effectiveness of agricultural extension with respect to farm size in uganda

8/13/2019 Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension With Respect to Farm Size in Uganda

1/21

The effectiveness of agricultural extension with respect to farm size: The case

of Uganda

Michael BetzThe Ohio State University

Email: [email protected]

Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics

Association 2009

AAEA & ACCI Joint Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 26-29, 2009

Copyright 2009 by [authors]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of thisdocument for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice

appears on all such copies.


2/21

1

B 80% ,

(G

2000). I 1997

M A (MA)

. MA ,

. N A A

(NAAD) ,

,

, ,

. H,

(K, B, B 2009).

A ( . 2004; K 1998).

I , ,

; ,

A . O

(M, K, K, B 2007). I

,

. C,

. I


3/21


4/21

3

. I

,

, ,

.

. ,

, ,

. O, H, K (2003)

,

, .

.

A

. A

,

. B

,

, NAAD

.

. L


5/21

4

, , (F, J, 1985)

. ,

. C,

( 1962; B C 1979; B 1993)

. I NAAD

,

.

,

.

I

,

. A,

. : II

. III

. I

. .

2005/2006 N

H (NH). B

(BO) :


6/21

5

.

, , ,

, , ,

. , BO

2005/2006 N H .

,

, , ,

. A

, . A

.

, .

NAAD.

2005/2006 NH (JJ)

(JD). O

,

. A

10%

. 2005/2006 NH : N,

E, , C. I ,

750 .


7/21

6

, 7,500 . O 7,500 5,405

, 5,200

.

1. O

.

, , , , ,

. A ,

.

. NAAD

,

, , (NAAD). I

( 13 )

( 2 13 ) (

2 ) . F,

,

.

M .

$10 . , ,

, , . I

$10

, , , . ,

, , $5 .


8/21

7

,

.

F ,

$0.58 $0.73 , ,

.

A

(M, K, K, B 2007).

13.9% 6.7%, .

.

5.5 . (1975)

,

. .

. I ,

( B 1993),

. H,

, , ( )

. B

.

; ,

.


9/21

8

.

.

CD :

(1) ,

. , ,

. A , ,

.

, , ,

, , , .

. I ,

. M

. F

.

NH.

, , , .


10/21


11/21

10

. G

NAAD

,

. I

.

.

.

F, ,

(2)

.

, , , . C

,

.

, ,

. ,

. . I

.


12/21

11

CD

3. 2 (), 2

13 (), 13 (). M

,

. ,

, , , .

, ,

.

G,

.

. C,

.

. A,

, , .

,

.

. B

.

, , .


13/21

12

A

,

.

.

L

, .

. 74 ,

0.5 2.5 .

.

O

. E

, . E

. A

,

. F

. F

. H, 0.11 ,

. H,

19.9%, $70 $84


14/21

13

. F, . K

.

2 13 . H

. I 4

,

. B

.

.

.

. L ,

. H,

. M

,

.

,


15/21

14

. A,

,

.

A ,

, .

,

.

, . I

. 2

. A

.

, ,

. A ,

.

I ,

. I 3%.

B , ,

.

. A, ,


16/21

15

. M

.

C,

.

B

. CD ,

.

,

2 13 .

.

,

.


17/21

16

B, D., .E. E G. F. 1991. " E I A

E: A ." 39:607650.

B, .A., .. C. 1979. .

B: J H .

D, A. 1989. " A E A: L

E." . 17:16471659.

E, .E. 1997.

. I B.E. , .. B, A.J. .

., I: FAO, 2736.

G, M. 2000. .

. , D.C.: B.

G . 2000.

. .

K, .

K, D., B. B., M. B. 2009. M

A, 19992007. , D. A. E., O .

K, C.K. C.. . 1998. "N

."., .. 71:115.

M, M., .A. K, .J. K D. B. 2007.

. , D.C.: B.

N A A . 2009. .K, .


18/21

17

O, ., J. H, B. K. 2003. " I A E F

A ."

51:337357.

, J., E. N, . J, D. H. . 2004. " I

A L D: E ."

31:181195.

, M.. H.. B. 1993. ", C

A I." .. 103:5678.

, A.K. 1962. A A I A. .A : 24366.

, M. "A I : A E H

C , ." .D. ,

.


19/21

18

.

H 6.0 5.1 6.5 8.4

N 2.5 2.2 2.7 3.7

N 15 3.0 2.6 3.4 3.9

25.9% 33.1% 20.3% 14.3%

H ' 44.0 42.3 45.1 48.6

A 4.9 1.0 4.8 43.0

D 90.8 55.7 117.1 151.5

D 14.0 5.3 18.0 55.2

' ($) 10 5 10 53

($) 0.58 0.19 0.78 2.30 ,

($) 0.73 0.26 1.00 2.41

13.9% 13.3% 14.0% 17.1%

6.7% 6.1% 7.0% 9.6%

42.1% 35.7% 46.0% 61.6%

3.1% 3.4% 2.8% 2.4%

12.8% 11.9% 13.5% 14.3%

8.1% 10.0% 6.8% 3.6%

17.2% 17.4% 17.1% 15.7% 5.6% 4.5% 6.5% 5.5%

22.8% 25.1% 20.9% 19.7%

A

() 1.5 1.2 1.6 2.7

( 7) 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.8

N 12

0.22 0.11 0.24 0.92

' ($) 137 70 175 368

A ($) 61 87 41 16

N 5200 2373 2575 252


20/21

19

.

N 41 32 23

G 6 9 17NAAD 5 8 14

M 25 34 39

O 38 40 38

.

E 0.100 0.053 0.054

N 0.779*** 0.561*** 0.646**

0.153** 0.192*** 0.360*F 0.080 0.063 0.057

L ' A 0.093 0.030 0.141

L ' 0.021*** 0.017*** 0.033*

L ' 0.308*** 0.290*** 0.173

L ' 0.284*** 0.308*** 0.227***

L 0.029*** 0.030*** 0.043***

L ' 0.009 0.014 0.118*

L 0.016*** 0.015*** 0.024*

L 0.013*** 0.007* 0.012

L 0.005 0.011* 0.014L 0.042*** 0.021*** 0.030**

L 0.004 0.012*** 0.009

L 0.007 0.016** 0.000

L 0.021*** 0.009* 0.036**

L 0.006 0.009* 0.012

L 0.004 0.005 0.018

L 0.027*** 0.021*** 0.040**

L 0.018** 0.012** 0.044**

L ' 0.033*** 0.044*** 0.045

K 0.021 0.037 0.046

L 0.018** 0.006 0.032**

C 12.42*** 12.14*** 13.73***

0.425 0.375 0.514

N 2373 2575 252

*


21/21

effectiveness of agricultural extension with respect to farm size in uganda

Documents