Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI): Quantitative and qualitative approachesThe Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI): Quantitative and qualitative approaches
Similar to The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI): Quantitative and qualitative approachesThe Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI): Quantitative and qualitative approaches (20)
More from essp2
More from essp2 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI): Quantitative and qualitative approachesThe Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI): Quantitative and qualitative approaches
- 1. The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI): Quantitative and qualitative approaches Emily Myers, Audrey Pereira & Chloé van Biljon December 4, 2019 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
- 2. Practice Slido question On your phone or laptop, go to http://sli.do Enter code: ESSPWEAI19 Have you ever used the WEAI or its versions in your project? Yes No, but want to Never heard of it 2
- 3. Roadmap Defining empowerment Understanding agency Reach-Benefit-Empower: Types of gender-sensitive agricultural development programs Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) Basics: Overview and evolution The pro-WEAI Lessons from qualitative research Photo credit: Kalyani Raghunathan (IFPRI) 3
- 4. The various material, human, and social resources that serve to enhance one’s ability to exercise choice The capacity to define one’s own goals and make strategic choices in pursuit of these goals, particularly in a context where this ability was previously denied The achievement of one’s goals Agency AchievementsResources Source: Kabeer (1999) 4 How WE(AI) define empowerment
- 5. Understanding agency Power to (instrumental agency) Powerover Power within (intrinsic agency) Power with (collective agency)
- 6. Local understandings of empowerment Common elements Difficulty in translating “empowerment” “emancipated”, “admired”, “dignified”, “lift up”, “enable” Economic status Taking care of oneself and family needs Well dressed, good appearance Relational, not individualistic Taking care of others (family and community) Having means or status to do so, connections Not power over (especially not over men) Differences, tensions Ambivalence of men, women to empowered women “Lift the burden” vs threat to men Following social norms, ideals of femininity (“submissive”) vs Strong, able (sometimes stand against norms) Age (young or old) Marital status Unmarried women seen as having more/less independence
- 7. Intrinsic (Power within) Strong, courageous, moral being Instrumental (Power to) Hard work, good decisions Collective (Power with) Lifting burden, helping others Husbands, children, parents, other community members Coercive power (Power over) always negative Men or other women (daughters-in-law) Local understandings of agency
- 8. Reach-Benefit-Empower Types of gender-sensitive agricultural development programs 8
- 9. Objectives of gender-sensitive agricultural development programs Three types of gender-sensitive agricultural development programs: The strategies and activities to achieve these aims will be different Need indicators to monitor these programs Reach Benefit Empower Include women in program activities Increase women’s well- being (e.g. food security, income, health) Strengthen ability of women to make strategic life choices and to put those choices into action 9
- 10. Implications Projects Align objectives, strategies, tactics, indicators If seeking to empower, think about what tactics will affect what domains of empowerment Funders Check that objectives, strategies, tactics, indicators align Both projects and funders Need a suite of indicators that can measure empowerment at the project and at the portfolio level 11
- 11. Quiz A project aims to educate individuals on means of accessing credit. They invite only women to the training sessions. What is the aim of the project?
