FUNDING EBONYI STATE AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXTENSION SERVICE IN A DEREGULATED ECONOMY

M. Sc. RESEARCH FINDINGS

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT, AND EXTENSION

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE AND

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

ABSTRACT

Funding Ebonyi State agricultural public extension service in a deregulated economy was studied. The specific objectives analyzed include to describe the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents; identify the major recommended packages/technologies and services extended to the farmers by the extension agents; describe the trend in the funding of agricultural extension services between 2001 and 2010; ascertain farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services; analyse the effects of farmers socio-economic characteristics on their ability to pay for extension services and identified constraints against farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services in a deregulated economy. A total of 240 contact farmers were selected using a multistage random sampling technique. Data collected were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The study found that majority (65.42%) of the respondents were males; had a mean age of 49 years, married; had a relatively large household size of 8 persons; and relatively low educational status. Average farm holding was 0.90 ha and personal savings were the major sources of farm finance. Government funding of the agricultural public extension (ADP) dwindled throughout the period with budget estimate at the peak of N220.4m recorded in 2009 and the lowest of about N69.3m in 2001, whereas the highest actual expenditure was about N99.5m in 2004 and the lowest amount of about N37.1m was also recorded in 2001. A very great difference between the budget estimate and actual expenditure was observed in 2004 with about 46.5%. The amount farmers were willing to pay for extension services was not also stable with the highest amount of about N9.2m in 2005 and least amount of N800,000.00 in 2003. The amount expended by government was much more higher than the amount farmers are willing to pay with 98.2% difference in 2004. Majority (67.08%) of the respondents were not willing to pay for extension service while about 10% of them showed future willingness to pay. High proportion of those willing to pay indicated 21-40% degree of willingness. Furthermore, about 88% and 48% of the respondents noted that deregulation of extension services will cause specialized training for farmers to improve, and most farmers will not be able to afford payment for extension services, respectively. Major extension services the respondents were willing to pay for include the cost of arranging for farm input supply; cost to access farm machinery; extension agents’ home and farm visits; and cost of processing loans. However, the highest mean amount farmers were willing to pay were recorded for loan processing (N8,100), followed by cost to arrange farm input supply (N6,450) and support for farm radio programme (N6,100). Results of probit multiple regression indicated that educational level, farming experience, farm income, farm size and frequency of extension contact has positive significant effect on farmer’s willingness to pay for extension in a deregulated economy, while age and household size had a significant negative effect. R² and chi-square values of 0.512 and 30.965, respectively, showed that the socio-economic characteristic of the respondents had effect on their willingness to pay for extension services in the study area. Major constraints that limit farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services were identified, using factor analysis, as financial, social, and institutional constraints. Generally, the study indicated that the proportion of farmers willing to pay for extension services is low. This could lead to reduced adoption and utilization of improved technologies and subsequent decline in farmer and farm productivity in a deregulated economy.

Necessary recommendations such as educating farmers on cost of extension services and the need for their contribution, backing up extension services with interest free loans, deregulating extension services should be a gradual process and in phases, and improving the country’s educational system were made among others.

Get This Complete Project Material Here

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

Tables of contents

List of tables

List of figures

List of Appendix

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3 Objective of the Study

1.4 Hypothesis

1.5 Justification for the Study

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Meaning and Concept of Deregulation

2.2 Deregulation in Nigeria Economy

2.3 Deregulation and Extension Service

2.4 Meaning and Concept of Fund

2.5 Funding Extension Services in Nigeria

2.6 Ebonyi State Agricultural Development Programme (EBADEP)

2.6.1 EBADEP Specific Projects Currently Funded by Donor Agencies, Federal and State Governments

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Study Area

3.2 Sampling Technique

3.3 Data Collection

3.4Analytical Technique

3.5 Model Specification

3.5.1 Probit Multiple Regression Model

3.5.2 Ordinary Least Square (OLS) Assumptions

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

4.2 Major Packages/Technologies and Services Extended to Farmers by Extension Agents

4.2.2 Extension Services Rendered to the Farmers by Extension Agents

4.3 Trend in Funding of Agricultural Extension Services in Ebonyi State between

4.4 Farmers Willingness to Pay for Extension Services Rendered By

ADP in Ebonyi State.

4.4.1 Willingness to Pay (WTP) by Farmers

4.4.2 Future Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

4.4.3 Degree of Future Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

4.4.4 Amount Farmers are willing to pay for Extension Services in 2001-2010

4.4.5 Comparism Between the Amount Expended by Government and that the Farmers were Willing to Pay

4.5 Effects of Farmers Socio-Economic Characteristics on their Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

4.6 Constraints to Farmer's Willingness to Pay for Extension Services in a Deregulated Economy

4.7 Hypothesis Testing

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

5.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

5.2 Major Packages/Technologies and Services Extended to Farmers by Extension Agents

5.3 Trend in Funding of Agricultural Extension Services in Ebonyi State Between 2000 and 2009

5.5 Effects of Farmers' Socio-Economic Characteristics on their Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

5.6 Constraints against Farmers Willingness to Pay for Extension

Services in a Deregulated Economy

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary

6.2 Conclusion

6.3 Recommendations

References

Questionnaira

Appendix

List of tables

Table 1: Distrinution of Respondents Based on their Socio-Economic Characteristics (N = 240)

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents Based on Major Packages/Technologies Extended to the Respondents

Table 3: Distribution of Respondents Based on Extension Services Rendered to them by Extension Agents

Table 4: Animal Expenditure on Agricultural Extension Service in Ebonyi State, Nigeria

Table 5: Distribution of Respondents based on WTP opinion

Table 6: Distribution of Resonpondents Based on Future Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

Table 7: Distribution of Respondents Based on their Degree of future Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

Table 8: Amount Farmers are willing to pay for various Technologies

Table 9: Comparism between Amount Expended and that the Fermers are willing to Pay

Table 10: Distribution of Respondents Based on Perceived Effects of Deregulated Economy on Extension Service Delivery

Table 12: Distribution of Respondents Based on the Extension Services they are willing to Pay for and Mean Amount

Table 12: Probit Multiple regression Results of Effect of Farmers’ Socio-Economic Characteristics on Willingness to Pay for Extension

Table 13: Varimax Rotated factor Matrix on Constraints Limiting Famers’ Willingness to pay Extension Services in the study Area.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Annual Expenditure on Agricultural Extension Service in Ebonyi State Nigeria

Figure 2: Amount Farmers are willing to pay in the study Area

Figure 3: Estimated Amount Expended by Government and that the Farmers are willing to pay

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Logistic Regression Result of Determinants of Respondents’ Willingness to Pay for Extension Services.

Appendix II: Factor Analysis on Constraints against Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Extension Services in he Study Area.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

In this chapter, data collected from the field were analyzed accordingly, based on the stated objectives using appropriate statistical techniques. The result obtained is presented in sub-sections hereunder:

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

The socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (farmers) were examined and the results obtained are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Distribution of Respondents Based on their Socio-Economic Characteristics (N = 240)

Socio-economic variables	Frequency	Percentage
Sex
Male	157	65.42
Female	83	34.58
Total	240	100
Age (Years)
21-30	14	5.83
31-40	30	12.50
41-50	72	30.00
51-60	114	47.50
61-70	10	4.17
Total Marital Status	240	100
Single	13	5.42
Married	171	71.25
Widow/widower	35	14.58
Divorced	21	8.75
Total	240	100
Household Size
1-3	20	8.33
4-6	36	15.00
7-9	70	29.17
10-12	114	47.50
Total	240	100
Educational level
No formal education	85	35.42
Primary education	77	32.08
Secondary education	43	17.92
Tertiary education	35	14.58
Total	240	100
Annual Farm Income
21-40	30	12.50
41-60	61	25.40
61-70	80	33.33
71-80	45	18.75
81-90	15	6.25
91-100	9	3.75
Total	240	100
Source of Funds
Personal savings	169	70.42
Informal loan	37	15.41
Bank	19	7.92
Grant	10	4.17
Gift	5	2.08
Total	240	100
Farm Size (Ha)
0.1-0.5	105	43.75
0.6-1.0	71	29.58
1.1-1.5	13	5.42
1.6-2.0	24	10.00
2.1-2.5	17	7.08
2.6-3.0	10	4.17
Total	240	100
Farming Experience (years)
1.0 – 1.0	18	7.50
11-20	22	9.17
21-30	50	20.83
31-40	120	50.00
41-50	20	8.33
51-60	10	4.17
Total	240	100
Frequency of Extension contacts
Once in 2 weeks	23	9.58
Once in 4 weeks	177	73.75
Once in 8 weeks	40	16.69
Total	240	100
Land Tenure
Owned	166	69.17
Rented	74	30.83
Total	240	100

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Table 1 presents the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers. Majority (65.42%) of the respondents were males, and about 48% of the respondents were in the age brackets of 51 - 60 years, followed by those who were in the age bracket of 41 - 50 years with 30%. The least percentage (4.17%) of the respondents were in the age bracket of 61 -70 years. However, the mean age of the respondents was 49 years. Majority of the respondents representing about 71% were married while about 5% were single. About 15% indicated that they are either widow or widower. The results also showed that most (47.50%) of the respondents had a large household size of between 10 and 12 persons with just about 8% having a household size of 1 - 3 persons. The mean household size was found to be about 8 persons.

