Webinar2 typology external
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Webinar2 typology external

on

  • 464 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
464
Views on SlideShare
362
Embed Views
102

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

2 Embeds 102

http://womenscollectiveaction.com 101
http://womenscollectiveaction.wikispaces.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Webinar2 typology external Webinar2 typology external Presentation Transcript

  • Webinars onWomen’s Collective Action (WCA) in Agricultural Markets Webinar 2: Typology August 30, 2011,12:00-14:00 (GMT) Facilitated by
  • Collaboration to co-host WCA webinarsThree organisations with different perspectives, but acommon issue of interest Researching Pathways women’s Programme collective action project WCA Research on member-based organisations, etc.WCA Webinars –a space where different organisationscan share their research and learning on WCA
  • Road map for webinars Themes and topics not yet identified Suggestions Theme 1: Tools for Analysing Collective Action welcome! Webinar 2: Webinar 3: Webinar 1: Typology of Synthesis of Conceptual Webinars 4-6 collective findings, WCA framework Starting in action project Aug. 30 November Today ! Sep. 20Output: Summary Output: Summary Synthesisof feedback of feedback paper Objective for today’s webinar on the ‘Typology’: •Establish a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of the characterisation used by Oxfam in Phase II of the WCA project •Determine how the typology may be or applied •Identify specific suggestions for further developing the typology on CA
  • Agenda for today• Towards a typology on Sally Baden,WCA in agricultural Oxfammarkets• Lessons learned from a Anuj Jain,typology on microfinance Coady Instituteorganisations Mary, McVay,• Comments and questions Enterprise Dev. Kioskto stimulate discussion Ruth Vargas-Hill, IFPRI• Discussion in plenary• Wrap up and next steps
  • Why a typology of WCA ? Design FindingDifferent characteristics of CA groups determine:• Who joins• Functions• Structure• Interactions with others (inc market )Characterising existing groups helps to:• Identify and compare gender-based patterns across subsectors, countries• (potentially) Guide practitioner thinking about pros and cons of supporting different types of groups
  • Linking to the conceptual framework IMPROVED CAPACITY FOR WOMEN TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ACTORS IN THE MARKET New spaces and roles for women Capacity to negotiate more equitable terms of trade Fewer barriers to women‟s participation in the sub-sector PATTERNS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION LEGAL/POLICY CHARACTERISTICS OF FRAMEWORK Social THE DIFFERENT SUB- Gender SECTORS- Membership criteria capital relations -Barriers to women‟s entry- Registration procedure- Trading permit -Gender segregation in Membership various market segments Gender -Risks and opportunities Composition Governance Group structure dynamics Functionality & evolution Degree of formality External intervention
  • Characterisation for Phase II Design Finding researchDimension Criteria A. Specialised marketing (sub-sector-based)1. Characteristic B. Mixed marketing (working in several products/sub-sectors)of the organisation C. Mixed multi-purpose (marketing and other services)(function) D. Does not engage in markets directly, but facilitates market entry (e.g. finance, training, inputs) A. Passive members (mixed groups) B. Active members (mixed groups)2. Degree ofwomens involvement C. Active members and hold positions of leadership (mixed groups) D. Women-only group A. Formally registered, official name, well-defined rules and norms, explicit membership, affiliated into an umbrella federation of similar organisations B. Formally registered, etc., but not affiliated to higher tier federation3. Degree of formality C. Semi-formal: non-registered, follows some agreed rules and norms, regular meetings and activities, may have links with other organisations D. Informal: non-registered, more ad hoc forms of collaboration, no formal partnerships/linkages A. Mainly externally supported, highly dependent on one primary source of finance B. Some level of ongoing external support (e.g. technical trainings, advice, funds)4. Degree ofexternal support C. Significant degree of autonomy despite past support D. Group initiated by members and mainly reliant on internal resources
  • Example from Tanzania Design Finding Staple Export/ Non-traditional Traditional high value high value Typology of CA Rice1 Maize2 Chickpea1 Allanblackia2 Local Vegetable chicken1 21. Total number of CA groups 16 10 7 12 26 102. Characteristic of the organisationNumber of specialised groups 4 0 0 12 2 1Number of multi-purpose groups 12 10 7 0 24 93. Degree of women’s involvementNumber of mixed groups 15 9 7 12 25 9Number of women-only groups 1 1 0 0 1 14. Degree of formalityNumber of formal groups 15 6 7 12 22 4Number of informal groups 1 4 0 0 4 65. Degree of external supportExternally-supported 15 9 7 12 22 9Self-driven 1 1 0 0 4 11 2 Sub-sector in Shinyanga region, Sub-sector in Tanga region
  • Initial findings DeIInisign FindingFunction:• Specialised correlates with formal/ externally supported• Exports, esp HV non traditional exports : specialised groups (e.g. tiger nuts, sesame, shea butter, allanblackia, coffee). Mixed/ male dominated; except shea butter?• Women more present in multi-functional, service and production oriented groups• But many groups may co-exist
  • Initial findings Design FindingDegree of formality:• Formal groups „the norm‟ across most sub- sectors (not ground-nut/ millet and sorghum).• Informal groups – mainly female participation• Informal groups may support or be offshoots of formal?• Degree of external support:• Some degree of support is the norm. Few examples of self initiated groups?
