Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
A study of women farmers' empowerment in malawi through competitive analyses
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

A study of women farmers' empowerment in malawi through competitive analyses

  • 368 views
Published

 

Published in Education , Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
368
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 國立屏東科技大學熱帶農業暨國際合作系 Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation National Pingtung University of Science and Technology 碩士學位論文 Master’s Thesis 透過比較分析以賦權馬拉威婦女農民之研究A Study of Women Farmers’ Empowerment in Malawi through Competitive Analyses 指導教授: 鍾惠雯 (Rebecca Chung, PhD) 研究生: (Loveness Msofi) 中華民國 2012 年 6 月 7 日 表格編號: M06 June 7, 2012
  • 2. 摘要學號: M9922019論文題目: 透過比較分析以賦權馬拉威婦女農民之研究總頁數:學校名稱: 國立屏東科技大學系 (所) 別: 熱帶農業暨國際合作研究所畢業時間及摘要別: 碩士研究生姓名: 指導教授: 鍾惠雯論文摘要內容: 馬拉維是其經濟嚴重依賴農業的最不發達國家之一。女農民作為生產者,工人和企業家在農業部門發揮至關重要的作用。然而,他們遇到很多挑戰,這限制了他們的潛力充分促進該部門的經濟重要性。由於這個原因,一些干預已發展到授權和支持女農民。本研究的主要目的是通過競爭性分析,以確定婦女農民權力和建議的最佳策略,以提高他們的競爭力。研究中使用的 SWOT 分析的優勢,劣勢,機會和威脅進行分析,來賦予婦女農民的戰略。該研究還分析了競爭力,確定基於波特的鑽石模型,採用層次分析法(AHP )的元素。研究中使用的意見領袖誰是熟悉婦女農民偏好數據。 45 受訪者包括 5 研究人員,10 個推廣工作者和 30 個農民選擇從 Ru m p hi 在馬拉維北部地區的區。結果顯示,受訪者有不同的優先級,以提高婦女農民的競爭力的重要因素。與會者認為,需求條件,戰略,結構和競爭,以及政府的作用是最重要的。與會者還認為,最重要的因素是市場的可用性,可用性和電源輸入和合同農業的一致性。結果還顯示,賦予婦女權力的農民最重要的替代戰略,形成生產營銷隊伍(光電倍增管),擴展可用性和培訓,以及建立婦女農民協會。總之,這些結果為女性農民有關的政策和方案發展提供了重要的見解。 I
  • 3. 它也可以建議有需要利益相關者之間的合作,賦予婦女權力的農民,使他們能夠在農業部門的競爭力,成為與適當的干預措施來。關鍵詞:馬拉維婦女農民,增強能力,提高競爭力,SWOT 分析,波特的鑽石模型,層次分析法(AHP ) II
  • 4. English AbstractStudent ID: M9922019Title of thesis: A Study of Women Farmers’ Empowerment in Malawi through Competitive AnalysesTotal pages:Name of institute: Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation, National Pingtung University of Science and TechnologyGraduation date: June 15, 2012 Degree Conferred: MastersName of student: Loveness Msofi Advisor: Rebecca Chung, PhDThe content of abstract in this thesis: The contribution of Malawian women farmers to the agriculture sectorcannot be overemphasized. However, women farmers face many challengesthat limit their potential to contribute fully to the economic importance of thesector. In response, a number of interventions have been developed which areaimed at empowering and supporting women farmers. The main objective ofthis study was to determine women farmers’ empowerment throughcompetitive analyses. This was done by identifying factors of competitivenessand determining their importance in empowering women farmers. The studyused a SWOT analysis to come up with strengths, weaknesses, opportunitiesand threats and to formulate strategies for empowering women farmers. APorter’s Diamond Model was used to identify factors of competitiveness.Then, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was employed todetermine the importance of the competitiveness factors. The study used III
  • 5. preference data from experts who are familiar with issues concerning womenfarmers. A total of 45 respondents comprising of 5 researchers, 10 extension IV
  • 6. workers and 30 women farmers was selected for this study. The participantsperceived that demand conditions, government role and strategy, structure andrivalry were the most important factors. Participants also perceived that themost important sub-factors were availability of markets, availability andconsistency of supply inputs and contract farming. Results also revealed thatthe most important alternative strategies for empowering women farmers wereestablishment of women farmers associations, availability of extension andtraining as well as formation of Production Marketing Teams (PMTs). Inconclusion, these results provide important insights for policy and programdevelopments relating to women farmers. Results revealed that respondentshad different priorities regarding the important factors and alternativestrategies. This shows that there is no single strategy that is superior inempowering women farmers to enhance their competitiveness. Therefore, itcan be recommended that there is need to use multiple alternative strategiesfor empowering women farmers. There is also need for collaboration amongthe stakeholders, to come up with appropriate interventions for empoweringwomen farmers so that they can become competitive in the agricultural sector.Keywords: Malawian women farmers, empowerment, competitiveness, SWOT analysis, Porter’s Diamond Model, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) V
  • 7. Dedication I dedicate this paper to family, my dad B.S. Msofi; my mum Esnart Cecilia Msofi; my siblings Peter, Dominic, Raphael, Stuart, Bias, andDorothy for their love and support throughout the period of my study. Special thanks to my lovely sister Bernadette who assisted me in collecting data for this research. I also dedicate my work to my love Elton Eric ChikondiMgalamadzi for being there for me and encouraging me throughout my study period. You all mean a lot to me and I love you all very much. VI
  • 8. Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank God for giving me courage, wisdom andpatience to make this possible. I also thank NPUST Scholarship for giving methe opportunity to study in Taiwan and to get my Masters degree. I reallyappreciate the support and guidance from Barbara and all the Office ofInternational Affairs staff. I would like to acknowledge the input and supervision of my AdvisorDr. Rebecca Chung. You were very encouraging, you tirelessly helped methroughout the writing of this paper and contributing positively to my careerand professional life, you will always be remembered for that. You made mestrong and I have learned a lot from you that will help me grow. Similarly, I am thankful to each professor that taught me and helped megain knowledge, skills and experience. I have learned a lot from you all and Iappreciate the knowledge and manners you gave me. I also thank all the staffof DTAIC and my classmates. My sincere gratitude also goes to my bosses at work in Malawi, MsFrieda Kayuni and Mr. Mataka for their efforts to ensure that I came toTaiwan to further my studies. I am grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture andFood Security in Malawi especially to my workmates at Blantyre DistrictAgriculture Office for their support. I am also indebted to my country mates I met here in Taiwan, Mwiza,Glory and Chifundo, for being there for me and making my life easier. I loveyou all. Friends and relatives so numerous to mention please receive myheartfelt thanks. VII
  • 9. Table of Contents摘要....................................................................................................................................................IEnglish Abstract................................................................................................................................IIIDedication........................................................................................................................................VITable of Contents...........................................................................................................................VIIIList of Figures.....................................................................................................................................XList of Tables.....................................................................................................................................XIList of Acronyms..............................................................................................................................XII1.Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 1.1.Background Information..........................................................................................................1 1.1.1.Agriculture in Malawi .......................................................................................................1 1.1.2.Women in Malawian Agriculture......................................................................................1 1.1.3.Women Empowerment in Malawi....................................................................................5 1.2.Research Objectives.................................................................................................................62.Literature Review...........................................................................................................................9 2.1.Women Empowerment...........................................................................................................9 2.2.Competitiveness ...................................................................................................................15 2.3.Methods for Measuring Competitiveness.............................................................................193.Methodology................................................................................................................................29 3.1.The Research Framework......................................................................................................29 3.1.1.The SWOT Analysis Application......................................................................................31 3.1.2.Strategy Formulation for Malawian Women Farmers....................................................38 3.1.3.Porter’s Diamond Model Application.............................................................................41 3.1.4.Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method Application...................................................47 3.2.Questionnaire Design............................................................................................................49 3.3.Sampling Plan........................................................................................................................50 3.4.Statistical Analysis..................................................................................................................514.Results and Discussion..................................................................................................................54 VIII
  • 10. 4.1.Characteristics of Survey Respondents..................................................................................54 4.2.Results of Respondent’s Opinions on Elements of Competitiveness.....................................58 4.3.Results of AHP Model Analysis for the Competitiveness Elements........................................59 4.3.1.Results of Criteria Analysis..............................................................................................60 4.3.2.Factor Conditions ...........................................................................................................62 4.3.3.Demand Conditions .......................................................................................................65 4.3.4.Related and Supporting Industries .................................................................................67 4.3.5.Strategy, Structure and Rivalry ......................................................................................68 4.3.6.Government Role............................................................................................................70 4.3.7.Results of the overall analysis.........................................................................................72 4.3.8.Results of the Analysis of Alternatives............................................................................745.Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................................79 5.1.Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................79 5.2.Recommendations ................................................................................................................82 5.3.Future Research.....................................................................................................................83References.......................................................................................................................................85Appendices....................................................................................................................................102 Appendix I. Data Analysis Outputs ............................................................................................102 Appendix II. Questionnaire for Researchers and Extension Workers........................................113 Appendix III. Questionnaire for Farmers....................................................................................127Bio-Sketch of the Author...............................................................................................................142 IX
  • 11. List of FiguresFigure 3.2. Modified Diamond Model, Adapted from Porter (1990)...............................................46Figure 3.3. AHP Hierarchical Structure ............................................................................................49Figure 4.5. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Factor Conditions...............................................63Figure 4.6. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Demand Conditions............................................65Figure 4.7. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Related and Supporting Industries. ...................67Figure 4.8. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Strategy, Structure and Rivalry factors.....................69Figure 4.9. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Role of the Government ....................................70Figure 4.10. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Alternatives......................................................74 X
  • 12. List of TablesTable 3.1. SWOT Matrix for Malawian Women Farmers.................................................................40Table 3.2. Strategies Formulated for Malawian Women Farmers...................................................41Table 3.3. Standard Preference Scoring System for AHP, (Saaty, 1990)..........................................48Table 3.4. Random Index Numbers (Saaty, 1990)............................................................................52Table 4.1. Summary of Experts’ Opinions on the Elements of Competitiveness.............................58Table 4.2. Summary of the Experts’ Priorities of the Criteria with Respect to the Goal..................61Table 4.3. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Factor Conditions ................................................63Table 4.4. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Demand Conditions.............................................66Table 4.5. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Related and Supporting Industries.............................67Table 4.6. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Strategy, Structure and Rivalry factors......................69Table 4.7. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Role of Government............................................71Table 4.9. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Alternatives.........................................................75 XI
  • 13. List of AcronymsAHP – Analytic Hierarchy ProcessAIDS – Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromeASTI – Agriculture Research and Technology IndicatorsAWARD – African Women in Agriculture Research and DevelopmentCSW – Commission on the Status of WomenEPA – Extension Planning AreaEU – European UnionFAO – Food and Agriculture OrganisationFISP – Farm Input Subsidy ProgrammeGAD – Gender and DevelopmentGDP – Gross Domestic ProductGOM – Government of MalawiHIV – Human Immuno-deficiency VirusIFAD – International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFPRI – International Food Policy Research InstituteMDGs – Millennium Development Goals XII
  • 14. MGDS – Malawi Growth and Development StrategyMoAFS – Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security XIII
  • 15. NGO – Non-Governmental OrganisationNSO – National Statistical OfficeOECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentPDM – Porters Diamond ModelPMTs – Production Marketing TeamsRCA – Revealed Comparative AdvantageUNDP – United Nations Development ProgramsUNICEF – United Nations Children’s FundWID – Women in Development XIV
  • 16. 1. Introduction This chapter gives an overview of the study on women farmers’empowerment in Malawian agriculture sector. The background informationon agriculture in Malawi will be presented besides women farmers’contribution to the agriculture sector. Challenges that women farmers face arepresented and a brief background of women empowerment in Malawi ispresented. Furthermore, the chapter presents objectives of this research.1.1. Background Information1.1.1. Agriculture in Malawi Malawi is one of the countries in Southern Africa heavily dependent onagriculture; in 2010 it contributed about 35 percent towards Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) (World Bank, 2010). The Agricultural sector in Malawiemploys about 85 percent of the population, and provides over 80 percent offoreign exchange which was reported in the Malawi government 2010Integrated Household Survey (National Statistical Office, GOM, 2010).Above all, agriculture contributes significantly to national and household foodsecurity (GOM, 2010). Most Malawians make their daily living from small-scale agriculture, and the majority of Malawi’s population relies onagriculture for their livelihoods (GOM, 2010). The agricultural sectorcomprises of the estates and smallholder subsectors. The smallholderagriculture subsector contributes over 30 percent towards the Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) (World Bank, 2010).1.1.2. Women in Malawian Agriculture It is estimated that 70 percent of the agricultural labour force in bothsmallholder and estate agriculture is provided by women (World Bank, 1991).This indicates the importance of women farmers in Malawi; however, it also 1
  • 17. means that women are thus particularly affected by any constraints toproductivity arising in this sector. The majority of women are found in the 2
  • 18. smallholder agriculture sector, which is characterized by low incomes due tolow productivity and unfavorable input/output prices ratios. However, bothgender categories (men and women) are actively involved in agriculture withdifferent activities depending on their gender roles and priorities (Hirschmannand Vaughan, 1984). This is because agriculture is the main source of themajority of the people’s livelihoods in terms of cash income, food security,and source of employment. Research has revealed that women are moreinvolved in agriculture than men (Saito, Mekonnen and Spurling, 1994).Empirical evidence also reveals that despite women’s large involvement inagriculture as workers, farmers and agro-entrepreneurs, they have notreceived much of the benefits that accrue from agriculture (FAO, 2010a). Thishas fueled debates as to what should be done to improve the situation so thatwomen farmers can benefit. Government and the private sectors haveformulated interventions for women empowerment to improve theirconditions in the agricultural sector since their role is crucial to improvementof people’s livelihoods, as well as for the economic growth of the country. Asa result, over the years, food security has improved because of an increase inmaize production, which is a staple food, and the country has experienced anincrease in agricultural exports. In all these improvements, the contribution ofwomen farmers cannot be overemphasized. Women farmers produce most of the food consumed in the domesticand international markets. They produce a variety of crops mostly forsubsistence, which are indigenous varieties of maize, pulses, sorghum, millet,groundnuts, cassava and vegetables. Women tend to sell surpluses of thesesubsistence crops to cater for other livelihood needs of the households. On theother hand, men concentrate on commercial cash crops that are mostly hybridvarieties of maize, tobacco, cotton and some varieties of groundnuts high inoil content (Cromwell and Winpenny, 1993). While literature often states thatcash and export crops are male crops while subsistence crops are cultivated bywomen, the lines of distinction are often blurred (Doss, 2001). 3
  • 19. Despite the general situation about women’s involvement insubsistence agriculture, they are also actively involved in the commercialagricultural production as helpers. Research indicates that under bothsubsistence and cash crop farming systems, women work more hourscompared to men (Engberg, Sabry and Beckerson, 1988; Government ofMalawi (GOM)/United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 1987). Ingeneral, women farmers are involved in activities categorised as productive,reproductive and community activities. As part of productive activities, theyengage in farm and off- farm activities such as crops and livestock productionand small businesses, however, their opportunities for earning income in off-farm activities are constrained by lack of time. The reproductive activitiesinclude child bearing and rearing, household keeping activities (cooking,washing, cleaning, etc) (World Bank, 1991 and Davison, 1992). Thecommunity roles of women involve attending community ceremonies andfunctions including developmental activities of the community (Brydon andChart, 1989). Despite efforts to improve the conditions of women in agriculture,women farmers face a number of challenges that limit their potential toexploit the opportunities in the agricultural sector (Tiessen, 2008). A greatdeal of research has documented the challenges that women face whichinclude small land holding sizes and lack of land rights (World Bank, 1991;Segal, 1986 and Kenedy and Peters, 1992). They lack access to cash incomefor purchase of household consumption requirements and critical inputs (Dueand Gladwin, 1991 and Hirschmann and Vaughan, 1984). Extension servicesare currently male biased in personnel and consequently in coverage, withwomen farmers often suffering from exclusion (Doss, 2001; Due, Magayane,and Temu, 1997; (GOM)/UNICEF, 1987 and Mkandawire, 1989). Womenfarmers are less likely than men to use modern inputs such as improved seeds,fertilizers, pest control measures and mechanical tools (Due and Gladwin,1991; (GOM)/UNICEF, 1987 and Spring, 1988). They also use less credit and 4
