#54 (‘I‘Yiuo‘ “Matt.“ “(4 r '7f"! Yr. ‘1; I . :fi'. ‘Kng‘J ”:4 ‘ 4' .‘I Y Y . '4' ' . ”(-"r‘. .' 7"“ L’;- L“ - Y) :I‘ .41»; '1'. "o 1:.“ ft." . :fi]; «Y3 n?” Y‘af'm’riafii ’7‘ 7:34qu 5‘ .3 . , v'¢.Y4Y:.-n.Y.-:4‘ Y=--“,.:.4:Y- J ’- 44 4.; '., gag-5%; _ a (rs-.559: 4;; Y..':‘.4;.;-Y‘:'Y;.~ ' ,Y .. J D“." .LJ -,. PALS L J 4‘}. ”2 ' A “Y‘r nle YNWYG‘I‘Th-Tt‘éfivf ‘ ' 31:25“ ‘5'" "Emu ‘ "Y. " .‘Ya ' - 5, l.. -‘l' . - “Inf. 0 . ..,i.-’y,s.4:‘n | 'Y .‘J V” n M‘ Y: “Y3 Y -Y:Y§55.~-4::44. HWY 4 2M - ‘ Cf; ‘ .- Y} ‘ j ‘ .4 . . . -Y '7‘ Y Y ‘ ;. .-Y'Y4-".YYY~‘1.~ .“~ . . . Y4 fl}. . ugfokizYJY' 41:03 infliak‘ekfh’}. 'h "bl: ‘ . ‘ 4,5,1.Y}:;:~,..Yc.;4&.~.j,Y,;Irl ,Qfm‘qg :H." (xii? 't‘.‘ , , , "74? , _ ',Y “44 #3" .Y1.' 4444.45.15 rid: --‘ Y_ '.‘~ Fain.- . 1” '9‘. .3 :.~ 5‘, ML! .1 . .L: “;§‘v_1Q1-:_Y1Y.{33”tle.t} ;:|"d"lth£|Yl—:l ..,_‘?HIE; 34: Yah‘ A Yfl% , Y w: .' ' '4, wfiflljifi 8‘ .v I‘M ‘ 33‘5“... 4") :DV‘.; .554 Y 5:14YY 45W... - . $943305” {'43 '— 5 Y ‘ {1 "4: .I (3“ Y‘Y‘ {*3ny»? 44'1“” 'livfkigéé - f LY1Y$r :1. 31:“ 644534423", F1. V';'AW'Y€‘x-fr£."’ x,‘ 1 ’“Y‘Y - , av; m ‘_ . 2"#”fiw" Q9 YYYYL44~~Y I -!~\ g‘kzfiag: ”153‘ Y", ”I“; Vii v n Y‘ ‘1"5' ‘}1£u5' 1:.ILY ‘9. . 3,?”33 ' 31%;(4 4.» nuI‘YI . a} ”if; “I'M“? fivfirnww 9953???? '1 ~.- 41‘ . ‘ ' "Y Y." : ‘.'e‘.,4,vr--.A-.-;?-'-‘4 ._. — ~45 Y: YquYYYYY 54. «4.45”»4 :Yn-l; :YYEYI4:Y..Y%-YYYYY§4€3YY2 .4 2 .' ' \Yo>:.:‘Y;. ("NJ ._ ‘ :I" ..‘. ' . J Y . 4 7“,, . ~ ,4 f . qur 'i PM? 3:4; 0. . (QT; \ 44-ij . L'Y'a“ ‘Y 5353"“ ‘ "my 4; N - ' ‘ 1‘ l 1 §¥I£ I 5.. 9545“” 44M. 4 '4 $9.42. 5","Y-.'.4"‘- 331,5 0. 4" ‘... 46 5‘22“" v I "N .1 ‘ ’ J ,4 . 4.2.3'. ‘ »-' Y“ ". My.“ ka‘sl‘l .Y ;:Y}‘\ I Yu BY“? ,3 ,‘4 ',4 ”Y. ..Y.l H; ‘ Y 4 3': ' q x :45 I‘ x'. ‘ Ii Y PVYY‘I.‘ IQIJ.‘ .1 O . . ‘. 4. (4 ."YY' 4,4}: . YA'AYI '. '1“.v a?“ II , | . .. . 194.4; ,.. ..J¢I.-.4:' ,. . . - .4 -Yf'.4 ‘ .5. .‘n‘; ,:YI,Y Y~,Y_Y. L‘Y‘4\"';Y,.54Y.'HdexiLzY ”HY“ 3f. "RY... .Y 4‘: “A Y; ”1.54:1!“ 1‘ I 5"" ‘4 .1142'44 'r ‘ ‘5' - ‘ . ..2;—:f 1 _v ’I "I?“ ‘N- ' YI":Y"U:1;:L"+ | L I‘; Y Y L. . .‘I‘Id' ;':':I’!‘-l":.}l' '3‘4 "I.“ ‘ "J. . ‘Y 1’ EMMY.“ " .IY. "lands-1'.“ ).v A .w '4‘7Y7T‘1‘4fvm‘" ?" :45 “MY 43"“an ' 44Y ’ YY. YYY' {Y ’Y‘Kmrfi I“ Y-- '4 VP: ”a! . «”er /-Y .- 'Y‘:.'. .29 gag-vi 15...... -'. , 414: Y:§YY..1YY.'1‘:4 .4444. ._ “a“: - .' I : I ' ,L I ' ,-' n4 Yfi‘.‘ ‘n‘Y‘Ir‘ ‘42 ‘tiYYf'T. Yie- Y! Y PYYXYo I...‘ ff”, '4‘ «MET; " ‘ '1‘" . ., '4'. Y4YYYY' “5.1? 4 Y -Y~Y-'YY Y 4 . Y r p « ' _ 4. [W gz-Y . }W.'-'-“."4YY4' 1.51.4314 YUJEW" ' . ' 3"}. "Y 49% Y‘Y’j fuf (-444 :75“ Y (NIL ' . 4T'-n|‘~‘ll:l'l’|.’lg,'l ”l' I ‘( I. ‘, ' J YE'WYYY .43 .- . Y 445 “ 39”“ “5mg u W “‘1'”, I %‘.§" i.” f v 4. q‘ ‘Yfl'lY-if: 'flo: «'5'!» } Elle-.5 1"" #1. t 3.59 @1755 5.54.45: ‘Y' fifth 4344' 5 . . "‘YY w, 5 . 5;; Y Y . ”4.3.4.4544... ‘55 444 «555.5455» ‘5‘54 .. ‘YéY; Y'Y’“ “Y "~ Y4 ' « “Y " 5.: 45 .4544... ~54 544. 45; .54. Y4 Y 55 4 .Y 4’4 Y’l : .4 Y, “H:I.GR€" » ~ Y .1“ VI ‘1‘! ‘ I 'V‘l‘Y I (SAY MEYY‘YYK'Y: $11247), 4251‘?‘ -_' o 444'! ‘figgrflfllgfifi‘ 45“.. N. .1,“ W .' -h' v. JI/llWinllW/Wmflllll/H/WllI 3 1293 01002 sass/W 'l 3 LXBMRY ”usfififl5tiu L éflwezfity w-“r ~'--.'~--._ _ This is to certify that the thesis entitled INCREASING FOOD PRODUCTION IN THE THIRD WORLD: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO FEMALE FARMERS presented by Patricia Bonnard has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. S . degree in Agricultural Economics flj)’: Mmflz’ofl/M/ Major professor Date Feb. 8, 1985 0-7639 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this Checkout from w your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. QC! 2 ”"1 INCREASING FOOD PRODUCTION IN THE THIRD WORLD: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS AND THEIR RELEVANCE T0 FEMALE FARMERS BY Patricia Bonnard A THESIS . Subnitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillnent of the requirements for a degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1985 w) 337—6280 " ABSTRACT INCREASING FOOD PRODUCTION IN THE THIRD WORLD: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO FEMALE FARMERS DY Patricia Bonnard The subsistence sector, comprised of small-scale. family farms with limited. though increasing. involvement in market production. is not well understood by policy-makers and researchers. Furthermore. this sector is often neglected in agricultural development efforts. Yet. subsistence farms account for a significant share of the food supplies in Third World countries and employ a large portion of the total population. Of the people engaged in food crop production. a significant number of them are women. many of whom are seniautononous farmers. Given these facts. it seens that government objectives to improve food security can not be fulfilled without increased understanding and further integration of both subsistence farming and female farmers. The objectives of this study were the following: 1) to substantiate wonen’s significant contribution to food crop production. and clarify the sexual division of labor assOCiated with food crop cultivation: 2) to determine whether or not existing assumptions of the farm and home production are adequate for the study of subsistence agricultural production in the Third World: and 3) to identify some weaknesses of standard practices based on these assumptions that contribute to program failure or low achievements and to recommend improvehents in these practices The results of the study confirm that the contribution of women to agricultural production in the Third World is considerable. Women provide a large portion of the labor used in field. livestock and processing activities. they manage farms. control decision-making concerning a number of agricultural activities and often contribute over half of the total family income (cash and home production). Specific variables were identified that influence the extent of women’s contribution. Definitions of production and the standard corporate family farm model were analyzed to determine their appropriateness for the subsistence system. Suggestions to extend and improve the model were “made. Also provided are recommendations for data collection procedures so that more subsistence activities are included. It was argued that some factors which limit the effectiveness of agricultural development programs can be attributed to unrealistic models of the family farm. Extension programs of Sub-Saharan Africa were reviewedwithrespect to their ability to reach female farmers and producers with useful information corresponding to their participation. ‘--‘_~__'..--7 0'9, Inconsistencies between the actual production system and the design o other programs of the region were indentified. Suggestions were provided for improving the design and implementation of agricultural development programs. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS All of the people who I would like to acknowledge for in one way or another moving me through the graduate educational process are certainly too numerous to list here. Nevertheless. I’d like to thank Dr. Warren Vincent for his program advice. initial enthusiasm and along with Merlinds Ingco their efforts to structure my thoughts into a single proposal. Dr. Lester Manderscheid has expressed confidence in me and provided consistent support throughout my program. He and Dr. Rita Gallin have contributed substantial editorial assistance. Dr. Eicher offered a number of constructive critisms during the defense. I would like to include two special thanks to Nicholas Minot and Arun Elhance for providing both intellectual and emotional support during critical points in my self development. Thanks are also in order to my parents and sister. Debora. who have always provided a cushion against the aches and pains of academia. Finally. I’d like to acknowledge Jim Peace. Judy Stallman and especially Sally Wallace for pointing out. in the words of the rock group, Meatloaf. that: "there ain’t no coup de ville in the bottom of a crackerJack box." ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Need for the Study 1.2 ObJectives 1.3 Methods Women’s Contribution to Agriculture 2.1 Overview of Women’s Contribution to Agriculture 2.1.1 Introduction ' 1 2 Public Goods .1.3 Field and Livestock Activities 1 4 Processing 1 5 Marketing 2.2 Variables Influencing Women’s Contribution Introduction Seasonality Religion Class Male OutjMigration Technology and Capitalization Crop Use: Cash vs Subsistence Crops Education of Children Expectations for Women 0 Summary HtDOVO‘Ufi-UNP NNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNN Conceptual Issues 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Defining a Conceptual Framework For Semi-Subsistence Farmers 3.1.2 The Classic Model of the Family Farm 3.2 Production 3.2.1 Definitions 3.2.2 Policy Objectives and Relevant Definitions 3.2 3 Theories of Home Production 3.2.4 Valuation of Production 3.2.4.1 Output Approaches 3.2.4.2 Input Approaches 3.2.4.3 Conversion Factors iii ease 39 43 47 47 48 51 3.3 Household as a Unit of Study 3.3.1 Household Models 3.3.2 The Concept of Head of Household 3.3.3 Factors Contributing to the Incidence of Female Heads of Households 3.3.4 Head of Household As a Provider 3.3.5 Decision-Maker As a Unit of Study Selected Issues in Implementation 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Data Collection: Suggestions to Improve Methods 4.1.1 Introduction 4.1.2 Interview Methods 4.1.3 Interview Content 4.3 Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa 4.3.1 Introduction 4.3.2 Relevance of Female-Farmers to Extension Efforts 4.3.3 General State of Education and Extension Efforts for Women 4.3.4 Case Studies 4.3.4.1 Ghana 4 2 Malawi 4 3 Tanzania 4 4 Botswana .4 5 Kenya .4 6 Burkina Faso .4.7 Ethiopia 4 8 4 9 4 1 4 1 4 1 fihufiofifibflofiufi-bofi wwwwwwwwwww: Rwanda Zambia 4.4 Neglected Factors Contributing Program Underacheivement: Other Africa Case 4.4.1 Women’s Right to the Use or Ownership of Land 4.4.2 Women’s Role As Provider of the Family’s Food 3 Female Labor Constraints 4 Women’s Independent Need for Credit and Purchased Inputs 4.4.5 Women’s Need For Access To Product Markets .74-_-._..—- I 4. S Suggestions For Improving‘ \ up. Development Programs ' 4. ,J \—‘ .a-n- ' ~.__ r _ ' ..._ . “w W_,._4.A-r 45"" . iv 58 60 65 73 73 73 75 78 81 81 83 86 89 90 90 92 93 95 100 100 101 101 101 102 102 103 U104 . 1‘05 .' . 107 110 111 112 5 Summary and Conclusions 5.1 Summary :'%m~£9£LR¥~lmRngations m-.- var-n ‘ w‘m-M“~~—u~._.w. .-.__‘__.___‘_- _ i «-1, («5:3 Suggestions for Future ResearEE‘”> r- 'F'Kfixm-‘t’uw ‘ at: W_u _. , - . ‘» < 3"" .Cf‘c‘l We neravr‘) ‘v3.--.n we... .Pt-u-lme'u-‘r‘ E Appendix A Questions to Address for Determination of Target Individuals Selected Bibliography 118 118 124 130 132 0) 10 11 12 13 15 LIST OF TABLES Women’s Contribution to Agriculture: Selected Areas' Women’s Participation in Rural Africa Generalized Pattern of Women’s Work in South Asia Participation in Marketing According to sex Summary of Production Activities Incorporated in Production Definitions Incidence of Unpaid Family Labor Households Headed by Women Women’s Participation in Household Decision-Making Summary Table: Sexual Division of Decision-Making Responsibilties Educational Requirements for Various Levels of Technological Complexity Access to Non-Formal Education by Sex in Africa Sexual Compositon of Extension Personnel in Africa: Agricultural Programs Male and Female Enrollment In Rural Training Courses in Botswana Rates of Introduction and Utilization of Extension Information by Farm Management Type in Kenya Summary of African Programs vi Page 10 11 17 38 40 57 68 70 84 87 88 94 97 113 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION A current major concern within the field of development is food security whether that be in terms of ”self-reliance“ (assuring availability of food) or “self-sufficiency“ (self-provisioning of food). At the present time. the food security issue appears to be divided into studies that focus on specific aspects of the problem suggesting specific solutions: international or domestic buffer stocks, compensatory financing. food aid. export promotion to earn foreign exchange for food import needs, income generation to raise ”effective demand” (the ability to pay) for food, and finally. promotion of domestic food-crop production. While these mechanisms can collectively contribute significantly to the resolution of the food problem. no single mechanism should be expected to be independently sufficient. The resource base of a particular less developed country (LDC) and the additional or alternative government obJectives determine the choice of mechanisms to employ which in turn influence the degree of success in fulfilling food security objectives. 1.1 Need for the Study The subsistence sector, composed of small-scale/family farms with limited. though increasing, involvement in market production is not well understood by either policy-makers or researchers. It has. to a ““h-M— w'- greet extent. been overlooked or ignored until recently. In part. f" ——-—--r# ”H‘" because women are involved predominately in the subsistence sector and in many areas they dominate this sector. they have been largely ignored. Their role has been misunderstood and their contribution has been greatly underestimated. Although neo-classical analysis has been able to explain some aspects of the subsistence sector. a.g. many market activities. the analysis has either missed or misconstrumdithmeSPSQEMEEQMSLSniflnlnC‘ of women':ficontributionmtomgggicultural production snuggllwapwthe importance of many non-market activities and the interdependencies of the entire production system. This may be attributed to the bias of researchers or the bias and/or limitations of standard economic tools and methods. It appears as though a broader. more precise framework needs to be developed. A presupposition of#thip_study ig_£h2£isihntter ---.-.—.i-.<-¢ understanding of the subsistence production gystammgnd.529¢iflsallxa we-_——c-. aw-mv --...,.—-l-—.sr‘ ‘ v “—m "“ "“ " wosen:surolgmgithigwthiswgystgm. will help clarify appropriate and consistent policy prescriptions. and therefore. chart a more effective path toward achieving food security. 1.2 Objectives This thesis will attempt to provide the basic groundwork to develop. a framework for analyzing subsistence food-crop production. although the scope of the thesis will be considerably more narrow than the overall subsistence system. Firgtiflthg‘gtudymwill fecuswgn women and their_ wanna t° {@IEEQBJWSPEQQE,1.529.911-9939m it legit-031...?! fl_w_ #FW‘A- woman’s responsibility 59mproyide food for her family whether or 99519 \_‘__flfl__fi _",wflwm 1 male is pigggnt. and because only minimal attention has been given to women in standard economic analyses thusfar. Second. with respect to the above mentioned aspects of the food security issue. this thesis will deal with the promotion of domestic food-crop production and to a limited extent income generation. As a result of this concentration. the emphasis will be on self-sufficiency. Horeover. the focus will be on local (micro-level) self-sufficiency. Finally. the study will be narrowed by focusing the analysis on Sub-Saharan Africa because it is here that food shortage problems are the most acute and severe. and the situation of this region is expected to deteriorate rapidly._flg;;_ specific objectives aregasflfgllows: 1) Substantiate women's significant contribution to food crop production. and clarify the sexual division of labor associated with cultivating food crops. 2) Determine whether or not pre-existing theory and models of the farm and home production are adequate for the study of semi-subsistence agricultural production in the Third Uorld. 3) Identify some weaknesses of standard practices associated with the conceptualization of semi- subsistence agricultural systems that contribute to program failure or low achievements. and recommend improvements. 1.3 Methods To fulfill these objectives. the following procedures will be undertaken. Each item in the procedures corresponds to and provides a brief summary of the contents of a separate chapter. begining with Chapter 2. Although not mentioned here. a concluding chapter is also included. The procedures are as follows: 1) Provide an overview of women’s contribution to small-scale. semi-subsistence agricultural production. This will include: a) production defined as the creation of time. form and space utility. b) generalizations which may extend over most of the Third World. c) vggjsbleuhichinfluence wtb§_1:_ZP§,._9.D§*93599;.-.9j..- _ “"“w-QEQQV’. Q - 90111117 but—10!); ”9 a g estate. - tells 1.911“ 91..- ”Efgtfithn. 2) Provide a discussion of two important conceptual issues: what is production and what is the appropriate unit of study. hora specifically: a) exploring definitions of production and the variety of measures identified and/or utilized by various information gathering agencies. b) dispelling the single or single sale head of household misconception: and exploring new definitions of the household and household head as a unit of study. e.g. concept of the decision-maker or de facto head. 3) Trace the ramifications of an inappropriate or inac- curate conceptualization in terms of projects and programs. This will include: a) discussion of survey and data collection techniques b) inconsistencies in extension programs. c) case studies of project failure or low prOJect achievements. The bulk of the resources to be used for this study are listed in the bibliography. Because most of the data reporting on woaen's activities are unreliable. this study has avoided sophisticated statistical techniques and instead has relied on case studies. The analysis is extracted from the pre-existing body of research on subsistence food crop production as well as on women and international agriculture. Although the study centers on neo-classical economic analysis. it will also borrow freely froa studies in the fields of sociology and anthropology where necessary and where such contribution enhance the analysis. CHAPTER 2 UOHEN'S CONTRIBUTION TO AGRICULTURE 2.1 An Overview of Women’s Contribution to Agriculture 2.1.1 Introduction This section of the paper atteapts to provide a general description of woaen's contribution to agricultural production (that is. creation of time. space and form utility) and related community and household activities. In addition. factors which may cause either real (as opposed to apparent) deviations from these generalizations are identified. The intention is to establish a reference for research that incorporates at least a basic understanding of the allocation of agriculture labor inputs which are both heterogenous and lack (or are lieited in) the transitivity of resource use. Other sections of this paper deal more extensively with research methodologies as well as past. present and future prOJect formulation and policy choices. Women’s contribution to the world’s food supply is impressive. Worldwide. ”...women contribute 44 percent to the food supply in a total of 1170 societies” (Butler. 1979:8). QESEEQiQQMES_EE:MEEEE29HESE£BPT 59999916 Co-Iission 9n fifties (£06? and the 59999949--9d 509:9! Compission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). women provide_§9_t9_§98 of. the ggrigultural labor in Africa and Asia. The Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) estimates a figure of 40x for Latin America as a whole (Lewis. 1981:32). The data in Table 1 indicate the variability of women’s work effort among countries and among regions within a country. It should be 179.7/168.13 Table 1 WW W isms-.9. mm- mm Botswana 48-803 of crop activities 1974 Burkina Faso Resettlesents 15 hrs/day growing season 1977 177.157 74x of all crop work 1974 179.7 Caneroon (East) sex of ave. “man”-dayslha 1980 15.45 Gabon 200 days/year in ag. prod. 1978 7.14 approx. 0 for men Ghana sex of ag. eeployees and 1978 218.10 aelf-eaployed Kenya 80* of subsistence ag. work 1973 179.8 provide 95x of village food 1981 212.56 supply Kakamega 408 of farm sanagers 1975 197.2 lwea Rice Resettlement 11 hrs/day and 6 days/wk 1973 177.157 Lesotho up 10hrs/day ag. work 1974 219.11 85x of Ag. labor-force 1979 23.35 lozambique 348 of ag. employed and 1978 218.10 selfemployed 33.9% of econ. active in ag.. 1973 131.115 hunting. forestry Tanzania 51: of those in ag. 1977 179.7 3.067 hrs/yr in ag. Hen only 1969 204.140 1.629. Best lake region 2.600 hrs/yr in ag. hen only 1978 7.14 1.800. Swaziland 70% of ag. work in food crops 1973 219.110 Zambia >503 of the labor/hector 1980 23.44 6.4.3.4. Bangladesh 10-14 hrs/day in income gen- 1975 177.157 erating activities. hen only 1011 hrs/day 13-17.6 hrs/day 1975 165.40 India 20% ag. labor force 1980 74.375 Haryana 15-16.5 hrs/day 1975 177.157 50% of crop prod. in wheat growing area 1975 177.162 Indonesia 39.98 of ag. labor 1980 74.375 Java 11.1 hrs/day. Hen only 8.7 1976 177.157 hrs/day halayaia (Pennsular) 36.98 of ag. labor 1980 74.375 . Nepal 303 of ag. labor 1980 74.375 10.81 hrs/day. Hen only 7.51 hrs/day 1978 7.14 Pakistan 14 hrs/day 1976 165.41 263 of family ag. workers 1972 74.375 5.5x of ag. labor force 1977 74.376 W Antigua 50x of ag. labor force 1981 179.11 Bahamas 30s of ag. labor force 1981 179.11 Barbados 408 of ag. labor force 1981 179.11 Bolivia 60x of ag. labor force 1981 179.11 Brazil Northeast >503 rate of ag. partici- 1978 145.62 pation Ecuador )50-603 rate of ag. partici- 1978 145.62 pation Haiti 508 of ag. labor force 1981 179.11 Jamacia 263 of ag.. fishing and 1983 53.9 forestry hexico >50-SOX rate of ag. partici- 1978 145.62 pation Honserrat 50% of ag. labor force 1981 179.11 Peru 50-603 rate of ag. partici- 1981 145.62 pation - the number to the left of the decimal refers to the biblio- graphic source number. and the number to the right of the decimal refers to the page number of the source. Note: These figures are exclusive of girls' work. The age cutoff is cos-only 15 or 19. noted. however. that measurements in general are subject to extrese. but often legitimate. criticism (see section on measuresent). For the most part. these data were extracted from independent case studies from various disciplines rather than aggregate national censuses or country- study data. Consequently. the definitions (e.g.. that which is included as agricultural or ”productive” work) and units are inconsistent and not directly comparable. (This may reflect a major weakness in the research on women in international developaent or feminist studies in general). In some cases. e.g.. Pakistan. the information is contradictory. Also worth noting. is that the participation of women is quite high in comparison with the world figure for men of 46-628 (UNDP. 1980:18). Although. by definition. this figure for men can not be directly compared to those for women in Table 1. the figure is presented here to draw attention to the fact that the male labor force is far from fully employed. The sexual division of labor in agricultural production and related activities does not follow a universal governing principal which delegates the distribution of reponsibilities between the sexes. but rather. it is a culturally determined and sometimes. but not always. rational set of social laws or norms created to facilitate efficient allocation of huaan resources within a given political and economic environment. Nevertheless. due to regional. cultural and historic similarities and interactions among groups of people. generalized patterns in the division of labor emerge. This is true for Third Horld rural economies although there are certainly exceptions. 2.1.2 Public Goods (utilities) Included in public goods are: water. fuel. health (growing and administering herbs to livestock as well as people). informal education. sanitation. and transportation (products and inputs). In most societies with little or no social overhead capital or developed infrastructure. women provide nearly all of the public goods (utilities). Providing these goods is often extremely burdensome and time-consuming. Typically. cultivated plots are situated miles away from either the village or the local market. e.g. a Colombian woman may have to walk for five hours to transport her goods to a market (Ahmed. 1978:11). Harginal and more distant plots are generally allotted to subsistence-crops while preferred land is reserved for cash-crops. In Zaire. supplying water may entail carrying loads of 10-15 liters (from 22 to 33 lbs) of water over a 45 sinute trip several times a day (Ahmed. 1978:11). Firewood gathering is also time-intensive. requiring approxisately 6 hours per day in some rural Indian villages (Schick. 1978:11). Of course the gathering time required depends in part on the heat efficiency of wood. the population density and consequent demand for scarce wood and the agro-ecological factors which contribute to replenishing supplies. In many parts of Africa where there is a scarcity of wood. two hours on the average may be required for daily fuel collection (UNFAO. 1979a:117). As the data in Table 2 indicate. rural African women provide nearly all of the labor required for community production. In South Asia water and fuel is supplied only by wosen (see Table 3). 2.1.3 Field and Livestock Activities The data in Tables 2 and 3 also illustrate the breadth of field activities undertaken by women in Africa and South Asia. In rural Africa. women typically supply 503 or more of the total labor required for planting. hoeing and weeding. harvesting and animal husbandry. The only only activities for which women’s contribution is usually restricted are: clearing the land. hunting and tree crop trimming. It has been estimated that. on average. African women work 423 more hours in the field than do their menfolk (Rogers. 1980:159). A similar pattern is found in South Asia (Table 3). hen supply labor for plowing and heavy irrigation. whereas only women weed. transplant. care for the milch animals and poultry and maintain vegetable gardens. In Latin America. a significant share of minifundio (subsistence) crop cultivation. vegetable gardening and most of the snail animal husbandry are all commonly the responsibility of women. e.g. Belize 10 Table 2 women’s Participation in Rural Africa Produgtion x of totgl lgbor Land clearing 5 Turning the soil 30 Planting 50 Hoeing and weeding 70 Harvesting 60 Trimming tree crops 10 Animal Husbandry 50 Hunting 10 Progesging and Distribution Transport crops: farm to home 80 Brewing 90 Food processing 100 Donestic food storage 50 Storing crops 80 Marketing excess crops 60 Community Water supply 90 Fuel supply 80 Community self-help pr03ects 70 ngsehgld House-building 30 House repair 50 Cleaning. washing. etc. 100 Cooking for husband. children and elders 100 Bearing. rearing and initial education of children 100 Source: Data from UN Commission on Africa cited in Lewis. Barbara. ed. (1981). Invisible Farmers: Woggn and the*Crisis in Agriculture. washington. D.C.. USAID. WID. (Stavrakis and Marshall. 1973:10). The produce from these vegetable gardens add a variety of vitamins. minerals. fats and flavors to the diet as well as provide essential supplemental amino acids for protein 11 synthesis. Table 3 n r e P t e m ' . mm mix mm: mm Plowing x Heavy irrigation x Sowing x x x Beading x Transplanting x Harvesting x Hilch animals 8 poultry x Vegtable gardens x a s ion Processing (drying. husking. thrashing. winnowing. cleaning. perserving) x Stroage x CO Harketing x x x mm Hater supply x Fuel and fodder supply x House building x House repair x x Cleaning. washing. etc. x Cooking for husband. children and elders x Bearing. rearing and initial education of children x - Activities may possess more than one entry where several major patterns of a sexual division of labor coexists II women market goods only where purdah is not observed. Information taken from Dixon. Ruth. (1982). “Mobilizing Women for Rural Employment in South Asia: Issues of Class. Caste. and Patronge." 599395;; Develgpmegg and Cgltggal ghgggg. 30(4):377. In her study of the Sahel region. Kathleen Cloud found that sedentary farmers of the Sahel follow a similar sexual division of labor (Cloud. 1977:1). Even in the case of millet and sorhgum 12 production. which is widely considered a man’s crop. especially if it is commercially grown. women contribute a significant portion of the labor input. performing important tasks such as the selection and storage of seed. women's responsiblities also include providing the vegetable or milk sauce to accompany the grain. gathering wild plants and fruits and processing milk products that provide significant contributions to the food supply during specific (e.g. rainy) seasons and also some marketable surplus. Some species of wild plants. such as Baobob leaves of the Sahel. may possess a high market value (Cloud. 1977:7). Among pastoralists. e.g. those of Somalia. women graze cattle. sheep and goats while the men hard the canals. Similarly. the Boran women of Kenya are responsible for small calves. sheep and goats (UNFAO. 1979a:15). In the Sahel. women's role in livestock maintenance is crucial. Uomen remove disease transmitting ticks and identify and treat neonatal calf enteritis (Sollod. et al. 1984:300). Interviews with the women also indicated that they did know how to diagnose many diseases. When symtoms of im- portant diseases were discribed. they almost always knew the name of the disease (Sollod. at al. 1984:297). Their close and consistent contact. particularly with lactating cows. establishes women as monitors of the daily appearance and disposition of livestock. Furthermore. they regulated how much milk young calves will consume and how much will be thracted for human consumption (Horowitz. 1981:85 and Smale. 