American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci.

, 16 (5): 976-983, 2016

ISSN 1818-6769
IDOSI Publications, 2016
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2016.16.5.12915

Impact of E-Agriculture on Farmer's Livelihood in Bangladesh

Sheikh Mohammed Mamur Rashid, 2Md. Rezwan Islam,
3
Md. Quamruzzaman, 3Marjana Yeasmin and 1Md. Javed Azad
1

Department of Agricultural Extension and Information System,

Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
2
Department of Finance, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
3
Department of Agronomy, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
1

Abstract: The present study analyzes the impact of e-Agriculture on farmers basic rights and quality of life.
The methodology of this study is an integration of quantitative and qualitative methods based on data
collection in Bhatbour Block of Dhighi union under Sadar Upazila of Minikganj District. Data were collected
from 133 e-Agriculture users and 45 controls. Descriptive statistics, t-test, multiple regression (B) were used
for analysis. e-Agriculture helps the farmers to increase the basic rights and improve their quality of life. The
positive changes were found of the e-Agriculture users. These results may assist to develop new policies that
support to enhance farmers livelihood.
Key words: e-Agriculture

Farmers livelihood

Quality of life

INTRODUCTION

collaboration with Katalyst (Partner of Swiss Contact & a

local agro-based NGO) and Grameenphone launched the
e-krishok initiative [3]. The purpose of these projects was
to lessen the information gap in the agriculture sector and
thus enabling the farmers with up-to-date knowledge and
advisory services which they often required. After that,
Bangladesh government came up with the idea of Digital
Bangladesh with a vision to leverage the power of ICT in
each and every public sector and service [4]. In this
consideration, Government launched several projects to
digitalize the agricultural services as well in enhancing the
quality of livelihood of the farmers. Livelihood is defined
as a set of activities involved in securing water, food,
fodder, medicine, shelter and clothing and the capacity to
acquire the above necessities by working either
individually or in group [5]. e-Agriculture services have
been growing rapidly even in the remote rural areas.
The unprecedented speed of adoption of e-Agriculture
has raised the general expectations about its potential
contributions to spread of innovative farming technology,
as well as farmers knowledge and awareness of other
relevant knowledge and information. What is the impact
of e-Agriculture on the farmers livelihood? What is the
impact on farmers attitudes to e-Agriculture in the future?
These are important questions that have not yet been

e-Agriculture as an emerging field in the intersection

of agricultural informatics, agricultural development and
entrepreneurship, referring to agricultural services,
technology dissemination and information delivered or
enhanced through the internet and related technologies
[1]. The application of e-Agriculture is still in its
elementary stage, evolving around the immense multiplier
impact tendency that can significantly change the
farmers economic and social condition i.e. empowerment.
It is pertinent to note that Bangladeshs agricultural
policy aims at ensuring food security. It also seeks to
promote the use of modern technologies. This can be
done through the use of information communication
technologies. In recognition of this, Dauda et al. [2] noted
that communication is critical to finding solution to
problems of food production through facilitating
research- farmer linkage using ICTs as well as eAgriculture. This ensures the effective and efficient use
of information and communication technologies for
analyzing, designing and implementing existing and
innovative applications to help the agricultural
stakeholders and uplift of agricultural sector. In 2008,
Bangladesh Institute of ICT in Development (BIID), in
Corresponding Author:

Extension

Sheikh Mohammed Mamur Rashid, Department of Agricultural Extension and Information System,
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. E-mail: mahin.sau@gmail.com.