  • 20. often do not control the credit they obtain (World Bank, 1991; Burgess, 1991and Hirschmann and Vaughan, 1984). Finally, women have less education,which makes it more difficult to gain access to and use some of the otherresources, such as land, credit and fertilizer (World Bank, 1991 and GOM,1994). The obstacles that confront women farmers mean that their productivityis lower than their male counterparts are. Solid empirical evidence shows thatif women farmers used the same level of resources as men on the land theyfarm, they would obtain the same yield levels (Gilbert, Sakala, and Benson,2002; Quisumbing, 1996 and FAO, 2010b). Therefore, it is necessary toevaluate the competitiveness of women farmers in the agricultural sector.1.1.3. Women Empowerment in Malawi Due to the women farmer’s substantial contribution to Malawianagriculture, efforts have been made to empower them through implementationof policies, programs and projects. The private sectors and Non-GovernmentalOrganisations (NGOs) have also implemented various interventions aimed atempowering and supporting women farmers. Interventions like promotingwomen and girls education; promoting income-generating activities amongwomen; promoting use of labor and time saving technologies; promoting thegrowing of high-value agricultural crops; promoting value addition toagricultural products among others. The government through the Ministry ofAgriculture and Food Security in the Department of Agricultural ExtensionServices promotes gender mainstreaming across all the agriculturaldevelopment programs to enhance women farmer’s contribution to theeconomic importance of agriculture in the country. The governmentincorporates gender issues at policy level by formulating and implementingpolicies that are sensitive to gender issues. In most of the policy documentsthat are adopted and implemented by the government, for example the MalawiGrowth and Development Strategy (MGDS), the Millennium Development 5
  • 21. Goals (MDG) of the United Nations, there is a provision to address genderissues. Similarly, along with the gender approaches to development, there hasbeen a shift in the approaches to development in the agriculture sector. Thegovernment, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security has alsoadopted these approaches. The current empowerment approach Gender andDevelopment (GAD) (Moser, 1993) is more concerned about gender andgender relations in the agricultural sector looking at how gender relationsaffects planning and implementation of agricultural developmentprogrammes. It emphasizes the inclusion of men and other gender categoriesin the planning and implementation of agricultural programmes since all havean impact on the gender relations that exist in the household. This is donewith the aim of improving women’s access to benefits that are realized fromagriculture.1.2. Research Objectives Considering the importance of agriculture sector and the crucial roles ofwomen farmers in Malawian agriculture, it is fundamental to attach theimportance of women farmers to the growth of the sector, improvement ofpeople’s livelihoods and economic growth of the country. However, thechallenges that women farmers face limit their potential to contributeeffectively towards the sector. Despite the challenges women face and theexisting gender inequalities in the agriculture sector, women farmers remainthe important players in the sector. Studies on women farmers in Malawi have focused much on genderroles in the agriculture sector (Engberg, Sabry and Beckerson, 1988; (GOM)/UNICEF, 1987). Gender division of labour and challenges that womenfarmers face (Tiessen, 2008; World Bank, 1991; Segal, 1986; Kenedy andPeters, 1992; Doss, 2001; Due, Magayane and Temu, 1997 and Mkandawire,1989). However, there is no information regarding studies on competitiveness 6
  • 22. analyses on women farmers in Malawi. Therefore, the aim of this study is toconduct competitive analyses on Malawian women farmers’ empowerment bydetermining the importance of different competitive factors in empoweringwomen farmers. The study also seeks to evaluate the importance of differentalternatives to empower and support women farmers. The main objective of this study was to determine women farmer’sempowerment in Malawi through analysis of their competitiveness in theagriculture sector. The specific objectives of this research were:1. To identify and analyse the importance of competitiveness elements that enhance the competitive advantage of Malawian women farmers.2. To evaluate important alternatives and strategies for empowering women farmers in Malawian agricultural sector.3. To come up with recommendations for empowering and supporting women farmers so that they can achieve competitive advantage. 7
  • 23. 8
  • 24. 2. Literature Review This chapter aims to review literature on women empowerment andcompetitiveness. Emphasis is put on general understanding and review ofstudies on the terms. There are four sections in this chapter. The first sectionpresents the general understanding of women empowerment and a review ofliterature. The second section describes competitiveness in terms ofdefinitions as presented in literature. The third section is a review of studieson competitiveness. Lastly, this chapter presents methods for measuringcompetitiveness.2.1. Women Empowerment Women empowerment is a process whereby women become able toorganize themselves to increase their own self-reliance, to assert theirindependent right to make choices and to control resources that will assist inchallenging and eliminating their own subordination (Keller and Mbwewe,1991). Empowerment of different groups of women has been the subject ofmany studies. Since the mid 1980s, the term has been particularly attractive tothird world feminist scholars and practitioners. For example, (Afshar, 1998),who were concerned with integrating poor women in development projects insuch a way that this would bring greater self-reliance, and enable them tochallenge their highly disadvantaged positions in the society and family,gaining control over lives. The World Food Summit Plan of Action (1996)recognizes the importance of the empowerment of women to the achievementof food security and the need to remove the constraints hindering them.Commitment one of the World Food Summit Plan of Action reads:“We will ensure an enabling political, social, and economic environmentdesigned to create the best conditions for the eradication of poverty and fordurable peace, based on full and equal participation of women and men,which is most conducive to achieving sustainable food security for all.” 9
  • 25. In her analysis of gender planning, Moser (1993) identified fivedifferent approaches to policymaking vis-à-vis women. These were welfare,equity, antipoverty, efficiency and empowerment approaches. The welfareapproach was the most dominant during the 1950s and 1960s. It placesemphasis on women’s roles as caregivers and sees them as passivebeneficiaries of development. The main method of implementation wasthrough “top-down” handouts of free goods and services or through trainingin those skills deemed appropriate for non-working homemakers and mothers.In other words, this approach does not challenge women’s traditional roles aswives and mothers responsible for the welfare of the family. In turn, theequity, antipoverty and efficiency approaches were developed in the mid1970s and onwards. While the first focused on women’s need to gain equitywith men in the development process by means of top-down legislation andother measures, the antipoverty and efficiency approaches aimed at ensuringthat poor women increase their “productivity” and participation in theeconomy. All four approaches were based on Women in Development (WID)premises that women have been “marginalized” and need to be “integrated” into development. From this perspective, women were considered a valuable“resource” of development and are entirely in terms of their delivery capacityand ability to extend their working day, rather than as development agentscapable of bringing about social change. All four approaches fail to recognizethe complex interaction between women’s role as producers, reproducers andcommunity organizers and ignore the fact that women are alreadyparticipating in the productive sector in considerable numbers. By contrast,the empowerment approach derives from Gender and Development (GAD)ideas. Rathgeber (quoted in Braidotti, 1994) summarized this position asfollows: 10
  • 26. “The gender and development trend analyze the nature of women’scontribution inside and outside the household. It sees women as agents ofchange rather than as passive recipients of development assistance. It alsoquestions the underlying assumptions of current social, economic andpolitical structures and leads not only to the design of interventions andaffirmative action strategies which will ensure that women are betterintegrated in to on-going development efforts but also to a fundamentalreexamination of social structures and institutions.” Thus, the empowerment approach places considerable attention onwomen’s triple roles as producers, reproducers and community organizers,and stresses the importance of bottom-up mobilization as a means to confrontoppression. Although empowerment approach is the most desirable in termsof equality, it is by no means the most widely practiced. Concern over women’s subordination in law is not new. Beginningfrom the nineteenth century and to the twentieth century, the world haswitnessed innumerable women’s movements seeking to pressure governmentsand societies to recognize not only women’s civil rights but also that womanshould enjoy equal working conditions and wages. However, it was not untilfeminist movements gained recognition in the seventies and the UnitedNations women’s decade achieved significant advances, that it becamepossible to conduct a series of studies on rural women. These studies showclearly and conclusively that women’s contribution to the developmentprocess is much greater than previously assumed, and that women suffer fromproblems stemming from traditional gender-based division of labor, whichsees them exclusively taken up with their reproductive role as mothers andhomemakers. Boserup’s book, Women’s Role in Economic Development (1970) wascritical for the emergence of women as a consistency of development(Kabeer, 1995). The declaration of the first development decade (1961-70) 11
  • 27. did not refer to women, but the international development strategy for thesecond decade (1970s) encouraged “the full integration of women in the totaldevelopment effort.” Empowering women for development should have highreturns in terms of increased output, greater equity and social progress(Kabeer, 1995). Policies to improve women’s employment and educationalopportunities, political participation and physical and mental well-being havebeen given high international profile since 1975. The “status of women” as well as the factors that confer the statusvaries considerably across regions. A woman’s status is often described interms of her income, employment, education, health, and fertility as well asthe roles she plays within a family, the community and society. It alsoinvolves society’s perception of these roles and the value it places them. Thestatus of women implies a comparison with the status of men and is thereforea significant reflection of the level of social justice in the society (UNDP,1995). Women’s low status and lack of decision-making power are some ofthe reasons why sub-Saharan African countries have the highest rates ifilliteracy among women. As female children of illiterate women are unlikelyto have basic primary school education, the impact of poor education ispassed on to the daughter generations. Thus, there is a big challenge to breakthe vicious cycle of poor education and poverty by gender-oriented literacycampaign (Kabira, Gachukia and Matiiangi, 1997). The improvement of women’s education opportunities can empowerthem and bring positive impact on the achievement of food security. There isa gap between women and men literacy rate (FAO, 2011). Improvingwomen’s education can improve their abilities and thus can play a vital role inthe development program. The 1996 World Food Summit acknowledged bothwomen’s fundamental contributions to food security and the importance ofenabling women to have equal access to educational opportunities. It isinsufficient to increase women’s education opportunities, however, without atthe same time ensuring that women can benefit equally from these 12
  • 28. opportunities. Educational opportunities and empowerment of women gohand in hand, education contributes to the empowerment of women and theempowerment of women makes it possible for women to benefit fromeducational opportunities. Human capital is a major factor in determining opportunities availableto individuals in society and is closely linked to the productive capacity ofhouseholds and their economic and social well-being. The level of humancapital available in a household (usually measured as the education of thehousehold head or average age of working-age adults in the household) isstrongly correlated with measures such as agricultural productivity, householdincome, and nutritional outcomes – all of which ultimately affect householdwelfare and economic growth at national level (World Bank, 2007a). Theeducation gender gap in levels of enrollment and attainment remains wide inSouthern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, however, progress has been made tonarrow this gap. A survey by the Agricultural Science and TechnologyIndicators (ASTI) and the African Women in Agricultural Research andDevelopment (AWARD) in 2008 in 15 sub-Saharan African countries foundout that the pool of female professional staff increased by 50 percent between2000/01 and 2007/08. The survey also found out that the share of women intotal professional staff increased from 18 – 24 percent over the period(Beintema, 2006; Beintema and Di Marcantonio, 2009). Provision of agricultural extension services to women farmers helps toempower them with technical knowledge required for their enterprises.Extension services encompass the wide range of services provided by expertsin the areas of agriculture, agribusiness, health and others and are designed toimprove productivity and the overall well-being of the rural populations. Theprovision of agricultural extension services can lead to significant yieldincreases, yet extension provision in developing countries remains low forboth men and women, and women tend to make less use of extension services(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). According to a 1988-89 FAO survey of 13
  • 29. extension organizations covering 97 countries with sex-disaggregated data,only 5 percent of all extension resources were directed towards women.Moreover, only 15 percent of the extension personnel were female (FAO,1993). Extension service agents tend to approach male farmers more oftenthan female because of the general misconception that women do not farmand that extension advice will eventually trickle down from the malehousehold head to all other household members. Women farmers are lesslikely to access resources and may therefore be bypassed by extension serviceproviders (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). Time constraints and culturalreservations may also hinder women from participating in extension activities(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). In response, several new and participatoryextension approaches have been developed and tested in an effort to moveaway from the top-down model of extension service delivery to more farmer-driven services. These approaches can target women effectively and increasetheir participation and uptake of innovations (Davis et al., 2009) Financial services such as savings, credit and insurance provideopportunities for improving agricultural output, food security and economicvitality at the household, community and national levels. A report by FAOindicated that improving women’s direct access to financial resources is oneway of empowering women economically and it leads to higher investmentsin human capital in the form of children’s health, nutrition and education(FAO, 2011). Evidence shows that credit markets are not gender-neutral.Legal barriers and cultural norms sometimes bar women from holding bankaccounts or entering into financial contracts in their own right. Womengenerally have less control over the type of fixed assets that are usuallynecessary as collateral for loans. Institutional discrimination by private andpublic lending institutions often either ration women out of the market orgrant women loans that are smaller than those granted to men for similaractivities (Fletschner, 2009 and World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009). InNigeria for example, 14 percent of males compared to only 5 percent offemales obtained formal credit while in Kenya the percentages were 14 14
  • 30. percent males and 4 percent females respectively (Saito, Mekonnen andSpurling, 1994).2.2. Competitiveness It is important to be clear about what exactly the term“competitiveness" means as there is much debate on this subject. Banse et al.(1999) pointed out that “no single measure or definition of competitivenesshas gained the universal acceptance of either economists or managementtheorists.” There has been a profusion of definitions applied to differentorganizational and spatial entities like firms, sectors, industries, regions, andstates, and to proxies such as the balance of payments, market shares, costs,and job creation. Most authors use the term to refer to an advantage of firmsor industries vis-à-vis their competitors in domestic or international markets.Some authors have extended the meaning to entire economies (WorldEconomic Forum, 1995; Markusen, 1992 and Porter, 1990). Competitivenessis equivalent to strong performance of economies relative to other countries,where strong performance can mean economic growth, success in exports andincreased wellbeing. It is clear that economy-wide conditions such asgenerally high levels of education, productivity, natural resource endowmentand business-friendly economic policies, can have significant impacts on thecompetitiveness of specific firms and industries (Cockburn et al., 1998). Thedefinition of competitiveness in a more general outlook is referred to as theability of providing products and services with a satisfactory profit in aninternational competitive environment (Reve and Mathiensen, 1994). Thisstudy focuses on this definition to evaluate the competitiveness of womenfarmers in Malawi. Scientific discussion and efforts for giving an initial definition for“competitiveness” flourished in the 1980s in many countries. This discussionwas a result of the booming technological evolution, the rapid globalization ofmarkets and trading and the total economical activity. Since 1990s and theearly 21st century the constitutional nature of competition radically 15
  • 31. transformed (Tapscott, 2001), thus demanding new fundamental principles onthe scientific research of the term. In academic studies, economic competitiveness has been defined inseveral ways. The most systematic work in this connection has been done byTrabold, who distinguishes between four important aspects ofcompetitiveness (Trabold, 1995). 1. Ability to sell (export ability) 2. Ability to attract foreign investment and labour force (location) 3. Ability to adjust to changing environmental conditions 4. Ability to earn (to cover the current expenses and investment needs with income and to show profit). Considering competitiveness specifically for agricultural sector, variousapproaches have been applied following a number of different methodologiesfor quantitative considerations. Gorton et al. (2001) estimated Poland’sagricultural competitiveness based on the Domestic Resource Cost Model(DRC) (Pearson and Meyer, 1974). This model measures domestic productioneffectiveness in agricultural sector in terms of international prices. Gorton etal. (2006) also followed this method for estimating Hungary’s agriculturalsector competitiveness. Lee et al. (2003) also used the same method but incombination with Net Private Profitability (NPP) method in order to estimateaquaculture sector competitiveness between Taiwan, Japan and China. Banseet al. (1999) computed the DRC ratios for various crops (wheat, barley,maize, rapeseed and sunflower) and livestock (beef, pork and milk) sectors inHungary during 1990-96. Gorton, Davidova, and Ratinger (2000) againcalculated the DRC for the main Bulgarian and Czech agriculturalcommodities during 1994-96 and adjusted it using EU15 output and inputprices, in order to assess the commodities competitiveness with regard to theworld and to the EU15. Also using the DRC ratio and farm-level data, 16
  • 32. (Gorton et al., 2001) investigated how competitive Polish agriculture wasbetween 1996 and 1998. Ahearn, Culver, and Schoney (1990) compared the competitiveness ofwheat production in the United States and Canada by calculating costs ofproduction in 1986-87. In the same way, (Bureau and Butault, 1992)calculated the costs of production for the EU countries in 1984 to assess theircompetitiveness in the soft wheat, sugar beet, hog and milk sectors. Again,Bureau, Butault, and Hoque (1992) investigated the competitiveness in wheatproduction of EU countries and the United States in 1984-86, by calculatingcosts of production as an average over the period. Similarly, (Thorne, 2005)measured the competitiveness of cereal production in Denmark, Germany,France, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom during 1996-2000 bycalculating various cost indicators: total costs as a percentage of the value oftotal output (including area payments); margin over costs per 100 kilogramsof output volume; and margin over costs per hectare of cereal production. In order to assess the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food industry in1986, (van Duren et al., 1991) used three profit measures. He calculated theprofits by the ratio of value added to sales; value added to workers; or valueadded to plants. These three indicators were then aggregated to compare thecompetitiveness of Canada, the EU and the United States, according to theirranking with each indicator. Viaene and Gellynck (1998) also evaluated thecompetitiveness of the pig meat processing sector in Belgium during 1987-93by looking at several profitability measures: the net sales margin (i.e. the netprofit relative to the level of sales); the business assets turnover (i.e. salesdivided by business assets); the ratio of net profits on own funds; and thefinancial leverage. To evaluate the competitiveness of the Czech dairyindustry, (Bavorova, 2003) computed a yearly profitability measure as apercentage of total profit in total costs. 17
