Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bottom-Up Approaches and Decentralized Extension Structures for Improving Access to and Quality of Extension Services and Technology Adoption: Multi-level Analysis from Malawi

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper looks at village agriculture committees, model villages, and stakeholder panels at various levels as participatory and decentralized structures for improving demand articulation and accountability in agricultural extension service provision in Malawi. It uses various datasets including nationally representative household and community surveys, a survey of service providers, a survey of representatives from the various structures, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews. It employs various estimation methods including matching techniques, matching plus regression adjustments, and an instrumental variables approach. Results show diverse experiences and functionality of these structures. Contrary to earlier reports, most of these structures are active, except for district stakeholder panels (DSPs), of which only about a quarter are active. Similarly, most of them provide a platform for discussion and feedback on service providers and the quality of their advice, except for DSPs. However, most structures were given poor ratings in terms of their responsiveness to the concerns and issues raised. Household participation in village development or agriculture committees is strongly associated with better household outcome indicators. These village committees, if they are active and responsive to farmers’ expressed concerns and needs, can contribute to better community-level outcomes. Results show that these village-level structures matter and that strengthening them is key to addressing their long-term functionality. On the other hand, a model village concept that focuses on an integrated approach to solving communities’ challenges is not associated with improved community outcome indicators; therefore, its implementation should be reviewed and improved to contribute to development outcomes.

Résumé

Ce document examine les comités agricoles de village, les villages modèles, et les panels de parties prenantes, à divers niveaux en tant que structures participatives et décentralisées pour améliorer l'articulation de la demande et la responsabilité dans la fourniture de services de vulgarisation agricole au Malawi. Il utilise divers ensembles de données, y compris des enquêtes ménagères et communautaires représentatives au niveau national, une enquête sur les prestataires de services, une enquête sur les représentants des diverses structures, des groups de discussion, des discussion et des entretiens avec des informateurs clés. Il emploie diverses méthodes d'estimation, y compris des techniques de correspondance, des ajustements de régression plus correspondence, et une approche par variables instrumentales.

Les résultats montrent que les structures partecipatives offrent des expériences et fonctionnalités differentes. Contrairement aux rapports précédents, la plupart de ces structures sont actives, à l'exception des panels de parties prenantes de district (DSP), dont seulement environ un quart sont actifs. De même, la plupart des structures fournissent une plateforme de discussion et de feedback sur les prestataires de services et la qualité de leurs conseils, à l'exception des DSP. Cependant, la plupart des structures ont reçu de mauvaises évaluations en termes de leur réactivité aux préoccupations et aux problèmes soulevés. La participation des ménages aux comités de développement de village ou d'agriculture est fortement associée à de meilleurs indicateurs de résultats des ménages. Les comités de village, s'ils sont actifs et réactifs aux préoccupations et aux besoins exprimés par les agriculteurs, peuvent contribuer à de meilleurs résultats au niveau de la communauté. Les résultats montrent que ces structures au niveau du village sont importantes et que leur renforcement est essentiel pour assurer leur fonctionnalité à long terme. D'autre part, un concept de village modèle qui se concentre sur une approche intégrée pour résoudre les défis des communautés n'est pas associé à des indicateurs de résultats communautaires améliorés; par conséquent, sa mise en œuvre devrait être revue et améliorée afin de contribuer aux résultats de développement.

Resumen

Este documento examina los comités de agricultura de los pueblos, los pueblos modelo, y los paneles de grupos de interés de varios niveles, como estructuras participativas y descentralizadas para mejorar la articulación de la demanda y la rendición de cuentas en la prestación de servicios de extensión agrícola en Malawi. El estudio utiliza varios conjuntos de datos, incluyendo encuestas a hogares y comunidades representativas a nivel nacional, una encuesta a proveedores de servicios, una encuesta a representantes de las diversas estructuras, discusiones de grupos focales, y entrevistas a informantes clave. Emplea varios métodos de estimación, incluyendo técnicas de emparejamiento, ajustes de regresión más emparejamiento, y un enfoque de variables instrumentales.

