AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Agricultural Economics 35 (2006) 11–17 Determinants of farmers’ preference for alternative animal health service providers in Kenya: a proportional hazard application P. Irungu a, ∗ , J. M. Omiti b , L. G. Mugunieri a a Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Trypanosomiasis Research Centre, PO Box 362, Kikuyu, Kenya b Institute of Policy Analysis and Research, PO Box 45843-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Received 22 June 2004; received in revised form 25 February 2005; accepted 28 June 2005 Abstract One hundred and eighty farmers in the semiarid Makueni district, Kenya, were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. The objective was to assess factors that influence farmers’ preference for alternative veterinary service providers following the liberalization of veterinary services. A proportional hazard model was fitted to the data because of its ability to accommodate simultaneously the attributes of both the chooser and the choice. Of the three service providers considered in the study, community-based animal health workers were the most preferred followed by veterinary surgeons and animal health assistants. Farmers’ age and education level were inversely but significantly related to the probability of choosing any of the three service providers. Distance to the preferred service provider was the main choice-specific attribute with a significant impact on the choice probability. A high preference for community-based animal health workers was noted suggesting the possibility of poorly trained animal health workers dominating the veterinary services market in remote areas of Kenya. Efforts geared toward the legalization of community-based animal health workers in Kenya and elsewhere in the developing countries should first address the constraints that hinder the penetration of professional veterinary service providers in remote areas. JEL classification: Q12, Q18 Keywords: Veterinary services; Proportional hazard; Community-based animal health workers; Arid and Semi Arid Areas; Kenya 1. Introduction The veterinary services sector of most developing countries is in a state of transition. Prior to the advent of neo-liberal eco- nomic policies of the mid-1980s, the provision of veterinary ser- vices in many developing countries was done by the state (Umali et al., 1994; Leonard, 2000). After the adoption of structural re- forms, new players entered the veterinary services market. In Kenya, for instance, entrants into the veterinary services mar- ket included private para-professionals (certificate-level animal health assistants) and university-trained veterinary surgeons, village pharmacies, and animal health auxiliaries (also referred to as community-based animal health workers [CBAHWs]). The rationale for privatized veterinary services was to reduce the financial burden on the state as well as to improve the effi- ciency of service delivery (Tambi et al., 1999; Ndung’u, 2002). It was hoped that the private sector would optimally provide the ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +254-20-4223000; fax: +254-20-4223001. E-mail address: p.irungu@cgiar.org (P. Irungu). services for which the consumer enjoyed full benefit and could therefore be made to pay (Koma, 2000). Reforms in the Kenyan veterinary sector produced mixed results. In the high agricultural potential areas with high- yielding exotic livestock breeds, the concept of privatized an- imal health services was well received by both farmers and service providers (Oruko et al., 2000). In the arid and semiarid areas (ASALs), however, the privatization program failed to meet expectations. The unique characteristics of these areas— such as high incidence of poverty, aridity, social insecurity, and poor communications infrastructure—failed to attract the significant private veterinary practice anticipated by the privati- zation program (Mugunieri et al., 2004). High transaction costs arising from these constraints meant that investment costs in veterinary practice could not be easily recovered (Catley et al., 2004). In response to the withdrawal of public veterinary services in ASALs, nongovernmental organizations introduced the con- cept of the CBAHW as a stop-gap measure aimed at halting the complete deterioration of animal health services in remote areas (Peeling and Holden, 2000). Based on the Chinese model c  2006 International Association of Agricultural Economists