Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cawley 2018
Cawley 2018
doi:10.1093/aepp/ppx062
Submitted Article
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level
Income: An Instrumental Variable Approach to
Combat Endogeneity Concerns
Anthony Cawley, Cathal O’Donoghue, Kevin Heanue,
Rachel Hilliard, and Maura Sheehan
Anthony Cawley is a Walsh Fellow at the Teagasc Rural Economy and Development
Program, Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland, and a PhD candidate at the National
University of Ireland, Galway. Cathal O’Donoghue is Dean of the College of Arts,
Social Sciences and Celtic Studies at the National University of Ireland, Galway.
Kevin Heanue is Evaluation Officer at the Business Planning and Performance
Evaluation Department Teagasc, Athenry. Rachel Hilliard is a Senior Lecturer in
Management at the National University of Ireland, Galway. Maura Sheehan is a
Professor of International Management at Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland.
*Correspondence to be sent to: anthony.cawley@teagasc.ie.
Journal editor: Prof. Spiro Stefanou
C The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural and Applied
V
Economics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
1
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
extension service for rural land managers funded largely from general taxa-
tion and delivered by public organizations (Garforth et al. 2003). Indeed,
governments actively promote extension services as a means of knowledge
diffusion and technology adoption, and also to develop innovative solutions
to emerging challenges (L€apple and Hennessy 2015). This form of public ex-
tension service has since been supplemented by the private sector with the
common objective of improving the performance of farmers. There are
many challenges for the agricultural sector, such as the need to strike a bal-
ance between increasing productivity to feed a growing global population
and reducing negative environmental externalities, including climate
change. Coupled with this responsibility is a financial challenge as global
economies navigate turbulent macroeconomic cycles, and there is a renewed
emphasis on “value for money” for public expenditure. Extension services
are important in these circumstances as they can act as policy levers to
change existing behavior, but must represent a worthy investment for
policymakers. Furthermore, extension clients must also experience a value
for money return from participation given the fee level paid, particularly
given existing income challenges caused by economic volatility, and a
strong reliance on subsidies (O’Donoghue and Hennessy 2015). Therefore,
estimating the impact of extension participation on farm income is prudent
and ensures a common outcome is measured regardless of the type of exten-
sion activity employed. In order to achieve this it is imperative that the esti-
mation is robust and unbiased, as a plethora of confounding factors also
influence this impact. In this paper this obstacle is overcome by instrument-
ing the extension variable to remove these influences.
Many studies show that interaction with extension services affects income
levels (Dercon et al. 2009; Davis et al. 2012; L€apple and Hennessy 2015).
Anderson and Feder (2004) reviewed previous studies on extension impact,
and whilst positive results are common, there is variability within these
results and they warned that results should be treated with caution given
the econometric challenges. Indeed, the inconsistency in research findings
could be partly due to the broad range of extension methods and outcome
measures (L€apple and Hennessy 2015) and therefore, the assessment of im-
pact across disparate ranges is the major challenge for this type of research
(Ragasa et al. 2016). However, from a policy perspective the impact of these
services is the ultimate criterion (Birner et al. 2009) and thus the key objec-
tive of this research is to provide a robust causal estimation of the impact of
extension participation on farm income. Providing an accurate and valid es-
timation of impact can assist the policy formulation process as policymakers
can rely on the likely impact of an initiative with greater precision. In order
to achieve this, it is critically important that the estimation addresses econo-
metric concerns related to the issue of endogeneity.
The econometric issue of endogeneity is typically caused by omitted vari-
able bias, measurement error, and self-selection biases. Failure to combat
endogeneity may lead to incorrect inferences on the causal relationship be-
tween extension participation and farm income (Akobundu et al. 2004;
Abdallah et al. 2015). The omission of an innate ability variable among ex-
tension participants could overestimate the true effect of extension on farm
income. Conversely, measurement error is likely to underestimate the true
effect of this relationship (Card 1999). Similarly, self-selection biases are im-
plicit in this research with the motivation to engage with extension being a
critical element of estimating impact (Nordin and Höjgård 2016). For
2
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
example, more capable farmers may be more motivated to engage with ex-
tension services to augment their performance, whereas weaker farmers
may be less likely to participate.
