The review, led by Wycliffe Ongachi of Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir and the University of Nairobi, synthesized 47 peer-reviewed and high-quality institutional documents published between 2019 and 2024. The team followed the PRISMA 2020 reporting standard, searching five major academic databases—Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Dimensions, and Semantic Scholar—alongside gray literature from organizations such as the UN Development Programme, IFAD, and the CGIAR network. From 321 initial records, duplicates were removed and full texts screened down to the final 47 studies, which were appraised using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist and assessed for review-level bias with the ROBIS framework.

Geographically, Africa dominated the evidence base, contributing 43 percent of documented initiatives, followed by South Asia at 30 percent and Latin America at 17 percent. Publication activity peaked in 2021, a pattern the authors attribute to the post-COVID policy pivot toward resilient food systems and targeted international funding from bodies such as the FAO and IFAD. The pandemic itself acted as an accelerant: with face-to-face extension disrupted, remote and digital advisory methods expanded rapidly, cementing a convergence between social learning and digital delivery that the review identifies as the defining shift in the field.

Two platforms emerged as the dominant engines of farmer capacity development. Farmer field schools, which build human and social capital through hands-on, participatory learning in the field, were the most frequently reported intervention. Reported yield improvements for farmer field schools ranged from 18 to 30 percent, although the authors caution that this evidence is largely case-based and context-specific. Digital platforms, by contrast, showed a smaller but more rigorously aggregated effect: a meta-analysis of seven programs across Asia and Africa cited in the review found an average yield increase of 4 percent and a 22 percent improvement in farmers’ access to recommended inputs. The two figures reflect different evidence structures and intervention intensities, and the reviewers urge caution against direct comparison.

The case evidence is striking in its specificity. In Malawi, the Feed the Future Innovative Lab supported 114,000 peanut farmers, raising adoption of climate-smart practices from 5 percent at baseline to 83 percent. In Colombia, the AgroTIC platform connected farmers to agronomists and merchants through smartphones and machine learning; of 142 participants, 74 reported reduced crop losses and 102 successfully marketed their produce. In South Asia, farmer field schools strengthened women’s participation in farm decision-making through gender-responsive design, while in Colombia programs integrating indigenous knowledge into cacao agroforestry training were associated with cocoa yield gains of up to 30 percent. India’s Digital Green platform, delivering localized video-based learning in local languages, reaches millions of farmers at low cost.

The review anchored its synthesis in two complementary theoretical lenses: the sustainable livelihoods framework, which assesses how initiatives build farmers’ five capital assets—human, social, financial, physical, and natural—and diffusion of innovation theory, which explains how new practices spread through social systems from initial awareness to sustained adoption. Read through these frameworks, the most successful initiatives were those that bundled capitals together. Farmer producer organizations in India, Uganda, and Peru built social and financial capital through collective bargaining and market linkages, while conservation agriculture programs improved natural capital through better water-use efficiency and soil fertility. Climate information services in Bangladesh even outperformed purely scientific forecasts when women farmers blended indigenous indicators with formal data, achieving a probability-of-detection score of 0.74 versus 0.62 for scientific forecasts alone.

Yet the review is equally clear about the constraints. Chronic underinvestment remains fundamental: funding for agricultural research, education, and training rarely exceeds 1 percent of agricultural GDP, averaging just 0.7 percent—well below the World Bank’s 2 percent benchmark. Digital infrastructure lags severely in Africa, where access remains below 30 percent, limiting the scalability of digital tools. Gender inequalities in South Asia and weak institutional continuity in Latin America further restrict inclusivity. During COVID-19 lockdowns, 57 percent of women farmers in Nepal reported productivity declines as training sessions were disrupted and private-sector support evaporated. Extension officers themselves often lack the digital literacy and pedagogical skills to adapt programs to local contexts, and donor-funded projects frequently operate on short cycles that mismatch the longer timelines farmers need to confirm and sustain adoption of new practices.

A particularly stubborn gap separates skill acquisition from economic empowerment. Even where willingness to adopt digital platforms reaches 70 percent, actual use of mobile financial services remains as low as 15 percent in some contexts, meaning programs risk producing skilled but financially excluded farmers. Similarly, physical investments such as irrigation systems and mechanization often prioritize hardware over training for operation and maintenance, weakening the link between physical and human capital and undermining long-term sustainability. The authors argue that without deliberate engagement of microfinance institutions, savings groups, and insurance mechanisms, capacity building stalls short of livelihood transformation.

In response, the review proposes an integrative capacity-building and innovation diffusion framework built on three design principles: dual-channel delivery that pairs farmer field schools with digital tools; institutional continuity mechanisms that outlast individual project cycles; and concurrent bundling of human, social, financial, and physical capital, supported by recursive feedback loops rather than one-time interventions. The policy implications point away from short-term, discrete projects toward system-oriented approaches—multi-year financing horizons, maintenance training embedded in infrastructure investments, digital platforms linked to existing savings groups, and gender-disaggregated targets with dedicated budgets. Programs targeting women and youth, the authors stress, should be institutionalized within national agricultural policies and financial systems rather than left as donor-driven pilots.

