A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY FOR THE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE INECONOMICS

Abstract

Generally, this study was conducted by the title of the impact of agricultural extension package on household poverty in the case of Abala Abaya woreda of Wolaita zone by using 400(218 participant and 182 non participant) sample households. There were different methodologies used to conduct the study: both primary and secondary sources of data and both descriptive and econometric methods of analysis were implemented. In terms of measuring poverty, there was highest incident, depth and severity of poverty problem in the study area due to low performance of agricultural extension package implementation and unpredicted weather changes in study area. The results of the study indicated that the program had a positive and significant impact on food and total expenditure per adult equivalent. Thirteen variables were hypothesized that determine households “probability of participation in agricultural extension program and seven of them were found significant. Thirteen variables were hypothesized that determine households‟ probability of participation in agricultural extension program. Among them seven of them were found to be significant variables determining households‟ probability participation in agricultural extension while the rest six variables were not significant in determining the probability of participation. The study concluded that Educational level, land size, participation in off-farm activities, access to credit, distance from FTC, distance from nearest market center and contact with Development Agent, were variables that influence households‟ probability of participation in agricultural extension. The results of the study indicated that the program had a positive and significant impact on food and total expenditure. Gains from participation range from 14.5 percent to 20.5 percent) and 12.3 to 17.6) for food and non –food expenditure. Generally, it is possible to conclude that the program had substantial positive impact on poverty.