International Journal of Sales & Marketing Management

Research and Development (IJSMMRD)

ISSN(P): 2249-6939; ISSN(E): 2249-8044
Vol. 6, Issue 5, Oct 2016, 27-30
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd

CONSTRAINTS PERCEIVED BY FARMERS AND PRIVATE EXTENSION

SERVICE PROVIDERS REGARDING PRIVATIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL

EXTENSION SERVICES IN ANANTAPUR DISTRICT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
J. YOGA NARASIMHULU NAIDU1 & DIPAK KUMAR BOSE2
1

Research Scholar, Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
2

Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, SHIATS University,

Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT
This study examined the perception of constraints regarding privatization of agricultural extension services at
both beneficiary level as well as at private extension service providers (PESP) level. The study was carried out in
Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh purposively. A sample size of 120farmers comprising of 77 beneficiaries and 43
non beneficiaries were selected purposively as a sample for the present investigation. Similarly 120 private extension
service providers were selected purposively in random way as a sample. Data for the study were collected through the use
service providers (PESP), while the interview schedule was used for the farmers. From the study, it is unobstructed that
Privatization of Agricultural Extension Services has become indispensable in our country for elevating the
socio-economic condition of the farmers and bringing more entrepreneurs as private extension service providers
accompanying the public extension system. Simultaneously issues and constraints emerged at different levels in
delivering extension services to the end users should be effectively checked.
KEYWORDS: Privatization, PESP, Anantapur, Co-Operative Approach

Original Article

of structured questionnaire and structured interview schedule. The questionnaire was used for the private extension

Received: Sep 21, 2016; Accepted: Oct 04, 2016; Published: Oct 12, 2016; Paper Id.: IJSMMRDOCT20164

INTRODUCTION
India is one among the developing countries encountering a strong debate regarding the significant role of
private extension service providers in dissemination of inputs, information and technology etc. in recent years. In
many developing countries the public extension services run into serious operational and financial problems.
According to a worldwide survey conducted by the FAO, the extension work around the world is carried out
through public extension system alone. The public extension system is now crumbled by various factors viz., lack
of resources, inadequate funds, futile policies and reforms. The greatest challenge faced by the public extension
system is to develop effective strategies in meeting the dynamic demands of modern and commercial agriculture.
In India performance of the public extension system was vain. There is an operational strategy developed by the
government to shift the traditional extension system to commercial activity by privatizing and commercializing the
agricultural extension services in the country. The subject of privatization of agricultural extension services in
India has been examined by a number of researchers. It is predicted that private extension system is generally
skewed towards big famers and high-value crops as well-documented by empirical case studies. Similarly it was
expected that remote areas and poor producers (small and marginal) are poorly served by both the private and

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

28

J. Yoga Narasimhulu Naidu & Dipak Kumar Bose

public extension system. Many researchers and analysts have suggested that private extension should not be considered as
a substitute for public extension. The efficiency of agricultural extension system can be gained by the inducement of
private sector provisions. However, in poorer countries public extension system should provide funds for the delivery of
extension services to small and marginal farmers with better coverage.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study was carried out in in Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh purposively. Private extension service
providers viz., input dealers, members from various agri-consultant groups and private company alongwith farmers in the
district formed the population from which sample was drawn. Private extension service providers of the district composed
of 120 members were selected randomly from 5 selected villages namely Narpala, Bathalapalli, D. cherlopalli,
Venkatampalli and Chamaluru. The PESP benefitted farmers list in selected the selected villages was procured from the
Agricultural officer. About 748 benefitted farmers are distributed in the above selected villages. From that a sample size of
77 farmers from the list wereselected by following proportionate random sampling method. Along with beneficiary farmers
43 non-beneficiary farmers from the same villages were selected for the study. A pre-tested questionnaire and interview
schedule were used for data collection. The questionnaire and interview schedule was administered to the private extension
service providers and farmers respectively. A focus group discussion was conducted among farmers and private extension
service providers. Validity and reliability of instruments was carried out by following a pilot test. By adopting simple
percentage analysis the data was analysed and ranks were allotted to the perceived constraints.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Constraints Perceived By the Respondents Regarding Privatization of Agricultural Extension Services

Table 1: Constraints Perceived at Beneficiaries Level.
N = 120
Sl. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Constraints at Beneficiaries Level

Education level of the farmer
Economic condition of the farmer
Instability in agriculture production
Lack of awareness of the farmer
Lack of interest of the farmer
It(PESP) render services to large farmers only
Small and Marginal farmers cannot afford the cost of service

Response
Frequency (P)
73 (60.83)
89 (74.17)
90 (75.00)
114 (95.00)
109 (90.83)
98 (81.67)
86 71.67)

Rank
VII
V
IV
I
II
III
VI

In the table the values in the parenthesis indicate percentage.

