The Digital Divide in Agricultural Extension: Gender, Geography, Literacy and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Access to Advisory Services
Geeta Mohan *
Faculty of Agriculture, Jagannath University, Jaipur-303901, India.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Digital agricultural extension can reduce the cost of communicating agronomic information, but the availability of a digital service does not establish equitable access to useful advice. This critical narrative review examines how gender, geography, literacy and socioeconomic position shape entry into advisory services, meaningful engagement and the conversion of information into agricultural and livelihood benefits. Scholarly and institutional evidence published between 2000 and 1 August 2026 was selected through targeted searches, citation tracing and bibliographic verification. Experimental evaluations were considered alongside observational studies, qualitative implementation research and social theories of digital inequality, with attention to their different inferential strengths. The synthesis identifies a sequence of interdependent barriers: recognition as an intended user, reliable and sufficiently autonomous access, comprehension and contextual relevance, the resources and authority to act, and control over benefits and service governance. Gender inequalities extend beyond handset ownership to credibility, household bargaining and the organisation of extension. Geographic disadvantage combines connectivity constraints with weak services, unsuitable content and greater delivery costs. Literacy is multidimensional and cannot be reduced to schooling or addressed universally through voice messages. Poverty affects both digital participation and the feasibility of implementing advice, while user-fee models can select against farmers with substantial unmet needs. Randomised studies demonstrate improvements in knowledge and selected practices in particular settings, but yield, income and empowerment effects are less consistent, and favourable results among existing users do not demonstrate population-wide inclusion. Hybrid delivery, local-language interaction and targeted skills support are promising when backed by accountable human services and sustainable financing. The review proposes evaluating effective advisory access through disaggregated transitions from eligibility to benefits, rather than registrations or message delivery alone. Inclusive digital extension requires institutional redesign alongside appropriate technology; neither digital substitution nor a single preferred communication channel is supported as a general solution.
Keywords: Meaningful connectivity, intersectionality, smallholder livelihoods, digital capabilities, intrahousehold agency, hybrid extension, information equity