- 12. Quiz A project aims to educate individuals on means of accessing credit. They invite only women to the training sessions. What is the aim of the project? a. Reach women b. Benefit women c. Empower women d. Reach, benefit and empower women
- 13. WEAI Basics Overview and evolution of the Index 14
- 14. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) Measures inclusion of women in the agricultural sector Survey-based index - interviews men and women in the same household Launched in 2012 by USAID, IFPRI, and OPHI Methodology: Similar to multi-dimensional poverty indices (Alkire and Foster 2011) and the Foster-Greere-Thorbeck (FGT) indices Details on index construction in Alkire et al. (2013)
- 15. How is the index constructed? An aggregate index in two parts: Five Domains of Empowerment (5DE) Gender Parity Index (GPI) Constructed using interviews of the primary male and primary female adults in the same household
- 16. WEAI used by 103 organizations in 54 countries 17
- 17. Evolution of WEAI metrics WEAI A-WEAI WEAI A-WEAI
- 18. Evolution of WEAI metrics: What WEAI had WEAI A-WEAI WEAI A-WEAI Women’s and men’s empowerment across 5 domains in agriculture Standardized measure, internationally validated Ability to diagnose empowerment gaps
- 19. Evolution of WEAI metrics: What projects wanted WEAI A-WEAI Pro-WEAI CoreWEAI A-WEAI More adaptability to project context Issues of intrahousehold harmony, mobility, control of income from projects, domestic violence Shorter interview time
- 20. Evolution of WEAI metrics: What projects wanted WEAI A-WEAI Pro-WEAI CoreWEAI A-WEAI Attention to domains related to health and nutrition Health & Nutrition Livestock Market Inclusion
- 21. Project-level WEAI A portfolio approach 23
- 22. Challenges and importance of measuring empowerment 24Photo credits: Clockwise from top-left - Shammi Ferdousi (ANGeL); Jessica Heckert (MoreMilk); Kalyani Raghunathan (WINGS); Shammi Ferdousi (ANGeL) Preparing nutritious foods Training milk traders Organizing self-help groups Training men to be caregivers
- 23. GAAP2 for pro-WEAI: A portfolio approach to measuring empowerment
- 24. Why GAAP2? What’s measured matters Learning what works Learning what doesn’t work Particular gender strategies Gender-blind approaches? Comparability across a portfolio A learning and capacity-development initiative working with a portfolio of 13 development projects in the Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project Phase 2 (GAAP2) Supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, and A4NH Icon created by ProSymbols for the Noun Project 27
- 26. Power to (instrumental agency) Power within (intrinsic agency) Power with (collective agency) pro-WEAI
- 27. 12 indicators in pro-WEAI 30 Each indicator receives an equal proportion (1/12) of the overall weight Empowered if adequate in 75% of indicators
- 28. Pro-WEAI is made up of two sub-indices Three domains of empowerment (3DE) A direct measure of women’s empowerment in 3 dimensions Gender parity Index (GPI) Women’s achievement’s relative to the primary male in household Project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI) All range from zero to one; higher values = greater empowerment 90 % 10 % 31
- 29. Contributions to disempowerment 33 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
- 30. Sli.do The pro-WEAI is calculated with data from women only. True/False 34
- 31. What have we learned? Lessons from qualitative research 35
- 32. Purpose of qualitative methods Contextualizing quantitative pro-WEAI and other findings Presentation of the overall context, not just the person Validation of pro-WEAI from participants’ perspectives Empowerment Individual domains and indicators
- 33. Methods Review of project documents Community profile Seasonality patterns Sex-disaggregated focus groups on local understanding of empowerment Semi-structured interviews: Life histories Key informant interviews: Market traders Key informant interviews: Project staff Photo credit: Emily Myers
- 34. Intrinsic agency: Intrahousehold relationships Other household members: Tanzania + Mali: Co-wives’ mutual support to attend meetings, diversify production Spouses Kenya: Supportive Burkina Faso + Ethiopia: Submission Photo credit: Jessica Heckert
- 35. Instrumental agency: Decision-making on agricultural production Small vs. large Tanzania: livestock Ethiopia: quantity Intrahousehold dynamics Mali: individual, not household production Ethiopia: men have authority Ghana: share responsibility was protective Photo credit: Jawoo Koo
- 36. Instrumental agency: Ownership and control over resources “Ownership” is context specific Tanzania: decisions vs. legal Control over assets is a type of agency, not resource Ethiopia: Public ownership vs. joint decision-making privately Photo credit: Emily Myers
- 37. Instrumental agency: Time Use Seasonality, men’s migration Changing household gender roles Ethiopia: women take on men’s, but men do not take on women’s, but gradual change… “…I this is a result of increased understanding about the situation of women, which came through various trainings” (Mulema 2018:9) Photo credit: Berber Kramer
- 38. Instrumental agency: Freedom of movement Ethiopia: Necessity vs. desire Photo credit: Emily Myers
- 39. Collective agency: Leadership and group participation Tanzania: “leadership” informal; signified by helping others "act humbly, participate in community fundraisers and regularly report back to group members or the community" (Krause et al. 2018:28). Mali: Self-esteem “I am a female leader in my community. All the members of the village respect me. I am always informed of the visits in the village and I participate in external meetings, on behalf of my village. I am influential in my village" (Bagayoko 2018:36). Photo credit: Katrina Kosec
- 40. Implications for pro-WEAI: Emic views expand ideas of empowerment Benefit of empowerment is relational “Lifting the burden” “Taking care of others” Each component of empowerment is relational, not simply individual
