A review on: Structural challenges and equality issues in agricultural extension system

Introduction

In order to facilitate knowledge transfer, technological adoption, and informed decision-making across a range of agro ecologies, agricultural extension systems are essential in connecting scientific advancements with farming communities (Anderson & Feder, 2022) [1] . Extension systems in many developing nations, especially India, still have structural constraints that limit their efficacy and inclusivity despite decades of investment (Sulaiman & Davis, 2023) [14] . Workforce shortages, disjointed institutional frameworks, insufficient funding, poor research-extension connections, and uneven service quality across regions are some of these structural problems (Rana et al., 2024) [12] . These constraints make it more difficult for extension actors to offer timely, contextualised, and farmerfocused advising services, particularly in regions that are dealing with market instability, rapid climatic variability, and new pest and disease concerns (Birner et al., 2022) [2] . The acute lack of qualified extension agents in comparison to the number of farmers is one of the most talked-about structural deficiencies. According to Raghuvanshi and Tripathi (2023) [11] , the ratio of extension workers to farmers is still well below national and international norms, which results in heavy workloads and few possibilities for field interaction. Due to operational obstacles caused by these shortages, learning outcomes and the adoption of better practices are weakened as farmer interactions become less frequent and of worse quality (Anderson & Feder, 2022) [1] . As a result, many public systems are depending more and more on agripreneurs, private extension agents, and Paraextension workers; nevertheless, these arrangements frequently lack uniform training standards and quality assurance procedures (Hernandez & Kumar, 2023) [7] . Due to the lack of coordination between many actors, www.extensionjournal.com including state departments, Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs), agricultural institutions, non-profits, and private businesses, institutional fragmentation exacerbates these problems. Although this diversity of actors may be advantageous for innovation, it frequently leads to redundancy, inefficient use of resources, and inconsistent advice that farmers get (Sulaiman & Hall, 2022) [15] . The flow of locally applicable technological solutions and feedback loops, which are crucial for improving research priorities and extension strategies, are further hampered by weak research-extension-farmer links (Reddy et al., 2023) [13] .

Pervasive equity issues influence who gains from extension and who is left out in addition to structural obstacles. Despite making significant contributions to agricultural work and decision-making, women farmers have significantly less access to extension advice than males, indicating the persistence of gender inequities. Marginalised populations' access to mainstream extension initiatives is further restricted by social injustices related to caste, landlessness, tribal identity, and tenancy arrangements (Gaurav & Mishra, 2022) [5] . Although encouraging, the digitalisation of extension runs the potential of widening already existing gaps due to unequal access to cell phones, mobile data, and digital literacy-especially among rural women and lower-income households (GSMA, 2024) [6] . These disparities underscore the necessity of purposefully inclusive extension systems as opposed to technologically deterministic or gender-neutral ones (Doss & Quisumbing, 2022) [3] . Extension system reform is more important than ever due to the modern agricultural landscape, which is moulded by market integration, workforce shortages, climate change, and sustainability requirements. In addition to increasing productivity, addressing structural and equitable issues is crucial for boosting resilience, environmental sustainability, and rural livelihoods (Birner et al., 2022) [2] . Policymakers, researchers, and practitioners can build extension systems that are more accountable, coordinated, and equitable by following a thorough analysis of these issues (Sulaiman & Davis, 2023) [14] . As a result, this introduction lays the groundwork for a more thorough examination in later sections by highlighting the necessity of looking at both structural flaws and equity disparities in agricultural extension. The shortage shows itself as overworked frontline employees who have to cover numerous communities and technical areas, which cuts into their time for on-farm demonstrations and genuine farmer involvement. Systems are depending more and more on digital channels and paraextension actors (input dealers, NGO facilitators, and lead farmers) to close the gap; these replacements can aid in scaling but raise concerns about quality and quality assurance. Gender: Women farmers are under-represented, according to several research and surveys. For instance, only a small percentage of women have regular access to extension services, according to IFPRI and other assessments; one estimate revealed that about 23% of female farmers used extension, compared to substantially greater proportions of men in various surveys. Improved extension targeting could help overcome the production difference between femalemanaged farms and comparable male-managed farms, as acknowledged by national initiatives (ICAR gender strategy, 2025) [20] .

The Problem of Limited Extension Manpower

Institutional fragmentation and governance gaps

Digital gender gap and mobile access: Despite the tremendous growth in rural internet penetration (IAMAI ICUBE 2024) [21] reported 488 million rural active internet users), access to smartphones and mobile devices is still uneven. Gender disparities in device ownership and internet usage persist, according to GSMA and national telecom studies (GSMA Mobile Gender Gap Report, 2024; national polls 2024-2025) [6,10] . Women, the elderly, tenants, and low-income households run the risk of being excluded when extension is digitised carelessly.

Tenants and smallholders: Due to their ease of gathering for demonstrations, landowners and larger farmers have historically been the focus of extension. Although they typically make decisions about plot-level management, tenant farmers, sharecroppers, and casual labourers frequently do not have access to tenure-based programs, necessitating customised outreach.

Intersectionality is important: mainstream extension is unlikely to help rural women from marginalised castes who have restricted mobile access. To close these gaps, specific, gender-sensitive strategies are required, such as community digital hubs, voice-based advisories, women-only training groups, and female extension workers.

Digitalization: promise and risk for equity

Scale and timeliness are provided by digital technology (mobile apps, IVR, video, social media groups). There is a sizable rural internet base that could be used for expansion, according to the IAMAI ICUBE (2024) [21] . However, there are dangers associated with digital interventions: low digital literacy, limited smartphone ownership among women, UX complexity, and language mismatches all hinder uptake. Research indicates that mixed models, which combine local facilitation with digital information, are most effective. Additionally, algorithmic decision-support needs to be evaluated for generalizability and bias; AI models trained on small datasets may misidentify pest issues in novel agroecologies, costing vulnerable farmers.

