Final-A-Gender-Analysis-of-Livelihood-Interventions-with-the-Extreme-Poor-in-Bangladesh-14th-Dec-2014

A Gendered Analysis of
Livelihoods Interventions
with the Extreme Poor
Marie Sophie Pettersson
Gender Adviser and Programme Analyst
EEP/Shiree
December 2014

Table of Contents
Acronyms....................................................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................4
Overview of 16 Partner NGOs included in this study..........................................................................6
Who are the Female Beneficiaries? ..........................................................................................................6
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................7
Part One: Gendered Analysis of EEP/Shiree Livelihoods Interventions ..........................................9
Gender Analysis not included in Initial Programme Design ..........................................................9
Change Monitoring System (CMS) Data on Gendered Differences in IGAs...............................10
Evidence of Female Headed Households Lower Graduation Performance ...............................11
Findings on Gender Challenges to IGAs..........................................................................................12
Findings on Struggling Female Headed Households.....................................................................19
Beyond Women to Gender Relations................................................................................................21
Reasoning for Focus on Empowering Women with IGAs.............................................................22
NGO responses to reasons for targeting women ............................................................................22
Part Two: Recommendation for Step-by-Step Strategy......................................................................23
Step 1 – Context-specific IGA Analysis.............................................................................................25
Step 2 – Select Hardware.....................................................................................................................33
Step 3 – Implement Women-focused Software Systems ................................................................37
Step 4 – Sustainability Strategies .......................................................................................................38
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................39
Annex: Summary Table of NGO Survey on Female-Friendly IGAs.................................................41
2

Acronyms
BHH – Beneficiary Household
BCC – Behaviour Change Counselling
CBO – Community Based Organisations
CMS – Change Monitoring System
DfID –Department for International Development of the United Kingdom
EEP – Economic Empowerment of the Poorest
FGD – Focus Group Discussion
FHH – Female Headed Household
FMH – Female Managed Household
IGA – Income Generating Asset/Activity
MDG – Millennium Development Goals
MHH – Male Headed Household
NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation
SHIREE – Stimulating Household Improvements Resulting in Economic Empowerment
Acknowledgements
This study could not have been possible without the continual input from the support of the project
teams of the 16 EEP/Shiree Partner NGOs who took part in this study and provided logistical support,
guidance, feedback and general hospitality during fieldwork.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the external Peer Reviewers of the Guidance Note: Ms.
Lucia Da Corta, Former Academic at Bath University, Ms. Ramona Radolfi, Gender Manager at Hellen
Keller International, Mr. Owasim Akram, Gender-focused Research Officer at EEP/Shiree.
Within Shiree I would like to recognise the support of Ms. Sally Faulkner, who helped initiate the idea of
this study. I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the support of the EEP/Shiree Programme
Managers and Research Officers for their support during the NGO field visits, helping me conduct the
beneficiary Focus Group Discussions and facilitate the Project Staff interviews. Finally, I owe my genuine
thanks to the EEP/Shiree CEO Eamoinn Taylor and the former CEO Colin Risner for their continued
support and guidance.
3

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to inform and assist the next generation of livelihoods programmes working
with the extreme poor in Bangladesh to fully take account of gender in the design and implementation
phase. It may also be applicable to other country contexts.
Background
The paper draws on experience and lessons learned fromn the Government of Bangladesh's (GoB)
Economic Empowerment of the Poorest Programme (EEP)/Shiree. It is a joint initiative between the
Government of Bangladesh (GoB) and UKaid/the Department for International Development (DFID) and
Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC). The programme also has the title “Shiree”, the Bangla word for
“steps”, which sums up the basic purpose of the programme: to enable one million people - members of
over 3000,000 households - to climb the ladder out of extreme poverty, sustainably.
EEP/Shiree started in 2008, was originally due to end in December 2015, but was extended to march 2016.
The original total programme value was £65,000,000 increasing to £71,457,760 at the end of 2012, over
99% of which is provided in the form of grant funding by DFID. Following a DFID Business Case
extension, the programme now continues to March 2016. Additional funding of £4 million was granted
SDC. The total programme value now stands at £83,500,000.
International and local NGOs were challenged to submit proposals for projects that adopt a variety of
economic empowerment interventions with the common objective of achieving sustainable graduation
from extreme poverty. The interventions were designed by the NGOs and not, as is common with other
programmes, designed by the management agency and imposed in a top-down manner. The key
characteristic of EEP/Shiree is the combination of diversity and scale.
EEP/Shiree is under the direction of a Management Agency (MA), a consortium of Ecorys UK (lead)1,
PMTC-Bangladesh, the University of Bath - Centre for Development Studies, the British Council and
Unnayan Shamannay, with support from the University of Cambridge. The MA administered the
challenge funds, supported the bidding process (selection via an Independent Assessment Panel);
contracted selected NGOs, managed the contract; and regularly reviews performance.
The programme can be described as a “Challenge Fund ++” – combining the core functions of financial
management, fund disbursement and monitoring common to all challenge funds with a range of
significant value added elements.
The MA provides operational support to projects, and conducts activities including supporting research
into the dynamics of extreme poverty, facilitating learning amongst partner NGOs and with a wider
audience, and planning and implementing advocacy campaigns at local and national levels. A nutrition
support output commenced in 2012 and involves behavioural change counselling and provision of micro
nutrients to all Scale Fund beneficiary households that include pregnant or lactating mothers, children
under 2 years of age, and adolescent girls.
1
Harewelle International was the original contractor of the DFID project EEP. In 2012, Harewelle became part of
the Ecorys group through acquisition by Ecorys UK. Henceforth, the lead consortium partner will be referred to as
Ecorys UK.
4

Scope
The paper presents a gender analysis of extreme poor livelihood interventions managed by the partner
NGOS of EEP/Shiree.
Part One provides an overview of various gendered aspects of the partner NGO projects’ interventions to
create Income Generating Activities (IGA) for female beneficiaries by outlining key successes, constraints
and misunderstandings.
Part Two provides recommendations for a step-by-step, gender-sensitive guide for developing
sustainable Income Generating Activities (IGA with female beneficiaries. It is not prescriptive instruction,
rather guidance for use by livelihood projects at their own discretion to further adapt their interventions
with female beneficiaries and introduce new activities where needed.
Rationale
EEP/Shiree’s goal is to help one million people lift themselves out of extreme poverty by 2015. To achieve
this goal means economically empowering all family members of extreme poor beneficiary households –
male and female.
EEP/Shiree became concerned about the gender dimension of its work when it noted reports from some
of its partner NGOs about the challenges of maintaining IGAs with women of extreme poor beneficiary
households (BHHs), particularly when the household head is female.
Not all female beneficiaries and female household heads require specialised interventions. Some are
capable, experienced, motivated and have the support from kin to engage with the project in the same
manner as male beneficiaries and household heads. However, EEP/Shiree's experience has , shown that
many female beneficiaries and female household heads face additional challenges and constraints
towards engaging with, and being empowered by IGAs provided by the NGOs' projects as initially
designed, and thus alternative arrangements need to be developed.
Methodology
The paper is based on a feedback from 16 EEP/Shiree Partner NGOs working in all five regions of
Bangladesh on both Innovation and Scale Fund projects. Evidence was collected through project staff
interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries, follow-up workshops with EEP/Shiree
and Partner NGO staff members, qualitative and quantitative data analysis from the EEP/Shiree Change
Monitoring System (CMS) and overall research findings.
5

Overview of 16 Partner NGOs included in this study
Region NGO Scale or Innovation Fund
Project
Southern Coastal Belt
Uttaran, Save the Children,
Oxfam, Shushilan
Scale Fund
BOSS, Save the Children Innovation Fund
Urban
DSK Scale Fund
Priptrust Innovation Fund
North West
Care, Practical Action
Bangladesh, Netz
Scale Fund
North East Haor Region
Concern Worldwide Scale Fund
Chittagong Hill Tracts
Caritas, Green Hill, Hellen Keller
International
Scale Fund
Tarango Innovation Fund
More information about each individual project and the difference between Scale and Innovation funds
can be found on the EEP/Shiree website: www.shiree.org
Who are the Female Beneficiaries?
The Target Group is Female Beneficiaries (adult women and adolescent girls) in:
• Female headed households
• Male headed households
• ‘Silently’ female headed households – where male adult is too old or sick to effectively earn an
income.
The EEP/Shiree portfolio has a high representation of female beneficiaries - the first baseline report (2011)
showed 53.47% of beneficiaries are female. If EEP partner NGOs only engaged men in income generation
then less than half of the potential of the beneficiary household (BHH) would may be realised.
While almost all EEP/Shiree BHHs contain female household members, NGOs struggle the most with
IGA interventions where the head of household is female. The situation is more difficult if the head of
household is also elderly and/or disabled2 , or if the female head is also caring for elderly or disabled
household members or young children.
2 Please refer to Guidance Note on Disabled and Old Age-friendly IGAs for these cases.
6