- 41. Intrahousehold relationships group membership, income generating ability Co-wives Spousal support of businesses Decision-making on agricultural production intrahousehold relationships Shared responsibility Group membership intrinsic agency Self-esteem Interconnections among indicators and domains
- 42. Join our community of practice! weai.ifpri.info Follow us on Twitter: @hmalapit @agnesquis @A4NH_CGIAR @PIM_CGIAR #proWEAI #A4NHResearch #GenderInAg 49
- 43. Resources Alkire, S., R. Meinzen-Dick, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, G. Seymour, and A. Vaz. 2013. The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index. World Development 52: 71-91. Johnson, N., M. Balagamwala, C. Pinkstaff, S. Theis, R. Meinzen-Dick, and A. Quisumbing. 2018. How do agricultural development projects empower women? What hasn’t worked and what might. Journal of Agriculture, Gender, and Food Security 3(2):1-19. http://agrigender.net/views/agricultural-development-projects-empowering-women-JGAFS- 322018-1.php Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435–464. Malapit, Hazel J.; Quisumbing, Agnes R.; Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela; Seymour, Gregory; Martinez, Elena M.; Heckert, Jessica; Rubin, Deborah; Vaz, Ana; and Yount, Kathryn M. 2019. Development of the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI). IFPRI Discussion Paper 1796. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15738coll2/id/133061 Malapit, Hazel J.; Sproule, Kathryn; Kovarik, Chiara; Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela; Quisumbing, Agnes R.; Ramzan, Farzana; Hogue, Emily and Alkire, Sabina. 2014. Measuring progress toward empowerment: Women's empowerment in agriculture index: Baseline report. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/128190 Meinzen-Dick, R., D. Rubin, M. Elias, A. Mulema, and E. Myers. 2019. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture: Lessons from Qualitative Research. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1797. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/133060 50
Editor's Notes
- In the WEAI, we focus on the Agency measures, which are often operationalized in terms of decision-making. Why? Because when the WEAI was developed, we already had indicators, methodologies, and tools that measured resources and measured achievements. We know how to measure different types of resources, physical capital, human capital, social capital. We know how to measure achievements like yields, profits, expenditures, nutritional status. So we know how to do those things, better than we know how to measure agency. So there was a deliberate decision to focus on agency in the WEAI.
- Flexibility in gender norms during crises – this refers to several cases (esp. BD) where people expressed acceptance/admiration when women took on jobs outside the home or outside their normal roles to be able to care for the family when spouses were absent Unmarried women seen as having more/less independence – In some situations younger/unmarried women have greater opportunities (in school or work) while elsewhere they are kept more protected age or stage in the life cycle was perceived as influencing women’s empowerment, with younger women being less empowered than older women due to heavier labor burdens and lack of voice in household decision-making. For example, a young woman from Mopti, Mali remarked that “I am considered young therefore my suggestions are not taken into consideration”
- An example from an intervention that bred more nutritious crops, being disseminated through farmers groups with ag extension (OSP-type)
- The WEAI was developed by IFPRI, USAID, and OPHI in 2012 to measure the greater inclusion of women in the agricultural sector as a result of US Government’s Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative It is a survey-based index constructed using interviews of the primary male and primary female adults in the same household Key aspect of index construction: similar to family of multi-dimensional poverty indices (Alkire and Foster 2011, J of Public Econ) and the Foster-Greere-Thorbeck (FGT) indices Details on index construction in Alkire et al. (2013), World Development
- Used by 100 organizations in 54countries as of November 2019
- -Breaking down the 5DE score into its component indicators provides additional insight as to which indicators contribute substantially more or less to women’s empowerment. For example, compare Ghana and Kenya, whose 5DE scores are similar but whose composition of disempowerment differs. The contribution of production and resources to disempowerment is greater in Ghana, whereas lack of time and leadership opportunities are more disempowering in Kenya. In contrast, Zambia and Malawi have quite similar patterns of disempowerment, but Zambian women are slightly less empowered, primarily due to their greater constraint in workload. Examining the highest and lowest 5DE scores, women in Bangladesh, Liberia, and Tajikistan are more than three times as disempowered as women in Rwanda (excluding Cambodia which appears an outlier). -Looking at scores by region, Asia has the greatest range in scores, followed by East Africa due to Kenya’s notably lower achievement. Both southern and West Africa exhibit the greatest similarity in score, although they have fewer countries of comparison. In the majority of countries, limited ownership of assets and lack of leisure time contribute least to women’s disempowerment. Conversely, access to and decisions on credit emerges as a major constraint in most countries, with low levels of group membership and heavy workloads also significant contributors to women’s disempowerment. However, in general, there is no simple pattern to women’s disempowerment, in terms of either the depth of disempowerment or the relative contribution of each indicator.
