Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Gender, agriculture, and assets conceptual framework
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Gender, agriculture, and assets conceptual framework


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Conceptual Framework Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Nancy Johnson, Agnes Quisumbing, Jemimah Njuki, Julia Behrman, Deborah Rubin, Amber Peterman, and Elizabeth WaithanjiINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEINTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • 2. Unpacking the “Gender Box”Photo credit: Agnes Quisumbing 2
  • 3. Why have a conceptual framework? Helps identify HOW: • Gendered asset distribution affects outcomes • Outcome of agricultural programs differs by gender • Building assets takes place in a way that is gendered Guides attention to key processes for evaluation Provides basis for comparison and learning across different case studies Makes a meaningful synthesis much easier!
  • 5. Context: Ecological, Social, Economic, Political factors, etc. Shocks Consumption Livelihood Assets Strategies Full Incomes Well-being Savings/ Investment Legend: Women Joint Men
  • 6. Each component is genderedWomen’s JOINT Men’s Women and men have separate assets, activities, consumption, etc. Households also have some joint assets, activities, consumption, etc. Shading of each component as a reminder that we need to consider gender—separation and jointness in each
  • 7. ♀ Context ♂ Agroecology Location Institutions Markets Gender relations etc.
  • 8. ♀ Assets ♂ •Natural •Physical •Financial •Human •Social •Political •Enable livelihoods •Resist shocks •Direct effect on well-being
  • 9. ♀ Livelihood Strategies ♂•What are the livelihood options available towomen and men?•What assets do those livelihoods require?•Are women (or men) precluded from goodlivelihoods by lack of assets?
  • 10. ♀ Shocks ♂•What are the major shocks that affectwomen, men, and households?•How do women, men respond to shocks?•What role do assets play in responding toshocks?
  • 11. ♀ Full Income♂• Includes cash and direct consumption• What affects the income women and menearn?• What affects the control of income withinthe household?
  • 12. ♀ Consumption ♂• Includes food and nonfood• How are women’s, men’s, and jointincome used for different types ofconsumption by different family members?• What affects decisions on consumption?(Does control of assets play a role?)
  • 13. ♀ Savings/Investment ♂• This feeds back to + or – assetaccumulation•How are women’s, men’s, and jointincome used for different types ofinvestment by different family members?• What affects decisions on investment?• Are there enough mechanisms for womento build assets?
  • 14. ♀ Well-Being ♂•Health•Nutritional status•Time use•Stress•Empowerment•etc.
  • 15. Example:Bangladesh Homestead Vegetable Project
  • 16. Homestead Vegetable ProductionProject intervention•Flood-prone area, 1.5 hrs from Dhaka, lots of NGOactivity•Technology transferred with micro-finance and training bysmall local NGO•Targeted to women in near landless hhs with somehomestead landImpact assessment•Census 1996•HH panel survey 1996/1997 with anthropometrics•Qualitative, quantitative studies of empowerment•Qualitative data collected in same villages in 2001•Resurveyed 2010 Page 16
  • 17. Context: Ecological, Social, Economic, Political factors, etc. Shocks Consumption Livelihood Assets Strategies Full Incomes Well-being Savings/ Investment Legend: Women Joint Men
  • 18. ♀ Context ♂Market access (close to Dhaka, easier for men than women)Norms of social seclusionNGO operating in area (women more likely to participate)Focus groups showed importance of wider range of aspects- vulnerability to fluctuating markets- lack of access to justice (access to land by the poor)- law and order problems- low level of trust of government and NGO services- lack of technical knowledge increases risk- female dependence subordination (permission to undertake prod. activities; access to profits)
  • 19. Assets needed to participate♀ ♂•Land: poor women unlikely to own land, but morecontrol over homestead•Social capital: used group-based approach to buildfinancial capital (savings) and human capital(training) needed for adoptionNGO membership weighted towards poor, but physical assets allow many non-poor to join.Very poor excluded from NGO membership (& hence adoption of technologies) by: -lack of physical assets -lack of social connections, leading to isolation and inability to form groups -lack of education, which undermines confidence
  • 20. ♀ Livelihood Strategies ♂•Vegetable cultivation for market•Women restricted from going to market, sogot traders to buy from homestead-Adoption said to contribute to somewhat heavier workloads, trade-off described favorably: ‘Though we work harder, we wear better clothes.’ (FP)-Wide variations within and between sites in social attitudes toward adoption (I.e., women’s involvement) as a livelihood strategy. Some men feel undermined; others value female contribution of income and increased social networks.
  • 21. ♀ Shocks ♂•Market fluctuations•Family illness (women have primeresponsibility) •Does project intervention increase or decrease likelihood of these shocks?
  • 22. ♀ Full Income♂+Cash income from vegetable sales-Loss of income from women in wage laborNet income gains not largeBUT also consider•Direct vegetable consumption by household•Gifts to neighbors
  • 23. Consumption
  • 24. ♀ Consumption ♂Total monthly per capita income & expenditures do not differ by adoption status, though sources do slightly-Health and nutrition improvements for selected types of individuals in adopter hhs: -school-aged, adolescents, and elderly more non- staple plant consumption -adolescent girls consume more total calories -school-aged and adolescents had better nutritional outcomes (height) -preschoolers and elderly have lower morbidity
  • 25. ♀ Savings/Investment ♂• Financialsavings• Schooling• Trees• Hand pumps• Electric pumps• Jewelry
  • 26. Impacts of project on overall well-being - Focus groups-Exchange of vegetables said to be major tool of women for increasing social networks (horizontal and vertical), thus reducing vulnerability.-Better nutrition seen as a result of adoption.-Children’s educational attainment may be improving: ‘If I didn’t grow fish, I could not educate my children.’ Page 27
  • 27. Empowerment—Focus Group Results♀ ♂-Women have gained direct access to cash (esp. in vegetable site), greater understanding of ‘money matters’, and higher status at home: “Now women give money to their husbands from their own earnings. Once husbands would have been angry about this, but now they don’t say anything.”-Some women report changing community norms as a result of adoption: if women go outside the home in pairs or groups “no one complains nowadays”
  • 28. Empowerment—Survey ResultsWomen’s empowerment Adopter ControlVisited friends/relatives outside 95 90village in past yearAttended NGO training or 31 17programs in past yearHusband/family member beat year 23 33in past yearKnows name of UP chairman 82 74Knows name of prime minister 88 81 All differences significant at 5% level or better Page 29