Definition Pluralistic Extension System is the provision of extension services for a community conducted by more than one extension service source (Okorley, Gray, & Reed, 2010). According to Rivera and Alex (2004), the pluralistic extension system can involve complex providers such as non-governmental organizations, private companies, farmers' organizations, commercial individuals, associations of extension specialists, and public extension services at municipal, state, and national levels. The non-pluralistic extension system, by definition, is a single extension service provider conducted only by public extension agents. It is clear that the pluralistic extension system does not eliminate public extension operators from the system, but the system adds other potential extension agencies along with the existing public extension agency. Why is it necessary? There are several reasons why a pluralistic extension system is needed. One reason is that the previous single supplier of extension systems, mainly training and visits (T&V system), was criticized for its limited benefits. As in the case of India, the T&V system has been accused of only stimulating raw materials and supply, but not generating income. It has also been criticized as the cause of falling commodity prices, disintegration of sub-sectors, and little attention to farmer organization development (Singh & Swanson, n.d.). The previous extension system was sometimes considered inefficient, with unclear and incompatible state intervention objectives and vague rules for implementation; it also provides limited incentives for insiders and lacks financial transparency (Rivera and Alex, 2004). Furthermore, the pluralistic extension system is expected to reduce the financial burden of the national government due to the large institutional structures and perceived ineffectiveness of the previous extension system ( Swanson & Rajalahti, 2010 ). The previous extension system was also accused of not paying much attention to involving farmers in defining and solving their problems, despite having poor extension-research-farmer connection (Davis, 2008). Support for the farmer group as a power holder to provide extension services comes from Davis's research in Kenya (n.d.), where he found that farmer groups were viewed by local farmers as a credible source of agricultural information providers (Davis, n.d.). main dimensions? Rivera & Alex (2004) argue, “Extension is not necessarily a government program, but rather the complex set of institutions through which rural populations obtain new knowledge and information” (p. 339-340) and allows for the possibility of system of extension of the differences between the different countries. This proposal led to the implication that the (pluralistic) extension system dimension could cover a variety of issues such as policy implementation (for rural change or mobilization), information gathering, salient particular issues (such as healthcare: HIV/AIDS, etc..