Los resultados muestran que las varias estructuras partecipativas ofrecen diferentes experiencias y funcionalidades. Contrariamente a informes anteriores, la mayoría de estas estructuras están activas, excepto los paneles de interesados a nivel de distrito (DSPs), entre los cuales solo alrededor de un cuarto están activos. De manera similar, la mayoría de las estructuras proporcionan una plataforma para la discusión y retroalimentación sobre los proveedores de servicios y la calidad de sus consejos, excepto los DSPs. Sin embargo, a la mayoría de las estructuras se les dio una mala calificación en términos de su capacidad de respuesta a las preocupaciones y problemas planteados. La participación de los hogares en los comités de desarrollo o agricultura de los pueblos está fuertemente asociada con mejores indicadores de resultados de los hogares. Estos comités de pueblos, si están activos y responden a las preocupaciones y necesidades expresadas por los agricultores, pueden contribuir a mejores resultados a nivel de la comunidad. Los resultados muestran que estas estructuras a nivel de pueblo important, y que fortalecerlas es clave para abordar su funcionalidad a largo plazo. Por otro lado, un concepto de pueblo modelo centrado en un enfoque integrado para resolver los desafíos de las comunidades no está asociado con mejores indicadores de resultados de la comunidad; por lo tanto, su implementación debería ser revisada y mejorada para contribuir a los resultados del desarrollo.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source Modified from Malawi, Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development (2006). Straight lines reflect reporting lines from the DAESS platforms to the MoLGRDs and oversight from MoLGRD to DAESS platforms. For instance, the ASPs report to the area development committees on agricultural development at the area level and on the functioning of the ASPs; while ADC provides the oversight to the ASP. A similar structure applies to the other levels (village, district). On the other hand, the short-dashed lines connect MoAIWD with the DAESS platforms in terms of facilitating the existence of these platforms, being part of them (for example, the district agriculture development officer chairs the DAECC), and building their capacity so that these platforms perform their key functions. MoAIWD is also an advocate for the role of MaFAAS at the national level. The DAES is part of MoAIWD, together with the other technical departments concerning fisheries, livestock, crop development, land resources, and agricultural development. The DAESS structure encompasses all of these technical departments, and so the heads of the agricultural technical departments are represented on the DSPs and DAECCs. Larger-dash lines represent coordination across the ministries and DAESS platform

Fig. 2

Source Map from MASDAP (2016); raw data from International Food Policy Research Institute interviews, December 2016 to March 2017. All districts were covered in the household and community surveys. Those shaded in dark gray are the 15 focus districts of the census of service providers; those with dots are the locations of the focus group discussions; and those marked as Feed the Future districts have detailed information from a census of area stakeholder panels, district stakeholder panels, and the District Agricultural Extension Services System

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The DACs work with the district councils to, for example, make recommendations on extension service policy, support local agricultural institutions and development, assist in resource acquisition, and encourage community participation.

  2. Dasgupta and Beard (2007), for instance, analyzed the World Bank’s Urban Poverty Projects in Indonesia and highlighted the importance of elite and nonelite participation through democratic self-governance processes in order to obtain the expected goals. Other studies have also underscored the need for committed local government officials as well as traditional and religious leaders for the success of participatory platforms (for example, Sanyang et al. 2016).

  3. In this respect, Resnick and Birner (2010) studied participatory mechanisms that enabled farmers to provide input into key policy aspects in Senegal, yet the authors showed that this participation did not translate into implemented policies, due mostly to conflicting group interests and political alliances. In Burkina Faso, the lack of financial resources hinders the implementation of discussed policies.

  4. For these surveys, Mzimba district was divided into north and south, and Lilongwe into east and west.

  5. For example, if the majority of the respondents within the panel reported that the platform had bylaws, then that platform was considered to have bylaws.

  6. We focus here on crop productivity and exclude that of livestock.

  7. Research implemented by IFPRI (for example, Hoddinott and Yohannes 2002) has confirmed that a more diversified diet is associated with improvement in nutritional parameters, including birth weight, child anthropometric status, improved hemoglobin concentrations, caloric and protein adequacy, percentage of protein from animal sources (high-quality protein), and per capita consumption (a proxy for household income). Studies validating dietary diversity against nutrient adequacy in developing countries have confirmed a positive relationship and a consistently positive association between dietary diversity and child growth (Ruel 2002; Arimond and Ruel 2002; Working Group on Infant and Young Child Feeding Indicators 2006; Smale, Moursi, and Birol 2015).