The Instrumental Variable (IV) approach is dependent on identifying suit-
able instruments that affect the endogenous variable in question but do not
impact directly on the dependent variable. In our case, such an instrument
must affect the decision to participate in extension services, but not impact
farm family income directly. These instruments “purge” the endogenous
regressors and allow consistent coefficient estimates (Gabel and Scheve
2007). Distance from the local advisory office and the introduction of a pol-
icy change in 2005 are chosen as appropriate instruments to meet these con-
ditions. The former is expected to negatively affect the decision to
participate but is uncorrelated with farm income, whereas the latter incen-
tivized participation for assistance with subsidy applications decoupled
from current production based on historical receipts across all farming sys-
tems. These instruments enable the evaluation of the impact of extension on
farm level income over the 2000–2013 period.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: initially the context
for extension services in Ireland is outlined, followed by a review of the rele-
vant literature. Next there is an overview of the methodology and data.
Finally, the results are discussed, and the conclusion outlines the policy
implications, along with some limitations and recommendations for future
research.
Context
Agricultural extension programs are operated by multifunctional organi-
zations that provide advisory services to the farming sector. Extension pro-
grams could be viewed as risk management devices from policy makers to
mitigate issues in the rural economy, or as drivers of growth at the farm
level to ensure that best practices are followed systematically. L€apple,
Hennessy, and Newman (2013) summarized the definition and purpose of
extension services as a program to improve farm performance and introduce
new technologies to connect emerging research to on-farm practices. Thus,
extension programs assist farmers to overcome barriers to achieving set
goals due to a lack of knowledge, motivation, resources, insight, and power,
or a combination of these (Van den Ban and Hawkins 1988). Extension pro-
grams aim to assist farmers on issues such as productivity, food safety, and
the environment, among others (Boyle 2008).
The extension service in Irish agriculture consists of both public and pri-
vate consultants, with clients split relatively evenly among both types.
Prager et al. (2016) estimated that approximately 250 private advizers
(mainly represented by the Agricultural Consultants Association) were in
operation alongside 250 Teagasc advizers. Teagasc is the main body for the
public delivery of agricultural research, advice, and training since 1988; it is
a unique organization that combines research, extension services, and edu-
cation (Prager et al. 2016), and 30% of the operating budget of approxi-
mately e160 million annually is directed towards extension programs
(Teagasc 2016). The research reported here uses data referring to Teagasc cli-
ents only for two reasons: first, the level of public expenditure allocated to
this public extension system, and second, data constraints related to private
extension organizations and their clients. Indeed, as the majority of private
3
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Literature Review
The dominant theme in previous studies on the impact of extension par-
ticipation on farm level outcomes is that of variability across the results
(Anderson and Feder 2004). Given the complexity of narrowing the focus of
research, the variety in types of extension programs, the diversity of out-
comes to measure, and the diversity of methodological options, this variabil-
ity and inconsistency is not surprising (L€apple and Hennessy 2015).
However, an IV approach to the impact of extension is not common in the
literature given the challenge of identifying suitable instruments, a challenge
which this study aims to address.
Much of the literature analyses the relationship between extension partici-
pation and productivity with studies reporting a positive relationship be-
tween extension investment and output yields (Griliches 1964; Marsh,
Pannell, and Linder 2004). Similarly, analysis of the impact of one-to-one
consultations and productivity also identified positive relationships
(Owens, Hoddinott, and Kinsey 2003) although in one case the levels dimin-
ished over time (Krishnan and Patnam 2014). Participatory extension techni-
ques have also been studied in relation to farm yields, with positive
outcomes reported in terms of increased crops (Davis et al. 2012) and milk
yields per cow (L€apple and Hennessy 2015). In contrast, Hunt et al. (2014)
found that the impact of extension services on productivity declined over
time due to capacity constraints.
Specifically in relation to extension participation and financial returns
there are recent studies on participatory extension programs’ impact in
4
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
terms of increased gross margin per hectare of e310 in the Irish dairy sector
(L€apple, Hennessy, and Newman 2013), and an increase of e150 gross mar-
gin per dairy cow also in Ireland (L€apple and Hennessy 2015). The former
study employed an endogenous switching model, whereas the latter utilized
propensity score matching methods to address endogeneity using panel
data sets. Davis et al. (2012) also found a positive effect using the propensity
score matching method identifying income gains of 21% to 104% in selected
African nations. These studies adopt extension participation as a binary var-
iable based on participation. The switching model method relies on condi-
tional expectations of impact based on non-participation in the extension
program compared with the actual results. The main advantage of the
switching model is that it combats self-selection biases but it is based on the
hypothetical case of an outcome. The propensity score matching approach is
effective but relies on a number of decisive steps based on the quality of
data and underpinning assumptions often involving a trade-off between
bias and efficiency (Caliendo and Kopeinig 2008).
