Ifpri gender work overview july 2010 revised final


Published on

  • 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

No notes for slide
  • This is a multi-divisional GRP jointly led by PHND and EPTD. This is a women’s NGO member, holding up an iron-rich green leafy vegetable. Compared to 10 years ago, nutritional status, assets, etc. in this area have clearly improved.
  • Between 1992-2002, the “sun never set” on IFPRI’s gender and intrahousehold research program. We are still “drawing the map” for the current research program.
  • Most of this work was supported by USAID, with additional support from DfID, Govt of Mexico (PROGRESA). Analytical work on Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Safrica was supported by WB as part of the gender PRR.
  • As the next generation of the research program evolved, we realized that it was important not only to mind women’s assets, but also the gap between men’s and women’s assets.
  • Women’s assets are increasing, esp land, but husbands’ are increasing more—in fact gender asset inequality has increased. Ruth’s work with Cheryl Doss is exploring implications of jointnessvs independence of hhdecisionmaking.
  • While these are the objectives of the gender and assets research program specifically, gender is an integral part of 85-90% of IFPRI’s research portfolio. So other research programs also pay attention to gender issues.
  • This GRP draws on methods/approaches used in the Pathways and Evaluations GRP, but with a sharper gender focus.
  • Research on gender and food price crisis falls within first track, but shows ability to respond quickly to emerging issues.
  • Breaking news: Probably one of first surveys to have a whole array of gender disaggregated data before and after the food price shock. On average, 58% of MHHs report experiencing FPS, 69% of FHHs report experiencing the shock. There is, however, a lot of regional variation. But when we control for initial landholdings, type of land, education, and village fixed effects, we find that FHHs are still more likely to experience a FPS.
  • These differences are statistically significant. In the remainder of this presentation, we explore the impact of gender of the hh head on coping behavior, controlling for experiencing the FPS, and hh and community characteristics
  • Despite the CCT, secondary school enrollment rates are still quite low, and this slide shows reasons why:  although the financial constraints are the most important, there are many other reasons, with gender issues a close second (highest in one province).  The graph represents % of all HHs in the qualitative sample of 87 HHs that mentioned these factors as reasons why their children don’t attend school.  It is not representative of course, but demonstrates insights on gender issues provided by the mixed method research.  The “gender” category reflects the following: women’s role as wife and mother; honor, reputation and sexuality.   
  • Ifpri gender work overview july 2010 revised final

    1. 1. Strengthening Development Policy & Practice through Gender Analysis An Overview of IFPRI Research, 1994-2010<br />Presentation given at the World Bank to the WDR 2012 Team: July 29, 2010<br />
    2. 2. IFPRI’s gender and intrahousehold research program (1992-2002)<br />
    3. 3. IFPRI Gender research in the 1990s<br />Past research program (1992-2002) on “Strengthening Development Policy through Gender and Intrahousehold Analysis”<br />Main objective was to test models of household behavior (collective vs. unitary) in a range of country and regional settings<br />Empirical results from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines, South Africa lead to rejection of unitary model<br />Impact on design of interventions, e.g. targeting of CCTs to women<br />
    4. 4. Intrahousehold allocation matters<br />Households do not pool resources or share same preferences<br />Identity of recipient is important for impact of policy<br />Evidence from many countries that increasing resources (assets, income transfers) controlled by women improves child education, nutrition<br />Note that for the formal tests of the collective model, we used assets at marriage or inherited assets, because these are exogenous to assets accumulated within marriage.<br />In our current work we use ways to deal with endogeneity of current assets (more later)<br />Yet a gender gap in assets persists<br />
    5. 5. Different types of assets matter<br />But we do not know much about “nonstandard” assets<br />Assets writ large to include:<br />Natural capital<br />Physical capital<br />Financial capital<br />Human capital<br />Social capital<br />Political capital<br />Tangible and intangible assets<br />
    6. 6. Not just women’s assets<br />
    7. 7. Percentage change in husbands’ and wives’ exclusively owned assets, Bangladesh, 1996-2006<br />
    8. 8. Key research objectives<br />To document the gender gap in assets at the individual, household, and community levels (and changes over time)<br />To examine consequences of the gap<br />To identify and evaluate policy interventions that build women’s assets to achieve better development outcomes<br />
    9. 9. Key Research Questions<br />What is the extent of the gender gap in assets?<br />Are there qualitative differences between men’s and women’s assets; if so, how can they be measured and compared? <br />What combination of assets/accumulation paths lead to greater poverty reduction and economic growth?<br />Are there tradeoffs between increasing household assets and gender equity?<br />If resources are to be targeted to women, what are the most effective ways to do so?<br />
    10. 10. Two-Track Approach<br />Track 1- Analytical methods: developing and implementing analytical methods for identifying factors affecting control over assets and measuring the asset gap, especially over time<br />Track 2- Evaluations: <br /> working directly with development practitioners and policymakers to evaluate the impact of interventions designed to increase women’s control of assets<br />
