2007 - Gender and Development - Latin America


Published on

2007 Presentation
Gender and Development Course
University of Florida

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2007 - Gender and Development - Latin America

  1. 1. Does Gender Matter for the Nutritional Consequences of Agricultural Commercialization? - Elizabeth Katz
  2. 2. Guatemalan Economy GDP By Sector (2006) Agriculture 22.1% Industry 19.2% Service 58.7%
  3. 4. Guatemala Agricultural Statistics <ul><li>Farms under 3.5 hectares comprised 78% of all farms </li></ul><ul><li>Farms over 450 hectares accounted for 3% of all farms </li></ul><ul><li>80% of rural households in Guatemala subsist on less than $1 a day (1979 Census) </li></ul><ul><li>36% and 22% snow Peas and Broccoli annual production growth in the 80s. </li></ul><ul><li>Agriculture accounts for 22.1% of the GDP (2006 Est) </li></ul>
  4. 5. Relevance of Recently Adopted Export Crops <ul><li>Grown mostly by the indigenous farmers of the highland region </li></ul><ul><li>Cultivated by thousands of smallholders </li></ul><ul><li>Competitive advantage of family labor-based units </li></ul><ul><li>1980s – Snow Peas and Broccoli production grew (36% and 22%) annually </li></ul>
  5. 6. Katz’s Study - Population <ul><li>518 Families </li></ul><ul><li>5 Villages </li></ul><ul><li>Divided them into Adopted and Not-Adopted </li></ul><ul><li>Divided them into four income Quartiles </li></ul>
  6. 7. El Gasto and the Importance of Intra-household resource allocation. <ul><li>El Gasto –allowance given by husbands intended </li></ul><ul><li>86% of Women received this allowance </li></ul><ul><li>Accounted for 54% of food expenditures </li></ul><ul><li>Villages were women had more opportunities, el Gasto was lower. </li></ul><ul><li>Linear relationship with food expenditures </li></ul>
  7. 8. Food Expenditures <ul><li>No statistical significance of absolute level of mean food expenditures among households </li></ul><ul><li>Consistent acquisition of the basic sixteen food products </li></ul><ul><li>Luxury food products are higher among the wealthiest – less dep. on maize </li></ul><ul><li>Adopters produce 17% more basic grains than do non-adopters </li></ul>
  8. 9. Variables Calories from Maize (%) Proteins from Maize (%) Female Calorie Adequacy Child Calorie Adequacy Quartile 1 73.25 74.20 86.50 64.94 Quartile II 75.79 77.51 87.76 72.12 Quartile III 73.70 74.68 92.79 71.50 Quartile IV 69.65 69.46 99.68 86.22 ALL 73.10 73.96 91.65 73.22 Adopted Average Spending in Basic Grains Value Own Basic Grains Quartile I 0.95 5.24 Quartile II 0.72 5.15 Quartile III 1.76 4.79 Quartile IV 1.32 4.79 ALL 1.27 4.94 Non- Adopted Average Spending in Basic Grains Value Own Basic Grains Quartile I 1.73 4.96 Quartile II 2.99a 3.63b Quartile III 0.92 5.31 Quartile IV 3.44b 2.39a ALL 2.21 4.23
  9. 10. Conclusions <ul><li>Adopting households do not demonstrate lower levels of subsistence crop production </li></ul><ul><li>With the exception of women and children from the poorest households, there is no evidence of substantial differences in macronutrient deficiencies or dietary diversity </li></ul><ul><li>Reason to believe that an equally remunerative income-generation strategy targeted to the women members of those same households would result in significantly higher expenditures on food and even more desirable nutritional outcomes. </li></ul>