These studies utilized various econometric methodologies but endogene-
ity concerns were not central to the analysis and they did not employ the IV
approach, which may lead to incorrect inferences due to uncontrolled biases
that remain (Akobundu et al. 2004; Abdallah et al. 2015). Indeed, whereas
some studies may prioritize a particular form of bias to control, the IV ap-
proach combats multiple forms of endogenous biases (Card 1999; Cawley
and Meyerhoefer 2012; Howley, O’Neill, and Atkinson 2015). Thus, the IV
approach is superior in that it removes the need to prioritize specific types
of bias over others, but combats all forms, ensuring an improved estimation
of extension impact on farms. IV estimation can consistently estimate coeffi-
cients that will almost certainly be close to the true coefficient value if the
sample size is sufficiently large (Murray 2006). However, this approach is
dependent on the precondition of identifying appropriate instruments,
which often proves challenging.
Accordingly, studies on the impact of extension engagement on farm-
level income using an IV approach are less common but there are excep-
tions. Nordin and Höjgård (2016) applied an IV methodology to evaluate ex-
tension services in Sweden and found both a societal and farm-level benefit
to participation in relation to nutrient management. The mean number of
adviser visits to a farm was adopted as an instrument for the actual number
of visits to a specific farm based on a positive relationship between the
agent’s expertise and farm type. Nordin and Höjgård (2016) found that OLS
estimates underestimated the benefits of the extension program compared
to the corrected IV estimates. Akobundu et al. (2004) utilized this approach
and found a U.S. extension program that incorporated both one-to-one and
group-based activities increased net farm income, but the level of return re-
lied on the intensity of participation. These researchers utilized the distance
to local extension office, the intensity of participation captured through the
number of adviser on-farm visits, and the level of household debt with
higher debts classified as more likely to increase adviser visits, as suitable
instruments. Similarly, Heanue and O’Donoghue (2014) found positive eco-
nomic outcomes for farmers who participated in agricultural education in
terms of farm income and the internal rate of return to investment, also us-
ing an IV approach. As instruments, they used the distance to local agricul-
tural college and the introduction of a policy change. This study follows on
from that work but instead focuses solely on Teagasc extension clients.
5
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Methodology
Birkhaeuser, Evenson, and Feder (1991) identified a number of problems
associated with assessing the impact of extension activities such as the phase
of the farmers’ development cycle, policy and market influences, and infor-
mation flows, but the predominant issue is that of endogeneity. An endoge-
nous explanatory variable exists when the variable is correlated with the
error term (Wooldridge 2013). This means that the estimated coefficient for
that variable will be inconsistent and biased as its magnitude is somewhat
determined by the error term. This may lead to inaccurate interpretations of
the effects of findings unless appropriate action is undertaken (Abdallah
et al. 2015).
Endogeneity has three primary causes. Firstly, omitted variable bias
causes an obvious problem for analysis as a farmer’s innate ability, effort,
ambition, or motivation would have an effect on the impact of extension en-
gagement, yet this data is unobserved. Secondly, self-selection bias is a
methodological error caused by initial differences between participants and
non-participants due to the conscious decision to enroll in an extension pro-
gram or not (Imbens and Wooldridge 2009; Nordin and Höjgård 2016).
6
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
7
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
y2 ¼ p0 þ p1 z1 þ p2 z2 þ p3 z1 z2 þ pX þ v2 (1)
y1 ¼ b0 þ b1 ^y 2 þ bX þ u1 (2)
8
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
Data
Specific data was required to conduct this analysis. Firstly, it was impor-
tant to observe participants and non-participants in extension programs.
