Economic and Social Impacts of the Common Interest Group Approach to Public Agricultural Extension in Kenya

Abstract

This research examined the economic and social impacts of the common interest group approach to public agricultural extension in Kenya. The research utilized cross-sectional household data collected in February 2006 for an internal impact assessment at the end of phase one of the National Agricultural and Livestock Extension program which was implemented from 2000 to 2005. The major sources of parameter bias were controlled by employing a double difference estimator to control for farmer selection bias and geographical dummy variables to control for biases related to fixed locality characteristics.
The common interest group approach had a significant impact on farmers' access to extension services but no significant impact on farmers' access to agricultural credit and marketing. In addition, the approach had a significant impact on the agricultural productivity of group members. When the impact on productivity was disaggregated in accordance with marginalized social categories, a significant impact was found on uneducated farmers and those with more than six children but not on female heads of households. The approach also had a significant positive impact on the quality of life of farmers' wives.
Some recommendations were made to improve the effectiveness of the common interest approach. To improve farmer's access to markets and credit, common interest groups should be facilitated to form associations of groups to benefit members by improving their knowledge, economies of scale, and bargaining power. Further group training in the areas of financial and business management, as well as in production and marketing systems, should be facilitated. In addition, promotion of agro-processing technology is necessary to enhance primary agro-processing and to provide new market opportunities. Finally, groups should be linked with the private sector to increase access to market information, technology, and new market opportunities.
To ensure that female-headed households benefit equally with others from the approach, extension activities could be scheduled and timed with sensitivity to the particular requirements of female heads of households. Importantly, it may be prudent to directly address the productivity constraints of female heads of households by arranging for special inputs, credit, and market facilities.
To consolidate the positive impacts of the group approach on agricultural productivity and the quality of life of farm wives, individual farmer extension services should be reduced so that extension officers can further concentrate their efforts on groups. Marginalized groups of individuals should be systematically targeted to ensure they also benefit from the positive impact of the common interest approach, which has the potential to ensure socially equitable rural development.