Government Run vs. University Managed Agricultural Extension: A Review of Nepal, India and the United States
Nav Ghimire *
Green Lake County, University of Wisconsin-Extension, USA.
Vikram Koundinya
Office of Economic Development, University of Connecticut, USA.
Mary Holz-Clause
Office of Economic Development, University of Connecticut, USA.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Aims: The creation of an agricultural extension system and its evolution over time is affected by many factors such as history of the country, cultural and community mandates, farming systems, and public policy. There are notable differences in the agricultural extension systems operating around the globe. The purpose of this paper was to review the agricultural extension systems in Nepal, India, and the United States
Methodology: A comprehensive review of literature was conducted to identify the similarities and differences in the agricultural extension systems in the stated countries. Relevant documents used included creation legislation for each country, global analysis from organizations such as Food and Agricultural Organization, and peer-reviewed journal articles. The authors’ extension experiences working in the stated countries also provided inputs to develop this paper.
Results: Differences were observed in the area of extension models, program delivery, outcomes assessment, and research–extension interface among agricultural extension systems compared in this study. The program delivery mechanism of Nepal and India was mainly driven by ‘top down expert model’. Contrary to this, in the United States, extension was operating under a learning model. In all three countries many small scale-farmers felt underserved and disengaged from their extension services. It was found that only small segments of the extension audience were served in comparison to the large number of farmers and their families residing in these countries. In Nepal and India, it was perceived that extension agents lacked professional commitment to serve farmers and were mostly accountable to their managers.
Conclusion: Needs were found not–aligned to the extension services offered by all, suggesting a lack of appropriate extension leadership. All the systems need to ensure they are meeting both the perception and realities of their clients. Clients and taxpayers need to feel there is a public value for the extension systems.
Keywords: Agricultural extension systems, Nepal, India, The United States, review