  • 33. Alvarano, Morina and Bol (2008) conducted another research toinvestigate the communities that border the Parismina River of Costa Rica.The main purpose of this study was to identify the structural weaknesses thatare present in enterprises of the region and the impact of these weaknesses onthe competitiveness factors identified by Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD). The results indicated that factorssuch as the organizational structure and the development of linkages acrossthe value chain severely affected business competitiveness in the region. Inaddition, the ability to make decisions strengthened negotiation and marketingposition. Mulder et al. (2004) investigated the competitiveness of agriculture andthe agro-food sector in the Mercosur countries and in the EU during 1991-99.They calculated Real Exchange Rate (RER) and Relative Real ExchangeRates (RRER). They showed that Mercosur countries (with the exception ofParaguay for which it was stable) experienced until 1998 a decrease incompetitiveness (i.e. an increase in the exchange rate). In 1999, thedevaluation of the Brazilian currency increased competitiveness. Regardingthe EU countries, despite a convergence within the Euro countries since 1997,figures revealed a group of countries with low competitiveness: Ireland, Italy,Portugal and Spain. Applying Balassa and Vollrath indices, competitiveness can bemeasured. Several studies have applied these indices and have been widelyaccepted. For instance, the competitiveness of Hungarian agro-food productsvis-à-vis the European Union (EU) was measured using these indices (theoriginal Balassa index, relative trade advantage, relative export advantage,and natural logarithm of the relative export advantage) in the period 1992 to1998 (Fertő and Hubbard, 2003). Banterle and Carraresi (2007) assessed the competitiveness of theprepared swine meat sector in the EU during 2000-03. Calculation of the 18
  • 34. Export Market Size (EMS) revealed that during 2000-03, Italy had the highestexport share of the sector followed by Germany. As for comparativeadvantage measures, Denmark had the highest Revealed ComparativeAdvantage (RCA) score, followed by Italy, while low Revealed ImportAdvantage (RMA) scores were found in Finland, Italy and Spain. Wijnands etal. (2008) also assessed the competitiveness of the EU15 food industry vis-à-vis Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the United States for the period 1996-2004.Using trade data for individual countries, the authors calculated the growth ofRCA and the growth of EMS in the world market for the EU15 and the otherfour countries. They found that the EU15 had very low competitivenesscompared to Brazil in terms of both measures, but higher competitiveness interms of share growth in the world market (although lower in terms of RCAgrowth). Concerning the effect of gender, competitiveness has also been studiedto compare the technical efficiency in terms of productivity between male andfemale farmers. Quisumbing (1996) explained that, in general, studiesinvestigating male-female differences in technical efficiency show nodifference. This was also the case for the study by (Chavas, Petrie and Roth,2005) for Gambian farmers in 1993. In contrast, (Timothy and Adeoti, 2006),found that for cassava growers in Nigeria in 2004 female farmers showedsuperior technical efficiency than male farmers, but lower allocate efficiency.The authors attributed the differentials to different access to inputs. Mathijsand Vranken (2001) reported that the share of women in the household had apositive impact on the technical efficiency of Hungarian crop farms in 1997.2.3. Methods for Measuring Competitiveness Researchers study competitiveness either from the perspectives of anation or an individual firm. As a result, studies of competitiveness are foundacross multiple disciplines including economics performance measurement,strategic management, operations management as well as policy research.Over the past decades, the literature on this subject mainly centred on 19
  • 35. questions of measuring competitiveness using various indicators andidentifying sources of competitive advantage or so-called competitivenessdrivers. Attempts to answer these questions have produced extensive research,especially in the strategic management and operations management fields ofstudy. In strategic management, the approach assesses competitivenessaccording to financial performance, and identifies competitiveness drivers ascompetitive conditions of markets and resources of firms. To explain whyfirms achieve different profit rates, the literature provides two important butcontrasting theories: the Industrial Organization (IO) and the Resource-BasedView (RBV) of the firm (Hoskisson et al., 1999). The IO theory explains whyfirms operating in some industries are more profitable than others. It assertsthat firm profitability is a function of the industrial environment or marketconditions, since the nature of an industry directs behaviours of firms(Hoskisson et al., 1999). Resource Based View (RBV) theorists believe the firm’s resources arethe most important factors affecting profitability (Barney, 2001; Wernerfelt,1984). The term “resources” refers to bundles of tangible and intangible assetsas well as skills, which are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and notsubstitutable (Barney, Wright, and Ketchen, 2001). According to Barney(1991), resources refer to “all assets, capabilities, organizational processes,firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc controlled by a firm, that enable afirm to develop and implement strategies that improve its efficiency andeffectiveness.” Thus By developing and exploiting firm resources, managerscan change the “rules of the game”– competitive conditions, and establish acompetitive advantage that addresses customer values (Stoelhorst and vanRaaij, 2004). Market share is an indicator of competitiveness that measures thepercentage of a world commodity market held by an exporter. Shifts in market 20
  • 36. share reflect changing competitiveness across countries. Market share can bedefined as: MS ia = XS ia / XS aw (1)where (XS) denotes exports, subscript (a) refers to a commodity, (i) denotehome country and (w) refers to world.The disadvantage of this measure is that simple comparisons of market sharemay not describe an ability to compete because market share may be a resultof export subsidies. An example is Saudi Arabia where large subsidies andnot resource advantage increased its market share in wheat production(Vollrath, 1989). Swann and Taghavi (1992) pointed out that market sharesalone give no indication of how competitiveness will change with price,product redesign, change in price or design of substitute, or the exchange rate.The use of other measures helps to explain more about competitiveness(Vollrath, 1989). Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) measures a country’s exportsof a commodity relative to its total exports and to the corresponding exportperformance of a set of countries (competitors) (Vargas, 2006). The basiclogic behind RCA is to evaluate comparative advantage on the basis of acountry’s specialization in exports relative to some reference group (Batra andKhan, 2005). Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) was first formulatedby Balassa (1965) and modified by Vollrath (1991) in order to avoid doublecounting between pairs of countries. RCA is sometimes called the Balassaindex. Vollrath’s modified version is called the Relative export advantage(RXA) measure, as it is based on exports. This calculates the ratio of acountry’s export share of a commodity in the international market to thecountry’s export share of all other commodities.Vollrath (1991) on the otherhand, offered mainly three alternative ways of measurement of a country’sRCA to calculate international competitiveness. These indices offer theadvantage that can be resorted into statistics of agricultural trade. These 21
  • 37. equations measure the competitiveness and the export/import performancethrough post-trade data, which allows distinguishing commodities thatpossess competitiveness (Ayala-Garay et al., 2009). An index of export shareratios reflects the extent of trade specialization. Aggregation and policyeffects may distort any measure of revealed comparative advantage (RCA)and selection of a particular level of aggregation may obscure the pattern ofcomparative advantage. Letting (i) denote country and (j) commodity: RCAj = (Xij / Xiw) / (Xwj / Xw) (2)where Xij is exports by country i of commodity j, Xiw is total exports ofcountry I (summed over j), Xwj is the total world trade in commodity j(summed over i), and XW is total world trade (summed over i and j). Thismeasure gauges a country’s world export share of a commodity with its totalexport share of total world exports. If country i’s share of world exports ofcommodity j is greater than that country i’s share of world exports of allgoods, RCA > 1, suggesting a country has revealed a comparative advantagein the production of that commodity. Vollrath (1989) used RCA to show that from 1982 to 1986 the US hada 53% share of world soybean exports compared to an 11% share of allexports, making the relative export share of the US in soybeans almost 5,suggesting that US was 5 times better at exporting soybeans than at exportingall agricultural products. The US, Australia, and Canada showed relativeexport advantages for wheat, and Pakistan and Thailand had higher relativeexport advantages than the US in rice. Vollrath (1991) offers three alternativespecifications of revealed comparative advantage. The first is Relative TradeAdvantage (RTA), which is the difference between the Balassa relative exportadvantage (RXA), and relative import advantage (RMA). RXA = (Xij/Xit) / (Xnj/Xnt) (3)where (n) is a set of countries and its counterpart relative import advantage 22
  • 38. RMA = (Mij/Mit) / (Mnj/Mnt) (4)Where (m) represents imports RTA = RXA – RMA (5)Vollrath’s second measure is the logarithm of the relative export advantage(lnRXA) and his third measure is Revealed Competitiveness (RC). RC = lnRXA – lnRMA (6) Domestic Resource Cost (DRC) analysis and, more generally, cost-benefit analysis constitutes an area of economic literature with many lessonsfor the analysis of competitiveness (Balassa and Associates, 1982; and Siggeland Cockburn, 1995). As its name implies, this predominantly empiricalbranch is devoted to measuring the costs and benefits of specific projects and,more generally, the so-called comparative advantage (essentiallycompetitiveness measured in the absence of price distortions) of firms andindustries. Costs and benefits are generally measured at social or shadowprices thus eliminating the effects of price distortions. The domestic resourcecosts (DRC) ratio compares the opportunity costs of domestic production withthe value added it generates (Gorton et al., 2001). It was originally proposedfor measuring the gain from expanding profitable projects or the cost ofmaintaining unprofitable activities through trade protection (Masters andWinter- Nelson, 1995). According to Masters and Winter-Nelson (1995)because the DRC ratio is based on the cost of non-tradable inputs, itunderstates the competitiveness of activities that use mainly such domesticfactors in comparison to those that rely more on tradable inputs. To overcomethis shortcoming, Masters and Winter-Nelson (1995) proposed the SocialCost-Benefit (SCB) ratio. Using the same data as for the DRC ratio but in adifferent relationship, the SCB ratio is defined as the ratio of the sum ofdomestic (non-tradable) and tradable input cost to the price of the goodconsidered. 23
  • 39. When it comes to the concept of competitiveness or competitiveadvantage, existing work must be introduced from the basis of the theory andresearch concerning competitive advantage completed by (Porter, 1990). Inhis book of “The Competitive Advantage of Nations,” he addresses thequestion “Why do nations succeed in particular industries, and what are theimplications for firms and for the national economies?” Porter stresses theimportant role played by a nation’s economic environment, institutions andpolicies.” Porter (1990) was one of the first to underline the importance of firms’strategy and structure in developing their competitiveness. The authorproposed the so-called “diamond model” according to which nations succeedin industries for which the national diamond is the most favourable. The fourcorners of the diamond are: 1) factor conditions; 2) demand conditions; 3)presence of related and supporting industries; and 4) firm strategy, structureand rivalry. In addition to the four factors, there is an interaction of other twoexternal factors: 5) government role and 6) chance. In this framework,performance indicators such as cost superiority, profitability, productivity,and efficiency reveal competitiveness. Among management theories, Porter’s (1990) framework and theresource-based view (RBV) have been recognized as the most influentialperspectives to explain competitive advantage and why some firms succeedwhere others fail (Powell, 2001). Those scholars who believe that competitiveadvantage is associated with firms’ specific resources (Foss, 1997; Wernefelt,1984) have supported the RBV theory. Supporters of this theory claim that themanagement of firms’ specific resources is the main determinant ofdifferential performances between companies (Barney, 2001). They argue thatthose companies capable of developing rare and non-substitutable resourcesand capabilities such as technical knowledge, managerial ability, andorganizational capabilities (routines and interactions); will achieve 24
  • 40. competitive advantage over competing firms (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt,1984). SWOT analysis is a planning tool that aims at identifying the strengthsand weaknesses of an organization and the opportunities and threats in theenvironment. The SWOT analysis is a qualitative method for the strategicplanning. It is able to help enterprises evaluate their competitivenessqualitatively and can be used as a foundation for the development ofstrategies. The strengths and weaknesses are the internal factors while thethreats and opportunities are the external factors. It is commonly accepted thatthe strengths and weaknesses demonstrate the organizations internalcharacteristics and are controllable whereas, an organization’s opportunitiesand threats are determined by external factors on which it has no directcontrol but can react to its own advantage. The method allows organizationsto understand and plan using their strengths to exploit opportunities torecognize and repair or avoid weaknesses and to defend against or sidestepany known threats (Weihrich, Cannice, and Koontz, 2008). Due to its above-mentioned capabilities in strategic management,SWOT analysis has been widely utilized in various business settings to makeeffective decisions. However, it possesses a major drawback; the lack of theidentification of the importance ranking for the SWOT factors/criteria.Therefore, researchers developed models which incorporate AnalyticHierarchy Process (AHP) in SWOT and named their approaches ‘‘SWOT-AHP method (or analysis)’’ which can determine the priorities for the SWOTfactors (Kurttila, et al., 2000). The method has been used in several cases to evaluate thecompetitiveness of different sectors for example, The SWOT analysis wasused to develop the systematic competitiveness of fresh tomato industry ofZacatecas (Mexico) protected agriculture (Padilla-Bernal, et al., 2010).Alcantara et al. (2009) used a SWOT method to evaluate the drivers of 25
  • 41. competitiveness by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Brazilianagri-systems to take advantage of possible opportunity of increasing export toEU in the face of scenarios of trade agreements. Rochman et al. (2011)examined nanotechnology development strategy to increase competitivenessof national agro-industries by using quantitative SWOT-AHP analysis. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-objective or multicriteriameasurement that helps to address the complicated decision problem,identifying decision making factors, measuring the importance of the factors,and synthesizing all the decision making factors (Saaty, 2008). AHP reflects asimple fact that the nature of decision-making requires a series of logicalconsiderations of different factors involved in a certain decision-makingsituation. Many times, decision-making factors are difficult to quantify orprioritise, as they are intangible, subjective, and non-quantifiable. One of theadvantages of AHP is that the method can convert intangible factors intonumerical values, and systematically evaluate weights of selected factors inpairs through a series of comparisons (Saaty, 2008). Therefore, thecornerstone of AHP is the logic of pair-wise comparison. The pair-wisecomparisons allow for the production of the relative importance value, whichis called weight, and the importance value is computed using the Eigenvaluemethod. The AHP is an intuitively easy method for formulating and analysingdecisions. The process was developed to solve a specific class of problemsthat involve the prioritization of potential alternative solutions. A ConsistencyRatio is calculated to check the consistency of judgments. Inconsistency islikely to occur when decision-makers make careless errors or exaggeratedjudgments during the process of pair-wise comparison. A consistency ratio of0.1 is considered the acceptable upper limit. The outcome of the AHP is an optimum choice among alternativedecisions. The model utilizes quantitative as well as qualitative factors in its 26
  • 42. analysis. Tavana (2004) has pointed out that AHP is preferred to multipleregressions for qualitative criteria because these criteria do not allow for aneasy derivation of measurable attributes, however, operationally, the multipleattribute utility approach does better than AHP. AHP has several advantages,including over-specification of judgment, built-in consistency tests, use ofappropriate measurement scales and applicability in elicitation of utilityfunctions. Due to these advantages, there has been a successful application ofthe AHP to a variety of problem areas, including allocation of resources,conflict resolution, forecasting, input output analysis, planning, choice ofbehaviour and sustainable development planning (Quaddus and Siddique,2001). AHP has also been used to measure competitiveness in differentstudies. For example, AHP was one of the analytical methods used to evaluatetourism competitiveness on selection of tourism destination. The othermethods include Multiple Criteria Decision Evaluation Model, DataEnvelopment Analysis (DEA), Consumer Demand Model, and RegressionModel (Chang, 1997; Shen and Tsai, 2001; Shen and Hsieh, 2002). Sirikai(2006) analyzed the competitiveness of automotive components industry inThailand by evaluating trade-offs among the varying degrees of importance ofcompetitiveness indicators and the different effects of competitivenessdrivers. Another study by (Li and Tian, 2012) was conducted using AHP toevaluate the performance of specialized cooperative organizations of farmersin Sichuan, China. 27
  • 43. 28
  • 44. 3. Methodology The primary purpose of this study was to analyse women farmers’empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses. To accomplish thispurpose, the research adopted a SWOT analysis to identify women farmers’strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as well as to formulatestrategies. These were linked to the Porter’s Diamond Model to identifyfactors of competitiveness and alternatives for women empowerment. Porter’sDiamond Model was adopted and modified so that as it is a commonly usedmeasure of competitiveness, it may also apply to the situation of womenfarmers. Then, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used todetermine the importance of the factors and alternative strategies inempowering women farmers. The first section of this chapter presents theresearch framework where models and methods are identified. The secondsection describes the questionnaire design. The sampling method is presentedin the third section. Section 4 presents the description of statistical analysisfor the study.3.1. The Research Framework Figure 3.1 illustrate the research framework for this study. It shows theprocedure that was followed to conduct this research to meet the objectives. 29
  • 45. Figure 3.1. Research Framework for Determining the Competitiveness of Malawian Women Farmers. 30
  • 46. 3.1.1. The SWOT Analysis Application A SWOT analysis was done to come up with strengths, weaknesses,opportunities and threats for women farmers in Malawi. In this study, theSWOT analysis provides a clear picture of the position of Malawian womenfarmers in the agriculture sector, which determines their competitiveness. Thestrengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are explained in details in thissection. Table 3.1 shows the SWOT matrix for women farmers in Malawi.Strengths 1. Women are equipped with local and indigenous knowledge. Malawian women are the custodians of local and indigenous knowledge. By having such knowledge, new technologies would just build on the existing knowledge. FAO (2005) reported that local knowledge serves as a critical livelihood asset for poor rural women for securing food, shelter and medicines. 2. Women are hard working. A survey by FAO in 2010 found out that in sub-Saharan Africa, women grow as much as 90 percent of the regions food (FAO, 2010). The working day of women is at least 50 percent longer than that of men. Many women in developing countries including Malawi work an average of 12-16 hours in a day (Sinn and Wahyuni, 1996). Women’s triple roles often translate to working long hours and this manifests their hardworking spirit as they ensure that they fulfill all their roles. With proper planning and equity in distribution of roles this hardworking and long hours working can be productive without compromising their health. 3. Women farmers have the ability to produce efficiently. Just like male farmers, women can produce efficiently given the right production conditions. Substantial and growing evidence demonstrate that women farmers can produce on par with or better than men can (Quisumbing, 1996). With similar access to resources and inputs as men, women stand to achieve equal or higher yields than men. If women farmers 31