At baseline approx 30%3 of our beneficiary households were female headed (notably with significant
variations across Partner NGOs). The figure for female headed households has fallen to around 22%
according to latest the CMS 2 data analysis from July 2014. One of the main causes behind this reduction
in female headed households is an observed tendency for male heads to return to the households they
had previously abandoned or migrated away from once the household moves out of extreme poverty.
According to most recent baseline report (August 2014), over half (55%) of these female households heads
were widowed, 17% separated, divorced or abandoned, while 27% were married but living alone
without their husbands (usually due to his migration for work or him living with a second wife). In
addition, , CMS 5 research (Shiree Q² Report October 2011) reveals that female headedness also happens
‘silently’ within marriage in households officially categorised as male headed. For instance, in order to
avoid the costs of dowry, some extremely poor parents marry their daughters at an early age to men who
have impaired physical or mental capacity, or are simply old. These men are effectively not performing
the role of the family’s breadwinner and provider, but still remain the authority of the household.
Importantly, these female household heads (or ‘silent’ female household heads) are often also sole
breadwinners for their families and do not have an adult male breadwinner to rely on.
Executive Summary
This paper presents a number of findings on challenges, misperceptions, opportunities, lessons and
recommendations to empowering extreme poor women with income generating activities. The key points
are summarised below.
Gendered Constraints in EEP/Shiree Interventions:
• Gendered analysis was not included in the initial EEP/Shiree programme design: this resulted in
a policy gap in the official commitment to women’s empowerment and gender equality within
EEP/Shiree overall from the onset.
• The majority of EEP/Shiree Partners did not have specific and comprehensive gender strategies
in place for working with female beneficiaries (both in male and female headed households) at
the start of their interventions.
• The vast majority of surveyed female beneficiaries were not engaged in IGAs (entrepreneurship
or employment); but contrarily the majority of them became unemployed housewives following
the start of project interventions.
• According to socio-economic data analysis form March 2014 (CMS 3 2014), more than half (51.5%)
of female household heads did not own or use productive assets, which suggest inadequate
engagement of female households heads with IGAs
• Across survey rounds, for female household heads the main trend was to move away from
working as domestic maids and begging to instead doing household work as housewives. There
was only a small initial increase in women doing petty trade (an EEP/Shiree IGA), yet this
increase was equal to the initial increase in women doing day labour (not an EEP/Shiree IGA)
and both occupations dropped again after survey 4 leading to an increase in unemployment.
Thus according to this data analysis, it appears that female heads of households did not benefit
3 31% according to the first baseline report “Characteristics of Shiree Beneficiary Households” (2011) and 28% according to the
second baseline report “State of Extreme Poverty Baseline Report” (August 2014).
7

from income diversification from IGA interventions to the same extent that male heads of
household did.
• CMS 3 quantitative data analysis of graduation from extreme poverty based on the EEP/Shiree
Multidimensional Graduation Index (incl. food security, food diversity, asset base, savings,
income, land access, water &sanitation, women’s empowerment, and children’s school
enrolment) demonstrates that female headed households perform worse than male headed
households overall (Mascie-Taylor, Goto, Pettersson April 2014).
• CMS 3 analysis showed that the failure to graduate was associated with sex of household head.
Just over a quarter of female household heads (28.3%) failed to graduate compared with 14.2% of
male headed households
• Female headed households made out the overall majority and the lowest percentile of
households that were not graduated (Mascie-Taylor and Goto 2014)
• Between surveys 7 to 8 the gender gap in graduation started widening suggesting that female
headed households’ graduation from extreme poverty is less likely to be sustainable and over
time the gender gap in graduation tends to widen.
.
Key lessons learned about gender in livelihoods programming
• Historically, EEP/Shiree Livelihoods interventions were designed to improve the overall
household level of economic empowerment, preventing a focus on each individual household
member and interventions focused more on women’s rights. Due to gender discrimination within
households and unequal allocation of resources, control, power and benefits, this often meant
women and girls were less likely to benefit from IGA interventions. Thus, gender inequality
needs to be addressed within as well as beyond the boundaries of household units.
• Targeting women does not automatically ensure gender equality. A key programmatic challenge
is assuming that transferring economic resources to women automatically translates into their
empowerment. If women are not involved in IGA selection, or if they lack the skills and enabling
environment to succeed (supportive household and community members, female-friendly
market places etc), then the IGAs will not empower them.
• Programmes need to focus on improving the gender dynamics preventing women from being
empowered by IGAs. This includes focusing on improving women’s control over IGAs rather
than simply their access to them, by ensuring their equal role in financial decision making,
ownership, management and operation of IGAs. Furthermore, ensuring equal allocation of IGA
earnings to make sure equal intra-household benefits and equal division of household work to
ensure women do not face a double burden by also engaging in productive work.
• We need to look beyond women to gender relations - the roles of men as well as women and how
they interact. The move towards a gender-equal society requires men and boys to think and act in
new ways, to reconsider traditional images of manhood, and to reshape their relationships with
women and girls. Men and boys are most likely to support change towards gender equality when
they can see positive benefits for themselves and the people in their lives.
8

Key recommendations on how to empower women with IGAs
• Always encourage women to take on main IGAs that are both profitable, sustainable and
gender transformative (i.e. not only secondary traditional IGAs for women that do not serve as a
main HH income source).
• IGAs for women should be tailored according to a comprehensive context analysis on type of
household (MHH, FHH, FMH), Age, Region, Market Analysis, Local Gender Norms, Beneficiary
Capacity and Preference, sustainability vs. Risk analysis
• Implement ‘Software’ mechanisms alongside ‘hardware’ IGA packages:
- Training for female beneficiary on IGA/business management, productive profit
reinvestment, marketing, accounting, financial literacy, savings
- Establish Women’s Support Groups including: group savings, IGA, group child care and
general support network,
- Gender Awareness Sensitisation training with whole HH and whole community on socio-
economic benefit of women working, women’s rights, stopping gender discrimination and
violence, sharing productive and reproductive work, etc.
- Men’s groups and Couple’s Therapy Groups on gender awareness raising,
- Social Mobilisation with community leaders (religious leaders, village leaders, teachers, Local
government, UP Chairmen, etc.) on gender awareness and socio-economic benefit of women
working
- Create female-friendly Market Places (or women’s corners at market-places) with female
toilet facilities, Market linkages or Central Collective Marketing Centres for female
beneficiaries
• Implement Sustainability Strategies:
- Lobbying Campaigns with Private Sector Employers/Landlords on equal wages and equal
recruitment of women, equal khasland provision
- Enable women’s Labour Union linkages
- Encourage women’s participation in local politics and decision-making at the community
level as female representatives in local governance structures and community meetings.
- Lobby with local government for access to public services, social safety nets and legal
services
- Gender awareness raising with marketing actors (vendors, male entrepreneurs, male
customers, etc) for female-friendly market places with equal prices, no harassment/violence
and discrimination
Part One: Gendered Analysis of EEP/Shiree Livelihoods Interventions
Gender Analysis not included in Initial Programme Design
Despite the high representation of females and female headed households within the EEP/Shiree
portfolio, living in highly gendered contexts both within their families and wider society, only 8 of the 16
partners consulted had specific and comprehensive strategies in place for working with female
beneficiaries (both in male and female headed households) at the start of their interventions. Several
reasons for this limitation were observed among Partner NGOs: 1) lack of understanding among NGO
9

project staff of how gender impacts livelihoods, 2) perceptions that gender issues are too culturally
sensitive to address within standard livelihood interventions, 3) budgetary constraints and perceptions
that it is more guaranteed value for money and less risky to focus on empowering male beneficiaries with
IGAs, 4) time constraints for more comprehensive interventions needed to empower women with IGAs,
and 5) Risk-adverse behaviour of NGO project staff – avoiding antagonising male household and
community members.
However, a more fundamental constraint was the lack of gendered analysis in the initial EEP/Shiree
programme design. This resulted in a policy gap on women’s empowerment and gender equality from
the onset. This was because of the focus on households rather than individuals in terms of ensuring and
measuring graduation from extreme poverty. Thus, livelihoods interventions were generally only
designed to improve the overall household level of economic empowerment. This prevented a focus both
on individual household members and interventions focused on women’s and child rights. Due to
unequal intra-household allocations of benefits, power and resources however, this inevitably leads to
intra-household gender disparities in empowerment. During the course of implementation, evaluation
of interventions and research has clearly demonstrated that female beneficiaries usually face gender-
specific challenges to performing the same IGAs as male beneficiaries. They need more comprehensive
interventions to be socially and economically empowered to the same extent as male beneficiaries.
In 2013/2014 gender mainstreaming increased at pace within EEP/Shiree through the appointment of a
Gender Focal-Point. This position involves leading the design, planning and implementation of the
EEP/Shiree Gender Mainstreaming Strategy across the entire organization; within Partner NGO
operations, the nutrition component, CMS, research and advocacy. This initiative both aims to increase
the visibility of gendered aspects of extreme poverty and to ensure that these gendered issues are
addressed effectively and timely. This is in line with EEP/Shiree and our donors’ commitment to
achieving the MDG 3 on Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment as well as ensuring an
enhanced gender focus in the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.
Change Monitoring System (CMS) Data on Gendered Differences in IGAs
In the EEP/Shiree quantitative socio-economic and anthropometric panel survey (CMS 3) significant
gendered differences were found in main occupation and ownership of productive assets between male
and female households heads at the beginning of the project interventions and throughout (Mascie-
Taylor and Goto 2013 and 2014).
Main Occupation: At baseline (CMS 3 Survey Round 1) in March 2010 (i.e. before project intervention),
nearly 5 times as many female household heads (14.2%) used begging as their main occupation compared
to male household heads (3%). For male household heads, there was a general trend of men moving away
from being day labourers or unemployed to instead doing business and service jobs, especially between
survey 1 and 4 (i.e. right after project interventions). However, for female household heads the main
trend was to move away from working as domestic maids and begging to instead doing household work
as housewives. There was only a small initial increase in women doing petty trade (a Shiree IGA), yet
this increase was equal to the initial increase in women doing day labour (not a Shiree IGA) and both
occupations dropped again after survey 4 leading to an increase in unemployment. Thus according to this
data analysis, it appears that female heads of households did not benefit from income diversification
from IGA interventions to the same extent that male heads of household did. The vast majority of
surveyed female beneficiaries were not engaged in IGAs (entrepreneurship or employment), but
contrarily the majority of them became unemployed housewives following the start of project
interventions.
Ownership and Use of Productive Assets: Questions on ownership and use of productive assets were
introduced in CMS 3 survey 8 in March 2013. Female headed households were more likely to own cattle,
10

