Developing Sustainable Farmer-led Extension Groups: Lessons from a Bangladeshi Case Study
Developing Sustainable Farmer-led Extension Groups: Lessons from a Bangladeshi Case Study
复制标题
发展农民主导的可持续推广小组：孟加拉国案例研究的经验教训
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Kemp
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Md. Mofakkarul Islam;D. Gray;J. Reid;P. Kemp
摘要在发展中国家，以专业人员为主导的公共部门推广系统的有限有效性和财政上的不可持续性引起了人们对农民为主导的推广（FLE）方法的极大兴趣。这些举措面临的一个关键挑战是，通过项目或方案援助发展起来的农民群体缺乏可持续性。这不仅使FLE倡议成本高昂，而且还造成农民之间的依赖。尽管如此，什么可以使外部发起的FLE组可持续的知识是很少的，主要是轶事。在本文中，我们提供了一个根据经验绘制且理论丰富的框架来填补这一知识空白。该框架的基础是一个比较案例研究的六个非持续性和四个持续的家庭生活教育组发起通过创新的推广改革项目在孟加拉国和比较的结果与集体行动的理论。我们确定了四组影响集团可持续发展的相互关联的因素，称为“资本”：通过以小组为基础的小额信贷活动积累的“金融资本”，由成员自己设计的称为“制度资本”的有效治理机制，称为“人力资本”的高素质小组领导人和促进者，以及过去的交换，互惠，会员之间以及会员与专业辅导员之间的信任和尊重被称为“社会资本”。虽然小额信贷有利于可持续性，但它适合女性农民而不是男性农民。优秀的领导者和促进者不仅在技术上有能力，而且公平，创新，坚韧，自我牺牲，值得信赖，诚实和真诚。并不是所有形式的社会资本都有助于群体的可持续发展，只有当其他类型的资本（人力资本和制度资本）存在于一个群体中时，社会资本才能产生积极的影响。为了提高集团的可持续性，FLE计划应该采取整体的方法，并解决本文提出的四种资本。关键战略可包括：将推广（信息或咨询职能）与经济活动相结合，但避免一刀切的解决办法，招聘小组领导人和协调员时不应只考虑技术因素（例如考虑到本研究报告中确定的个性特征），在制定小组规则和条例时采取自下而上的办法，并考虑到社会资本的积极和消极方面。我们的研究的独创性在于我们在本文中提供的解释框架。我们的研究也有助于通过展示社会资本扮演的双重角色及其与其他形式的资本复杂的相互关系，对社会资本的知识辩论。
Abstract The limited effectiveness and fiscal unsustainability of professional-led public sector extension systems in developing countries have aroused considerable interest in Farmer-led Extension (FLE) approaches in the recent decades. A key challenge facing these initiatives is a lack of sustainability of the farmer groups developed through project or programme assistance. This not only makes FLE initiatives costly, but also creates dependency among farmers. Despite this, the knowledge of what can make externally-initiated FLE groups sustainable is scant and largely anecdotal. In this paper we provide an empirically-drawn and theoretically-informed framework to fill this knowledge gap. The framework is based on a comparative case study of six non-sustained and four sustained FLE groups initiated through an innovative extension reform project in Bangladesh and a comparison of the results with the theories of collective action. We have identified four sets of inter-related factors called ‘capitals’ affecting group sustainability: ‘financial capital’ accumulated through group-based microcredit activities, an effective governance mechanism called ‘institutional capital’ devised by the members themselves, good quality group leaders and facilitators called ‘human capital’, and past relations of exchange, reciprocity, trust and respect called ‘social capital’ among members and between members and professional facilitators. While microcredit can benefit sustainability, it suits women rather than men farmers. Good quality leaders and facilitators are not only technically competent, but also fair, innovative, tenacious, self-sacrificing, trustworthy, honest, and sincere. All forms of social capital are not useful for group sustainability and social capital can make a positive impact only when the other types of capital—human and institutional—are present within a group. To improve group sustainability, FLE programmes should take a holistic approach and address the four kinds of capitals proposed in this paper. Key strategies may include: combining extension (information or advisory functions) with economic activities but avoiding a one-size-fits-all solution, recruiting group leaders and facilitators by going beyond technical considerations (e.g. taking into account the personality traits identified in this study), adopting a bottom-up approach in devising group rules and regulations, and taking into account both the positive and negative aspects of social capital. The originality of our research lies in the explanatory framework that we provide in this paper. Our study also contributes to the intellectual debates on social capital by exhibiting the dual roles that social capital plays and its complex interrelationships with other forms of capital.