•    Linear approach to technology development and promotion: In this model, extension is a conduit for transferring technolo­gies developed by the research systems with or without par­ticipation by the farmers. Though there are limitations of this model, it continues to be the dominant paradigm determining investments in agricultural research and extension. Adminis­tration and funding by different departments or ministries fur­ther constrain development of relationships.
•    Due to the perceived hierarchy between research and exten­sion, the process is top-down with limited feedback and each one blames the other for poor performance of technology a and adoption. Hierarchies also exist between biological and social scientists, preventing interactions among these two groups.
•   While farmers, NGOs and the private sector need research and scientific expertise to solve specific problems, what re­search offers is predetermined technologies. Meetings with the private sector have not moved beyond rhetoric, especially due to mismatch in expectations. While procedures for trans­ferring technologies are in place, arrangements for providing technical expertise to solve problems have not been fully de­veloped
•    Narrow focus of extension on technology dissemination: Ex­tension has been limited to the transfer of technologies and does not consider the varied needs of end users (such as mar­ket information and support services).
•    Evaluation parameters within research organizations favor (1) technology development at the cost of problem solving and (2) reporting only success at the cost of learning from fail­ures and (3) reporting only technical innovations at the cost of process and institutional innovations that facilitated the de­velopment and promotion of technologies. Similar is the case with extension, where performance is evaluated in number of

farmers adopting a specific technology, inputs distributed and increase in productivity achieved. This restricts extension staff from trying other promising approaches that could potentially increase farmers' incomes.
•    Focusing only on farmers as clients has restricted the interac­tion of research and extension at the cost of interaction and working with a range of other actors like NGOs, agro-proces­sors, traders, private sector and producer associations.
•    Interaction among the different actors (public and private; pri­vate and NGOs, etc.) are further constrained by high levels of mistrust and lack of mechanisms to develop better under­standing. Though some of the public, private and NGO actors have come together as part of specific initiatives promoted by donors, this has been restricted to the duration of the project. Levels of mistrust are still considered too high between NGOs and the private sector. A lack of transparency in research and an inability of many scientists to communicate with different stakeholders have further contributed to the climate of dis­trust.
•    Long chains of command and control constrain the ability of the different organizations, especially the public and pri­vate sector to respond quickly to the challenges from the field (or market). This is also constraining development of joint activities even when the policies favor partnerships and linkages.
•   The current patterns of funding and governance (mostly pub­lic) ensure that the organizations are only accountable to the Ministry/Department funding and governing them with only weak or limited accountability to the clients. Companies in the private sector also behave as if they are only accountable to their shareholders and not to other stakeholders who can po­tentially influence their operations.