1980). In general. where there is a strict sexual division of labor. men supply labor for plowing. heavy irrigation. and large herd animals (camels and less frequently cattle). By contrast. women transplant. weed. care for milch animals and poultry. maintain vegetable and medicinal herb gardens. and gather wild plants and fruits. 13 2.1.4 Processing The processing of products is also dominated by women in the Third Uorld (see tables 2 and 3). Where processing agricultural products is performed by small decentralized units (households. compounds. etc.). women’s labor comprise nearly all of the value added. although frequently the transformed product is not exchanged in the market. Where processing is centralized and/or utilizes a larger share of capital inputs (private firms. government marketing boards. etc.). there is frequently substitution of machinery and hired labor (often males) for women. Processing grain by hand is extremely time-intensive. Of a group of studies carried out in Africa to measure the time required to manually process grains. one study determined that ”... it took 13 hours Just to pound enough maize to feed a family for between four and five days“ (Rogers. 1980:155). In Hexico. hand grinding of grain requires four to six hours per day per family. A study in the former Congo revealed that tapioca and maize take four times as long to process as to cultivate when measured in work hours (Rogers. 1980:155). Everyday. women of Haryana. India must grind wheat. cook. clean. and churn milk as well as feed. clean and milk the animals. and collect fodder. fuel. and water (Nelson. 1979:40). These same tasks may take 14 hours each day for a typical village woman in Pakistan (Nelson. 1979:41). Uomen of Sub-Saharan Africa are responsible for nearly all tasks related to food production and product transformation including trade and marketing (Butler. 1979:8). As previously discussed. women invariably perform the bulk. if not all. the processing tasks. Even when they do not cultivate a particular 14 crop. or in the case of pastoralist. tend the larger animals (e.g. camels. and often cattle). they are responsible for any transformation of the primary product. Traditional beer. used for social obligations (bride price. visits. etc.) and as the major source of marketabale surplus. is brewed by Rwandian women from bananas grown almost exclusively by men (UHDP. 1980:80). Among pastoralists in the Sahel. women process and preserve all types of milk despite the fact that men tend the larger animals. Hilk and processed milk products. specifically cheese and butter. provide a substantial portion. if not all. of the food supply over many months of the year (Cloud. 1977:10 and Seals. i980). Kerite nuts (Shea butter). one the largest agricultural exports for some East African Countries. are also harvested. stored and processed to extract the oil by women. The oil is later sold to male wholesalers and traders who further refine the oil and export it (Cloud. 1977:7). In Pakistan. women may be prohibited from working in the wheat fields. but they construct the grain storage bins and keep track of the surpluses available for marketing. In addition. they pasteurize milk. ferment yogurt. and produce butter within the confines of the compound (Rogers. 1980: 160) . 2.1.5 Harketing Harketing is one production task in which great variations in the amount of women’s contribution can be found. Although conspicuously absent in some regions. women dominate in others. In Latin America. specifically Paraguay. Peru. Bolivia and Jamaica. women clearly dominate traditional rural and urban markets (Ahmed. 1978:9). As the data in Table 3 indicate. the allocation of marketing tasks in Asia spans the 15 entire range of possibilities. This is indicated by the presence of 3 x’s within the marketing row. (Factors which may contribute to the development of a specific sexual division of labor are discussed below) In Africa. women’s involvement in commerce is in part attributable to their customary responsibility for providing food for their children. As indicated on Table 2. the ECA estimates that 608 of all African marketing is undertaken by women. This degree of participation varies markedly across regions. Sixty to eighty percent of both urban and regional marketing and trading is controlled by women in Heat Africa (Kisekka. 1981:34). 0f the market sellers in Dakar. Senegal. 60: are women. The similar measure for town-trading in Ghana in general is 80x (Ahmed. 1978:9). Similar estimates are found for Zaire. Congo. Dahomey (now Benin) and among the Ewe of Togo Igbo and Yoruba in Southern Nigeria (Suarkasa. 1977:182; Adayokunnu. 1981 and Boulding. 1975s:23). In Eastern Africa. the participation rates of women in marketing are generally lower. although Zimbabwe. Nalawi. Zambia and the Luo of Kenya are certainly exceptions (Ahmed. 1978:9). Two suggested reasons for the absence of women in the East African market places are the monopolization of markets and trade by the Euro-Asians up until the end of the Second World War. and the historic lack of indigenous towns and centers in East Africa (Kisekka. 1981:35). A series of studies collected by the U.N.’s African Training and Research Center for women (ATRCU) suggests that the type of market influences which sex dominates the market place UNECA. 1975:50). Often. male traders will be present or dominate public markets. while female traders will represent a greater percentage. if not all. of the traders in small. open. or periodic markets. An alternative method of marketing 16 open to women is to sell from their homes (e.g. the Hausa of East Africa). Table 4 summarizes some of the above points. Like all other production tasks mentioned here. marketing can be extremely time-consuming and burdensome. Women of Zaire walk up to 25 kilometers to the market carrying loads weighing 30-40 kilograms on their backs. while Yoruba women commonly walk 50 miles or more in a week with heavy baskets of produce on their heads (D’Onofrio-Flores and Pfafflin. 1982:92). It should be noted that the women's task of marketing is frequently performed in addition to cultivating and processing the products. Although they most frequently sell their own some women such as the wives of N’Gor fishermen. market their husbands’ product as well (UNDP. 1979a:121). The full-time/long distance traders of Ghana. Nigeria. Kenya and Sierra Leone may be more heavily involved in retail trade than the part-time. local market women are (UNDP. 1979a:120 and Adeyokunnu. 1981). 2.2 Variables Influencing Uomen’s Contribution 2.2.1 Introduction The purpose of including a discussion of variables associated with deviations in the above description of women’s contribution to agricultural production is to develop a more flexible and realistic framework of female-farmers’ involvement in small-scale. subsistence agriculture. Nora specifically. the formulation of information concerning the relationships between these variables and the type and extent of work performed by women may assist researchers in developing their conceptualizations (or specifications) of specific systems. This framework may also function as a predictive tool. facilitating analyses 17 Table 4 WW 5:11. Copperbelt (Zanbia) (late 1950’s) Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) (late 1950’s) N. Somalia (late 1950’s) Hausa (Nigeria) (late 1950’s) Dakar (Senegal ) (1959) Brazzaville (Congo) (1963) Nigeria (1963) Ghana (1960) Dahomey (Benin) (1967) "2;! X 59 majority in larger markets dominate public markets 40 34 30 18 11 {3.313 X 41 majority in smaller markets dominate the open markets trade from their hoses 60 66 70 (of petty traders) 84 89 Source: United Nations Economic on Africa. ATRCW’s Human Resources Development Division. (1975). "Women and National Development in African Countries: Some Profound Contradictions.“ frican Stgdigg Rgvigg. 18(3):51. of the effects of changes in key variables upon the allocation of labor within a given work/study environment. With reference to Africa in particular. a current concern among 18 researchers and policy makers is the existence of a paradoxical labor shortage in the midst of an apparent labor surplus. Una Lela has identified three key factors which determine the African labor supply and help to explain this phenomenon: seasonality: time-allocation between farm. non-farm. off‘farm and leisure activities and the sexual divisions of labor (Lela. 1975:23). It is hoped that the exemplification and discussion of the following section will promote a greater understanding of how these and other factors influence the labor supply. Specifically. the following sections will review the influences of a number of factors including: seasonality. religion. class. male out- migration. technology and capitalization. crop use. education of children and cultural expectations for women. Relationships discussed. however. should not be considered universal but rather a reference for further study. 2.2.2 Seasonality Typically. field labor demand is highest during the rainy season and the lowest during the dry season (Lela. 1975:23). Fluctuations in the demand for labor are most pronounced for intensive and semirintensive rainfed cropping systems in short-season climates ( Norman. 1979:79). Intensive work effort is required for sowing. the first and second weeding and harvesting. In fact. the requirenents for labor may exert so much pressure on the labor force that women who normally follow strict religious laws of seclusion will often be present in the fields to assist during harvest time (Rogers. 1980). The increase in farm participation is generally at the expense of off-fern employment for men. In contrast. women contribute more labor by reducing their leisure time. Two explanations are commonly offered for 19 this phenomenon: tasks performed by women tend to require less recuperation; and more importantly. women perform more critical non-fern work. e.g. water and firewood collection and food preparation. which can not be neglected. Women’s total daily work hours during specific peak periods can. in some instances. actually double that of non-peak periods (Carr. 1980:3). Although there is a significant seasonal variation in the hours worked by women. the largest fluctuations occur in the portion of time alloted to specific categories of tasks. The most common alternating pattern is that of field activities on the one hand and processing and water and firewood collection on other. In Burkina Faso. women devote a greater portion of their time to field activities during the rainy season whereas processing food and water and wood collection comprise over 608 of their day throughout the dry season (Carr. 1980:4). In both Kenya and Ethiopia. women may spend up to twice as much time fetching water and firewood during the dry season as compared to the wet season (Carr. 1980:4) . In instances where the total number of workers increases during the peak periods. either through hiring of or assistance from relatives or neighbors. the time devoted to processing and food preparation in general will often increase substantially if the workers are paid at least in part with meals. In addition. participants in exchange labor schemes are usually women. This requires women to work other people’s fields as well as their own and their husbands' at specific times in the season. Women do not receive assistance in the cultivation of their own fields. and engage in exchange labor practices only as part of their .obligations to cultivate fields belonging to the menfolk. These two 20 labor arrangements are comnon throughout much of the Third World. 2.2.3 Religion Although religious norms may contribute to or mandate the assignment of a specific sexual division of labor. these norms generally do not restrict the actual amount of time an individual works. Furthermore. the extent to which religion will determine the sexual division of labor is a function of its strength and interpretation within a given social environment. Islam and purdah restrict women from field-work except during harvesting and other peak labor periods. Since African Islam is less strict than Asian Islam. Huslim women of Cameroon. Guinea. The Gambia. Hali. Niger and Burkina Faso are commonly active participants in field work and marketing produce (Kisekka. 1981:33). Even where restricted. women still process food. control grain storage. care for livestock. maintain vegetable gardens within or close to the compound and fetch water and firewood. In Pakistan. this work may amount to a 14 hour work day (Nelson. 1979:41). Studies undertaken in Asia indicate that: In general. there is no difference in participation by women in farm-work and food processing inside the compound. according to ethnic groups and degree of purdah practiced. A difference did show up in the reporting of women’s field work... (Rogers. 1980:160). Hany rural Hausa women of Nigeria are subject to Islamic house- seclusion. but they still employ one another for threshing. winnowing. grinding. pounding and processing commercial oils and locust bean cakes. In fact. the Hausa conduct a large trade in cooked foodstuffs prepared by women in seclusion. These same women conduct trade from their homes and own a majority of the small livestock of the region (UNECA. 21 1975:51). A World Bank study about the economic participation and decision- making of women in the subsistence sector of Nepal reports that the religious background of a woman influences the sphere of her work (Acharya and Bennett. 1983:8). Those women from Hindu or Indo-Aryan tradition are essentially excluded from market activities. In contrast. for Tibeto-Burman women (largely associated with Buddhism or other indigenous religions). the dichotomy between engaging in household and family farm enterprise on the one hand and local and distant market employment on the other is not absolute (Acharya and Bennett. 1983:8- 20). 2.2.4 Class Class position has been shown to influence both the amount and type of work performed by women. In most studies. rural classes are defined in terms of land holdings. such as landless. near landless. 5 acres or more. etc. In his study of India. John Hellor found that 438 of the agricultural workers of the landless and near landless class (less than 1 acre) were women. whereas for families with holdings in excess of 5 acres. women comprised only 338 of the workers (Hellor. 1976:91). Hellor also cites studies of Egypt and Bangladesh which provided similar observations. Research conducted in Pakistan (Ahmed. 1978). Ethiopia (Carr. 1980) and Peru (Deere. 1982) further substantiate this inverse relationship between class. as measured by land holdings. and women’s involvement in agricultural work. Hany of these studies have not only measured participation but have identified relationships between class and the number and type of tasks performed. Carmen Diana Deere found that in CaJamarca. Peru. women of 22 near landless and small-holder households participated at all stages of production and shared in market decision-making in 40 to 608 of the households studied. Only 9.58 of the women of the middle and upper strata participated in market decision-making. and most of their time was spent on food preparation and domestic chores (Deere. 1982:805). A study in Java showed a similar pattern (Rogers. 1980:165). In both of these cases. the concentration of women's work activities in food preparation was strongly tied to the use of hired labor which. in turn. was directly related to wealth or land holdings. Castes. which are de facto class strata within a specific culture or religion. may rigidly define a sexual division of labor that may or may not be consistent across economic strata. In Punjab. Pakistan. higher caste Huslim women engage in handicraft production while lower caste women process food and care for livestock (Dixon. 1982:383). In contrast. Cain found that the sexual division of labor was constant across economic strata in Bangladesh (ICRW. 1980:18). In addition to Islam. Hinduism. and Buddhism. some tribal cultures possess their own caste systems and means of distributing labor. These practices may. however. very widely from one region to another. Caste influence is most prevalent in Asia. 2.2.5 Hale Out-migration The rural out-migration of men has been most pronounced in Sub- Saharan Africa where an exceptionally large portion of the male population is absent for extensive periods of time seeking wage employment in urban centers. in mines or on plantations. Women of Halawi. Nali. Botswana. Hozambique. South Africa and Lesotho clear land as well as construct and maintain fences and buildings. all 23 traditionally male tasks (Ahmed. 1978:3). In Kenya. women have taken over men's livestock responsibilities and cultivate cash-crops such as coffee (D’Onofrio-Flores and Pfafflin. 1982:37). The reduction in the absolute number of available workers affects the acreage planted. yields and crop selection. In order to maintain yields. given insufficient labor availability during peak periods and a lack of labor-saving technology. total acreage has to be reduced. Alternatively. if total acreage remains the same. the available laborers will be over-worked. less productive. and yields will be reduced. Furthermore. since time is the most scarce resource for women (laborsaving technology is generally not accessible). they often substitute crops with a high output of starch per labor hour (cassava) for those with a higher concentration of other essential nutrients but less energy (yams). Both the reduction in total output and nutritional quality of the diet have strong implications on the productivity of the work-force. especially for those at or below the subsistence margin. 2.2.6 Technology and Capitalization Presently. there is a debate within the development field. mainly across disciplines. over whether the introduction of new technology and capital improves the pre-existing agricultural system or merely alters it without guaranteeing the direction of change or who will be the beneficiaries. With respect to the effects upon women’s work specifically. it appears that neither capital nor technology possess an intrinsic sex bias. but that methods of implementation and assimilation can and often do. That is to say. the form of technology or capital is generally equally appropriate for men and women. but new or existing institutions inhibit access by women. The purpose of this section. 24 however. is to simply describe the relationships between technology and/or capital introduced at various stages of production and women's work effort. not to evaluate them. At the field level. there are three maJor types of technological innovations which have been introduced to small farmers: mechanization e.g. ploughs (including animal-traction) and tractors: irrigation and high yielding varieties (HYV’s) of various crops. For various reasons. mechanical technology is customarily introduced to men. For example. in Tanzania mechanization has been heavily applied to primary cultivation. whereas the harvesting and processing stages have been virtually ignored (AnandaJayasekerametal. et al. 1981:67). Generally. this will have the effect of reducing women’s work load only if they are responsible for land preparation. In fact. it can increase women’s work if more weeding is required. Ester Boserup. in her study of African and Asian agriculture. has suggested that: ...regions. where shifting cultivation is used. men do little farm work. the women do most... where the agricultural system is that of extensive plough cultivation. women do little farm work and men do much more. Finally. in regions of intensive cultivation of irrigated land. both men and women must put hard work into agriculture... (Boserup. 1970:35). Irrigation tends to increase women’s work load by permitting multiple cropping which requires additional labor inputs at all stages of production if labor-saving complements are not simultaneously introduced. The result is an increase in the total hours worked as well as an alteration in the seasonal pattern of time allocation between tasks such as processing and field work. HYV's require more intensive labor inputs for transplanting and weeding. both traditionally women’s work. Because yields increase. the demand for post-harvest labor also increases. In parts of India. due to the rigid sexual division of labor. the ”green revolution” has caused women’s labor inputs to expand by approximately 208 (53 days/acre to 63 days/acre) while men's has remained virtually unchanged. Similar changes have occurred in the Philippines (Rogers. 1980:171). The introduction of field-level technology is generally accompanied by an increase in demand for female labor as noted above. The additional income earned as a result of the technological innovation may benefit women under the right set of circumstances. e.g. if women are less than fully employed or complementary labor saving technology is simultaneously introduced. Women’s control over the additional income is equally important. whether the income is in the form of wages. receipts from the sale of surplus or increased output for home consumption. However. some common problems with field-level technological innovation are: 1) women are frequently fully-employed. 2) complementary labor- saving technology is overlooked or unavailable. and 3) innovations are applied to men's cash crops. for which women have labor obligations. but the innovations are rarely devised or extended to women’s food crop plots. As mentioned earlier. where food processing becomes centralized and/or utilizes a larger share of capital inputs. women are frequently replaced by machinery and hired male labor. Probably the most well known case is that of the rice mills in Java. It is estimated that women collectively lost 125 million work days. 850 million in cash earnings and the equivalent of 4 months food consumption per household in income in-kind. No alternative means of employment were provided for women (Collier. et al cited in Eicher and Staatz. 1984:289 and D’Onofrio- Flores and Pfafflin. 1982:91). Similarly. tortilla making machines in Nexico and oil presses in Nigeria were introduced to men (Rogers. 1980:173).The Nigerian government has also sponsored milk cooperatives and bakeries with strictly male membership and ownership (Ahmed. 1978:9). In GuJerat. India. a modern dairy complex replaced women’s traditional butter and cheese production (Hultinational Honitor. 1984:21). It should be noted that there appears to be no specific technical reason why new processing technology is not introduced to women who are originally responsible for such tasks. Growth of consumer goods industries (largely foreign owned) and imports often introduce substitutes for local agricultural products that again are largely produced. processed and marketed by women. Lager and corn beer as well as soft drinks replace local beverages (D'Onofrio- Flores and Pfafflin. 1982:91). Such substitutions have had a pronounced effect on women's production and marketing of traditional beer particularly in Africa. Other substitute goods are bread for millet balls or pressed-cakes. and manufactured goods for handicrafts (Ahmed. 1978:9). The creation of chain stores. supermarkets and licensed public markets_displacas traditional wholesalers. retailers. hawkers and family-run enterprises. Female traders and processors are eliminated by government subsidization of cooperative structures. milling. credit. storage. transportation. etc. The percentage of female traders of Dahomey (now Benin) was reduced from 958 to 858 between 1961 and 1971. Similarly. female petty traders of Nigeria decreased from 848 to 708 of the total in one decade alone (1950 to 1960) (Ahmed. 1978:9). In parts of Senegal. the only sources of institutional credit are 27 the grain cooperatives which exclude women from membership (Sene. 1980:16). The Nigerian government has sponsored cooperatives and provided guaranteed prices and markets at large-scale mills for male groundnut producers (Ahmed. 1978:9). When Isoya Rural Development Project was initiated there. Yoruba women. who traditionally are active in trade. were excluded from marketing yellow maize. which had become a men’s crop and had replaced women's white maize (Ladipo. 1981:124). In each case. the existence of subsidies for men make it far more difficult for women to compete with their male counterparts. In addition. the source of a woman’s initial investment in her trade has in many cultures been her husband or other male relatives: however. government development efforts create an environment for new alternative investments for the men and raise the opportunity costs of their capital. As a result. investment decisions of individual males and/or households may be in favor of a reduction in women's participation based on distorted market conditions. 2.2.7 Crop use: Cash-crops vs Subsistence-crops For the purposes of this paper. a cash-crop is defined as a crop cultivated primarily for the market. A subsistence-crop. in contrast. defined as crop primarily grown as a food source but one which is marketed when a surplus exists. The term food-crop is synonymous with subsistence-crop. Typically. men contribute more labor to cash-crops than food-crops. Their share of field work and marketing often increases substantially with the commercialization of agricultural production. A survey of the Eastern Province of Cameroon. showed that while only 68 of the women in the sample managed cash-crops. only 88 of the men cultivated food-crops 28 (Atayi and Knipscheer. 1980). The introduction of cash crops in the Nyanza Province of Kenya lead to a situation whereby: ...livestock production and management - the usual economic activity of men - subsided. and men therefore engaged in food crop production for a cash income... man were recorded plowing. tilling. and participating in the seeding and harvesting of maize. whereas twenty-five years previously they seldom laborered on crops (Barnes. 1983:47). As mentioned earlier. Yoruba women traditionally were the primary traders of white maize (food-crop). but they were excluded from trade in yellow maize (cash-crop) when the Isoya Rural Development Progect was initiated in 1969 (Ladipo. 1981:123). Similarly. rice production and marketing in The Gambia was traditionally considered a women’s responsibility. Once an irrigation project that enhanced and promoted the commercial value of rice was implemented. however. men took over the rice marketing (Day. 1981:117). Although men frequently manage cash-crops. they may still provide a smaller percentage of the total labor inputs than women do. Women are generally expected to work their husbands’ fields as well as their own food-crop plots. Hen. on the other hand. do not supply labor to women's individual plots. The above mentioned study of Cameroon found that men’s contribution to maize and groundnut production (cash-crops) was less than 508 (Atayi and Knipscheer. 1980:6). 2.2.8 Education of Children The education of children affects the hours women work because it limits the number of hours as well as the time of the day that children are available to work. Children usually assist with the field work. bird scaring. gathering and livestock activities. Girls also fetch water. wash clothes. look after younger siblings. process food and market 29 agricultural surplus. In Indonesia. women and girls of the landless classes contribute more to household income than men or boys. This difference increases during the slack season (Youssef. 1980:25). In addition. it is not uncommon in Africa for children to work more hours in agricultural production than adult men. Removing children from the production system. without providing labor-saving technology. can increase women's work burden considerably throughout all stages of production (Carr. 1980:8). 2.2.9 Expectations for Women Its important to recognize the significance of social expectations for women. These expectations. and the laws created to bolster them. have pronounced effects on both the type and the extent of work women can and are willing to perform. African women are expected to provide food and other material needs for their children. Hence. they dominate food-crop production and actively engage in trade. In Latin America. the mother role is strongly emphasized and wives with substantial leisure time are symbols of success and wealth. Therefore. class and work (especially market activities) are inversely related. Where sexual purity is important girls are likely to be prohibited from attending school. and women are likely to be restricted from work activities which put them at risk of social contact with men. Women may. however. work long hours in "protected" environments. e.g. the home. the compound or sexually segregated enterprises. 