Again, the level of education of the respondents was relatively high as up to 65% of the respondents had one form of formal education or the other. The highest percentage (32.08%) of those educated was observed at the

primary education level. However, about 33% of them attained either secondary or tertiary education level while 35.42% had no formal education. The mean annual farm income of the farmers was N61, 562.50 with the highest percentage of them earning between N61,000 - N70,000. About 4% and 13% of the respondents earned between N91, 000 - N100, 000 and N21,000- N40,000 respectively. Table 1 also indicated that the respondents' major source of funding for their farming activities was their personal saving shown by 70% of them. This was followed by informal loan with 15.41% while 8% indicated that the formal sources (Banks) were their major source of fund for their farm activities.

The average farm holding was 0.90ha. Most (43.75%) had a farm size of between 0.1 and 0.5ha while about 4% and 30% had between 2.6 - 3.0ha and 0.6 - l.0 ha of farmland, respectively. Result on farming experience of the farmers indicated that 50% of them had been in the business of farming for between 31-40 years, and about 21% of them for between 21 - 30 years. Only about 4% and 8% had farmed for 51 -60 years and 1 - 10 years, respectively. The mean fanning experience was however 31 years. Findings as shown on the table further showed that about 74% of the respondents were visited once per month (4 weeks) by an extension agent, and about 17% were visited once in 2 months (8 weeks). Only about 10% were visited once in two (2) weeks. Based in tenurial system, majority (69.17%) of the respondents owned the land they cultivate and about 31% rented the land they used (Table 1).

4.2 Major Packages/Technologies and Services Extended to Farmers

by Extension Agents

4.2.1 Major Packages/Technologies to Farmers

The major recommended technologies extended to farmers by the state ADP were identified, and the result is presented in table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents Based on Major Packages/Technologies Extended to the Respondents

Package/Technology Extended	Frequency	Percentage
Dry season vegetable production (Exotic vegetable production, mulching, using organic manure and correct spacing)	65	27.08
Yam/Maize/Vegetable (rapid seed yam multiplication, improved maize varieties, spacing and fertilizer application	101	42.08
Cassava/maize/sweet potatoes (use of improved varieties of cassava, maize and sweet potato, and soil enrichment with potato)	151	62.92
Cassava/maize/melon (row planting, spacing, improved varieties and fertilizer application)	60	25.00
Late maize/cowpea/soybean (improved varieties, soil enrichment with soyabean or cowpea and use of pesticides)	51	21.25
Swamp rice production (improved varieties, early planting, line planting, and pest and diseases control in rice field with emphasis on African Rice Gall midge (AFRGM)	171	71.25
Upland rice production (NERICA), use and time of fertilizer application	120	50.00
Processing cassava/sweet patato into floor (peeling, washing, grading, drying, milling, and sieving that is adding value and increasing shelf life)	47	19.58
Utilization of cassava/sweet potato flour (measuring ingredients, mixing, kneading, baking or frying and packaging)	70	29.17
Production of fruit juices, processing and utilization of soyabean (selection, washing, blending, sieving, cooling and storage)	61	25.43
Total		897*

*MultipIe responses recorded

The results in Table 2 indicated that the major technologies extended to the farmers in the area were those associated with swamp rice production, and cassava/maize/sweet potatoes mixed cropping as identified by 71.25% and 62.92% of the respondents, respectively. The least identified was processing cassava/sweet potatoes into flour with about 20%. Other packages/technologies identified by respondents as being extended to them include those of yam/maize/vegetable mixed cropping (42.08%), upland rice production (NERICA) (50%) and utilization of cassava/sweet potato flour (29.17%), among others. However, the multiple responses recorded indicated that the respondent identified more than one package/technology.

4.2.2 Extension Services Rendered to the Farmers by Extension Agents

The extension services rendered to farmers by the State ADP Extension Agents were identified and the result is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Distribution of Respondents Based on Extension Services Rendered to them by Extension Agent

Extension Services Rendered Frequency Percentage
Establishment of SPAT	131	54.58
Forming women groups	50	20.83
Providing information to women farmers	61	25.42
Identifying rural problems	98	40.83
Involvement in non-farming activities	81	33.75
Supervising women activities	75	31.25
Arrange input supply	181	75.42
Preparing schedule of activities	100	41.67
Processing loan	41	17.08
Initiating and promoting leadership	71	29.58
Securing market for shows and farm produce	66	27.50
Organizing shows	90	37.50
Organizing group meetings	98	40.83
Communication of recommended practices	198	82.50
Feeding back farmers’ problems to research	121	50.42
Teaching new ideas in agriculture	200	83.33
Teaching how to keep record of activity	170	70.83
Giving advice on agricultural problems	210	87.50
Home and farm visits	215	89.58
Helping with access to farm machinery	82	34.17
Total	2339*

Source: Field Survey, 2010. *Multiple Responses recorded

The multiple responses recorded indicated that more than one services were extended to the farmers by the extension agents. On the average, each respondent received about ten (10) services from the extension agents in the area. Majority of the respondents received such services as home and farm visits (89.58%), advice on their agricultural problems (87.50%), learning new ideas on agriculture (83.33%), and information on recommended practices (82.50%). Other services enjoyed by the farmers from the extension agents were the arrangement for input supply (75.42%), keeping record of farm activity (70.83%), establishment of SPAT (54.58%), feeding back the farmers problems to research (50.42%), preparing schedule for activities (41.67%), organizing group meetings (40.83%) and identifying rural problems (40.83%), among others. However, the least service received from the extension agents was in the area of processing of loan with 17.08%.

4.3 Trend in Funding of Agricultural Extension Services in Ebonyi State between 2001 and 2010.

The trend in funding public agricultural extension services in Ebonyi State was reviewed, and the annual approved estimate of Agricultural Extension service and actual expenditure, and the difference between budget estimate and the actual expenditure were obtained from Ebonyi State Government (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) and Ebonyi State Agricultural Development Programme (EBADEP). The results were presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6 and Figures 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

Table 4: Annual Approved Estimates on Agricultural Extension Service in Ebonyi State (2001-2010).

YEAR	AMOUNT (N)
2001	69, 301, 000
2002	109, 048, 110
2003	94, 500, 000
2004	129, 000,000
2005	160, 629, 796
2006	88, 250,000
2007	115, 600, 000
2008	105, 000, 000
2009	220, 400,000
2010	124, 100,000

Source: EBSG (Ministry of Finance), 2010.

The result in Table 4, Figures 1 and 2 indicated that there was no steady increase in the total amount approved by Ebonyi State Government within the years of study for extension service delivery. The amount approved increased and decreased form year to year. However, the highest estimate was approved in 2009 with N220, 400,000, while the lowest estimate was approved in 2001 with N69, 301, 000. Further, there was a great decline from N220, 400,000 in 2009 to N124, 100, 000 in 2010.

Table 5: Annual Actual Expenditure on Agricultural Extension Service in Ebonyi State (2001-2010)

YEAR	AMOUNT (N)
2001	37, 127, 792
2002	39, 774, 630
2003	42, 840, 089
2004	99, 459, 694
2005	93, 666, 054
2006	44, 747, 723
2007	57, 957, 757
2008	55, 241, 172
2009	90, 962, 428
2010	93, 975, 943

Sources: EBADEP, 2010

The result in Table 5, Figures 2^A and 2^B indicated inconsistency and unstable funding of agricultural extension service in Ebonyi State.

The amount spent every year within the period of study did not continuously increase or decrease. Year 2001 was the year of least funding with N37, 127, 792; while the highest amount of fund was expended on agricultural extension services in the year 2004, with N99, 459, 694. A decrease in funding was observed in 2005 and with a very sharp decrease in 2006. However, a gradual increase occurred between 2007 and 2008, with another sharp increase recorded in 2009 and 2010.

Table 6: Different Between Budgets Estimate and Actual Expenditure on Agricultural Extension service in Ebonyi State.