976

Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 16 (5): 976-983, 2016

fully explored. Therefore, this idea of farmers livelihood

improvement by the means of e-Agriculture has been
studied to find out whether the initial wave of eAgriculture attempts made some productive impacts or
not.
The idea of e-Agriculture is still in the nascent stage
in Bangladesh context, so does it in the academic arena.
In 2003, under the Support to ICT taskforce program the
ministry of agriculture of Bangladesh did set up an
agricultural information system [6]. It is increasingly
recognized that ICT is necessary for accessing required
information and knowledge [7-11]. ICT kiosks, ICTequipped intermediary organizations and mobile phones
are expected to play an important role in improvement of
farmers livelihood. Traditional public-sector extension
services use a variety of extension programmes to
overcome barriers to technological adoption without
much success [12, 9, 11]. Historically, agricultural service
delivery in developing countries started with
production-oriented limited extension services for export
crops. The attention was diverted in the fifties to food
production and improved farming techniques [9]. The
US-led technology transfer model employed a large
number of extension agents to provide extension services.
Since then, with the rise in the demand for agricultural
services, many variants of approaches, models and
methods have been evolved to connect researchers,
extension agents, producers and consumers [12-16].
The World Bank Sponsored Training and Visit (T&V)
extension model, Farmers Field Schools (FFS) and fee-forservices are the most common approaches. In the T&V
and FFS systems, extension workers passed information
to selected contact farmers who shared information with
other farmers [12]. It is widely accepted that extension
services are an important element within the array of
market and nonmarket entities and agents that provide
human capital enhancing inputs, as well as flows of
information that can improve farmers' and other rural
peoples' welfare. However, these services delivery models
are also subject to criticisms, for example, poor and
marginalized farmers in remote villages remain beyond the
reach of appropriate services. It is widely expected to be
a useful tool contributing to development around the
world [17, 18]. It is found that ICT allows efficient and
transparent storage, processing and communication of
information and that entrepreneurial innovation in this
field may affect economic and social change [19] which
affect the farmers livelihood. World Bank found ICT was

underutilized in extension and hence the need to support

policy environments and programmes that use ICTs.
Moreover, Heeks and Molla [20] found in their ICT
evaluation compendium that ICT is not fully utilized in
agriculture. Mobile phones enable both audio and video
functions which can meet most of the basic needs of the
poor. It also has greater affordability for the farmers than
internet. In many developing countries more than 80%
population have access to mobile phones. Jensen [21]
demonstrated that the ICT helped fishers along the
coastline in Kerala, India learn about prices at different
locations and decide where to sell their products
profitably. As a result, price volatility and variation
dropped; producer prices rose and at the same time
consumer prices dropped. Aker [11] studied the impact of
the mobile phone rollout on grain markets in Niger and
show that mobile phone service has reduced grain price
dispersion across markets by a minimum of 6.4 percent
and reduced intra-annual price variation by 10 percent.
Although farmers have the real need to access to market
information, land records and services, accounting and
farm management information, management of pests and
diseases, rural development programmes and eAgriculture could help accessing these services to
improve their livelihood. Sendikumar [22] made an attempt
to study the empowerment dynamics of kerala farmers
who joined the grouped approached farming of Paddy
introduced by the kerala local government. In this regard,
he developed an Empowerment Dynamics Index (EDI) and
computed the index for the before and after joining
situation of these farmers. The result showed that this
program had statistically significant role to set up
sustainable as well as livelihood development of the
farmers in this state. So, this literature has been attempted
in this greenfield segment and perhaps the first of its kind
in Bangladeshi context. Not to mention, the researcher has
thoroughly gone through the other livelihood literatures
from which statistical the model used in the context, has
been applied. Finally the researchers attempt to assess the
impact of e-Agriculture on farmers livelihood in
Bangladesh. In particular, this paper investigates to what
extent such e-Agriculture can help farmers livelihood
improvement.
Conceptual Framework: The conceptual framework for
this study is presented in Figure 1. This illustrates the
impact of e-Agriculture on farmers livelihood chains and
their interacting variables.
977

Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 16 (5): 976-983, 2016

Fig. 1: A schematic diagram of the proposed study: What is the impact of e-Agriculture on farmers livlihood?
MATERIALS AND METHODS

= 1.96 with a confidence level of 95 %) and P, The

proportion or degree of variability = 50%; so, sample size
(n) is = 133.
Thereafter, the desired respondents size of the
control group was determined as 45. As the study groups
sample size was one third of its population, this same ratio
was applied here to determine the control group sample
size. After determining both of the sample sizes for each
of the group, a semi-structured questionnaire was
developed and printed for conducting one to one
interview. To reduce information distortion, one farmer
from each of the farming family was included in the
survey. Furthermore, to ensure similar socio-economic
conditions for both the control and test groups, a
two-way stratified random sampling technique was used,
in which education and farm size were considered as two
individual strata. Education was further categorized into
three groups: group 1 (denoted as E1), whether
respondents were illiterate or could sign only; group 2
(denoted as E2), whether respondents had primary
education or not and group 3 (denoted as E3), whether
respondents had secondary or higher. After that, farm
size was also categorized into three groups: group
1(denoted as F1), small farm group (farm size up to 0.5
hectors); group 2 (denoted as F2), medium-farm group