goats, poultry and a sewing machine, while male headed households were more likely to own a fishing
net, rickshaw, boat, mobile phone and a bicycle. Female heads were more likely to look after animals and
use a sewing machine, while male heads operated rickshaw, fishing net, boat and used mobile phone and
bicycle. This demonstrates an overall mostly traditional gendered labour division within beneficiary
households with women mostly being responsible for the more homestead-based and less physically
demanding types of IGAs, while men were mostly responsible for IGAs that require high level of
physical activity outside the homestead.
Overall, male ownership and use of productive assets was significantly higher than female. More than
half (51.5%) of female household heads did not own or use any productive assets, which suggest
inadequate engagement of female households heads with IGAs.
Evidence of Female Headed Households Lower Graduation Performance
CMS 3 quantitative data analysis of graduation from extreme poverty based on the EEP/Shiree
Multidimensional Graduation Index (incl. food security, food diversity, asset base, savings, income, land
access, water &sanitation, women’s empowerment, and children’s school enrolment) demonstrates that
female headed households perform worse than male headed households overall (Mascie-Taylor, Goto,
Pettersson April 2014). Further, female headed households made out the overall majority and the lowest
percentile of households that were not graduated. In all Partner NGOs the proportion of female headed
households graduating is lower than male headed households. The gender gap in graduation across
survey rounds was similar for all NGOs, except Practical Action Bangladesh which had much lower
graduation rates in female headed households in surveys 7 and 8.
The mean graduation scores (range 0-13 in rural areas and 0-10 in urban areas) were computed for each
survey by head of household. In rural areas (Figure 1, left side) although male households had slightly
higher mean graduation scores than female headed households, there were no significant differences in
mean graduation scores up until survey 7, however between survey 7 to 8 the gender gap started
widening. In the urban areas graduation scores were very similar between male and female headed
households in surveys 1 and 4, but in surveys 7 and 8 male headed households mean scores were
significantly higher than female headed households (Figure 1 right side).
Figure 3 Change in mean graduation scores by head of household over the four surveys in rural
(left)and urban (right) households in cohort 1
11

Finally, CMS 3 analysis showed that the failure to graduate was associated with sex of household head.
Just over a quarter of female household heads (28.3%) failed to graduate compared with 14.2% of male
headed households.
From this is could be derived that female headed households struggle more to lift themselves out of
extreme poverty. Whilst initially after project interventions they might go on a similar upward trajectory
as male headed households, their graduation from extreme poverty is less likely to be sustainable, and
over time the gender gap in graduation tends widen. This further implies that female headed households,
living without male guardian, generally have not benefitted from EEP/Shiree IGA interventions in the
way they have been dispersed to the same extent that male headed households have.
This then leads us to ask whether women are simply too difficult to engage and empower with IGAs? Or
whether EEP/Shiree and Partner NGOs have been doing something wrong in our IGA interventions with
female beneficiaries, especially female household heads? Have we not targeted women enough or have
we perhaps targeted them the wrong way? Are our interventions sufficiently gender-sensitive?
Findings on Gender Challenges to IGAs
Despite there being obvious benefits to empowering women, the severe lack of gender equality in
extreme poor families and communities in Bangladesh (in access and control over resources, decision-
making power and basic human rights - from freedom from violence to the right to work) often mean that
it is difficult for poverty reduction programmes to achieve their desired aims when working with
females. In terms of income generation, extreme poor women are at a considerable disadvantage in
relation to their male counterparts from the beginning and throughout EEP/Shiree interventions.
EEP/Shiree Research findings have shown that various factors (listed below) as a result of gender
dynamics both within households and wider communities have significant impacts on female
beneficiaries’ ability to engage with, benefit from and be empowered by IGAs. These factors ensure that
women are often excluded from activities with higher economic returns. If they have no able working
male to support them, women are often confined to homestead-based, low-return IGAs, which at best
enable them to temporarily meet some subsistence requirements.
While EEP/Shiree mainly operates on a household basis with IGA interventions targeted at beneficiary
households as a whole, this guidance note recognises feminist critiques of standard ‘household
economics’ models that households are not ‘unitary entities operating on altruistic principles’ but often
characterized by competing claims, rights, power, interests and resources (Chant 2003). Due to gender
discrimination, this often means women and girls are less likely to benefit from IGA interventions.
Based on EEP/Shiree quantitative and qualitative research findings, surveys conducted with NGO
project staff and beneficiary focus group discussions of 16 Partner NGOs, the following key challenges
were identified for women’s engagement with and empowerment from IGAs:
12

Identified Challenge Context Explanation
Women’s Lack of
mobility beyond the
homestead or village
At baseline (EEP/Shiree Baseline Report 2014), around two-thirds of all women
said they did not feel confident moving outside their village or slum area alone
(66%). This is both a result of restriction by the husband and in-laws to protect
the ‘family honour’ and the social stigma given by community members who
perceive that women’s place is in the home.
In other cases it is also perceived as a way of protecting women from
harassment and assault. Faulkner (2014) demonstrates that mobility is one the
major factors that influence female Shiree/Oxfam beneficiaries’ decision in the
asset selection process is mobility. In her research with beneficiaries, key
concerns were raised about the “bad talking” that would occur if their wives
went outside to work, especially by elderly community members, local elites
and imans. The overriding concern amongst the men in the FGDs was losing
their own dignity and being emasculated if their wife worked. This reflects the
belief that often even extreme poor men do not like their wives or elder
daughters to work outside the home because it reflects badly on them, whilst
further undermining male breadwinner roles already diminished by
underemployment and extreme poverty (Silberschmidt, 2001). There is also a
fear that women’s mobility would bring a bad reputation to the household in
general.
Women’s traditional
role as mothers and
caregivers, not
breadwinners
This norm is often reinforced by husbands, in-laws and women themselves.
Many husbands forbid their wives from working, especially outside the home,
which leaves households reliant on a single wage with greater risks of
remaining destitute.
This was reported as less of a problem among indigenous tribal communities
(both in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and in the North) where women and men
are usually both income earners and joint heads of the family.
Women’s burden of
sole responsibility for
household and care
work
Women’s choices are heavily influenced by time constraints and other
commitments. If they have children to look after and chores to do within the
home, it is difficult for them to run a business, especially one which requires
them to spend a lot of time outside. They are mostly not excused from this
domestic workload even if they have the potential to generate income for the
family (Faulkner 2014. This burden is especially big if the family has young
children or disabled/chronically ill household members. In most cases,
husbands are unwilling to share this burden as they do not see it as their
responsibility and alternative childcare facilities are generally not available.
This was reported as less of a problem in the CHT where women and men
usually both share the household and care work.
Kabeer (2012) explains that women often suffer from “time poverty”. This is
caused by the longer hours relative to men, women have to work each day
because, even after taking up paid work, they remain responsible for a great
deal of the unpaid domestic work that ensures the survival of the family. Due to
13

such time constraints, Banerjee and Duflo (2011) found that in some cases
extreme poor women do not actually like being small scale entrepreneurs
because it simply adds more work to their already overburdened schedule –
something which goes unappreciated by their husbands or male relatives.
Low self-esteem,
confidence and
motivation
Women’s own belief that they are not capable to be breadwinner and their fear
of disapproval by others if they do become breadwinners was reported by NGO
staff as a major barrier. Over half of 36 women interviewed in FGDs and in-
depth interviews mentioned issues related to their own confidence as the
biggest influencing factor for not being involved in the management of a small
business, with many simply not being aware of anything they were capable of
doing (Faulkner 2014).
These perceptions are likely to manifest themselves during asset selection and
business plan development, and result in the selection of safe assets or assets
which can be managed by male relatives. Despite owning an asset therefore,
“women remain highly dependent on men to make a living” from that asset
(Holmes et al, 2010, p.24), and often they tend to select assets that will be
directly managed by their husband or adult son (Faulkner 2014).
Lack of literacy,
numeracy, financial
literacy as well as
bargaining,
accounting and
business skills
Women’s lower level literacy, numeracy, financial literacy partly due to their
lower levels of schooling is a major barrier to their involvement in more
complex IGAs that involve marketing and running a business. Since they have
traditionally been excluded from involvement in managing family businesses,
including doing accounting, marketing and financial decision-making, they
often lack these skills.
Lack of decision-
making power in the
household
Women’s lack of or low decision-making power within households was a key
overarching factor reported by NGOs. At Baseline (Baseline Report 2014), there
was clear evidence of male dominance in decision-making within beneficiary
households. The majority of men and slightly under half of all women reported
the husband as the sole decision makers on use of household earnings and
whom to vote for , while around one-third of men and women said the same
about use of cash savings, taking out a loan, children’s education and health
care expenditure.
Very few men and women reported the wife as sole decision makers in any
area. Half of all women reported not feeling confident to take small financial
decisions on their own. The exclusion of women from financial decision making
is often exacerbated when women are not engaged in income earning. As noted
by Swaminathan, Lahoti and Sichitra (2012), even in female headed, decisions
are still often influenced by male relatives, in-laws or even adult male children.
Unequal distribution
of resources and
benefits
Male control over resources and benefits from IGAs was reported by the
majority of Partner NGOs and BHHs. Ultimately men have a privileged
bargaining power due to their role as main breadwinners and family heads,
which enabled them to command a larger share of resources and decide about
14