Year	Budget Estimate (N)	Actual Expenditure (N)	Difference (N)	Percentage Difference (%)
2001	69,301,000	37,127,792	32,173,208	30.2
2002	109,048,110	39,774,630	69,273,480	46.5
2003	94,500,000	42,840,089	51,659,911	37.6
2004	129,000,000	99,459,694	29,540,206	12.9
2005	160,629,796	93,666,054	66,963,742	26.3
2006	88,250,000	44,747,723	43,502,277	32.7
2007	115,600,000	57,957,757	57,642,243	33.2
2008	105,000,000	55,241,172	49,758,828	31.0
2009	220,400,000	90,962,428	129,437,572	41.6
2010	124,100,000	93,975,943	30,124,057	13.8

Source: Field Survey, 2010.

The result obtained in Table 6, Figures 3^A and 3^B reveals that there is a great difference between the budget estimate and the actual expenditure on agricultural extension service delivery in Ebonyi State. The greatest difference was witnessed in 2004 with a percentage difference of 77.1%, closely followed by 2010 with 75.7% and in 2001 with 53.6%. However, the lowest difference was obtained in 2002 with 36.5%.

4.4 Farmers Willingness to Pay for Extension Services Rendered by

ADP in Ebonyi State.

Farmers Willingness to Pay for extension services rendered by ADP in Ebonyi State was examined. The Willingness to Pay (WTP) by the farmers, future Willingness to Pay, degree of Willingness to Pay, amount farmers are willing to pay, and comparism between the amount expended by government and the amount farmers are willing to pay were ascertained.

The perception of farmers towards extension service in a deregulated economy and extension services farmers are willing to pay for and the amount were also examined. The results are presented in Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, and Figures 4 and 5.

4.4.1 Willingness to Pay (WTP) by Farmers

The farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services rendered in the study area was ascertained. The result is presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Percentage Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Extension Services in the Study Area.

WTP	Total	Male	Female
Yes No	79(32.92) 161(67.08)	59(24.58) 98(40.83)	20(8.34) 63(26.25)
Total	240(100.00)	157(65.41)	83(34.59)

Source: Field Survey, 2010.

The results on Table 7 indicated that about 33% of the respondents were willing to pay for extension services rendered to them while about 67% opined that they were not willing to pay for the services. Out of the 33% of those willing to pay, about 25% were males and about 8% were females. About 41% of those not willing to pay for extension services were males while about 26% were females.

4.4.2 Future Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

According to the results on Table 8, about 57% of the respondents indicated that they are not willing to pay for extension services in the future. About 43% of the respondents indicated their willingness to pay for extension services in the future.

Table 8: Distribution of Respondents Based on Future Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

Ability to Pay in future Frequency Percentage

Yes 103 42.92

No 137 57.08

Total 240 100.00

Source: Field Survey, 2010.

The result further showed that only about 10% of the respondents who are presently not willing to pay for extension services indicated their readiness or willingness to pay for extension services in the future.

4.4.3 Degree of Future Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

The degree of future willingness of the farmers to pay for extension services rendered by Extension Personnel was ascertained, and presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Distribution of Respondents Based on their Degree of Future Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

Degree (percentage) Frequency			Percentage
1-	-20	15	14.56
21	-40	52	50.48
41	-60	23	22.33
61	-80	5	4.85
81	-100	8	7.77
Total		103*	100.00

Source: Field Survey, 2010.

About 50% of those willing to pay for extension services showed that they have 21 - 40% degree of willingness to pay while another 22.33% of the respondents indicated between 41 - 60% degree of willingness to pay. 61 -80% degree of willingness to pay was indicated by about 5% of the respondents.

4.4.4 Amount Farmers are willing to pay for Extension Services in 2001-2010.

The amount farmers are willing to pay for extension services delivery was ascertained from the respondents through primary data and estimated to know the total amount all the farmers in the state would pay. This was summed for the period under study and presented in Table 10 and Figure 4^A/4^B.

Table 10: Amount Farmers are willing to Pay for Extension Services in 2001-2010

Year	Amount (N)
2001	7,000,000
2002	3,500,000
2003	800,000
2004	920,00
2005	9,201,232
2006	1,718,334
2007	8,358,200
2008	2,301, 250
2009	4,273, 239
2010	3,200,124

Source: Field Survey, 2010.

Result obtained in Table 10 and Figure 4^A/4^B showed that the actual estimated amount farmers were willing to pay for some selected extension services delivery dwindled over the years. It decreased from 7,000,000 to 800,000 from 2001 to 2003 and increased to 920,000 in 2004. A sharp increase to 9,201,232 was recorded in 2005 and this was the peak amount the farmers were willing to pay within the period under study.

4.4.5 Comparism between the Amount Expended by Government and the amount Farmers are willing to pay

A comparism was made between the amount the farmers are willing to pay and amount expended by the government over the years. This was done in order to discover whether there is any observable difference between them. The result of this comparism is shown in Table 11 and Figure 5^A/5^B.

Table 11: Comparism between Amount Expenditure and the out the Farmers are willing to pay

Year	Amount Expended(N)	Amount Farmers want to pay (N)	Differences (N)	% difference
2001	37,127,792	7,000,000	30,127,792	68.3
2002	39,774,630	3,500,000	36,274,630	83.8
2003	42,840,089	800,000	42,040,089	96.3
2004	99,459,694	920,000	98,539,694	98.2
2005	93,666,054	9,201,232	84,464,822	82.1
2006	44,747,723	1,718,334	43,029,389	92.6
2007	57,95,757	8,358,200	49,599,557	74.8
2008	55,241,172	2,301,250	52,939,922	92.0
2009	90,962,428	4,273,239	86,689,189	91.0
2010	93,975,943	3,200,124	90,775,819	93.4

Sources: Field Survey, 2010

The result obtain in Table 11, Figure 5^A and 5^B revealed that the actual amount expended on public extension services was very much higher than the amount farmers are willing to pay. A great difference was witnessed in 2004, 2003, 2010 and 2006 with N98,539,694 (98.2%); N 90,775,819; N 86, 689, 189 and N84,464, 822, respectively.

4.4.6 Perception of Respondents towards Extension Service in a Deregulated Economy

The perception of the farmers on extension service delivery in a deregulated economy was identified, based on the various statements by the respondents, and the result is presented in Table 12.

Table 12: Distribution of Respondents Based on Perceived Effects of Deregulated Economy on Extension Service Delivery

Perception statements	Frequency	Percentage
Extension services will improve	98	40.83
Funding of extension services will be sustainable	173	72.08
Extension agency operation will be more effective	90	37.50
Extension agency operations will be more specialized	70	29.17
Most farmers will not able to afford payment for extension services	202	84.17
Farmers will not use extension messages	87	36.25
Rate of adoption of farm technologies will reduce	189	78.75
Commitment of extension agents will improve	141	58.75
Timeliness of extension message will improve	160	66.67
Improvement in extension agents discipline for service delivery	122	50.83
Farmers will monitor extension agents better	65	27.08
Better reward for extension agents performance	17	7.08
Better development at grassroots	55	22.92
Reduction of bootlicking and lobbying in extension agency	81	33.75
Affect employment pattern in extension organization	27	11.25
Increased production among farmers	100	41.67
Specialized training will improve for farmers	211	87.92
Total	1888*

Source: Field Survey, 2010

*Multiple responses recorded.

The opinions of the respondents as shown in Table 12 indicated that deregulating extension service delivery will improve specialized training for fairness (87.92%), lead to most farmers not able to pay for extension services (84.17%), cause the rate of adoption technologies to reduce (78.75%), but cause the funding of extension service to be sustainable (72.08%). Others areas deregulation will affect include; timeliness of extension message (66.67%), improved commitment of extension agents (58.75%), and improvement in extension agents discipline for service delivery (50.83%). However, the least area noted to be affected by deregulation was in the area of better ward for extension agents performance (7.08).

4.4.7 Extension Services Farmers are willing to pay for and amount

The extension services which the farmers are willing to pay for and the amount involved were identified. The result is presented in table 13.