  • 47. were given the same access to resources (such as finance), women’s agricultural yields could increase by 20 to 30 percent; national agricultural production could rise by 2.5 percent to 4 percent; and the number of malnourished people could be reduced by 12 to 17 percent (FAO, 2011). 4. Women farmers often diversify their enterprises. In most cases, they are involved in a number of agricultural enterprises including crops, livestock, off-farm activities and small and medium enterprises. Their ability to intercrop the staple food crop with other legumes and vegetables on the very small piece of land gives them an advantage in terms of engaging in different economic activities both on and off the farm. As a result, they are able to cope with changes in the market since they can supply different products. 5. Women farmers are market sensitive and are aware of the changes taking place the market hence they are able to respond to these changes by diversifying their enterprises.Weaknesses 1. Time constraints - Women perform multiple roles as agricultural producers, workers, mothers, and caregivers (Razavi and Miller, 1998). Women face far greater time constraints than men. They may spend less time on farm work but work longer total hours on productive and household work and paid and unpaid work, due to gender-based division of labour in childcare and household responsibilities. 2. Small land holding sizes - In most parts of sub-Saharan Africa including Malawi where customary property regimes prevail, community leaders tend to favor males over females in the allocation of land, both in terms of quantity and quality. Malawi is a densely populated country with an average land holding size of less than a hectare. However, men continue to dominate over them in terms of land 32
  • 48. holding. Small land holding sizes is common in Malawi especially among women (FAO, 2010).3. Poor access to markets - One of the major challenges that farmers in Malawi face is poor access to markets for their agricultural produce. Due to poor market infrastructure farmers tend to travel long distances to urban areas in search for viable markets. Due to lower economic status than men, women tend to face challenges to travel to such markets. Furthermore, traveling to such distant markets compromises their reproductive roles. This trend results into women being forced to use local markets trading with intermediate buyers who reap them off by buying at poor prices. The situation for Malawian women farmers is even worse considering the disproportionate obstacles in accessing and competing in markets. These include women’s relative lack of mobility, capacity and technical skills in relation to men (World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009).4. Illiteracy levels among women in Malawi are over 60 percent (GOM, 2010), which poses a challenge for them to ably indulge in market-oriented farming. Until recently, the boy child was the most favored in terms of education as the belief was women would rely on their husbands once they are married. Hence, illiteracy level is higher among women than men. This trend has had an impact on record keeping and access to information that is important to agribusiness. Furthermore, high illiteracy levels affect technology adoption, which impacts heavily on enhancement on agriculture production (World Bank, 2007).5. Less access to financial and credit facilities - Women compared to men have less access to financial and credit facilities in most developing countries including Malawi (FAO, 2010). Women have less access to formal financial services because of high transaction costs, limited education and mobility, social and cultural barriers, the nature of their businesses, and collateral requirements, such as land title, they can’t meet. Women’s roles as primary caregivers and health risks associated with 33
  • 49. childbearing also lead to intermittency in employment, which makes them risky clients for banks.6. Less access to agricultural extension services - On average, women have less access to agricultural extension services compared to men. Some of the reasons for this bias are: womens daily workloads do not usually allow them to be absent from home for residential training. Second, these services have been predominantly staffed by and they tended to direct their services to male farmers or heads of households, excluding female-headed households and women members of male-headed households (World Bank, 2000). Women farmers have less contact with extension services than men do, especially where male-female contact is culturally restricted. Male agents often provide extension to men farmers on the wrong assumption that the message will trickle down to women. In fact, agricultural knowledge is transferred inefficiently or not at all from husband to wife. In addition, the message tends to ignore the unique workload, responsibilities, and constraints facing women farmers.7. Poor access to and control over production resources - Generally, Malawian women farmers have poor access to and control over production resources. Women produce most of the food that is consumed locally and are responsible for household food security in many rural areas. More equitable access to land, fertilizers, water for irrigation, seeds, technology, tools, livestock and extension services would make agriculture a more efficient means of promoting shared economic growth, reducing poverty and improving food security and rural livelihoods. They often have weak property and contractual rights to land, water and other natural resources. Even where legislation is in place, lack of legal knowledge and weak implementation often limits the ability of women to exercise their rights (Koopman, 1993). 34
  • 50. Opportunities 1. Existing government support - the government of Malawi makes an effort to support women farmers through the formulation of policies under various government policy strategies like the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS), the Millennium Development Goals (MGD) of the United Nations to address issues of gender. Government support has been evident through setting a ministry (Ministry of Gender, Child Development and Community Development) specifically looking at gender issues. Furthermore, gender focal points have been put in government institutions besides allocation of funds meant for reducing gender inequalities. With such support, the initiatives that aim at ensuring equity and equality can be achieved. The government also implements projects and programs that are aimed at empowering and supporting women farmers to enhance their contribution in the agriculture sector. Some of these programs include: provision of input subsidies that benefit disadvantaged farmers including women (for example the Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP); provision of micro-loans; linking women farmers to markets and negotiating product prices with international buyers on behalf of farmers; investing in education for girls; and protecting women’s property rights. To ensure incorporation of gender as a crosscutting issue in all the agricultural development programs, the government promotes a gender mainstreaming approach. 2. Gender awareness campaigns - Gender issues cut across virtually all aspects of agriculture. In recent years, greater attention has been devoted to gender at both national and international levels and since the recognition of the contribution of women in agriculture, there have been gender awareness campaigns at both levels. With more donor support which emphasis upholding of human rights especially those of 35
  • 51. the marginalized, the country embarked on sensitization campaigns which have opened up people’s minds to ably challenge practices that abuse women. These campaigns are continuing which simplifies the efforts in ensuring that women are empowered and participate actively in decision making3. Existing support from the private sector and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) - the private sector and NGOs like World Bank has institutional policies and commitments to ending discrimination against women and promoting gender equality in Malawi. Some of the interventions include investment in women education, provision of credits, promotion of income generating activities, promoting the use of labor and time saving technologies, encouraging the growing of high- value agricultural commodities and promoting value addition to agricultural products. NGOs continue to play a lead role in ensuring that women farmers receive training, information, and improved technologies. Their services often are increasing in scope and scale, either as complementary support to government efforts or to fill the gaps created as government expenditures and capabilities decline. An important emphasis, which recently has been highlighted in NGO programmes, is their support for membership-based community and farmer organizations. Women as well as men benefit from the expanding opportunities to develop farmer-to-farmer extension and training networks and to form partnerships with agricultural researchers and development agencies (World Bank, 2007).4. The government of Malawi enforces laws to protect women’s rights. The Malawi constitution prohibits any discrimination based on gender, race or tribe. This is an opportunity for reducing gender inequalities since it is the only way to challenge patriarchy system. Several reforms have taken place to ensure that legally women are protected from any sort of discrimination. For instance, under the land reforms, the constitution any inheritance of property based on ones gender but all 36
  • 52. children regardless of sex has equal opportunity of inheriting property. The only challenge is to sensitize communities on their rights and about the constitution to guide their actions.Threats 1. Global Climate change is one of the greatest threats to the agricultural sector in the world today and Malawi has not been spared from the impacts of climate change. For the past years, there have been incidences of droughts in the country that have resulted in crop failures. Although the impacts of climate change are experienced in the whole agricultural sector, but the impact is great among women farmers due to other disadvantages in accessing the production resources. 2. In most African countries, gender discrimination exists and it is usually cultural based. In Malawi, the situation is the same. Social norms underlie the allocation of land, men’s and women’s labour allocation in agriculture. This traditional bias against women has led to an asymmetric distribution of rights, resources and responsibilities (Udry, 1996). In addition, women are considered second citizens in the society such that they are denied most development privileges. In Malawi a number of forms of discrimination still persist especially in rural areas where cultural traditions are still very strong. The government of Malawi has adopted various international conventions advocating for an end to discrimination against women but the extent to which these conventions have been implemented is not known. 3. The agricultural marketing system in Malawi experiences several failures ranging from poor agricultural prices, inadequate demand for the agricultural products, overproduction that causes abundant supply of products and crop failure that reduces the supply of the products. All these become a threat to farmers’ especially small-scale farmers including women. 37
  • 53. 4. Human Immuno-deficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic is a critical problem for rural development and for rural women in particular, especially in sub- Saharan Africa. HIV/AIDS has severe impacts on women and girls because of gender specific division of family care, labour and resource control, as well as gender related discrimination. In addition, women and girls spend so much time taking care for the sick, attending funerals, which exacerbate their problems of time constraints. 5. Competition from male farmers - Men already have an upper hand over the women hence cannot effectively compete. In terms of access and control over productive resources and markets, where women’s issues are not considered then the competition would be unfair to women. Where fairness is orchestrated, women can ably compete with male farmers. Women farmers face a threat of competition from male farmers who have more resources, are equipped with more technical knowledge and their scale of production is much higher than that of female farmers.3.1.2. Strategy Formulation for Malawian Women Farmers SWOT matrix presents a mechanism for facilitating the linkage amongstrengths and weaknesses (internal factors), and threats and opportunities(external factors). It also provides a framework for identifying andformulating strategies. SWOT matrix helps to develop four types of strategies,namely SO (strengths-opportunities) strategies, WO (weaknesses-opportunities) strategies, ST (strengths-threats) strategies, and WT(weaknesses-threats) strategies. SO strategies use internal strengths to takeadvantage of external opportunities. WO strategies improve internalweaknesses by taking advantage of external opportunities. ST strategies usestrengths to avoid or reduce the impact of external threats. WT strategies aredefensive tactics directed at reducing internal weaknesses and avoiding 38
  • 54. environmental threats (Weihrich, 1982). Table 3.2 shows strategiesformulated for Malawian women farmers. 39
  • 55. Table 3.1. SWOT Matrix for Malawian Women Farmers Internal factors (controllable) External factors (uncontrollable) Strengths (S) Opportunities (O) SO: Well equipped with local and O1: Existing indigenous knowledge government support S2: Hard working O2: Existing NGOs andFavorable private sector support S3: Ability to produce efficientlyfactors O3: Existing legal S4: Market Sensitive framework to protect S5: Ability to diversify enterprises women’s rights O4: Existing gender awareness campaigns Weaknesses (W) Threats (T) W1: Time constraints T1: Climate change W2: Small land holding sizes T2: Gender discrimination W3: Poor market access T3: HIV/AIDSUnfavorable W4: Poor education pandemicfactors W5: Lack of access to credit T4: Poor agricultural services prices W6: Inadequate access to T5: Competition from agricultural extension services male farmers W7: Lack of access to and control 40
  • 56. over production resourcesTable 3.2. Strategies Formulated for Malawian Women Farmers Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W) SO strategies WO strategies Opportunities • Establishment of financial • Availability of (O) institutions to provide training and loans and other financial extension to women related assistance farmers ST strategies WT strategies • Formation of women • Government to help farmer’s Production transfer women Threats (T) Marketing Teams (PMTs) farmers out of farming • Establishment of women farmers associations3.1.3. Porter’s Diamond Model Application Porter’s Diamond Model offers an organisational structure fordevelopment linked to a theory of competitive advantage of Malawian womenfarmers in the agricultural sector. This study determines whether Porter’s(1990) theory of competitive advantage and his analysis of global competitionfocusing on inter-firm competition is an appropriate model for Malawianwomen farmers. Michael Porter’s Diamond Model (Porter, 1990) is a useful techniquefor identifying the factors that an enterprise has to consider in the businessoperation and the interactions between these factors with a consideration ofthe organisational structure, external competition and strategic decisions. Thediamond model comprises four major factors and two accessorial factors. 41
  • 57. Although the variables function independently, an advantage variable in oneelement can provide, or improve, the advantage in another variable. Thismodel was adopted and modified for this research purpose with aconsideration of unique characteristics of the context in which the model hasbeen applied. Five factors are incorporated in this study; these and theircorresponding sub-factors are described below:1. Factor conditions: These are factors of production and inputs required to compete in the industry. Under this factor/criterion, the following sub criteria were identified: a) Human resources - this sub criterion looks at the quantity, skills and cost of personnel for example, extension workers working with women farmers, and the labour required to become competitive. b) Natural resources - this sub criterion looks at the abundance, quality, accessibility and the cost of resources for production such as land and water. c) Technique and equipment - this factor analyses the women farmer’s stock of scientific, technical and market knowledge that can enhance their competitiveness. It also considers the availability, and access to equipment for production like machinery. d) Financial and capital resources - this sub criterion looks at the amount and costs of capital available to finance women farmer’s enterprises. e) Farm location - the location of the farm has a great impact on the transportation costs and on the cultural and business interchange of enterprises. f) Marketing resources - this factor analyses the availability and the quality of important marketing resources like storage facilities, transportation means.2. Demand conditions: Demand conditions emphasise the nature of the consumer demand in the home country in motivating a firm to increase its competitive position. In this study, the following sub criteria have been considered: a) Availability of market for the produce by women farmers - this sub criteria looks at both the domestic and international demand for the products and services offered by women farmers. The higher the demand, the more competitive advantage women farmers have. b) Consumer’s preference to safe produce - this factor considers consumer 42
  • 58. preferences in demanding safe products and services. The stricter the consumers are in their preference towards safe foods, the more creative and careful women farmers will be and this will create their competitiveness. c) Consumer’s preference to value-added produce - this factor considers consumer preferences in demanding value-added products. The stricter the consumers are in their preference towards value- added products, the more innovative and careful women farmers will be and this will create their competitiveness.3. Related and supporting industries: The presence or absence in a nation of supplier industries and related industries, which are globally competitive. In this study, the following sub criteria were considered under this criterion: a) Availability and consistency of supply inputs - this factor analyses the supply chain for important inputs needed by women farmers like fertilizer, seeds and chemicals. b) Availability of on-job education and training - the effectiveness of available institutions in providing on-job education and training to women farmers in their various enterprises. c) Property rights/legal protection - the effectiveness of legal protection for women farmers on issues of property rights.4. Firm strategy, structure and rivalries: The conditions that govern how companies are created, organised, managed, and as well as determine the nature of domestic rivalry. This study considers the following: a) too many farmers - the competition that exists due to the availability of too many farmers who produce almost homogenous products. The competition triggers innovation among farmers, which in turn creates competitiveness. b) Forming business alliances - this can help to reduce the cost of production for example by buying inputs together in bulk or transporting produce together. c) Low cost production practices – the use of low cost production techniques such as physical and biological methods of weeds and pest control, manure usage instead of fertilizer, which is expensive to reduce production costs. d) Contract farming - the involvement of women 43
  • 59. farmers in contract farming which can help them secure markets as well as good prices for their products.5. Government role: Government policies have a great influence on the success of an industry. In this study, the following government support initiatives are considered to enhance the competitiveness of women farmers: a) Availability of budget to implement policies and programs - government budget allocation for the implementation of policies and programs that support women farmers. b) Enforcement of policies and programs - the effectiveness and the extent to which the government enforces policies and programs that empowers and supports women farmers. c) Provision of subsidies and direct payment - the extent to which the government come in to help women farmers through subsidies (for inputs and other production resources) or thorough direct payments that help to finance their enterprises. d) Provision of micro-loans - whether the government provides micro-loans which benefit women farmers in financing their enterprises. e) Provision of insurance for protection - whether the government provides insurance to women farmers for protection against risks and uncertainties. In this research, the chance factor was not considered as it has alreadybeen incorporated in other factors. In this study, the framework was used tocome up with the determinants of competitiveness for Malawian womenfarmers in the agricultural sector based on the competitive elementsdeveloped by Michael Porter in his book “The Competitive Advantage ofNations” (Porter, 1990). The modified framework is illustrated in figure 3.2. 44
  • 60. Related and supporting industries: Availability and consistency of supply inputs, Availability of on-job education and training and Property rights/legal protectionFactor conditions:Human resources, Naturalresources, Technique andequipment, Financial and Demand conditions:capital resources, Farm Availability of marketslocation and Marketing for women farmersresources produce; Consumer’s preferences to safe produce and Consumers’ preference to value added produce Firm strategy, structure and rivalry: Too many farmers, Formation of business alliances, Low cost production practices and The role of the Contract farming government: Availability of budget to implement policies and programs, Enforcement of policies and programs, Provision of subsidies and direct payment, Provision of micro-loans and Provision of insurance for protection 45
  • 61. Figure 3.2. Modified Diamond Model, Adapted from Porter (1990). 46
