Gilligan gender and ofsp adoption in uganda v2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Gilligan gender and ofsp adoption in uganda v2

on

  • 528 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
528
Views on SlideShare
528
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

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

Gilligan gender and ofsp adoption in uganda v2 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. The Role of Gender in Adoption of aBiofortified Crop: Evidence on Orange- Fleshed Sweet Potato in Uganda Julia Behrman, Daniel O. Gilligan, Neha Kumar, Scott McNiven, Agnes Quisumbing Presented by Daniel O. Gilligan, IFPRI BRAC Centre, Rajendrapur, Bangladesh 04 November 2011
  • 2. Gender and Biofortification• HarvestPlus is promoting biofortification as a strategy to reduce malnutrition (e.g., vitamin A deficiency (VAD); iron deficiency) – strategy: breed staples crops to be a rich source of missing micronutrients like iron, vitamin A, and zinc – potential: sustainable in rural areas, self-targeting toward the poor, cost- effective over time• Success of biofortification depends on widespread adoption and consumption of new crop varieties. Gender may be important: – women provide much of the on-farm labor in Africa and elsewhere and are primarily responsible for child diets – there is often a complex dynamic of intrahousehold gender relations for crop choice (von Braun, Puetz and Webb, 1989)• New research addresses constraints to crop technology adoption, but with limited attention to gender (Conley and Udry, 2010; Suri, 2011)
  • 3. An Evaluation of Biofortification in Uganda• The HarvestPlus Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato (OFSP) Project • disseminate provitamin-A-rich OFSP as a strategy to increase vitamin A intakes and reduce vitamin A deficiency • OFSP vines given to 10,000 households in Uganda in 2007, followed by agriculture, nutrition and marketing trainings • Two strategies: Model 1 (more intensive) and Model 2 (less intensive)• The IFPRI/Hplus/CIP evaluation • randomized, controlled trial • baseline & endline surveys, 2007-2009 • n=1,472 households • outcomes: OFSP adoption, dietary intakes of vitamin A, serum retinol • impact report completed June, 2010 • qualitative study, April-June, 2011
  • 4. Key Findings of OFSP Evaluation: 1. Impact on OFSP Adoption in 2009 Model 1 Impact: Model - Control Model 2 M1: 64 % *** M2: 57 % *** Control Cultivated OFSP 0 20 40 60 80 %• Project resulted in a 57-64 % point increase in OFSP adoption• Project increased the share of OFSP in total sweet potato (SP) area by 41 to 46 % points
  • 5. 2. Prevalence of Inadequate Vitamin A Intakes, Uganda 100 M1-C: -34%** M1-C: -1% M1-C: -36%** 90 M2-C: -31%** M2-C: -5% M2-C: -26%** 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Model 1 Model 2 Control Model 1 Model 2 Control Model 1 Model 2 Control Young children Reference children Women Baseline Follow up •Prevalence of inadequate vitamin A intakes •Fell 33% for young children (age 6-35 months) •Fell 26-36% for adult women •Impact on reference children age 3-5 years shows no effect due to improvement in control group
  • 6. 3. Impact on Vitamin A Deficiency• Serum retinol from blood samples was used to estimate impact on prevalence of mild vitamin A deficiency (VAD) (retinol<1.05μmol/L) for children age 3-5 at baseline or for adult women• Findings • For children mildly VAD at baseline • weakly significant effect reducing prevalence of mild VAD at endline by 7.6 percentage points • significant reduction in prevalence of mild VAD of 9.5 percentage points in model with more control variables (e.g., age, deworming), but a smaller sample • Women: project had no impact on mild VAD• Summary: broad adoption of OFSP substantially increases vitamin A intakes and can reduce child mild VAD
  • 7. What is the role of gender in OFSP adoption?1. What roles do women and men play in the intrahousehold decision-making process to adopt OFSP? • Using data on which household members control each land parcel, we explore gender-based differences in where OFSP is planted2. Is OFSP adoption more common in households in which women have stronger bargaining power ? • Effect could be driven by women’s role in managing child diets • Women were exclusively targeted for nutrition trainings, so may have better information about the returns to adopting OFSP • We address question 2 first in a household-level model of OFSP adoption
  • 8. Female bargaining power: asset ownership Table 1: Gender differentiation in asset ownership at baseline, 2007 Female Male Joint exclusive exclusive ownership ownership ownership Share of value of land 0.161 0.591 0.248 owned, 2007 Share of value of nonland 0.219 0.488 0.308 assets owned, 2007 By District Land, 2007 Kamuli 0.204 0.457 0.349 Bukedea 0.108 0.739 0.154 Mukono 0.182 0.550 0.268 Nonland assets, 2007 Kamuli 0.215 0.402 0.400 Bukedea 0.164 0.623 0.227 Mukono 0.281 0.420 0.317• Women have exclusive ownership to 16.1% of land, 21.9% of other assets• Joint ownership of assets is limited to 25-30% overall