    11. 11. Analytical Track <br />
    12. 12. Gender and Shocks (Track 1)<br />Questions:<br />Are women more affected than men by crisis?<br />How do women’s or men’s assets affect household’s ability to cope with crisis?<br />What is effect of crisis on depletion/accumulation of women’s and men’s assets?<br />One immediate opportunity to look at this was the food price crisis of 2007<br />
    13. 13. But where are the men?<br />
    14. 14. Need to generate empirical evidence on gendered impacts<br />Unique opportunity to study effect by revisiting sites of surveys just before crisis <br />Bangladesh (2006-7)<br />Ethiopia (2004)<br />Uganda (2007)<br />If there are indeed gender-differentiated impacts of, and responses to, crises, there are important implications for program design<br />
    15. 15. Ethiopian FHHs more affected by food price shock<br />Ethiopian FHHs more affected by food price shock<br />Source: ERHS 2009<br />
    16. 16. Children in FHHs also eat less often in good and bad months<br />Source: ERHS 2009<br />Source: ERHS 2009<br />
    17. 17. Summary of results<br />Female-headed households have a higher probability of experiencing a food price shock, controlling for other factors<br />Female-headed households who experience an FPS are more likely to adopt coping mechanisms that can worsen nutritional status, particularly of children<br />Spouses (wives) in male headed households tend to be more positive about changes in household circumstances and well-being than female-heads of households<br />This means that female-headed households should be an important target for social protection mechanisms<br />
    18. 18. Asset Dynamics in Northern Nigeria<br />Tracked 200 households originally surveyed in 1988 (Udry 1990) during the same post-harvest period in 2008<br />Paid particular attention to the unit of analysis (original hh, split hh, or hh dynasty (all splits +originals))<br />Estimated the effects of initial asset endowments and shocks on female asset shares in 2008<br />
    19. 19. Results from Northern Nigeria (Dillon and Quiñones 2009)<br />Initial household assets (durables, capital) increase women’s asset shares <br />Initial livestock holdings have no effect on women’s 2008 livestock shares<br />Mechanism: Prices of men’s livestock portfolios dominated by cattle increased much more rapidly then the prices of women’s livestock portfolios dominated by smaller animals (chickens, goats). <br />Results have policy implications for asset transfer programs and gender asset inequality<br />
    20. 20. Impact of shocks on men’s and women’s assets, Bangladesh(Quisumbing 2009) <br />Most commonly reported shocks, 1996-2006, Bangladesh<br />
    21. 21. Estimating asset growth regressions shows that:<br />Illness shocks reduce women’s assets<br />Dowry and wedding expenses reduce husbands’ assets<br />Since health shocks are the most prevalent shocks, lack of health insurance threatens women’s asset accumulation<br />Implications for health insurance and social policy<br />
    22. 22. Impact Evaluation Track<br />
    23. 23. What do we evaluate?<br />Program impacts on<br />Female and male access to and control over assets (PC, NC, FC, SC, PC and HC)<br />Intra-household relationships and decision-making<br />Women’s self-confidence<br />Women’s engagement with institutions<br />Impact pathways<br />Reasons for no impact<br />
    24. 24. Evaluation Methods<br />Quantitative: Randomization, Double-difference, Propensity Score Matching, Regression Discontinuity Design, Instrumental variables; preference for using panel data (if available) <br />Qualitative: Focus groups, semi-structured interviews, observation, ethnography, participatory methods, case studies, process/operations evaluations<br />
    25. 25. How qualitative research adds value to quantitative research<br />Identifies questions for surveys and hypotheses for testing<br />Identifies range of response options for survey questions<br />Clarifies terms/language for use in surveys<br />Confirms validity of constructs and proxies <br />Triangulation, confirmation, contradiction<br />Explanation/interpretation of survey findings<br />Provides depth, context<br />Identifies impact pathways and limited impact<br />Identifies social and cultural factors that explain program outcomes: norms, values, beliefs, experience, interests.<br />
    26. 26. How quantitative research adds value to qualitative research<br />Identifies stratification strategy<br />Provides community and household characteristics for sampling<br />Tests representativeness of qualitative sample on non-purposively selected variables<br />Identifies issues for investigation<br />Triangulation, confirmation, contradiction<br />Determines prevalence of qualitative findings in wider population<br />
    27. 27. Evaluation examples<br />1. Conditional Cash Transfers<br />2. Agricultural technology<br />
    28. 28. Gender issues in Conditional Cash Transfer program evaluations <br />Impacts on women and girls education and health<br />Impacts on intra-household relationships<br />Interactions with institutions<br />Impacts of sociocultural norms on outcomes<br />Why do women not participate in some health services, despite messages and cash incentives?<br />Why do girls not attend school despite the CCT?<br />
    29. 29. CCT gender impacts: Findings from Latin America(Adato and Mindek 2000; de la Briere and Quisumbing 2000; Adato and Roopnaraine 2004; Adato, Roopnaraine, Pleitez, Morales et al. 2009)<br />Changes in power relations are modest, but cash provides some independence<br />Some changes in sole and joint decisionmaking<br />Spending without asking permission<br />Freedom to leave spouse<br />Minimal intra-household conflict but women must negotiate program and domestic responsibilities<br />Sociocultural norms affect participation in health services: Shame, religion, tradition<br />Need more attention to men, especially with regard to women’s and family health issues<br />Increased confidence through participation in training and collective activities, but varies greatly by program<br />