Table 13: Distribution of Respondents Based on the Extension Services they are willing to pay for and mean amount

Extension service/activities	Frequency	%	Mean amount ( N)
Participation in the establishment of SPAT	108	45.00	3700
Mobilizing other farmers for group message delivery at farmers cost	189	78.75	3400
Cost to arrange farm input supply	217	90.45	6450
Preparing schedule of farm activities	174	72.50	1250
Processing loan	200	83.33	8100
Allowance to EAs for home and farm visits	201	83.75	4300
Helping with access to farm machinery	210	87.50	5100
Village accommodation for extension agents	178	74.17	1400
Extension agents’ accommodation in the nearest home	87	36.25	3100
Watching agricultural film show	150	62.50	500
Teaching new ideas in agriculture	185	77.08	4100
Supervising women activities	59	24.58	2700
Teaching how to keep record of farm activity	122	50.83	1800
Provide meal subsidy for extension agent	190	79.17	1000
Fuel extension agent car/motor bike	156	65.00	1050
Handbills, posters, leaflets that contain valuable information on farm production	40	16.67	570
Giving advice on agricultural problems	153	63.75	5000
Support cost of farm radio programme	98	40.83	6100

Sources: Field Survey, 2010

The results in Table 13 indicated that majority of the farmers were willing to pay for farm input supply (90.42%), access to farm machinery (87.50%), extension agents home and farm visits (83.75%), and processing of agricultural loan (83.33%). Others include the provision of meal subsidy for extension agents (79.17%), mobilizing other farmers for group message delivery at fanners cost (78.75%), teaching new ideas in agriculture (77.50%). The least extension services the fanners were willing to pay for were the provision of handbills, posters and leaflets (16.67%). and payment for extension agents accommodation in the nearest town (36.25%). In terms of the mean amount the respondents were willing to pay, loan processing, farm input supply, support for farm radio programme, advice on agricultural problems, and access to farm machinery had the highest mean amount of N8100, N6450, N46100, N5000, and N45100, respectively. Watching agricultural film show had the least amount of N500, followed by handbills, posters and leaflets with N 570.00.

4.5 Effects of Farmers Socio-Economic Characteristics on their Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

The socio-economic determinants of farmers willingness to pay for extension services were estimated using the probit multiple regression model. Table 14 shows the results of the analysis.

Table 14: Probit Multiple regression Results of Effect of Farmers' Socio-Economic Characteristics on Willingness to pay for Extension

Variable	Coefficient (B)	SE	Wald	Sig.	Exp (B)
Sex	0.116	0.431	0.073	0.787	1.124
Age	-0.031**	0.025	1.967	0.111	0.969
Household size	-0.060	0.105	0.327	0.567	0.942
Education	0.017*	0.056	2.096	0.026	1.018
Farming experience	0.131*	0.024	2.669	0.016	1.134
Farm income	0.280*	0.781	5.129	0.006	1.324
Farm size	0.830*	0.391	4.513	0.034	2.293
Extension contact	0.251*	0.182	3.892	0.069	1.285
Constant	2.317*	1.228	3.560	0.059	0.099

-2 log likelihood = 151.953 **significant @ 10%

Cox and Snell R² = 0.512 *Significant @ 5%

Chi-square = 30.965

Degree of freedom (df) = 8

Significance (probability value) = 0.004

Source: Extracted From Output of SPSS Computation.

From the results in Table 14, the coefficient of multiple determination
i.e. Cox and Snell R² was 0.512 or 51.2%. This indicates that about 51% of
the total variations in the dependent variable (i.e. willingness to pay for
extension services) were explained by the include independent variables. The chi-square value of 30.965 at df = 8 was significant at 5% level indicating that the model was a good fit. The results also showed that six (6) out of the eight (8) included variables were statistically significant with only the coefficient of age being significant at 10% level, and others at 5% level.

All except the coefficients of farmer's age and household size were positively signed. Thus, an increase in these variables (educational level, farming experience, farm income, farm size, and farmer's extension contact) will lead to increase in farmer's willingness to pay for extension services. However, the older the farmer, the less willing he or she to pay for extension services. The coefficients of sex and farmer's household size were not statistically significant.

4.6 Constraints to Farmer's Willingness to Pay for Extension Services in a Deregulated Economy

Factor analysis was used to identify constraints to farmers' willingness to pay for Extension Services in a deregulated economy. Since
the purpose was to identify new factors, then the interpretation boils down to identifying the variables that load high for each factor. These variables loading high were used in naming each extracted factor. Kaiser (1958) developed a simple rule of thumb; that variables with coefficient of (0.30) of more have high loading and may be used in naming a factor. The result obtained using factor analysis is shown in Table 15.

Table 15 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix on Constraints Limiting Farmers’ Willingness to pay for Extension Services in the Study Area.

Variables Code	Variables Names	Factors Financial Constraint	Factors Social Constraint	Factors Institutional Constraint
V0₁	Inadequate fund to pay for service rendered	0.457	0.145	-0.134
V0₂	Most farmers will be reluctant to pay for extension services	0.327	0.082	0.750
V0₃	High level of subsistence farming	0.279	0.640	0.000
V0₄	Exploitation by extension service providers will be high	0.728	-0.092	-0.587
V0₅	Tendency of extension agents to focus more on large-scale farmers to the determent of the small-scale famers	0.050	0.491	0.107
V0₆	Inadequate market to sell farm surpluses as a result of improved extension service	0.190	0.8330	-0.516
V0₇	Difficult in attaching monetary value to extension services	0.542	0.0252	-0.030
V0₈	Poor capacity building of extension staff	0.215	0.139	0.926
V0₉	Irresponsive of extension services providers to clientele needs	0.346	0.809	0.409
V0₁₀	Insufficient trained extension personel	0.234	0.221	0.392
V0₁₁	Inadequate government guarantee, regulations excesses and abuses	0.104	0.352	-0.216

Sources: Computed from field data, 2010.

Table 15 shows that varimax rotated constraints militating against farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services in the study area. From the data obtained, three major constraints were extracted based on the responses of the respondents. These were financial, social and institutional factors.

4.7 Hypothesis Testing

F- cal = 34.77 F-tab = 2.01

F - critical = Vi= N-K - 240-8 = 232

V₂ = K-1 8-1=7

at 0.05 level

F- cal (34.77) > F-tab (2.01). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected

while the alternative hypothesis was accepted. This implies that the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers had significant effects on their willingness to pay for extension services in the study area.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

5.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

Table 1 indicates that males were more than the females. The greater number of males does not infer that they out-number the females in the study area. Rather, it could mean that men headed more farming households than the women and thus, have more control over farm resources and the decision-making process of the households. This finding collaborates the observations of Bawa, D. B, Ani, A. O and Nuhu, H. S (2009), Edeh (2008), and Oladele and Obuh (2008) that males are mostly the household heads who take major decisions. Bawa et al (2009) further noted that the males are major decision takers when it comes to such issue like privatization and adoption of new technologies. In terms of age, the results show that the most (48.33%) of the respondents were between 21 and 50 years of age, and a mean age of 49 years. Hence, the respondents were still within the vibrant age class and still possess the strength for farming and according to Bawa et al (2009), could be more disposed to extension contact. Oladele (2008) also observed a mean age of 46 years for sampled farmers in Oyo State in the study of farmers' willingness to pay for extension services.

Majority (71%) of the respondents were married. This stems from the fact that all the respondents were of marriage age. Though socially good, it has its negative implication on the respondents' ability to fund extension services. Marriage means more financial demand and this will compete with the limited financial resources available to the farmer to pay for extension

services rendered. The results also show that the respondents maintained a relatively large mean household size of 8 persons. This is in line with Daniela, J. H, Smale, M, and Von Oppen, M. (2005) and Ezike (1999) which noted that the household size in southeast Nigeria is large particularly in Ebonyi State. Based on the result in table 1, the level of education of the fanners is relatively low, as about 68% of the respondents had the first school leaving certificate (primary education) as their highest academic qualification. This trend was also observed by Edeh (2008) and Okoruwa, V. O, Ogundele O. O and Oyewusi, B. O (2006). However, Ogunlade et al (2006) noted that about 59% of the respondents on the potential of funding agricultural extension operations by farmers in Kwara state, Nigeria had opportunity to acquire formal education.

The low income generated from farming may not assist farmers to pay or fund extension services rendered to them. The dependence on personal saving to fund farming activities implies that the respondents were not commercial-farming oriented. Also, the high dependence on informal sources of funding indicates that the farmers are still operating at the subsistence level. This source of funding is in conformity with Amalu (1998) which noted that the cheapest and safest form of financing agricultural production is personal or family saving where these are available.

Further, table 1 shows that the average farm size of the farmers was 0.9ha. This is an indication of peasant level of farming among their respondents. Edeh (2008), Oladele (2008) and Idiong (2007) also noted that farmers in Ebonyi, Oyo and Cross River states operate on peasant level with an average farm size of 0.91ha, 4.0 ha and 0.42ha, respectively. Again, the results show that the farmers have long farming experience, having 31 years mean experience. This according to Clark and Akinbode (1968) can affect and influence the rate of adoption of new technology; and willingness to pay for extension services (Oladele, 2008). The style of visitation of extension agents is not inconsonance with the practice of Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in Nigeria, which should be fortnightly. However, the result indicated that majority (74%) were visited once per month. This trend will unpair the monthly technical review meetings (MTRM) of ADP. The tenurial system could favour investment on land as majority of the respondents own their lands. This has a positive implication for funding or willingness to pay for extension services by farmers. Farmers who own their land will be more willing to pay for extension services that help improve the productivity of their lands especially in the long-run.