Data Collection and Sampling Methodology: The

researcher applied purposive sampling technique to
determine the location form where the data were collected.
The study was conducted at the Bhatbour block of Dighi
union under Manikganj Sadar Upazila, Manikganj (One of
the major districts of Bangladesh) where the government
of Bangladesh has been implementing a numbers of eAgriculture related development projects with the help of
foreign aids through Department of Agricultural Extension
(DAE). For the purpose of this study, the farmers (within
this block) those who used e-Agriculture were considered
as the study group and the farmers those who did not use
such (within this block) were considered as the control
group. According to the DAE database, in this area,
approximately 1148 farmers used e-Agricultural facilities.
To determine the sample size out of these 1148 study
group farmers, the researcher used Yamanes [23] formula:
n=

z 2 P (1 P ) N
z 2 P (1 P ) + N (e) 2

where, n = Sample size; N, Population size = 1148; e, the

level of precision = 8%; z = the value of the standard
normal variable given the chosen confidence level (e.g., z
978

Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 16 (5): 976-983, 2016

Table 1: Two-way stratified random sampling of respondents based on their level of education and farm size
Category

% of respondents

No of respondents from the study group

E1 F1
E1 F2
E1 F3
E2 F1
E2 F2
E2 F3
E3 F1
E3 F2
E3 F3

10.53
5.26
4.51
21.05
9.02
12.03
22.56
9.02
8.27

14
7
6
28
12
16
30
12
11

No of respondents from control group (one-third of the study group)

5
3
2
9
4
5
10
4
3

Total

100

133

45

Table 2: Variable measurement techniques

Category

Scoring system

Age
Education
Effective farm size
Annual household income
Farming experience
Participation in training

1 for each complete year of age of the respondent

1 for each year of school education
1 for each decimal area of land
1 for each thousand BDT income in a year
1 for each year experience
1 for each day training

Usages of e-Agriculture

Extent of Uses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 for frequently
3 for regularly 2 for occasionally
1 for rarely
O for not at all

Attitude towards e-Agriculture

Extent of Opinion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(+2) for strongly agree (+1) for agree (0) for undecided
(-1) for disagree
(-2) for strongly disagree

Organizational Participation

Nature of participation (years)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 for President/
3 for secretary 2 for executive member 1 for ordinary member 0 for no participation

Cosmopoliteness

Places of visiting (years)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 for frequently
3 for regularly 2 for occasionally
1 for rarely
O for not at all

Availability of e-Agriculture

Availability score
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 for frequently
3 for regularly 2 for occasionally
1 for rarely
O for not at all

(farm size 0.51 to 1.0 hector) and group 3 (denoted as F3),

large farm group (farm size above 1.0 hector). The twoway stratified random table is given in Table 1.
With the help of the two-way stratified random
sampling procedure, homogeneous/similar categories of
control and testing group respondents were selected and
then the proportionate random sampling technique was
used to select either study or control group respondents
from each village. Data were collected in two phases from
the same group of respondents (in August, 2013 and
September, 2015). A reserve list was maintained to fill
in the gaps if any respondent in the original list was
found missing as the same respondent in two interviews
(in August, 2013 and September, 2015). To ensure the
same respondents for the two phase interviews, 5% extra
respondents were interviewed in the first phase and in the
year of 2013 to fill in the gaps in case of any interviewed

respondent unavailability in the second phase and in the

year of 2015 interview period. The definitions of the
variables measured are shown in Table 2.
Minimizing Spill-Over Effects: The study used a
quasi-experimental survey design to resolve the problems
of endogeneity both at location level and participant level.
To overcome the transmission/contamination of
information or knowledge from e-Agriculture users to
non-users, i.e. diffusion of treatment and to avoid
downward bias, all control respondents were selected
from those villages where e-Agriculture services had not
introduced at all. These selected villages were exclusively
surveyed by the study programs, where no
organization (s) implemented a similar program within
the villages, or even outside the villages within a
considerable surrounding area. Moreover, a large distance
979

Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 16 (5): 976-983, 2016

(about 3-5 km) was maintained between the study and

control group villages within the block [24]. The study
and control group respondents were also selected to
represent both the Muslim and Hindu communities;
between the nearest two groups, if one group contained
a Muslim community, the other contained a Hindu
community [25].

where, Yi=1 is the changed basic rights, Yi=2 is the changed

in quality of life,
Of the independent variables, x1 is the respondents
age, x2 is education, x3 is farm size, x4 is annual household
income, x5 is farming experience, x is
participation in
6
training, x7 is usages of e-Agriculture, x 8 is the attitude
towards e-Agriculture, x9 is organizational participation,
x10 is cosmopoliteness, x11is the availability of eAgriculture. b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, b8, b9, b10 and b11 are
regression coefficients of the corresponding independent
variables and e is random error, which is normally and
independently distributed with zero mean and constant
variance.

