the 1960's had over a dozen separate extension agencies, and the

coordination problems were substantial.1

 U.S. international programs in extension were based on a partial

adaptation of a model of organization which had emerged in the U.S.,

namely the tripartite system of agricultural research, education and

extension, all based on the land-grant college. Many observers in

the early post-war years, naively confident of the advances which had

already been made in agricultural science research, felt that agri-

cultural extension was the main bottleneck. In 1952 the Director

of the U.S. Office of Foreign Agriculture Relations stressed the role

of extension:
 In these programs of agricultural technical assistance, the
 main lines of endeavor are in the three fields of research,
 resident education, and extension--a triumvirate long estab-
 lished in this country but virtually unknown in many parts
 of the world. Of2these, extension, as we know it, is usually
 the missing link.

 A critical aspect of the U.S. model of extension--namely con-

 trol over extension by county level farmers' organizations--was not

 integrated into international assistance for extension programs. The

 reasons are undoubtedly complex. Perhaps the people involved in

 international work did not fullyunderstand the significance of

 local farmer organizations and control in the U.S. and elsewhere;

 perhaps rulers of recipient countries did not want local farmer or-

 ganizations for political reasons. Whatever the reason, this trun-


 Marion Brown, "Agricultural 'Extension' in Chile: A Study
 of Institutional Transplantation," Journal of Developing Areas 4
 (January 1970).

 John J. Haggerty, "The United States Farmer and the World
 Around Him," Journal of Farm Economics 34:5 (December 1952), p. 601.