5.2 Major Packages/Technologies and Services Extended to Farmers by Extension Agents

Results on Table 2 indicate that the most of the packages/technologies extended to farmers were those associated with crops dominant in the study area. As such, packages/technologies identified were those related to rice, cassava, maize and sweet potatoes. Ebonyi state is generally noted for the production of these crops, especially rice. According to Edeh (2008), rainfed lowlands (swamps) serve as a major source of paddy production in Ebonyi state. Also, F.A.O. (2005) noted that rainfed lowlands (fadama and flood plains) are the major source of rapid increase in paddy production in recent years. The extension of NERICA upland rice production technology as identified by 50% of the respondents shows that the innovation is becoming widely accepted and appreciated by fanners. Again, technologies associated with mixed cropping was dominant, conforming with the farming systems prevalent among smallhodler farmers in Nigeria. Mixed cropping

system helps to reduce the cost incurred per crop as the cost is spread across crops cultivated per hectare at a particular time. It also allows the farmer to efficiently utilize the limited land resource available. These technologies associated with swamp and upland rice and mixed cropping enterprises, especially cassava-maize-sweet potatoes can be used to arouse the interest of fanners to fund agricultural technologies for increased production.

Table 3 shows that most identified extension services were those that bother on communicating research findings to the farmers. This is expected because through agricultural extension services, dissemination of information on agricultural technologies and farmers' capacity building are carried out (Oladele, 2008). Srivastava and Jaffe (1992) noted that extension serves as the link between farmers to transfer best practices from one farmer to another, to introduce or even enforce agricultural policies and report farmers problems back to research.

5.3 Trend in Funding of Agricultural Extension Services in Ebonyi State Between 2000 and 2009

Results on Table 4 and figure 1^A/1^B show dwindling funding of public agricultural extension services in Ebonyi State. This implies that government is not stable in the approval of budget estimate on agricultural extension service delivery The unsteady budget estimate follows the pattern of funding of the Nigeria agricultural sector. The results collaborates the finding of House Committee Policy brief on Agriculture (2005), which noted that over the years the agricultural sector has suffered inadequate and unstable funding from the government. It also opined that the patterns of agricultural sector funding hardly represent the best and most effective use of public resources. The dwindling trend could also be attributed to policy inconsistency of government, which has affected the agricultural sector negatively. Researchers (Bell and Satau, 2009; Madukwe and Eric, 1999) noted that Nigeria agricultural extension service has been experiencing dwindling funding from the government in recent years. This they observed, is very apparent in the sliding performances of the state wide ADPs.

This again reflects the budgetary allocations to the agricultural sector in the state and Nigeria in general. In the Maputo Declaration of July 2003, a minimum of 10% budgetary allocation to Agriculture was advocated to ensure adequate food security. However, House Committee Policy brief on Agriculture (2005) showed that the agricultural share of Ebonyi State budget was on average less than 10% minimum requirement. It noted further that the highest percentage share of the agricultural sector of 10.9% was recorded in 2004. This trend has not changed significantly afterwards.

The result obtained in Table 5 and Figures 2^A/2^B indicated that the actual amount expended on agricultural public extension service is grossly inadequate since the highest expenditure made on this area was about N99.5 million. According to Mathnmi et al., (2008), agricultural extension service requires billions of naira for its operations.

Table 6 and Figure 3^A/3^B show that there is a great difference between budget estimate and actual expenditure in agricultural extension service delivery. It is quite disturbing and regrettable that government can approve annual budget for Ministries, Departments and Agencies to carry out her policies and programs, and yet failed on the full implementation of budgets. This conforms to the work of Kali (2010) who opined that over the years, budget implementation by the executive arm of government at the local, state and federal levels has sabotaged key public infrastructures. He further stated that it is very sad to note that no state or federal administration in Nigeria have been able to achieve up to a mere 45% annual budget implementation level in the last 12 years.

5.4 Farmers Willingness to Pay for Extension Services Rendered by the ADP

The responses of the respondents as shown in Table 7 show that majority of them were not willing to pay for extension services, and more males were in this category than the females. Non-willingness of respondents to pay for extension services may not be unconnected with their income levels, weak performance of ADP extension service, and the peasant level of their farm operations. These factors among others tend to limit farmers ability to fund or pay for technologies and services rendered. Ali et al (2008) and Mwaura et al (2010) showed that most reasons which farmers unwilling to pay for extension services have indicated include inadequate income and financial ability for this purpose; vague process of payment for extension services, small and fragmented land holding. The findings however disagree with Bawa et al (2009) which showed that 61% of the respondents in Adamawa State indicated their readiness to pay for extension services is presently not encouraged.

The relative increase in the percentage of fanners willing to pay for extension services in the future (Table 7) is a boost for extension privatization in the study area. This opinion could be attributed to any future improvement in the farmers' income level and scale of operation, and better performance of the extension service. Again, 21 - 40% degree of willingness to pay shown by 50% of the respondents is an indication of future success of public funding of extension services in the area. However, Ali et al (2008) noted that farmers may not pay this amount practically considering their conditions (Table 9).

Result obtained in Table 10 showed that the actual estimated amount farmers were willing to pay for some selected extension services delivery dwindled over the years. This dwindling in the amount farmers were willing to pay could be attributed to poor level of income of the farmers. Ali et al (2008), Ahuja and Sen (2006) observed a positive and significant effect of income on farmers' willingness to pay for extension services.

The result obtained in Table 11 and Figure 5^A/5^B revealed that the amount expended by the government was higher than that the farmers are willing to pay in all the years. This implies that government should continue to sponsor extension service delivery in the study area since the farmers cannot afford the cost of the service. According to Bello et al (2009) majority of our farmers in Nigeria have weak capital base to be able to pay fully for extension services.

Results on Table 12 show a general positive perception of the respondents on effects of deregulated economy on extension service delivery. This agrees with Bawa et al (2008) and Matanmi et al (2008) who noted that most farmers agreed that privatization of ADP extension services will have a positive impact of extension service delivery. Respondents' opinions may not be unconnected with the successes recorded in Nigeria's telecommunication industry which was privatized some years ago. Hence, if eventually the private sector participation in extension services is increased, the programme will undoubtedly succeed. With the observed results, it is obvious that public extension is not performing as they should and there is need for reform.

The willingness to pay values as presented in Table 13 indicate that farmers are more enthusiastic about extension services that tend to help them improve on their income base such as access to farm machinery, farm input supply, home and farm visit, and processing of loan. This has implication for farmers' ability to pay since it is always limited by income levels. Therefore, policies that enhance the provision of these farm services is expected to increase the willingness to pay values for extension services. Hence, this will enhance the funding of extension services in a deregulated economy. In effect, it is pertinent that some conditions which enhances the Income generating capacity of the farmers be put in place before deregulation of extension services is embarked upon. The low willingness to pay values for such extension services as participation in the establishment SPAT; scheduling of farm activities, providing of accommodation for extension agents, teaching of how to keep farm record; providing meal subsidy for extension agents among others, indicate that extension efforts should target farmers as groups rather than individuals. This, according to Daniela et al (2005) provides incentives for private participation in extension service delivery.

5.5 Effects of Farmers' Socio-Economic Characteristics on their Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

Results presented on Table 14 indicate that respondents’ age had a negative and significant effect on willingness to pay for extension services. This implies that the older the farmer, the less willing to pay for extension services. The young people are willing to pay because they are ready to adopt new technologies that are provided in the extension services to improve their agricultural practices. According to Chebil et al (2009) age of famer is important in the utilization, adoption and willingness to pay for the service. The eagerness for information coupled with the socio-economic characteristics of the young farmers increase their probability to demand and pay for extension services either on crop or animal husbandry (Kaliba et at, 2007; Oladele, 2008; Muwamra et al₉ 2010). Similar negative and significant relationship exists between farmers' household size and their willingness to pay for extension services. Large households tend to spend large proportion of their income on household food consumption with less to invest in such activities as extension services. The observation deviates from the finding of Oladele (2008) which noted a positive and non-significant relationship between household size and farmers willingness to pay for extension services.

