Skip to main content
Log in

Welfare benefits associated with access to agricultural extension services in Nigeria

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Food Security Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Improving the agricultural productivity and welfare of rural farming households is important for many governments, especially in low- and middle-income countries like Nigeria, where agriculture plays an important role in the economy. Increasing access to agricultural extension is often suggested as a way to raise farmer productivity and incomes. However, empirical estimations of the causal impact of agricultural extension services in Nigeria are few, especially those that address internal and external validity concerns. Improved estimation of the effectiveness of agricultural extension can support evidence-informed decision-making by agricultural policymakers. In this study we used three waves of the Nigerian General Household Survey to advance understanding of the factors associated with farmers’ use of agricultural extension services, and to examine how receiving extension support might improve welfare among rural farm households in Nigeria. Through random effects regression with endogenous treatment effects, we found that asset ownership, use of inorganic fertiliser, and access to credit were positively associated with the use of extension services. We also found positive associations between use of extension services and household food security and assets. Receiving agricultural extension service was associated with a 16% reduction in food insecurity and a 64% increase in household assets. Further disaggregating extension services by the type of advice obtained showed positive associations with welfare outcomes for households that received advice on new seeds and fertiliser, but mixed results for those who received advice on animal care and marketing. Receiving advice on new seed varieties and fertilisers was associated with a 12–15% reduction in food insecurity and a 92–113% increase in household assets. Our findings add to the body of evidence that suggests enhancing farmers’ access to extension can improve the welfare of farmers. Government policy needs to consider factors that limit or promote farmers’ access to agricultural extension services, so that Nigerian farmers can equitably benefit from the potential welfare gains associated with agricultural extension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Source: Authors, based on an adaptation of Brenya and Zhu (2023) and Ragasa and Mazunda (2018)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. FMARD = Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Nigeria.

  2. In boosting extension across the country, the federal government set up the N-power agro programme to train and deploy 100,000 paid youth volunteers in extension services for two years with hope that they are subsequently retained by the state governments (Davis et al., 2019).

  3. The geographic zones in Nigeria are six and include North Central, North East, North West, South South, South East, and South West.

  4. Information about the Nigerian LSMS and the design of this survey, unless otherwise cited, is drawn from the World Bank’s LSMS microdata page and the documents accessed from this page (https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3557/study-description).

  5. Following Njuki and Sanginga (2013) and Otte and Chilonda (2002), for example one cattle has a TLU of 1.0 whereas a sheep has TLU of 0.1.

  6. See https://povertyindex.org/ for more information on computing PPI score.

  7. Using the October 20, 2023 official Central Bank of Nigeria rate of N 832.078 / US$ 1.

  8. We note, though, that the household asset variable of this study slightly differs from that of Wossen and colleagues: while they added the monetary values of farm assets to household assets for this variable, we only computed the variable with the available monetary values of household assets. Similarly, while the authors considered only cassava growing households, we looked at rural households generally.

  9. Obiezu, T. (2023, July). Nigerian Authorities Declare State of Emergency on Food Security. Voice of America (https://www.voanews.com/a/nigerian-authorities-declare-state-of-emergency-on-food-security-/7181330.html).

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Marc F. Bellemare and Khadijat Busola Amolegbe for their comments on an early draft of the paper as well as the journal’s editors and anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and considerations during the rounds of review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toyib Aremu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no known conflict of interest that can directly or indirectly bias the results of this study.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 Description of variables by wave of study
Table 9 New seed variety-related agricultural extension advice – share of sample involved in crop production
Table 10 Fertiliser-related agricultural extension advice – share of sample involved in crop production
Table 11 Animal care extension advice – share of sample involved in keeping livestock
Table 12 Marketing-related agricultural extension advice

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aremu, T., Reynolds, T.W. Welfare benefits associated with access to agricultural extension services in Nigeria. Food Sec. 16, 295–320 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-023-01428-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-023-01428-7

Keywords

Navigation