6533b85bfe1ef96bd12ba7bc

RESEARCH PRODUCT

The cost-effectiveness of mass media for agricultural extension in Malawi

subject

description

Ouvrage disponible sur : http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/999271468770338179/pdf/multi-page.pdf; International audience; This paper reports the results of research concerning the role of massmedia in providing information to Malawian farmers. To set the context, the paper begins with a brief description of the face-to-face information services provided by the agricultural extension system and by the farmer training centers; it then describes in more detail the operations of the Extension Aids Branch (EAB) of the Ministry of Agriculture. EAB prepares and delivers messages to farmers using radio, print, and mobile vans(carrying films for night-time use and puppet shows for daytime use). Of the approximately $6 400 000 per year that agricultural information services cost Malawi (or $6.80 per farm household), about 78% is for agricultural extension, about 12% is for farmer training centers, and about 10% is for the media provided by EAB.After describing agricultural information services, the paper assembles available information, concerning media effectiveness and costs. A number of studies were reviewed concerning sources of farmers'information and how much had been learned from media exposure. In one study, 67% of respondents listed extension workers as a source of agricultural information, 8% listed training course attendance, 27% listed radio, 9% listed films, and 2% listed puppets. Other studies have indicated that, even though radio and films are carrying a lot of information already known to farmers, they also communicate effectively ; farmers learn from both these media and they are popular. Finally, eventhough results of all the effectiveness analyses must be received with some caution, there is evidence that the information services can pay offin improved productivity. In Annex A, for example, several agricultural production functions are estimated from a Malawian data set of 300 farmers, from which it appears that the more educated farmers tend to have more contacts with extension agents and that farmers with more contacts with extension agents tend to have better yields and are more likely to produce cash crops (but not at the expense of subsistence crops).The paper's analysis of costs found, not surprisingly, dramatic differences in the costs of different ways of reaching farmers. Agricultural extension agents were estimated to cost about $21 per farmer contact; residential training centers cost about $30 per farmer for a five-day session; and day training centers cost about $4 per farmer for a one-day session. The EAB's films cost about $0.17 per farmer contact-hour(a mobile van will typically show 2 or 3 hours of films on a given nightin a given place ); the puppet shows (lasting about an hour) cost about $0.08 per viewer. Radio's costs, at about $0.004 per listener-hour, are by far the lowest of any medium. Put slightly differently, the paper estimates that mobile vans (film and puppet shows) cost about 44 times asmuch per contact-hour as radio; and extension agents cost 55 to 80 timesas much as mobile vans. Economies from mass outreach are evident. What is less clear, in Malawi and elsewhere, is how best to make the mass media complementary to face-to-face methods. Nonetheless, even if there were severe limits on the amount of information carried by the radio programmes, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the broadcasts are highly cost effective. This conclusion has implications for Malawi; and it has perhaps more important conclusions for other countries, which, unlike Malawi, at present make almost no use of radio for reaching farmers.