  • 62. 3.1.4. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method Application As a decision model that decomposes a complex multicriteria decisionproblem into a hierarchy (Saaty, 1980), AHP is also a measurement theorythat prioritises the hierarchy and consistency of judgmental data provided by agroup of decision makers. AHP incorporates the evaluations of all decisionmakers into a final decision, without having to elicit their utility functions onthe subjective and objective criteria, by pair-wise comparisons of thealternatives (Porter, 1990). Saaty (1980) has enveloped the AHP that canenable decision makers to represent the interaction of multiple factors incomplex situations. The process requires the decision makers to develop ahierarchical structure for the factors that are explicit in the given problem andto provide judgments about relative importance of each of these factors,specify a preference for each decision alternative with respect to each factor.It provides a prioritised ranking order indicating the overall preference foreach of the decision alternatives. An advantage of AHP over other multicriteria decision-makingmethods is that AHP is designed to incorporate tangible as well as intangiblefactors especially where the subjective judgments of different individualsconstitute an important part of the decision process. Therefore, AHP has beensuccessfully applied in a diverse array of problems, with the calculationprocedure as follows.Step 1: Determine the objective and the evaluation factors. This step involvesdevelopment of the hierarchical structure with a goal or objective on the toplevel, the factors at the second level and the sub-factors at the third level andlastly the alternatives. Step 2: Find out the relative importance of differentfactors with respect to the goal or objective. Construct a pair-wise matrixusing a scale of relative importance. The judgments are entered using thefundamental scale of the AHP. Step 3: The next step is to compare the 47
  • 63. candidate alternatives pair-wise with respect to the how much better (moredominant) in satisfying each of the factors. It is ascertaining how well eachcandidate alternative serves each factor. Step 4: The next step is to obtaincomposite weights for each of the alternatives by multiplying the relativenormalised weight (Wi) of each factor with its corresponding normalisedweight value for each alternative and making summation over all the factorsfor each alternative. Then the comparison scale is used which was based on amathematically based, multi-objective decision-making tool that wasintroduced by Saaty (1990). The AHP scoring system is a ratio scale wherethe ratios indicate the degree of preference. The nine-point scale has been thestandard rating system used for the AHP. Table 3.3 shows the description ofthe standard preference scoring system used for the AHP in the questionnaire.Table 3.3. Standard Preference Scoring System for AHP, (Saaty, 1990) Intensity of Definition Explanation importance 1:1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective 3:1 Moderate importance Experience and judgment moderately favour one element over another 5:1 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favour one element over another 7:1 Very strong One element is favoured strongly importance over another, its dominance is demonstrated in practice 9:1 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one element over the other is of highest possible order of affirmation 48
  • 64. 2,4,6,8 Intermediate values When compromise is needed between two elements Using the AHP method, a criteria hierarchy with three levels including5 principal criteria, 21 sub-criteria and 5 alternatives was designed as aframework of an evaluation model. The quantitative analysis was thenconducted using AHP by calculating the importance weight of each criterion.Figure 3.3 shows the AHP hierarchical structure for this study.Figure 3.3. AHP Hierarchical Structure3.2. Questionnaire Design To support the general analysis of the situation of womenempowerment and competitiveness from literature, interviews were conductedto evaluate more qualitative aspects and gain insights of the current situation 49
  • 65. of Malawian women farmers. The questionnaire was designed based onliterature published previously and the theoretical framework of Porter’sDiamond Model. Based on the hierarchical structure of the AHP ranking forthe determination of elements of competitiveness for Malawian womenfarmers in the agricultural sector, the survey consisted of the followingsections: the first section looked at the general background information of thesurvey respondents. The second section sought respondents’ opinions ofvarious statements on elements of competitiveness. The third sectioninvestigated the most important criteria for determining the competitivenessof women farmers in Malawian agriculture sector. Fourth section investigatedthe best sub criteria for the factor conditions. Fifth section tried to find out themost important sub criteria for the demand conditions. The sixth sectionmeasured the most suitable criteria for the strategy, structure and rivalry. Thesixth section determined the best sub criteria for the government role andsupport for women farmers. Section 7 evaluated the alternatives for enhancingthe competitiveness of women farmers in the agricultural sector. Thequestionnaires are attached in Appendix II and III.3.3. Sampling Plan This section describes in details the procedure followed to drawrespondents for the survey. This study was conducted in Rumphi district inthe northern region of Malawi. The country is divided into 3 regions: northernregion, which has 6 districts, central region with 9 districts and southernregion with 13 districts. Rumphi is one of the districts among the 6 districts inthe northern region. The district was chosen for the study because it is one ofthe districts where many agricultural activities take place. The district isdivided into 5 Extension Planning Areas (EPAs) namely Bolero, Mpherembe,Mhuju, Mphompha and Ntchenachena and among these, Bolero EPA wasselected for convenience. The study targeted three categories of respondents,women farmers, government officials (agricultural extension workers directlyworking with women farmers) and researchers working on women issues. To 50
  • 66. select respondents, two sampling techniques were used: random sampling andpurposive or judgmental sampling. Random sampling was used to select 30women farmers among a population of about 3000 women farmers in thestudy area representing 10 percent. The technique was selected because itgives an equal chance to all the elements in the population of being selected. The second category of respondents was agricultural extensionworkers. A total number of 10 extension workers were targeted and selectedfrom Bolero EPA. A purposive or judgmental sampling technique wasemployed. In this method, the researcher chooses the sample based on whomthey think would be appropriate for the study. In this case, the respondentssought were those directly working with women farmers. This technique isused primarily when there are a limited number of people with expertise in thearea being researched as it was in this case. The third category was researchers that are working on women farmersissues. A total number of 5 researchers were targeted and selected for thisstudy. Like the previous category, the sample was selected using purposive orjudgmental sampling technique. Although the sample size is small for this study, respondent size is not alimitation as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method can be conductedwith small number of responses. In addition, AHP is designed to surveypeople such as decision makers, who have specific knowledge about the topic(Masozera et al., 2006).3.4. Statistical Analysis The primary data on the background information of the respondentswas analysed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS 19) togenerate frequencies using descriptive statistics. The data obtained followingAHP method was analysed using Expert Choice software version 11. 51
  • 67. A consistency test was also done using Expert choice software.Because people tend to make inconsistent decisions, decision-making scienceshould judge the consistency of decision-making (Saaty, 2008). ConsistencyRatio (CR) is one of the most important cornerstones of AHP and can beillustrated in the following manner: if factor A is more important than factorB, and factor B is more important than factor C, then ultimately factor Ashould be more important than factor C. However, there are instances wherepeople do not use this logic. A CR test is a measurement of validity of thesurvey respondent’s responses. In this study, a consistency test was conductedafter obtaining the weights and ranks from the pair-wise comparison matrixfor the criteria. The test is performed to obtain the Consistency Index (CI) aswell as the Consistency Ratio (CR). The Consistency Ratio tells the decisionmaker how consistent he/she has been when making the pair-wisecomparisons. Saaty (1990) proposed utilising a consistency ratio to verify theconsistency of the comparison matrix. CI and RI are defined as follows: C.I = λmax – n n-1 CR = CI/RIwhere RI is the random index and it denotes the average CI over numerousrandom entries of same order reciprocal matrices. If CR ≤ 0.1, the estimate isaccepted otherwise, a new comparison matrix is solicited until CR ≤ 0.1.Table 3.4 indicates the random index numbers developed by Saaty (1990).Table 3.4. Random Index Numbers (Saaty, 1990)n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11R.I .00 .00 .58 .90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 52
  • 68. 53
  • 69. 4. Results and Discussion This chapter presents and discusses findings from the analyses of theprimary data. The first section presents the characteristics of surveyrespondents. The second section presents results of the respondents’ opinionsregarding elements of competitiveness. The third section presents the analysisresults of the elements of competitiveness based on the application of theAnalytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.4.1. Characteristics of Survey Respondents A total of 45 questionnaires were sent to three different categories ofrespondents (5 researchers, 10 extension workers and 30 women farmers). Allthese questionnaires were returned which represent a 100 percent responserate. Figure (4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) shows the background information of surveyrespondents.Figure 4.1. Characteristics of Researchers and Extension Workers (n=5, researchers and n=10, extension workers). 54
  • 70. According to figure 4.1, the results show that 3 out of 5 researcherswere female and 2 were male representing 60 and 40 percent respectively.The results also indicate that 2 out of 5 researchers interviewed had Bachelors 55
  • 71. degree, 2 had masters’ degree and only 1 had a PhD degree. The graph alsoshows that 1 researcher had less than 5 years of work experience, 2 hadbetween 5-10 years and 2 had more than 10 years of work experience. For theextension workers, the results show that 6 of them were male while 4 werefemale representing 60 and 40 percent respectively. The figure also showsthat 3 of the extension workers had a certificate, 5 had a diploma and 2 had abachelor’s degree. The figure also indicates that 7 of the extension workershad between 5-10 years of work experience and 3 had more than 10 years ofwork experience.Figure 4.2. Characteristics of Farmers (n=30). From figure 4.2, it is clear that more than 50 percent of the farmersinterviewed were aged less than 50 years. It also shows that about 66 percentof the women interviewed were married while about 33 percent were eitherwidowed, divorced or separated. All the women farmers interviewed hadattended either primary or secondary education, however, 70 percent of themhad only attended primary education and 30 percent had attended secondaryeducation. Almost 50 percent of the women farmers interviewed indicatedtheir household size of more than 6 people which is above national average of4.4 (2008 Population and Housing Census) (GOM, 2008) while the other 50percent is distributed among the household sizes of (2-5 people). 56
  • 72. Figure 4.3. Economic Activities of Women Farmers (n=30). With reference to figure 4.3, the results indicate that more than 66percent of women farmers interviewed grow tobacco, more than 90 percentgrow maize and more than 50 percent of them grow soybeans. It was alsofound out that very few of them (about 6 percent) grow cassava. This is sobecause tobacco is the main cash crop while maize is the staple food. Soybeanis a crop being promoted to improve diets at household level and also grownas a cash crop by women farmers in the study area. Cassava is less grownbecause traditionally the people of this area do not consume it as a staple. Thetype of livestock that is commonly kept was found to be chicken where in thiscase 80 percent of the respondents indicated that they keep chicken. This is sobecause chicken are relatively cheap to acquire for parent stock, easy to keepand manage and they can be raised on a small piece of land. Besides, womentend to keep them to supplement their income needs when they sell them. Thesecond commonly kept type of livestock were goats where in this case about30 percent of the women farmers were found to be raising goats. Likechickens, goats are easier to manage on a free range system and arecommonly used in traditional functions like weddings and funerals. Thefigure also shows that more than 70 percent of the respondents earn theirincome through sales of farm produce. This shows that most of the 57
  • 73. respondents were full time farmers and depend on agriculture for theirlivelihoods.4.2. Results of Respondent’s Opinions on Elements of Competitiveness The results of experts’ opinions on the elements of competitiveness arepresented in table 4.1.Table 4.1. Summary of Experts’ Opinions on the Elements of CompetitivenessStatements Researcher’s Extension Farmer’s opinions (n=5) worker’s opinions opinions (n=30) (n=10)There are adequate productionfactors available to women Disagree Disagree AgreefarmersThere is enough demand for Agree Disagree Disagreeproduce made by women farmersRelated and supporting Strongly Stronglyindustries’ cooperation is needed Strongly agree agree agreein women farmers’ productionThe strategies and structures are Strongly Stronglyimportant to empower women Strongly agree agree agreefarmersThe government’s role is very Strongly Stronglyimportant to empower women Strongly agree agree agreefarmers The results indicate that almost all the researchers (representing morethan 80 percent) agree to the statements that there is demand for womenfarmers produce, that there is need for cooperation among related and 58
  • 74. supporting industries, that strategies and structures are important for womenfarmers and that the government role is important in empowering womenfarmers. However, 80 percent of the researchers disagree that productionfactors are available for women farmers. The results also indicate that morethan 80 percent of the extension workers agree that there is need forcooperation among related and supporting industries, that strategies andstructures are important for women farmers, and that the government role iscrucial in empowering women farmers. However, 50 percent of the extensionworkers disagree on the availability of production factors and demand forwomen farmers produce. The results shows almost the same trend for the farmers where (about96 percent) strongly agree that there is need for cooperation among relatedand supporting industries, that structures and strategies are important forwomen farmers and that government role is important in empowering womenfarmers. On the availability of demand, 56 percent of the farmers disagreewhile 26 percent of them agree. On availability of production factors, 43percent of the farmers agree while 33 percent of them disagree. The results on expert’s opinions regarding elements of competitivenesshave shown a similar trend for all the three categories of respondents.However, there are differences in opinion regarding the availability ofdemand and production factors. This is the case because each group of expertslook at these elements from a different angle hence they have a differentunderstanding and views about them.4.3. Results of AHP Model Analysis for the Competitiveness Elements The data on the AHP model was analyzed using Expert choice softwareto determine the expert’s priorities of the competitiveness factors (criteria andsub-criteria) by evaluating the weights and ranks. The analysis outputs areshown in the appendix I and the output results are summarized and discussedin this section. 59
  • 75. 4.3.1. Results of Criteria Analysis Figure 4.4 and table 4.2 summarize the results of the expert’s prioritiesof the criteria with respect to the goal. The results indicate that researchersprioritized demand conditions (0.299) as the most important criteria, followedby related and supporting industries (0.251), factor conditions (0.231),government role (0.115) and lastly strategy, structure and rivalry (0.104). Onthe other hand extension workers, prioritized government role (0.303)followed by related and supporting industries (0.207), factor conditions(0.206), strategy, structure and rivalry (0.176) and lastly demand conditions(0.109). Farmers prioritized strategy, structure and rivalry (0.382) followed byfactor conditions (0.218), government role (0.171), related and supportingindustries (0.121) and demand conditions (0.109). The results also show thatall the judgments were consistent since the inconsistencies for all the threecategories were less than or equal to 0.1 as suggested by Saaty (1990).Figure 4-4. Summary of the Experts’ Priorities of the Criteria with Respect to the Goal. 60
  • 76. Table 4.2. Summary of the Experts’ Priorities of the Criteria with Respect to the Goal Researchers Extension Farmers (n=30)Criteria (n=5) workers (n=10) Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight RankFactor conditions 0.231 3 0.206 3 0.218 2Demand conditions 0.299 1 0.109 5 0.109 5Related and 0.251 2 0.207 2 0.121 4supporting industriesStrategy, structure and 0.104 5 0.176 4 0.382 1rivalryGovernment role 0.115 4 0.303 1 0.171 3Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.07, extension workers = 0.10, and farmers =0.03). From the results, it can be pointed out that researchers prioritizeddemand conditions because the availability of both domestic and internationaldemand is crucial for the competitiveness of women farmers in Malawi. Themain factor under demand is the availability of markets for women farmer’sproduce. In Malawi, one of the major problems farmers face is lack ofmarkets for their produce, especially at international level. This problem iseven more serious among women farmers due to other challenges such astransportation, time burdens, low productivity, and low quality and low valueproducts. Therefore, there is need to invest in market-oriented interventionsthat facilitate women access to markets while addressing other gender issuesas it was observed by (IFAD, 2001; IFPRI, 2002 and Kindness and Gordon,2002). 61
  • 77. Extension workers’ prioritized government role this is so because thegovernment can help women farmers through implementation of genderresponsive policies and programs, improving budget allocation tointerventions targeting women farmers, and provision of subsidies, micro-loans and insurance. FAO (2010) pointed out that governments have the roleto eliminate discrimination against women under law, build human capital ofwomen and girls and also improve on collection of sex-disaggregated data. Inaddition, since the government of Malawi considers agriculture as the mostimportant sector, women farmers can benefit from the efforts put into thesector with deliberate effort to target them. Farmers however prioritized strategy, structure and rivalry to help thembecome competitive. This could be because most of the women farmergroupings that exist are not effective. As farmers, the way they organize andmanage their enterprises, determines their competitiveness. A report byCommission of the Status of Women (CSW) (2012) indicated that “The futurebelongs to the organized” therefore women farmers need to organizethemselves to gain economies of scale in acquiring production inputs, bulkingup produce for markets, receiving production extension and training and tobenefit from social networking to learn from other women farmers and tobenefit from government and NGO interventions4.3.2. Factor Conditions Figure 4-5 and table 4-3 summarize the experts’ priorities of the factorconditions. The results indicate that researchers prioritized financial andcapital resources (0.377) as the most important factor condition for womenfarmers. According to extension workers, the crucial factor condition wastechnique and equipment (0.259) while for farmers; the most important factorcondition was natural resources (0.436). The results also show that all thejudgments were consistent since the inconsistencies for all the three categorieswere less than or equal to 0.1. 62
  • 78. Figure 4.5. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Factor Conditions.Table 4.3. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Factor Conditions Researchers Extension FarmersFactor conditions (n=5) workers (n=10) (n=30) Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight RankHuman resources 0.123 3 0.198 3 0.086 5Natural resources 0.077 6 0.127 4 0.436 1Technique and 0.121 4 0.259 1 0.195 2equipmentFinancial and capital 0.377 1 0.229 2 0.095 4resourcesFarm location 0.082 5 0.104 5 0.118 3Marketing resources 0.220 2 0.082 6 0.070 6Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.10; extension workers = 0.08; farmers =0.05). The results indicate differences in priorities among the expertsregarding the important factor conditions. Researchers perceive financial and 63
  • 79. capital resources to be the important factor, which is in line with the criterion(demand conditions) they prioritized. If farmers have adequate financial andcapital resources, they will enhance production and meet the demand both atdomestic and international levels. Zeller et al. (1997) argued that producerswho have access to well designed credit, savings and insurance services canavail themselves of capital to finance the inputs and labour and equipmentthey need to generate income; can afford to invest in riskier but moreprofitable enterprises and asset portfolios; can reach markets more effectivelyand can adopt more efficient strategies to stabilize their food consumption.However, rural financial programs have been largely designed, crafted andimplemented with the male head of households and fail to recognize thatwomen are active, productive and engaged in economic agents with their ownfinancial needs and constraints (Fletschner, 2009 and Diagne, Zeller, andSharma, 2000). In Malawi, women have less access to financial services thanmen (FAO, 2011). This was also found to be the case with Nigeria and Kenya(Saito, Mekonnen, and Spurling, 1994) and in Uganda (Dolan, 2004).Therefore, there is need to improve women’s access to financial and capitalrecourses to enhance their competitiveness. Extension workers chose technique and equipment, which is in linewith the government role they prioritized under criteria. This is the casebecause as extension workers, they believe imparting knowledge and skills inwomen farmers is crucial for them to become competitive. Women farmersneed to be trained in good agricultural practices and business skills for themto be able to run their enterprises as commercial ventures. However womenfarmers are generally illiterate and have less access to extension education andtraining and to mechanical tools and equipment (FAO, 2011). Therefore, thereis need to improve women’s access to technical education and training as wellas to use of mechanical tools and equipment. Farmers prioritized natural resources as the most important factor. Thisis so because these are the obvious factors that directly constraint production. 64