  • 9. Role of bargaining power in household adoption of OFSP Table 2: Household-level model of OFSP adoption, controlling for women’s asset ownership at baseline All project Female headed Male headed Dep. Var.: Pr(Adopt OFSP) households households households Share of land exclusively 0.038 0.365* -0.011 owned by women, 2007 (0.070) (0.217) (0.076) Share of nonland assets exclusively -0.029 -0.540** 0.032 owned by women, 2007 (0.069) (0.232) (0.074) Notes: Model is seasonal random effects model including large set of household control variables. * significant at the 10% level; **significant at the 5% level.• Generally, the share of assets exclusively owned by women or by men does not affect the household decision to grow OFSP in a given season• In female-headed households, the share of exclusively owned... • ...land assets: weakly increases OFSP adoption • ...nonland assets: decreases OFSP adoption
  • 10. Intrahousehold crop choice decisions "Who decided what to grow on this parcel?" 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Females only 0.5 Males only 0.4 Joint, females first 0.3 Joint, males first 0.2 0.1 0 Full sample Kamuli Bukedea Mukono• Women alone make the crop choice decisions for 20% of land parcels• 75% of crop choice decisions are joint, but men may receive priority in as much as 80% of those decisions “Separate plots are not always good for the well being and unity of the family. A family can only progress if there’s cooperation between husband and wife.” --male FGD participant in Kamuli
  • 11. Gender control of land parcels and OFSP Table 4: Gender of parcel control and OFSP adoption Dep Var: Grow OFSP on this Unconditional All Parcels If household• Naïve models (1) parcel (1) (2) adopts OFSP and (2), ignore Parcel control: female only 0.055 0.005 -0.025 links in adoption (0.021)*** (0.005) (0.030) decisions across Parcel control: male only -0.080 -0.132 -0.211 (0.055) (-0.132)** (0.053)*** parcels Parcel control: joint, female 1st 0.112 0.063 0.032 (0.025)*** (0.063)*** (0.027)• Plots jointly Ln expenditure per adult equ. 0.020 0.020 controlled, with (0.020)* (0.015) women leading Vitamin A knowledge, 2007 0.046 0.016 decision-making, (0.046)*** (0.020) Change in vit A knowledge 0.041 0.024 are most likely to (0.041)*** (0.014)* have OFSP Share of SP in land area, 2007 0.226 0.085 (0.226)*** (0.052)• Conditional on HH Land area controlled, 2009 -0.062 -0.066 adoption, male (-0.062)*** (0.011)*** controlled plots Land parcel area, 2009 0.135 0.151 (0.135)*** (0.021)*** are least likely to Ln farmer group size -0.114 -0.014 have OFSP (-0.114)* (0.063) Land tenure is freehold -0.169 -0.305 (-0.169)* (0.340) Observations 5723 5032 3138
  • 12. Correlated decisions across parcels Table 5: OFSP adoption, correlated decisions across parcels Incl. Other Household• Controlling for Parcel Fixed correlation of Dep Var: Grow OFSP on this Controls Effects decisions across parcel (1) (2) parcels weakens Parcel control: female only -0.077 -0.124 significance of (0.052) (0.247) effects Parcel control: male only -0.292 -0.656* (0.098)*** (0.345)• Acknowledge that Parcel control: joint, female 1st 0.091 0.232 gender of control (0.046)** (0.191) over parcels is not No. other parcels: female only -0.088 fixed; still need to (0.022)*** account for this No. other parcels: male only -0.035 (0.024)• Cannot yet No. other parcels: joint, female 1st -0.133 identify whether (0.016)*** effects are gender No. other parcels: joint, male 1st -0.116 differences in (0.012)*** preferences, Observations 5032 4490 information or Notes: Other control variables not reported. specialization
  • 13. Are smaller farms more egalitarian? Table 6: OFSP adoption by size of landholdings• Qualitative research Land area Land area by Julia Behrman Dep Var: Grow OFSP on this < 3.25 acres ≥ 3.25 acres suggested that parcel (1) (2) agriculture decision- Parcel control: female only -0.011 0.021 making may be more (0.034) (0.037) egalitarian on small Parcel control: male only -0.269 -0.007 farms. (0.078)*** (0.052) Parcel control: joint, female 1 st 0.057 0.047• For OFSP adoption, (0.030)* (0.032) evidence does not Observations 2405 2627 support ‘small but Notes: Other control variables not reported. equal’ hypothesis• Gender control over parcels has a larger effect on OFSP adoption in small farms than in large farms.
  • 14. Bargaining, parcel control and OFSP adoption Table 7: OFSP adoption by female ownership of nonland assets• Households in which High share of women have weaker Low share of female bargaining power female ownership of are more likely to ownership of nonland grow OFSP on joint Dep Var: Grow OFSP on this nonland assets assets plots with women in parcel (1) (2) primary control Parcel control: female only 0.032 -0.036 (0.049) (0.035) Parcel control: male only -0.085 -0.198• Where female (0.065) (0.082)** bargaining power is Parcel control: joint, female 1st 0.097 0.021 higher, decision- (0.029)*** (0.032) making on joint Observations 2377 2655 plots appears more Notes: Other control variables not reported. egalitarian
  • 15. Closing Points• Problems and successes Good data on gender, bargaining power and control over farming, thanks in part to GAAP, are helping the adoption study• What we would have done differently For learning purposes, experiment with providing access to nutrition trainings between women and men, or between women and both together