# **5. Conclusion**

We use a panel data set collected among farming households in Ethiopia between 2009 and 2012 to evaluate the impact of the Rural Capacity Building Project, which aimed at increasing farmer productivity and technology adoption by strengthening the agricultural extension system. Round 1 of data collection occurred from December 2009 to January 2010, that is, 2 years after the RCBP officially started, in 2007. Project implementation proceeded slowly, however, and at the time of the initial survey in 2009, many regions and kebeles had only recently received the RCBP. At the time of this survey most of the equipment for the FTCs as well as other necessary inputs for the program had been procured, though it is unclear as to how much training exactly the treatment group had had access to already. About two years later, from March to April 2012, an effort was made to re-interview (Round 2) all Round 1 households in order to create a panel data set. In accordance with the program roll-out, it seems that at Round 1, households in RCBP areas had already been exposed to extension services. Given this evidence, we conducted the analysis with no baseline data.

The results support the hypothesis of a “surge” in extension services happening around the first round of data collection. Treatment households have more regular contact with extension officers and higher satisfaction with extension services. At Round 2, treatment households report lower satisfaction with extension services and seem to be favoring information sources outside of the government system. The effects of the increase in access to extension services at Round 1 are visible at both Round 1 and Round 2. Firstly, the evidence points to a positive impact of RCBP on economic participation in the household, land area cultivated and adoption of marketable crops, suggesting that access to extension helped farmers switch to more commercial, market-oriented agriculture. Secondly, female-headed households seem to have benefited equally from RCBP. However, as their initial levels of wealth, agricultural outcomes and access to extension were lower, the project did not contribute to reducing the gender gap.

# **References**

Agyei-Holmes, A., Ayerakwa, H. M., Osei, R. D., & Osei-Akoto, I. (2011). Training and Farmer Productivity: An Evaluation using RCT for the MCA-Ghana Programme. Retrieved from http://addis2011.ifpri.info/files/2011/10/Paper_1C_Robert-D.-Osei.pdf Aker, J. C. (2011). Dial “A” for agriculture: a review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. _Agricultural Economics_ , _42_ (6), 631-647.

Anderson, J., Feder, G., & Ganguly, S. (2006). _The Rise and Fall of Training and Visit Extension: An Asian Mini-drama with an African Epilogue_ . Retrieved from <u>https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/8447/wps3928.pdf?sequence=1</u> Anderson, J. R., & Feder, G. (2007). Chapter 44 Agricultural Extension. In R. Evenson and P. Pingali (Ed.), _Handbook of Agricultural Economics_ (Vol. Volume 3, pp. 2343–2378). Elsevier.

Bandiera, O., & Rasul, I. (2006). Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique. _The Economic Journal_ , _116_ (514), 869–902.

12