2.2.10 Summary This section has provided an overview of women’s agricultural roles in LDC’s. and suggested a number of variables that influence the supply of labor over the agricultural season. Women’s significant contribution 30 to agricultural production has been substantiated and patterns have emerged which can provide insights for systems analyses. predictions. and policy prescriptions. The season influences the total hours worked and the kinds of activities women engage in. Religion restricts women’s participation in some specific activities. but not necessarily the hours they work. Class dictates not only the types of tasks but the amount time a women can or ought to work. (In studying a system. it is important to note that religion and class not only influence the work activities of the subjects. but also the perceptions of the researchers. technicians and decision-makers.) Hale out-migration tends to increase women's burden and expand their responsibilities to include men's traditional tasks. Technology is not generally introduced to women. When technology is labor-saving or possesses a substantial capital component. it is customarily introduced to men. therefore. frequently displacing women. Technology generally does not possess a sex-bias by design. but the methods by which it is introduced often do. Commercialization of agriculture can reduce women's work if the new cash-crops were previously cultivated as subsistence crops that were the sole responsibity of women. and if men contribute more labor to the production of these crops. Alternatively. women’s workload can be reduced or can remain constant if labor-saving technology is introduced for women in conJunction with the increase in demand for female labor in cash crop production. If a new crop variety is introduced and women are expected to work both their husbands’ and their own plots. their work load is likely increase considerably. If the education of children influences the work of women. it usually increases their burden. 31 Although these relationships generally hold throughout the literature. they are in no way meant to be considered universal or immutable. They have been included here to provide a reference point for further development of a new framework for female-farmers and food crop production in general. In the following sections. a review of theoretical concepts will determine whether or not sufficient analytical tools exist which allow for effective formulation of research and policy either directed at or including female farmers working within a semisubsistence agricultural systems. CHAPTER THREE CONCEPTUAL ISSUES 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Defining a Conceptual Framework for Semi-Subsistence Farms A conceptual framework is 1) a theory that links elements of a system and explains or describes how that system operates. and 2) a tool that simplifies research. analyses and prescriptions by organizing in some meaningful way. the pro-existing work of other researchers. analysts and policy-makers. The nature and complexity of a framework will vary directly with the nature and complexity of the problem and system studied. Starting with a micro-level perspective. an analysis of the food security issue would require a framework that discribed small-scale. semisubsistence farms and focused. perhaps. on increasing and/or stablizing the production of. and demand for food with concomitant efforts directed at insuring availability of food in the local markets. Specifically. for production augmentation schemes. family consumption requirements. production alternatives for the farmer and principles of farm decision-making would warrant special attention. With these objectives in mind. an analysis of several primary elements of the farm system would undoubtedly be included. The following list presents basic questions concerning three primary elements of a production system. i.e. outputs. inputs. and the decision-maker. which need to be addressed in order to develop an analytical framework of semisubsistence agriculture. 32 33 Outputs: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is produced? How much of each product or service is produced? What is the value of that produced? How is the product or service used. i.e. for commercial or subsistence purposes? Inputs: 1. 2. 3. 4. What factors (resources) are available? How much of each factor is available? What is the value of each factor? What are the alternative uses of each factor? a. Who are the producers (laborers)? b. Do producers have other responsibilities? c. Do producers have time or energy constraints? The decision-maker(s): 1. 2. 7. Is the decision-maker(s) the producer(s)? Who makes the following production decisions? a. What and how much is produced. b. What inputs are used. c. What technology is employed. Who decides what and how much is sold? Who decides. and how are. the proceeds from the sale of products or services distributed? Who decides how the product or service is consumed and who consumes it. the producer(s)? _ Does(do) the decision-maker(s) have(has) other responsibilities? What are the (objectives) of the dacision-makar(s)? a. Haximization of profits? b. Haximization of consumption? c. Haximization of output? d. Haximization of nutrition or basic needs? a. Highest yields? f. Tradition? 9. Other. What are the decision-makers’ perceived constraints? This list of basic questions will provide a reference from which models of the semisubsistence agriculture can be evaluated. In part. the extent to which a given model addresses these questions indicates how useful the model is. 3.1.2 The Classical Nodal of the Family Farm The classic model of the small-scale. family farm envisions the family unit and the production unit as one. Generally. the identified ”head of the household“ will also be considered the “farmer“ and the 34 “decision-maker." When consumption decisions are made. the family aims to maximize Joint utility. and when production decisions are made. the family aims to maximize profits. Because the model assumes that family members possess similar or identical tastes and preferences. the decisions of the head of the household are said to also represent the decisions of the family as a whole. This conceptualization of the family farm is based in neoclassical economics. which is implicitly based on western societies and specifically on “the theory of the firm." This kind of analysis is convenient in that it standardizes both theory and methodology. simplifies the model of the farm and permits easy integration of farm studies with other economic studies. Nevertheless. it neither provides an accurate representation of semisubsistence farms. or generates sufficient analytic tools for understanding decision-making processes. Among some of the obvious limitations of this classic model are the following. Wives of polygynous marriages may manage distant and economically independent farms linked only through a common migratory husband. Typically. however. all members of a polygynous marriage are classified as one family with the husband listed as the head of the household. Under such circumstances. it is difficult to imagine that this migratory head of household is the farmer and decision-maker as well. Throughout much of Africa. women. not men. are responsible for providing their children with food. In such a case. it is unlikely that men and women will have identical preferences. Therefore. the head of households’ decisions will not reflect those the women would otherwise make. The classic model of the farm family does not address intra- household. or inter-household. dynamics. With respect to the above list 35 of basic questions. this model ignores most of the components of the decision-maker element. (More information concerning neoclassical economic theory is contained in section 3.2.2). As stated previously. a presupposition of this paper is that a better understanding of subsistence production system. and specifically women’s contribution to this system. needs to be developed to institute effective and consistent policy that will at increase and stabilize food crop production. What is needed is a framework that is specific to small-scale. semisubsistence agriculture and that encompasses the full system. allowing for analysis of both activities (farm enterprises) and institutions. Presently. such a framework does not exist. nor will this thesis present one. Instead. the next section of the thesis will critique some concepts and standard practices. and introduce and discuss alternatives. Specifically. the following section will consider two issues: 1) What is production and how is it measured. and 2) What is a household and how useful is it as a unit of study. Suggestions concerning appropriate definitions of production and the unit of study will be provided. 3.2 Production 3.2.1 Definition The concept of production has undergone a historical evolution. starting with a narrow market definition and progressively including more non-market activities and new classifications of work (part-time. unpaid. etc.). Standard statistical practices follow the International Labour Office guidelines and define production in terms of National Income Accounts. i.e. that which increases national income. Consequently. production is limited to goods and services exchanged in 36 the market. National censuses typically count only “economically active" individuals. that is. people who work for pay or profit or who are actively seeking employment during a specific period of time; usually a day or a week prior to the census (Ladipo. 1981:11). Some censuses require a person to have worked at least 15 hours during the prior two weeks in order to qualify as active (Baneria. 1981:13). Because these definitions exclude a variety of producers. national production is underestimated. Excluded from these statistics are: 1) family based production. 2) subsistence production. 3) seasonal or cyclical employment. 4) variable work day production. and 5) separate enumeration of multiple tasks performed simultaneously. For a Third World country. these omissions could represent over half of the total production: here the term total refers to formal and informal as well as market and non- market production. To portray production activities of Third World countries more accurately. national and international data collecting agencies have been establishing new standardized classifications of work over the past several decades. The "gainful worker approach” incorporates sporadic and seasonal workers by classifying people according to their ”...usual activity over the past year“ (Ladipo. 1981:11). "Unpaid family labor" refers to a person who contributes at least one-third of his or her normal work hours to non-domestic activities. in an economic enterprise operated by a family member (Boulding. 1983:288). Underlying all of the above definitions of production is the market. Only financially remunerated work. or activities that directly contribute to the creation of marketed output. are included in 37 production. According to such definitions. the added value derived fron the transformation of kerite nuts to shea butter (a marketed good) is production. whereas added value derived from the transformation of grain to flour for home consumption is not. Alternative definitions of production that account for non-market activities exist but. with the exception of that of the United Nations' Food adn Agriucltural Organization (FAO). are rarely utilized for national or international data collection. Regional. micro-level. farm budget and single commodity studies as well as some agriculture censuses are more inclined to incorporate those activities missed by the National Census. The “marketable good approach” encompasses both goods that could be marketed. although for some reason they are not. and the labor used to produce these goods (Baneria. 1981:19). This definition. however. still excludes those goods and services for which there are no markets. According to FAO’s work or production includes: ...feeding and caring for livestock and poultry: working in the field: working in the market or kitchen gardens: planning farm work: supervising other agricultural workers: keeping farm records; taking farm products to market: bringing feed. fertilizer or other supplies from town to the holding; repairing fences. farm equip- ment. machinery. etc. (UNFAO. 1977:45). Although the FAO approach includes some non-market services for which typically no markets exist. e.g. transportation of inputs and outputs. repairs. farm record keeping. there are a number of services are still excluded such as storage and processing. "Home production.“ on the other hand. includes all non-market activities and things which yield utility. Home production. according to Reid. is all unpaid activities undertaken by and for the members of a 38 household that might be replaced by market goods or services if circumstances such as income. market conditions and personal inclinations delegate them to someone outside the household Nelson. 1979:35). This definition eliminates the strict economic separation of both production and consumption and work and leisure. while it allows for the incorporation of a wide range of activities which contribute to people's well being. Table 5 provides a summary of which production activities each definition incapsulates. Table 5 Summary of Prggugtion Activigigg Inggpogated in nggpction Definitigns Economically Unpaid Harketable FAO Home active family output production labor W X unrenummerated family labor in commercial agtivitigg X X X unrenummerated family labor in potentially commercial aggivigies X X X unrenummerated family labor in activities with no com- mercial outlet X source: compiled by the author. 39 3.2.2 Policy Objectives and Relevant Definitions Through the determination of which aspects of the economy are counted and what kind of data is collected. the selection of production definitions modifies information. and therefore. profoundly effects the work of researchers. analysts and policy-makers. With respect to the definitions discussed above. i.e. economically active. unpaid family labor. marketable output. FAO and home production. a few useful observations can be made. Starting with economically active. each definition incorporates more non-market activities than the definition which preceded it. In addition. the definitions include progressively more activities which contribute to people’s welfare or standard of living. Finally. the definitions provide a progressively boarder view of resource use. indicating which resources are fully employed. underemployed. overemployad. mobile. etc. Economically active is the most limiting definition. With the introduction of an unpaid family labor category. there is a tremendous increase in the female participation rate. This increase of course depends on the country or region as can be seen in Table 6. For countries with high rates of unpaid family labor. a simple definition like economically active does not provide sufficient information about the work women perform. Seasonal labor bottlenecks and inelastic demands for labor in certain critical activities. especially women's. are likely to be overlooked. Data collected using the marketable goods approach would include field level and livestock activities associated with subsistence production. and FAO agricultural censuses would capture some additional 40 Table 6 Incidence of Unpgig family Labor Region 8 of females who are unpaid family labor High Low Sub-Saharan Africa 76 (Liberia) 33 (Botswana) South/Southeast Asia 69 (Rep. of Korea) 21 (India) Latin America 70 (Puerto Rico) 10 (Nicaragua. Honduras. Guatemala. Costa Rica) Source: Youssef. Nadia H. (1980). "Sex-Related Biases in Census Counts: The Question of Women's Exclusion From Employment Statis- ticm“ In ICRW- (1980» W Eyggggmg: Women’g Iggugg. Washington. D.C.. ICRW:10). services. Nevertheless. processing for home consumption. water and firewood collection. food preparation. home construction and repairs. and production of handicrafts or food crops that do not have available markets would all be excluded. Only with inclusion of home production is the full range of non-market production and women's contribution really understood. To clarify the type of influence that these definitions have on research and policy. a brief discussion concerning the appropriateness of production data with respect to two common policy objectives is presented below. The objectives are as follows: 1) poverty relief and improving the standard of living of the rural poor. and 2) enhancing agricultural production for improvements in micro-level food security. As part of the efforts to alleviate poverty and improve the standard of living of the rural poor. policy-makers frequently attempt to target sectors of the economy where there is a great deal of unemployment and underemployment. Policy formulated from data collected using market oriented definitions of production. however. will not necessarily reflect the society’s needs. and people may be unresponsive 41 to employment generation schemes if they are already engaged in purposeful activities. To determine target groups and the standard of living of rural inhabitants. it is necessary to establish what people produce for home consumption as well as what is they acquire through the market. The distribution between market and non-market production will depend on the stage of development. the reliability of markets for specific necessities. the orientation of government spending and the competitiveness of rural based production as well as other factors. If there are markets for the majority of the goods and services. the marketable goods approach can provide a significant portion of the information needed. But. health care. water. home construction and repair. informal education. child care. and many other activities performed by women and contributing to the welfare of rural inhabitants in LDC's are not found in the market. To account for these activities. the home production approach needs to be employed. For Third World countries with substantial non-market activity. these measures that capture only market activities can be highly inappropriate. Statistics from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicate that subsistence production not counted in GNP represented 208 of GNP for 408 of the 48 Third World countries for which data were collected in the 1970’s (Garabaghi. 1983:673). The greater the proportion of activities taking place outside the market. the greater the underestimation of both total production and the degree of participation of various groups. The second policy objective. increasing food production and improving food security. requires a substantial amount of production 42 data. The unpaid family labor approach will most likely neglect or underestimate the production from subsistence plots cultivated by women. Extension. marketing and technology transfer programs designed from data collected according to this definition. are apt to exclude subsistence plots. The result may be to counteract the food security objective. promoting production for consumption needs outside the production area (e.g. urban areas or overseas) and applying additional stress on production of local food. The marketable goods approach will count most subsistence agricultural production. and identify family labor use in these activities. It will fail to identify. however. many of the constraints facing producers. Female producers have time and energy constraints associated with their responsiblities for other tasks such as livestock maintenance. marketing. processing and preparation of meals. etc. Harketing and livestock tasks might be identified because of the relation or potential relation to the market. while the other activities will probably not be identified. Given this limitation. programs to expand the amount of land under cultivation. to improve yields through intensification of family labor use (e.g. introduction of fertilizer). to relocate production to more distant fields or new regions. or to transfer male producers to wage employment are apt to fail or be less effective. In addition. information gathered by the marketable goods approach does not cover distribution of food within the household. or explain decisions concerning whether or not a particular food product will be marketed. The home production approach would be helpful given the need for such information. 43 What has become apparent through these two examples is that the use of the concept of home production should be more fully explored and extensively employed. Three basic characteristics of home production make it an attractive tool. First. it provides a thorough description of resource use. It identifies the multitude of enterprises within a farm system and establishes their interdependencies. e.g. input competition and vertical integration. Time allocation studies. commonly used with this approach. indicate the degree of flexibility and transitivity of labor. This approach also draws attention to women’s contribution. Second. incorporation of home production can elicit the interaction between market and non-market production. It is possible to identify some of the variables which cause rural people to produce for the market rather than for the home. Production for the market is synonymous with surplus production. Therefore. this method may lead to identification of variables through which policy-makers can influence the creation of surplus and contribute to the food security objective. Finally. the home production approach expands the definition of economic production beyond economic growth and capital accumulation. It includes those goods and services which contribute to people’s well being and improve their standard of living. 3.2.3 Theories of Home Production Neoclassical theory was developed to interpret Western industrialized economic systems. It does not specifically explain non- market activities. home production or semisubsistence economies of LDC’s. Instead. the theory was simply extended to incorporate these activities. Originally. the household was explored with the intention of identifying the causes of female labor movements between the household 44 and formal. market employment. Later. when interest developed in quantifying domestic production. application of neoclassical theory branched into time allocation studies. estimation of the market value of output and fertility analyses (Baneria. 1982:130). The neoclassical criteria for determination of what types of production activities. i.e. creation of time. space and form utility. are economic is rooted in mercantilist philosophy. The mercantilists were concerned with that which contributed to capital accumulation and growth (Deane. 1978 and Fusfeld. 1977). Hence. production that occurs within or for the market is considered economic activity. and its exchange value. or price. becomes the measure of worth of that specific good or service (Baneria. 1981:16). On the other hand. production undertaken within the household. for household use. is not classified as an economic activity even though utility is derived from these goods and services. In fact. production within a household is often referred to as consumption because activities are undertaken for immediate consumption without any direct relation to capital or capital accumulation (Baneria. 1982:131). According to neoclassical theory. the classification of an activity as economic or non-economic determines whether the creation of time. space and form utility is production or consumption respectively. And. an activity is classified as economic if it is linked to the market. Therefore. food prepared in a restaurant is considered economic production. while that produced within the home is consumption. Industrial processing of agricultural output is also economic production. while the threshing and grinding of grain or the churning of milk to butter by Third World rural women is not. 45 Some obvious problems exist with this perspective are as follows. First. a classification of production that is limited to the market. may better reflect the stage of economic development of a specific economy or geographic area than identify those activities which contribute to the creation of utility. Second. if only a small portion of the total output of a given economic system is exchanged in the market. the prevailing market prices may not accurately reflect the supply and demand conditions of the various goods and services produced. Finally. although exchange values reflect the usefulness and the scarcity of a good or service. they also assume a given distribution of property rights both among and within households. Neoclassical theory is. nevertheless. oriented toward problem solving. Consequently. the theory provides some tools for policy prescription. It also allows for quantitative analyses of the market components of a system as well as limited extrapolation to various non- market elements. Like neoclassical theory. marxist and feminist theory are oriented toward western industrialized societies. Both marxist and feminist analyses of women’s economic role have focused on unpaid household production. For both. women's roles in reproduction and in the daily maintenance of the labor force is central (Beneria. 1982:130). Home production is seen to be linked to capitalist accumulation because it reduces the cost of labor used in commodity production. In addition. women in the home act as a reserve army of labor. thereby alleviating the upward pressure of wages under an otherwise limited labor supply. For the most part. marxist analyses of development have emphasized macro-economic elements and relationships. e.g. Samir Amin. Paul Baran. 46 Andre Gunder Frank. Celso Furtado. Walter Rodney and others. Feminists. in contrast. have focused on the history. causes. functions and effects of women’s oppression (Haquire. 1984). Neither analyses address women as producers in their own right with responsibilities and objectives of their own. Both Harxists and Feminists do. however. argue that the present distribution of income and wealth. institutions and the social relations of work and exchange are crucial to analyses of production systems. Altough their theories lack the analytical tools or have not been sufficiently refined to provide concrete policy prescription. the discriptions of economic systems and the links between various components of these systems are both thorough and highly sufficiated. The above discussion identifies a few strengths and weaknesses in the existing theoretic frameworks. Although each theory contributions important information to the analysis of semisubsistence agricultural production. both overlook critical components of the system. In order to assist research and improve policy prescriptions. there are a number of key issues that need to be addressed regarding semisubsistence production. and specifically female-farmers working within this type of system. First. production definitions need to be broadened to incorporate home production. Exclusion of these activities renders the economic analysis incomplete. particularly when a large share of the production activity takes place outside the market. In addition. the concept of exchange must be extended to encompass two distinct yet interrelated levels of exchange: interhousehold. whether market or nonmarket. and intrahousehold. The intrahousehold level of exchange includes distribution and decision-making within the household. 47 identifying decision-making characterists unique to specific members. Third. theoretic frameworkd need to be expanded to include endogenous institutional variables. Finally. theory and analytical tools must be developed to deal with a broad concept of human well being; one which extends beyond commodity production and the identification of individuals’ preferences solely through market responses. 3.2.4 Valuation of Home Production Related to the problem of accounting for production activities is the selection of appropriate methods for the valuation of goods and services. The selection is critical in that a given task or output will receive policy emphasis in direct proportion to its assigned value. The techniques typically employed can be separated into output and input methods. 3.2.4.1 Output Approaches The search for a output valuation method usually begins with market prices: the price of a good. its price in a nearby market if a market does not exist locally. or the price of a substitute in either consumption or production. e.g. wheat and rice may be substitutes in consumption but generally not in production. while wheat and corn are often both production and consumption substitutes (Gittinger. 1982). The substitute commodity chosen will depend on the perspective of the individual consumer or producer. Unfortunately. in the case of semisubsistence production. where the individual is commonly both. identification of the appropriate price is often ambiguous. Harket price evaluation methods also apply to services. Certain positions. however. such as domestics. clerical workers and office managers encompass a set of services. which render the identification of 48 distinct outputs difficult or impossible. Under such circumstances. there are two basic approaches used: global replacement and related consumer expenditures (Goldschmidt-Clermont. 1982:5). The global approach would entail identifying alternative sources of the same set of services. For example. the value of a domestic servant who cooks. cleans. launders. processes food. gardens. shops and watches over children and the household may approximate much of the home production of women. Alternatively. valuation according to the expenditure approach would sum all costs of services as though they were executed independently. e.g. specific meal costs. processing costs. day care expenses. etc. There are a number of problems associated with these output methods. Both approaches assume that market and home production employ similar technology. and that their outputs are of equal quality. In addition. if there are nearby. but no local. markets. it is logical to assume that the supply and demand conditions vary in the different areas. Therefore. prices in the nearby market do not necessarily reflect the local valuation of production. Finally. the related consumer expenditure approach assumes that specialization exists for all tasks. which is very unlikely in most LDC’s. and that there are no gains accrue from specialization. and that the quantity produced would be the same whether the price were paid to someone else or ones self. 3.2.4.2 Input Approaches Nethods of input valuation are frequently employed to impute the value of home production. Input valuation methods are based on the assumption that the value of a good or service can be derived from its cost of production (Deane. 