- -Breaking down the 5DE score into its component indicators provides additional insight as to which indicators contribute substantially more or less to women’s empowerment. For example, compare Ghana and Kenya, whose 5DE scores are similar but whose composition of disempowerment differs. The contribution of production and resources to disempowerment is greater in Ghana, whereas lack of time and leadership opportunities are more disempowering in Kenya. In contrast, Zambia and Malawi have quite similar patterns of disempowerment, but Zambian women are slightly less empowered, primarily due to their greater constraint in workload. Examining the highest and lowest 5DE scores, women in Bangladesh, Liberia, and Tajikistan are more than three times as disempowered as women in Rwanda (excluding Cambodia which appears an outlier). -Looking at scores by region, Asia has the greatest range in scores, followed by East Africa due to Kenya’s notably lower achievement. Both southern and West Africa exhibit the greatest similarity in score, although they have fewer countries of comparison. In the majority of countries, limited ownership of assets and lack of leisure time contribute least to women’s disempowerment. Conversely, access to and decisions on credit emerges as a major constraint in most countries, with low levels of group membership and heavy workloads also significant contributors to women’s disempowerment. However, in general, there is no simple pattern to women’s disempowerment, in terms of either the depth of disempowerment or the relative contribution of each indicator.
- -Breaking down the 5DE score into its component indicators provides additional insight as to which indicators contribute substantially more or less to women’s empowerment. For example, compare Ghana and Kenya, whose 5DE scores are similar but whose composition of disempowerment differs. The contribution of production and resources to disempowerment is greater in Ghana, whereas lack of time and leadership opportunities are more disempowering in Kenya. In contrast, Zambia and Malawi have quite similar patterns of disempowerment, but Zambian women are slightly less empowered, primarily due to their greater constraint in workload. Examining the highest and lowest 5DE scores, women in Bangladesh, Liberia, and Tajikistan are more than three times as disempowered as women in Rwanda (excluding Cambodia which appears an outlier). -Looking at scores by region, Asia has the greatest range in scores, followed by East Africa due to Kenya’s notably lower achievement. Both southern and West Africa exhibit the greatest similarity in score, although they have fewer countries of comparison. In the majority of countries, limited ownership of assets and lack of leisure time contribute least to women’s disempowerment. Conversely, access to and decisions on credit emerges as a major constraint in most countries, with low levels of group membership and heavy workloads also significant contributors to women’s disempowerment. However, in general, there is no simple pattern to women’s disempowerment, in terms of either the depth of disempowerment or the relative contribution of each indicator.
