Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gender Differences in Access to Extension Services and Agricultural Productivity

Open access
Ragasa, Catherine, Berhane, Guush, Tadesse, Fanaye, Taffesse, Alemayehu Seyoum·2013·The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Abstract

Purpose:This article contributes new empirical evidence and nuanced analysis on the gender difference in access to extension services and how this translates to observed differences in technology adoption and agricultural productivity.Approach:It looks at the case of Ethiopia, where substantial investments in the extension system have been made, but the coverage and effect of these investments on female and male producers are not well-understood. This article employs a cross-sectional instrumental-variable regression method using a regionally representative data set of more than 7500 households in four major regions in Ethiopia during the 2010 main season.Findings:Female heads of households and plot-managers are less likely to get extension services through various channels and less likely to access quality services than their male counterparts after controlling for other factors. Receiving advice from extension agents is positively related to adoption of improved seed and fertiliser for both female and male, as hypothesised. However, beyond their influence through fertiliser and improved seed use, visits by or advice from agents are not significant or negatively significant in all productivity models estimated for females and males, which is in contrast to past studies. In some crop-productivity models estimated, it is the perceived quality of agents’ visits and access to radio that appear to be positively significant factors in explaining productivity levels for both females and males.Practical implications:Results highlight the need for stratified productivity models by gender and crop in future research. In terms of policy implication, results highlight the need to focus on quality of service and alternative channels of information, such as radio, to improve productivity.Originality/value:This article utilises a large-sample data set; uses the instrumental-variable regression method to address selection bias and endogeneity issues in productivity models; and stratifies the analyses to account for differentiated production functions by gender and crop.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1389224x.2013.817343

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Ragasa, C., Berhane, G., Tadesse, F., & Taffesse, A. S.
Venue
The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Published
2013-10
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
437-468
ISSN
  • 1389-224X (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-8622
OpenAlex
W2063514511
Cited by
288
References
24
FWCI
31.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender Differences in Access to Extension Services and Agricultural Productivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1389224x.2013.817343
The paper
Ragasa, C., Berhane, G., Tadesse, F., & Taffesse, A. S. (2013). Gender Differences in Access to Extension Services and Agricultural Productivity. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224x.2013.817343

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.