19778:27). For a semisubsistence economy. 49 labor is generally the maJor contributing factor of production. Therefore. the imput methods discussed here will focus on labor inputs. These methods also rely heavily on the market for information concerning the value of labor inputs. i.e. wages. An appropriate wage is generally chosen from among the wages of substitute workers. workers with either similar market functions or Job qualifications. and the average market worker. or one equivalent to the summation of in kind. non-cash benefits received by home producers (Goldschmidt-Clermont. 1982:5). All of these methods assume equal productivity between home and market production. However. the neoclassical principle of specialization suggests that the specialized market substitute has a higher marginal product than the unspecialized home producer (Ferguson and Gould. 1975:208). Other researchers in the field of domestic production argue that the home producer’s output is greater and of higher quality than that of a hired substitute (Goldschmidt-Clermont. 1982:14). In addition. it is inappropriate to assume that a household could afford or manage the entire specialized staff required to substitute for all home production activities. Another important limitation of market valuations of home production is that only the monetary value of work is captured in the measure. The substantial difference in emotional and social rewards to home producers. on the one hand. and market workers who provide family services through the market. on the other hand. is ignored or assumed negliable or limited analytical significance. An alternative approach to input valuation is to measure the opportunity costs of labor. i.e. the benefits derived from the next best alternative that are forgone because of participation in the present activity (Brown. 1979:59). This approach. unlike those mentioned above. 50 does not attempt to identify a source of direct valuation of the production activities in question. Instead. it assumes that an activity presently undertaken is at least as valuable as the next alternative. otherwise. it would not be undertaken. The opportunity cost of labor is generally determined by one of the following two methods: the "forgone market wage” or the “forgone output approach.“ The forgone market wage approach is based on the theory that in equilibrium the value of the last unit of market time is equal to the last unit of non-market time. The validity of this approach rests on four assumptions: 1) the laborer follows rational utility maximizing behavior. 2) the laborer is well informed. i.e. there is perfect information. 3) the laborer makes choices in a perfectly competitive market. and 4) equilibrium conditions are actually reached (Goldschmidt- Clermont. 1982:23). The fulfillment of these assumptions. specifically the perfect information requirement. is unlikely for the semisubsistence sector of a LDC. Also. there are frequently rigidities in time allocation and a person is unable to make marginal shifts between market and non-market activities. Employers generally establish a minimum level of work hours. Even if the assumptions were fulfilled. the earning capacities of different home producers. based on the their skill level. might be completely different. Consequently. valuation of a given task such as weeding would vary directly with different women’s potential market wage rates even though these wage rates do not reflect the women’s weeding productivity. In addition. seasonal fluctuations in the wage rate resulting from a seasonal demand for labor. government wage regulations and market imperfections may all cause the wage rate to deviate from the 51 marginal value of labor. Under these circumstances. the market wage rate would not be an appropriate measure of the value of labor inputs (Gittinger. 1982). Deriving the value of a productive activity via the output forgone approach requires the determination of either the marginal value of the specific production agent. i.e. labor (Vincent. 1962). or the marginal returns to the larger family farm unit (Brown. 1979:62). The concept of marginal value product (HVP) is based on the “Theory of the Firm." (For information concerning the derivation of the HVP of a factor. see Chaing. Hirshleifer or Vincent). 3.2.4.3 Conversion Factors One final method employed to value labor imputs to production is the application of conversion factors. Conversion factors transform one type of labor into some fixed scalor of another. Establishing one type of labor as the numeraire allows for comparisions among and aggregations over the entire array of labor imputs of a system. For example. Rapeepun Sektheera chose men as the numeraire for her study of family resource allocation in Northern Thailand. and assigned factors of .72 and .6 to women and children respectively. She found that women’s labor accounted for 478 of crop production and 388 of total production (Sektheera. 1979:236). Chinese and Vietnamese convention has established a weight of .6 for women (Garrett. 1982:48). while the Lilongwe Land Development Program (LLDP) used .67 as the man unit equivalent for women over 13 years old (Rogers. 1980:71). The Upper Volta Authority (AVV) used a weight of .75 for adult women. and sexually differentiated weights for both the elderly (over 55 years old: men =.5 and women =.25) and 52 children (between 12 and 15: boys =.5 and girls 3.25) (Gladwin. et al. 1984:30). Atayl and Kanipscheer employed “...the following arbitary weights” (Atayi and Knipsheer. 1980:43): Hen 19 years and older (numeraire) = Women 19 years and older a Hen under 19 I .75 Women under 19 8 .5 Children under 15 8 2 OOOHH 5 W.Y. Yang attempted to standardize conversion factors assigning weights of 1 for men. .8 for women and .5 for children (Brown. 1979:52). The conversion factor approach implicitly assumes that there is greater variation in productivity among age and sex groups than there is within these groups. There is no specific evidence. however. to warrant such an assumption. The assignment of weights for the most part is arbitary. Experience throughout the world has shown that it is a fallacy to assume that a woman’s effective output is always less than a man’s. Besides. work assignments on the farm are highly specialized. Some Jobs are assigned to women not merely because they are ” a women’s work” in the derogatory sense. but because a woman’s productive capacity at such Jobs has proved to be greater than a man’s (Brown. 1979:53). More appropriately. the actual hours worked by different people should be used. Dunstan Spencer suggests that all adults should be given a weight of 1. and children between the ages of 7 and 15 should be given a. weight of .5 (Spensor. 1977). If this set of factors had been used in Sektheera’s study. women’s contribution would have increased to 658 for crop production and 538 overall. LLDP records reduced the female labor force from 1.057 to 708 through the use of the .67 conversion factor mentioned above. Since the male labor force totaled 802. the use of the conversion factor changed 53 the dominant labor force participants from women (totaling 1.057) to men (totaling 802) (Rogers. 1980:71). It is important to recognize that these arbitary weights. which discriminate between male and female labor. have been employed in a large portion of the existing studies. Should labor input figures of these studies be re-estimated using Spencer’s method. women’s contribution and productivity would undoubtedly increase significantly. enhancing the value of their contribution to production. It is quite possible that as the recognition of women’s contribution to agricutlural production increases. research and policy efforts may place greater emphasis on women as producers or economic agents. reflecting the proportionate contributions of both men and women. 3.3 The Household As a Unit of Study 3.3.1 Household Hodels There is always a subject to which research and policy is directed. This subject is referred to as “the unit of study". and for small-scale agricultural research and programs. the unit generally is the family farm or “household.” The collectivization of the target population into household groups. and the subsequent designation of a group member as the "head of the household.“ reduces the extent of data collection and communication required of researchers and policy agents. Although this procedure simplifies analyses and policy implementation. it can frequently misrepresent the actual production system. rendering analyses inaccurate and policies inoperable. Standardized definitions of the household or household head are often incongruent with the realities of the target population (see Yanagisako for a review of household definitions). 54 Jane Guyer suggests that there are two basic models of the household: 1) the corporate unit. which is comprised of a lineal group legally bound together by collective ownership. responsibility and representation. and 2) the immediate unit based on co-residence. production and consumption (Guyer. 1981:5). The standard definition of the household. based on the Eur-Asian social context where religious. legal. ideological and tax units share consonant boundaries. encapsulates both of these units. Similarly. the neoclassical family farm model (the classical model discussed earlier) focuses on the intricacies of commodity flows. and attempts to explain the interdependence among production. consumption. budgetary and investment units within a farm system. The household is considered a decision-making unit. which is directed by the head. and determines the desirable level of labor inputs in accordance with “a household preference for leisure and commodities" (Guyer. 1980:2). According to farming systems research guidelines. the household: ...comprises the farmer and other members of the family. is both a consuming and producing unit. and is a social organization. Households are often under the management of a single person. but sometimes operate collectively. Hembers normally live and sleep in the same place. share meals and divide household duties (Shaner. et al. 1982: 214). The theory which integrates production and consumption economics is referred to as "new household economics" (Guyer. 1981:98). Chayanov developed a slightly different model of the family farm (Hunt. 1979: Thorner. et al. 1966 and Dixon. 1982s). He claimed that the household is a self-contained unit of production and consumption. relying solely on its own labor power. The household’s demographic structure. measured by the dependency ratio. changes through time. 55 Consequently. the intensity of production alters in order to maintain a specific level of consumption. Alternatively. SanJek defines a household strictly in terms of co- residence. He states that a household is a: ...group which occupies the same staging area for social life...the set of persons (or the person) who sleep. store possessions. and refurbish themselves in the same rooms...(SanJek. 1982:81). This definition is based on his observation that production and consumption frequently take place in different locations. All of the above models. with the exception of SanJek’s. assume that resident. production and consumption units all have consonant boundaries. Polly Hill. however. claims that husbands and wives in West Africa seldom work together in the same production activity (Guyer. 1980:5). Household land of central Burkina Faso can be divided into separate categories according to who is responsible for cultivation of specific fields. Twenty-one percent of the land is cultivated by women. 128 by men. and the remaining 678 is cultivated Jointly (Gladwin. at al. 1984:6). Gladwin and Almy suggest that: ...farming households in many African societies should be characterized as farm firms with overlapping but semiautonomous production and consumption units within the firm (Gladwin and Almy. 1984:16). This observation is consistent with the virilocal residency pattern of Kenya. Each wife is given a field and a certain number of livestock. Because the resources belong to their common husband. and therefore the women are all under his Jurisdiction. their separate households act as subunits of one grand household headed by their husband (Barnes. 1983:44). In Africa. households have more than one decision-maker. Men and 56 women often have distinct ownership and inheritance rights. they work in different economic spheres. and manage their own personal incomes. Among the Yoruba and the Hausa. for example. women and men do not share a common budget (Guyer. 1980:4). Norman and Simmons found that Hausa men and women had different sources of income. different patterns of income expenditure and little knowledge of one another’s financial matters (Guyer. 1981:17) . Guyer points out that Ashanti men and women have separate homes and separate businesses. although they share consumption in that the woman send prepared food to their husbands each night (Guyer. 1981:6). Even according to SanJek’s co-residence definition. it is difficult to define a household because people are extremely mobile across residences (Guyer. 1980:5). 3.3.2 The Concept of Household Head The title “head of household” normally confers to the designated individual the responsibilities of spokesperson. guardian and manager of all other members. This prototypic head of household. however. may be inconsistent with the socio-economic structures of the study group. Furthermore. ambiguous and/or restrictive definitions hinder the identification of the real head of the household or head of specific activities. According to the U.N.. "The head of household is that person designated as such by household members.“ In the 1970 Brazilian Census the head was defined: "...that person responsible for the family" (Buvinic and Sebstad. 1980:39). Neither of these definitions explicitly states the reponsibilities of the household head. Thus a slightly more explicit alternative definition is to designate the head of the 57 Table 7 Household eaded b Women Locatigg Port n o otal households (8) Source Africa Botswana (overall) 46 125 (some villages) 80 216.56 Chad 24 41.92 Congo 21.3 41.92 Gabon 20 41.92 Ghana (overall) 33 171.90 (rural Eastern) 40 216.57 (Southeast) 50 139.34 (Tsito) 41.9 37.111 Kenya (overall) 31 139.34 (parts) 40 125 (rural) 33 171.90 Halawi 75 40.9 Heli 17 41.90 Horocco 21.8 41.90 Nozambique 25.2 41.93 Lesotho >30 46.5 South Africa (rural) 71 179.9 Swaziland 71 179.9 Tanzania 51.1 31.38 Togo 20.2 41.93 Uganda 20.3 41.93 Zambia 47 23.7 Asia India 18 125 Indonesia 23 41.93 Iran 15 125 Vietnam 24.6 41.92 Latin America Barbados 41 41.99 Belize 24 41.99 Chile 32 41.87 Colombia 25 41.87 Costa Rica 16.4 41.10 Dominica 43 41.99 El Salvador 29-45 64.4 Grenada 46 41.99 Honduras 26 41.87 Jamaica (overall) 35 53.11 (Kingston area) >50 53.11 Panama 40 41.87 Venezuela 25 41.11 Virgin Islands 37 41.11 Central America 20 41.39 South America 15 41.39 Sub-Saharan Africa 22 41.39 nglg Averagg 425-30 40.40 Source: numbers correspond to bibliographic source and page number. 58 household as: ...that person who generally provides the chief source of income for the household unit. or who is regarded as such by other household members (Buyinic an Sebstad. 1980:39). The problem with this definition is that men are expected to provide for their families whether or not they actually do. Therefore. despite the fact that women are increasingly becoming the de facto heads of households with full responsibility for their children. men are often still regarded as the head of the household (UNESCO. 1981:11). Table 7 includes estimates of the extent of female headed households throughout the world. An estimated 25-338 of all households are headed by women (Butler. 1979:11). Figures extracted from Buvinic's study (source number 41). exclude households headed by women due to male marginality. abandonment. or male seasonal migration because: "the marital union is often considered intact" (Buvinic. 1978:37). Buvinic’s estimates should not be compared with those of other sources. espeCialiy where migration or polygyny are dominant contributory factors. e.g. Botswana. Malawi or Ghana. 3.3.3 Factors Contributing to the Incidence of Female Headed Households A review of the literature suggests that there five factors that contribute to the high and/or increasing incidence of female headed households in LDC’s: migration. urbanization. polygyny. instabie mating patterns and dissolution of marriages through divorce. abandonment or widowhood. The high rate of male out-migration from rural villages to distant mines. plantations and urban centers is a maJor cause of the high incidence of female headed households. especially in Southern Africa. 59 About one third of all adult Nalawian males live outside the country (UNECA. 1975:56). They are largely seeking employment in South African mines along with men from Hozambique. Swaziland and Lesotho; approximately one half to two thirds of adult men of Lesotho work in the mines (Uphoff. et al. 1979 and Gordon. 1981). The extensive migration of men to urban areas and South Africa has resuldted in a rate of female headed households in rural Swaziland of 718 (Safilios-Rothschild. 1981:9). In Tanzania and Hozambique. men migrate to plantations. leaving their families behind and often providing no support in the form of a remittance (AnandaJayasekeram. et al. 1981:70). Similarly. male seasonal laborers from Burkina Faso. Nali and Guinea migrate to the mines and plantations of Ghana. Ivory Coast and Nigeria (Sudarkasa. 1977:180). Female headed households also result from the migration of women. In Latin America. women migrate to urban centers at a higher rate than men (Buvinic. 1978:79). Exclusion of women from plantation wage employment. increasing scarcity of available land for subsistence production (e.g. the minifundio) and opportunities for employment as wage laborers in the urban tertiary sector or as informal domestic servants all provide incentives for women to migrate to urban centers. frequently with their children and without their husbands. Women of Ethiopia. Tanzania and Hadagascar also migrate at a higher rate than men (UNECA. 1975:56). Yoruba and Igbo women of southern Nigeria. Ewe of Togo and Ghanaian women actively participate in long distance international trade (Sudarkasa. 1977:183). In contrast to Latin American women who migrate due to resent developments in urban employment. West African women’s primary motive for migration. and their consequent independence. is their traditional role in international 60 trade. "Nontraditional“ mating patterns also influence the extent of female headed households. In the Caribbean. the cohabitation of men and women is frequently established on a noncommittal and/or irregular basis. However. children are customarily the responsibility of women (Buvinic. 1978:6). Two common female household structures found in Latin America are: 1) the matrifocal unit in which a woman and her children work collectively. and 2) the "queen bee” unit. which is comprised of one woman who acts as the head and the housekeeper. her single working daughters and their children (Buvinic and Sebstad. 1980:41). In Africa. several women often form collective households. and independent female householders have long existed in many areas. In the Buganda region of Uganda. women set up independent households because they are divorced. widowed. deserted. or ”...simply tired of being married“ (Obbo. 1980:88). Finally. polygyny is a common cause of the high incidence of female-headed households in Africa. Although not all polygynous marriages result in separate households for each wife. many do. Figures from several African countries that illustrate the large percentage of female-headed households resulting from polygynous marriages are as follows: Nigeria. 638; Uganda. 458; Sierra Leone. 518: and Senegal. 21- 248 (Boulding. 1975a:122). 3.3.4 Household Heads as Financial Providers The western concept of the family consisting of one head of the household. usually a man. who is both the main economic provider and the ultimate authority is frequently an unsuitable model of the family in 61 Colombia. Costa Rica. Nexico and Venezuela revealed that their incomes amounted to 508 of the total family income (Youssef. 1980:25). A World Bank study found that women of Nepal contribute 508 of the total household income and 548 of the home production (Acharya and Bennett. 1983:43). Surveys of rural families in Botswana. Burkina Faso and Burundi showed that women work longer hours than men. and that the economic value of home production activities of women and children contribute significantly more to the family income than men’s own income (UNESCO. 1981:10). Other surveys of Yoruba families revealed that one third of the women did not receive financial support from their husbands. and in Swaziland only two thirds of the women with migratory husbands received a regular cash remittance (Carr. 1980:5). Furthermore. Fion de Vietter found that: In fact. women farmers often end up supporting their city-based husbands in the form of sending farm produce to them (Carr. 1980:5). Interviews with Beti families of Cameroon showed that 808 of the value of food and beverages consumed by the household were produced within the home (Guyer. 1980:9). Throughout much of Africa and in certain matrilineal societies of Southeast Asia. women have exclusive responsibility for the welfare of their children. and are expected to feed the children. their husbands as well as themselves (ICRW. 1980a:5 and Barnes. 1983:44). Within Africa. women are generally expected to provide for the daily maintenance of the family. while men contribute to the maturation of children. i.e. their education. initiations and marriages (Guyer. 1980). This pattern is illustrated by both Beti women’s intensification of production under the traditional system and Genieri women’s initiation of rice cultivation 62 following their menfolk’s switch from grain to groundnut production. both are strategies for maintaining family food supplies (Guyer. 1984:33). Day’s study of the Gambia illustrates a common pattern of African household expenditures (Day. 1981:112). Women pay for all production inputs for their fields. purchase cooking condiments. medicines. household utensils. personal needs such as perfume. and contribute their labor to reciprocal work groups. They also purchase Jewelry for their daughters and make contributions to their dowries. Han and women buy their own clothes. and men make contributions to the rental fee of a tractor for ploughing women’s fields when there is a good harvest. In the Segou region of Hali and many cattle herding areas of Hauritania (Smale. 1980) a similar pattern is found. Women are responsible for the main meal. sauces (food which accompanies the grain). spices. medicines. school supplies and clothes for the children. Wives of a polygynous marriage share the responsibility for or independently provide the main meal (Caughman. 1981:6: Smale. 1980 and ICRW. 1980b). The information presented in the preceding section as well as in the overview of women’s contribution to agricultural production contained in chapter 2 indicates that women are significant contributors to the fulfillment of their family basic needs requirements. Hen are more inclined to purchase consumer goods and luxury items. whereas women provide for the daily maintenance of their families (ICRW. 1980b and Bulter. 1979). This pattern of responsibility distribution would imply that a family would rely more heavily on the activities of women. Guyer notes 63 from her study on West Africa that: Women’s incomes in rural areas of West Africa are generally much less seasonal than men’s. Women earn small amounts at regular intervals. and therefore tend to be responsible for the small. regular pur- chases. Consequently. the daily level of nutrition and standard of living may depend more heavily on the women’s than the men’s income (Guyer. 1980:6) Among the Chews of Malawi. women provide the family’s food or crops for barter. When women’s crops fail. there is inclined to be a shortage of food and bartering goods (Butler. 1979:9). A FAO study on Africa found that man’s earnings from cash crops are not necessarily applied to basic needs with the exception of education. medicine and infrequent livestock purchases. Women’s marketing activities. on the other hand. are spent on basic household items (UNFAO. 1988:113-118). There is an increasing amount of literature that suggests that women’s incremental income is more likely than men’s to be spent on items which directly contribute to the welfare of children. A study of rural Kerala. India revealed that incremental maternal wages are significantly correlated with the nutritional status of children. whereas increments in paternal wages were not (Youssef. 1980:25). A survey undertaken in Colombia found that the rate of malnutrition among children of part-time working mothers (528) was higher than the rate among children of full-time working mothers (328). Similarly. the protein/calorie intake of children from low income families in the Philippines was lower for families where women do not work than for those where they did (Youssef. 1980:25). A study by Thailand’s National Council found that the family’s food consumption was positively correlated with women’s income but not with the incomes of men (ICRW. 1980a:6). Finally. women in the Cameroon are expected to increase their 64 percentage share of expenditures on children’s maturation as their individual incomes rise (Benn. 1983:1049). In Tanzania. men use their cash crop earnings for “their own personal use and acquiring more wives” leaving women with the full responsibility of providing food for the family (Anandajayasekeram. et al. 1981:70). Women are obligated to supply labor for their husbands cash crop production. for which they receive little or no cash benefits themselves. Therefore. an expansion in cash crops and the consequent increases in their husbands’ income will not necessarily lead to increases in the family’s consumption or well being. In fact. the overall welfare of the family may decline if the demands for women’s labor in cash crop production restrict their ability to cultivate their own subsistence plots. Other studies indicate that men spend there incomes on consumer goods. alcoholic beverages and entertainment instead of on household needs of family. One study of male migratory labor in Kenya found that men spent their incomes on clothes. daily subsistence. drinks and women (Nelson. 1979:60). Hexicsn men have been found to spend their salaries on consumer goods. radios and alcohol. and Indian men working on tea plantations spend it drinking (Nelson. 1979:61). These observations have important implications for policy prescription. Since it is primarily women who are responsible for the daily maintenance of the family and for the small regular purchases. it appears that changes in women’s incomes would have greater short-run effects on the welfare of the family than men’s income. Changes in men’s income. which is primarily used for large. irregular purchases. would be more inclined to have long-run effects on the family’s welfare. 65 3.3.4 The Decision-Haker As A Unit of Study Given that the standard household and head of household concepts are too restrictive and inaccurately portray the socio-economic environment of a significant portion of the target populations of developing areas. it seems logical to suggest that alternative units of study be devised. Although residences are often convenient points of reference for research and program implementation. the common automatic assumption of consonant consumption. production. resident and budgetary boundaries should be avoided. Instead. the specific objectives and data requirements of the research progect or development program ought to characterize a unique unit of study. Depending on the obJectives of the study or program. e.g. enhancement of cash or food yields. improved nutrition or adoption of new technologies. individuals responsible for activities relevant to the objectives could be targeted. It would be crucial to determine who makes decisions. and therefore controls the processes under consideration. The procedure suggested here is to select the decision-maker as the unit of study. Throughout most of the Third World. it is possible to find women managing subsistence agriculture. In India. the fields set aside for subsistence crops are largely controlled by women (Bsgchi. 1982:23). Under the latifundio system in Latin American. women frequently have the responsibility of maintaining the minifundio (subsistence agriculture). Hausa women manage their own corn and rice fields (Cloud. 1977:6). and in the Gambia women and men have traditionally had control over the cultivation of separate crops (Dey. 1981:112). The figures concerning the number of female managers and self 66 employed laborers for Africa are impressive: At least one third of the farm managers in Eastern and Southern Africa are women. 34x of agricultural employers and self-employed workers in Hozambique are women. This proportion is 543 in Ghana (UNFAO. 1979:10). loock and Staudt found. through two separate studies conducted in the same administrative district of Kenya. that women managed 38x and 408 of the total number of farms respectively (Blumberg. 1981:48). Women also manage cash crop production. One'third ot th farm managers of Sub-Saharan Africa are women (Tinker. 