- -Breaking down the 5DE score into its component indicators provides additional insight as to which indicators contribute substantially more or less to women’s empowerment. For example, compare Ghana and Kenya, whose 5DE scores are similar but whose composition of disempowerment differs. The contribution of production and resources to disempowerment is greater in Ghana, whereas lack of time and leadership opportunities are more disempowering in Kenya. In contrast, Zambia and Malawi have quite similar patterns of disempowerment, but Zambian women are slightly less empowered, primarily due to their greater constraint in workload. Examining the highest and lowest 5DE scores, women in Bangladesh, Liberia, and Tajikistan are more than three times as disempowered as women in Rwanda (excluding Cambodia which appears an outlier). -Looking at scores by region, Asia has the greatest range in scores, followed by East Africa due to Kenya’s notably lower achievement. Both southern and West Africa exhibit the greatest similarity in score, although they have fewer countries of comparison. In the majority of countries, limited ownership of assets and lack of leisure time contribute least to women’s disempowerment. Conversely, access to and decisions on credit emerges as a major constraint in most countries, with low levels of group membership and heavy workloads also significant contributors to women’s disempowerment. However, in general, there is no simple pattern to women’s disempowerment, in terms of either the depth of disempowerment or the relative contribution of each indicator.
- -Breaking down the 5DE score into its component indicators provides additional insight as to which indicators contribute substantially more or less to women’s empowerment. For example, compare Ghana and Kenya, whose 5DE scores are similar but whose composition of disempowerment differs. The contribution of production and resources to disempowerment is greater in Ghana, whereas lack of time and leadership opportunities are more disempowering in Kenya. In contrast, Zambia and Malawi have quite similar patterns of disempowerment, but Zambian women are slightly less empowered, primarily due to their greater constraint in workload. Examining the highest and lowest 5DE scores, women in Bangladesh, Liberia, and Tajikistan are more than three times as disempowered as women in Rwanda (excluding Cambodia which appears an outlier). -Looking at scores by region, Asia has the greatest range in scores, followed by East Africa due to Kenya’s notably lower achievement. Both southern and West Africa exhibit the greatest similarity in score, although they have fewer countries of comparison. In the majority of countries, limited ownership of assets and lack of leisure time contribute least to women’s disempowerment. Conversely, access to and decisions on credit emerges as a major constraint in most countries, with low levels of group membership and heavy workloads also significant contributors to women’s disempowerment. However, in general, there is no simple pattern to women’s disempowerment, in terms of either the depth of disempowerment or the relative contribution of each indicator.
- Many agricultural development interventions specifically aim to empower women alongside other goals, such as to improve agricultural productivity and income; reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition; and improve health outcomes. Despite this growing commitment to gender equality and women’s empowerment among funders and implementers of agricultural development, consistent approaches for measuring women’s empowerment in agricultural development projects are lacking. If you were looking at a range of agricultural development projects—some that taught women how to prepare nutritious foods for their children, another that trained milk traders, another that organized women into self-help groups, and another that also trained men to be caregivers to their children—how would you know which one worked best in terms of empowering women? It would be very difficult. Therefore, we need a measure that enables us to capture women’s voices, but also to be able to compare them across a variety of settings. Appropriate metrics are needed to assess whether these projects are achieving their goals of empowering women.
- Through the GAAP2 project, we are working to develop a project-level WEAI, or pro-WEAI. GAAP2 is a collaboration between IFPRI, OPHI, USAID, and 13 agricultural development projects that are piloting and providing input on the new index. The 13 projects are crop and/or livestock that have nutrition (and some income) outcomes. The 13 GAAP2 projects take place in 9 different countries in Africa and South Asia and use a variety of strategies to empower women. GAAP2 is a truly collaborative and consultative process. The research teams, implementation teams, impact evaluators, and more from the 13 projects have been engaged from the start in developing the survey modules, piloting the modules, providing input and expertise on what should be in the index. This process will help us to develop a standardized tool that has been tested in the project setting and is comparable across contexts. Each of the projects is piloting both quantitative and qualitative pro-WEAI protocols. I will not have time to delve into the qualitative work today, but it gives us insight into local definitions of empowerment and a more nuanced understanding of gender roles.
