| 000 -LEADER |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
01891pab a2200169 454500 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
180718b2001 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Ojha, Gana Pati |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT |
|---|
| Title |
Partnership: a new way to enhance development process |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. |
|---|
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. |
2001 |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION |
|---|
| Extent |
p.64-78 |
| 362 ## - DATES OF PUBLICATION AND/OR SEQUENTIAL DESIGNATION |
|---|
| Dates of publication and/or sequential designation |
Aug |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. |
|---|
| Summary, etc. |
The development process can be enhanced when the state (GO), non-government (NGO), and private (PO) sectors form partnerships. This was a conclusion reached as a result of a 21-month study in east Chitwan, Nepal while comparing seven technology dissemination patterns - three individual and four partnership patterns. Guided by the farmers' needs, availability of technology and interests of agencies, technologies related to farmer-preferred rice varieties, hybrid maize and sunflower were selected for the extension. To compare the effectiveness of dissemination patterns, the research was conducted with a quasi-experiment design and information collected using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Information from 123 farmers indicated that partnerships are more effective than individual efforts in extending agricultural technologies to farmers. The effectiveness of partnership is found to be technology and farm size-specific. Adoption of imported high cost technologies took place under GO+PO partnership. With GO+NGO partnership, low cost and locally available technologies were adopted. Similarly, partnerships were specific to farmer circumstances. GO+PO partnership, low cost and locally available technologies were adopted. Similarly, partnerships were specific to farmer circumstances. GO+PO partnership was most effective in reaching large landholders while GO+NGO partnership favoured reaching small farmers. - Reproduced |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Partnership |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Agricultural development |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY |
|---|
| Main entry heading |
Administration and Management Review |
| 909 ## - |
|---|
| -- |
50188 |