Farmers' educational level has positive effect on their eagerness to adopt technologies and willingness to pay for extension services. Hence, the more educated the farmers are, the higher their willingness to pay for extension services. Researchers (Daniela et al, 2005; Ogunlade, 2006, Oladele, 2008) showed similar result of a positive and significant effect of education on farmers willingness and ability to pay for extension services. Educated farmers can assimilate information and covert it into knowledge more effectively than farmers with limited education. Also, the more educated people are, the more enlightened they are about the importance of the extension services unlike the people with little formal education. Further, the significant positive influence of farming experience on farmers' willingness to pay indicates that more experienced farmers are more willing to pay for extension services than those in the farming business for just few years. According to Daniela et al (2005) the extent of farming experience

generates relevant knowledge, which increases farmers' willingness to pay for extension services.

The effect of farm income on farmers' willingness to pay for extension services corroborates the findings of Oladele (2008), Ali et al (2008), Ahuja and Sen (2006) which observed a positive and significant effect of income on farmers willingness to pay for extension services. Households at higher income levels are more willing to pay for extension services. This is because the household will have more financial resources to take care of family needs and also pay for extension service. Forti et al (2007) also shwoed that farmers income among others significantly affect the demand for private fee-for-service extension in Zimbabew. The result also indicated that farm size has a positive and statistically significant influence on farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services. Thus, farmers with large farm sizes have greater probability to fund extension services in a deregulated economy. This is because farmers with large farm sizes tend to be commercial oriented, and this could lead to higher production and profit. This result supports the views of Oladele (2008), Ogunlade (2006) and Yapa and Ariyawaradana (2005). The frequency of extension contacts the farmers had positively influenced their willingness to pay for extension services. Frequent extension contact with farmers increases their level of technology awareness and utilization, and this tend to influence farmers demand for extension services positively. Hence, a well-informed farmer through adequnte extension contacts may tend to be more willing to fund/pay for extension services than those who rarely have extension contact. Farmers may be desirous of adopting new practices but may be constrained by inadequate information about that particular innovation, which may in part be caused by the inability of the extension personnel to reach the fanners (Ani et at, 2004). Apantaku and Fakoya (2000) also showed that length of contact with extension agents significantly correlates with farmers willingness to contribute fund for extension services.

A test of the synergistic effect of farmers⁵ socio-economic characteristics on willingness to pay for extension services was done using the chi-square test. The chi-square value was 30.965 and probability value of 0.004 indicating that it is significant 5% level. Thus, the null (Ho)

hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that the farmers socio-economic characteristics have significant effect on their willingness to pay for extension services in the study area.

5.6 Constraints against Farmers Willingness to Pay for Extension

Services in a Deregulated Economy

Constraints are critical to the success of extension service delivery in a deregulated economy. The result of factor analysis extracted three (3) major constraints limiting farmers' willingness to pay for extension service in the study area as shown in Table 15. Based on the responses of the respondents, only variables with constraint loadings of 0.30 and above at 10% overlapping variance were used in naming the constraints. (Ashley, et al; 2006; Madukwe, 2004).Variables that loaded in more than one constraints as in the case of variable 9 was discarded; while variables that have constraints loading of less than 0.30 were used. The next thing to do as reported by Kessler 2006 was giving each constraint a denomination that best describes or characterizes the set of variables contained in the constraints. In this regard, the variables were grouped into three (3) major constraints as: Constraint l (Financial constraint), Constraint 2 (Social constraint), and Constraint 3 (Institutional Constraint).

Under constraint 1 (Financial constraint), the specific constraining variables against farmers' willingness to pay for extension services were: inadequate fund to pay for the services rendered (Voi = 0.4), most farmers will be reluctant to pay for extension services (V0₂ = 0.3), exploitation by extension service providers will be high (V0₄ = 0.7), and difficulty in attaching monetary value to extension services (V07 = 0.5).All these factors are related to financial issue. Thus, it was named financial constraint. These agrees with the findings of Bello and Salau (2009) and Chukwuone et al (2006) who opined that inadequate fund to pay for extension services rendered by extension agents are major constraint to effective privatization and commercialization of extension services in Nigeria.

After careful examination, factor 2 was named Social constraint. This is because the variables that loaded high under this factor are related mostly to social problems that would likely occur due to deregulation. They include: High level of subsistence farming (V03 = 0.6), tendency of extension agent to focus more on large scale fanners to the detriment of the small scale farmers (V05 = 0.4), Inadequate market to sell farm surplus as a result of improved extension services (V06 = 0.8) and inadequate government quarantees, regulation and control over extension providers' excesses and abuses (Vol 11= 0.3).

However, factor 3 (three) was named institutional constraint after critical observation. This is because the factors that loaded high under this constraint related mostly to the problems that would affect extension institutions. These include: poor capacity building of extension staff (V08 = 0.9), irresponsiveness of the extension service providers to clientele needs (V09 = 0.4) and insufficient trained extension personnel (V010 = 0.3).

All these constraints were equally identified by Ajieh et al (2008), and Rivera and Gary (2007).They noted that client needs which are not likely to yield profit may be excluded from services to be provided by extensionists in a deregulated economy. Furthermore, Chukwuone et al (2006), and

Rivera and Gary (2007) opined that the most obvious short coming in

Extension services privatization and commercialization is difficulty of collecting users fees and establishing cost accounting procedure to set charges at appropriate levels. Thus, financial, social and institutional constraints limit farmers' willingness to pay for extension services in the study area.

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary

In this study, it was discovered that:

(i) Majority of the households were headed by the males, with a mean age of 49 years and maintained a relatively large household size of eight (8) persons

(ii) Educational level was low, and farmers operate at the subsistence level with an average farm holding of 0.9ha and personal savings as major source of farm finance.

(iii) Government actual release of fund for ADP extension services dwindled throughout the period with peak of about N 99.5 million in 2004 and lowest of about N39.8 million in 2002.

(iv) A great difference was observed between the budget estimates and the actual expenditure on agricultural extension service

(v) Majority of the respondents were not willing to pay/fund extension services while a high proportion of those willing to pay in future indicated 21- 40% degree of willingness to pay.

(vi) There was a significant difference between the actual amount the farmers' were willing to pay and the amount expended by the government in most of the years in agricultural extension service delivery in the study area.

(vii) Main effects of deregulation on extension services were probability of specialized training for farmers to improve; and tendency of most farmers not to be able to afford payment for extension services.

(viii) High proportion of the respondents were willing to pay for cost of arranging for input supply; cost of access to farm machinery; extension agents' home and farm visits; and cost of processing loans.

(ix) Highest willingness to pay values of N8100, N6450 and N6100 were recorded for loan processing, cost to arrange farm input supply, and support for farm radio programme, respectively.

(x) Educational level, farming experience, farm income, farm size and frequency of extension contact had significantly positive effect on farmer's willingness to pay while age and household size had significant negative effect on it.

(xi) Major constraints against farmers' willingness to pay for extension services in a deregulated economy were: financial, social and institutional constraints.

6.2 Conclusion

According to the results of the study, it can be concluded that a major proportion of the farmers did not express high level of willingness to pay/fund agricultural extension services. It seems the farmers who found extension services useful to their production have not caught the vision of personal contributions to make the agricultural extension programme sustainable. The existing low willingness to fund extension services in the area is not unconnected with the farmers' poor economic and educational backgrounds, and subsistence level of farming.

6.3 Recommendations

Based on the research findings, the following recommendations were made:

(i) The extension -agency of the state should educate farmers on cost of its operations and the need for their contribution.

(ii) Farmers with large farms and at least post secondary education could be the initial target for supports, while the farmer associations should be an avenue for effective education.

(iii) Extension services should be backed up with interest free loans, and supply of inputs to farmers at subsidized rate. The production of farmers can be monitored for between five (5) and ten (10) years and When the farmers are sufficiently and economically empowered, commercialization of extension services can be introduced.

(iv) The commercialization and privatization of agricultural extension services should be gradual process and in phases. First, government should commercialize extension services but retain partial privatization and monitoring of the services bearing in mind the food production inadequacies in Nigeria. It is therefore important that a workable fashion for the implementation of the policy is designed for the expected impact of improving extension services and farmers' productivity.

(v) The country's educational system should be substantially improved to raise the literacy level with the view to eliminating obstacle in the development of the poor who are mainly fanners.

6.4 Recommendation for Further Research

Future research should be focused on the comparative study of farmers and extension agents’ perception of funding agricultural extension services in a deregulated economy. Also, research should be done on the impact of budgetary allocations on agricultural extension service delivery in the study area.

REFERENCES

Afolabi, O. 2003, Effect of Deregulation should precede privatization. Guardian Newspaper, March, 2003. 15(16, 632), 28 - 29.