  8. Note that active platforms are those that use bylaws, have short-term plans, meet at least yearly, report back to members when meeting with other panels/committees, share reports at least annually, and have record-keeping processes.

References

  • Ackerman, J. 2004. Co-governance for accountability: Beyond ‘exit’ and ‘voice.’ World Development 32 (3): 447–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R., H. Almeida, and D. Ferreira. 2009. Understanding the relationship between founder-CEOs and firm performance. Journal of Empirical Finance 16: 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development 29 (10): 1649–1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, B. 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29 (10): 1623–1648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, B. 2009. Rule making in community forestry institutions: The difference women make. Ecological Economics 68 (8/9): 2296–2308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, B. 2010. Does women’s proportional strength affect their participation? Governing local forests in South Asia. World Development 38 (1): 98–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arimond, M., and M.T. Ruel. 2002. Dietary diversity is associated with child nutritional status: Evidence from 11 demographic and health surveys. Journal of Nutrition 134 (10): 2579–2585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barham, J., and C. Chitemi. 2009. Collective action initiatives to improve marketing performance: Lessons from farmer groups in Tanzania. Food Policy 34: 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S., and M. Caliendo. 2007. Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Stata Journal 7 (1): 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, T., A. Erman, and B. Baulch. 2019. Change and rigidity in youth employment Patterns in Malawi. In Youth and Jobs in Rural Africa Beyond Stylized, ed. V. Mueller and J. Thurlow, 137–171. New York, Oxford: IFPRI, Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, T., M.-H. Collion, A. de Janvry, and P. Rondot. 2008. Do village organizations make a difference in African rural development? A study for Senegal and Burkina Faso. World Development 36 (11): 2188–2204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, T., A. de Janvry, and E. Sadoulet. 2009. When does community conservatism constrain village organizations? Economic Development and Cultural Change 58 (4): 609–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, T., and D.J. Spielman. 2009. Reaching the rural poor through rural producer organizations? A study of agricultural marketing cooperatives in Ethiopia. Food Policy 34 (1): 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birner, R., K. Davis, J. Pender, E. Nkonya, P. Anandajayasekeram, and J. Ekboir. 2009. From best practice to best fit: A framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15 (4): 341–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, H. 2000. Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development 28 (1): 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, E.A. 2003. Participation and accountability in development management. Journal of Development Studies 40 (2): 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buntaine, M.T., D.L. Nielsen, and J.T. Skaggs. 2017. Escaping the valley of disengagement: Two field experiments on motivating citizens to monitor public goods. Working Paper 41. Williamsburg, VA: AidData.

  • Caliendo, M., and S. Kopeinig. 2008. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys 22 (1): 31–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavatassi, R., M. Gonzalez-Flores, P. Winters, J. Andrade-Piedra, P. Espinosa, and G. Thiela. 2011. Linking smallholders to the new agricultural economy: The case of the Plataformas de Concertacion in Ecuador. Journal of Development Studies 47 (10): 1545–1573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowa, C., C. Garforth, and C. Cardey. 2013. Farmer experience of pluralistic agricultural extension, Malawi. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 19 (2): 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J., A. Swindale, and P. Bilinsky. 2007. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of household food access: Indicator Guide, version 3. Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA. www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf.