the use of income earnings.
Some NGOs and BHHs reported that this sometimes lead to cases of husbands
spending the majority of the IGA earnings on alcohol consumption and
gambling, rather than children’s education or health care and nutrition for all.
At Baseline (March 2019), 34% of households reported giving more food to male
earning household members, whereas in March 2014 only 8% of households
reporting using this coping strategy.
Dominance and
reluctance of
husband/father/broth
er/son/in-laws
Some NGOs reported cases of male guardians restricting women and confining
them to the homestead. Qualitative CMS 5 findings also reveal many cases of
dominant and abusive husbands, and endorsing parents and in-laws.
One example is Kamrunnahar, an Uttaran beneficiary, who is not allowed by
her husband and in-laws to manage the productive assets she received from the
project. Her mother in-law explained: “as she is a young girl we don’t let her to
go outside alone and always send a chaperone with her when she goes
outside”. Her mother used to be a victim of domestic violence and she still
thinks that spending your husband’s money and going outside without
notifying your husband first justifies domestic violence.
Crucially, in order to enable husbands to see the full potential of their wives as
economic contributors, it is necessary to actively bring men into women’s
empowerment initiatives (Connell, 2003), e.g. through male focus groups on
gender awareness.
Community stigma
against women who
work outside their
home and go to
market places
At Baseline (Baseline Report 2014), around two-thirds of all women surveyed
said they did not feel confident moving outside their village or slum area alone
(66%) and half of all women reported not feeling comfortable talking to men
outside their family (47%). NGOs and BBHs reported that sometimes the stigma
is bigger for women in male headed households as it is considered shameful for
the husbands if their wives work and move around outside the home/village.
At baseline (Baseline Report 2014), more women in female headed households
compared to women in male headed households answered that they were
confident in talking to men who are not relatives and moving outside their
village or slum area. Yet social stigma is also used against female household
heads, as the community may consider it shameful if they were abandoned or
divorced. Yet, widowed women and some abandoned women are also likely to
receive sympathy from people in their community, who support them
financially or accept their engagement with IGAs recognizing that they no
longer have a man to rely on.
15

Discrimination
against women in
price negotiation
It was reported that when women sell items at market places they face
discrimination and are unable to sell items at the same prices as men. However
women who sell items by going door to door reported that they often get higher
prices than men because they have better access to houses while men are not
allowed inside. In the CHT it was reported that Adivasi women face an
additional language barrier compared to Adivasi men when selling items at
Bangladeshi market places as they often struggle more speaking Bengali.
Harassment and
violence both at home
and in the village
Women’s perceived and real lack of security was considered a key obstacle to
engaging them in income generation, especially outside the home. Studies have
shown that female breadwinners are more likely to be victims of domestic
violence as they pose a potential threat to their husband’s authority.
Furthermore, women who work outside the home and engage with male
colleagues or male market actors have a higher risk of becoming victims of
harassment or violence at the village level. Women’s interaction with or
exposure to other men outside their homestead also sometimes reinforces their
husbands’ jealousy and restrictions upon their wives’ mobility. In the CHT it
was reported that Adivasi women face a particular high threat of violence and
harassment when they walk to and from market places.
EEP/Shiree CMS 5 qualitative findings reveal many cases of violence against
female beneficiaries. One example is Laksmi, a Netz beneficiary: Laksmi’s
husband forced her to conceive against her will, as he wanted a son, thus
confining her to their home. Laksmi told us that she believes that her husband
did not allow her to pursue labour work due to his belief that she might start
adulterous relationships with new colleagues or other men if he allowed her to
move outside. Laksmi said that one incident of violence occurred over her being
late in preparing food. Another time she suffered a beating for not handing the
mobile phone to him while she was talking with her elder brother living in
Dhaka, as her husband thought she was talking to someone with whom she was
having an adulterous relationship.
Physical Constraints Some NGOs reported that women are often unable to do more profitable types
of IGAs because they are not physically strong enough to transport items to
further away market places, doing agricultural and aqua-cultural work or
managing larger livestock. Thus they are perceived to be better suited for
managing small scale IGAs that are homestead based and involve little physical
activity.
Limited Access to
Land
While land is essential for agricultural production and rural livelihoods, women
are mostly denied land rights by land lords and local government. In FGDs and
key informant interviews with female household heads, most of the
respondents shared that they had been denied land ownership by their in-laws
and relatives (Owasim 2014, p.15). Those few widows who live on the land of
their husbands feel insecure as they know they could be evicted at any time. In
many cases, once a woman is abandoned, divorced or widowed, the in-laws
make her landless as women have no rights to inheritance.
16

EEP/Shiree qualitative CMS 5 findings reveal many case studies of gender
discrimination in land access. One example is Dipali Baroi, a Netz beneficiary.
According to Hindu inheritance law in practice in Bangladesh, neither Dipali
nor her daughters will inherit the land on which her house is located. Only her
sons will have legal entitlement to the land. During her husband’s illness, Dipali
took 24,000 Taka from her younger son on the understanding that she would
arrange the registration of the land in the younger son’s name. Since her
husband died, the registration could not be done and her elder son instead
decided to sell the land to a neighbour who was able to offer a higher price for
the land. However, Dipali’s elder daughter, who was also living on the land,
decided to purchase her elder brother’s share of the land to resist her and her
mother’s potential eviction. She has so far paid her elder brother 18,000 Taka,
but he is claiming 45,000 Taka. Dipali hopes that her daughter will be able to
negotiate a lower price with him. Once her elder daughter has purchased the
land, Dipali hopes that to be offered shelter in her daughter’s home.
Lack of control and
ownership over IGAs
There are many cases of women being the official owner of an asset which is
effectively managed by her husband or another adult male. Through Shiree
CMS5 data we have found that in such cases overtime men slowly begin
assuming control of the asset, until it is questionable who actually has
ownership. This has important implications for a woman’s future security as it
is difficult to know what would happen to the asset if the husband or son
separated from the family.
Although women are often targeted as the lead beneficiary in the household in
the majority of Shiree’s projects, this does not necessarily mean that they will be
transferred an asset which they will manage independently. Throughout the
annual Shiree socio-economic and anthropometric panel survey, from baseline
in 2009 to the latest 2014 survey, we have seen that women’s over ownership of
productive assets (including livestock, rickshaw, boat, sewing machine,
agricultural equipment, fishing net and other working equipment) remains
around 20-30% lower than that of men’s (CMS 3 2014).
Women seen as risky
IGA managers
One common characteristic of the extreme poor is that if people need food they
will opt for “quick return” IGAs that yield immediate results rather than “slow
return” IGAs that are perceived as risky. Targeting asset transfers to women
over able-bodied men can be perceived as risky by a number of agents – the
NGO fieldworker, the male household head, and even female spouses and
mothers.
Even in female headed households’ assets are often given to adult sons or other
male relatives, despite the fact that many extreme poor men suffer from
compromised physical or mental health, old age or some form of addiction. This
results in the transferred asset not being as profitable as initially anticipated.
EEP/Shiree CMS 5 research has seen this pattern of unsuitable asset selection
occur across a number of beneficiaries in the first and second years of the
project.
17

Gender
discrimination by
market actors
(vendors, customers,
wholesalers, market
places), and
employers
NGO staff reported that a key reason why women face barriers to engaging in
entrepreneurship or employment is reluctant and discriminating attitudes
towards women by market actors and employers. This includes reluctance to
buy products from women or to employ women.
Unequal Wages and
Discrimination in the
Labour Market
Female beneficiaries reported experiencing discrimination in wage payments
with no ability to seek redress (Owasim 2014). Employers tend to use this
opportunity to exploit women, especially female household heads. Women in
Bangladesh continue to be concentrated to a greater extent in occupations with
lower pay, worse prospects for advancement and poorer working conditions
(Kabeer, 2012, p.15).
We see such discrepancies specifically in agricultural wages coming up
repeatedly in EEP/Shiree research, but wage differentials also exist in other
sectors, in particular the garments industry. Here, in an industry characterized
by low wages, women make up around 85% of the workforce, with men
performing the better paid jobs such as general managers, line managers and
supervisors (War on Want, 2011).
NGO IGA
interventions
embedded in
patriarchal system
Despite enhanced awareness about the importance of empowering women, the
general practice of NGOs is still to transfer assets that can only be primarily
operated by males within the household as this is likely to be more profitable
and less risky. Extreme poor men with limited skills are still more likely to have
more experience working outside than women, which means that they may be
favoured by NGOs for investments in income generation within the household.
Despite the fact that NGOs recognize women as being the “poorest of the poor”,
in non-domestic livelihood work men are often preferred. Not only do men in
Bangladesh have more experience with working outside the home, they also
have better access to inputs (such as cow fodder or grocery stock) and markets,
and do not face restrictions on their mobility nor the burden of household work.
Transferring assets directly to women or giving them some training that will
enable them to generate an income is a step towards making women financially
autonomous; achieving full empowerment involves challenging the persistent
patriarchy and working around the cultural and religious norms which
currently prevent women from engaging in income generating activities.
18