1981:60). Ghanaian women own and operate both food crop and cocoa farms (UNFAO. 1979:10). Statistics for female managed farms in Tanzania and Chane are sex and 41% respectively (Rogers. 1980:60). A study of Halawi found that women cultivate nearly every type of crop grown in these areas including cotton and tobacco. which require skilled spraying. harvesting and grading techniques (Butler. 1979:9). After reviewing the literature on women’s contribution to agricultural decision-making. several patterns begin to emerge. hen customarily control or dominate decisions concerning plough rentals and hiring labor. large cash outlays for land and equipment acquisition. maJor innovations in farm technology. and livestock purchase and sale. especially large animals such as cattle and camels. Less frequently. men will control grain crop disposal and the actual purchase of inputs. With the exception of Southeast Asia. men tend to dominate decisions. concerning cash flows. and in particular large cash outflows. Women. on the other hand. make all. or most. of the decisions concerning cultural practices (production techniques). Generally. they are fully responsible for all decisions regarding their own subsistence plots. Women tend to control decisions concerning livestock maintenance. 67 planting. input use. and seed selection. The storage. processing and preparation of food as well as the allocation of harvest among livestock. sale and household consumption are determined by women. In addition. they make decisions regarding vegetable and legume production in home gardens and harvesting of wild vegetation such as boabob leaves and kerite nuts. Women also make decisions concerning small purchases such seed. inexpensive implements. food and household items. Less frequently. women manage hired labor. contribute to contracting decisions. They Jointly (with their husbands) determine what crops will be grown and to whom they will be sold. An FAO study covering seven Sub-Saharan countries revealed that women make decisions about feeding. milking and the health of milch animals while men purchase and sell them (UNFAO. 1977:115). Food storage. processing. preparation and distribution were also determined by women. The same study showed that while 89x of the West Nigerian women sampled participated in farm operations. few had participated in decisions concerning crop and livestock innovations (UNFAO. 1977:112). Although Kenyan men are traditionally responsible for land purchases. women decide how it and other agricultural resources are to be used (Berger. et al. 1984:8) In Tanzania. women were found to be fully responsible for livestock maintenance. decided what crops would be grown (AnandaJayasekeram. et al. 1981:68) and how much fertilizer should be applied (Berger. et al. 1984:8). Women of Bolivia. Peru and Eastern Cameroon were all found to participate in decisions regarding planting and seed selection (Ahmed. 1978:14; Deere. 1982:807 and Atayi and Knipscheer. 1980:65). In India. women play an important role in decisions about adoption of improved 68 women play an important role in decisions about adoption of improved seed varieties. fertilizers and new implements (Nelson. 1979:59). One study of Botswana revealed that women independently decide the time of plowing and type of seed to be planted in 31% and 57x of all cases respectively. and Jointly decide with their husbands in 132 and 20x of the cases (Berger. et al. 1984:7). Women of the commercial agricultural areas in Zimbabwe frequently manage farms and clock hired labor with the use of a radio (Cheater. 1981:357). Among sedentary farms of West Africa. women independently manage home gardens and control decisions regarding the sale of surplus vegetables and legumes grown from these gardens (Cloud. 1977). The data in Table 8. compiled from a study of the Hwea and Nembure districts of Kenya. illustrate the distribution between spouses of Taglg a W m n’ rt 1 on n o s h D - a i T o is x Taken by Woman Hwea Nembure General Decisions Family budget planning 20 40 Spending of money 15 35 Schooling of children 10 20 Household Decisions What to eat 98 100 Taking of maize to the mill 80 90 Purchase of firewood 20 90 What Food to Buy 64 80 Household replacements 60 70 Farm Decisions When to plant 60 75 What food crops to grow 60 70 Whether to buy seed 55 60 Whether to buy fertilizer 20 25 Source: UNFAO. (1979a).“Women in Food Production. Food Handling and Nutrition With Special Emphasis on Africa." Rome. FAO. Protein- 69 decision-making discussed above. Household decisions are overwhelmingly controlled by women. with the exception of firewood purchases in Hwea. The person primarily in charge of crop selection. planting times and seed purchase (not seed selection) is the woman. Hen. on the other hand. dominate decisions concerning spending and budget planning. A summary of the material on distribution of decision-making responsibilities is presented in Table 9. The decision-making items listed have been extracted from Casley and Lury’s ”Checklist of Information on Crop Hanagement Practices" (Casley adn Lury. 1982:96). The extent to which items are unclassified illustrates the dearth of information concerning the distribution of decision-making roles. Although. for many of these items it is possible to identify the sex of the individual who customarily executes the task. it has not been assumed that this individual also makes the respective decisions. Furthermore. it should be noted that this distribution of decision- making responsibilities reflects Joint operations (husband and wife operations). Women usually control all decisions related to their independent subsistence plots. There are a number of factors that have been observed to influence both the absolute and relative participation of women in decision- making. Perhaps the most common observation is that women’s participation in decision-making is directly proportional to their contribution to production. Indian women’s significant involvement in decisions concerning fertilizer. seed and credit is attributed to their active participation in field activities (Bagchi. 1982:20). In Botswana. there is positive correlation between decision-making and the individuals contributing to agricultural production (UNFAO. 1977:112). 70 Table 9 Summary Taglg; Sexual Division of DgcigiQn-gakigg Rgspgnsibilitigss Dggigign Item Hen nggn Dggigigg Item Hen Waggn Land preparation 1 Fertilizer 2 2 Sequence of operations 1 Type Timing of operation Rate of application in relation to rain 1 Number and Timing of Equipment used 1 applications Seasonal variation in Equipment used methods 1 Hethod of application Planting 2 1 Pest Control 1 Varieties planted 2 2 Hethod of control Density and spacing Timing of control Density and spacing: Irrigation intercropping Hethod of irrigation Timing of planting in 2 2 Frequency relation to rain Harvest 2 2 Spread of planting Time in relation to dates 2 2 maturity Sequence of inter- Hethods of harvesting planting crops Use of leaves and tops Hethods of planting for animals 1 lethods of covering Disposal of produce 1 seed Use of stocks 1 Practices for Post-harvest 1 replanting 1 Hethod of threshing 1 Thinning 1 Timing of threshing 1 Timing Timing and method of Target density picking leaves a tops 1 Use of thinnings Use of crops in food 1 Weeding 1 Seed selection 1 Number of weedings Time of selection 1 Timing in relation Criteria of selection 1 to planting Seed production and Equipment used storage 1 Use of herbicides 1 Seed treatment Use of weeds * = primary or controlling decision-maker 8 secondary or contributing decision-maker. Used also for equal contributions from men and women. lots: This more appropriately reflects Joint production units than women’s independent subsistence production. Source: List from Casley. D.J. and D.A. Lury. (1982). flggitggigg_ggg, Evaluggign Q: Aggigultggg gag Burs; Development PrOJects. Balitmore. Johns Hopkins University Press:96). Information concerning decision- making is from the text. 1 2 71 The increased obligation of women to contribute to family purchases and production of basic needs gives the woman more freedom and right to decision-making (Caughman. 1981:7). Deere found for that for women of CaJamarca. Peru their contribution to decision-making increased relative to men as their participation in production activities increased (Deere. 1982:807 and Deere. 1983). The participation of women in agricultural production is generally inversely related to family income (particularly in Latin America and Asia). and directly related to women’s involvment in decision-making. A woman’s responsibilities and contributions to income and her role in decision-making increases as the family or husband’s income declines. For rural agricultural populations. landholdings are a common alternative measure of family income or wealth. In India and Indonesia. women’s responsibilities are inversely related to farm size (Youssef. 1980:25). Another study in India revealed that women become less involved in decision-making as landholdings and the use of equipment and pesticides increases (Bagchi. 1982:23). Both ownership and access to strategic production resources also provides women greater authority and the autonomy to undertake her own production activities. Gsldwin suggests. based on her review of progect effects on women. that development progects often redirect resources to men. reducing the control of women (Gladwin and Almy. 1984:1). Dey’a study of the Gambia. mentioned earlier. is a good example of this effect (Dey. 1981). Abbott’s study of Kenyan women (Abbott. 1976) and Oppong’s study of Ghanaian woman found that control of financial resources confers decision-making power to women. Other scholars have observed that women manage cash crops as well as subsistence crops when inputs. information and credit are available (Safilos-Rothschild. 1981:12). 72 Other factors which influence women’s decision-making roles are those that also contribute to the incidence of female headed households: “nontraditional“ mating patterns. migration and polygyny. In the cases of migration and polygyny. women will frequently manage cash crop fields for their husbands in addition to tending their own subsistence crops. In the cases of Lesotho. Halawi and Kenya wives. take full responibility for their husbands’ cash crop operations in their absence (UHFAO. 1977 and Staudt. 1982:2). Ghanaian and Higerian women of polygynous marriages often mind the cocoa and other cash crop fields for their transitory husbands (Cheater. 1981:351). The use of decision-makers as the units of study has important research and policy implications. For instance. if the policy objective is to improve the well being of rural households. it may be preferable to target income gains to women because increments in maternal incomes are found to contribute more to welfare gains than are paternal incomes. Increases in cash crop production and the consequent increases in total family income do not necessarily lead to short-term improvements in the family’s welfare or the long-term fulfillment of the family’s basic needs requirements. In fact. the welfare of the family may deteriorate if women have an obligation to supply labor to cash crop production. To enhance food crop production. researchers and policy-makers must target women. The separation of household budgets. men’s lack of knowledge concerning their wives independent production activities. and the disparity in access to production inputs. capital. credit. marketing institutions and information between the sexes all contribute to the need for researchers and policy agents to specifically communicate and work with women directly. CHAPTER 4 SELECTED ISSUES IN IMPLEHENTATION 4.1 Introduction This section of the paper will trace the ramifications of the weaknesses in standard practices disclosed in the preceding chapter. and provide recommendations for improvements in research methods and program design. The chapter will attempt to complement the previous discussion of conceptual issues. Improvements in data collection techniques are suggested whicn. if implemented. could ameliorate the quality of data bases and background material developed from such procedures. FaCtors that have repeatedly contributed to prOJect failure and/or reduced levels of prOJect achievement will be identified. The factors discussed will be restricted to those stemming from the inconsistencies between the conceptual issues of the previous section and those incorporated in the case study program designs. 4.2 Data Collection: Suggestions to Improve Methods 4.2.1 Introduction Women's production activities are frequently overlooked by survey teams. The fields they cultivate are less visible than those cultivated by men. Women generally cultivate crops either on distant. marginal lands or in home gardens and smaller plots adjacent to their residences. In the latter case. it is difficult to distinguish between housework and farm work because of the proximity of homegardens. In addition. horticultural production in home gardens is extremely land intensive. occupying small. easily overlooked plots with high yields per land unit 73 74 cultivated (Blumberg. 1981:71). Women are more apt to work in kin-groups than men. Within these groups. there is limited recognition of the individual’s specific contribution. Women are also frequently considered extensions of their menfolk. Hen are listed as the farmer. cooperative member or sharecropper and women are simply part of the collective "family labor.“ Other factors contributing to enumeratora oversight of women’s work as well. For various reasons. women’s work is frequently considered unimportant. and is therefore overlooked. The enumerator’s cultural or class prejudices influence his/her perception of the study population. Cultural norms also dictate whether or not it is socially expected or degrading for women to work and in what kinds or activities. Women as well as other family members. in response to these cultural expectations. will often devalue or de-emphasize their production activities and inflate those of male household members. Data collection procedures can have profound effects on the quality of data and the extent to which women and their contribution to production will be included in the data set. Surveys. for example. have been found to include a greater portion of the working female population than censuses do. This discrepancy in the data is due. in part. to the broader definitions and longer time periods used with survey methods. A survey of rural Bolivia indicated that female activity rates were between 20 and 39%. twice as high as those recorded by the census (Youssef. 1980:27). Similarly. a survey of the state of Sao Paulo in Brazil reported that there were four times as many working women between the ages of 20 and 44. and twice as many between the ages of 45 and 64 than the census had recorded (Youssef. 1980:27). In Honduras. an 75 interview with coffee and tobacco plantation employers revealed that 10.000 of their employees were women whereas the census had counted only 600 (Buvinic and Sebstad. 1980:38). Time-use studies have been suggested as an alternative method of extracting information about home production and women’s work activities (Birdsall. 1983). Time-use data can clarify the extent of individual household member’s employment. Seasonal work patterns are recognized. the opportunity costs of specific activities are elicited (e.g. whether leisure or an alternative production activity is traded off). and the dynamics of interhouaehold task sharing and distribution can be observed. Unfortunately. the problems with time-use studies often inhibit their use (Anker. 1983:717). They are difficult to administer. requiring greater supervision and more highly trained enumeratora and data processors. They require more time and money to both collect and process the data. Lastly. all these problems contribute to limiting the sample size. which may restrict the use of sophisticated statistical techniques. In lieu of these problems with time-use studies. the following sections will concentrate on suggestions pertaining to improvements in interview methods and the content of the interview guides. By and large. these suggestions could be applied to present standard survey procedures without much additional cost in terms of time and money. 4.2.2 Interviewing Hethods The term “interviewing methods“ pertains to the design of the interview in contrast to the term "data collection methods." which refers to the collection procedure followed. e.g. cost route. direct 76 measurement. participant observer. etc. Presented below is a partial list or set of guidelines for extracting data that is more likely to include important information concerning subsistence production. home production and women’s contribution to the family’s welfare. 10. 11. Interviewigg Hethgds Suggestions It is best to use the concept of household only as a geographic location in order to keep track of sample participants. If the household is used as the unit of. it should be representative of the objectives of the study. and the socio- economic structure of both the sample and extrapolated population. (see chapter 3). The decision-maker approach to collection of information is the preferred method. (see section 3.3.4). a) The decision-maker identification is dependent on the objectives of the study. e.g. a consumption. production or budgetary study. b) Standard. unclear or general definitions of the head of household should be avoided. Avoid sampling frames that systematically exclude members of the study population. e.g. tax lists and registers of cooperatives and marketing boards (Norman. 1973:7). Do not use proxy respondents. Interview individuals who actually perform specific tasks. Decision-makers and workers need not be same individual. a) Do not rely on male representatives. b) Do not rely on ”heads of households.“ c) Ask women directly. Include all women and not Just wives. Use female interviewers with female respondents. If male interviewers are used. have the interviewer first speak to the man (if one is present). and then request to direct specific questions to the women/woman (Horis. 1970:15). Include children 10-15 years old. Ask questions privately when possible. Do not assign arbitrary weights. i.e. conversion factors. for labor inputs. Pick interviewers who have limited preconceptions and/or class or cultural biases. 77 12. Collect price and labor information concerning the following twice weekly (Dillion and Hardaker. 1980:23) or daily (Norman. 1973:41) if cost effective: a) commercial crop and livestock production. b) home production. c) off-farm employment. Sampling frames which systematically exclude members of the study population should be avoided. Tax lists and registers of cooperatives and marketing boards frequently exclude subsistence producers and women. In Tanzania. women and marginal farmers are almost always not covered in these lists (Noris. 1970:9). Potential sampling frames that have used the standard concepts of the household and household heads should be avoided or adjusted for this bias. Individuals who actually perform specific tasks should be interviewed. The individual has more knowledge of the activity and better recall than a proxy respondent. In addition. s(he) may have reasons for hiding information from other members of the household. Norman observed of the Hausa of Nigeria that: ...the household head does not know the income earning activities of women in the household as any such money earned is often kept by them. For example. when preparing cooked foods for sale. women often by the raw materials from the household head. prepare the food and get children to sell it outside the compound. Time spent by women on these activities and on shelling and threshing the crops is also unlikely to be known by the household head (Norman. 1973:27-28). In addition. the respondent may have completely different perceptions of the producers constraints. For instance. women’s greatest constraint is time. Therefore. women tend to be more interested in technology or cultural practices that increase yields per labor hour rather than yields per hectare. Women may place a higher priority on adopting labor- ssving technology for harvesting and processing than men who may prefer new labor-saving technology for the land clearing stage of production. 78 i.e. draught animals or ploughs (UNFAO. 1977:135). Frequently. proxy respondents provide inaccurate information intentionally or unintentionally. Dey discovered. through her interviews with men in the rice cultivating areas of the Gambia. that they denied that women owned or had access to the rice lands (Deyy. 1981:116). Anker observed that: ...male respondents are more likely than female respond respondents to underestimate the labour force activity of female household members (Anker. 1983:710). When Syrian men were asked if their wives worked. the majority answered “no." However. when asked: ”...if your wife did not assist you in your work. would you be forced to find a replacement for her?“. they overwhelmingly replied ”yes" (Youssef. 1980:27). 4.1.3 Interview Content This section deals primarily with the composition of questions within the interview guide. The length of the interview as well as the order of questions can have pronounced effects on the respondent (Casley and Lury. 1981). but they are felt to have only a minimal. if any. influence on eliciting information about home production and women’s work. Therefore. the suggestions focus on the composition of clear. culturally neutral and unambiguous questions. In addition. some suggestions are included to promote the development of more flexible interview guides. which are suitable across disparate samples. Interview Question Suggestions 1. Use a clear and concise definition of farmer. Clarify whether farmer refers to or collect data which distingushes between: a) producer. b) production manager. .c) household head. 2. Do not use terms such as “chief earner“ or "primary provider" 79 (or their local equivalents) in isolation. 3. Use the phrase "make a living" (referring to all production) instead of "earn a living" (referring to cash income). 4. Use a clear and concise definition of work and Job. Or. Include all activities and than label each as remuner- ated or not. a) Work should include all activities contributing to family or individual welfare. b) Job should refer to market activities only. 5. Use a long reference period when establishing the occupational status of respondents. e.g. full-time. part-time. unemployed. 6. Include both primary and secondary activities. 7. Probe respondents for additional activities. e.g. use "key words" or “filter questions" (Anker. 1983:716). 8. Allow the respondent to give multiple task responses for a given time period. e.g. simultaneous performance of child care and handicrafts activitied. 9. When individuals are identifies as responsible for a given task specify extent of contribution: hrs/day. days/wk. days/yr or yrs/life-time. 10. To include intermittent work activities. use a low minimum boundary of continuous time worked to qualify activities as work units (Dixon. 1982:561). Identifying definitions that are clear and concise for work. Job. etc. is an important consideration in designing interview questions because the classifications of these activities are in part culturally determined. Deere found that Andean women would often classify their work as housework even when they engaged in income generating activities (Deere.1982:799). Chilean women have listed planting and harvesting as housework instead of as agricultural work (Dixon. 1982:544). The misclassification of women’s work is often the result of the cultural perception that family status is adversely affected by female members work activities. especially if they work for a non-family member. Under such circumstances. both male and female respondents are apt to 80 understate the contribution of female family members. Furthermore. Anker noted that Kenyans defined Jobs as wage or salaried activities while work was "...considered to include time-consuming activities required for family survival“ (Anker. 1983:712). Inclusion of secondary activities significantly alters the participation rates of women. In India. the participation grew from 26x to 49% when the 1961 census included secondary occupations (Beneria. 1981:13). The rate than decreased from 233 to 138 in 1971 when census reverted back to using primary occupations only (Dixon. 1982:539). The participation rates of Andean and Sudanian women changed from 3: to 21x and from 10% to 40x respectively when secondary activities were accounted for (Beneria. 1981:15). Concluding from these observations. changes in the participation rate of women are due largely to changes in accounting methods. Deere contends: ...that the low female agricultural participation rates are due to faulty conceptual categories for measuring women’s agricultural participation“ (Deere. 182:798). It should be acknowledged that the secondary occupation of one individual may contribute more to total family income (both market and non-market) than the income of the primary cash earner. In fact. a woman who considers herself primarily a housewife and only secondarily a marketwomen. may earn more cash income than her spouse who considers himself primarily as a laborer. even if he works irregularly. Women’s work is charactertistically more intermittent than men’s work. Classifying activities as work according to low minimum work time boundaries increases the chances of including women’s production 81 (Rogers. 1980:164). Also allowing women to list multiple tasks for a specific period of time identifies an array of productive activities. e.g. watching children and making rugs. Jewelry. cloth. or other handicrafts. Women also combine leisure time chatting with other women and handicraft production. e.g. hand spinning yarn by Bolivian women. 4.3 Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa 4.3.1 Introduction A recent trend in development planning has been to redirect the emphasis of development schemes toward smallholders and/or semisubsistence farmers and away from large-scale commercial agriculture and the economically progressive farmer. The previous bias toward large and/or progressive commercial farmers had only augmented the pre— existing inequalities among rural producers without contributing any perceptible improvements for the majority of the rural poor. The outcome of such a bias poses not only serious equity problems but also imposes restrictions on fulfillment of food security objectives. Suggested as part of the World Bank’s Agenda for Action are: 1) changing the focus of agricultural sector planning of Sub-Saharan Africa to smallholders. and 2) altering incentive structures (e.g. of inputs and product prices) as well as increasing farmers participation in decisions which affect them (World Bank. 1981:50). According to the World Bank. this focus is necessitated by several agro-economic factors specific to Sub-Saharan Africa. First. while the smallholder sector produces the bulk of the agricultural output. achievement of the sector’s full potential is severely restricted by the limited specialization and use of off-farm inputs as well as low and often stagnant yields. Second. poverty in Africa is largely located in the 82 rural areas. And third. efforts directed specifically at smallholders are believed to be the most cost-effective methods of increasing agricultural production (World Bank. 1981:50). One common. if not central. component of development programs for smallholders is extension. It is a means by which information concerning new technologies and agricultural practices is disseminated among the rural population. Uma Lele and Wilfred Candler. in an article concerning alternatives to the faulted public distribution of food supplies in East Africa. suggested that: Rural food security will be achieved through increased research and extension on the production of drought- resistant crops. improved input supply. produce marketing. an improved communication network and effective farm household storage program (Lela and Chandler. 1981:118). While extension is potentially a powerful development tool. its effectiveness depends partly on whether the information is appropriate for the target population. One element that defines the appropriateness of information is the educational level of the recipient. Education and literacy influence the recipient’s ability to understand and implement specific recommendations and gain admittance to training programs. Nellor views education as a critical component of rural agricultural output augmentation schemes particularly where new high-yielding varieties. chemical fertilizer and pesticides. irrigation and other technically sophisticated inputs and/or cultural practices are employed. He states that: Failure to expand education to upgrade its technical content and to furnish in-service training will pro- vide a major constraint to rural development...(Hellor. 1976:75). According to T.W. Schultz. education is a particularly important 83 ingredient to production under modernizing conditions: The adoption and efficient cultivation and harvesting of sugar cane appears not to depend upon the level of schooling of those who do the field work. Nor do the capabilities associated with schooling have any eco- nomic value in hoeing cotton. But to grow rice or corn or to undertake dairying. using modern agricultural inputs appears to be quite another story...where tech- nically superior factors of production are a principal source of agricultural growth. schooling counts (Schultz. 