- Strategies in blue have at least 8 or more projects implementing them Strategies not in bold are the least popular among the projects
- Emphasizing why it’s important to include such metrics for tracking whether women/men are being empowered or disempowered by agricultural interventions For donors or large organizations: need common metrics for comparability
- In pro-WEAI what we have done is to make these links to the empowerment literature more explicit, and so these three types of agency are our three domains: Intrinsic Agency, Instrumental Agency, and Collective Agency.
- For pro-WEAI, we have 12 indicators of empowerment across 3 domains. [PAUSE here for audience to look over slide]
- The WEAI was developed by IFPRI, USAID, and OPHI in 2012 to measure the greater inclusion of women in the agricultural sector as a result of US Government’s Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative It is a survey-based index constructed using interviews of the primary male and primary female adults in the same household Mention if interested there is the WEAI resource center
- Let me end with some results, to give you a flavor of we can get out of pro-WEAI. This chart summarizes the extent of disempowerment among women and among men, which is the length of the bars. The gap between the two bars shows us the empowerment gap between women and men overall – so as expected, women are more disempowered. The colors within the bars, represent the how each of the indicators contribute to that disempowerment. So the bigger the area, the more important it is in constraining women’s empowerment and men’s empowerment. Interestingly, despite that gap between women and men, we find that the top 2 contributors to disempowerment are the same for both women and men, which is around Collective Agency: Group membership, and Membership in influential groups. Visiting important locations and respect among household members are large contributors to disempowerment for women but not for men. This suggests that interventions to empower women might focus on improving mobility and relationships in the household. Now these indicators are both new to pro-WEAI, so the original WEAI would have missed these important aspects of empowerment. So that, in a nutshell, is what pro-WEAI is about. The next question is: if you are working on a nutrition-sensitive agricultural project, what else do you need to measure? For that let’s hear from Jessica, who will talk about the Health and Nutrition add-on module.
- Let me end with some results, to give you a flavor of we can get out of pro-WEAI. This chart summarizes the extent of disempowerment among women and among men, which is the length of the bars. The gap between the two bars shows us the empowerment gap between women and men overall – so as expected, women are more disempowered. The colors within the bars, represent the how each of the indicators contribute to that disempowerment. So the bigger the area, the more important it is in constraining women’s empowerment and men’s empowerment. Interestingly, despite that gap between women and men, we find that the top 2 contributors to disempowerment are the same for both women and men, which is around Collective Agency: Group membership, and Membership in influential groups. Visiting important locations and respect among household members are large contributors to disempowerment for women but not for men. This suggests that interventions to empower women might focus on improving mobility and relationships in the household. Now these indicators are both new to pro-WEAI, so the original WEAI would have missed these important aspects of empowerment. So that, in a nutshell, is what pro-WEAI is about. The next question is: if you are working on a nutrition-sensitive agricultural project, what else do you need to measure? For that let’s hear from Jessica, who will talk about the Health and Nutrition add-on module.
- EMILY begin again here
- Not all the qual studies were able/designed to do all these things due to time and staff resources. In some cases the quant results were not ready at the time, e.g., In BD, the AVC survey had been completed, but the results were not yet calculated Some illustrative questions: How can the qualitative help with understanding how to build the index? How can qual help us understand differences we see in the index results? Presentation of the place, not just the person, to look at local understandings of empowerment E.g. seasonality diagrams to identify how the timing of survey fits with agricultural cycle, time use Including a broader description of the project itself and how it relates to other development efforts in the region and/or sector Disempowerment by poverty vs. disempowerment by gender (major theme in qual; Ruth) Empowerment of the whole household; empowerment of women within the household. qualitative adds value in interpreting the data. May not affect the score, but may help understand the quantitative results.