  • Initial findings Design FindingDegree of women‟s participation:• Low incidence of women only groups in Tanzania compared to Ethiopia and esp. Mali?• Women dominated groups in some sub-sectors (shea butter, millet/sorghum, groundnuts, spices)• Women dominated groups in some functions (e.g. S&C, processing?)
  • Challenges Design Finding• Function: some categories not covered; multiple functions (as well as multi-sector)?• Gender composition – a spectrum; women‟s participation/ leadership conflated ?• Missing: nature of relationship with market? – Informal trading networks – Vertical alliance (PO) – Horizontal collaboration – Buyer driven/ company supported – Hybrid/ cluster models NB: How does this fit in conceptual frame?
  • Challenges Design Finding• Tension between complexity and usefulness as tool? (esp. when multiple dimensions)• Static nature of typology: does not capture evolution of groups
  • Ways forward: research Design Finding:• Phase II analysis: Completing gaps in data where possible to finalise (inventories)• Phase III research: – Categories help with quant research (survey design)? – Use typology to focus our efforts on limited range of categories/ cases – Separate gender composition and women‟s leadership - gender composition a primary category of analysis
  • Ways forward: practitioner Design Finding: guidance?Starting point is„what types of organisation (or ways of organising) work to engage women in markets‟ and „how can practitioners support them‟Useful – but are we ready? Develop broad categories and possible pros and cons?Is a typology the best tool?
  • Community BasedMicrofinance Typology Anuj Jain May 2011
  • Program Design FrameworkContext Member Operating Existing profile Environ- Services mentProgram Interventions Approach/ Delivery Products ChannelGoals Impact Efficiency Sustainability
  • Member owned MFIs/ Banks Institutions (MoIs) Federation 2. Finance1. CU/ Finance 3. SHGs/ Association/ 4. VSNL groups Coop. Village Banks SACCOs
  • Microfinance approachesKey differenceOwnership Institutional Approaches/ Community Based, Members Owned Banks/ MFIs Microfinance methodologiesRegulated/ registered Formal InformalFinancial / Support org Federation/ II Tier and/ or III Tier organizationScale of aggregationSize of primary group Credit SACCOs/membership/ Unions and RuSACCOs/geographical cover large Coops. FSAsRange of services Finance +/and products Only Financial Multipurpose Self Help VSLA/ SavingsOnly savings V/s Groups GroupsExternal capital More integrated in market system Less Integrated/ more decentralizedInfluencing Factors - location, Livelihood opportunities, gender; governance and management capacity, range of finance products,financial and institutional viability; linkages with formal sector; resources and goal of promoting org.
  • Commentators• Mary McVay Enterprise Development Kiosk• Ruth Vargas-Hill IFPRI
  • Comments: Mary McVay• Typologies in general are helpful for understanding and processing complex information – for laying a foundation for tools that practitioners can use to improve development outcomes.• This typology is “true” – reflects reality. All these types exist. Useful for assessing the extent of different types indifferent sectors, regions, etc. But, are the defining factors of the different types what we want to measure, and why?• What are the research questions? What are the hypotheses? This will help focus the framework and typology.• Back to the beginning: The Framework is effective in today‟s format: as analytical tool and causal model .. i.e. – To help address the challenge: how is the group linking to the market? Understanding of sub-sector (right) will provide this information• Endorse: Program design framework – matching program to context, don‟t just study one element – the program, the CA
  • Comments: Mary McVay (cont.)What are the research questions?• Measurement tool: how do we assess effectiveness for women‟s equality and empowerment? Focus on women‟s benefits and power as determining factor of “type”. Assumption is that “characteristics” matter less or can vary according to context, all can work.• Strategy option – which type or structure should we support in what context? What are best practices for each different type?• What elements - across different types groups – support women‟s equality and empowerment?
  • Comments: Mary McVay (cont.)Gender environment Sector Environment• Individual: level of • Gender identified crop? education, skill set • Responsibilities:• Household: marital extent/type of women‟s status, husband‟s work location, roles, control over resources, norms • Rights: to use land, to• Community/Culture: determine crop strategy; mobility, financial to access cash, autonomy, roles determine spending• Policy/rights • Gender roles along the value chain: involvement, power, exploitation
  • Comments: Mary McVay (cont.) Research Typology questions
  • Comments: Ruth Vargas-Hill• In its current form, the typology seems designed to categorise more than to draw comparisons and lend to hypotheses.• Specifying the research question will help to guide the principles/dimensions that underpin the typology.• Accounting for the relationship between markets and CA in one of these dimensions may be necessary to get an accurate picture of the dynamics of CA• Find a balance between having a manageable number of categories of classification within the typology and having enough disaggregation so as to have some variation across the characteristics of each group.
  • Questions for discussion Design Finding• What aspects of the typology of collective action in agricultural markets resonate with you?• What did you find surprising?• What is missing?• How can we build on this work on typology to: – integrate research and practice? – guide phase 3 of the research on WCA?• Other comments?
  • Summary and next steps• Main highlights of discussion• Next steps Complete Summary of Finalise Further Phase II today’s research develop synthesis of webinar design of typology findings discussion next phase paper• Upcoming webinars: – Synthesis of phase II findings, Sep. 20 – Webinars 4-6 starting in November (looking for presenters!)