Livelihood Conditions Index: The impact on farmers

livelihood was measured by determining changes in
livelihood conditions by considering e-Agriculture users
changed access to basic rights (difference between
access to basic rights and modified access to basic right)
and also changes in their quality of their life (difference
between quality of life and modified quality of life).
Each respondents total change value was considered as
his/her livelihood condition index which was also used to
determine e-Agriculture impact on his/her livelihood.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Livelihood Condition Index: The livelihood and
empowerment conditions index combines relevant
elements of livelihoods into a measurable index. This
permits measurement of changes of livelihood conditions
and to identify strategies to improve these conditions.
The livelihood condition index can also inform
transition processes by identifying developmental
pathways that allow decoupling of resource use and
emissions from human well-being. This method of
indexing allows us to establish the degree to which
e-Agriculture impacts on farmers livelihoods. Thus, all
related variables impact/changes counted using a
numerical score. All livelihood conditions were taken into
account (Table 3).
With reference to Table 3, there was a significant
difference between study group and control group
respondents impact on livelihood based on t-test
statistics (1% level of significance) value. So, it can be
said that e-Agriculture users had an overall greater
improvement in their livelihood condition.

Statistical Analysis: Data collected from the respondents

were analyzed and interpreted in accordance with the
objectives of the study. The analysis of data was
performed using statistical treatment with SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Sciences) computer
program, version 20. Statistical measures as a number,
range, mean, standard deviation were used in describing
the variables whenever applicable. In order to estimate the
contribution of the selected characteristics of farmers in
empowering them through e-Agriculture, Multiple
regression analysis (B) analysis was used. Throughout
the study, ten percent (.1) level of significance was used
as the basis for rejecting any null hypothesis. If the
computed value of (B) was equal to or greater than the
designated level of significance (p), the null hypothesis
was rejected and it was concluded that there was a
significant contribution between the concerned variable.
Whenever the computed value of (B) was found to be
smaller at the designated level of significance (p), the null
hypothesis could not be rejected. Hence, it was
concluded that there was no contribution of the
concerned variables. Changes in basic rights and changes
in quality of life were considered as the dependent
variables in order to develop multiple regression models
for identifying related factors and their level of
contribution to improving respondents livelihood
conditions. The model used for this analysis can be
explained as follows:

Variables Related on Impact of Farmers Livelihood:

In order to estimate the impact of e-Agriculture on
farmers livelihood from the independent variables,
multiple regression analysis was used which is shown in
Table 4.
The data in Table 4 test the final null hypothesis:
There is no contribution of the selected characteristics
(age, education, farm size, annual household income,
farming experience, participation in training, usages of
e-Agriculture,
attitude
towards
e-Agriculture,
organizational participation, cosmopoliteness, availability
of e-Agriculture) of farmers on their livelihood through
the impact of e-Agriculture.

Yi = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 + b4x4 + b5x5 + b6x6 + b7x7 + b8x8 +

b9x9 + b10x10+ b11x11 + e; (i=1, 2)
980

Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 16 (5): 976-983, 2016

Table 3: Distribution of study and control group respondents changes in livelihood conditions/livelihood conditions index
Livelihood indicator Variable with counting score
Basic rights

Study Group

Control Group

(changed mean value differences)

(changed mean value differences)

Change in food consumption

t-test value

0.955

0.674

3.728**

Change in food stock ability (score 1.0 for one meal stock increase/decrease)

0.891

0.476

6.080 **

Change in BMI (score 1.0 for 1 BMI increase/decrease)

0.717

0.528

5.295**

Changes in number of clothes/dresses per year

0.291

0.091

4.347**

0.089

0.056

3.162**

0.156

0.129

2.826**

0.098

0.056

3.045**

0.064

0.021

2.964**

0.168

0.108

5.263**

0.394

0.245

4.146**

(score 1.0 for each 100kcal consumption increase/decrease)

(score 1.0 for one cloth/dress increase/decrease)

Change in yearly expenditure on clothing
(score 1.0 for increasing/decreasing each BDT1000 spending ability)
Change in housing facilities
(score 1.0 for increase/decrease in type of housing facilities)
Change in sanitation facilities
(score 1.0 for increase/decrease in type of sanitation facilities)
Change in sources of drinking water facilities
(score 1.0 for increase/decrease in type of source facilities)
Change in education qualification
(score 1.0 for taking each class formal education/each week informal education)
Change in medical service facilities
(score 1.0 for increase/decrease in type of housing facilities)
Sub total
Quality of life

