36

 In the U.S., on the other hand, in recent years some people argue

that most farmers have enough sources of technical information, and that

there is little justification for having major public programs exclusively

oriented to serving a small clientele of successful farmers. Instead,

they suggest that a new direction for extension could be general adult

nonformal education and assistance, particularly for poverty-stricken

people in both rural and urban areas.1 Others suggest that extension

agents work with small businessmen in general.

 Crucial to making an extension system function effectively to

meet whatever goals are established for it are the incentives which shape

the behavior of the agents. Leonard believes that the manner in which

promotions are made within an extension service is one of the most

critical incentives.

 But what criteria are to be used for making promotions? Senority?

Number of adopters? Area of adoption? Quantities of inputs distributed?

Subjective feelings of farmers about the value of the extension agent?

Moreover, how can this performance be monitored? Will it depend on internal

reporting? If so, are these internal statistics likely to be distorted?

Considerable thought must be given to structuring the career ladder and

internal incentives of the extension system so that the induced behavior

is consistent with desired policy outcomes. As general guidelines,

Leonard suggests that efforts be made to hire only those who would eventually

be capable of promotion; that at least 25 percent of employees receive

substantial promotions within 10-15 years; and that promotions and upgrading


 Paul Miller, The Cooperative Extension Service: Paradoxical
Servant The Rural Precedent in Continuing Education (Syracuse:
Syracuse University Publications in Continuing Education, 1973).