EMPIRICAL RESULTS 51
results show that the global coefficient of variation for income decreased by 15 percent. The largest decrease in the dispersion of incomes was observed among Fadama II participants, whose income coefficient of variation fell by 55 percent. The dispersion of incomes for nonbeneficiaries in and outside Fadama II LGAs increased, indicating that inequality increased among non- beneficiaries.
These results are consistent with those using the Gini coefficients, where we also found increasing inequality among all nonbeneficiaries and those outside Fadama II LGAs. The reductions in income inequality cannot be attrib- uted solely to Fadama II, given that its impact on the incomes of the lowest asset tercile and among female-headed households was not significant. Thus other factors could have contributed to the reductions.
Impact of Fadama II on Advisory Services Overview
Approaches to and the performance of agricultural extension in Nigeria have been changing over the past few decades (Oladele, Koyoma, and Sakagama 2004). These changes have been driven by many factors, including political and policy modifications, donors, and recently by the participation of NGOs in funding and providing agricultural extension services (Oladele, Koyoma, and Sakagama 2004; Ozor et al. 2007). At present advisory services in Nigeria are largely provided by the Agricultural Development Program (ADP), which evolved from a project funded by the World Bank. The World Bank project started in 1974 and had a broad objective of increasing food production to attain food self-sufficiency (IEG 2001; Oladele, Koyoma, and Sakagama 2004). When the project ended in 1995 with significant success in increasing agricultural production, the federal government adopted its approach and incorporated it into the new ADP. Operations of the ADP are mainly funded by the federal and state governments, and provision of advisory services remains in the hands of public extension workers (Oladele, Koyoma, and Sakagama 2004). The ADP has continued to use the traditional supply-driven approach and has also been characterized by poor funding and less-than-optimally effective advisory services (Ozor et al. 2007). These weaknesses have likely limited the impacts of the ADP on agricultural productivity in the country and on rural development in general.
NGOs and projects have also been providing advisory services and other agriculture-related services (credit services and agricultural input supply). The approaches of the advisory services provided by NGOs and projects have differed, reflecting various focuses and locations in the country. Although the government has allowed and supported NGOs and projects, it has not yet
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93