Change in quality of life/poverty level

3.823

3.053

0.127

0.096

3.950

3.149

7.789**

(score 1.0 for increase/decrease each poverty level)

Sub total
Total

Table 4: Multiple regression coefficients of contributing factors related to impact on livelihood of farmers through e-Agriculture
Dependent variable

Changed basic rights

Changed quality life (poverty level)

Independent variables

R2

Adj. R2

Age
Education
Farm size
Annual household income
Farming experience
Participation in training
Usages of e-Agriculture services
Attitude towards e-Agriculture
Organizational Participation
Cosmopoliteness
Availability of e-Agriculture
Age
Education
Farm size
Annual household income
Farming experience
Participation in training
Usages of e-Agriculture services
Attitude towards e-Agriculture
Organizational Participation
Cosmopoliteness
Availability of e-Agriculture

0.293
0.156
0.686
0.365
0.628
0.361
1.214
0.358
0.424
0.563
0.705
0.315
0.165
0.752
0.245
0.531
0.296
1.212
0.254
0.291
0.461
0.614

0.676
0.081*
0.032**
0.034**
0.068*
0.047**
0.000***
0.057*
0.086*
0.023**
0.069*
0.437
0.076*
0.021**
0.032*
0.082*
0.031**
0.000***
0.052*
0.063*
0.016**
0.048*

0.784

0.761

21.782

0.026**

0.831

0.814

27.642

0.017 **

*** Significant at p<0.01. ** Significant at p<0.05. * Significant at p<0.1.

In order to assess which factors contribute to

empowerment, multiple regression analysis was used.
Table 4 shows that there is a significant contribution
of respondents education, farm
size, annual
household income, usages of e-Agriculture, attitude
towards e-Agriculture, cosmopoliteness and availability

of e-Agriculture to change their basic rights through

e-Agriculture. Of these, usages of e-Agriculture, was the
most important contributing factors (significant at the 1%
level of significance). Farm size, annual household
income, participation in training and cosmopoliteness
were also the important contributing factors (significant
981

Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 16 (5): 976-983, 2016

Limitations: Further work might also be needed to cross

check the reliability of respondents comments, since this
study is limited in that respect. Another variable should
bring under consideration for further research.

at the 5% level of significance) while coefficients of

education,
farming
experience,
organizational
participation, availability of e-Agriculture and availability
of e-Agriculture are also significant at the 10% level of
significance.
78.4% (R2 = 0.784) of the variation in the
respondents changed basic rights can be attributed to
their education, farm size, annual household income,
farming experience, participation in training, usages of
e-Agriculture,
attitude
towards
e-Agriculture,
organizational participation, cosmopoliteness and
availability of e-Agriculture, making this an excellent
model (see 4). The F value indicates that the model is
significant (p<0.026). 83.4% of the variation in the
respondents changed quality of life was accounted for
by the joint predictive power of knowing education, farm
size, annual household income, farming experience,
participation in training, usages of e-Agriculture, attitude
towards e-Agriculture, organizational participation,
cosmopoliteness and availability of e-Agriculture
(R2 = 0.831), again a significant F value (p<0.017).
However, each predictor may explain some of the variance
in respondents livelihood simply by chance. The
adjusted R-square value penalizes the addition of
extraneous predictors in the model, but values of 0.761
and 0.814 still show that the variance in respondents
basic rights and their quality of life can be attributed to
the predictor variables rather than by chance and that
both are suitable models (Table 4.). In summary, the
models suggest that the respective authority should
consider the respondents education, farm size,
annual household income, farming experience,
participation in training, usages of e-Agriculture, attitude
towards e-Agriculture, organizational participation,
cosmopoliteness and availability of e-Agriculture for the
farmers livelihood improvement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher takes an opportunity to express his
boundless gratitude and heartfelt thanks to Dr.
Mohummed Shofi Ullah Mazumder, Assoc. Prof. &
Chairman, Department of Agricultural Extension &
Information System, Sher-e-Bangla
Agricultural
University, for his cognitive suggestions, unprecedented
co-operation and inspiration throughout the course of
this research work. The authors also thank to Ministry of
Science and Technology, Government of the People's
Republic of Bangladesh for providing the National
Science and Technology (NST) fellowship for this
experiment.
REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

CONCLUSION
e-Agriculture appears to have reasonably increased
respondents access to basic rights and improved quality
of life, as indicted by reduced food insecurity, improved
nutrition, food and health, improved clothing, housing,
sanitation and drinking water, better healthcare access
and education facilities. The e-Agriculture service
providing organizations should be more organized and
ensure professionalism when delivering services to the
farmers in minimizing bias. This finding is a useful policy
tool for planners, administrators and development
workers.