This was the basis of our endogenous variable. A binary variable was estab-
lished based on extension participation with Teagasc coded with a value of
1 for clients, and 0 otherwise. Thus, non-participants were identified as all
observations that are not recorded as Teagasc clients. While this binary vari-
able is imperfect in the sense of not differentiating between types of engage-
ment as noted previously, it does provide an initial aggregated value for
extension in terms of extension participation that is testable, which is a com-
mon approach in the literature. Teagasc clients include annual contract hold-
ers as well as those that use the service for scheme assistance, defined as
participation solely for the purpose of fulfilling bureaucratic requirements to
receive subsidy payments as opposed to technical advice. Annual contracts
involve “packages” of services that include combinations of events, discus-
sion groups, farm walks, consultations, and news. Farm family income,
which includes subsidies, was used as the dependent variable as it provides
a useful barometer of performance, particularly over time, and reflects the
total income accrued to the household related to farm-based activities. In ad-
dition, this measure also captures the effect of extension participation, re-
gardless of which type of service was adopted. Furthermore, additional
factors that influence farm income, such as the geographic location, farm
system, and other characteristics were also included. These data were de-
rived from the Teagasc National Farm Survey (NFS).
The Teagasc NFS is an annual panel data source collected as part of the
Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) required by the European Union.
The NFS consists of approximately 1,100 farms per annum representing ap-
proximately 110,000 farms of the population in Ireland (L€apple and
Hennessy 2015). This dataset determines the financial situation on Irish
farms by measuring the level of gross output, margins, costs, income, invest-
ment, and indebtedness across the spectrum of farming systems, sizes and
profiles in the various regions (Connolly et al. 2010). Panel data allows the
tracking of the same farms over time, which enriches analysis of this type as
some farms may opt in, opt out, avoid, return, or engage constantly with ex-
tension services.
For the purpose of this analysis, and given that the introduction of the
Single Farm Payment policy change in 2005 was chosen as an instrument,
the sample selected prioritized farms that were in the sample prior to this
period, but only became Teagasc clients subsequently. This refines the sam-
ple, and exploits a natural experiment by causing exogenous variation in an
otherwise endogenous variable (Wooldridge 2010). This ensures we focus
on a similar group of farmers who were likely to have been motivated to be-
come clients in response to the policy change. Including the full sample
increases the variation in the results due to the inclusion of “self-selecting”
farmers who may have participated into extension services for reasons out-
lined above regardless of the policy change (L€apple and Hennessy 2015).
Each observation employed an average population weight recorded on the
NFS over the period to ensure the sample was representative of the general
farming population (Buckley et al. 2016). Accordingly, the final sample size
is 8,951 observations over the years 2000–2013 inclusive for the models
9
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
10
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
11
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Results
Although we expect that OLS estimation would lead to bias in the results,
these estimates are presented in addition to the IV estimates to illustrate the
scale of the difference between both estimation methods when endogeneity
concerns are addressed. Furthermore, the three instruments were inserted
cumulatively to monitor each effect on the dependent variable and subse-
quent diagnostic statistics. Thus, in total four models were estimated, one
using OLS, and the others using IV with one, two, and three instruments
inserted, respectively.
12
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
on 23 February 2018
Table 1 Data Description and Summary Statistics
FFI/ha Family farm income (e) per ha 456.60 434.52 1,798.38 3,572.29
13
Mainly Sheep ¼ 1 if mainly sheep 0.12 0.33 0 1
Tillage ¼ 1 if tillage 0.05 0.21 0 1
Region: Border ¼ 1 if farm is in the border region 0.20 0.40 0 1
Dublin ¼ 1 if farm is in the Dublin region 0.01 0.10 0 1
East ¼ 1 if farm is in the east region 0.09 0.28 0 1
Midlands ¼ 1 if farm is in the midlands 0.11 0.31 0 1
Southwest ¼ 1 if farm is in the southwest 0.10 0.30 0 1
Southeast ¼ 1 if farm is in the southeast 0.14 0.35 0 1
South ¼ 1 if farm is in the south region 0.18 0.38 0 1
Medium Soil 0.40 0.49 0 1
Note: All variables were recorded over the period 2000 to 2013.
Given this data, IV models were estimated by analyzing the impact on farm family income.