Findings on Struggling Female Headed Households
Women in female-headed households are often categorised as particularly vulnerable and ‘the poorest of
the poor’ constituting a disproportionate number of the extreme poor. There are numerous factors for
why women already subject to gender discrimination become further disadvantaged when becoming the
head of incomplete and under-resourced households. While women in all households face gender
specific disadvantages– (lack of entitlements and capabilities, the unvalued double burden of
reproductive work, wage discrimination, constraints on their mobility due to social norms and gendered
labour market barriers) these disadvantages cause particular stresses when women are necessitated to be
income earners because there is no male guardian to rely on Naila Kabeer (2003). In such cases the only
two options become either to struggle to challenge gender barriers in order to earn a living as a female
head, or to remain extreme poor. Akhter et al. (2007) found that in five of six Sub-Saharan African
countries and in three Asian countries (Bangladesh, India and Vietnam), female headed households are
more likely to be found living in ultra poverty than in moderate poverty.
EEP/Shiree baseline data analysis (Baseline Report 2014) reveals clear differences between female and
male headed households. Cash and in-kind income per household per month was almost twice as high in
male headed households (2,386 taka) compared to female headed households (1,611 taka). A significantly
higher percentage of children in male headed households were receiving cash for education compared to
children in female headed households. Twice as high a proportion of female headed households were
completely landless compared to male headed households. On average across regions, female headed
households had around 50% lower values of productive assets than male headed households. Overall,
female household heads are 10% more likely to be illiterate and have received no schooling than male
household heads. At all levels of schooling, there is a higher percentage of male household heads
compared to female heads. The percentage for use of child labour at baseline was twice as high among
female headed households (14%) compared to male headed households (7%). Moreover, CMS 3 baseline
data analysis (2012) showed that there were significant morbidity differences between male and female
headed households; fever in the last 30 days was about 11% higher in female (50%) than male (39%)
heads and anaemia was 23% higher in female (about 57%) than male headed households (34%).
Because women have throughout their lives been socialized into depending on male breadwinners, once
they are forced into a situation of female headship they often lack the skills, knowledge, confidence and
motivation to earn and income on their own. A connected element is the concept of an ‘intergenerational
transmission of disadvantage;’ that the deprivation of female household heads is passed on to their
children because female heads struggle to properly support their families (Chant 2003). A recent working
paper by EEP/Shiree (Owasim 2014) revealed significant challenges to food insecurity and resilience
among extreme poor female headed households in Coastal Bangladesh. The study found that high levels
of food insecurity among FHHs lead to severe problems of so-called ‘food orphans’, i.e. infants and small
children who are put into public or private orphanages or are sent to work as residential housemaids in
richer families in exchange for food.
However, substantial research, both by EEP/Shiree in Bangladesh and beyond, has also demonstrated
that ‘feminisation of household headship’ does not necessarily equal a worse fate for women and family
breakdown. Notably, not all women become female heads because of abandonment by their husband:
death, illness, and divorces initiated by women can also lead to women becoming heads of household.
Furthermore, not all female headed households are living without an adult male but in some cases a male
relative is available to provide her with support. Yet EEP/Shiree qualitative findings from CMS 5 do
clearly demonstrate that when extreme poor households become female headed women’s access to men’s
support for them and for their children (and other dependents) is severely eroded if not stopped
19

altogether. In the majority of causes this severely exacerbates their level of extreme poverty due to their
inability to financially support their family on their own.
Following Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) conducted to investigate FHHs’ experience with IGA
interventions of different Partner NGOs, a general trend observed was female households heads’ high
level of resilience in coping for survival without a male guardian. In other words, when women become
sole breadwinners in their households they are forced into a situation of economic activity that they were
previously restricted from, always forced by society to depend on their husbands and fathers. Out of
necessity for survival and to build a more sustainable future for their family, some female heads break
societal gender barriers and take on more profitable market or land-based IGAs. In some cases
challenging gender norms is less of a challenge for single women because they have no husband or male
guardian restricting them and benefit from the sympathy of people in their community which make them
more accepting of single women’s engagement in traditional male jobs.
Hence, we cannot assume that extremely poor households headed by females are 'too difficult to target'.
Though they are vulnerable they can become self-sufficient. In some cases they even face fewer gendered
barriers to engaging in IGAs, and fewer patriarchal risks overall keeping them in extreme poverty,
compared to women in male headed households. The key point is that an appropriate intervention
tailored to the circumstances of the individual, with sustainable IGAs, training and confidence building,
creates the support network for the extreme poor female headed household where they were formerly
excluded. The table below gives two examples of a successful and an unsuccessful intervention with a
female headed household:
Unsuccessful Intervention with
Female Headed Household
Successful Intervention with Female Headed
Household
Narmin, Uttaran – widow.
Before:
Husband died after they spent all their savings
admitting him to hospital in Calcutta
After:
Household composition:
- Old age father suffers from chronic
illness, older brother disabled
- Older mother and daughter Orjona are
the only income earners
- Orjona’s 1 son (4 years old)
IGAs given by project: livestock rearing,
homestead gardening
Narmin and her mother manage their land
cultivation by seeking help from others – they
cannot themselves work on the land because of
social norms and burden of HH work and care
for child, ill father and disabled brother
Rita, Save The Children – divorced.
Before:
Early marriage. Domestic Violence, husband’s
alcohol addiction and gambling. Confined to
household, not allowed to work or talk to
neighbours.
She asked a religious leader for help with getting a
divorce. Ostracised by family, in-laws and village
members and received no moral or financial support.
UP Chairman got her the cleaning job at the hospital
and donated rice to her from time to time and new
clothes for Eid.
After
Household composition: Her and her adopted infant
daughter
IGA given by project: 9,000 taka invested in livestock
(chicken, goats) and sari business.
20

They only have food security when they receive
help for land cultivation
The father and older brother are the main
decision-makers and function as official
household heads despite not being income
earners
Narmin and her mother cannot do any market
selling on their own (and the ill father and
disabled are unable to help them), so the IGAS
they manage (livestock rearing and homestead
gardening) is only for the family’s own
consumption.
During our visit she said: “Please give us more
support, we are so poor and cannot support our
family”
Today she has 5 different income sources which she
herself diversified into:
- Sari business
- Water distribution business
- Domestic helper
- Cleaner at hospital
- Livestock rearing/selling
She feels no shame or problems travelling far
distances on her own; “why would people talk bad
about me, I haven’t done anything bad to them”
She has cash savings + reinvested IGA earnings in a
sanitary latrine, tube well, a nice big house, a bed,
TV, kitchen ware, fan, CD player, mobile phone.
Beyond Women to Gender Relations
An overarching lesson learned from EEP/Shiree IGA interventions with extreme poor women, as well as
gender reviews of social protection and livelihoods programme globally, is that “targeting women does
not automatically ensure gender equality”(Holmes and Jones 2010). A key challenge faced by many
programmes including EEP/Shiree is the assumption that the transfer of economic resources to women
will automatically translate into their empowerment in the household and beyond. Notably, if IGAs
given to women are not selected by women themselves, or if they lack the skills and enabling
environment (supportive household and community members, female-friendly market places etc), then
the IGAs will not empower them. Making women official owners of IGAs without empowering them to
manage and operate them, merely sustains women in their existing situation and further victimises them
as bearers of the risk and burden of assets without directly benefitting from them.
In their design, few programmes are seen to have prioritised transforming intra-household gender
relations. Yet these very issues must be addressed to ensure women’s empowerment in a sustainable and
effective way. Thus, this guidance note aims to investigate how to go beyond simply targeting female
beneficiaries with standard IGAs to instead empowering them with IGAs. This necessitates going beyond
simply “adding women and stirring” to focusing on improving the gender dynamics preventing women
from being empowered by IGAs. This includes focusing on improving women’s control over IGAs rather
than simply their access to them, by ensuring their equal role in financial decision making, ownership,
management and operation of IGAs. Furthermore, ensuring equal allocation of IGA earnings to make
sure equal intra-household benefits and equal division of household work to ensure women do not face a
double burden by also engaging in productive work.
In relation to this, while it may seem more urgent and sometimes easier to target women in female
headed households with IGAs as there are less intra-household gendered barriers going against them, we
still need to focus on empowering the majority of women who live in male headed households (Chant
2003). Women in male headed households face serious patriarchal risks (including male dominance,
domestic violence, restricted mobility, women’s sole responsibility of household work, women’s
restriction from breadwinning) which female household heads may be exempt from On the other hand,
men’s departure may well enhance the economic security and well-being of other household members,
21

and even if women may be poorer in income as heads of their households they may feel more socially
empowered (higher control and access) and less vulnerable to violence and restriction (Chant 2003).
Furthermore women in male headed households may one day become female heads themselves, whether
from choice, abandonment or being widowed. Thus the need to become economically empowered and
financially independent is just as important for women in male headed households as it is for female
household heads.
Gender inequality needs to be addressed within as well as beyond the boundaries of household units.
Unless factors such as ‘secondary poverty’ within households are recognised then efforts to empower
women through IGAs may well come to nothing. We need to look beyond women to gender relations -
the roles of men as well as women and how they interact. It is not possible to move gender systems far
towards equality without broad social consensus in favour of gender equality – and that consensus must
include men and boys (Connell 2003). Research has repeatedly shown that patterns of gender inequality
are interwoven with social definitions of masculinity and men's gender identities. To move towards a
gender-equal society often requires men and boys to think and act in new ways, to reconsider traditional
images of manhood, and to reshape their relationships with women and girls. Men and boys are most
likely to support change towards gender equality when they can see positive benefits for themselves and
the people in their lives.
Reasoning for Focus on Empowering Women with IGAs
Since evidence demonstrates men and women are not entering IGA interventions from the same starting
point, to reach a point of gender equity, projects must necessarily treat women and men differently. Thus
in order to allow IGA interventions to benefit and empower men and women equally, positive
discrimination towards women must be applied.
There are multiple benefits in improving the lives and living conditions of women. Not only does
women’s empowerment bring immediate improvements for women themselves, it also results in benefits
for other members of the household and the community. Economically empowering women not only
reduces the likelihood of household poverty, but placing household resources in women’s hands
generally leads to a range of positive outcomes for human capital and inter-generational capabilities
(Kabeer, 2012).
By targeting women within households with assets that they themselves can generate an income from,
programmes can contribute to a sustainable transition from extreme poverty. Avoiding over-investment
in males at the cost of females ensures that donor money is not wasted in the event of separation or death
of husbands and adult sons (Faulkner 2014).
Women can and want to work, all they need is an enabling environment. Without women as income
earners we cannot eradicate extreme poverty.
NGO responses to reasons for targeting women
Despite the identified gender gap in implementation of livelihoods interventions and a demonstrated
lack of understanding of how to ensure interventions are gender-sensitive in practice, there appeared to
be high level of awareness among NGO staff for why a focus on women’s empowerment is important:
DSK: "If the IGA is given to the woman, then the whole family is more likely to benefit from IGA earnings leading
to whole-family welfare and economic empowerment"
22

