Cooperative-based extension models for collective youth engagement in smallholder agriculture

Introduction

Every season, Bangladesh's agricultural workforce gets a little older. Young people, those between 18 and 30, increasingly view farming as a last resort rather than a career choice, and migration to Dhaka's garment factories or construction sites seems to offer better prospects [1] . Yet the country's food production depends overwhelmingly on smallholder systems that need young labor and fresh ideas to remain viable. Cooperatives have long been promoted as vehicles for collective action in agriculture, but most cooperative structures in Bangladesh were designed by and for older, established farmers [2] . Young members often find themselves in passive roles, attending meetings but not voting, contributing labor but not leading activities. This structural marginalization may accelerate rather than prevent youth exit from agriculture [3] . Research from Kenya and Uganda showed that youthcentered cooperative designs with age-appropriate governance, mentoring, and technology integration retained young members at rates 35-50% higher than traditional models [4] . But evidence from South Asia, where cooperative traditions and youth demographics differ, remains limited [5] . This research compared three cooperative extension models for youth engagement effectiveness in Dhaka Division. The objectives were to track engagement trajectories across model types, assess participation depth across multiple dimensions, and identify predictors of sustained youth involvement.

Theoretical Framework

The research applies Self-Determination Theory, which posits that intrinsic motivation depends on meeting three psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness [6] . In cooperative contexts, autonomy maps to decision-making authority, competence to skill development opportunities, and relatedness to peer connections. The theory predicts that cooperative models offering greater youth autonomy and peer relatedness will generate stronger and more sustained engagement than those maintaining hierarchical adult-dominated structures.

Material and Methods Material

A longitudinal comparative design tracked 192 young farmers (aged 18-30) across three cooperative types in four upazilas of Dhaka Division: Savar, Dhamrai, Keraniganj, and Nawabganj. Participants were distributed as: traditional cooperatives (n = 64), hybrid models (n = 66), and youth-led cooperatives (n = 62). The research ran from November 2023 to August 2024 at the Department of Agricultural Extension and Information System, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Quarterly surveys measured engagement, participation, and income indicators. Ethics approval was obtained from the Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University Ethics Committee (Protocol SAU-EC/2023/073, October 2023) [7] . www.extensionjournal.com

Methods

Youth engagement was measured through a composite 25item index covering attendance, participation quality, initiative-taking, and commitment indicators. Participation depth was assessed across five dimensions: meeting attendance, decision voting, financial contribution, activity leadership, and market negotiation. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared quarterly trajectories across models. Agricultural income per member was tracked through cooperative financial records. Multiple regression identified engagement predictors [8] .

Ethical Considerations: Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in Bengali. For members aged 18-19, parental notification was provided though individual consent was sufficient under Bangladeshi research ethics guidelines. All cooperative financial data were anonymized during analysis. Youth-led cooperatives outperformed other models across all five participation dimensions (Table 1). The widest gap appeared in activity leadership, where youth-led members participated at 62.3% compared to just 12.8% in traditional cooperatives. Decision voting showed similarly dramatic differences (71.8% vs 21.4%). The darkening gradient from traditional to youth-led models confirms deeper participation across all dimensions. Traditional cooperatives show high meeting attendance but low scores on decision-making and leadership, indicating passive rather than active membership.

Results

Discussion

The results strongly support the hypothesis that youthcentered cooperative governance improves engagement. The 40.6 percentage-point gap in engagement scores between youth-led and traditional models by Q4 exceeds differences reported in East African research [4] , possibly because Bangladesh's cooperative traditions create particularly rigid hierarchies that youth-led models disrupt more dramatically [9] . The participation pattern in traditional cooperatives, high attendance but low decision voting and leadership, describes what Arnstein [10] termed tokenistic participation. Young members show up but have no real voice. Youth-led models appear to convert attendance into genuine authority, which Self-Determination Theory predicts will sustain motivation over time [6] . The 44.6% income advantage in youth-led cooperatives likely reflects both better market negotiation by motivated members and the efficiency gains from having active decision-makers rather than passive attendees. This economic benefit may prove the strongest argument for restructuring cooperative governance.

Limitations

Self-selection into cooperative types may bias comparisons. The nine-month tracking period captures initial engagement but not long-term retention. Urban-proximate upazilas near Dhaka may not represent remote rural cooperative dynamics. Income differences could reflect pre-existing capacity rather than model effects alone.

Conclusions

Youth-led cooperatives substantially outperformed traditional and hybrid models in engaging young farmers across all measured dimensions. Genuine decision-making authority and peer leadership opportunities drove the strongest engagement gains. The cooperative model also generated higher agricultural income per member. Extension agencies and cooperative development programs should invest in youth-led governance structures rather than simply recruiting young people into existing adult-dominated organizations. Peer influence networks and autonomy in decision-making should be designed into cooperative constitutions from the outset rather than added as afterthoughts.

References

1. Gautam M, Faruqee R. Dynamics of rural growth in Bangladesh: Sustaining poverty reduction. World Bank; 2016.
2. Datta SK, Singh K. Cooperative movement in a developing economy: Structure, growth and crisis in Bangladesh. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. 2019;90(2):363-385.
3. Ahaibwe G, Mbowa S, Lwanga MM. Youth engagement in agriculture in Uganda: Challenges and prospects. Economic Policy Research Centre Report. 2013;106:1-28.
4. Njeru LK, Gichimu BM. Influence of youth enterprise development fund on youth enterprises in Meru County. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2014;5(11):152-161.
5. Bhandari H, Yasunobu K. What is social capital? A comprehensive review of the concept. Asian Journal of Social Science. 2009;37(3):480-510.
6. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000;55(1):6878.
7. Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Sage; 2018.
8. Field AP. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th ed. Sage; 2018.
9. Sultana P, Thompson PM. Methods of consensus building for community-based fisheries management in Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems. 2004;82(3):327-353.
10. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1969;35(4):216224.
11. Leavy J, Smith S. Future farmers: Youth aspirations, expectations and life choices. Future Agricultures Discussion Paper. 2010;13:1-15.
12. White B. Agriculture and the generation problem: Rural youth, employment and the future of farming. IDS Bulletin. 2012;43(6):9-19.
13. Sumberg J, Anyidoho NA, Leavy J, te Lintelo DJH, Wellard K. Introduction: The young people and agriculture "problem" in Africa. IDS Bulletin. 2012;43(6):1-8.
14. Bezu S, Holden S. Are rural youth in Ethiopia abandoning agriculture? World Development. 2014;64:259-272.