Global Lessons from Privatizing Extension: Successes and Failures

Across the globe, agricultural extension services stand at a crossroads. Once predominantly public, these vital knowledge systems that bridge research and farm practice are experiencing profound transformation. From the complete commercialization of New Zealand’s advisory services to voucher-based systems in Latin America, countries have experimented with transferring extension functions from government hands to private actors. But what lessons have emerged from these experiments? And how can nations design extension systems that balance efficiency with equity, ensuring even the smallest farmers aren’t left behind?

Why countries privatized extension services 🔗

The wave of extension privatization that swept the world from the 1980s onward wasn’t born from ideology alone. Governments faced genuine fiscal pressures as agricultural budgets tightened and public extension systems struggled with massive recurrent costs. Approximately 600,000 agricultural extension personnel worked worldwide, with 95 percent in public systems, creating substantial financial burdens for national treasuries.

But money wasn’t the only driver. Many public extension systems had grown bureaucratic and unresponsive, criticized for inefficiency and failure to address farmers’ real needs. At the same time, global trade liberalization through agreements like GATT demanded that countries develop competitive agricultural advantages. The private sector, proponents argued, could deliver services more efficiently, innovate faster, and respond better to market signals than government agencies constrained by red tape.

The New Zealand experiment: Complete commercialization 🔗

Perhaps no country pursued extension privatization more aggressively than New Zealand. Starting in 1986, the transformation took nearly nine years, with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries advisory service transitioning from free public service to fully commercial operation. By 1995, it was sold to private ownership-the first extension service worldwide to be completely privatized.

The changes were dramatic. Before privatization, extension services reached approximately 80 percent of New Zealand farmers at no cost. After commercialization introduced fees, contact with beef and sheep farmers dropped to less than 10 percent. The total number of agricultural consultants remained relatively constant at around 550, but the composition shifted radically-from 500 providing free services in 1984 to only 130 by 1995.

Interestingly, the model brought unexpected benefits. Farmers who paid for advice showed greater implementation rates and technology adoption than when services were free. The commercial orientation pushed extension staff to work across the entire production-marketing chain rather than stopping at the farm gate. Advisers became more results-focused and client-oriented.

Yet shadows accompanied the success. Cooperation among extension organizations declined, particularly in specialized sectors like vegetable greenhouses. The commercial system created tensions, with farmers becoming reluctant to share information they had purchased. There was reduced feedback from farmers to researchers, less interaction among organizations, and concerns about effective transfer of scientific findings to agriculture. Most troubling, less well-off and poorer performing farmers received more limited information distribution.

What New Zealand teaches us 🔗

The New Zealand case reveals a fundamental tension. While privatization can improve efficiency and service quality for commercial farmers who can afford to pay, it risks excluding smallholders and marginalizing public-good functions like environmental stewardship and community development. The model worked in a developed country context with relatively large-scale commercial farming, but would face enormous challenges where subsistence agriculture dominates.

Alternative models: Vouchers, cost recovery, and mixed systems 🔗

Recognizing the limitations of complete privatization, many countries developed hybrid approaches that blend public and private elements. These models attempt to capture efficiency gains while maintaining accessibility for all farmers.

Chile pioneered a voucher system where government distributes certificates that farmers can use to hire private extension consultants of their choice. Colombia experimented with coupons attached to agricultural bank loans, committing a percentage to extension services. These systems introduce market competition while maintaining public funding support.

The Netherlands chose a gentler path in 1990, transferring approximately half its public extension personnel to farmer associations with initial government financial support. Farmers gradually increased their contributions through membership subscriptions and payments for specialized services, aiming for 50 percent cost-sharing. Meanwhile, government-funded structures remained for integrating research with extension teams and providing policy information.

England’s Agricultural Development and Advisory Service pursued partial cost recovery, introducing fees in 1987 with plans to generate 50 percent of income from commercial fees by the mid-1990s. Mexico developed fee-based systems for large-scale farmers in prosperous regions while planning different arrangements for small-scale farmers in poorer areas, acknowledging that one size doesn’t fit all.

Costa Rica’s evolving approach 🔗

Costa Rica offers insights into how developing countries are adapting extension services for contemporary challenges. The country has focused heavily on digital transformation and technical assistance programs to support sustainable agriculture, particularly for small and medium-scale producers.

Recent initiatives supported by the World Bank and IFAD emphasize digital registration systems, traceability infrastructure, and extension services delivered through digital platforms. These programs aim to reach approximately 31,500 producers with technical assistance and financing, with special attention to women and young people.

What’s particularly noteworthy is Costa Rica’s emphasis on public-private collaboration rather than pure privatization. Government expenditure on agricultural knowledge and innovation systems, particularly extension services, remains a priority, even as private sector involvement expands. This reflects a recognition that effective extension requires both public commitment to reach underserved populations and private sector innovation and market knowledge.

Hard lessons learned: When privatization fails 🔗

Not all privatization experiences succeeded. Research reveals several consistent patterns of failure that offer crucial guidance for future reforms.

First, private ownership alone doesn’t automatically generate economic gains-preconditions matter enormously. Successful privatization requires regulatory infrastructure, well-designed and sequenced reforms, complementary policies, and attention to poverty and social impacts. These elements are often precisely what developing countries find most challenging to establish.