    30. 30. CCT evaluation in Turkey: Why children do not attend school (Qualitative study, n=87) (Adato, Roopnaraine, Smith, Altinok, Çelebioğlu, & Cemal 2007)<br />
    31. 31. Findings on Gender & Schooling Decisions in Turkey(Adato, Roopnaraine, Smith, Altinok, Çelebioğlu, & Cemal 2007)<br />Women’s primary identity as wife and mother<br />Education irrelevant or counterproductive<br />Inappropriate for women to work<br />Bride price<br />Honor, reputation, sexuality<br />Fear of damage to family honor by girls contact with men and boys<br />Physical maturity and appearance of girls<br />Transportation and location of schools <br />No secondary schools in communities<br />Objection to girls walking to school, riding on buses with boys, or being driven by man<br />
    32. 32. Conclusions from CCT evaluations<br />CCTs do empower women in many ways. However…<br />Attention to country and region specific norms and sanctions that impact responses of males and females<br />Attention to who has authority, e.g. tribal leaders, elders, nurses, not just program staff<br />Financial incentives powerful, but not necessarily enough<br />Training and discourse powerful, but not necessarily<br />Implications for program design, complementary program needed, regional variations, flexibility—not blueprints!<br />Not static: Norms and practices do change over time; interventions can influence these<br />
    33. 33. Study on the Impact of Agricultural Research on Poverty(Adato and Meinzen-Dick 2007)<br />-5 technologies in 4 countries<br />-Comparative research using common conceptual framework and research questions to determine impacts on different types of farmers (non-poor vs poor; men vs. women).<br />-All studies integrated large panel datasets with qualitative research<br />
    34. 34. Findings from study on HYV Maize in Zimbabwe (Bourdillon, Hebinck, and Hoddinott 2007)<br />
    35. 35. Findings from study on HYV Maize in Zimbabwe (Bourdillon, Hebinck, and Hoddinott 2007)<br />
    36. 36. General findings from multi-country study on impacts of agricultural research<br />Highly targeted efforts needed to reach women due to social norms, mobility, self-exclusion<br />Trainers’ attitudes matter (toward women, poor, crop varieties)<br />Importance of informal networks; social capital substitutes for other assets<br />Women not interested only in yields: also taste, texture, cooking qualities; resistance; stability<br />Vulnerability factors differ for women: where they produce, stability of yields, who controls crops or land<br />Increasing land productivity, new crop, or irrigation may reduce women’s access<br />
    37. 37. Recommendations from Agricultural Research Impact Evaluations<br />Gender analysis at technology design stage and at dissemination/training design stage<br />Develop technology that lowers assets needed to adopt<br />Seeds and training for crops women grow; promoting small animals they raise;<br />Seed varieties traded in markets women access<br />Distribution of inputs in sizes they are more likely to control (small bags of seeds and fertilizer)<br />Labor-saving technologies for their activities (e.g. weeding) and their crops<br />
    38. 38. Evaluating long-term impact of agricultural technology in Bangladesh (Kumar and Quisumbing 2010)<br />Panel data set based on 957 households surveyed in 1996/7 and 2006/7 in study sites examining impact of new agricultural technologies in rural Bangladesh –revisiting one of the sites of the SPIA study (Hallman et al. 2007)<br />3 technologies/implementation modalities:<br />1. improved vegetables for homestead production, disseminated through women’s groups (Saturia)<br />2. fishpond technology through women’s groups (Jessore)<br />3. fish pond technology targeted to individuals (Mymensingh)<br />
    39. 39. Impact of agricultural technology on men’s and women’s assets in Bangladesh (Kumar and Quisumbing 2010)<br />How have the agricultural technology programs contributed to: (1) outcomes at the household and individual levels? (2) asset growth of men and women; (2) reduction of the gender asset gap?<br />We usematching methods to examine impact of the agricultural technology program over time on household and individual level outcomes, men’s and women’s assets on average, and men’s and women’s assets within the same household.<br />Three comparisons:<br />NGO members with technology vs. NGO members without technology<br />Early adopters vs. late adopters<br />NGO members vs. non-NGO members<br />We look at changes in husband’s assets relative to changes in wife’s assets within the same household, focusing on exclusively owned assets<br />
    40. 40. Suggestive conclusions from Bangladesh study<br />Implementation modalities matter: women’s assets increased more by programs that targeted technologies through women’s groups<br />Even when comparing an identical technology (polyculture fish technology), we find women’s assets increased more, relative to men’s, when women were targeted<br />Nevertheless, the bulk of the household’s assets are controlled by men<br />Intrahousehold impacts may be quite different from household-level impacts; looking at the household level, the individual fishpond program appears to be the big success, but looking at improvements in individual (women’s and children’s) nutritional status, group-based programs were more effective<br />This reinforces the need to look within the household when evaluating impacts of programs and policies<br />