  • 80. Women farmers in Malawi lack access to land and water resources.According to FAO (2010), women farmers land holdings are generallysmaller and the tenure security is less than that of men. Therefore, there isneed to ensure women’s access to land, ensure tenure security as well asaccess to sufficient, safe and clean water for farming and domestic use.4.3.3. Demand Conditions Figure 4-6 and table 4-4 give a summary of the experts’ priorities of thedemand conditions. The results indicate that among the three sub-factorsunder demand conditions, all the experts prioritized availability of markets forwomen farmer’s produce to be the most important one. The sub-criterion hadthe weights of 0.540, 0.437 and 0.455 for researchers, extension workers andfarmers respectively. The results also show that the experts were consistent intheir judgments since the inconsistencies were found to be less than or equalto 0.1.Figure 4.6. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Demand Conditions. 65
  • 81. Table 4.4. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Demand Conditions Researchers Extension Farmers (n=5) workers (n=10) (n=30)Demand conditions Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Ra nkAvailability of marketsfor women farmer’s 0.540 1 0.437 1 0.455 1produceConsumer’s preference 0.272 2 0.215 3 0.185 3to safe produceConsumer’s preference 0.188 3 0.348 2 0.360 2to value added produceInconsistencies (researchers = 0.00512; extension workers = 0.02; farmers =0.10). From the results all the experts have indicated that availability ofmarkets for women farmer’s produce is an important factor under demandconditions to enhance the competitiveness of women farmers. However, theperformance of agricultural markets in Malawi often tends to fail forsmallholder farmers of whom majority are women (Barrett, 2008). The failureof agricultural markets for smallholder farmers often result from lack ofaccess to information or from the endemic problem of information asymmetrybetween the farmers and buyers (Poulton et al., 2006). Consequently, majorityof smallholder farmers sell their produce in local poor-paying markets or atthe farm-gate rather than travel to distant better-paying markets (Fafchampsand Hill, 2005). The situation is even worse for women farmers due to otherchallenges like poor transportation, lack of organization among womenfarmers and time constraints. Therefore, facilitating women farmers’ access to 66
  • 82. better-paying markets has been an issue of major concern to government andprivate sectors.4.3.4. Related and Supporting Industries Results of the experts’ priorities of the related and supporting industriesare illustrated in figure 4.7 and table 4.5.Figure 4.7. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Related and Supporting Industries.Table 4.5. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Related and Supporting Industries Researchers Extension Farmers (n=30) Related and (n=5) workers (n=10) supporting industries Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank Availability and consistency of supply 0.540 1 0.504 1 0.667 1 inputs Availability of on-job 0.121 3 0.310 2 0.229 2 education and training Property rights/legal 0.338 2 0.186 3 0.103 3 protectionInconsistencies (researchers = 0.02; extension workers = 0.06; farmers = 0.08) 67
  • 83. Regarding related and supporting industries, the results show that allthe experts have indicated availability and consistency of supply inputs to bethe most important factor for enhancing the competitiveness of womenfarmers. As shown in figure 4.7 and table 4.5, the priority weights were 0.540,0.504 and 0.667 for researchers, extension workers and farmers respectively.This is an important factor because often, farmers in Malawi have problems toaccess inputs especially women and most of the times, the availability of theinputs is not consistent. One of the major impediments to improvedsmallholder agricultural productivity has been limited to indispensable inputssuch as improved seed varieties and fertilizer. Input supply problems havebeen widely cited to explain why farmers do not purchase and use them.Imports are often regulated and frequently there are bottlenecks in distributionthat are attributable to poor infrastructure. Increase in fertilizer prices furtherdisadvantage poor farmers especially women (Gladwin, 1992). Therefore, tohave a consistent supply of production inputs available at an affordable pricewill help women farmer’s become more competitive.4.3.5. Strategy, Structure and Rivalry Figure 4.8 and table 4.6 provide a summary of experts’ priorities ofstrategy, structure and rivalry factors that can help women farmers becomecompetitive. Researchers and farmers prioritized contract farming indicatingthe weights of 0.347 and 0.557 for researchers and farmers respectively. Onthe other hand, extension workers prioritized forming business alliances(0.333) to be the most important factor. 68
  • 84. Figure 4.8. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Strategy, Structure and Rivalry factors.Table 4.6. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Strategy, Structure and Rivalry factors Researchers Extension Farmers (n=30)Strategy, structure (n=5) workers (n=10)and rivalry Weight Rank Weigh Rank Weight Rank tToo many farmers 0.065 4 0.053 4 0.038 4Forming business 0.270 3 0.333 1 0.147 3alliancesLow cost production 0.317 2 0.290 3 0.258 2practicesContract farming 0.347 1 0.324 2 0.557 1Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.10; extension workers = 0.00829; farmers =0.10). Maertens and Swinnen (2009) pointed out that contract farming canhelp women farmers overcome barriers and transaction costs involved inmeeting the demand in domestic and international markets. In Malawi, 69
  • 85. contract farming was developed to address the problem of lack of access todomestic, regional and international markets which include developing anefficient and effective Market Information System (MIS) through creating abetter marketing network which will link farmers to markets, strengtheningextension in grades and standards (Kumwenda and Madola, 2005). Despitethe potential of contract farming in commercialization and diversification ofsmallholder agriculture, in Malawi contract farming has mainly been confinedto the production of Malawi’s traditional exports of sugar, tea and tobacco.Therefore, women farmers are often excluded from contract farming sincethey are concentrated in subsistence crops. This was also the case in Kenyanfruit and vegetable export (Dolan, 2001) where women comprised less than10 percent of the farmers involved in smallholder contract farming. Likewisein Senegal, where only 1 of a sample of 59 farmers contracted to produceFrench beans for the export sector was a woman (Maertens and Swinnen,2009).4.3.6. Government Role Regarding the role of the government, the priorities of different expertsare summarized in figure 4.9 and table 4.7.Figure 4.9. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Role of the Government The results indicate that researchers prioritized provision of micro-loans (0.338) to women farmers to be the most important government 70
  • 86. intervention. Extension workers and farmers prioritized provision of subsidiesand direct payments to be the most important government intervention withthe weights of 0.246 and 0.470 for extension workers and farmersrespectively. Researchers’ choice is consistent with their choice of factor conditionswhere they consider that women farmers can become competitive if they haveenough capital to fund their enterprises. One of the ways the government canensure this is by providing micro-loans to women farmers. Micro-loans areoften considered as an instrument that promotes empowerment and when wellmanaged is a sustainable development tool. It can stabilize livelihoods,broaden choices, and provide startup fund for productive investment and helppoor people (women farmers) to be self-reliant.Table 4.7. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Role of Government Researchers Extension Farmers (n=30)Role of the government (n=5) workers (n=10) Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight RankAvailability of budgetto implement policies 0.105 5 0.161 5 0.091 5and programsEnforcement of policies 0.179 3 0.175 4 0.104 4and programsProvision of subsidies 0.202 2 0.246 1 0.470 1and direct paymentsProvision of micro- 0.338 1 0.187 3 0.120 3loansProvision of insurance 0.175 4 0.231 2 0.214 2for protectionInconsistencies (researchers = 0.01; extension workers = 0.10; farmers =0.06). 71
  • 87. On the other hand, extension workers and farmers consider that themost important role of the government is to provide subsidies and directpayments to women farmers. Direct payments are an effective means ofcombating poverty and overcoming immediate challenges. Well designeddirect payments may provide a steady source of income (Molyneux, 2009).Malawi government implements several subsidy programs under the Ministryof Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS). One of them is the Farm InputSubsidy Programme (FISP) with the goal of enhancing food self sufficiencyby increasing smallholder farmers’ access to and use of improved agriculturalinputs, thereby boosting the incomes of resource-poor farmers. Thisprogramme has yielded tangible results since its inception and mosthouseholds have achieved food security and boosted their incomes.4.3.7. Results of the overall analysis The overall output results are indicated in the appendix I. Table 4.8shows the summary of the overall analysis results of the first five sub-criteriaprioritized by the respondents in their order of importance. The weights of theoverall levels (global weights) were obtained by multiplying the weights ofcriteria by the weight of the sub-criteria. From the results, it can be pointedout that according to researchers, the first five factors were: 1) availability ofmarkets for women farmer’s produce (0.161); 2) availability and consistencyof supply inputs (0.136); 3) financial and capital resources (0.087); 4)property rights/legal protection (0.084); and 5) consumer preferences to safeproduce (0.081). According to extension workers, the first five factors inorder of their importance were: 1) availability and consistency of supplyinputs (0.104); 2) provision of subsidies and direct payments (0.075); 3)provision of insurance for protection (0.070); 4) availability of on-jobeducation and training (0.064) s; and 5) forming business alliances (0.059). On the contrary, farmers prioritized the following first five factors: 1)contract farming (0.213); 2) low cost production practices (0.099); 3) natural 72
  • 88. resources (0.095); 4) availability and consistency of supply inputs (0.081);and 5) provision of subsidies and direct payments (0.080). The overall analyses indicate that all the experts prioritized availabilityand consistency of supply inputs in their first five priorities of factors. Thisshows that this is a very important factor for enhancing the competitiveness ofwomen farmers in Malawi.Table 4.8. Overall Analysis Results of the First 5 Priority Sub-criteria (Inconsistencies researchers=0.07, extension workers=0.09, farmers=0.05)Respondents First 5 Sub-criteria Overall weights Order Availability of markets for 0.161 1 women farmers’ produce Availability and consistency 0.136 2 of supply inputs Financial and capital 0.087 3Researchers resources Property rights/legal 0.084 4 protection Consumer preference to safe 0.081 5 produce Availability and consistency 0.104 1 of supply inputs Provision of subsidies and 0.075 2 direct paymentsExtension Provision of insurance for 0.070 3workers protection Availability of on-job 0.064 4 education and training Forming business alliances 0.059 5 73
  • 89. Continuous Table 4.8 Contract farming 0.213 1 Low cost production practices 0.099 2 Natural resources 0.095 3Farmers Availability and consistency 0.081 4 of supply inputs Provision of subsidies and 0.080 5 direct payments4.3.8. Results of the Analysis of Alternatives Figure 4.10 and table 4.9 show a summary of results on experts’priorities of the alternatives to enhance women farmers’ competitiveness.Researchers prioritized establishment of women farmers associations (0.284)to be the most important alternative. Extension workers prioritized availabilityof training and extension to women farmers (0.351) while farmers prioritizedformation of women farmers’ Production Marketing Teams (PMTs) (0.358)as the most important alternative.Figure 4.10. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Alternatives. 74
  • 90. Table 4.9. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Alternatives Researchers Extension Farmers (n=30)Alternatives (n=5) workers (n=10) Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight RankFormation of womenfarmer’s Production 0.249 3 0.228 3 0.358 1Marketing Teams(PMTs)Establishment offinancial institutions toprovide loans and other 0.268 2 0.138 4 0.179 3financial relatedassistanceAvailability of trainingand extension to 0.162 4 0.351 1 0.323 2women farmersGovernment to helptransfer women out of 0.038 5 0.041 5 0.028 5farmingEstablishment ofwomen farmers 0.284 1 0.241 2 0.111 4associationsInconsistencies (researchers = 0.02; extension workers = 0.10; farmers = 0.06) These priorities are consistent with the priorities of the factorsdiscussed earlier. Researchers’ priority of the alternatives corresponds to thefarmers’ priority. One of the alternatives for women farmers to enhance theircompetitiveness is through collective action by forming groups. Women’sassociations have the potential to raise the voice and visibility of women and 75
  • 91. can provide many services and benefits to their members. Through collectiveaction, women associations are able to reach out to governments and privatesector NGOs and seek institutional support for women’s income generatingactivities (FAO, 2011). Collective action is a powerful means for women toincrease production and access to markets. Supportive collective structureshelp women farmers though economies of scale, greater bargaining power,facilitating access to agricultural services. Groups empower women byproviding opportunities to participate in decision-making and take onleadership roles. Functioning as production cooperatives, savingsassociations and marketing groups, women groups can promote productionand help women maintain control over the additional income they earn as ithas been demonstrated by a project based around polyculture fish productionin Bangladesh (Naved, 2000). Achieving scale through pooling resources canhelp women overcome some of the constraints faced by individual farmerssuch as acquiring access to land, credit and information as it was the case inKenya (Spring, 2000). Therefore, women farmers can enhance theircompetitiveness through working together as a group. Extension workers prioritized availability of training and extension towomen farmers. In Malawi, extension staff to farmer ratio is very high due tounavailability of qualified staff. This exerts more pressure on a few staffmembers that are available and deny services to most smallholder farmers ofwhich the majority of them are women. The usefulness of extension andrelated information services rests on both the farmers’ access to the source ofthe information and its quality and appropriateness. Studies in Malawi foundthat few women have contact with extension agents and that women’sparticipation in agricultural training is limited (Hirschmann and Vaughan,1984). Provision of services like training, working through groups rather thanindividuals has been shown to increase women’s control over resources(United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2008). Therefore, it isimportant that extension should focus on gender-sensitive, demand driven andparticipatory approaches to impact on women. Extension agents should be 76
  • 92. trained to meet specific needs of female farmers, provide extension messagesin the simplest way possible since most women are illiterate. This alternativecoupled with the others selected by researchers and farmers can yield goodresults and help empower women farmers to attain competitive advantage. From the results it was also noted that all the categories of respondentsindicated the alternative of the government helping to transfer women out offarming as their last priority with the weights of 0.038, 0.041 and 0.028 forresearchers, extension workers and farmers respectively. This is so because itis practically not possible because farming in Malawi is a tradition.Households depend on agriculture as their major source of income andlivelihoods. Therefore, people are skeptical to move from the agriculturesector to other sectors for fear of losing their source of income and food.Efforts by government to develop the other sectors of the economy are yet toproduce tangible results in terms of moving people/labour from agriculture tonon-agriculture sectors. Unless the non-agriculture sectors are developedenough it is almost impossible to move women farmers out of farming.Apparently, it is imperative that government should work to improve theagricultural industry through activities like value addition and production ofhigh value crops which will in turn help to motivate development ofmanufacturing and other supply industries. In the long run these industrieswill provide employment to women and eventually move them from actualfarming to other forms of employment. 77
  • 93. 78
  • 94. 5. Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations for this study.In the first section, conclusions for major findings of the study are presented.Recommendations which include limitations of this study are presented in thesecond section and third section presents future research in relation to thefindings of the study.5.1.Conclusions This study illustrates the application of SWOT analysis, Porter’sDiamond Model and AHP method to assess women farmers’ empowermentthrough competitive analyses. A SWOT analysis was conducted to come upwith strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for women farmers inMalawi. Using the SWOT matrix, strategies for enhancing thecompetitiveness of women farmers were formulated. A Porter’s DiamondModel was used to identify factors of competitiveness for Malawian womenfarmers and the Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP) approach was applied todetermine the importance of factors relating to the competitiveness of womenfarmers. Researchers, extension workers and women farmers were consideredas key stakeholders (experts) of this process. Five researchers that work onwomen issues, 10 extension workers working directly with women farmersand 30 women farmers were selected as survey respondents for this study. Results suggest that different stakeholders have different viewsregarding the important factors to empower women farmers. This is the casebecause for example researchers and extension workers have different focus,approaches, knowledge and experiences in working with women farmers. Onthe other hand, women farmers had different views because their experienceis different from those of researchers and extension workers. 79
  • 95. The study has revealed that researchers prioritize factors related to theavailability of demand, markets and financial resources as the most important 80
  • 96. for women farmers to become competitive in the agricultural sector. On theother hand, extension workers prioritize factors related to government supportand interventions such availability of education, extension and training towomen farmers, provision of subsidies, direct payments and insurance asimportant to empower women for them to be competitive. Farmers considertheir strategies, structure, rivalry, and related factors to be most important. Forexample, they identified contract farming and use of low cost productionpractices as the most important factors. The study also revealed that researchers and farmers consider collectiveaction or women working as a group to be important alternative strategies forempowering women farmers. These alternatives are establishment of womenfarmers association and formation of Production Marketing Teams (PMTs).On the contrary, extension workers consider availability of extension andtraining to women farmers as the most important alternative. However, in some cases, the priorities were the same for example; allthe stakeholders prioritized availability of markets for women farmers’produce and availability and consistent supply of inputs as the most importantfactor under related and supporting industries. This shows that these factorsare very important since all the stakeholders had similar views regarding thesefactors. According to the results, it can be concluded that the best alternativesfor empowering women farmers so that they can enhance their competitiveadvantage are formation of women farmers Production Marketing Teams;establishment of women farmers associations; and availability of extensionand training to women farmers. However, there is no single alternative that ismore superior hence a combination of these alternatives will enhance womenfarmers’ competitiveness. There is need to help women farmers formfunctional groups and train and educate them so that they can effectively andefficiently carry out their activities as a group. 81
