Perceptions about quality of public and private agricultural extension in Africa: Evidence from farmers in Burkina Faso

Figures & data

Table 1. Localities of the Catholic Diocese of Manga

Region	Province	Department	Extension zone	Sample size
Région du Centre-Sud	Bazèga	Toécé	Public	45
	Nahouri	Pô	Public	45
		Tiébélé	Private	45
	Zoundwéogo	Gomboussougou	Private	45
		Manga	Public	46
Région du Centre-Est	Boulgou	Zabré	Private	45

Table 2. Socio-economic Characteristics of Farmers (Continuous variables)

Variable name	Frequency		Percentage		Mean
	Public system (n = 136)	Private system (n = 135)	Public system (n = 136)	Private system (n-135)	Public system (n = 136)	Private system (n = 135)
Age					43.67 (1.24)	43.13 (1.13)
18-35 (young)	47	41	34.56	30.37
36-59 (middle age)	71	80	52.20	59.26
60-82 (old)	18	14	13.24	10.37
Total	136	135	100	100
Experience in agriculture					24.17 (5.11)	14.69 (4.81)
2-11	39	62	28.68	45.93
12-21	24	46	17.64	34.07
22-31	34	19	25	14.07
32-60	39	8	28.68	5.93
Total	136	135	100	100
Farm size					1.54 (0.12)	1.54 (0.04)
0.12-2	112	133	82.35	98.52
3-5	20	2	14.71	1.48
6-10	4	0	2.94	0
Total	136	135	100	100

Source: Field data, 2016

Table 3. Socio-economic Characteristics of Farmers (Categorical variables)

Variable name	Frequency		Percentage
	Public system (n = 136)	Private system (n = 135)	Public system (n = 136)	Private system (n = 135)
Gender
Males	117	35	86.03	25.93
Females	19	100	13.97	74.07
Total	136	135	100	100
Education status
Educated	58	23	42.65	17.04
Non educated	78	112	57.35	82.96
Total	136	135	100	100
Participation in off-farm activities
Yes	85	97	62.5	71.85
No	51	38	37.5	28.15
Total	136	135	100	100
Membership of a FBO
Yes	83	96	61.03	71.11
No	53	39	38.97	28.89
Total	136	135	100	100
Farm ownership
Personal land	19	77	13.97	57.04
Family land	115	47	84.56	34.81
Lease	2	11	1.47	8.15
Total	136	135	100	100
Crop cultivated
Maize	51	71	37.5	52.59
Peanut	7	13	5.15	9.83
Cotton	37	0	27.21	0.00
Bean	1	3	0.74	2.22
Millet	16	11	11.76	8.15
Sorghum	13	1	9.56	0.74
Sesame	11	18	8.09	13.33
Rice	0	18	0.00	13.33
Total	136	136	100	100

Source: Field data, 2016

Table 4. Farmers’ Perceptions about the Quality of Facilitation of Access to Credit

Quality attributes	Public system (n = 24)^2	Private system (n = 95)	t-value	Prob
Affordability of the service	2.46^3 (1.21.)^4	1.28 (0.58)	6.88	0.00
Appropriateness of the delivery methods	2.58 (1.33)	1.29 (0.52)	7.56	0.00
Availability of the service	2.87 (1.51)	1.26 (0.51)	8.69	0.00
Relevance of the service	2.2 (1.29)	1.32 (0.59)	5.24	0.00
Timeliness of the service	3.33 (1.17)	1.19 (0.46)	14.08	0.00

Classification: 1. Very Satisfied, 2. Satisfied, 3. Undecided, 4. Dissatisfied, 5. Very Dissatisfied

Source: Field data, 2016

Table 5. Farmers’ Perceptions about the Quality of Facilitation of Input Provision

Quality attributes	Public system (n = 39)	Private system (n = 87)	t-value	Prob
Affordability of the service	2.41 (1.23)	1.45 (0.5)	6.25	0.00
Appropriateness of the delivery methods	2.92 (1.57)	1.38 (0.55)	10.14	0.00
Availability of the service	3.51 (1.12)	1.42 (0.52)	14.31	0.00
Relevance of the service	2.37 (0.94)	1.44 (0.56)	6.92	0.00
Timeliness of the service	3.28 (1.17)	1.37 (0.48)	13.02	0.00

Classification: 1. Very Satisfied, 2. Satisfied, 3. Undecided, 4. Dissatisfied, 5. Very Dissatisfied

Source: Field data, 2016

Table 6. Farmers’ Perceptions about the Quality of Facilitation of Technical Support

Quality attributes	Public system (n = 40)	Private system (n = 96)	t-value	Prob
Affordability of the service	2.1 (1.15)	1.42 (0.58)	4.54	0.00
Appropriateness of the delivery methods	2.82 (1.26)	1.34 (0.54)	9.63	0.00
Availability of the service	2.87 (0.94)	1.36 (0.54)	11.74	0.00
Relevance of the service	2.15 (0.97)	1.49 (0.58)	5.20	0.00
Timeliness of the service	2.95 (1.20)	1.36 (0.54)	10.63	0.00

Classification: 1. Very Satisfied, 2. Satisfied, 3. Undecided, 4. Dissatisfied, 5. Very Dissatisfied

Source: Field data, 2016

Table 7. Farmers’ Perceptions about the Quality of Facilitation of Access to Market

Quality attributes	Public system (n = 11)	Private system (n = 26)	t-value	Prob
Affordability of the service	2.72 (1.19)	1.19 (0.63)	5.13	0.00
Appropriateness of the delivery methods	3.00 (1.26)	1.23 (0.65)	5.64	0.00
Availability of the service	2.45 (0.93)	1.31 (0.68)	4.19	0.00
Relevance of the service	2.72 (1.27)	1.27 (0.67)	4.59	0.00
Timeliness of the service	3.18 (0.98)	1.27 (0.67)	6.90	0.00

Classification: 1. Very Satisfied, 2. Satisfied, 3. Undecided, 4. Dissatisfied, 5. Very Dissatisfied

Source: Field data, 2016

Table 8. Overall Perceptions about the Quality of Services

Variables	Public system	Private system	t-value	Prob
Perceptions about quality of technical support	2.58 (0.55)	1.39 (0.48)	12.67	0.00
Perceptions about quality of facilitation of access to credit	2.71 (0.92)	1.27 (0.42)	11.29	0.00
Perceptions about quality of facilitation of access to market	2.82 (0.73)	1.25 (0.62)	6.67	0.00
Perceptions about quality of facilitation of input provision	2.90 (1.26)	1.41 (0.43)	16.25	0.00

Classification: 1. Very Satisfied, 2. Satisfied, 3. Undecided, 4. Dissatisfied, 5. Very Dissatisfied

Source: Field data, 2016