5.

6.

7.

982

FAO, 2005. Bridging the Rural Digital Divide.

Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy,
pp: 1.
Dauda, S., I. Anonguku and M.A. Kpamor, 2009.
Problems
associated
with
use of modern
Information Communication Technology (ICT) for
extension service delivery in Makurdi local
government area. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual
Conference of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria
held in Abuja.
New Agriculturist, 2015. e-Krishok: promoting ICTs
to farmers in Bangladesh. Retrieved from:
h t t p : / / w w w . n e w ag.info/en/focus/focusItem.php?a=2779.
A2i Program, 2014. Digital Bangladesh E-Sheba Sobar
Jonno. Access to Information Program. Prime
Ministers Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
World Bank, 2011. Promoting Womens Agency
in World Development Report 2012: Gender
Equality and Development, World Bank:
Washington, DC.
MoA (Ministry of Agriculture), 2003. ICT Taskforce
Program. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the
Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.
Richardson, D., 1997. The Internet and Rural and
Agricultural Development: An Integrated Approach.
Rome: FAO.

Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 16 (5): 976-983, 2016

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Chapman, R., T. Slaymaker and J. Young, 2004.

Livelihoods Approaches to Information and
Communication in Support of Rural Poverty
Elimination and Food Security, Overseas
Development Institute, UK Department of
International Development and Food and
Agricultural Organization.
Anandajayasekeram, P.R., Puskur, Workneh Sindu
and D. Hoekstra, 2008. Concepts and Practices in
Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries: A
Source Book. IFPRI (International Food Policy
Research Institute), Washington, DC, USA and ILRI
(International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi,
Kenya, pp: 275.
McNamara, K., 2009. Improving Agricultural
Productivity and Markets: The Role of Information
and Communication Technologies, Agriculture and
Rural Development Notes, Issue 47, April, The World
Bank, Washington DC.
Aker, J.C., 2010. Dial A for Agriculuture: Using
Information and Communication Technologies for
Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries.
Tuft University, Economics Department and Fletcher
School, Medford MA02155.
Anderson, J.R. and G. Feder, 2004. Agricultural
extension: Good intentions and hard realities. The
World Bank Research Observer, 19(1): 41-60.
Leonard, D.K., 1977. Reaching the Peasant Farmer:
Organization Theory and Practice in Kenya, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Garforth, C., 1982. "Reaching the Rural Poor: A
Review of Extension Strategies and Methods", In
Jones G E and Rolls M J (eds.), Progress in Rural
Extension and Community Development, Wiley, New
York, 1: 43-69.
Feder, Gershon, R.E. and D. Just, Zilberman, 1986.
"Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in
Developing Countries: A Survey." Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 35(1): 255-98.

983

16. Axinn, G.H., 1988. Guide on Alternative Extension

Approaches. FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.
17. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).
2001. Human Development Report 2001: Making New
Technologies Work for Human Development. New
York, Oxford University Press
18. Friedman, T.L., 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief
History of the Twenty-First Century, New York,
Farrar Straus and Giroux.
19. Kaushik, P.D. and N. Singh, 2004. Information
Technology and Broad-Based Development:
Preliminary Lessons from North India. World
Development, 32: 591-607.
20. Heeks, R. and A. Molla, 2009. Compendium on
Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development
Projects, IDRC-CERD.
21. Jensen, R., 2007. The Digital Provide: Information
(Technology) Market Performance and Welfare in the
South Indian Fisheries Sector, The Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 122(3): 879-924.
22. Sendilkumar, R., 2012. Empowerment of Farmers
through GALASA Programme: A Journey for
Sustainable Agriculture Development. Indian Res. J.
Ext. Edu., 12(3).
23. Yamane, T., 1967. Elementary Sampling Theory,
Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
24. Hulme, D., 2000. Impact assessment methodologies
for microfinance: theory, experience and better
practice. World Development, 28: 79-98.
25. Duvendack, M., R. Palmer-Jones, J.G. Copestake,
L. Hooper, Y. Loke and N. Rao, 2011. What is the
Evidence of the Impact of Microfinance on the
Well-Being of Poor People?, EPPI-Centre, Social
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London: London.