Second, privatization typically creates equity problems. Smallholder and marginal farmers are often unable or unwilling to pay for private extension services, leading to bias toward middle and high-income farmers. Early experiences in Latin America during the 1990s demonstrated this pattern clearly. Private advisers serve commercial farmers profitably but avoid subsistence farmers in remote areas where services don’t generate sufficient revenue.

Third, privatization can distort extension priorities. Private providers naturally emphasize profitable activities and technology transfer over capacity building. They limit dissemination of innovations addressing complex production systems. They favor farmers who can afford to pay, creating information inequality. Farmers become reluctant to share purchased information, breaking down the cooperative knowledge-sharing traditions that historically strengthened rural communities.

Tasmania’s long experience with fee-for-service extension proved particularly instructive. After introducing fee-based advisory services in 1982-the longest such experiment worldwide-fees never totaled even five percent of annual departmental revenues after ten years. The policy weakened extension as a force for positive change, and the Tasmanian electorate resorted to greater regulation of agricultural industries to compensate.

Ensuring inclusivity: Designing systems for smallholders 🔗

The central challenge facing extension privatization is ensuring smallholder farmers aren’t excluded. These producers-numbering 450 to 500 million worldwide-make up 90 percent of farmers in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and produce 80 percent of the continent’s food. Any extension model that marginalizes them threatens food security and rural development.

Several strategies can help maintain inclusivity. First, governments must retain responsibility for public-good extension activities that markets undersupply: environmental management, natural resource conservation, farmer education, risk reduction, and community health. These functions serve broader social interests beyond individual farm profitability.

Second, public-private partnerships can combine strengths of both sectors. Public agencies focus on areas where private firms won’t operate profitably-services for smallholders, remote communities, and low-income regions. Private providers serve commercial farmers and specialized markets. Government establishes quality standards, provides oversight, and ensures accountability.

Third, targeted subsidy mechanisms can bridge gaps. Voucher systems, for instance, provide public funding while introducing choice and competition. Digital extension platforms can dramatically reduce delivery costs, making it economically viable to reach dispersed smallholder populations. Group-based extension approaches spread costs across farmer organizations rather than individuals.

The crucial role of farmer organizations 🔗

Farmer cooperatives and producer organizations play vital intermediary roles in privatized extension systems. They aggregate demand, making it economically viable for private advisers to serve smallholder communities. They provide collective bargaining power for negotiating service contracts. They create platforms for peer learning and information sharing. However, these organizations need strengthening-many face weak governance, limited resources, and capture by elites.

Future directions: Sustainable and inclusive models 🔗

Looking ahead, successful extension systems will likely embrace institutional pluralism-complex arrangements where multiple actors with different strengths serve diverse farmer needs. This complexity demands new government roles: coordination among providers, regulation ensuring quality and accessibility, support for underserved populations, and facilitation of linkages between research, extension, and farmers.

Digital technologies offer transformative potential. Mobile platforms, artificial intelligence advisory systems, and satellite-based monitoring can deliver personalized guidance at scale and low cost. During COVID-19, smartphone usage among smallholders surged, creating opportunities to integrate user-friendly digital services. However, barriers include lack of two-way interaction, absence of centralized networks, poor internet connectivity, and inadequate technical training.

Climate change adds urgency to extension reform. Farmers need timely information on climate-smart practices, weather forecasts, and adaptation strategies. Extension systems must facilitate adoption of sustainable technologies while supporting resilience. This requires substantial public investment alongside private innovation-market forces alone won’t prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term profits.

Ultimately, context matters profoundly. Ownership reforms should be tailor-made for national economic circumstances, with strategies adapted to local conditions. What works in commercialized agriculture systems of developed countries may fail catastrophically where subsistence farming dominates. Countries must analyze their specific situations-farm structure, market development, institutional capacity, equity concerns-before determining appropriate extension models.

The global experience with extension privatization offers no simple formulas. Complete privatization delivers efficiency but risks exclusion. Pure public provision avoids equity problems but may lack responsiveness and innovation. The most promising path forward embraces complexity: hybrid systems that strategically deploy public and private actors, leverage digital platforms to reduce costs, strengthen farmer organizations as intermediaries, maintain public responsibility for equity and sustainability, and continuously adapt based on evidence and local context.

What do you think? How can developing countries balance the efficiency gains of private extension provision with the imperative to serve smallholder farmers who can’t afford commercial services? What role should government play in coordinating increasingly complex, multi-actor extension systems?

References

1. https://www.fao.org/4/w5830e/w5830e0o.htm
2. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2134/jpa1998.0135
3. https://www.ifad.org/en/w/news/ifad-co-finances-program-to-promote-sustainable-agricultural-practices-and-competitiveness-for-costa-rican-producers
4. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/agricultural-policy-monitoring-and-evaluation-2023_b14de474-en/full-report/costa-rica_aee017f3.html
5. https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/33/1/65/4951686
6. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/233088b3-baca-487b-9c26-ecc2acd3dd1d/content
7. https://archives.joe.org/joe/1993spring/intl1.php
8. https://www.csis.org/analysis/access-finance-smallholder-farmers
9. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/7/3007