1976:187-189). Table 10 includes a list of education requirements for sufficient comprehension of different levels of technological complexity that correspond to four stages in agricultural development. It should be stressed that the effects of education and extension appreciate when the selected recipients are the individuals who actually perform the tasks to be modified or directly utilize the new inputs and technology. 4.3.2 Relevance of Female-Farmers to Extension Efforts Given the above role of extension and the information contained in the previous sections. it seems logical to assume that women are appropriate direct recipients of extension and education efforts. For all the regions of Sub-Saharan Africa listed in Table 1. women contribute upwards of 34%. and in some cases above 70x. of the total agricultural labor inputs. Land clearing. turning the soil. tree-crop trimming and hunting are the only activities for which women provide less than 50x of the labor (see Table 2). Furthermore. the material in Table 7 indicates that a significant number of Sub-Saharan households are directed by women. while that of Tables 8 and 9 reveal the extent of decision-making responsibilities delegated to women. Because of women’s tremendous contribution to agricultural production in Sub-Saharan Africa and the importance of food crop 84 Table 10 Educational Reguirements For Various Levels gf Tecgnological Complexity Technology level Agricultural inputs Hinimum educational requirement Level 1 traditional local varieties of seeds addition and sub- farming and implements traction Level 2 intermediate small quantities of addition. subtraction. technology fertilizer division and rudi- mentary literacy Level 3 fully improved high-yielding varieties: multiplication. long technolgy proven seed: seed rates/ division. and other acre: fertilizer rates/ complex math: reading acre: and pest control and writing facilities rates/acre and rudimentary know- ledge of chemistry and biology Level 4 full irrigation- based farming all of the above: tube- well access during the off-season: and water rates/acre. math. high reading com- prehension. written communication. ability to research unfamiliar words and concepts: elementary chemistry. biology. physics: and regular access to in- formation from print and electronic sources Source: Heyneman. Stephan P. (1983). “Improving the Quality of Education In Developing Countries." Finance and Development 20(1):18-21. 85 production to food security objectives. female-farmers must be addressed as distinct economic agents and not merely as members of a household or subsumed in family labor. It is necessary to study how women think. make decisions and respond to various incentives. Separating female-farmers from their menfolk establishes new divisions of endogenous and exogenous variables. and sheds light on intrahousehold relationships as well as various economic and social institutions’ influences over the production system. For example. Hausa women prefer goats and sheep as livestock investments because. under religious seclusion. children can herd small livestock and they are removable upon divorce (Guyer. 1980:5). Similarly. Niger women refused to plant fruit trees and preferred to invest in livestock over field crops because the men owned these crops while the women were permitted to own livestock. In addition. Niger women initiated the adoption of planting tools used by men since the implements also contributed to increased yields on women’s small food crop plots (Ashby. 1981:167). Finally. due to socio-economic institutions. men and women have different access to labor. a scarce factor in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Hen may hire both men and women. and they have priority over family labor. Women. on the other hand. have to rely on work exchange with other women. which increases their work obligations. and they must first fulfill labor requirements for their husbands’ fields prior to those of their own fields (Atayi and Knipscheer. 1980 and Guyer. 1984). The fact that men and women have both different work obligations and access to labor and other resources contributes to the development of sex specific perferences for new technologies and cultural practices. Technical packages of extension programs need to reflect these differentiated 86 prefences. 4.3.3 The General State of Education and Extension Efforts for Women During the 1970’s. the illiteracy rate for African women was 83.7x (UNDP. 1980:55). There is. however. a wide variation among countries: women in Burkina Faso. Nali. Niger and Senegal have literacy rates under 1x; figures for Ghana. Swaziland. Uganda and Zambia range from 18% to sex; in and Botswana. Lesotho and Reunion women’s literacy rates exceed those of their male counterparts (Africa Report. 1981:65). Females’ access to education is generally more restricted than males. Adherence to Purdah once girls reach puberty. social norms concerning marriage and pregnancy. and the lack of female teachers and adequate facilities all prevent females’ attendance in school. As mentioned in section 2.2.8. overburdened mothers prefer that girls assist them with their daily activities. Furthermore. parents are reluctant to pay admittance fees for girls if they are expected to either move from the family under a virilocal marriage system or take on similar responsibilities that their mothers had. who did not require formal education themselves (UNDP. 1980). All these factors constrain female farmers’ attainment of new knowledge. It is therefore crucial that extension organizations attempt to compensate for this impediment. In Africa. extension systems are nearly completely sex-segregated (Carr. 1980:7). Under such a system. low quality. token programs are provided for women (Carr. 1980: Rogers. 1980: Berger. et al. 1984: Butler. 1979: Ashaby. 1981: Lele. 1975: Ghai. et a1. 1979 and others cited in the following sections on extension). Only 3x of the agricultural extension personnel in Africa are women (Berger. et al. 1984:58). According to Uma Lele: 87 ...the goal of extension services has frequently been not the increase in farm-level productivity of women but rather finding ways to reduce their participation in agriculture through promotion of more homebound activities (Lele. 1975:77). The data in Table 11 illustrate this sexual division in training between domestic (women) and other production (men). It is interesting to note that while only 15x of agriculture and 20% of animal husbandry training Table 11 A ces to Non-Formal at on A A____s_____1rea of A tivit W Neg Women Agriculture 85 15 Animal Husbandry 80 20 Cooperatives 90 10 Arts and Crafts 50 50 Nutrition 10 90 W 0 100 I units of participation are defined such that a 30/50 division would imply equal access between the sexes. Source: ECA’s Women’s Programme cited in (Carr. Harilyn. (1980). “Technology and Rural Women in Africa.“ Geneva. ILO. World Employment Program Research Working Papers.8). is available to women. data in Table 2 indicates that women undertake BO-BOx of all agricultural work and 50x of the animal husbandry. Table 12 provides data on the number and percent of male and female extension agents in selected African countries. Some researchers suggest that the combination of the bias of institutions toward commercial over subsistence agricultural activities and the sexual division of production spheres between commercial (male) and subsistence (female) contributes to the disproportionate share of extension and non-formal educational training available to men (Tinker. 1981:65). However. referring back to sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.7. women still provide the bulk of the labor inputs to commercial agriculture: 88 Table 12 Sexual Composition of ExtenSion Personnel in African Agricultural Programs Country Agiculturg HomeI Other T0tsi Economics mglg_fem. male fem. male fem. male fem; bggh km 5: Botswana 186 13 - 2 178 9 364 24 388 94 6 Gabon 80 - - - 11 2 91 2 93 98 2 Gambia 170 6 f - 457 9 627 15 642 98 2 Mauritius 56 - - - 18 2 74 2 76 97 3 Nambia 11 4 - - 8 - 19 4 23 83 17 Nigeria 1106 104 - - 680 9 1789 113 1899 94 6 Senegal 1088 3 - 1 71 - 1159 4 1163 99 1 Seychelles 11 3 - - 3 1 l4 4 18 78 22 South Africa 1107 - - 2 563 - 1670 2 1672 99 1 Togo ' - - - - 212 - 212 ~ 212 100 0 Tunisia - - - - 12 3 12 3 15 80 20 Zimbabwe 1682 23 - - 551 72 2233 95 2328 94 6 - Data only includes home economics extensionists who work under agricultural programs. Source: Adapted from Swanson. Burton and Jaffar Rassi. (1981). lntgrnational Directory of National Extension Systems. Urbana. University of Illinois. Bureau of Educational Research. Cited in Berger. Marguerite: Virginia Delancey and Amy Nellencamp. (1984). ”Bridging the Gender Gap in Agricultural Extension." Washington. D.C.. International Center for Research on Women. they also own and manage cash crop enterprises (see Table 1 and section 3.3.5) and contribute to a variety of decision-making categories (Tables 8 and 9). Therefore. extension efforts aimed at either cash or subsistence crop production ought to include female clients as well as. Other explanations of why female-farmers are often overlooked or are ignored by the extension services are as follows. Subsistence plots as well as poor. marginal farms of women with absentee husbands are either less visible or ignored under ”progressive farmer" programs. Also. women’s low status and limited access to land. inputs. cash and education all inhibit their inclusion in extension programs. especially progressive farmer programs. Social norms often prohibit male/female interaction. Hale agents prefer to deal with men and it is often assumed 89 that women will receive the information they need through their husbands and other menfolk (Ashby. 1981:158). Finally. it was incorrectly assumed that the structure of African farms and the needs of African farmers were similar. and in many ways indentical. to those of the United States. Consequently. the 0.5. model of extension. based on sex-segrated training (i.e. males receive technical advice and females receive home economics and nutrition training) has either been replicated or improvised throughout much of Africa. 4.3.4 Case Studies A review of the literature concerning the ability of Sub-Saharan African extension agencies to transfer knowledge and impact upon the productivity of female-farmers discloses a dismal record. Although the literature is limited and often incomplete. some conclusions can be made. In general. the conceptualization of the semisubsistence farm used by extension agencies and training centers completely misrepresents reality. The structure and mechanisms of work distribution. responsibilities and decision-making within the system are either misunderstood. taken for granted or ignored. Specific criticism can be generalized across most of Sub-Saharan Africa. Training centers. whether providing instructions for extension agents or farmer self-help programs. enroll predominantly male participants. Where programs exist for women. they are of low quality and cover topics such as home economics. nutrition. child care. and health. even though women are heavily involved in field and livestock activities. Extension agents are generally male. especially agricultural technicians. and they confer with male members of the household. whether 90 or not they undertake farming or performed specific tasks critical to the technologies solicited by agents. Female-farmers are not approached by male extension agents. It is generally assumed that men will pass all relevant information on to female producers. The following case studies are illustrative of these observations. 4.3.4.1 Ghana The two most common innovations promoted by the Ghanaian national extension service and the FAO are hybrid maize and chemical fertilizer (Bukh. 1979:68). Female-farmers were reluctant to adopt these innovations because: 1) hybrid maize is essentially a cash crop while women were primarily concerned about food crop production. and 2) women lacked the capital required to purchase the expensive chemical fertilizers and no specific credit facilities were available to women. They were also reluctant to undertake cultivation of new varieties for which they lacked sufficient relevant knowledge. The Ghanaian extension service is noted for its bias toward progressive male-farmers: visits are concentrated among 103 of the large cocoa farmers. In 1977. no women had yet been visited by an agent. (Bukh. 1979:70). In addition. the Ministry of Agriculture’s Home Extension Unit was created specially for women but it only provided training in post harvest techniques such as food preservation. storage. processing. dry season gardening. home economics and nutrition (Bukh. 1979:71). 4.3.4.2 Malawi Perhaps the most widely known development prOject in Malawi is the Lilongwe Land Development Program (LLDP). Two components of the prOject are the Extension and Evaluation Service and the Credit Administration. 91 These institutions relied on the Village Grower Register to identify appropriate clientele. however. the register incorporated many of the head of household biases discussed in section 3.3.2. The register assumed that the head of the household was also the grower and automatically assigned the title head of household to a male corporate head (Rogers. 1980:69). Extension agents are to visit with one member of each household. preferably the head. This assumes that regardless of how sporadic a male’s presence is in the prOJect area. he is always responsible for planning and farm innovation. But. on the contrary. the data in Table 7 indicate that 75x of all Nalawian households are run by de facto female heads. The high incidence of polygynous marriages resulted in the exclusion from the register of a large portion of the independent residences. Another problem with the program conceptualization is that the content of training programs for men and women is inconsistent with the actual proportionate labor and decision-making inputs of men and women in the field. Hen received technical assistance in agriculture production and animal husbandry. while women receive training in nutrition. home economics. needlecraft. child care and domestic skills (Rogers. 1980:89). One Farming Systems Research study revealed that while women performed most of the agricultural work related to on farm field trials. they were not present when recommendations were presented to their husbands. In addition. men do not generally transfer the new knowledge to the women (Gladwin and Almy. 1984:10). Consequently. fewer women than men knew the correct procedures. Hany men simply forgot them. In an attempt to reach female-farmers (growers). the Hinistry of 92 Agriculture and Natural Resources undertook a program called "Training of Local Trainers" to train female field technicians. Unfortunately. the bulk of these courses also dealt with home economics. cooking. sewing and handicrafts (Butler. 1979:14 and Perraton. et al. 1983). In addition. women were expelled from the program if they became pregnant. inadequate dormitory facilities restricted their attendance and customary law prohibited women from wearing pants. which precluded them from operating tractors or motor driven equipment (Butler. 1979:14). 4.3.2.3 Tanzania In the Arushs and Horogoro regions. the government of Tanzania has undertaken a National Naize Preject (NHP) to provide subsidized inputs to seize producers (Safilios-Rothschild. 1981:7). The women of these regions are responsible for food crops. food storage and providing unpaid labor for the men’s cash crops (Fortmann. 1981:191). Overall. Six of the Tanzanian population working in agriculture are women and a large majority of these women are managers (Safilios-Rothschild. 1981:7). Nevertheless. only 8% of prOject participants were women. and only 203 of the these women were visited by an extension agent while 58x of the men were (Safilios-Rothschild. 1981:7: Fortman. 1982 and Fortmann. 1981:194). Furthermore. according to Mbilinyi. female respondents of a survey of the Farmer Training Scheme in Hbeya stated that they were rarely visited by the extension agents (Mbilinyi. 1982 cited in Berger. et al. 1984:11). Despite the unequal availability of information and inputs. participating female farmers did not significantly differ from male participants with respect to progressiveness. good maize practices and adoption of innovations (Safilios-Rothschild. 1981:7). The Arusha Declaration of 1967 and the creation of Ujamaa Villages 93 purported to secure equal opportunities for men and women. Nevertheless. benefits received through participation in the villagization process reach few women: only a minority of women are Ujamaa members (Beneria. 1982:148). Horeover. the village programs provided by the Union of Women in Tanzania (UWT). with the exception of a few communal farms. focus on non-agricultural activities such as cooking. sewing. basket weaving and child care. Yet. women’s major activities are to maintain home gardens. poultry and cultivation of their own plots (Ghai. et a1. 1979:87). Referring to extension programs. proceedings from a conference on Farming Systems Research in Tanzania contained the following statement: As far as women are concerned. these almost entirely concentrate on nutrition and health matters as though these were the only problems that women in rural Tanzania address themselves to (Anandajayasekeram. et at. 1981:71). 4.3.4.4 Botswana The Botswana Rural Training Centre is a primary source of agricultural instruction for both men and women. However. serious problems related to the delivery of information to women have been cited in a number of publications (UNFAO. 1977: Ashby. 1981: Bond. 1974 and D’Onofrio-Flores and Pfafflin. 1982). Although women performed 48-803 of all crop activities (see Table 1). men constituted nearly two-thirds of the participants in the training program. In addition. 100% of the trainees attending family welfare and home economics courses were women. while similar figures for farmer courses and agriculture in-service were only 32% and Ox respectively. Enrollment figures for men and women in the various courses offered by the center are shown in Table 13. An FAO evaluation study reported that as of 1976 there were still no female agricultural demonstrators (UNDP. 1977:124). 94 Table 13 Male and Female Enrollment In Rural Traininq Coursegyin Botgwana Type of course x of totgl gourse x of participation male Female farmer course 35 68 32 family welfare 9 0 100 home economics 9 0 100 co-ops 25 82 18 4-B (youth) 5 29 73 agriculture inaservice 5 100 0 school teachers 4 85 15 other 6 32 68 Total 100 60 40 Source: Ashby. Jacqueline A. (1981). "New Hodels for Agricultural Research and Extension: The Need to Integrate Women.” In Lewis. 8.. ed. (1981). Invisible Farmers: Women and thg Crisig in Agri- gglpgpgg Washington. D.C.. AID. WID. Related to the demonstrator training course weaknesses was the inadequate delivery of information by extension agents. Most agents were male. limiting their ability to contact female-farmers. Agents customarily contacted male heads of households although the material in Table 7 indicates that female headed households comprise 482. and in some villages as many as 80%. of all households. Moreover. demonstrations and other meetings convened when women were working in the fields. Even when convenient times were arranged. most women still could not attend because adequate child care facilities were not provided (UNFAO. 1977:123). The Hinistry of Agriculture did provide one program during the 1974-77 period in which women and men were "trained in exactly the same courses and posted and assigned duties in the same manner" (Ashby. 1981:172). Evaluations of the female graduates concluded that they worked with farmers of both sexes. under the same conditions as men and the quality of their work was equal to that of their male counterparts. 95 Nevertheless. a limitation of this program was that it was small and of a short duration. In 1977. A permanent women’s unit within the Department of Agriculture Field Services in the Ministry of Agriculture was established (Battles. 1980 cited in Berger. et a1. 1984). The objectives of the unit are: 1) to increase women’s participation in local farmer committees. 2) to provide training in home economics and agricultural production and 3) to supply purchasable seed for vegetable gardening. Unfortunately. there is insufficient data available to monitor the progress of the unit. A World Bank report noted. however. that technical advice appeared to be “diluted" by the inclusion of training and inputs associated with women’s traditional household and family roles (World Bank. 1980). Also recently undertaken. a USAID farming systems research (FSR) project had a primary objective of reaching small farmers of which 40% are women (Berger. et al. 1984:63). Although the prOject terminated in 1984 (a five year preject spaning 1979 through 1984). no information concerning the results of the prOJect are available. 4.3.4.5 Kenya Host of the information reported here on Kenya’s extension programs was extracted from Staudt’s research on the western district of Kakamega. and Noock’s comparative study of farmer efficiency in the same district (Hoock. 1976). The major institutions reviewed by these studies were: the Farmer Training Center. the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) and the Guaranteed Hinimum Return program (GNR). In Kenya. women contribute Box of the subsistence agricultural work. provide 958 of the food supply in some villages and comprise 40% 96 of the farm managers in the Kakamega district (see Table 1). Women do digging related to land preparation. and they performed planting. weeding and harvesting activities (Staudt. 1982:208). Female-headed households account for between 31-403 of all households depending on the region in question (see Table 7). Staudt suggests that 36% of the Kakamega households are headed by women (Staudt. 1982:208). Among the crops promoted by the extension agency hybrid maize and “European" vegetables function both as major subsistence and cash crops (Staudt. 1982:4). Over 98x of the agricultural staff of the extension agency are men. (D’Onofrio-Flores and Pfafflin. 1982:87). Of the women who are trained as instructors. many drop out of the extension services because of family conflicts over the travel demands of the job (Gladwin and Almy. 1984:8). Furthermore. two-thirds of the district and national level trainees are men. and the women attending these programs receive training mainly in cooking. child care. sewing. health. sanitation. nutrition. home management and vegetable gardening. Host of these women are the wives of chiefs. assistant chiefs and agricultural staff (Staudt. 1982:3). In Kenya. social norms prohibit male instructors from speaking with female-farmers. especially when their husbands are absent (Staudt. 1982:3). Coupled with the overwhelming majority of male instructors. it is not surprising that so many farms managed by women remained unvisited. 49x as compared to 28% of jointly managed farms (see Table 14). One study observed that: The society is characterized by communication between men on governmental matters and by symbolic male authority over households. despite extensive male ab- sence in rural areas (D’Onofrio-Flores and Pfafflin. 1981:87). 97 Table 14 Rates of Intoduction and Utilization of Extgnsign Information by Papa Nanagemept Iype in Kenya- Ipem mal mans ed jointly mapaged A) Visits by instructor never visited 49x (42) 282 (36) visited at least once 51x (43) 72x (91) B) Visit by instructor. controlled for economic standing High: no visits 95x (80) 16% (09) visited at least once 61% (22) 84% (49) Low: no visits 57x (28) 39x (27) visited at least once 43x (21) 613 (42) C) Visits by instructor to early adoptors of hybrid maize never visited 31x (5) ax (01) visited at least once 69: (11) 97x (33) D) Farmer training (2wks) no member attended 95x (80) Box (102) one or more member attended 58 (09) 203 (25) E) Adoption Rate cash crops 1.5 1.5 food crops 1.9 2.0 F) Loan information aquisition knew nothing about loans 99x (83) 86x (109) had applied 1x (01) 123 (15) aquired a loan - 2x (03) - numbers in parentheses are the number of observation in that cell. Source: Staudt. Kathleen. (1978). "Agricultural Productivity Gaps: A Case Study of Hale Preference in Government Policy Implementation." Development and Chang . 9:439‘57 and Staudt. Kathleen. (1982). "Women Farmers and Inequalities in Agricultural Services." In Bay. Edna 6.. ed. (1982). Women apd Work in Africa. Boulder. Westview Press. Inc. 98 Moreover. according to an agriculture personnel interviewed by Staudt. extension agents generally believe that the male head of the household. who they confer with. will pass the pertinent information onto other relevant members of the household. i.e. their wives (Staudt. 1982:11). The extension agency is the main source of communication between the government and the rural population. Agents use “barszas.” traditional gatherings of men. as convenient locations for instruction and demonstrations. Women. however. do not attend the barazas due to both time and cultural constraints (Staudt. 1982:208). The majority of women participate in communal and/or community groups. yet no instruction is provided through these groups (Staudt. 1978:451). The result is a reinforcement of the sex-segregation and female-farmer neglect of the extension system. According to the figures in Table 14. fewer female managed farms than jointly managed farms had members attend two week training courses. Of the 203 of jointly managed farms with attending members. only 6 participants were females. In many cases. sons who were trained moved off the farm and found non-farm related employment (Staudt. 1982:7). Kenya has a high rate of male-out migration from the rural areas. Moock found that with improvements in their education. men moved out of rural areas and into industry or urban employment. while women were inclined to remain in the rural areas. applying their additional education to agriculture (Moock. 1976:835). This may be due to the fact that women are traditionally full-time farmers over their entire life. whereas men seek outside employment while they are young and middle- aged: farming is only undertaken in old age (Staudt. 1982:7). Moock suggested that this phenomenon results in a concentration of 99 less educated and perhaps less intelligent men in the rural areas. Therefore. selected recipients of extension services. the men. were possibly the least competent people in the villages (Moock. 1976:835). He concluded that the effect of education of women had a greater impact on output. in spite of their being relatively neglected. Staudt found that a significant portion of the early adopters of hybrid corn were women (Staudt. 1982:11). Data on Table 14 illustrates that there is no significant difference in adoption rates between female and jointly managed farms. Yet. there is considerable disparity in the number of visits. knowledge of loans. applications for loans and actual loans acquired between farm type: joint farms score better in all cases. In sum: The research by Staudt and Moock on the bias of the extension service in Kenya against women farm man- agers. shows they are managing their meager resources as well or better than men. despite the discrimination against them (Uphoff. et al. 1979:126). One final example of extension activities in Kenya is the system instituted in the Mwea and Nembura districts under the resettlement authority. Although Chambers and Moris briefly mention that women participate in farmer training and nutrition courses (7x and 24x of the women of Nembura and Mwea respectively). the only examples of their participation provided refer solely to pre-natal. post-natal and child care courses. The designers of the program envisioned men as the heads of the households. the principle laborers and the decision-makers. yet. the data on Table 8 illustrates that women of Nembura and Mwea generally make the decisions concerning farm and household production. Men’s major contributions to decision-making concern household purchases. 100 4.3.4.6 Burkina Faso After enactment of the Percy Amendment by the United States Agency for International Development (AID) in 1976. the government of Burkina Faso was mandated to have revamp their extension program for women. providing more technical knowledge. In reality. however. the new program closely resembled the old home economics programs. “Agents d’ Economie Familiale" (domestic economy agents) gave instructions to female-farmers concerning health. hygiene. sanitation. literacy and ”unspecialized agricultural or economic activities (Rogers. 1980:90). Of the 1.500 extension agents trained through the regional development organizations (ORD’s). only 95 (about 6X) were women (Rogers. 1980:90). It should be recalled that in the settlements women performed 74x of all crOp work (see Table 1). In addition. interviews with Burkinabe spokeswoman revealed that female-farmers’ major immediate concerns were for access to wells (As indicated in Chapter two. in some areas of Burkina Faso it can take women as much as 5 hours to retrieve water). carts for transport. devices for grinding millet. and the amoun of work they had (Cloud. 1977 and Carr. 1980:10). None of these concerns are reflected in the content of the extension courses in home economics listed above. 4.3.4.7 Ethiopia In 1975. the women’s program of the Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit (CADU) was evaluated. The program was found to consist of originally mother and child care. sewing and vegetable garden activities. Later. courses in hygiene. gymnastics. nutrition and home improvements were added (UNFAO. 