  • 97. 5.2.Recommendations From the findings of this study, the following recommendations can bedrawn: 1. There is need for coordination among all the stakeholders (researchers, extension workers and women farmers) for them to identify best alternatives to empower women farmers and enhance their competitiveness 2. All the stakeholders have a part to play in empowering women farmers to enhance their competitiveness. Researchers need to conduct more research on women issues to understand their situation more so that they can communicate their findings to relevant stakeholders for affirmative action. Extension workers need to focus on providing relevant extension services to women farmers that will equip them with knowledge and techniques for their various enterprises. Women farmers need to organize themselves so that they can be able to utilize the available resources and to take advantage of the opportunities that exist for them to become more competitive in the agricultural sector. 3. Policy makers need come up with policies that address the real needs of women farmers that can empower them and enhance their competitiveness. Policymakers need the right information needed to inform policy development and more analytical statistics which can be used to fine-tune programs and policies to reach the most vulnerable and needy segments of population e.g. women farmers. Therefore, this research will provide that information to policy makers for gender responsive policy making. 4. The limitation of this study was lack of expert reasons for their choice of the important factors, hence, there is need to use in combination with the AHP based questionnaire, an open ended data collection tool like focus group discussions to allow respondents to explain more about 82
  • 98. their priorities of different factors. This will help to come up with a strong basis for interventions and future research.5.3.Future Research Since this study was conducted just in one district and with a smallsample, the results may not reflect the situation of the whole country hencethere is need to replicate the study in other districts to understand the generalsituation. Research also needs to be conducted to assess the effectiveness of theinterventions by the government and Non-Governmental Organizations thatare in place and are being implemented to empower women farmers.There is also need to evaluate the policies regarding women empowerment inMalawi to determine their effectiveness in addressing women farmers’ issues. 83
  • 99. 84
  • 100. ReferencesAfshar, H. 1998. Introduction: Women and Empowerment in Haleh Afshar (Ed.), Women and Empowerment: Illustrative from the Third World, Some Illustrative Studies. MacMillan Press. London, pp. 1-10.Ahearn, M., D. Culver, and R. Schoney. 1990. Usefulness and Limitations of COP Estimates for Evaluating International Competitiveness: A Comparison of Canadian and US Wheat. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, December.Alcantara, R. L. C., M. M. P. Marchesini, H. M. S. Filho, and M. O. Batalha. 2009. Competitiveness of Brazilian Agri-Systems. VII International Conference. Sao Paulo, Brazil.Alvarano, I., K. Molina, and E. Bol. 2008. Determination of the Competitiveness Linkages through the Agricultural Associative Enterprises: The Case of the Communities on the Parismina River Basin in Costa Rica. Ecologic Engineering 34:373-381.Ayala-Garay, A. V., G. Almaguer-Vargas, N. K. Trinidad-Pérez, I. Caamal- Cauich, and R. Rendon. 2009. Competitividad de la Producción de Mango (Mangifera indica L.) en Michoacán. Revista Chapingo serie horticultura. Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://scielo.unam.mx/pdf/rcsh/v15n2/v15n2a5.pdf.Balassa, B. 1965. Trade Liberalisation and ‘Revealed’ Comparative Advantage. The Manchester School, Vol. 33: 99-123.Balassa, B. and Associates. 1982. Development Strategies on Semi Industrial Economics. A World Bank Research Publication. The Johns Hopkins University Press. 85
  • 101. Banse, M., M. Gorton, J. Hartell, G. Hughes, J. Köckler, T. Möllman, and W. Munch. 1999. The Evolution of Competitiveness in Hungarian Agriculture: From Transition to Accession. Paper presented at the Sixth European Congress of Agricultural Economists, Warsaw, Poland, 24th-28th August.Banterle, A. and L. Carraresi. 2007. Competitive Performance Analysis and European Union trade: The Case of the Prepared Swine Meat Sector. Food Economics – Acta Agricult Scand C, Vol. 4:159-172.Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, Vol. 17:99-120.Barney, J., M. Wright, and D. J. Ketchen. 2001 The Resource-based View of the Firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management. 27:625 - 641.Barney, J. B. 2001. Resource-based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten-year Retrospective on the Resource-based View. Journal of management, 27:643-650.Barrett, C. B. 2008. Smallholder Market Participation: Concepts and Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa. Food Policy 34:299-317.Batra, A. and Z. Khan. 2005. Revealed Comparative Advantage: An Analysis for India and China. New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.Bavorova, M. 2003. Influence of Policy Measures on the Competitiveness of the Sugar Industry in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 49(6):266-274.Beintema, N. M. and F. Di Marcantonio. 2009. Women’s Participation in Agricultural Research and Higher Education: Key Trends in sub- 86
  • 102. Saharan Africa. Washington, DC, and Nairobi, IFPRI and CGIAR Gender & Diversity ProgramBeintema, N. M. 2006. Participation of Female Agricultural Scientists in Developing Countries. Brief prepared for the meeting “Women in Science: Meeting the Challenge”, an adjunct to the CGIAR Annual General Meeting, Washington, DC, 4 December.Boserup, E. 1970. Women’s Role in Economic Development. New York, NY, St. Martin’s Press.Braidotti, R. 1994. Women, the Environment, and Sustainable Development: Towards a Theoretical Synthesis. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 83.Brydon, L., and S. Chart. 1989. Women in the Third World: Gender Issues in Rural and Urban Areas. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.Bureau, J. C., and J. P. Butault. 1992. Productivity Gaps, Price Advantages and Competitiveness in E.C. Agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 19(1):25-48.Bureau, J.C., J.P. Butault, and A. Hoque, 1992. International Comparisons of Costs of Wheat Production in the EC and United States. Staff Report No. 9222, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.Burgess, J.C. 1991. Land Management and Soil Conservation in Malawi: A Case Study. In Buchner et al.Chang, Y. L. 1997. Research on Tourism Competitiveness and Performance in Asian Countries. Master’s thesis. Taipei: Graduate Institute of Tourism Industry, Chinese Culture University. 87
  • 103. Chavas, J. P., R. Petrie, and M. Roth. 2005. Farm Household Production Efficiency: Evidence from The Gambia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(1):60-179.Cockburn, J. 1998. Measuring Competitiveness and its Sources: The Case of Mali’s Manufacturing Sector. African Economic Policy Paper Discussion, Nairobi, pp. 16-25.Cromwell, E., and J. Winpenny. 1993. Does Economic Reform Harm the Environment? A Review of Structural Adjustment in Malawi. Journal of International Development, Vol. 5 (6).Davis, K., E. Nkonya, E. Kato, D. Ayalew, M. Odendo, R. Miiro, and J. Nkuba, 2009. Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity, Poverty, and Farmer Empowerment in East Africa. Research Report submitted to IFPRI, 31 August 2009.Davison, J. 1992. Changing Relations of Production in Southern Malawi’s households: Implication for Involving Rural Women in Development. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 11(1): 72–84.Diagne, A., M. Zeller, and M. Sharma. 2000. Empirical Measurements of Household’s Access to Credit and Credit Constraints in Developing Countries. FCND Discussion Paper No. 90, Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute.Dolan, C. S. 2001. The “good wife”: Struggles over Resources in the Kenyan Horticultural Sector. Journal of Development Studies, 37(3): 39–10.Dolan, C. S. 2004. “I sell my labour now”: Gender and Livelihood Diversification in Uganda. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 25(4): 643–661. 88
  • 104. Doss, C. R. 2001. Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience. World Development, 29:2075-2092.Due, J. M., and C. H. Gladwin. 1991. Impacts of Structural Adjustment Programs on African Women Farmers and Female-headed Households. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73:1431-1439.Due, J. M., F. Magayane, and A. A. Temu. 1997. Gender Again – Views of Female Agricultural Extension Officers by Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania. World Development, 25: 713-725.Engberg, L. E., J. H. Sabry, and S. A. Beckerson. 1988. A Comparison of Rural Women’s Time Use and Nutritional Consequences in Two Villages in Malawi. In Poats et al.Fafchamps, M., and R. V. Hill. 2005. Selling at the Farm Gate or Travelling to the Market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(3): 717-734FAO. 1993. Agricultural Extension and Women Farm Workers in the 1980s. Rome.FAO. 1997. Higher Agricultural Education and Opportunities in Rural Development for Women. Rome.FAO. 2010. The State of Food and Agriculture- Women in Agriculture, Closing the Gender Gaps in Agriculture. Rome.FAO. 2010a. Roles of Women in Agriculture. Prepared by the SOFA team and Cheryl Doss. Rome.FAO. 2011. World Census of Agriculture: Analysis and International Comparison of the Results (1996-2005). FAO Statistical Development Series No. 13. (Columns 3 and 4). 89
  • 105. FAO. 1996. World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome.Fertö, I., and L. Hubbard. 2003. Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness in Hungarian agri-food sectors. World Economy, 26(2):247-259.Fletschner, D. 2009. Rural Women’s Access to Credit: Market Imperfections and Intrahousehold Dynamics. World Development, 37(3): 618–631.Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2005. Breaking Ground: Gender and Food Security. Rome: FAO.Foss, N. 1997. Resources, Firms, and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource- Based Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Gilbert, R. A., W. D. Sakala, and T. D. Benson. 2002. Gender Analysis of a Nationwide Cropping System Trial Survey in Malawi. African Studies Quarterly, 6 (1&2): 223–243.Gladwin, C. H. 1992. Gendered Impacts of Fertilizer Subsidy Removal Programs in Malawi and Cameroon. Agricultural Economics 7: 141– 53.Gorton, M., S. Davidova, M. Banse and A. Bailey. 2006. The International Competitiveness of Hungarian Agriculture: Past Performance and Future Projections, Post-Communist Economies, 18(1):69-84.Gorton, M., A. Daniłowska, S. Jarka, S. Straszewski, A. Zawojska, and E. Majewski. 2001. The International Competitiveness of Polish Agriculture, Post-Communist Economies, 13(4):445-457.Gorton, M., S. Davidova, and T. Ratinger. 2000. The Competitiveness of Agriculture in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic Vis- à-Vis the European Union (CEEC and EU Agricultural Competitiveness), Comparative Economic Studies, XLII (1):59- 86. 90
  • 106. Government of Malawi (GOM). 1994. Demographic and Health Survey 1992, National Statistical Office, Zomba, Malawi.Government of Malawi (GOM)/UNICEF. 1987. The Situation of Children and Women in Malawi, Lilongwe.Government of Malawi (GOM). 2008. Population and Housing Census 2008. National Statistical Office, Zomba, Malawi.Hoskisson, R., M. Hitt, W. Wan, and D. Yiu. 1999. Theory and Research in Strategic Management: Swings of a Pendulum. Journal of Management. 25:417-456.International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2001. The Challenge of Ending Rural Poverty. Rural Poverty report, Rome, ItalyInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2002. Cutting Hunger in Africa through Smallholder-led Growth.Kabeer, N. 1995. Reserved Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. London: Verso.Kabira, W. M., E. W. Gachukia, and F. O. Matiiangi. 1997. The Effect of Women’s Role on Health: The Paradox. International Journal of Gynecology and Obsterics, 58: 23-24.Keller, B., and D. C Mbwewe. 1991. Policy and Planning for the Empowerment of Zambias Women Farmers. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 12 (1): 75-88 [as cited in Rowland’s, Jo. 1995. Empowerment examined. Development in Practice 5(2): 101-107].Kennedy, E., and P. Peters. 1992. Household Food Security and Child Nutrition: The Interaction of Income and Gender of Household Head. World Development, 20 (8). 91
  • 107. Kindness, H., and A. Gordon. 2002. Agricultural Marketing in Developing Countries: The Role of NGOs and CBOs. Social and Economic Development Department, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, London, UK. (Policy Series No 13)Koopman, J. 1993. The Hidden Roots of the African Food Problem: Looking within the Rural Household, pp. 82-103. In: N. Folbre et al., (Eds.) Women’s Work in the World Economy. University Press, New York, NY.Kumwenda I. and M. Madola. 2005. The Status of Contract Farming in Malawi. Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network.Kurttila, M., M. Pesonen, J. Kangas, and M. Kajanus. 2000. Utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in SWOT Analysis—A hybrid Method and its Application to a Forest-certification Case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1:41–52Lee, W., Y. Chen, Y. Lee, and C. Liao. 2003. The competitiveness of the Eel Aquaculture in Taiwan, Japan and China, Aquaculture 221:115-124.Li, D., and M. Tian. 2012. Empirical Study of Performance Evaluation on Specialised Cooperative Organisations of Farmers in Sichuan by AHP. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2(1).Maertens, M., and J. F. M. Swinnen. 2009. Are Modern Supply Chains Bearers of Gender Inequality? Paper presented at the ILO-FAO workshop “Gender Dimension of Rural Employment”, 30 March–3 April 2009, Rome.Markusen, J. R. 1992. Productivité, compétitivité, performance commerciale et revenue réel: le lien entre quatre concepts", Conseil économique du Canada, Ottawa, 1-12. 92
  • 108. Masozera, M. K., J. R. R. Alavalapati, S. K. Jacobson, and R. K. Shrestha. 2006. Assessing the Suitability of Community-based Management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics 8(2):206–216.Masters, A., and A. Winter-Nelson. 2000. Evaluating the Economic Efficiency of Agricultural Activities in Developing Countries: Domestic Resource Cost and the Social Cost-Benefit Ratio. In: ROSE, R.,C. TANNER & M. BELLAMY (eds.): Issues of Agricultural Competitiveness: Markets and Policies. International Association of Agricultural Economist’s Occasional Paper No. 7:395-405.Mathijs, E., and L. Vranken. 2001. Human Capital, Gender and Organisation in Transition Agriculture: Measuring and Explaining Technical Efficiency of Bulgarian and Hungarian farms. Post-Communist Economies, 13(2):171-187.Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, P. Biermayr-Jenzano, V. Wilde, M. Noordeloos, C. Ragasa, and N. Beintema. 2010. Engendering Agricultural Research. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 973. Washington DC, IFPRI.Mkandawire, R. M. 1989. Invisible Farmers: Women in Agriculture in Southern Africa: A Case Study of Malawi. Journal of Extension Systems. Vol 5 (1).Molyneux, M. 2009. Conditional Cash Transfers: a ‘Pathway to women’s empowerment’? Pathways of Women’s Empowerment. Pathways brief 5, IDS, Brighton.Moser, C. 1993. Training Strategies for Gender Planning: From sensitising to skills and techniques, in Moser, C. 1993, Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training, Routledge, London. 93
  • 109. Mulder, N., A. Vialou, B. David, M. Rodriguez, and M. Castilho. 2004. La Compétitivité de l’Agriculture et des Industries Agroalimentaires dans le Mercosur et l’Union Européenne dans une Perspective de Libéralisation Commerciale, Working Paper/Document de travail N °2004- 19, Centre d‟Etudes Prospectives et d‟Informations Internationales (CEPII), Paris, France, November.National Statistical Office, 2002. 2002 Malawi Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire Survey: Report of Survey Results, Zomba: NSO.Naved, R. T. 2000. Intra-household Impact of the Transfer of Modern Agricultural Technology: A Gender Perspective. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper No. 85, Washington, DC, IFPRI.Padilla-Bernal, L.E., A. Rumayor-Rodriguez, O. Perez-Veyna, and E. Reyes- Rivas. 2010. Competitiveness of Zacatecas (Mexico) Protected Agriculture: The Fresh Tomato Industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. Vol. 13(1).Pearson, S. R., and R. K. Meyer. 1974. Comparative Advantage among African Coffee Producers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56:310–313.Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan, London.Poulton, C., J. Kydd, and A. Doward. 2006. Overcoming Market Constraints on Pro-poor Agricultural Growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Development Policy Review 24(3): 243-277Powell, T. C. 2001. Competitive Advantage: Logical and Philosophical Considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22:875-888. 94
  • 110. Quaddus, M. A., and M. A. B. Siddique. 2001. Modelling Sustainable Development Planning: A Multicriteria Decision Conferencing Approach. Environment International. 27, 89–95.Quisumbing, A. 1996. Male-female Differences in Agricultural Productivity: Methodological Issues and Empirical Evidence. World Development, 24(10):1579-1595.Razavi, S., and C. Miller. 1995. From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the Women and Development Discourse. Occasional Paper No. 1 for Beijing, Genva: UNRISD.Reve, T., and L. Mathiensen. 1994. European Industrial Competitiveness. Bergen Foundation for Research in Economics and Business Administration.Rochman, N.T., E. Gumbira-Sa’id, A. Daryanto, and N. Nuryartono. 2011. Analysis of Indonesian Agro-industry Competitiveness in Nanotechnology Development Perspective using SWOT-AHP Method. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(8).Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Saaty, T. 1990. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. USA: RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990Saaty, T. 2008. Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Services Science, 1:83–98.Saito, K., H. Mekonnen, and D. Spurling. 1994. Raising the Productivity of Women Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Discussion Papers, Africa Technical Department Series No. 230. Washington, DC, World Bank. 95
  • 111. Segal, M. T. 1986. Land and Labor: A Comparison of Female- and Male- Headed Households in Malawi’s Small-Holder Sector., WID Forum X, Office of Women in International Development, Michigan State University.Shen, J. C., and J. Y. Hsieh. 2002. Study on Prediction Model of International Tourism Competitiveness. The Second Conference on Sustainable Operation of Tourism, Leisure and Food Industry, Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Hospitality College.Shen, J. C., and N. R. Tsai. 2001. Study on National Competitiveness of Principal Tourism in West Europe-Application of the Weights. Chiayi: Nan Hua University. Collection of Papers for a Conference on Environment, Sustainable Tourism and Management.Siggel, E., and J. Cockburn. 1995. International Competitiveness and its Sources: A Method of Development Policy Analysis. Concordia University, Department of Economics, Discussion Paper 9517.Sinn, R., and S. Wahyuni. 1996. Women, Gender Issues and Goat Development. In: Proc. VI International Conference on Goats, 6-11 May 1996, Beijing, China: 240-244.Sirikai, S. 2006. Competitiveness Analysis: An AHP Approach for the Automotive Components Industry in Thailand. Thammasat Review.Spring, A . 2000. Agricultural Commercialization and Women Farmers in Kenya. In A. Spring. 2000. Women farmers and commercial ventures: increasing food security in developing countries. Boulder, USA, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.Spring, A. 1988. Using Male Research and Extension Personnel to Target Women Farmers. In Poats et al. 96
  • 112. Stoelhorst, J. W., and E. M. van Raaij. 2004. On Explaining Performance Differentials Marketing and the Managerial Theory of the Firm. Journal of Business Research. 57: 462 - 477.Swann, P., and M. Taghavi. 1992. Measuring Price and Quality Competitiveness: A Study of 18 British Product Markets, Avebury Press, Aldershot.Tapscott, D. 2001. Rethinking Strategy in a Networked World, Strategy & Business, pp 34-41Tavana, M. 2004. A Subjective Assessment of Alternative Mission Architectures for the Human Exploration of Mars at NASA Using Multicriteria Decision Making. Computers and Operations Research, 31(7):1147-1164.Thorne, F. 2005. Analysis of the Competitiveness of Cereal Production in Selected EU Countries. Paper presented at the 11th EAAE Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24-27 August.Tiessen, R. 2008. Small Victories but Slow Progress. International Feminists Journal of Politics, 10:198-215.Timothy, A., and A. Adeoti. 2006. Gender Inequalities and Economic Efficiency: New Evidence from Cassava-based Farm Holdings in Rural South-western Nigeria. African Development Review, 18(3):428-443.Trabold, H. 1995. The International Competitiveness of a Voppswirtschaft. German Institute for Economic Research. Quarterly Journal of Economic Research (special issue in International Competitiveness), Dunker & Humblot: Berlin, pp. 169 – 183Udry, C. 1996. Gender, Agricultural Production and the Theory of the Household. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5): 1010–1045. 97
  • 113. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2008. Innovative Approaches to Promoting Women’s Economic Empowerment: Paper for the Partnership Event on September 25, 2008: MDG3 – Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women – A Prerequisite for Achieving all the MDGs by 2015 (New York, 2008), UNDP, New York.United Nation Development Programme (UNDP). 1995. Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press. Washington, DC, World Bank.van Duren, E., L. Martin, and R. Westgren. 1991. Assessing the Competitiveness of Canada’s Agri-food Industry. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 39:727-738.Vargas, H. 2006. Ventajas Comparativas Reveladas de la Producción Agroindustrial Guatemalteca. Guatemala: IICA.Viaene, J., and X. Gellynck. 1998. Small Firms, Old Traditions Equals Low Profit: Pig Meat Processing in Belgium, in: Traill, B., Pitts, E. (eds), Competitiveness in the Food Industry, Blackie Academic & Professional, London, Chapter 5, pp. 149-178.Vollrath, T.L. 1989. Competitiveness and Protection in World Agriculture. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 567, Economic Research Service (US Department of Agriculture: Washington DC).Vollrath, T.L. 1991. A Theoretical Evaluation of Alternative Trade Intensity Measures of Revealed Comparative Advantage. Weltwirtschaftliches Archive, 130:265-279.Weihrich, H. 1982. The Tows Matrix – A Tool for Situational Analysis. Long Range Planning,15(2):54-66, Pergamon Press Ltd. 98