  • Cox, G.W., and M.D. McCubbins. 1986. Electoral politics as a redistributive game. Journal of Politics 48 (2): 370–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, A., and V. Beard. 2007. Community driven development, collective action and elite capture in Indonesia. Development and Change 38 (2): 229–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devaux, A., D. Horton, C. Velasco, G. Thiele, G. López, T. Bernet, I. Reinoso, and M. Ordinola. 2009. Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes. Food Policy 34: 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiPrete, T., and M. Gangl. 2004. Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments. Sociological Methodology 34 (1): 271–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A., and J. Londregan. 1996. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics 58 (4): 1132–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faysse, N. 2006. Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi-stakeholder platforms. Natural Resources Forum 30 (3): 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., and E.O. Wright. 2001. Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society 29 (1): 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J., and G. Barrett. 2012. Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Development 40 (12): 2399–2410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C., and M. Woolcock. 2008. Empowerment, deliberative development, and local-level politics in Indonesia: Participatory projects as a source of countervailing power. Studies in Comparative International Development 43: 151–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden, M., and B. Min. 2013. Distributive politics around the world. Annual Review of Political Science 16: 73–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G., M. Humphreys, and G. Sacramone-Lutz. 2016. Information technology and political engagement: Mixed evidence from Uganda. Paper presented at European Political Science Association annual conference, Brussels, 23–25 June 2016.

  • Grossman, G., H. Macartan, and G. Sacramonte-Lutz. 2014. ‘I wld like u WMP to extend electricity 2 our village’: On information technology and interest articulation. American Political Science Association 108 (3): 688–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirano, K., and G.W. Imbens. 2001. Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: An application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2 (3–4): 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoddinott, J., and Y. Yohannes. 2002. Dietary diversity as a household food security indicator. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2016. Agriculture Extension and Technology Adoption in Malawi - household and community survey dataset. IFPRI, Washington, DC.

  • Imbens, G. 2000. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87 (3): 706–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaramillo, M., and G.D. Wright. 2015. Participatory democracy and effective policy: Is there a link? Evidence from rural Peru. World Development 66: 280–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefer, P., and S. Khemani. 2014. Mass media and public education: The effects of access to community radio in Benin. Journal of Development Economics 109: 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MaFAAS (Malawi Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services). 2017. Proceedings of MaFAAS Malawi extension strategy input workshop, Malawi Institute of Management, Lilongwe, March 24.

  • Mansuri, G., and V. Rao. 2004. Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. World Bank Research Observer 19 (1): 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marathe, M., J. O’Neill, P. Pain, and W. Thies. 2016. ICT-enabled grievance redressal in central India: A comparative analysis. In Eighth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, 4. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2909609.

  • Masangano, C., and C. Mthinda. 2012. Pluralistic extension system in Malawi. Discussion Paper 01171. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • MASDAP (Malawi Spatial Data Portal). 2016. Malawi Map. www.masdap.mw. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.

  • Masset, E., and L. Haddad. 2015. Does beneficiary farmer feedback improve project performance? An impact study of a participatory monitoring intervention in Mindanao. Philippines. Journal of Development Studies 51 (3): 287–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEAS (Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services). 2012. Strengthening pluralistic agricultural Extension in Malawi. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichter, S. 2008. Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the Secret Ballot. American Political Science Review 102 (1): 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. 1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, T., J. Hoddinott, and B. Kinsey. 2003. The impact of agricultural extension on farm production in resettlement areas of Zimbabwe. Economic Development and Cultural Change 51 (2): 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pamuk, H., E. Bulte, and A. Adekunle. 2014. Do decentralized innovation systems promote agricultural technology adoption? Experimental Evidence from Africa. Food Policy 44 (C): 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterman, A., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, and E. Nkonya. 2011. Understanding the complexities surrounding gender differences in agricultural productivity in Nigeria and Uganda. Journal of Development Studies 47 (10): 1482–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirracchio, R., M. Resche-Rigon, and S. Chevret. 2012. Evaluation of the propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios in case of small sample size. BMC Medical Research Methodology 12 (70): 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R.D. 1993. Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragasa, C., N.L. Aberman, and C. Alvarez-Mingote. 2017. Does providing agricultural and nutrition information to both men and women improve household food security? Evidence from Malawi. Discussion Paper 01653. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • Ragasa, C., T. Badibanga, and J. Ulimwengu. 2016. Effectiveness and challenges of participatory governance: The case of agricultural and rural management councils in the Western Democratic Republic of the Congo. Food Security 8: 827–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragasa, C., and J. Golan. 2014. The role of rural producer organizations in agricultural service provision in Fragile States. Agricultural Economics 45: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragasa, C., and C. Mthinda. 2020. Malawi chapter, In Agricultural Extension: Global Status and Performance in Selected Countries, ed. K. Davis, S.C. Babu and C. Ragasa, IFPRI. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