Entries in Table 1 showed the percentage of constraints perceived at Beneficiaries level. Results revealed that all
the seven constraints perceived by the respondent (Beneficiaries) are being important. The present demand for extension
services was hurdled by the lack of awareness among farmers constituting about 95.00 percentage. Almost 90.83
percentage of respondents revealed that farmers were lacking interest in availing extension services from different service
providers (pubic, private and NGOs). PESP offers extension services to large farmers only considering that large farmers
are ready to pay for the services provided by them comprises 81.67 percentage. Instability in agriculture production owing
to various factors like fluctuating climate, decreased resource etc., comprises about 75.00 per cent. 74.17 percentage of
respondents response revealed that economic condition of the farmer is one among the constraints at beneficiary level
where the cost of cultivation and production does not matches the income generated by the farmers. Small and marginal
Impact Factor (JCC): 5.9231

NAAS Rating: 3.13

Constraints Perceived by Farmers and Private Extension Service Providers Regarding

Privatization of Agricultural Extension Services in Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh

29

farmers cannot afford services on cost basis like large farmers considered as a constraint by 71.67 percentage of
respondents. Education level of the farmer also perceived as a constraint by 60.83 per cent of respondents.
Table 2: Constraints Perceived at PESP Level
N = 120
Sl. No.

Constraints at PESP level

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Lack of technically skilled members(Extension workers)

Linkage gap between farmers and PESP
Failure of extension services in prefer to client needs
To provide Seasonal and Timely services
Administrative and bureaucratic Bottlenecks in policy implementation
Political instability
Unfavorable government policies
Lack of ready market to sell increased output as a result of improved
extension services

Response
Frequency
(P)
102 (85.00)
114 (95.00)
110 (91.67)
108 (90.00)
98 (81.67)
91 (75.83)
90 (75.00)
92 76.
67)

Rank
IV
I
II
III
V
VII
VIII
VI

In the table the values in the parenthesis indicate percentage.

Table 2 spectacles the percentage of the constraints as perceived by respondents at PESP level. All the 8
constraints are being imperative. The respondents perceived them as accordingly; 95.00 per cent respondents emphasized
that there is a considerable linkage gap between farmers and PESP due to ineffective linkage and strategies. Failure of
Extension services with improper planning leads to deflect away from the client needs was given by 91.67 percentage of
respondents. Providing seasonal and timely services defied extension service providers was considered as constraint by
90.00 per cent of respondents. About 85.00 percent respondents marked that lack of technically skilled members
(Extension workers) in delivering extension services to farmers. Administrative and bureaucratic bottlenecks implied for
unproductive policy implementation for effective extension service delivery was perceived by 81.67 percentage of
respondents as a constraint. Around 76.67 per cent respondents reported that there is lack of ready markets to sell increased
output as a result of improved Extension services. Political instability in extension system resulted for many issues and
problem in delivering extension services to farmers was perceived as constraint by 75.83 per cent of respondents. About
75.00 per cent of respondents considered that unfavourable government policies leashes to restrain in extension service
delivered by private sector.

CONCLUSIONS
The most importantconstraint perceived by the respondents at beneficiaries level was lack of awareness among
farmers. Linkage gap between the Extension service providers and farmers is considered as the major constraint at PESP
level. These constraints can be reduced by a re-structured, re-examined and strengthened Extension service system after
intervening of government by developing suitable policies and reforms. Recommended ideal policy should be to have
better mix of public, private, voluntary and co-operative extension efforts. Experience the world over is that it is easy to
change farmers than to change government agencies. Effective policies and reforms are going to be the greatest challenge
for the Public Extension System.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

30

J. Yoga Narasimhulu Naidu & Dipak Kumar Bose

REFERENCES
1.

Amir Ahmadpour and ShohrehSoltani (2013) The Need for a Strong Public-Private Linkage in Agricultural Extension System
(Case Study: Sari Township, Iran). International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 4(1): 41-50, March,
2014.

2.

Anderson, J. R. and Feder, G. (2004). Agricultural Extension: Good Intentions and Hard Realities. World Bank Res. Obser.,
19: 41-60.

3.

Antholt, C.H., (1994), Getting ready for the twenty-first century technical change and institutional modernization in
agriculture. World Bank Technical Paper, No.217, World Bank Publication, Washington DC.

4.

Obadan MI, Ayodele SA (1998). Commercialization and Privatization Policy in Nigeria. Ibadan: NCEMA.

5.

Odii MACA (2001). Problems and prospects of privatization of public enterprises in Nigeria. In: Olowu, T.A. (ed.),
Proceedings of the 7th Annual National Conferences of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria, AESON, Ilorin: pp.12-18.

6.

Reddy P.G and Rao P. P (2001) Privatization of Agricultural Extension An Analysis. In : Shekara P C (eds.) Private
Extension : Indian Experiences. pp. 222. MANAGE, Hyderabad, India.

7.

Rivera W. M, Cary J. W (1997).Privatizing agricultural extension. In: B.E. Swanson, R.P. Bentz and A.J. Sofranko (eds.)
Improving Agricultural Extension A Reference Manual, Rome: FAO: pp.203-211.

8.

Rivera, W. M. Quamar, M. K. and Crowder, L.V. (2001) Agricultural and Rural Extension Worldwide: Options for
institutional reform in the developing countries. Extension, Education and Communication Service, Research, Extension and
Training Division, Sustainable Development Department, FAO, Rome.

9.

Rivera W. M, Zijp W, & Gary .A (2000) Contracting for extension: Review of emerging practices. Akis Good Practice Note,
Agricultural Knowledge Information System (AKIS). Thematic Group. Washington, D.C: World Bank.

10. Sulaiman, V.R. (2003) Agricultural Extension: Involvement of private sector. Occasional Paper 29, National Bank for
Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD),Mumbai.
11. Swanson B.E, Farmer BJ, Bahal R (1990). The Current Status of Agricultural Extension Worldwide, in B.E. Swanson (ed)
Report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.9231

NAAS Rating: 3.13