Para-extension actors and quality assurance

Many systems depend on Para-extension actors, such as input dealers, private consultants, agri-entrepreneurs, and skilled lead farmers, to supplement the limited number of governmental employees. Although their technical proficiency and motivations vary, these actors are frequently dependable and approachable. According to research, a code of practice, brief certified training, and credentialing are necessary to guarantee that para-extension guidance is in line with public-good goals (sustainability, resilience, and safe pesticide usage). Pilot studies have demonstrated the potential of turning input dealers into skilled para-extension workers, but scaling calls for organised supervision and rewards.

Evidence gaps and research priorities

There are few thorough long-term effect studies that connect structural reforms to outcomes like yield, income, pesticide use, gendered productivity, and resilience, despite the regular reporting of activity metrics (number of trainings, hamlet meetings, etc.).

Recommendations

Expand and reorganise human resources: In order to achieve the suggested worker-to-farmer ratios, national and state plans should make investments in hiring and keeping more frontline extension personnel; interim steps must increase the number of accredited para-Extension cadres.

Data interoperability and institutional cooperation:

Establish interoperable data platforms and institutional structures (district-level extension coordination cells) that connect KVKs, ATMA, state agencies, and early-warning monitoring systems for pests and climatic shocks.

Make sure to specifically target inclusion: Create extension KPIs that track inclusion (women reached, renter households reached) and provide funding for outreach that is sensitive to gender (female extension staff, demo plots just for women, voice/IVR content).

large-scale blended delivery: Encourage hybrid solutions that integrate human assistance with digital advisory; digital should enhance local agents rather than replace them.

Para-extension quality assurance: Provide brief, recognised training, a credentialing mechanism, and monitoring for input merchants, lead farmers, and private consultants.

Rigorous observation and investigation:

To support ongoing learning, fund randomised and quasi-experimental assessments of scaled models and make public datasets available.

Conclusion

Extension systems' capacity to provide inclusive, highquality advising services is hampered by structural issues like a lack of human resources, disjointed institutions, inadequate funding, and poor coordination. However, www.extensionjournal.com technological solutions by themselves won't equalise gains due to equity challenges including gendered access, tenant exclusion, and digital gaps. To adapt extension systems to modern agricultural concerns, policy changes that include human-resource investments, institutional integration, inclusive design, and accountability for equality are crucial.

References

1. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: Good intentions and hard realities. Washington (DC): World Bank Publications; 2022.
2. Birner R, Davis K, Ponniah A. Innovations in extension and advisory services: Implications for institutional reform. Journal of Rural Studies. 2022;93:15-27.
3. Doss C, Quisumbing A. Closing the gender gap in agriculture: A global priority. Food Policy. 2022;109:102203-102203.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The future of agricultural knowledge and innovation systems. Rome: FAO; 2024.
5. Gaurav S, Mishra S. Social inequality and access to agricultural services in rural India. Economic and Political Weekly. 2022;57(12):45-54.
6. GSMA. Mobile gender gap report 2024. London: GSMA; 2024.
7. Hernandez R, Kumar A. The rise of private extension in developing countries: Opportunities and regulatory challenges. Agricultural Systems. 2023;210:103672103672.
8. International Crops Research Institute for the SemiArid Tropics. Strengthening agri-extension for a strong farm sector. Hyderabad: ICRISAT; 2025.
9. International Food Policy Research Institute. Gender and agricultural extension: Evidence from South Asia. Washington (DC): IFPRI; 2023.
10. National Academy of Agricultural Research Management. Farmer-centric extension strategy for India. Hyderabad: NAARM; 2024.
11. Raghuvanshi P, Tripathi R. Human resource constraints in public extension: A district-level assessment. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 2023;18(2):285-295.
12. Rana R, Singh K, Verma A. Structural limitations in India's agricultural extension system: A review. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2024;60(1):1-12.
13. Reddy VR, Shiferaw B, Kassie M. Strengthening research-extension linkages for climate-smart agriculture. Climate and Development. 2023;15(4):400410.
14. Sulaiman R, Davis K. Extension reform for inclusive and sustainable agriculture. Agricultural Extension Review. 2023;35(1):10-22.
15. Sulaiman R, Hall A. Pluralistic extension systems: Coordination challenges and institutional innovations. Agricultural Research and Innovation. 2022;13(2):7789.
16. International Crops Research Institute for the SemiArid Tropics. Strengthening agri-extension for a strong farm sector. ICRISAT pressroom; 2025.
17. Agriculture extension services in India: Meta-analysis. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2025;10(3):1-10. 18. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management. Indian scenario of extension and advisory services. MANAGE Discussion Paper. 2024.
18. Sulaiman VR, Hall A. On institutional pluralism and its effectiveness in extension-Variation across Indian states. Indian Farming. 2022;69(01):55-58.
19. Indian Council of Agricultural Research. ICAR agricultural extension division information and KVKs. New Delhi: ICAR; 2025.
20. Internet and Mobile Association of India, Kantar. ICUBE-Internet in India 2024 report. Mumbai: IAMAI; 2024.
21. Government of India, Press Information Bureau. ATMA training statistics and extension reach (20212025). New Delhi: PIB; 2025.
22. Bhattacharyya S. Transforming agricultural input dealers into para-extension workers in rural India: Constraints and strategies. ResearchGate. 2025.
23. International Food Policy Research Institute. Promoting gender-sensitive agricultural extension. AgriArticles summary. 2023.