The review acknowledges limitations, including its restriction to English-language publications, the potential for language and reporting bias, and heterogeneity across study designs that precluded formal meta-analysis. Future research, the authors argue, should prioritize experimental and quasi-experimental designs, standardized outcome reporting, and coverage of fragile and conflict-affected regions. Key open questions include the minimum intensity of farmer field school and digital integration required for sustained adoption, how outcomes vary by gender and farm size, and which institutional arrangements allow scaling without sacrificing local relevance. What is already clear, the authors conclude, is that agricultural extension is no longer a delivery channel but a catalytic system—one whose hybrid, innovation-driven future may determine how effectively the Global South’s hundreds of millions of smallholders weather the converging pressures of climate change, market volatility, and demographic change.

Subject of Research: A systematic review of agricultural extension services and capacity-building initiatives enhancing smallholder farmers' resilience in the Global South.

Article Title: Strengthening agricultural extension services to enhance farmers’ capacity and resilience for sustainable development; a systematic review

Article References: Ongachi, W., Belinder, I., Bhat, B., Hussain, S., & Dub, R. (2026). Strengthening agricultural extension services to enhance farmers’ capacity and resilience for sustainable development; a systematic review. BMC Agriculture, 2(1), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44399-026-00039-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s44399-026-00039-9

Keywords: agricultural extension, farmer field schools, digital advisory platforms, smallholder farmers, resilience, capacity building, sustainable livelihoods, diffusion of innovation, Global South, climate-smart agriculture, gender inclusion, systematic review

The central question addressed by the study is deceptively simple: does the level of a nation’s productive capacity condition the extent to which gender inclusion translates into better governance? Productive capacity, in the economic literature, refers to the combination of resources, infrastructure, technological capability, institutional quality, and human capital that determines what an economy can produce and how efficiently it can do so. Economies with high productive capacity tend to have diversified industrial bases, reliable energy and transport systems, and educated workforces, while low-capacity economies often depend on narrow resource extraction and face persistent institutional constraints.

The theoretical logic connecting these concepts runs in both directions. On one side, stronger governance—characterized by rule of law, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, control of corruption, and accountability—can expand opportunities for women by enforcing anti-discrimination protections, opening access to education and credit, and creating formal channels for political participation. On the other side, greater gender inclusion can improve governance outcomes by diversifying the perspectives represented in decision-making bodies, reducing corruption risks, and aligning public policy more closely with the needs of the full population rather than a narrow subset.

Productive capacity enters this relationship as a potentially decisive moderating factor. Where economies possess the infrastructure and institutional depth to convert inclusion into concrete participation—through functioning labor markets, accessible education systems, and administrative machinery capable of implementing policy—gender inclusion is more likely to produce measurable governance gains. In settings where productive capacity is weak, formal inclusion may remain largely symbolic, with women represented in institutions that lack the resources or authority to effect change.

This distinction matters for policymakers because it suggests that promoting gender inclusion in isolation may yield disappointing results if the underlying economic and institutional substrate is underdeveloped. Conversely, investments in productive capacity—industrial diversification, digital infrastructure, energy reliability, and skills development—may amplify the returns to inclusion policies such as gender quotas, leadership training, and legal reforms. The study’s framing implies that the two agendas are complements rather than substitutes: capacity builds the stage on which inclusion can perform.

The research sits within a broader empirical literature in development economics and political science that has documented correlations between women’s political representation and outcomes such as reduced corruption, greater investment in public goods like health and education, and more durable peace agreements. Cross-national studies have repeatedly found that higher shares of women in legislatures are associated with stronger governance indicators, although establishing causality remains methodologically challenging because gender norms, income levels, and institutional quality tend to move together over time.

By introducing productive capacity as a moderating variable, the study offers a way to account for heterogeneity in these findings. Countries at similar income levels may differ sharply in their structural capabilities, and the same inclusion policy may therefore produce different results depending on whether the surrounding economy can absorb and institutionalize the change. This perspective aligns with structuralist traditions in development economics, which emphasize that outcomes depend not only on policy choices but on the productive structure of the economy itself.

The publication appears in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, an open-access journal published by Springer Nature that publishes peer-reviewed research spanning the social sciences and humanities. The article carries the DOI 10.1038/s41599-026-08982-3 and is available through the journal’s website. As with all work in this field, the findings invite further empirical testing across country samples, time periods, and measurement approaches, particularly as new datasets on economic complexity and institutional performance become available.

For researchers, the study underscores the value of interaction-based designs that test not just whether two variables are related, but under what conditions that relationship strengthens or weakens. For practitioners in international development and governance reform, the message is that gender inclusion strategies are most likely to succeed when they are embedded in broader programs of capacity building—ensuring that the institutions women join are equipped to deliver the improvements that inclusive governance promises.