  • 114. Weihrich, H., M. V. Cannice, and H. Koontz. 2008. Management - Globalization and Entrepreneurship Perspectives. 12th ed. Beijing: Economic Science Press; 2008.Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal. 5:171-180.Wijnands, J., H. Bremmers, B. van der Meulen, and K. Poppe. 2008. An Economic and Legal Assessment of the EU Food Industry’s Competitiveness. Agribusiness, 24(4):417-439.World Bank. 1991. Women and Development in Malawi: Constraints and Actions, Population and Human Resources Division, Southern Africa Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.World Bank. 2000. Engendering Development—Through Gender Equality, Resources, and Voice. Policy Research Report. World Bank, Washington, DC.World Bank. 2001. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty, New York: Oxford University Press.World Bank. 2007b. Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. In: Global Monitoring Report 2007: Millennium Development Goals: Confronting the challenges of gender equality and fragile states, pp. 105– 148, Washington, DC.World Bank. 2010. The Malawi Third Integrated Household Survey. National Statistical Office (NSO), Zomba, Malawi.World Bank, FAO, and IFAD. 2009. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington, DC, World Bank.World Economic Forum. 1995. The World Competitiveness Report. International Institute for Management Development. Genève. 99
  • 115. Zeller, M., G. Schrieder, J. von Braun, and F. Heidhues. 1997. Rural Finance for Food Security for the Poor. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute. 100
  • 116. 101
  • 117. AppendicesAppendix I. Data Analysis Outputs Figure A1. Researchers’ Priorities of the Criteria (n=5).Table A1. Pair-wise Comparison of the Criteria for Researchers (n=5)Figure A2. Extension Worker’s Priorities of the Criteria (n=10).Table A2. Pairwise Comparisons of the Criteria for Extension Workers (n=10)Figure A3. Farmers’ Priorities of the Criteria (n=30). 102
  • 118. Table A3. Pairwise Comparisons of the Criteria for Farmers (n=30)Figure A4. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Researchers (n=5).Figure A5. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Extension Workers (n=10). 103
  • 119. Figure A6. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Farmers (n=30) 104
  • 120. 105
  • 121. Table A4. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Researchers (n=5)Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order Human resources 0.123 0.028 13 Natural resources 0.077 0.018 19Factor Technique and equipment 0.121 0.028 14 0.231conditions Financial and capital resources 0.377 0.087 3 Farm location 0.082 0.019 18 Marketing resources 0.220 0.051 7 Availability of markets for 0.540 0.161 1 women farmer’s produceDemand Consumer preference to safe 0.299 0.272 0.081 5conditions produce Consumer preference to value 0.188 0.056 6 added produce 106
  • 122. Availability and consistency of 0.540 0.136 2Related and supply inputssupporting 0.251 Availability of on-job 0.121 0.030 11industries education and training Property rights/legal protection 0.338 0.084 4Continuous Table A4 Too many farmers 0.065 0.007 21Strategy, Forming business alliances 0.270 0.028 12structure and 0.104 Low cost production practices 0.317 0.033 10rivalry Contract farming 0.347 0.036 9 Availability of budget to implement policies and 0.105 0.012 20 programs Enforcement of policies and 0.179 0.020 16Government programs 0.115role Provision of subsidies and 0.202 0.023 15 direct payments Provision of micro-loans 0.338 0.039 8 Provision of insurance for 0.175 0.020 17 protection 107
  • 123. Table A5. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Extension Workers (n=10)Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order Human resources 0.198 0.041 14 Natural resources 0.127 0.026 17Factor Technique and equipment 0.259 0.053 8 0.206conditions Financial and capital resources 0.229 0.047 13 Farm location 0.104 0.021 19 Marketing resources 0.082 0.017 20 Availability of markets for women 0.437 0.048 12 farmer’s produceDemand 0.109 Consumer preference to safe produce 0.215 0.023 18conditions Consumer preference to value added 0.348 0.038 16 produce Availability and consistency of 0.504 0.104 1Related and supply inputssupporting 0.207 Availability of on-job education and 0.310 0.064 4industries training Property rights/legal protection 0.186 0.039 15 108
  • 124. Continuous Table A5Strategy, Too many farmers 0.053 0.009 21structure and 0.176 Forming business alliances 0.333 0.059 5rivalry Low cost production practices 0.290 0.051 10 Availability of budget to implement 0.161 0.049 11 policies and programs Enforcement of policies and 0.175 0.053 9Government programs 0.303role Provision of subsidies and direct 0.246 0.075 2 payments Provision of micro-loans 0.187 0.057 7 Provision of insurance for protection 0.231 0.070 3 109
  • 125. Table A6. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Farmers (n=30)Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order Human resources 0.086 0,019 16 Natural resources 0.436 0.095 3Factor Technique and equipment 0.195 0.043 9 0.218conditions Financial and capital resources 0.095 0.021 14 Farm location 0.118 0.026 12 Marketing resources 0.070 0.015 19 Availability of markets for women 0.455 0.050 8 farmer’s produceDemand 0.109 Consumer preference to safe produce 0.185 0.020 15conditions Consumer preference to value added 0.360 0.065 6 produce 110
  • 126. Availability and consistency of 0.667 0.081 4 supply inputsRelated and Availability of on-job education andsupporting 0.121 0.229 0.028 11 trainingindustries Property rights/legal protection 0.103 0.012 21Continuous Table A7 Too many farmers 0.038 0.015 20Strategy, Forming business alliances 0.147 0.056 7structure and 0.382 Low cost production practices 0.258 0.099 2rivalry Contract farming 0.557 0.213 1 Availability of budget to implement 0.091 0.016 18 policies and programs Enforcement of policies and 0.104 0.018 17Government programs 0.171role Provision of subsidies and direct 0.470 0.080 5 payments Provision of micro-loans 0.120 0.021 13 Provision of insurance for protection 0.214 0,037 10 111
  • 127. Figure A7. Researchers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=5).Table A7. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Researchers (n=5) Figure A8. Extension Workers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=10).Table A8. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Extension Workers (n=10) Figure A9. Farmers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=30) 112
  • 128. Table A9. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Farmers (n=30)Appendix II. Questionnaire for Researchers and Extension Workers Thank you for taking time to respond to this questionnaire. Theinformation provided will be used in an MSc thesis to study women farmers’Empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses. There are 2 sections in this questionnaire. Section A seeks to obtainbackground information and section B seeks your opinion on the elements ofcompetitiveness. All information provided will be kept confidential and only forthe use in this thesis.Best regards.Student: Loveness MsofiAdvisor: Dr. Rebecca ChungDepartment of Tropical Agriculture and International CooperationNational Pingtung University of Science and Technology 113
  • 129. Please put a check mark √ or specify in the blank that most applies:Section A: Respondent’s Demographic Data 1. Name of the respondent 2. Gender □(1) Male □ (2) Female 3. Education □ (1) Certificate □ (2) Diploma □ (3) Bachelors degree □ (4) Masters degree □ (5) Ph.D. Degree 4. Occupation □(1) Extension worker/officer □ (2) Researcher 5. Your job title: ___________________________ 6. Department/Institution: ___________________ (whatever is applicable) 7. How long have you been working with women farmers or on women farmer’s issues? years 114
  • 130. Section B: Elements of Competitiveness1. What is your opinion about the statements below regarding women farmers? Strongly StronglyStatements Disagree Neutral Agree disagree agreeThere are adequateproduction factors available □ □ □ □ □to women farmersThere is enough demand forproduce made by women □ □ □ □ □farmersRelated and supportingindustries’ cooperation is □ □ □ □ □needed in women farmers’productionThe strategies and structuresare important to empower □ □ □ □ □women farmersThe government’s role isvery important to empower □ □ □ □ □women farmers 115
  • 131. 116
  • 132. 2. For the competitiveness elements below, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important than A B items than B 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Demand conditions Related and supportingFactor conditions □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ industries □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role Related and supporting □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ industriesDemand conditions □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government roleRelated and supporting □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalryindustries □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government roleStrategy, structure and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government rolerivalry 117
  • 133. 3. For the factors conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important B items than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Natural resources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipmentHuman □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resourcesresources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resourcesNatural resources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resourcesTechnique and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm locationequipment □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resourcesFinancial and Capital □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm locationresources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources 118
  • 134. Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources 4. For the demand conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important B items than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 Consumers’ preference to □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of market for the safe produceproduce by women farmers Consumers’ preference to □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ value-added produceConsumers’ preference to safe Consumers’ preference to □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □produce value-added produce 119
  • 135. 5. For the related and supporting industries, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important than A B items than B 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 Availability of on-jobAvailability and consistency of □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ education and trainingsupply inputs (seed, fertilizer, Property rights/legaland chemicals) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ protectionAvailability of on-job education Property rights/legal □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □and training protection 120
  • 136. 6. For strategies, structure and rivalry for women farmers, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important B items than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Form business allianceToo many farmers □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practicesForm business alliance □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farmingLow cost production □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farmingpractices 121
  • 137. 122
  • 138. 7. For the government role, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important B items than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 Enforcement of policies and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ programsAvailability of budget to Provision of subsidies and directimplement policies and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ paymentprograms □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection Provision of subsidies and direct □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Enforcement of policies and paymentprograms □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protectionProvision of subsidies and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loansdirect payment □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protectionProvision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection 123
  • 139. 124
  • 140. 8. For the decision alternatives, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to enhance women farmer’s competitive advantage?A items A is more B is more important B items important than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 Establish financial institutions to provide □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ loans and other financial related assistance Availability of training and extension toFormation of women □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ women farmersfarmer’s Production Government to help transfer women out ofMarketing Teams (PMTs) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ farming Establishment of Women Farmer’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Association 125
  • 141. Availability of training and extension to □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establish financial women farmersinstitutions to provide Government to help transfer women out of □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □loans and other financial farmingrelated assistance Establishment of Women Farmer’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Association Government to help transfer women out ofAvailability of training □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ farmingand extension to women Establishment of Women Farmer’sfarmers □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ AssociationGovernment to help Establishment of Women Farmer’stransfer women out of □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Associationfarming 126
  • 142. Appendix III. Questionnaire for Farmers Thank you for taking time to respond to this questionnaire. Theinformation provided will be used in an MSc thesis to study women farmers’Empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses. There are 2 sections in this questionnaire. Section A seeks to obtainbackground information and section B seeks your opinion on the elements ofcompetitiveness. All information provided will be kept confidential and only forthe use in this thesis.Best regards.Student: Loveness MsofiAdvisor: Dr. Rebecca ChungDepartment of Tropical Agriculture and International CooperationNational Pingtung University of Science and Technology 127
  • 143. 128
  • 144. Please put a check mark √ or specify in the blank that most applies:Section A: Respondent’s Demographic Data 8. Name of the respondent 9. Age □ (1) Aged under 25 □ (2) Aged 25-34 □ (3) Aged 35-44 □ (4) Aged 45-54 □ (5) Aged 55-64 □ (6) Aged 65 and older 10.Marital Status □ (1) Single □ (2) Married □ (3) Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated 11. Education level □ (1) Never attended □ (2) Primary school □ (3) Secondary school □ (4) Tertiary education 12. Household Size (number of family members including yourself) □ (1) 1 □ (2) 2 □ (3) 3 □ (4) 4 □ (5) 5 □ (6) More than 5 13. Annual household Income □ (1) Less than MK 20,000 □ (2) MK 20,000 - 49,999 □ (3) MK 50,000 - 99,999 □ (4) More than MK 100,000 14. Main farming activity (tick all applicable) a) Crops grown: □(1) Tobacco □(2) Maize □(3) Beans □(4) Cassava 129
  • 145. □(5) Soybeans □(6) Vegetables □(7) Others (specify): b) Livestock kept: □(1) Cattle □(2) Goats □(3) Sheep □(4)Pigs □(5) chicken □(6) Ducks □(7)others (specify): 15. Sources of household income (tick all applicable) □(1) Salary from off-farm employment □(2) Selling firewood □(2) Beer brewing □(3) Selling fish □(4) Selling snacks □(7) Others (specify):Section B: Elements of Competitiveness 1. What is your opinion about the statements below regarding women farmers? Strongly StronglyStatements Disagree Neutral Agree disagree agreeThere are adequateproduction factors available □ □ □ □ □to women farmersThere is enough demand forproduce made by women □ □ □ □ □farmersRelated and supportingindustries’ cooperation is □ □ □ □ □needed in women farmers’productionThe strategies and structures □ □ □ □ □are important to empower 130
  • 146. women farmersThe government’s role isvery important to empower □ □ □ □ □women farmers 131
  • 147. 2. For the competitiveness elements below, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important than A B items than B 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Demand conditions Related and supportingFactor conditions □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ industries □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role Related and supporting □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ industriesDemand conditions □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government roleRelated and supporting □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalryindustries □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government roleStrategy, structure and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government rolerivalry 132
  • 148. 3. For the factors conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important B items than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Natural resources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipmentHuman □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resourcesresources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resourcesNatural resources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resourcesTechnique and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm locationequipment □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resourcesFinancial and Capital □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm locationresources □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources 133
  • 149. Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources 4. For the demand conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important B items than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 Consumers’ preference to □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of market for the safe produceproduce by women farmers Consumers’ preference to □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ value-added produceConsumers’ preference to safe Consumers’ preference to □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □produce value-added produce 134
  • 150. 5. For the related and supporting industries, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important than A B items than B 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 Availability of on-jobAvailability and consistency of □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ education and trainingsupply inputs (seed, fertilizer, Property rights/legaland chemicals) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ protectionAvailability of on-job education Property rights/legal □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □and training protection 135
  • 151. 6. For strategies, structure and rivalry for women farmers, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important B items than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Form business allianceToo many farmers □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practicesForm business alliance □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farmingLow cost production □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farmingpractices 136
  • 152. 137
  • 153. 7. For the government role, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.A items A is more important B is more important B items than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 Enforcement of policies and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ programsAvailability of budget to Provision of subsidies and directimplement policies and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ paymentprograms □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection Provision of subsidies and direct □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Enforcement of policies and paymentprograms □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protectionProvision of subsidies and □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loansdirect payment □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protectionProvision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection 138
  • 154. 139
  • 155. 8. For the decision alternatives, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to enhance women farmer’s competitive advantage?A items A is more B is more important B items important than B than A 9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9 Establish financial institutions to provide □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ loans and other financial related assistance Availability of training and extension toFormation of women □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ women farmersfarmer’s Production Government to help transfer women out ofMarketing Teams (PMTs) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ farming Establishment of Women Farmer’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Association Availability of training and extension to □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establish financial women farmersinstitutions to provide Government to help transfer women out of □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □loans and other financial farmingrelated assistance Establishment of Women Farmer’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Association 140
  • 156. Government to help transfer women out ofAvailability of training □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ farmingand extension to women Establishment of Women Farmer’sfarmers □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ AssociationGovernment to help Establishment of Women Farmer’stransfer women out of □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Associationfarming 141
  • 157. Bio-Sketch of the AuthorPersonal InformationFull Name: Loveness MsofiGender: FemaleNationality: MalawianDate of Birth: April 25th, 1986Email Addresses: lovenessmsofi@yahoo.com lovenessmsofi@hotmail.co.uk loveness.msofi@gmail.comEducation2010-2012 National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan(MSc in Agribusiness Management).2004-2008 Bunda College of Agriculture, Malawi (BSc in AgriculturalExtension).Experiences2009 to date Women’s Programmes Officer at Blantyre District AgricultureOffice (Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security).2008-2009 Secondary School teacher at Chinsapo Secondary School (Ministryof Education Science and Technology). 142