فایل ورد کامل بازنگری شواهدی در خصوص نرخ بازده سیستم ترویجی آموزش و بازدید در کنیا

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل بازنگری شواهدی در خصوص نرخ بازده سیستم ترویجی آموزش و بازدید در کنیا،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۲۵ صفحه

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسیعنوان انگلیسی:Reconsidering the Evidence on the Returns to T&V Extension in Kenya~~en~~

۱ Introduction

The effectiveness of the public agricultural extension service in Kenya has been, and continues to be, a controversial issue. Two successive IDA-funded projects, the National Extension Projects I and II (NEP-I and II) have supported agricultural extension since 1982, at which time the World Bank introduced the Training and Visit (T&V) system of management. The objective of the projects was to make the Kenyan extension service more effective and efficient.

Towards the end of NEP-I in 1990, the Africa Technical Department of the World Bank undertook a study to evaluate the impact of the agricultural extension projects it had supported in Kenya and Burkina Faso. The Kenya study (Bindlish and Evenson, 1993) estimated the returns to extension at 350% (marginal internal rate of return), with a “lower bound” estimate of 160%. The returns to extension in Burkina Faso (Bindlish, Evenson and Gbetibouo, 1993) were estimated in a similar fashion at 91%. These studies and their findings received wide attention in the Bank and elsewhere.

At a time when many borrower countries were becoming disenchanted with the T&V approach because of its perceived high cost, as well as increasing concern within the Bank about “results on the ground” from the extension portfolio, the high estimated returns were greeted with skepticism in some quarters (World Bank, 1994, subsequently published in Purcell and Anderson, 1997). Nevertheless, since the estimates were arrived at by using household survey data, collected by an independent agency (the Central Bureau of Statistics) rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, and were based on formal statistical methods, the high estimated returns lent credibility to the claims made by the supporters of T&V. The findings vindicated the Bank’s stated policy of using extension as a major plank in the overall rural development strategy for Africa (Cleaver, 1993). Hence, the Bank speeded up its already rapid pace of introducing the T&V system in Africa to the extent that, at the end of 1997, 22 countries had a national extension program using the T&V system of management, with active Bank projects supporting a total investment of over $700 million.

The present note is part of an impact evaluation study by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) of the investment in agricultural extension in Kenya supported by the two World Bank projects, NEP-I and II. The purpose of this particular note is to test the robustness of the widely disseminated assessment of the economic returns to agricultural extension in Kenya estimated by Bindlish and Evenson (1993, revised in 1997). The matter is examined within the limits of the available cross-sectional data and the findings of this enquiry should, therefore, be considered as preliminary. The fuller OED study when complete will use panel data to overcome the limitations imposed by cross-sectional analysis and is expected to provide more robust results. Nevertheless, the findings in this paper do highlight the shortcomings of cross-sectional data to inform policy decisions.

Specifically, three issues that could potentially have an important bearing on the results of Bindlish and Evenson (hereafter B&E) are addressed. The first, related to the use of crosssectional data by B&E, is the sensitivity of their results to possible omitted factors, particularly region-specific effects due to natural productivity potential or other factors. The second is the sensitivity of the estimated returns to the functional form used for modeling agricultural 3 production. The third concerns data-related problems. All three are, in the final analysis, empirical issues, although the first two follow from well-established theoretical considerations in dealing with cross-sectional data and technology specification. As the following discussion explains, the results are sensitive to omitted regional effects and data considerations, but are seemingly robust with respect to the functional form for the production function.

$$en!!