One useful way to situate the study is within the long-running debate over how to measure both of its core constructs. Gender inclusion is typically operationalized through indicators such as female labor force participation, seats held by women in national parliaments, educational attainment gaps, and indices that composite these dimensions into a single score. Each measure captures a different facet of inclusion: parliamentary representation reflects formal political voice, while labor force participation reflects economic integration. Because these dimensions do not always move together—a country may have high female employment alongside minimal political representation—researchers must be explicit about which aspect of inclusion they are testing, and the moderating role of productive capacity may differ across them.

Productive capacity presents its own measurement challenges. Recent work by international organizations has developed composite indices that combine measures of energy infrastructure, transport and digital connectivity, structural change away from primary commodities, and the sophistication of exported goods. A related strand of literature on economic complexity infers productive knowledge from the diversity and ubiquity of the products a country exports, treating the export basket as a window into the accumulated capabilities of its firms and workforce. These approaches share the premise that what an economy can do is distinct from how much income it currently generates, which is precisely the distinction the study leverages when it argues that capacity, rather than income alone, conditions the governance returns to inclusion.

The historical record of gender quota adoption offers a concrete illustration of why this conditioning matters. Well over one hundred countries have now introduced legislative quotas of some form, ranging from reserved seats to voluntary party quotas, and the resulting variation in outcomes is striking. In some settings, quotas produced durable cohorts of legislators who reshaped committee agendas and oversight practices; in others, women entered chambers with limited committee assignments, short tenures, or weak party support, and the anticipated governance effects failed to materialize. Observers of these divergent trajectories frequently point to features that resemble productive capacity in the study’s sense: the professionalism of the civil service, the reliability of public administration, and the broader economic base that gives legislatures real resources to allocate.

The corruption channel deserves particular attention because it has generated one of the most cited empirical regularities in this literature. Cross-national analyses have repeatedly reported that higher shares of women in parliament are associated with lower perceived corruption, and early interpretations framed this as evidence that women are inherently less tolerant of corrupt exchanges. Subsequent scholarship has complicated that reading, suggesting that the relationship may reflect the institutional environments in which women gain office rather than any dispositional difference. Liberal democracies with strong rule of law both elect more women and exhibit less corruption, making it difficult to isolate the effect of gender itself. A moderating variable such as productive capacity offers a more structural interpretation: the same woman legislator operates within very different opportunity structures depending on the administrative and economic machinery surrounding her office.

There is also a macroeconomic dimension worth noting. Growth research over the past two decades has emphasized that sustained convergence depends on structural transformation—the reallocation of labor from low-productivity agriculture toward manufacturing and services—rather than on factor accumulation alone. If gender inclusion contributes to governance, and governance contributes to the quality of public investment and the enforcement of property rights, then the interaction the study examines may feed back into the very productive capacity that conditions it. This possibility of circular causation is a familiar challenge in development research, and it cautions against reading any single estimated coefficient as a complete description of the system.

Methodologically, studies of this kind typically rely on panel data covering many countries and years, with interaction terms used to test whether the slope linking inclusion to governance varies with the level of capacity. Such designs face well-known hurdles: omitted variables that correlate with both capacity and governance, reverse causality running from institutional quality to economic structure, and the sensitivity of results to sample composition and estimator choice. Robustness in this literature is usually assessed by varying measures, excluding regions, and testing alternative governance indices drawn from expert assessments, survey-based perceptions, and objective indicators. Readers interpreting the findings should keep in mind that interaction effects in cross-national panels are notoriously sensitive to these choices, even when the underlying theory is sound.

The policy translation also requires care. If capacity amplifies the returns to inclusion, then sequencing becomes a live question: should donors and governments invest in industrial and administrative capability first, or pursue inclusion and capacity simultaneously? The complementarity framing suggests simultaneous pursuit, since waiting for capacity to mature before opening political space risks entrenching exclusion, while pursuing inclusion without capacity risks symbolic representation. Practical programs that pair quota reforms with civil service professionalization, digital government infrastructure, and vocational education embody this logic, though rigorous evaluations of such paired interventions remain scarce.

Finally, the study contributes to a growing effort to bring structural economics and political sociology into a single analytical frame. Much of the governance literature has treated institutions as exogenous rules to be transplanted, while much of the gender literature has treated norms as the primary constraint. By foregrounding the productive structure of the economy as the terrain on which both rules and norms operate, the research points toward an integrated account in which economic capabilities, social inclusion, and institutional quality co-evolve—a perspective likely to inform the next generation of empirical work on development outcomes.

Subject of Research: The moderating role of productive capacity in the relationship between gender inclusion and governance quality.

Article Title: Gender inclusion and governance: the role of productive capacity

Article References: Gender inclusion and governance: the role of productive capacity. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41599-026-08982-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s41599-026-08982-3

Keywords: gender inclusion, governance, productive capacity, political participation, institutional quality, development economics, women in politics, economic complexity, public policy, corruption, human capital, Social Sciences Communications