Hellen Keller International: "in CHT women control all aspects of work, both productive and reproductive -
cooking, childcare and income generation. Thus if women are not given their right to manage and head the
household they face problems. As women do everything they should be recognised and receive dignity. If women are
more valued then the whole family can make better progress."
Care: "Socio-economic empowerment of the whole household requires engaging both men and women with work. In
order to enhance women's social status and empowerment in a more sustainable way there is a need for combined
efforts to both increasing their economic empowerment and reversing social gender norms within households and
communities"
Practical Action Bangladesh: "Women usually invest more time in managing IGAs and will prioritise spending
IGA earnings on children, nutrition and education. This is also important for the income diversification, better
division of labour and graduation of the HH"
Uttaran: "to empower women and reduce discrimination, targeting women is very important in project design. This
is especially important because husbands commonly abandon their wives so women need financial independence and
economic empowerment!"
Save the Children: "If a woman makes profits from IGAs then the husband is more likely to not abandon the
family, return to the family if he abandoned them already, and the wife is more able to manage the family alone
without him. Women need real effective ownership of IGAs for financial independence!"
Netz:”Transferring assets and its ownership to female household members is considered a vehicle to address gender
equity, women’s empowerment and self help, which are all Netz’core values.”
Part Two: Recommendation for Step-by-Step Strategy
IGA strategies for women should be integrated into programmes as early as possible. The support
required will differ according to different contexts, but can be broadly divided into three categories:
1. Hardware. This is the core IGA and mechanism of IGA development.
2. Software. Hardware is nothing without software.
3. Sustainability Strategies. These will ensure women’s engagement with and empowerment from IGA
will be sustained in the long run.
This Step-by-step strategy not only presents some of the best options for Hardware, Software, and
Sustainability Strategies, but outlines the process of integrating an effective IGA strategy into existing
projects. Where possible, this strategy should be developed during project inception.
Individual BHHs may require different degrees of support from each of these categories. The options are
briefly summarised in Table 1:
23

Table 1: Summary Table of Step-by-Step Process to IGA Selection for Women
Step 1: Context
Analysis
Step 2: Hardware Options Step 3: Software Options Step 4: Sustainability
Strategies
Beneficiary is
capable and
confident manage
their own non-
traditional IGAs +
and enabling
environment is
feasible
1.Gender Transformative
IGA:
Small-scale Market-based
Entrepreneurship (grocery
shop, beauty parlour, tea stall,
tailoring shop, vegetable
business, handicraft business)
Land-based cultivation
Aquaculture
Private Sector/Factory Work
Training for female beneficiary on
IGA/business management,
productive profit reinvestment,
marketing, accounting, financial
literacy, savings
Establish Women’s Support Groups
including: group savings, IGA,
group child care and general
support network,
Gender Awareness Sensitisation
training with whole HH and whole
community on socio-economic
benefit of women working,
women’s rights, stopping gender
discrimination and violence,
sharing productive and
reproductive work, etc
Men’s groups on gender awareness
raising
Couple’s Therapy Groups on
gender awareness raising
Social Mobilisation with
community leaders (religious
leaders, village leaders, teachers,
Local government, UP Chairmen,
etc) on gender awareness and socio-
economic benefit of women
working
Create female-friendly Market
Places (or women’s corners at
market-places) with female toilet
facilities, Market linkages or
Central Collective Marketing
Centres for female beneficiaries
Lobbying Campaigns with
Private Sector
Employers/Landlords on
equal wages and equal
recruitment of women, equal
khasland provision
Enable women’s Labour
Union linkages
Encourage women’s
participation in local politics
as female representatives in
local governance structures
and community meetings.
Lobby with local government.
Gender awareness raising with
marketing actors (vendors,
male entrepreneurs, male
customers, etc) for female-
friendly market places with
equal prices, no
harassment/violence and
discrimination
Beneficiary is
most suited for
traditional IGA
and/or with
outsider support
to manage IGA
2.Traditional IGA:
Livestock Rearing
Homestead Gardening
Homestead Based
Business/shop
OR
Any of the Gender
Transformative IGAs jointly
managed with husband,
especially for marketing and
hard physical labour
24

Table 2: Explanatory Overview of Two Types of IGAs for Women:
Traditional IGAs Gender Transformative IGAs
Homestead based Market and Land based
Small Scale Large Scale
Compatible with women maintaining their
household responsibilities but not adequate as a
main income source for the family
More profitable and sustainable as they involve
marketing linkages outside the homestead or more
large-scale land-based work; i.e. traditional male
work.
Work within existing gender norms Challenge social norms about their movement
within the wider community and society
Easier and low-risk for women to do Pose potential risks to household and community
dynamics and require additional skill training for
women on marketing, accounting etc.
Empower women practically to do a small extent
without changing underlying systematic
inequalities
Promote longer term societal change towards
equality between men and women and empower
them both economically and socially in a more
sustainable way
Address Practical Gender Needs Address Strategic Gender Needs
Step 1 – Context-specific IGA Analysis
Prior to IGA selection for the female beneficiary, NGO field staff should facilitate in-depth context
analysis in order to assess the market viability, regional context and beneficiary capacity given household
composition, age, prevalence of restrictive gender norms, resilience and risk factors.
This includes a participatory session with the beneficiary household. During this session it is important to
ensure the participation of all household members and to give the female beneficiary priority in decision-
making and sharing her opinion. Preferably a separate session should also be held with the female
beneficiary alone to avoid dominance of other household members on her decision-making power.
It is the responsibility of the NGO field staff to encourage the female beneficiary to select an IGA which
she can manage herself or jointly with her husband/male guardian. Field staff should always encourage
women to take on main IGAs that are both profitable, sustainable and gender transformative (i.e. not only
secondary traditional IGAs for women that do not serve as a main HH income source). Thus, ensuring
the female beneficiary is able to make an informed choice about which IGA she is capable and socially
enabled to do is crucial. This necessitates comprehensive orientation on the socio-economic benefits of
women engaging in more profitable, sustainable and gender transformative IGAs.
Yet importantly, there is “no one magic bullet” to how to best empower women with IGAs. As women do
not live in vacuum, it inevitably depends on the environment she is embedded in according to various
context analysis indicators as presented in table 3.
25

Table 3: Context Analysis Overview Table of Categories
Context Analysis Category Elements
Age of female beneficiary • Adolescent girl
• Adult woman
• Old age woman
Household Structure • Male Headed, Female Headed or Female
Managed (silently female headed). See
table 10 for details.
• Number of dependents:young children,
elderly, disabled
• Availability of other male guardians:
adult son, father, brother, father in-law
Geographical location • North: Especially affected by seasonal
hunger “Monga”
• The “Haor” region: “Basin” shaped
landscape, during rainy season the area is
under water separating communities into
islands
• South West Coastalbelt: Most vulnerable
to severe climatic shocks including
cyclones
• The Chittagong Hill Tracts: Indigenous
ethnic minority communities mainly living
off Jhum (slash and burn) cultivation and
suffering from diminished access to land
• Urban: Street dwellers and slum dwellers
of Dhaka’s three largest slums, high
population density and lack of hygiene and
safe water
Local Market Analysis • Demand
• Supply
• Competition
• Market Linkages: Market places, vendors,
collection centres, etc
Prevalence of Restrictive Local Gender Norms • Community level: conservative norms
restricting women’s mobility and work,
influence of religion and religious leaders
• Household level: restrictive husband, in-
laws or other adult male members (adult
son, brother)
26

