While much of the public policy debate related to extension has focused on either so-called privatization or commercialization as means of reducing government out-lays, other aspects need consideration. The commercialization experience of Agriculture, while not without its problems, provides examples of some of the arguments for commercialization. Commercialization is perceived to have had a positive effect on moving "beyond the farm gate" into an involvement of the extension staff in the entire production-processing-transporting-marketing chain. There also has been the shift in focus to a client orientation and a concern to identify and produce results rather than simply to engage in activities.

In economically developed countries with a predominance of larger-scale commercial farming, increasingly the technologies of modem, industrialized farming are being developed by non-government industrial institutions; such technologies are appropriable for private marketing and generally have little need for government extension. In developed economies, it is more difficult to argue for publicly funded extension for rural industries containing fewer producers who are closely linked and integrated with research systems.

The weaknesses of privatization are more apparent in the context of developing countries, where the situation may be quite different. For instance in African agriculture, funding by user fees may not be viable. An erroneous assumption may be that recipients of government services are generally being subsidized by the government.