Hands off but Strings Attached: The Contradictions of Policy-induced Demand-driven Agricultural Extension

Abstract

Abstract. Although many governments have privatized their agricultural extension services, there is widespread agreement that the public sector still needs to play a role in the ''agricultural knowledge market'' in order to prevent market failure and other undesirable phenomena. However, appropriate mechanisms for intervention in the agricultural knowledge market are still in their infancy. This article discusses the case of the Nutrient Management Support Service (NMSS), a government-funded support service in The Netherlands designed to optimize the fit between the demand and supply of ''agricultural knowledge products'' that reduce nutrient emissions into the environment. The activities of the support service were four-fold: (1) distributing vouchers to farmers, (2) establishing mechanisms for quality control, (3) facilitating the articulation of end-users' needs, and (4) improving market transparency. We analyze the extent to which the NMSS has succeeded in supporting a demand-driven knowledge market for nutrient management issues. We question some of the conceptual and practical assumptions underlying this style of intervention. In addition, we argue that the notion of demand requires considerable refinement before it can be useful for guiding state involvement in demand-driven extension.Key words: Demand-driven agricultural extension, Knowledge markets, Nutrient management, Privatization, Public interest, State intervention, The Netherlands Laurens Klerkx holds a MSc in Tropical Land Use from Wageningen University. He is currently working on his PhD. His research focuses on how needs are articulated in demand-driven agricultural innovation processes and how newly emerging institutions such as knowledge brokers, knowledge networks, and innovation facilitators support this demand-driven agricultural innovation.Karin de Grip studied Tropical Agriculture (BSc) and, after working for 3 years in Indonesia in development cooperation, joined the MSc program in Management of Agri-ecological Knowledge and Social Change at Wageningen University. Her specific foci and interests include interactive knowledge development processes, learning processes, knowledge exchange and innovation networks, enforcement of knowledge markets, and demand-driven extension.Cees Leeuwis is professor of Communication and Innovation Studies at Wageningen University. He holds a MSc in Rural Sociology and a PhD in Communication and Innovation Studies. His research focuses on (a) the role of new interactive and cross-disciplinary approaches in bringing about coherent innovations, (b) the analysis of social learning and conflict management in networks, and (c) the way in which the privatization of research and extension institutions affects public sphere innovation processes.

Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer?

“…Externally imposed goals may inhibit, or destroy, (informal) interactional patterns conducive to innovation. For example, a government-funded innovation broker that aimed to stimulate multi-stakeholder interaction and learning on nutrient management (called Nutrient Management Support Service), was perceived by farmers as having a direct link with the realization of undesired government policy, and hence never gained credibility and quickly disappeared (Klerkx, De Grip, & Leeuwis, 2006). Contrasting objectives may also cause loyalty conflicts with financiers and clients.…”

Achieving best-fit configurations through advisory subsystems in AKIS: case studies of advisory service provisioning for diverse types of farmers in Norway

“…However, these categories often do not fully capture the various ways farmers can engage with advice and information, and they tend to be normatively applied to favor one way of producing over another (Gilles et al 2013). Various variables and causes, such as farm size, asset status, and education, but also factors such as stability or turbulence in the regulatory environment, influence farmers' variation in demand for advisory services (Klerkx, De Grip, and Leeuwis 2006;Prager et al 2016;Vrain and Lovett 2016). As Ingram (2008) argues based on her study of promotion of best management practices, farmers can be more pro-active or re-active in their relationship with advisors, and the relationship can be steered by either the advisor or the farmer, or can be more equal.…”

“…We also observe less emphasis on developing subsystems that specifically target reclusive traditionalists; this resonates with earlier findings by . Hence, policy-makers should monitor the emergence of these subsystems and become active participants in some of them, in line with the idea of government as regulator in privatized AKIS and mitigating shortcomings of private and commercial advisory systems (Klerkx, De Grip, and Leeuwis 2006).…”

“…In recent decades, many countries have undergone changes such as decentralization and privatization in their agricultural advisory systems, leading to more commercialized agricultural advisory services provided often on a fee-for-service basis (Garforth et al 2003;Klerkx, De Grip, and Leeuwis 2006;. Although this has been reported as leading to greater client satisfaction, concerns have also been raised regarding farmers' access to farm advice and the breadth and depth of topics addressed by agricultural advisory systems (Klerkx and Proctor 2013;.…”

Agricultural extension in Latin America: current dynamics of pluralistic advisory systems in heterogeneous contexts

“…The first paper by Fernando Landini engages with the ongoing debate on demand-driven extension (Rivera and Alex 2004;Klerkx, De Grip, and Leeuwis 2006;Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008;Kibwika, Wals, and Nassuna-Musoke 2009;Parkinson 2009;Kilelu, Klerkx, and Leeuwis 2014) and analyzes the dynamics of interaction between extensionists and farmers in Argentina, seen from the perspective of the extensionist. He finds that different types of relationships co-exist: a more traditional diffusionist approach goes side-to-side with a co-construction approach.…”