Beneficiary Capacity and Preference
• Skills and experience
• Training opportunities available
• Informed Choice
• Motivation
Sustainability vs. Risk Analysis
• Sustainability of Traditional IGAs: risk
avert +accommodating of traditional
gender norms
• Sustainability of Gender Transformative
IGAs: gender norm transformation +
income diversification + higher HH
economic resilience and empowerment
• Consider trade-off and avoid putting
female beneficiary at any high risk of
violence or harassment due to IGA
selection.
Table 4: Overview of IGA Context Analysis According to Household Type based on study findings
from NGO Project Staff survey and FDGs with beneficiaries
Women in Male Headed Households
Majority of Cases Exceptional Cases Depends on
Homestead Based Traditional IGAs
Factors:
- traditional 'male
breadwinner/female
caretaker' model
- Husband restricting her
mobility, work outside HH,
financial decision making
and engagement in
marketing of IGAs,
- Threat of domestic violence
from husband make wives
fearful of taking on IGAs
outside the homestead
- Husbands’ jealousy or fear
for the “safety” of their
wives make them reluctant
to let their wives work
where they are exposed to
other men
Market-based and land-based non-
traditional IGAs
Factors:
- The more the HH is
struggling the less
restrictive the gender
norms become and the
more likely it is that the
women will engage in
doing IGAs outside the
homestead
- Joint model is most
common among these
cases: husband and wife
both share work doing
market-based and land-
based IGA, either share
reproductive HH work (in
the CHT) or double burden
for women, joint financial
decision making, this joint
model makes women feel
Gender dynamics in male headed
HHs tend to be reinforced as the
HH gets richer, whereas the poor
the HH is the less relevant the
gender norms become out of
necessity to survive
Depends on restrictive/supportive
attitudes of husband, adult son and
in-laws
Level of confidence
Level of skills or the skill training
she can receive
The number of dependents she
needs to take care of adding to the
double burden of reproductive
household work
Her husband or other family
27

more secure
- Dominance of husband in
control of IGA earning
remains prevalent even if
the wife is operating IGAs
that are more profitable
- Most women doing these
kinds of IGAs still need
support from their
husbands for financial
decision making and
market selling due to lack
of financial literacy skills
and gender discrimination
at market places
members’ willingness to support
her with the reproductive
household work
- Shared model is more
common in the CHT.
Female Households Heads
Homestead Based Traditional
IGAs
Factors:
- Single women are far more
likely to opt for traditional
homestead based assets
which are traditionally
female and seen as “safe”
even if they knew the
expected pay off was
lower
- No male guardian to
support her with IGAs
thus choose IGA she can
manage alone
- Face challenges doing
traditional male tasks:
marketing/price
negotiation, physically
hard labour, travelling far
distances for market
selling and raw material
collection, financial
decision making and
general IGA management.
- Double burden of
reproductive household
work make it difficult for
single women to work
traditional IGAs
Factors:
- Mostly single women take on
these kinds of IGAs if they have
male relatives to support them
managing and operating it;
especially collecting material
form whole seller and selling
produce at market places.
- Older single women are more
likely to take on IGAs which
require them to move around
outside their homestead and
village, surveyed BHHs
reported this was because they
were less at risk at sexual
assault (Faulkner 2014, p. 14)
- Despite encouragements from
field officers, single women are
still very unlikely to select these
types of IGAs as they
considered more “risky” and
single women cannot afford to
lose their only income source if
the IGA should fail (Faulkner
2014, p.16)
- No husband to restrict her:
more freedom and mobility
Level of confidence
- initially after
abandonment/divorce/loss
confidence might be low
Level of skills or the skill training she
can receive
Community stigma vs. community
sympathy:
- Single women often face
harassment and stigma due to
being without a husband
- But many also receive sympathy
from the community, accepting her
need to be a breadwinner and
helping her with food donations
and informal loans
Whether adult male son or guardian is
available to support or restrict her
- Often the adult son takes on the
role of the male heads in the
husband’s absence
The number of dependents she needs to
take care of adding to the double
burden of reproductive household
work
- Many single women take their
28

outside the homestead,
especially if they have
many dependents.
- IGA selection is sometimes
difficult as they often lack
awareness of what IGAs
will be more profitable and
suitable for them
- Some single women
reported being afraid of
doing IGAs outside their
homestead because this
would involve interaction
with other men and put
them at risk of sexual
assault (Owasim 2014,
p.12)
- Single women with
adolescent daughter
reported not wanted to do
IGAs outide their
homestead because they
worried this would risk
deteriorating their
daughters’ reputation
making them less likely to
get married off. Thus
many single women with
daughter only choose to
do IGAs outside their
homestead after their
daughters have been
married off. (Owasim
2014, p.12)
- Necessity to do more profitable
IGA as the sole breadwinner
makes single women more
likely to become entrepreneurs
and do IGAs outside their HH.
- Female heads take more
challenges and risks out of
necessity
- More dedicated and
hardworking.
- "when women lose their
husbands they are considered
equal to men" (ref. Concern
Worldwide project staff), i.e.
women without husbands are
usually socially accepted to do
most of the IGAs their
husbands did before.
children out of school to engage
them in child labour or to help with
the household work as early as
possible
Women in Female Managed Households (Silently Female Headed)
Majority of Cases Exceptional Cases Depends on:
Homestead Based Traditional
IGAs
Factors
- Double burden of
reproductive household
work with higher burden
of care of disabled/sick
husband is a key factor
making women unable to
traditional IGAs
Factors
- High medical treatment costs
for disabled/sick husband
sometimes necessitate wife to
work doing more profitable
non-traditional IGAs or take
Husband’s level of disability/illness
- If less severe: Joint non-traditional
IGA with support from husband for
marketing, less demanding physical
labour and financial decision-
making.
- If severe: mostly homestead based
traditional IGA, but also
exceptionally non-traditional IGAs
if husband allows it and if she has
29

do work outside the
homestead
- Restrictive and dominant
attitudes of the
disabled/sick husband is a
major factor preventing
the wife from working
- Some cases were reporting
of husbands choosing
IGAs for themselves (e.g.
rickshaw van) despite not
being able to operate it,
and no IGA for their wife
(Faulkner 2014, p. 15).
loans
- These IGAs are usually jointly
manages by both wife and
sick/disabled husband, in cases
where he is still able to work to
a limited extent.
- These are usually cases where
the husband is more supportive
and less restrictive allowing the
wife to work in garments
factories or domestic service.
- In some very rare cases where
the husband is not severely
disabled/ill he allows his wife
to migrate for work while he
stays back to manage the
household and children alone.
- A key negative trend is
dominant restrictive husbands
controlling the IGA earnings of
their wife so that even if she
does more profitable IGAs the
economic benefits do not
necessarily go to her and the
children
support from others for care work
Social restrictions imposed by
disabled/sick husband
Older male son to either support or
restrict her
Young children or other
disabled/sick/elderly HH members to
take care of
Community stigma vs. community
sympathy
- Some women with disabled/sick
husbands receive sympathy from
the community, accepting her need
to be a breadwinner and helping
her with food donations and
informal loans
Level of confidence
Level of skills, opportunities for
training and IGA experience
Unmarried Adolescent Girls
Traditional homestead based
IGAs + gets support for
marketing from father/brother
Factors:
- Homestead based tailoring
is most common
- Face more restrictions
from parents,
grandparents,
aunts/uncles and brothers
- More vulnerable to sexual
harassment, violence,
community stigma
- Fear of hampering the
girl’s reputation making
her unable to get married
off
Garments work or Domestic Service
Factors:
- if the household is struggling a
lot
- if the adult guardians have less
restrictive attitudes
- More common in female
headed household where the
adolescent daughter is sent to
work out of necessity
Gender dynamics in male headed HHs
tend to be reinforced as the HH gets
richer, whereas the poor the HH is the
less relevant the gender norms become
out of necessity to survive
Depends on restrictive/supportive
attitudes of parents, grandparents
brother, other relatives
Level of confidence
Level of skills or the skill training she
can receive
Prevalence of conservative gender
norms in community
Risk of trafficking of girls in the
community
30

Table 5: IGA Option Overview Table based on Context Analysis
Regions Gender Norms Market NGOs Traditional
IGAs
Gender
Transformative
IGAs
Haor Very
conservative
and patriarchal
(e.g. restricted
mobility,
women not
accepted as
breadwinners,
child marriage,
violence
against
women,
women’s
restricted
decision-
making)
Seasonal Concern
Worldwide,
Helvetas
Livestock,
homestead
gardening,
homestead-
based
business/shop,
food
processing
Small market-
based business
(grocery shop,
tea stall,
cosmetic shop,
tailoring shop),
land cultivation
+ marketing of
produce,
Basket selling
Urban More liberal
but still
conservative
(e.g. less
restricted
mobility,
women more
accepted as
breadwinners,
but high rates
of violence and
abandonment,
women’s
double burden
as sole
caretakers,
women’s
restricted
decision-
making)
Very large and
diverse
DSK, Priptrust Homestead-
based
business/shop
(tailoring,
handicraft,
beauty
parlour)
Construction,
Garments,
domestic
Service, Small
market-based
business
(grocery shop,
tea stall
cosmetic shop,
tailoring shop)
Chittagong
Hill Tracts
Matriarchal
and liberal
(free mobility,
female
breadwinners,
shared
household
work, equal
decision-
making) but
ethnic-based
gender
Remote, no
linkages, ethnic
discrimination
Tarango,
Caritas, Eco
Dev, Green
Hill, HKI
Livestock,
homestead
gardening,
homestead-
based
handicraft
Jhum
Cultivation +
Market selling
of produce,
Handicraft
business,
31

discrimination
by Bengalis
(e.g. violence
and
harassment)
Southern
Coastal Belt
Very
conservative
and patriarchal
(e.g. restricted
mobility,
women not
accepted as
breadwinners,
child marriage
and violence
against
women,
women’s
double burden
as sole
caretakers,
women’s
restricted
decision-
making)
Connected to
coast
Save the
Children,
Uttaran, Oxam,
Shushilan, iDE
Livestock,
homestead
gardening,
homestead-
based
business/shop
(handicraft,
tailoring,
beauty
parlour), food
processing
Aquaculture,
Small market-
based business
(grocery shop,
tea stall,
cosmetic shop,
tailoring shop),
vegetable
cultivation +
selling,
agriculture +
selling of
produce,
Basket selling
North Conservative
and patriarchal
(e.g. less
restricted
mobility,
women more
accepted as
breadwinners,
but high rates
of child
marriage and
violence
against
women,
women’s
double burden
as sole
caretakers,
women’s
restricted
decision-
making)
Large and
diverse
Care, PAB,
Netz, Helvetas
Livestock,
homestead
gardening,
homestead-
based
business/shop
(handicraft,
tailoring,
beauty
parlour), food
processing
Rug factories,
Indigo
factories,
Handicraft
business,
Sandbar
cropping,
vegetable
cultivation +
selling,
agriculture +
selling of
produce, Small
market-based
business
(grocery shop,
tea stall,
cosmetic shop,
tailoring shop),
Basket selling
32