Agboti, O. 2004. Deregulation is the Answer. Nigerian Patriot Newspaper. March, 2004. 10(78). 3-4.

Agumagu, A. C. 2001. Privatization, Commercialization and Sustainable Agricultural Extension in Nigeria: Issues at Stake. Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services Delivery in Nigeria: Prospects and Problems. P. 119.

Ahuja, V. and Sen, A. 2006. Willingness to Pay for Veterinary Services; Evidence from Poor Areas in Rural India. Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Research Report (Online:www).

Ajieh, P.C., Agwu, A.E. and Anyanwu, A.C. 2008. Constraints to Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services as Perceived by Extension Professionals and Farmers. African Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol.3 (5);343 - 347.

Alfred, S.D.Y. and Adepoju, A.A. 2006. Fanners' Perception of Agricultural Privatization on cocoa Production in Ondo State, Nigeria. Proceedings of 11^th Annual Conference of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON), University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State. April 3 -6, 2006.

Ali, S., Morteza, A., Hossain, S.F. and Amir, A. 2008. An Assessment of '. Farmers Willingness to Pay for Wheat Consultant Engineers Project in Iran. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences. Vol 3(4): 706 -711.

Amalu, U.C. 1998. Agricultural Research and Extension Delivery System in Sub-saharan Africa. The University of Calabar Press, Calabar, Nigeria.

Anderson, R.J. and Feder, G. 2003. Rural Extension Services:
Agriculture and Rural Development. (On-line:http://econ.worldbank.org/ external/default/main? pagePK = 64165259 & the SitePk - 469382 & piPk -64165421 & menu Pk= 64166093 & entity ID - 000094946-03031111352821).

Ani, A.O., Ogunnika, O. and Ifah, S.S. 2004. Relationship Between Socio-Characteristics of Rural Women Farmers and their Adoption of Farm Technologies in Southern Ebonyi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. Vol. 6(5); 802 -805.

Apantaku, S.O. and Fakoya, E.G. 2000. Influence of Community Based Associations in Promoting Community Development in Rural Areas of South Western Nigeria. Journal of Extension System. Vol 16/.47-60.

Aurelia, G. M. 1999. Prolitics of Economics Reforms in Japan. Collected Papers: The Politics of Deregulation and Japanese Agriculture, tittp-//www.free.defmition.com/Deregulation.html (22/05/2005).

Bawa, D.B., Ani, A.O. and Nuhu, H.S. 2009. Perception of Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services in Adamawa State, Nigeria. American-Eurasian. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol3(3):375-380.

Bello, M and E. S Salua (2009).A case for Participatory (Cost Sharing) Approach to Agricultural Extension Delivery in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension vol 13 (1) P. 85.

Bellow, M. and Salau, E.S. 2009. A Case for Participatory (Cost sharing) Approach to Agricultural Extension Delivery in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, Vol 13 (1): 84-94.

Chebil, A., Nair, H. and Zaibet, L. 2009. Factors Affecting Farmers Willingness to Adopt Salt-Tolerant Forage Crops in South-Eastern Tunisia. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Vol 3(1): 19-27.

Chukwu, U.C. 2003. Accounting and Finance Terminologies. Cheston Publishers Ltd. Enugu. P. 26.

Chukwuone, N.A., Agwu, A.E. and Ozor, N. 2006. Constraints and Strategies Towards Effective Cost-sharing of Agricultural Technology Delivery in Nigeria: Perception of Farmers and Agricultural Extension Personnel, Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. Vol. 13(1): 1 - 13.

Clark, R.C. and Akinbode, L.A. 1968, Factors Associated with Adoption of Three Farm Practices in the Western State of Nigeria. Research Bulletin 1, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ife, Ile-lfe, Nigeria.

Daniela, J.H., Smale, M., and Von Oppen, M. 2005. Private Participation in Agricultural Extension in Nigeria and Benin: Determining the Willingness to Pay for Information. Selected Paper 136774 Prepared for Presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, July 24 - 27, 2005.

Dimaelu, M.U. and Madukwe, M.C. 2001. Extension Workers' Perception of Privatization and Communication of Extension Services in Enugu State, Nigeria. Privatization and Communication of Agricultural Extension Services delivery in Nigeria: Prospects and Problems, P. 34.

EBADEP, 2001. Annual Report. Annex, S.ii.

EBADEP, 2003. The 2003 - 2005 National Rolling Plan, and the 2003 Budget.

EBADEP, 2004. The 2004 - 2009 National Roiling Plan! Capital Budget. Annex, S. Vii.

EBMOI (Ebonyi State Ministry of Information). 2005.Diary. A Publication of the Ministry of Information, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria,

Edeh, H.O. 2008. Analysis of Environmental Risk Factors Affecting Rice Farming in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. M.Sc Thesis Submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ekpe,1.1., Okpone, E.G., Ogbodo, E.N. and Nwite, J.N. 2005. Physico-chemical Properties of Four Ultisols under Different Vegetation cover in South-Eastern Nigeria. Journal of Science of Agriculture, Food Technology and Environment. Vol 5:74 - 78.

Eziakor, I.G. and Isitor, S.U. 1997. Financing Technology Adoption in Nigeria; The Role of a Development Bank Towards the Survival of Agricultural Extension System in Nigeria. P 7,

Ezike, K.N.N. 1999. Determinants of Borrowing and Saving Capacity of Smallholder Farmers in South Eastern Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT) Enugu.

FAO. (Food and Agricultural Organisation). 2005. Nigeria: Latest F.A.O. Statistics. (On-line:www.riceweb.org/countires/Nigeria,htw.)

Forti, R., Nyakudya, I., Moyo. M., Chikuvire, J. and Mlambo, N. 2007. Determinants of Fanner Demand for "Fee-for-Service" Extension in Zimbabwe: The Case of Mashoinaland Central Province. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. Vol.14 (1):95 -104.

Gbenga O. 1998. Contribution Towards Agricultural Development: The Experience of World Bank in Nigeria. Nigerian Agriculture and the World Bank. A partnership for Development ARMTI (c). P.8.

Hansra, B.S. and Adhiguru, P. 1998. Agriculture Transfer of Technology Approaches since Independence. India Journal of Extension Education. Vol 9:2168-2176.

Herbert. W. E. 1999. Some Perspectives on the Structural Analysis of Deregulation/Privatization. Nigeria Financial Review, 3(5).INFODATA Ltd. Lagos.

House Committee Policy Brief (2005). Sustainable Funding of Agricultural Sector inNigeria.(On-line:http://www.pak-nigeria.org/pdfs/14_AgPolicy_Brief_2-2 Funding.pdf).

Idiong, I.C. 2007. Estimation of Farm Level Technical Efficiency in Small-scale swamp Rice Production in Cross River State of Nigeria: A

Stochastic Frontier Approach. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 3(5):653-658.

IFAD, 1999. Nigerian Root and Tuber Expansion Programme Appraisal Report .EBADEP. P.4.

Ikhide, S. L 1990. Deregulation: Part of Structural Adjustment Programme. Nigeria Financial Review INODATA Ltd, Lagos. 6(3).

Kaiser, 1. (1958) Quoted by Madukwe M. C. in Factor Analysis and Applications. Mimeographed UNN,1996.

Kali Gwagwa (2010). “Improved Budget Implementation: Key to Nigeria’s Recovery”. Retrieved from www.focusnigeria.com.

Kaliba, A.R., Featherstone, A.M. and Norman, D.W. 1997. A Stall-Feeding

Management for Improved Cattle in Seminal Central Tanzania: Factors Influencing Adoption. Agricultural Economics. 17:133 -146.

La-Anyame, S. 1998. The Agricultural Industry in West Africa. Ghana University Press, Accra. P. 70.

Liot, C.A., 1998. Agricultural Credit Administration by Commercial Banks: The United bank; for Africa Experience in Okorie, A. and Ijere M.O. Reading in Agricultural Finance. Longman (Nig.) Pic. Lagos.

Madu, O. 2003. Deregulation of Telecom. Sector Fetches Government N130 billion. Guardian Newspaper. May, 2003, 17(.16, 720), 37 - 38.

Madukwe, M, C. and Eric, A.P. 1999. Privatization and Commercialization of Extension Service in Nigeria: Prospects and Challenges. Proceedings of the 5th Annual National Conference of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria. AESON. P.9.

Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. 2003.(On-line:http://www.acpsec.org/summits/Maputo/Maputo declaration eruhtml).

Matanmi, B.M., Adesiji, G.B. and Omokore, D.F. 2008. Need for Privatization of Agricultural Extension Services in Nigeria. Global Approaches to Extension Practice. Vol 4(2):61 - 64.