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Advisory
Participation Coeff. (SE) p value Coeff. (SE) p value Coeff. (SE) p value
SFP Policy 0.530 (0.010) .000 0.531 (0.010) .000 0.565 (0.016) .000
Change
Dist. Adv 0.002 (0.001) .000 0.001 (0.001) .649
Office
Interaction 0.004 (0.001) .004
Term
CD Wald 2639.20 1331.86 891.43
F Stat
Note: The n ¼ 8,951, endogenous regressor (Advisory Participation), 3 instruments (Single Farm
Payment year, Distance to advisory office and Interaction of both), additional explanatory variables in-
cluded land value, farm system, labor, size, off-farm job, age, region, stocking density, and soil group. A
P value <.01 indicates statistical significance at the 1% level, and the Cragg-Donald Wald F Stat meas-
ures relevancy of instruments
office is added, both instruments remain significant at the 1% level and the
signs are as expected, with the policy change being positive and the distance
being negative. However, the magnitude of the distance instrument is rela-
tively small. This could be due to the fact that there were 90 local Teagasc
offices in existence before a restructuring plan was introduced in 2009. Thus,
the average distance increased after the office closures, as noted previously.
Accordingly, the relative distances to local offices were not practically large.
Once all three instruments are applied, the distance becomes positive and
insignificant. However, as the interactive term is included, this variable
becomes significant and negative as expected, showing the conditional influ-
ence of distance after the introduction of the policy change. The Cragg-
Donald Wald F statistic illustrates the joint significance of the instruments
and shows a strong positive relationship between all 3 instruments and the
dependent variable in the first stage. In our case, Stock, Wright, and Yogo
(2002) limit of 10 is easily exceeded and we can conclude that the instru-
ments are relevant.
14
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
IV – 1 IV – 2 IV – 3
OLS Instrument Instruments Instruments
Note: The n ¼ 8,951, additional explanatory variables included year, land value, farm system, labor,
size, off-farm job, age, region, stocking density and soil group; standard errors appear in parenthesis;
Asterisks represent statistical significance of p values: *** for 1% significance; ** for 5% significance;
and * for 10% significance. Full tables of results available in appendix A; Sargan Overidentification P
Value >.1 means that we fail to reject that the null of the instruments are valid, not applicable with 1 in-
strument as the equation is exactly identified.
15
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
16
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
References
Abdallah, W., M. Goergen, and N. O’Sullivan. 2015. Endogeneity: How Failure to
Correct for It Can Cause Wrong Inferences and Some Remedies. British Journal of
Management 26: 791–804.
Akobundu, E., J. Alwang, A. Essel, G.W. Norton, and A. Tegene. 2004. Does
Extension Work? Impacts of a Program to Assist Limited-Resource Farmers in
Virginia. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 26: 361–72.
Anderson, J.R., and G. Feder. 2004. Agricultural Extension: Good Intentions and
Hard Realities. The World Bank Research Observer 19: 41–60.
Birkhaeuser, D., R.E. Evenson, and G. Feder. 1991. The Economic Impact of
Agricultural Extension: A Review. Economic Development and Cultural Change 39:
607–50.
Birner, R., K. Davis, J. Pender, E. Nkonya, P. Anandajayasekeram, J. Ekboir, A.
Mbabu, et al. 2009. From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and
Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension 15: 341–55.
Boyle, G. 2008. A Future Driven by Knowledge and Innovation. In Growing
Knowledge - Fifty Years of Research and Development in Irish Farming and Food, ed. M.
Miley, 193–205. Carlow: Teagasc Publications Office.
Buckley, C., D.P. Wall, B. Moran, S. O’Neill, and P.N.C. Murphy. 2016. Phosphorous
Management on Irish Dairy Farms Post Controls Introduced under the EU Nitrates
Directive. Agricultural System 142: 1–8.
Burgess, S., F. Dudbridge, and S.G. Thompson. 2016. Combining Information on
Multiple Instrumental Variables in Mendelian Randomization: Comparison of
Allele Score and Summarized Data Methods. Statistics in Medicine 35: 1880–906.
Caliendo, M., and S. Kopeinig. 2008. Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation
of Propensity Score Matching. Journal of Economic Surveys 22: 31–82.
Callan, T., and C. Harmon. 1999. The Economic Return to Schooling in Ireland. Labour
Economics 6: 543–50.
Card, D. 1993. Using Geographic Variation in College Proximity to Estimate the
Return to Schooling. NBER Working Paper no. 4483, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1999. The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings. Handbook of Labor Economics
3: 1801–63.