Step 2 – Select Hardware
Overall Recommendations to IGA Selection Process:
• Participatory approach engaging all household members in the IGA selection process
• Give priority to women's preference and opinion
• Make it "compulsory" for female beneficiary to select an IGA which she can herself manage and
operate unless she is physically incapable (in which case caretaker system may be a solution, see
Guidance Note on IGAs for Disabled and Old Age People) or if engaging in an IGA poses high
risk to her security
• Inform female beneficiary about skill training available for her to receive in order to encourage
her to do IGAs she has no previous experience with or skills for
• Encourage women to do more profitable gender transformative market-based, land/water-based
IGAs or jointly managed IGAs with husbands or other female beneficiaries where appropriate
and there is no high risk to her security involved
• Provide awareness session around socio-economic benefits of women engaging with IGAs
during IGA selection meeting with whole household
• If wife chooses non-traditional gender transformative IGA, discuss household strategy with all
members for how to manage the sharing reproductive household work to avoid double burden
on woman
• It is important to remember that the constraints and restrictions women face are very real, and
women should not be forced into taking on assets that they are not comfortable with and who
will put them at serious risk. However, by providing the necessary skills and training, along with
asset transfer, it is more likely that women will develop the confidence to take on more “risky”
assets.
Table 6: Overview of different IGA Types for women
Type 1: Traditional homestead-based IGAs for Women
(e.g. livestock, homestead gardening, homestead aquaculture, homestead business/shop)
Benefits Challenges
- Accommodating of traditional gender norms of
women as homestead-based caretakers and
housewives because IGAs are homestead
based.
- Livestock can follow her around while she is
doing her other household tasks.
- Women are habituated to and feel comfortable
managing livestock rearing and would thus not
require any further skill training or support
from others.
- Increase women’s economic and social
empowerment to a limited extent: e.g. give
women recognition as income earners with
increased voice, confidence and access to IGA
earnings and/or food produce, but does not
necessarily equate her control over the use of
earnings and distribution of food and financial
decision making
- Give women the opportunity to sell IGA
produce from home
- Put women at less risk of domestic violence
- Not suitable as main source of income because
it is not sufficiently profitable due to lack of
marketing outside homestead (unless husband
or male guardian supports wife with
marketing of livestock and produce) and due
to lack of sufficient land at homestead
- Not sufficient for women as main income
source if they should become female headed
- Not sufficient for sustainable graduation out of
extreme poverty
- Not sufficient for women’s long-term social
and economic empowerment, as it does not
transform gender norms or improve unequal
intra-household gender relations
- High dependence on male guardian for
marketing IGA produce at market places and
buying raw material from whole seller as
women lack marketing skills and social
acceptance for mobility outside homestead
- High mortality rate of livestock
- Lack broader market linkages
33

and condemnation by husband/in-laws and
sexual assault, harassment and stigma by
community members
- Livestock seen as providing households with a
sense of social status and security serving as
asset savings
- Some women state they prefer being
housewives and not working or doing IGAs
that they can manage from home. They will
only not stay at home if they have no other
option; e.g. if they have no husband or male
guardian to support them, or if the family is
struggling so they have to work. We have seen
examples of female beneficiaries who would
previously do day labour or domestic service
work, but after the Shiree intervention they
would select livestock as IGA so they can
afford to stay at home.
Type 2: Gender Transformative IGAs –Market-Based Entrepreneurship IGAs
(e.g. tailoring business, shop, tea stall, basket-selling)
Benefits Challenges
- IGA more profitable and functions as a main
income source
- IGA suitable for sustainable graduation from
extreme poverty
- Enhances the household’s economic well-being
with two income earners
- Allows beneficiary to keep savings to become
more resilient to shocks
- Allows the beneficiary to reinvest in other
productive and non-productive assets
- Enables women’s more sustainable social and
economic empowerment as it challenges
traditional gender norms
- Enables women’s enhanced influence of
household decision making and makes intra-
household gender relations more equal
- Enhances women’s status in the community
and household recognised as financially
independent breadwinner and entrepreneur
- If husband were to fall ill, abandon the
household or pass away, the woman would
still be financially independent as a
breadwinner
- Sets a good female role model for other women
and girls in the community, including
daughters of the female breadwinner, which
may lead to broader and more sustainable
gender transformation at the community level
-
- In most cases women lack previous experience
with entrepreneurship, business and marketing
- Women often lack necessary skills for financial
literacy, accounting and business management
- Market places are male dominated and not
gender sensitive, e.g. lack female toilet facilities
- Community stigma and harassment against
women who sell produce or run businesses at
market places
- Stigma and restrictions from household and
community members to let women move
around outside their homestead and village
- Risk of harassment and assault by community
members against women who move around
alone outside their homestead and do
traditional male work
- Women’s limited bargaining power and
discrimination against female entrepreneurs in
price negotiation with vendours and customers
- Women’s limited physical capacity to carry
heavy produce to the market place
- Risk of domestic violence against women due
to challenging traditional gender roles.
Husband may perceive this as a threat to their
masculinity and in-laws may perceive this as
shameful for their son.
- Risk of community people talking bad about
the women and hampering the family honour
- Women’s double burden of reproductive
household work if they do not receive support
from other household members
34

- Require more ‘software’ inputs by NGOs, e.g.
social mobilization, awareness raising, training
for women, etc.
- NGO staff reported:”this is not suitable for
women in our Bengali culture”
Type 3: Gender Transformative IGAs – Private Sector Engagement & Land/Water-based IGAs
(e.g. RMG, Rug factory, Construction, Domestic Service, Cleaner, Agriculture, Aquaculture)
Benefits Challenges
- More profitable and functions as a main
income source
- Suitable for sustainable graduation from
extreme poverty
breadwinner
gender transformation in the community
- Introducing new innovative types of IGAs for
female beneficiaries (e.g. rug factory, indigo
dying) sometimes easier for social acceptance
because these IGAs are not already embedded
in traditional gender norms usually attached to
standard types of IGAs.
- Permanence of private sector employment
compared to entrepreneurship and other IGAs.
- For adolescent girls, engaging in private sector
employment can be essential for delaying their
marriage and pregnancy, avoiding child
marriage and child pregnancy.
- Adivasi women have traditionally always been
engaged in Jhum cultivation so for them this is
a very suitable IGA.
- Historically Bengali women were also farmers,
and skills
- Work places are often male dominated and not
gender sensitive, e.g. lack female toilet facilities
and places for women to change and dispose of
sanitary pads during menstruation
- Unequal wages, discrimination against female
workers by up to 50%
- Women’s limited physical capacity to do land
cultivation
women who do work outside their homestead
alone outside their homestead and do
traditional male work
- Private sector jobs often require women’s more
long-term migration away from their family
which is difficult for women given their
traditional gender role as caretakers
- Beneficiaries’ fear to engage in factory work
after the Rana Plaza collapse on 24 April 2013.
for women, etc.
- Extreme poor sometimes less willing to try new
types of innovative and unfamiliar IGAs as
they cannot afford taking risks
35

yet in the past decades this has become less
socially acceptable in Bangladesh.
Type 4: Joint IGA management/operations (husband and wife or groups of women)
Benefits Challenges
- Joint management between husband and wife
of traditional male IGA (e.g. market-based
businesses) more socially accepted within
communities and households
- Jointly managed IGAs between groups of
women outside the homestead enhances their
confidence, security from harassment/assault,
their bargaining power and their physical
capacity than if they were running the IGA
alone
- Women’s group IGAs enable a support
network of how best to manage and operate
IGAs, which is especially useful for women
without male guardians to support them
- More profitable and functions as a main
income source
- Suitable for sustainable graduation from
extreme poverty
breadwinner
gender transformation in the community
- Women’s collective IGAs can fail due to
negative group dynamics, tension and lack of
trust
with entrepreneurship, business and marketing
- Women often lack necessary skills for financial
literacy, accounting and business management
- Market places are often male dominated and
not gender sensitive, e.g. lack female toilet
facilities
women who sell produce or run businesses at
market places
outside their homestead and do traditional
male work
- Women’s limited bargaining power and
discrimination against female entrepreneurs in
price negotiation with vendours and customers
- Women’s limited physical capacity to carry
heavy produce to the market place
for women, etc.
- From FGDs with beneficiaries doing joint IGAs
between husband and wife, the vast majority
reported using a traditional division of labour
where the wife does the homestead based tasks
(food processing) and the husband would do
the remaining tasks outside the household
(land cultivation, raw material collection,
36

Final-A-Gender-Analysis-of-Livelihood-Interventions-with-the-Extreme-Poor-in-Bangladesh-14th-Dec-2014

Final-A-Gender-Analysis-of-Livelihood-Interventions-with-the-Extreme-Poor-in-Bangladesh-14th-Dec-2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to Final-A-Gender-Analysis-of-Livelihood-Interventions-with-the-Extreme-Poor-in-Bangladesh-14th-Dec-2014

Similar to Final-A-Gender-Analysis-of-Livelihood-Interventions-with-the-Extreme-Poor-in-Bangladesh-14th-Dec-2014 (20)

More from Marie Sophie Pettersson

More from Marie Sophie Pettersson (13)

Final-A-Gender-Analysis-of-Livelihood-Interventions-with-the-Extreme-Poor-in-Bangladesh-14th-Dec-2014