  • Ragasa, C., D. Mzungu, E. Kaima, C. Kazembe, and K. Kalagho. 2017. Capacity and accountability in the agricultural extension system in Malawi: Insights from the survey of service providers in 15 districts. Discussion Paper 01673. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • Ragasa, C., and C. Niu. 2017. The state of agricultural extension and advisory services provision in Malawi: Insights from household and community surveys. Malawi Strategy Support Program Technical Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • Resnick, D., and R. Birner. 2010. Agricultural strategy development in West Africa: The false promise of participation? Development Policy Review 28 (1): 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, W.M., K.M. Qamar, and L.V. Crowder. 2001. Agricultural and rural extension worldwide: Options for institutional reform in developing countries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, R., and D. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 (1): 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruel, M.T. 2002. Is dietary diversity an indicator of food security or dietary quality? A review of measurement issues and research needs. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 140. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • Sanyang, S., S.J.-B. Taonda, J. Kuiseu, N.T. Coulibaly, and L. Konaté. 2016. A paradigm shift in African agricultural research for development: The role of innovation platforms. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 14 (2): 187–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, H. 1999. Participatory governance for poverty reduction. Journal of International Development 11: 521–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheely, R. 2015. Mobilization, participatory planning institutions, and elite capture: Evidence from a field experiment in rural Kenya. World Development 67: 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, M., and J. Svensson. 2006. Political budget cycles: Do they differ across countries and why? Journal of Public Economics 90 (8–9): 1367–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smale, M., M. Moursi, and E. Birol. 2015. How does adopting hybrid maize affect dietary diversity on family farms? Micro-evidence from Zambia. Food Policy 52: 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, J. 2012. Participatory governance reform: A good strategy for increasing government responsiveness and improving public services? World Development 40 (12): 2379–2398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, S.C. 2005. Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swindale, A., and P. Bilinsky. 2006. Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for measurement of household food access: Indicator guide, version 2. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development.

  • UIUC-SANE (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension Activity). 2016. Survey of Extension Stakeholder Platforms dataset. UIUC, Illinois.

  • Wantchekon, L. 2003. Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Politics 55: 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on Infant and Young Child Feeding Indicators. 2006. Developing and validating simple indicators of dietary quality and energy intake of infants and young children in developing countries: Summary of findings for analysis of 10 data Sets. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2008. World development report: Agriculture for development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank and IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2009. Gender and governance in rural services. Washington, DC: World Bank and IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute).

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Government of Flanders, through the Flanders-Malawi Country Strategy Paper for International Cooperation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), through the Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition (SANE) Activity.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Innovation Policy and Scaling Unit, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 1201 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20005, USA

    Catherine Ragasa

  2. Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 405 N. Matthews Ave, Urbana, Illinois, 61801, USA

    Cristina Alvarez-Mingote

  3. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 341 Mumford Hall, 1301 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, Illinois, 61801, USA

    Paul McNamara

Authors
  1. Catherine Ragasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Alvarez-Mingote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul McNamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Ragasa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Tables 9, 10, 11, 12.

Table 9 Reduction of bias from the matching techniques
Full size table
Table 10 Descriptive statistics of the outcome indicators and control variables at community level (N = 299)
Full size table
Table 11 Descriptive statistics of the outcome indicators and treatment and control variables at household level (N = 3001)
Full size table
Table 12 Results of the likelihood of respondents’ participation in village committees
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Source International Food Policy Research Institute household and community surveys (2016). Results using Stata software. VAC village agriculture committee, VDC village development committee

Results of the propensity score matching.

Full size image

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

Ragasa, C., Alvarez-Mingote, C. & McNamara, P. Bottom-Up Approaches and Decentralized Extension Structures for Improving Access to and Quality of Extension Services and Technology Adoption: Multi-level Analysis from Malawi. Eur J Dev Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-024-00627-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-024-00627-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation