Fiscal sustainability of agricultural extension: the case of the farmer field school approach

By J. Quizon, G. Feder, Rinku Murgai. 2001

149 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/890b1921cb6b73f1c72d1b66b12e8df6ec64e37c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. G. Feder
2. Jock R. Anderson
3. Rinku Murgai
4. C. Glendenning
5. S. Babu

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. G. Feder
2. Jock R. Anderson
3. C. Glendenning
4. S. Babu
5. S. Savastano
6. K. Asenso-okyere

Citations in the corpus

• Agricultural Extension: Good Intentions and Hard Realities (2004, background): “The intense training activities are expensive per farmer trained (Quizon, Feder, and Murgai 2001a,b), so the amount of service actually delivered (the number of farmers trained) on a national level would be small.”
• The Acquisition and Diffusion of Knowledge: The Case of Pest Management Training in Farmer Field Schools, Indonesia (2004, background): “The FFS approach requires weekly season-long interactions between the group of trainees and the trainer, and is expensive per trained farmer (Quizon et al., 2001a,b; Thiele et al., 2001).”