- There was some variability in which tools were used and not all projects used each of the protocol options listed in the slide. You may want to also give a few sentences of background on the way that the qual protocols were done and about the recommended sample size (refer to the handouts)
- Africa: 6 (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mail, Tanzania) South Asia: 3 (Bangladesh, India, Nepal) Still to be done: 4 (ANGeL + TRAIN in Bangladesh, SE LEVER in Burkina Faso, WINGS in India)
- Submission Burkina Faso and Ethiopia: “To maintain good relations, especially with husbands, wives were expected to be “submissive” to husbands as a sign of “respect” in the JP-RWEE case in Ethiopia and the Grameen case in Burkina Faso.” (34) Ethiopia: ““The cultural marriage practice that demands the total submission of women to their husbands is changing because of the increased awareness of women as a result of various trainings provided by the government and NGOs” (Ethiopia; Mulema 2018:21).” (34) Supportive Kenya: “The MoreMilk study in Kenya reported the importance of supportive husbands for women to succeed in their business” (35)
- Tanzania: “women were more likely to report making decisions about small livestock while men made decisions marabout cattle among the Maasai in Tanzania (Maisha Bora)” (21) Ethiopia: “JP-RWEE found that women in dual adult households exercise autonomy over agricultural activities that occur on small scale, with smaller quantities of produce, and products or activities of low value, whereas men make decisions on larger amounts or higher values of produce” (21) Mali: “The WorldVeg garden project in Mali found that, even though the project targeted women, women decide which crops to grow only with respect to their own productive activities rather than household production, and “under the advisement of their husbands (this is a show of respect)” (Bagayoko 2018:32).” (21-22) Ethiopia: “women’s overt decision-making was seen as a threat to masculinity and farming is considered to be men’s sphere – a farmer is understood to be a man. However, although men are the ultimate decision makers regarding agricultural production, they often consult their spouses before making decisions; women have more influence than might appear on the surface.” (22) Ghana: “During public discussions in focus groups in the iDE study in Ghana, the dominant discourse was around the importance of family harmony. In interviews held in private, women indicated that they want more input on decisions, but do not want full responsibility for decisions in case they go wrong.” (22)
- o Tanzania: “in the quantitative work conducted in the context of the pro-WEAI Maisha Bora study among the Maasai in Tanzania, 96 percent of men reported that they own some of the land that the household cultivates, while 65 percent of the women reported that they solely or jointly owned household agricultural land, even though very few of them are likely to have state-recognized ownership of the land (Krause et al. 2018).” (24) Ethiopia: “Mulema (2018:10) notes that: “Although culturally women cannot publicly claim individual ownership (‘I cannot say that it is mine. I have to say that it is ours,’ stated one of the beneficiaries), they exercise more bargaining power over such resources and men cannot freely access or control them without women’s consent. Such invisible control over assets by women causes underestimation of their power.”” (25)
- Women control personal income, not household income Ethiopia: the JP-RWEE study noted that diversification of income sources under the project gave women more options for income under their control, but many of the income sources that women control, such as eggs, handicrafts, brewing, and petty trade, earn only small amounts of money.” (26-27) Tanzania: “women were said to (normatively) have control over the income they earn from poultry, small livestock, or crop sales, but a number of women reported that they are, in practice, expected to hand it over to their husbands, pointing to the importance of a nuanced understanding of what is meant by “ownership” of assets.” (27) Personal motivations vs. social sanctions Burkina Faso: “women reported that these contributions to family income led to “more understanding” between spouses (Kieran, Gray, and Gash 2018:48). Men appreciated when their wives did not depend on them for everything, but did not feel that their contributions to household finances should lead to more power over household decisions (Kiernan, Gray, and Gash 2018).” (28) Ghana: “Some women also indicated that the expectations that they take on household expenses like school fees were a burden.” (28) Tanzania: “women were expected to not only contribute to the household, but also to help others in the community—an extension of the notion of empowered women helping others: “The down side of women's control over their own income is that if they have too much and do not help others they are said to be witches or to be engaging in prostitution or other inappropriate behavior” (Krause et al. 2018:38).” (28)
- Intrahousehold harmony and empowerment are not trade-offs – greater harmony often enables the behaviors and resources that allow a person to enact empowerment; Valued both for its own sense (intrinsic value) and for what it allows (instrumental value)
- To learn more about all things WEAI, please visit the WEAI resource center at weai.ifpri.info. At the bottom of each page, there is a sign up for the WEAI mailing list. You can sign up here to receive email updates from the WEAI Community of Practice. (This list sends you an email automatically when a new item is added to our front page news feed.)