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

533

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
533
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
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. 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!
  • 4. Project Synthesis Project RESULTS SYNTHESIZED ACROSS PROJECTS
  • 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

×