matrix of relationship
Between Personal characteristics and
benefit in FADU
128
Table 20 Correlation matrix of relationship
between attitude and selected
personal characteristics in Public
130
Table 21 Correlation matrix of relationship
17
between attitude and selected
personal characteristics in JDPM-RUDEP
131
Table 22 Correlation matrix of relationship
between attitude and selected
personal characteristics in FADU
133
Table 23 Krustal Wallis Ranking of beneficiaries
Attitude under public and private
extension organization
134
Table 24 Krustal Wallis Ranking of beneficiaries
benefit under public and private
extension organizations
136
Table 25 Summary of correlation between
attitude and benefit in public
and private organizations
138
Table 26 Summary of correlation between attitude
and patronage of extension activities
in public and private organizations
141
18
| LIST OF FIGURES | ||
| FIGURES | PAGE | |
| 1. | Farinde’s Nodal Extension Delivery Model | 74 |
| 2. | Conseptual Framework for the study | 80 |
- Map showing study location in South Western
| Nigeria | 81 |
19
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
- BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
The role of the public in agricultural extension is currently undergoing a process of change, renewal, and experimentation. It poses not capable to attend the entire demand for extension services by the world’s farmers. In the past, public sector extension was severely attacked for not being relevant, insufficient impact, ineffective, and sometimes, not pursuing programmes that foster equity (Williams and Qamar, 2003). A critical turning point occurred that affected the way information transfers, considered the purview of public sector Agricultural Extension, was conceived and practiced. Not only did the Public Extension System came under public scrutiny and political attack, but was confronted by heightened competitive interests from the private sectors. Public extension is described as the extension activities provided by government under the authority of Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in all states of Nigeria to cater for the needs of farmers. Agricultural Extension is expected to foster a sustainable and dynamic approach to agricultural development and which has remained of great
20
concern to the government and priority for discourse in policy arena (Agwu, et al, 2008).
It is the realization of this fact that has made successive Nigerian governments, to make efforts towards raising the productivity level of rural people. The country has therefore, over the years, tried many Agricultural Extension Systems which include Agricultural Development Project (ADP).
Agricultural Development Project was initiated in 1975 at the pilot project level, the success of which resulted into many designs which prominently include the statewide project. The statewide ADPs are extension of the enclave projects to other Local Government Areas (LGA) covered by the initial ADPs. Presently, all the States in the country are implementing the statewide ADP.
Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) focuses on rural integrated development strategy for agricultural and rural development. The establishment of these statewide ADPs raised the hope of farmers in government genuine commitment to the eliminations of the social political and economic problems that kept them in cycle of poverty (Akinbode, 1989). The ADPs across the country adopted the Training and Visit System (T&V) in order to boost production, solve the prevailing extension problem, foster self-reliance, and sustain the agricultural sector. It is observed
21
that Training and Visit System used by many extension organizations (including ADP) has many weaknesses.
These include excessive cost of input delivery, bureaucratic inefficiencies that have aided the poor formulation and implementation of extension programmes, and the failure to address the peculiar needs of farmers.
Other problems are poor staff training, inadequate coordination with University and Research Centre, inadequate content of extension message, inconsistent government regulations, inadequate farmers’ involvement, national policy and sustainability.
All these have caused much bureaucratic inefficiencies in public extension. It is against this background that the study attempts to compare the agricultural extension delivery and benefits accrued to the participants in the public and selected private agricultural extension outfits in Nigeria.
- STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
There is growing concern for provision of effective and sustainable agricultural extension services to majority of the resource poor farmers in whose hands the bulk of agricultural production is left. Resource poor farmers belong to a complex, diverse and risk prone (CDR) agriculture, which supports several million of people in Africa (Rivera et al, 2003)
22
The importance of agricultural extension system therefore, remains that of a service to enhance the ability of farm families to respond to old problems and meet new opportunities. Agricultural extension system is characterized by shape and character of the institution to which they belong. Rivera and Wheeler (1989) posited that extension is a component of the system operating with other agro-support system in the context of agricultural and technology development. They classified determinants that influence agricultural extension system and characteristic. These are sector difference, institutional structure, socio economic and political goals, and extension approach.
Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) in Nigeria, especially in South West Nigeria, is an agricultural extension outfit designed to achieve, among others
- Establishment of well organized extension programme through Training and Visit (T & V) System.
- Strengthening the co-ordination, supervision and implementation capacity of the ADP.
- Unification, Expansion and Improvement of the quality of services.
- Introduction of effective media support to assist extension agents through the use of diary, radio, television, leaflet and wall blackboard.
23
- Intensification of work with women and
- Intensification of essential farmer/extension/research linkages.
Agricultural extension programmes are therefore under pressure to change, because of growing fiscal pressures and questions about effectiveness and efficiency of their service (Rivera et al, 2000). To remedy this problem of bureaucratic management, the public sector has been shifting its services to private sector, sometimes totally as in Nether