17
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Cawley, J., and C. Meyerhoefer. 2012. The Medical Care Costs of Obesity: An
Instrumental Variables Approach. Journal of Health Economics 31: 219–30.
Coccia, M. 2008. Spatial Mobility of Knowledge Transfer and Absorptive Capacity:
Analysis and Measurement of the Impact within the Geoeconomic Space. Journal of
Technology Transfer 33: 105–22.
Connolly, L., A. Kinsella, A.C. Quinlan, and B. Moran. 2010. National Farm Survey.
Carlow: Teagasc Publications Office.
Davis, K., E. Nkonya, E. Kato, D.A. Mekonnen, M. Odendo, R. Miiro, and J. Nkuba.
2012. Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in
East Africa. World Development 40: 402–13.
Dercon, S., D. Gilligan, J. Hoddinott, and T. Woldehanna. 2009. The Impact of
Agricultural Extension and Roads on Poverty and Consumption Growth in Fifteen
Ethiopian Villages. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91: 1007–21.
Donnellan, T., K. Hanrahan, and T. Hennessy. 2008. Study on the Functioning of
Land Markets in the EU Member States under the Influence of Measures Applied
under the Common Agricultural Policy, RMIS 5881. Carlow: Teagasc Publications
Office.
Gabel, M., and K. Scheve. 2007. Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on
Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables. American Journal of Political Science 51:
1013–28.
Garforth, C., B. Angell, J. Archer, and K. Green. 2003. Fragmentation or Creative
Diversity? Options in the Provision of Land Management Advisory Services. Land
Use Policy 20: 323–33.
Griliches, Z. 1964. Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Agricultural
Production Function. The American Economic Review 54: 961–74.
Gujarati, D.N. 2003. Basic Econometrics. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hanrahan, K., T. Hennessy, A. Kinsella, and B. Moran. 2014. Teagasc National Farm
Survey 2013. Carlow: Teagasc Publications Office.
Heanue, K., and C. O’Donoghue. 2014. The Economic Returns to Formal Agricultural
Education. Carlow: Teagasc Publications Office.
Hennessy, T., and K. Heanue. 2012. Quantifying the Effect of Discussion Group
Membership on Technology Adoption and Farm Profit on Dairy Farms. The Journal
of Agricultural Education and Extension 18: 41–54.
Hennessy, T., and T. Rehman 2007. An Investigation into Factors Affecting the
Occupational Choices of Nominated Farm Heirs in Ireland. Journal of Agricultural
Economics 58: 61–75.
Howley, P., S. O’Neill, and R. Atkinson. 2015. Who Needs Good Neighbors?
Environment and Planning A 47: 939–56.
Hunt, W., C. Birch, F. Vanclay, and J. Coutts. 2014, Recommendations Arising from
an Analysis of Changes to the Australian Agricultural Research, Development and
Extension System. Food Policy 44: 129–41.
Imbens, G.W., and J.M. Wooldridge. 2009. Recent Developments in the Econometrics
of Program Evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature 47: 5–86.
Krishnan, P., and M. Patnam. 2014. Neighbours and Extension Agents in Ethiopia:
Who Matters More for Technology Adoption? American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 96: 308–327.
L€apple, D., and T. Hennessy. 2015. Assessing the Impact of Financial Incentives in
Extension Programs: Evidence from Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 66:
781–95.
———. 2015. Exploring the Role of Incentives in Agricultural Extension Programs.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 37: 403–17.
L€apple, D., T. Hennessy, and C. Newman. 2013. Quantifying the Economic Return to
Participatory Extension Programs in Ireland: an Endogenous Switching Regression
Analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics 64: 467–82.
18
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
19
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Appendices
Coeff SE p Coeff SE p
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family Instrumental Variable
Income per ha OLS Regression Regression – 1 Instrument
20
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
Continued
Coeff SE p Coeff SE p
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family Instrumental Variable
Income per ha OLS Regression Regression – 1 Instrument
Galway, Mayo,
Roscommon
Stocking Density 0.42 0.02 0.00 0.40 0.02 0.00
Medium Soil 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00
Poor Soil 0.01 0.04 0.77 0.03 0.03 0.37
Constant 5.08 0.17 0.00 5.05 0.17 0.00
Number of 8,951 8,951
Observations
Centred R2 0.22 0.22
Cragg-Donald Wald F 2639.20
Statistic (Weak
Instrument)
Sargan statistic p value 0.000
(Overidentification
Test)
Note: The endogenous regressor is (Advisory Participation); 1 instrument (Single Farm Payment year
policy change); border region omitted for collinearity; dairy system omitted for collinearity; good soil
omitted for collinearity; standard errors adjusted for heterogeneity; p value > 0.1 denotes significance at
the 10% level, p value > 0.05 at the 5% level, and p value > 0.01 at the 1% level; Stock, Wright, and
Yogo (2002) argue that a Wald F Statistic <10 is considered weak; Sargan Statistic void due to equation
being exactly identified.