Mwaura, F., Muwanika, F.R. and Okoboi, G. 2010. Willingness to Pay for Extension Services in Uganda Among Farmers Involved in Crop and Animal Husbandry. Contributed Paper Presented at the Joint 3^r African Association of Agricultural Economists (A/IE) and 48*' Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 19-23 September, 2010.

NO A. 2003. Growing the Private Sector/Implementing a Social Charter. Nigeria: National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). Produced by National Orientation Agency, Headquarters, Abuja. Pp. 5-6.

NPC (National Population Commission) 2006. Population Census, (Online: www .population.gov .ng/ftles/nationa.pdf).

Odili, M.A.C.A. 2001, Problems and Prospects of Privatization of Public Enterprises in Nigeria. Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services Delivery in Nigeria: Prospects and Problems. ARSON. P.27. 13.

Ogunlade, 1., Adekunle, O.A. and Akangbe, J.A. 2006. Perceived Usefulness and Potential of Funding Agricultural Extension Operation by Farmers, in Kwara State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. Vol. 8(3): 402-405.

Okoruwa, V.O., Ogundele, O.O, and Oyewusi, B.O. 2000. Efficiency and Productivity of Farmers in Nigeria: A Study of Rice Farmers in North Central Nigeria, Poster Paper Prepared for Presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 12-18 August, 2006.

Oladele, O.I. 2008. Factors Determining Farmers' Willingness to Pay for Extension Services in Oyo State, Nigeria. Agricultura Tropica et subtropica. Vol41(l):165 - 170.

Oladele, O.I. and Obuh, J. 2008. Perceived Effect of Privatization of Extension Services Among Researchers Extension Agents and Farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria. Agricultural Journal. Vol 3(5):4Q9-413.

Orolugbagbe, I. 2004. Effect of Deregulation should precede Privatization. Vanguard Newspaper, March, 2004, 14(20,125). 43 - 44.

Oyedokun, A. O. 2001/Collaboration of Scientists in Agricultural Research Institute of Nigeria: Implication for Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension. Journal of Agricultural Extension. AESON. 5(31).

Philip, E.F, and Carl, S.W. 1984. Accounting Principle Von. Hoffmann Press. New York. P.85.

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

Srivastava, J. and Jaffee, S. 1992. Seed Systems Development, the Appropriate Roles of Public and Private Sectors. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 167, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Tunde, R. 1998. The Food Problem in Nigeria: A challenge for the Agricultural Sector. The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural and Rural Management, Vol 2(10): 51 - 65.

Umali, D.I,, and Schwartz, L. 1994. Public and Private Agricultural Extension: Beyond Traditional Frontiers. World Bank Discussion Papers, No.236. Washington, D.C. (On-line:www.landfood. unimelb. edu.au/ dean/falveybk/refs.html).

Umeabali, E.E. 2003. The Role of Agricultural Extension Education in Poverty Alleviation; Lessons from the study of Agric Extension in Ohaji/Egbema Local Government Council of Imo Stale. The Nigeria Journal of Agricultural and Rural Management. 6(2). 1.

Umeh, G. N. 2003. Lecture Note on Agricultural Extension Administration. Unpublished. EBSU.

Yapa, K.D.AJ. arid Ariyawardana, A. 2005. Willingness to pay for Fee-Based Extension Services by the smallhodlers in GaleDistrict Online:www.sIjol.info/index.php/SJAE/ArticIe/view/l 824/1517).

Department of Agricultural Economics

Extension & Management

Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki.

Dear Respondents,

The student is conducting a research titled: Funding Ebonyi State Agricultural Public Extension Service in Deregulated Economy.

Please, your assistance is highly needed in supplying appropriate information to the questionnaire. Any information given will be utilized only for the research, and will be treated as confidential, and your name will not be reflected in the field report. So, feel free to supply all the required information.

Sincerely, thanks for your anticipated co-operation.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Section A: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents please tick (√) where appropriate

1. Sex: (i) Male (ii) Female

2. Age (years): (i) 21-30 (ii) 31-40 (iii) 41-50 (iv) 51-60

(v) 61-70 (vi) 71-80 (vii) 81-90 (viii) 91-100

3. Marital Status: (i) Single (ii) Married (iii) Widow/widower

(iv) Divorced

4. Household Size: (i) 1-3 (ii) 4-6 (iii) 7-9 (iv) 10 - 12

5. Educational Level: (i) No Formal Education (ii) Primary Education

(iii) Secondary Education (iv) Tertiary (OND HND, First degree etc)

6. Annual Farm income:

(i) N21,000 – N40,000 (ii) N41,000 – N60,000

(iii) N61,000 – N70,000 (iv) N71,000 – N80,000

(v) N81,000 – N90,000 (vi) 91,000 – N100,00

7. What is your major source of funding for farming?

(i) Personal savings (ii) Information Loan (iii) Bank (iv) Grant (v) Gift

8. How many hectares of farmland do you cultivate yearly?

(i) 0.1 – 0.5 (ii) 0.6 – 1.0 (iii) 1.1 – 1.5

(iv) 1.6 – 20 (v) 2.1 -2.5 (vi)

9. How long have you been in farming?

(i) 1 -10 year (ii) 11 -20 (iii) 21 - 30

(iv) 31 -40 years (v) 41 -50 (vi) 51 - 60

10. How often do extension agents come to you?

(i) Once in 2 weeks (ii) Once in 4 weeks

(iii) Once in 8 weeks

11. How do you acquire your farmland?

(i) my own (ii) Rental

Section B: Major Packages/Technologies and Services Extended to Farmers by Extension Agents

12. Which of these technologies have been extended to you by extension agents?

(i) Dry season vegetable production (exotic vegetable production, mulching, using organic manure and correct spacing)

(ii) Yam/maize/vegetable (Rapid seed yam multiplication, improved maixe varieties, spacing and fertilizer application)

(iii) Cassava/maize/sweet potatoes (use of improved varieties of cassava maize and sweet potato, and soil enrichment with potato)

(vi) Late maize/melon (Row planting, spacing, improved varities and fertilizer application)

(vii) Swamp rice production (improved varieties, early planting, line, planting and pest disease control in rice field with emphasis on African Rice. Gall midge

(viii) Processing cassava/sweet potato into flour (peeling, wasting, grating, drying, milling, and sieving)

(ix) Utilization of cassava/sweet potato flour (measuring ingredients, mixing, etc)

(x) Production of fruit juices, processing and utilization of soyabean (selection, washing, blending, sieving, cooling and storage)

13. Which of these services have been rendered to you by ADP/extension agents?

(i) Establishment of small plot adoption technique (SPAT)

(ii) Formation of women groups

(iii) Providing information to women farmers

(iv) Identify rural problems

(v) Getting me involved in non-farm activities

(vi) Supervising our women activities

(vii) Assisted to arrange input supply to me

(viii)Helped me to prepare schedule of farm activities

(ix) Assisted me in process loan

(x) Initiated and promoted leadership among dewellers

(xi) Helped source market for my farm products

(xii) Assisted in organizing our group meetings

(xiii)Organized shows for us

(xiv) Communicate recommended practices to us

(xv) Taught me new ideas in agriculture

(xvi) Taught me how to keep of any farm activity

(xvii) Gave me advice on how to handle my agricultural problems

(xviii) Paid visits to my home and farms to assist me

(xix) Helped me to access farm machinery

Section C: Farmers willingness to pay for Extension Service Rendered by the ADP

Preamble: funding has been identified as a major problems to EBADEP in its quest to deliver efficient and effective extension services to you. With adequate fund, it is expected that EBADEP will be highly efficient like most privatized establishments in delivering its services to you. However, to achieve this, EBADEP is proposing that its service recipients will pay some fees for services rendered.

14. Are you willing to pay any extension services rendered to you by EBADEP?

(i) Yes (ii) No

15. If you are not willing now, will you pay in the future? (i) Yes (ii) No

16. If yes, please indicate you percentage of willingness to pay for any service?

(i) 1-20 (ii) 21-40 (iii) 41-60 (iv) 61-80 (v) 81-100

Get This Complete Project Material Here

Declaimer - MARTINS LIBRARY

The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

Recruitment: FIRS - Navy - Police - Army - FCSC - Immigration - NDLEA

N-POWER: Register & Apply Here | Jobs in Nigeria

ARCHIVES

CATEGORY

Pages

Get: Standard Business Plan & Feasibility Study!

FUNDING EBONYI STATE AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXTENSION SERVICE IN A DEREGULATED ECONOMY

Declaimer - MARTINS LIBRARY

READ RECENT UPDATES HERE