Privatising agricultural extension: caveat emptor

By A. Kidd, J. Lamers, P.P Ficarelli, V. Hoffmann. 2000

206 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac06fb6f18a718dbdf64661ea6b627c6005194e6

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. L. Klerkx
2. William McLeod Rivera
3. Gianluca Brunori
4. K. Knickel
5. V. R. Sulaiman
6. Y. Desjeux

In Soil Science

1. L. Klerkx
2. K. Knickel

Citations in the corpus

• Dynamics and distribution of public and private research and extension roles for technological innovation and diffusion: Case studies of the implementation and adaptation of precision farming technologies (2017, background): “With respect to extension, it is has been identified the private sector focus on private goods (e.g. fertilizer application advice) and others on public goods (e.g. environmental management) (Kidd et al., 2000; Klerkx et al., 2006;”
• Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches (2009, background): “The subsequent changes have substantially altered expert and innovation systems, leading to privatisation of delivery, multiplication of extension organisations, farmers’ participation to the costs, and competitive bids to assign research and extension tasks (Kidd et al. 2000).”
• New Challenges in Agricultural Advisory Services from a Research Perspective: A Literature Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda (2012, background): “For their part, Kidd et al. (2000) recommend pilot programmes to test institutional changes with gradual measures adapted to the local context.”
• Agricultural and rural extension worldwide: options for institutional reform in the developing countries. (2002, background): “Recovering the cost of advisory services by charging the users for them is sometimes seen as having several objectives: to ease the burden on public funds, to stimulate private sector participation in service provision, and to make the services accountable to farmers as paying clients (Kidd et al. 2”
• Extension: Object of Reform, Engine for Innovation (2009, background): “Recovery of the cost of advisory services through user charges is sometimes seen as having several objectives – easing the burden on public funds, stimulating private sector participation in service provision and making services accountable to farmers as paying clients ( Kidd et al, 2000 ).”