21
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Coeff SE p Coeff SE p
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family Instrumental Variable Instrumental Variable
Income per ha Regression – 2 Instruments Regression – 3 Instruments
Continued
22
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
Continued
Coeff SE p Coeff SE p
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family Instrumental Variable Instrumental Variable
Income per ha Regression – 2 Instruments Regression – 3 Instruments
Note: The endogenous regressor is (Advisory Participation in both models); 2 instruments (Single Farm
Payment policy change and Distance to advisory office); 3 Instruments (Single Farm Payment policy
change, Distance to advisory office and Interaction of both); border region omitted for collinearity; dairy
system omitted for collinearity; good soil omitted for collinearity; standard errors are adjusted for hetero-
geneity; a p value > 0.1 denotes significance at the 10% level, p value > 0.05 at the 5% level, and p value
> 0.01 at the 1% level; Stock, Wright, and Yogo (2002) argue that a Wald F Statistic <10 considered
weak; Sargan Statistic for overidentification p value > 0.1 fails to reject a null hypothesis of the instru-
ments’ validity.
23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Coeff SE p Coeff SE p
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family Instrumental Variable Instrumental Variable
Income per ha Regression – Sfpyr only Regression –1 Dist. only
24
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
Continued
Coeff SE p Coeff SE p
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family Instrumental Variable Instrumental Variable
Income per ha Regression – Sfpyr only Regression –1 Dist. only
Note: The endogenous regressor is (Advisory Participation in both models); 1instrument in each (Single
Farm Payment policy change and Distance to advisory office respectively); border region omitted for col-
linearity; dairy system omitted for collinearity; good soil omitted for collinearity; standard errors are ad-
justed for heterogeneity; p value > 0.1 denotes significance at the 10% level, p value > 0.05 at the 5%
level, and p value > 0.01 at the 1% level; Stock, Wright, and Yogo (2002) argue that a Wald F Statistic
<10 is considered weak.
25
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Coeff SE p Coeff SE p
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family
Income per ha OLS Model pre 2005 OLS Model post 2005
26
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
The Impact of Extension Services on Farm-level Income
Continued
Coeff SE p Coeff SE p
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family
Income per ha OLS Model pre 2005 OLS Model post 2005
Note: Border region is omitted for collinearity; dairy system omitted for collinearity; good soil omitted for
collinearity; standard errors adjusted for heterogeneity; p value > 0.1 denotes significance at the 10%
level, p value > 0.05 at the 5% level, and p value > 0.01 at the 1% level.
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family
Income per ha Coeff SE Z p CI CI
27
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Continued
Dependent Variable 5
Log of Farm Family
Income per ha Coeff SE Z p CI CI
Note: Endogenous regressor is (Advisory Participation); 3 Instruments (Single Farm Payment policy
change, Distance to advisory office and Interaction of both); border region omitted for collinearity; good
soil omitted for collinearity; standard errors adjusted for heterogeneity; p value > 0.1 denotes significance
at the 10% level, p value > 0.05 at the 5% level, and p value > 0.01 at the 1% level; Stock, Wright, and
Yogo (2002) argue that a Wald F Statistic <10 is considered weak.
Single farm payment year 0.03 0.03 1.21 0.23 0.08 0.02
Treated group 0.28 0.03 10.76 0.00 0.33 0.23
Interaction term SFP*Treated 0.28 0.03 7.85 0.00 0.21 0.34
Constant 6.10 0.02 366.6 0.00 6.06 6.13
Number of Observations 13,562
R2 0.01
Note: Advisory participation treated for those who only became clients after the introduction of the single
farm payment policy change in 2005.
28
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aepp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aepp/ppx062/4881758
by University of New England user
on 23 February 2018