1977:144-45). Many women have also claimed that they are unable to attend other "progressive farmer" 101 programs. which deal with technical agriculture. because of time- constraints or their husbands’ outright refusal to permit them (UNFAO. 1977:146). 4.3.4.8 Rwanda Extension services for women address cooking. sewing. embroidery. child care and nutrition. The training center in Nyagahanga has a lower- quality program for women than for men. even though women play “a fundamental role in crop farming and animal husbandry” (UNFAO. 1980:89). 4.3.4.9 Zambia The Zambian government does provide training for women as well as men. about 30% of the 1974 enrollements at one Farm Institute were women (Muntemba. 1982). Women’s technical training. nonetheless. was significantly more limited than men’s. Only three courses dealt with poultry. maize and groundnut production. while seven courses dealt with “female extension" such as sewing. kitting and advice on establishing sewing clubs. The government did support women’s initiatives to create poultry cluds as well. 4.3.4.10 Niger In Niger. female-farmers have expressed interest in improving their agricultural production skills throught their repeated requests for weeding tools. fungicides for millet seed. mills. improved water supply. animal traction and instruction in animal husbandry. At the time. there were no institutions for training women even through a long standing school for training male extension agents was enlarged during the 1970’s (Cloud. 1977). In 1981. USAID initiated a feive year progarm to construct seven new “Farmer Training Centers". Graduates were to act as village-level demonstrators. and tow female "animatrices" (agents) were to be trained for each village. Little information is available concerning the women’s component of the program. however. reports of th training centers suggest that while operating at full capacity. the centers’ technical packages are inadequate and there is a lack of short-term credit and inputs (Berger. et al. 1984:65). 4.3.4.11 Chad USAID established a two year (1978/79) training program for 200 female farm partners. i.e. women whose husbands were receiving training. The training course was comprised of 70x technical agriculture and 30x home economics. marketing. and literacy instructions. The results of this program are unknown. 4.3.4.12 Senegal In a rice producing area of Senegal. Taiwanese field instructors were brought in to train farmers in improved rice cultivation practices. These techniques were demonstrated to men only. but women are the cultivators. The men took no notice and the women remained uninformed. and the program was a failure (UNDP. 1980:65). In 1979. USAID initiated a five year program to “...improve extension and research capabilities to reach the entire farm family" (Berger. et al. 1984:63). The women’s component of the prOject had the following objectives: 1) To provide agricultural inputs. 2) to install village grinding mills. 3) to assist in establishing women’s producer cooperatives. 4) to train female village extension workers. 5) to test training materials for women in nutrition. health and home economics and 6) to disseminate labor-saving devices. No information concerning the degree of success of the pr0ject is available. One World Bank study. 103 however. remarked that the effectiveness of technical extension is impared by the inclusion of home economics training (Berger. et al. 1984:63). An earlier USAID program (1976-78) focused specifically at farm women and girls. The program intended to establish cooperatives for vegetable production and marketing. to install wells and pumps for irrigation and to provide literacy. production. marketing and cooperative management training. By 1980. vegetable gardens were planted in only 7 of the 13 target villages. only 2 of the 26 pumps installed were operable. most of the wells had run dry. primarily men attended the literacy classes because the women and girls lacked time. yields were low. little or no profits accrued to vegetable production and the nutritional status of participants and their families did not improve (Berger. et al. 1984:64). 4.4 Neglected Factors Contributing to Program Underachievement: Other African Cases This section provides a review of a number of programs which neglect or misrepresent crucial components of specific semisubsistence agricultural systems. Examples to be discussed here include programs which neglect to account for: 1) women’s right to the use or ownership of land. 2) women’s role as the provider of the family’s food. 3) women’s labor constraints. 4) women’s independent need for credit and access to inputs. and 5) women’s need for access to markets for their product. As with extension programs mentioned in the previous section. these design deficiencies influence the delivery of services and render some programs ineffective in achieving their objectives. Certainly. not all development programs suffer from these 104 deficiencies. However. the fact that many do is significant in itself. This section will present examples of actual programs that fall into each category mentioned above. and attempt to illustrate the importance of incorporating a more complete and accurate conceptualization of the systems targeted by development programs. 4.4.1 Women’s Rights to the Use or Ownership of Land Generally. land reform and distribution have had negative effects on women’s access to land and it’s product. The establishment of "western“ property rights has eliminated women’s traditional usufruct rights. and the reallocation of land to male heads of households has severely restricted women’s options for owning land. Colonial policies. land reform and resettlement schemes commonly distribute land to male household heads (Blumberg. 1981: Noronha and Letham. 1983 and UNDP. 1979). Cloud noted that in the Sahel. resettlement schemes alter the form of property rights. assigning land to individual families. Because a single head of the household is identified for repayment purposes. ownership of land passes to this individual. Women. infrequently identified as the household head. lose their rights to the land and become dependent on the men (Cloud. 1977). In Kenya (including the Mwea resettlement scheme). Nigeria. Lesotho. Togo and Ethiopia. modern laws have replaced female farmers’ traditional right to the product of the land they cultivate and/or have reversed their more recent right to land ownership (Staudt. 1980 and UNDP. 1979). In the mid 1970s. only 5.9x of the land in Kenya was registered in a woman’s name. and in Lesotho only men have legal right 105» to enter into land contracts although 853 of the agricultural labor force is female (Bennet. 1979 and Pals. 1976 both cited in Berger. et al. 1984). The LLDP authorities in Malawi distributed prOJect land that had been expropriated from a long standing system of matrilineal land inheritance to male heads of household. many of whom were migrant industrial laborers (Rogers. 1980). The redistribution to men of land held by women either through traditional usufruct rights or as personal property is well documented in the literature. Some of more frequently cited authors who have dealt with Sub-Saharan Africa include Ester Boserup. John de Wild. Jennie Dey (The Gambia). Barbara Rogers. Zenebeworke Tadesse. Jette Bukh (Ghana). and Barbara Issacman and June Stephen (Mozambique). The redistribution of land away from women can have determental effects upon women’s productivity and the economic development of their agricultural enterprises. First. individuals who own land or lease it for extended periods of time have greater incentives to invest and maintain the land. Second. ownership of land is often a prerequesite to obtaining loans of participating in programs. e.g. cooperatives. Finally. researchers and program designers often select their target populations from registeries based on land ownership. e.g. tax registers. Without access to land. women have less incentive or ability to invest and are apt to be overlooked as appropriate program participants. 4.4.2 Women’s Role As Provider of the Family’s Food In Sub-Saharan Africa. it is primarily the responsibility of women to provide food for the children. herself and her husband (see sections 2.1.1 and 3.3.4). Therefore. development programs which include 106 redistribution of land or resettlement require the incorporation of fields for food crop production. Bellancle and Gentil found that women of the SODENKAM settlement of Cameroon spend an “inordinate“ amount of time in the production of food crops (Lele. 1975:30). This is at least partly due to the fact that female farmers had been forced from their land that had been cleared near the village to allow for expansion of coffee and cocoa production. New food crop fields had poorer soil quality and were located three to six. and in some cases as much as ten. kilometers away from the village (Tinker. 1981:62). In Nigeria. resettlement schemes did not provide garden plots for women to grow the family’s food. Furthermore. the income from cash crops. for which women contributed a large portion of the labor. was given directly to the men (the corporate head of the household). This left women without means of providing her family with food. home grown or purchased. and therefore reduced the family’s level of consumption (Tinker. 1981:62). The Mwea settlement program mentioned earlier allocated small plots for women’s home gardening activities. Unfortunately. the size of the plots were inadequate: the program designers had assumed that the new irrigated rice crop could provide for at least some of the family’s food needs (Tinker. 1981:62). The men. however refused to consume the rice. a non-traditional foodstuff. and the women were forced to sell the rice for more expensive traditional food. The women of the settlement were extremely dissatisfied with the design of the program as well as their unremunerated role in the production of rice. Chambers and Moria noted a high rate of desertion 107 from the project by wives of participating male farmers (Chambers and Moris. 1973). Consequently. the program was: ...undermined by women’s refusal to devote the time needed to the rice crop. and their black-market trading in rice. the only source of income for them. Another even more drastic response was for women to abandon the settlement scheme altogether (Rogers. 1979:6). The Autorite des Amenagements des Vallees des Volta (AVV) of Burkina Faso and the French.designed a resettlement scheme to develop the White and Red Valleys. Female-farmers were considered marginal to the project. hence. there was "...little consideration of women’s semi- autonomous production in the initial stage of the preject" (Gladwin. at al. 1984:11). One year after the first 250 families moved into the settlement. women began to leave. families threatened to move out and new families were reluctant to move in. A major complaint was that no land had been allocated to women for food crop production. Many women claimed their children were going hungry (Rogers. 1979:5). A final example is that of a resettlement scheme in Senegal (Gladwin. et al. 1984:18). Women threatened to return to their home villages if land was not provided for them. The authorities managed to find sufficient available land. 4.4.3 Female Labor Constraints For female farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa. labor is a scarce resource. Frequently. their limited cash income or surplus production combined with their heavy burden of providing the basic needs of their families inhibit the possibilities for hiring labor. Cultural restrictions on the employment of men also limit their available labor supply. Therefore. female farmers generally depend exclusively on their own labor and that of their children and close relatives. They are also 108 generally obligated to work for their husbands. Many prOject designs. however. disregard women’s time constraints and overlook the wide range of activities for which they are responsible. especially those not directly related to field work. The outcome is often an imposition of severe over exertion on the part of female farmers/producers (Lele. 1975: Cleave. 1974: Burfisher and Horenstein. 1981: Farrington. 1975 and Levi and Havinden. 1982). Additional factors contributing to the dissatisfaction with the AVV preject in Burkina Faso were related to women’s increased burden. The women who either left or threatened to leave the settlement complained that the wells were far from their houses. there was insufficient fire wood. an the work was exceptionally hard and of a long duration (Cloud. 1977 and Rogers. 1979:5). The innovations introduced through the Lilongwe Land Development Preject (LLDP) were said to have been difficult to implement because they increased the already heavy workload of women (Rogers. 1980:171). Most efforts to increase agricultural production through the application of new technology have concentrated on improving the productivity of land. According to the World Bank. however: Over the last decade. it has been recognized that labor bottlenecks are a key constraint ot agricultural pro- gress in Africa...[yetl...most of the methods encouraged still aim to increase productivity of land (fertilizer and seed packages). More emphasis should now be placed on measures that increase labor productivity. in par- ticular. use of farm implements. ox-drawn cultivation. use of cereals processing equipment (winnowers. threshers). and equipment aimed at reducing labor input of women’s tasks (mills. improved water supply) (World Bank. 1981:75). Uma Lele points out that tractorization. a popular concept in Tanzania. simply postpones the labor bottlenecks (Lele. 1975:33). The expansion of 109 hectarage due to tractor use increases requirements for weeding. harvesting. etc. Similarly. line transplanting. a technique often recommended by "Training and Visit" extension services requires more weeding. Women have resisted attempts to implement line transplanting in Senegal and Madagascar (Berger. et al. 1984:43). To enhance production through tractorization or line transplanting. complementary inputs such as herbicides. mechanical weeders and new weed controlling planting techniques must be introduced simultaneously. It is estimated that about 80% of all water pumps in Third World countries are inoperable ( Ashby. 1981:130). Given the amount of time women invest in fetching water. they may be interested in learning how to maintain and repair them. The reduction in labor required for water collection could allow women to spend more time in food production. Construction of food storage facilities and regulation of food supplies are also predominately women’s responsibilities (see Chapter 2). The estimated losses of grain in storage for West Africa are impressive: Ghana. 75x; Nigeria. 30-70x over an six to eight month period: Ivory Coast. 20-9ox of all maize stored: and Benin. 30-50x in five months of storage (D’Onofrio-flores and Pfafflin. 1982:91). Under these circumstances. a logical food security strategy would be to promoted improved storage facilities and train women how construct and maintain them. Of course a farmer’s decision to adoption a particular technology will be based in part on whether the appropriate complementary inputs are available and there are accessible markets (Harwood. 1979:14). For women. under the present institutional arrangements. these two conditions might be severely constrained. 110 4.4.4 Women’s Independent Need For Credit and Purchased Inputs Credit and subsidized input purchasing services commonly furnished through agricultural development programs rarely incorporate female farmers. For the compilation of institutional registers. husbands and wives production activities are considered part of one household. and the men are listed as the head or representative. Frequently. wives are not even registered. These institutions then limit the servicable population by dealing strictly with the male representatives. Women were inadvertently excluded from the credit services associated with the extension programs of Malawi. Kenya and Tanzania (see section 4.3.2.2. Table 14 and section 4.3.2.3 respectively). The LLDP extension program relied upon a register of growers that omitted a large portion of the female-farmers. In Kenya. the lack of female extension agents. the inability or reluctance of male extension agents to address women and the use of locations inaccessible to women for disseminating credit information all inhibit female farmers’ ability to obtain loans. Women of the Morogoro and Arushs regions of Tanzania were unable to obtain the necessary recommendations from local village chairpersons. who are frequently traditional male elders of the opinion that women do not purchase inputs or farm independently (ICRW. 1980a:27). In Botswana. women were denied access to credit and subsidized inputs. both services allocated through the extension agents (Ashby. 1981:130). The hybrid maize program of Ghana (see section 4.3.2.1) contained a credit provision but female-farmers were denied access. Women can be indirectly excluded from acquiring loans by prohibiting 111 their membership in cooperatives that administer the credit or by administering credit according to land ownership. In Kenya. Zambia. Lesotho and Tanzania. women were unable to obtain loans because they did not meet the minimum land ownership requirements (Fortmann. 1982: Blumberg. 1981: Staudt. 1982 and Lycette. 1984). 4.4.5 Women’s Need for Access to Product Markets Organized marketing and more specifically market cooperatives are another institutional arrangement with generally restricted access for female farmers. According to an FAO survey: Access to agricultural co-operatives has actually not been available to women. except for legal heads of households. as husbands represent the family. hold the voting power and collect the profits. Requirements such as ownership of land are often obstacles to women’s membership...when membership is open to women. traditional customs tend to limit their participation. especially at the management and decision-making levels (UNDP. 1980:67). Furthermore. registers of marketing organizations. cooperative or not. tend to function in a similar fashion as with credit institutions: the women are subsumed under their husbands authority (see section 4.4.4). Exceptions are those registers which contain information on women only such as cooperatives or prOject registers used specifically for ”women and development" programs. As mentioned in section 2.2.6. when the Nigerian government sponsored milk and groundnut cooperatives. they restricted membership and ownership to men (Ahmed. 1978:9). Similarly. the grain cooperatives of Senegal have excluded women (Sene. 1980:16). The new hybrid yellow maize that was introduced as part of the Isoya Rural Development PrOject in Nigeria. also mentioned in section 2.2.6. established a marketing board for male producers. No females were 112 permitted to join. although they traditionally marketed local white maize. Commenting on the impact of prOject on women. Lapido wrote: Within the first two years of its inception. the maize pr0ject created a gap in the women’s mar- keting cycles...Many women who had already estab- lished their own independence found themselves turning to their husbands for capital (Ladipo. 1981:124). 4.4 Suggestions For Improving Development Programs After reviewing the extension systems and other development programs of Sub-Saharan Africa mentioned above. a number of suggestions can be identified to improve their design and implementation. Generally. programs need to be assessed as to whether they provide services to appropriate target populations given their explicit objectives. Where women are agricultural workers. whether upaid family labor or self- employed in cash or subsistence production. the design and implementation of programs should refect their role. This is especially important in cases where the objectives of programs are to obtain food security or to increase production. productivity or the standard of living of rural inhabitants. Table 15 provides a summary of section 4.4. The table contrasts the extent of women’s contribution to agricultural production and the incidence of female headed housedholds with the existence of programs that neglect to incorporate women and/or overlook women’s full responsibilities. The information contained in Table 15 reveals the inconsistency between program design and actual production systems of a variety of African countries. With the exception of Mozambique. women dominate agricultural activities and comprise between 31% and 75% of all household heads: yet. prOject services are inaccessibel for women. Seven 113 of the ten countries listed have programs that prohibit women from owning land or obtaining credit and inputs. Five countries have programs that overlook women’s labor constraints. Overall. the programs cited Table 15 Summary of pfrlcan Programs Neglected ngen-Related Factorg; Country Women’s Female Land Labor Women’s Credit! ggricultural Household Constraint Provider Inputs Contribution Heads Role Botswana 40-80% crop 46-80% X activity Burkina 74% crop X X Faso activity Cameroon 55% of ave. X X “man" days Ghana 54% ag. self- 30-50% X X employed/em- plyees Kenya 80% sub. ag. 31% X X X X Lesotho 85% ag. labor >30x X X Malawi - 75% X X X Mozambique 34% ag. labor 25% X Tanzania 51% ag. labor 51.1% X X X Zambia )50% labor/ 47% X X hgctor Note: This table does not infer that all programs in countries listed poccess the same inconsistencies found in the programs discussed in the text. Source: Tables 1 and 7 and the text of section 4.4. here require extensive design alterations and changes in the methods of implementation. Means of identifying and correcting misdirected efforts must be incorporated into their designs. First. it is critical that development programs directly address women whether they are semi-autonomous farmers or strictly home producers. Two-way. iterative communication is required between the designers and administrators on the one hand and the female participants on the other hand (Hale. 1982). 114 At the design stage. women are better able to express their concerns and constraints than male proxies. Section 4.2.2 has demonstrated that men often inadvertantly. or even purposely. misrepresent the participation. needs and contraints of their womenfolk. For example. the existence of female labor constraints is revealed through interviews with women themselves. yet men may preceive that women’s constraints are minimal. In addition. women are apt to more readily accept new technologies and cultural practices if they feel at least partly responsible for their introduction. The success of a particular innovation is fundamentally dependent upon its usefulness to the farmer. At the implementation stage. it is critical to directly address female farmers. Programs that address “family farms" should include husbands and wives as distinct participants and acknowledge. and where appropriate. incorporate both individuals’ work activities. It should not be assumed that men will transfer pertinent knownledge to relevant household members. Staudt found that Kenyan women. who provide the bulk of the agricultural labor. were less informed about new innovations then their husbands. Moveover. husbands frequently misunderstood or forgot the instructions (Staudt. 1982:7). One observation of the extension system in Tanzania implies that there too information does not necessarily transfer from the men to the women: Tanzanian men were one to five times more likely than their wives to have knowledge of a given recommendation (Ashby. 1981:159). As mentioned in section 4.3.1. the best results of education and extension are derived when the recipients of information are the individuals who actually perform the task to be modified. These 115 individuals have both the most background knowledge and the incentive to utilize the new information. Accordingly. technology related to water. storage. agricultual product processing. and many field activities should be introduced to women. Where women are responsible for the maintanence of and administration of traditional medicine for livestock. new medications and small diagnostic laboratories should be managed by women. Moock’s study revealed that women were more inclined to utilize the information. the impact of education of women on output was greater. and that ”women who farmed alone turned out to be better managers than the men" (Boulding. 1975a:13). Bond’s study suggested tht women diffuse information faster than men (Bond. 1974). Similarly. Ladipo found that in rural Nigeria women’s cooperatives established record keeping long before men’s. It was their example which influenced the men’s cooperative to adopt record keeping practices (Ladipo. 1981:131). For adequate delivery of information. the sexual composition of enrollments for extension agents and farmer training course should reflect the sexual distribution of contributions to various production activities. Instructions and demonstrations ought to be provided at times and locations convenient for women. Adequate child care and dormitory facilities need to be furnished. Existing women’s organizations can incorporate instructions provided that the organizations poccess sufficient human and capital resources to undertake a training program. and provided that the membership includes women of the targeted population: many women’s organizations represent elite. non-agriculural women. Voluntary organizations. although useful under many circumstances. are not always 116 appropriate where women face strict time constraints or have a high opportunity costs. One method of information dissemination. used in parts of Africa with varying success in rearching female farmers. is the "farm forum.“ The farm forum is comprised of village members who regularly meet to listen to educational radio broadcasts and jointly review supplementary printed material. In Ghana one farm forum program achieved 54x female participation. while a similar figure for a Nigerian program was only 10% (Berger. et al. 1984:49). Organizing female producers or traders into cooperatives or associations establishes a visible and effective collective force that can increase each individual woman’s chance of obtaining access to government services. e.g. credit. inputs. information or product transport facilities. Forming “block farms" (bringing a number of small farm parcels together to form a larger block) enables women to collectively 1) meet minimum land requirements for loans and marketing services. or 2) achieve economies of scale and perhaps mechanize a number of production activities. Furthermore. as a block or cooperative. women are more likely to be acknowledged by researchers and policy- makers. The second major alteration required of development programs is that the content of programs for women has to be reoriented from home economics to productivity enhancement. Two thirds of all USAID WID [United States Agency for International Development’s Women and Inter- national Development Office) prOjects can be classified as family welfare programs and only one-third as productivity increasing programs (ICWR. 1980b:28). Section 4.3. concerning extension programs. reveals that women’s training programs focus on home economics and the introduction of new skills. e.g. knitting. which neither enhance the productivity of women in their present activities nor generally provide addtitional income. In contrast. FAO interviews with non-profit private organizations. government agencies and spokeswoman for various women’s groups throughout the Sahel demonstrate that rural women are requesting labor- saving technology. activities for supplemental income earning and technical assistence and training (Cloud. 1977). Assessments of extension and other development programs accessibility to women must go beyond whether or not women are in some way included in the designs. First. programs should be checked to see that they accurately represent women’s roles and needs as defined by women themsleves. Second. programs need to be evaluated with respect to their ability to deliver appropriate information to women. Incentives should be provided to reward those programs and institutions that make progress in rearching female farmers. Finally. the creation of women specific programs and institutions is considered a second best solution to the integration of women into national. regional and local development efforts. A sexually segerated approach to development is costly. unnecessarily redundant and apt to result in a distribution of wealth which based on sexual discrimination. CHAPTER FIVE. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Summary The review of the literature concerning women’s contribution to agricultural production reveals a number of useful observations and general tendencies. First. women do provide a significant portion of the labor inputs. They are responsible for providing water. fuel. informal education: gathering wild herbs and other useful plants: transporting products and inputs and for administering family as well as livestock health. In the field. women generally contribute to planting. hoeing. weeding and harvesting (For further information see section 2.1 and Tables 1 through 4). Even where religious seclusion is practiced. women undertake production activities within the compound or close to the house. These activities may include. as with Hausa women. marketing of agricultural products or prepared foods and beverages. Storing and processing agricultural products and preparing family meals are also the responsibility of women. Finally. throughout many regions of the Third World. women market agricultural products as well. Second. variability is found in both the extent and type of ' contribution from women. The women with the greatest amount of responsibility are from Sub-Saharan Africa. Variables which influence the degree of their contribution include: seasonality. religion. class. male out-migration. technology. education of children. cultural expectations for women and the disposition of crops. i.e. grown for cash 118 or subsistence (see section 2.2). Male out-migration and education of children. especially girls. increases women’s workload. Class status. in contrast. is generally inversely related to women’s contribution. Third. the literature suggests that women contribute significantly to decision-making. Female farmers manage their own subsistence fields. vegetable gardens and in many areas of Africa cash crop enterprises. (See section 3.3.5 for more information on female managers of cash crop enterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa.) These activities are. however. interdependent with other household production activities because women have obligations to provide labor for the production of their husbands' crops and they often have joint responsibilities with their husbands to provide cash for their children’s clothes and education. With the exception of these independent agricultural activities for which women take essentially complete control. husbands and wives share in decision-making. The pattern that emerges from the literature is that women make decisions concerning cultural practices. planting. input use. seed selection. livestock maintenance. storage. processing and distribution of output among family members. livestock and the market. Men. on the other hand. dominate decisions concerning input purchases. large capital outflows. often grain disposal and the selection of crops to be cultivated in their own fields (see section 3.3.4 and Tables 8 and 9). Forth. women are important family providers. measured in cash earnings or home Production (see section 3.3.4). Latin American surveys indicate that. contrary to popular wisdom. women’s income often amounts to 50% of the total family income. Home production activities of Asia and Africa commonly represent from one half to two thirds of the total 120 family income. Furthermore. women of regions with high rates of male out-migration frequently do not receive a regular cash remittance from their menfolk. A number of studies have suggested that the welfare of the family is more strongly correlated with women’s income than is it with men’s. Fifth. the incidence of female headed households is high throughout the world. The percent averages of households headed by women for the world and Sub-Saharan Africa are 25-30% and 22% respectively. For specific countries and/or regions within countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. these figures can be as high as 80% for some villages in Botswana and 75% overall in Malawi (see Tables 7 and 15 and sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3). Finally. throughout the world. there is considerable variation in the socio-economic structure of households (see sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2) which allows for various degrees of interdependence among individuals working within separate spheres. e.g. production. consumption. budgetary and investment spheres. Specifically. members of a common residence may not be members of the same production or consumption unit and therefore may exert only a minor influence over each others activities. In Africa. men and women typically maintain separate fields to meet their individual responsibilities to their families. While women produce crops mainly for the families’ daily subsistence. men produce for larger. periodic purchases or for long-term investments. Therefore. their production objectives and strategies may be quite divergent. Similarly. where polygyny is practiced. a family may form single or multiple consuming units depending on whether or not the wives live and 121 work together within one compound. Given these six observations. it appears that pre-existing theories and models of farm production do not adequately represent female farmers of the Third World and their food crop production activities. A review of standard methods employed in research and policy formation directed at semisubsistence food production suggests the need for a new theory or supplemental concepts that specifically analyze and explain such a system. In general. neoclassical. marxist and feminist theories need to be expanded to incorporate non-market production of goods and services. Current economic theories focus almost exclusively on the market. Consequently. the valuation of non-market production and the knowledge of non-market incentives are only rough or approximate. Because of the market focus of neoclassical. marxist and to a lesser extent feminist theories. they have greater analytical and explanatory capabilities with regard to developed rather than less developed economies. which have fewer established markets. The larger the share of production that takes place outside the market. the more limited is the analytical and explanatory power of a market model. These theories are also limited in their ability to explain and predict micro-level farm behavior under semisubsistence conditions. While Marxists and Feminists consider institutions and the distribution of power and wealth central to their analyses. they provide few specific practical tools. especially for micro-level quantitative analyses. In contrast. Neoclassicalists provide practical tools but generally assume a given distribution and set of institutions. (For more information. see section 3.2.3.) 122 The use of the standard family farm model (see section 3.1.2 and 3.2.3) as a unit of study has questionable validity within a Third World context. The assumptions that the family farm is comprised of a cohesive group of people whose members all contribute to one production unit. jointly consume all products and possess similar or identical tastes and preferences. which. in turn. allows any one member’s choices to represent that of all other members is overly simplistic and incorrect. The previous discussion suggests that the household should not be assumed a homogeneous unit unless it actually is. Otherwise. this model is an unwarranted simplification. Similarly. the corporate male head of the household should not be automatically assumed the provider. the farmer/producer and the decision-maker. Like the theories themselves. standard definitions of production generally reflect the same emphasis on the market. There is a tendency to label activities that take place in the market as production. and activities that take place within the home or outside the market as consumption. e.g. a commercial mill grinding grain into flour is production. while a woman pounding grain for home use is consumption. Production definitions such as “economically active.“ the ”gainful worker" and "marketable output“ include commercial goods and services or activities for which there are generally markets. National population censuses and organizations that collect basic international data commonly use the first two definitions of production. Consequently. data collected by these sources underestimate production and contain limited information on people who. and sometimes whole geographic regions of a country that predominately work outside the market. Many existing data bases and new data to be extracted via standard 123 data collection procedures have or will have overlooked much of the production activities of women and the informal sector as well as various production components of the semisubsistence agricultural system. This oversight is due largely to the tendency to count only formal. market activities and to subsume a number of quasi independent activities (market or non-market) under one target individual and/or a theoretically central enterprise. family farm or household. ' Of the definitions mentioned in section 3.2.1. the FAO’s incorporates the widest range of productive activities. Supplementing this procedure with the collection of home production information could provide a fairly complete picture of rural production activities. A review of common interview questions and methods of implementation indicates that the data collected reinforces the limited family farm model: and yet. the data are not representative of the population they attempt to describe (see section 4.2). Surveys. especially national censuses. consistently underestimate women’s work and their contributions to family income because: 1) sampling frames systematically exclude women: 2) for gathering information concerning women. male proxy respondents are interviewed instead of women themselves: 3) unclear definitions of work are used. which often suggest that the production activities of women are not considered work: and 4) secondary as wall as intermittent production activities are frequently excluded from production data. A number of suggestions to improve both data collection methods and the design of interview guide questions are provided in section 4.2. Incorporating these suggestions in data collection procedures could enhance the quality of data bases and background material developed from 124 such procedures. The use of conversion factors contribute further to the under- estimation of women’s production. However. the assumption that there is greater variability in labor productivity between sexes than among the sexes has not been substantiated. It was noted that if female labor , input figures of existing studies were re-estimated using a weight of one (male and female labor are equivalent). their contribution would appear to increase substantially. For example. where women’s contribution was determined to be 30% using an overall conversion factor of .6 or .7 (both weights were cited in section 3.2.4.3). the re- estimated figures for women’s contribution. using a weight of one. would be 50X and 43% respectively. Furthermore. a number of researchers in the field suggest that conversion factors or weights for aggregating different labor types. e.g. men. women and children. are arbitrarily derived and of little analytical utility. 5.2 Policy Implications The limitations of pre-existing theories. models of farm production and data collection procedures discussed thus far have important policy implications. Reliance on incomplete data bases similar to those previously mentioned. obstructs the identification of appropriate target groups and individuals who comprise these groups. The selection of production definitions and the design of interviews modify the type of information collected and used in designing programs (see section 3.2.2). Thus. fulfillment of government objectives to reduce unemployment or underemployment. to alleviate poverty and to improve the standard of living of rural inhabitants may be thwarted by the use of data and information that disproportionately represents a subset of the 125 target population who are tied to the market. The provision of government services may be highly skewed toward this group and underutilization of resources in the subsistence sector may dbt be fully appreciated. Similarly. market purchases and cash incomes may not accurately reflect the standard of living where home production is an important contributor to total income. Furthermore. food security policies may be misdirected if food production and consumption estimates are inaccurately measured due to extensive undercounting of subsistence activities as well as to a lack of information concerning the final disposition of agricultural products. The lack of data covering the full range of home production activities can lead to unrealistic calculations of available labor. Projected future prOJact output levels may not be reached if significant unpredicted labor constraints arise. PrOject underachievement due. in part. to unrealistic estimates of available female labor has been well documented in the literature. The data in Table 15 and section 4.4.3 provide some examples. Utilization of the family farm model and incomplete data bases for the purpose of designing policies programs can lead to limited and/or undesirable outcomes. (See sections 4.3 and 4.4 for exemplification.) The assumption that the various production units linked to a single corporate household are consolidated and jointly managed suggests that entitling land to a male. corporate head of the household is an innocuous transaction: yet. this often results in a redistribution of land from women’s food crop activities to men’s cash crop ventures. Redistribution of food form local subsistence uses to urban or foreign consumption is implied as well. Section 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 provide examples 126 of land distribution through colonization. land reform and the implementation of resettlement schemes as well as other agricultural prOjects. Analogously. appropriate recipients of credit and marketing services as well as information and training in new technology and cultural practices are overlooked when selection criteria assume a unified family farm model directed by a single male head of the household. Man. frequently the only recipients. often do not disseminate information throughout the corporate household and new technologies are not shared with other household members. In fact. non-agricultural. migratory males are frequently recipients of agricultural programs. In addition. unrealistic assumptions that women are home-makers and men are agricultural producers and family providers reinforces this sax- segregated distribution of information and services (see sections 4.3 and 4.5). Extension agencies. in particular. have been notorious for overlooking and down playing women’s contribution to agricultural production and to family decision-making. As a result. there is severe sex-segregation in the content and administration the agencies’ programs. and most do not adequately reach female farmers. Similarly. development pr0jects undertaken to assist women tend to be in the form of welfare programs. lacking services in technical advancement or for improving their economic efficiency and opportunities. This method of program delivery has two important shortcomings. First. the rate of adoption of new technology and cultural practices is constrained because a large portion of producers and managers (i.e. female farmers) are uninformed or disqualified. Second. efforts to 127 increase agricultural production are disproportionately applied to cash crop production. often destined for urban and export markets. and rarely applied to local food production. Higher export earnings. which could be used to purchase food: increased supply and lower prices of food in urban centers: and higher incomes for rural producers of cash crops are all possible outcomes from these approaches to program delivery. However. without a concurrent increase in local food supplies. it is unlikely that rural food security would be improved with these methods. Because a single budgetary unit is assumed under the family farm model. the male. corporate head of the household commonly receives remuneration for the entire family’s participation in agricultural prOjects. However. as mentioned in sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4. purchases and budgets are often sex-specific. Women are generally responsible for the daily subsistence of the family and small purchase items. while men are responsible for large. periodic purchases. This contradiction in the system of remuneration may then lead to an expansion of the budget for large. periodic purchases or man’s cash crop ventures. while the budget for small purchases. household consumption items and subsistence production activities diminishes. Consequently. an increase in production of commercial agricultural products might be accompanied by a reduction in local food security. Section 3.3.4 cites a number of studies undertaken in Malawi. India. Colombia. Tanzania and Africa in general which suggest that family welfare is more strongly correlated to women’s incremental income than men’s. Furthermore. several other studies indicate that men tend to spend their incomes on consumer and luxury goods. alcoholic beverages and entertainment. These studies suggest that increments in men’s 128 incomes may act as leakages from the local income pool to urban. commercial centers or overseas. depending on the origin of the consumer and luxury goods and the cash inputs. In contrast. the purchase patterns of woman indicates that increments in women’s incomes are inclined to remain in the local income pool and further spur local growth and employment through a multiplier effect. (Section 4.5 presents suggestions for correcting some of these problems and improving development programs.) Both of these points provide arguments for including women as managers in prOJects which promote cash crop cultivation. It is evidenced by the preceding discussion concerning the relevance of present theories. models and research methods in subsistence production analyses that there is a need for the development of a new farm model and for modifications in research techniques. Some specific points that are presently overlooked but that need to be incorporated into the model are the following. First. the term “farmer" should be more clearly defined. Determination of whether a person who owns. manages or works the fields qualifies as a farmer can relieve some ambiguity as to who is an appropriate member of the target population. This can promote greater consistency between prejact objectives and prOJect participation and distribution of benefits. Second. it is important that models and data collection procedures identify decision-makers. Policies and programs can be made more effective if the incentives. both market and non-market. of decision- makers and producers are understood batter. Third. concepts need to be developed in order to analyze and 129 explain the intrahousehold distribution of wealth and resources as well as the interdependence among semiautonomous units within the corporate household. Delineating the various production. budgetary. consumption and investment units according to specific individuals responsible for their execution can provide insights into the distribution of labor. purchased inputs and other resources: of income and expenditures and of decision- making authority among the various units. Information of this kind can assist program designers and administrators in identifying appropriate recipients of services. in appreciating the often unique resource and institutional constraints of specific production units and in improving the delivery of services. Appendix A contains an example of a set of survey questions which could extract some of the necessary information. For example. cash crop cultivation may operate with consultation from extension agents. with loans for purchasing inputs such as fertilizers and ploughs. and with guaranteed markets via government purchasing agents. while subsistence crop activities may not have access to any of these services. For the fulfillment of food security objectives. it may be useful to know whether specific food production activities rather than the household in general. with multiple enterprises. receives services or adopts new technologies and cultural practices. It may be more effective to target specific enterprises rather than specific households. Given the role. responsibility and authority of women with respect to agricultural production. and especially food crop production. it appears that food security strategies of Third World countries need to directly address the issue of women’s participation in agricultural production. Furthermore. women must become involved in the design and 130 implementation of such strategies. Finally. female-farmers should be Viewed as semi-autonomous producers. important providers of their families’ baSic needs. and worthy recipients of development program services in their own right. 5.3 Suggestions for Further Research As indicated by the previous two sections. there is a need for new theoretical research. Specific items requiring further exploration are: 1) the valuation of non-market goods and services. 2) the mechanisms which determine the flow of resources and output between market and non- market uses. and 3) incentives. both non-market and those unique to female farmers in Third World contexts. Suggestions for practical research are more numerous. Virtually all national data bases could be upgraded with new information extracted by surveys that follow the recommendations of Chapter 4. It is recognized that agricultural surveys are expensive propositions: nevertheless. they are warranted in regions where intensive development efforts are undertaken. Basic research can be undertaken to identify resource and institutional constraints of female farmers. to determine female farmers' responsiveness to specific policies and programs. and to measure the economic efficiency of their farm enterprises. The results of such studies can provide important insights into the strengths and weaknesses of agricultural programs in reacning women and influencing their agricultural production activities. The opportunity costs (primarily in the form of women’s labor) and the decision-making criteria used in trading off resources between the various units within 131 a corporate household might also be better understood. Results of basic research concerning female farmers can also be compared to similar studies of their male counterparts. Comparisons between male and female managed farms are illustrative: however. the results can also be misleading. It is difficult to compare male and female productivity'or managerial capabilities when there are uncontrolled factors affecting the outcome of the study such as the absence of household members responsible for critical tasks. For many female managed farms. the males who are responsible for acquiring draught animals or preparing the land are absent (Peters. 1984). When men are absent. cash income is often limited. It would be inaccurate to compare these farms with male managed farms that have all the laborers present (wives and children). and draw conclusion concerning the managerial capabilities of men and women. Further researdh should be undertaken to identify whether or not extension and other agricultural programs reach female farmers. and whether the quality and type of information delivered is representative of women’s actual roles. Generally. the quality of information received by women and the extent of resources allocated to the delivery of such information should be at least equal to that received by men. In some cases where discrepancies are identified. simple remedies such as hiring more female extension agents or inviting women to attend male dominated organizations can be employed. Cultural constraints. however. can make these remedies inoperable. Under such circumstances. alternative methods of dissemination of information should be researched and administered. APPENDIX A) B) C) APPENDIX A QUESTIONS T0 ADDR§S§ FOR DETERMINATION OF TARGET INDIVIDUAL Fagily Needs 1. What are the family’s needs for consumable food? 2. What are the family’s needs for food products? 3. What are the family’s needs for cash? 3.1 For consumable food and food products? 3.2 For other necessities? Division of Responsibility for Neegigg Thggg Need; 1. Consumable food 1.1 What items do women provide? 1.2 What items do men provide? 2. Food Products 2.1 What items do women provide? 2.2 What items do men provide? 3. Cash for Consumable Food and Food Products 3.1 Which purchased items do women provide? 3.2 Which purchased items do men provide? 4. Cash for Other Necessities 4.1 What competing uses for cash do women have? 4.2 What competing uses for cash do men have? Activities Undertaken to Fuigill These Responsibilities (Whgse Labor and Whose Decisions) 1. Consumable Items Provided by Women 1.1 What are women’s labour inputs and what are men’s labor inputs in terms of activities. time and proportion of total? 1.2 What are women’s decision-making inputs and what are men’s decision-making inputs? 2. Consumable Items Provided by Men 2.1. What are women’s labour inputs and what are men’s labour inputs in terms of activities. time and proportion of total? 2.2 What are women’s decision-making inputs and what are men's decision-making inputs? 3. Food Products Provided by Women 3.1. What are women’s labour inputs and what are men's labour inputs in terms of activities. time and proportion of total? 3.2. What are women’s decision-making inputs and what are men’s decision-making inputs? 4. Food Products Provided by Nen 4.1. What are women’s labour inputs and what are men’s labour inputs in terms of activities. time and proportion of total? 4.2. What are women’s decision-making inputs and what are men’s decision-making inputs? 132 D) 5. Cash for Consumable Food and Food Products ProVided by Women 5.1 What additional labour inputs are provided by women to obtain cash for consumable food and for food products? 5.2 What additional decisions are made by women and by men regarding these activities? 6. Cash for Consumable Food and Food Products Provided by Hen 6.1 What additional labour inputs are provided by men to obtain cash for consumable food and for food products? 6.2 What additional decisions are made by women and by men regarding these activities? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Who Who Who Who Who ve controls controls controls controls controls the the the the the worked by women? Who controls the worked by men? disposition disposition disposition disposition disposition disposition of of of of of of v consumable items provided by women? consumable items provided by men? food products provided by women? food products provided by men? cash obtained from items mainly cash obtained from items mainly SELECTED BIBILOGRAPHY 10. 11. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbot. Susan. (1976). "Full-Time Farmers and Week-End Wives: An Analysis of Altering Conjugal Roles." ournal of Marriage and the Family. 38(1):165-174. Acharya. Keane. and Lynn Bennett. (1983). Womgn and the Subsistence Sector: Ecgnpmic Eartigipgpion and Household Decision1pgkinq in Nepal. Washington. D.C.. WorlngankimSEaff Working Papers NQLHSgG. Adelman. Irma. (1973). "Growth. Income Distribution and Equity-Oriented Development Strategies.“ In Wilber. C.K.. ed. (1973). The Political Egopomz oi Developmepp ang Underdeveloppgnt 2nd pp. New York. Random House. Adeyokunnu. Tomilayo O. (1981). Womgp gnd pgpigulpupe in Nigeria. Addis Ababa. United Nations. Economic Commission for Africa. African Training and Research Centre for Women. Africa Report. (1981). "Statistics on African Women." Afpiga Rpport. 26(2):65-66. Ahmad. Zubeida. (1980). “The Plight of Rural Women: Alternatives For Action.” nternatiopal Labopr Review. 119(4):425-438. Ahmed. Iftikhar. (1978). "Technological Change and the Condition of Rural Women: A Preliminary Assessment." Geneva. International Labor Organization. World Employment Program Research. Working Paper. Allen. Chris and Gavin Williams. eds. (1982). Sociology of Developing Societies: Sub-Saharan Africa. New York. Nonthly Review Press. Andreas. Carol. (1983). "Rural Women in Peru.“ egources for Feminist Research. Toronto. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Department of Sociology: 67-72. Anandagayasekeram. P.: Ndunguru. B.J.: and Lupanga. I.J.. eds. (1981). “Proceedings of the Conference on Farming Systems and Farming Systems Research in Tansania." Horogoro. University of Dar es Salaam. Science. Anker. Richard. Faculty of Agriculture. Forestry and Veterinary (1983). "Female Labour Force PartiCipation in Developing Countries: A Critique of Current Definitions and Data Collection Methods." International Labour Reveiw. 122(6):709-23. 134 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 135 Aronoff. Joel and William D. Crano. (1975). "A Re-examination of the Cross-Cultural Principles of Task Segregation and Sex Role Differentiation in the Family." American Sociological Review. 40:12-20. Ashby. Jacqueline A. (1981). "New hodels for Agricultural Research and Extension: The Need to Integrate Women." In Lewis. 8.. ed. (1981). Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agriculture. Washington D.C.. Agency for International Development. Office for Women in Development. Atayi. Emmanuel Ayikoe. (1979). "Perceived Incentives and Disincentives as Related to Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: The Case of Small Farmers in Aneho District Togo. West Africa.” Ph.D. disertation. Cornell Universtiy. Atayi. E.A. and H.C. Knipscheer. (1980). Sprvey of Fpod Crop Farming Systems in the ’ZAPI-EST’. Atwood. David. (1981). "Evaluation of a Farmer Training Program in North Cameroon." N.S. Thesis. Michigan State University. Department of Agricultural Economics. Bagchi. Deipica. (1982). “Female Roles in Agricultural Nodernization: An Indian Case Study." East Lansing. Michigan State University. Women in International Development. Working Paper No. 10. Barnes. Carolyn. (1983). “Differentiation By Sex Among Small-Scale Farming Households in Kenya." pral Africapg. 15-16: 41-63. Bay. Edna 6.. ed. (1982). Women gng Work ip Afriga. Boulder. Westview Press. Beneria. Lourdes. (1980). “Some Questions About the Origin of the Division of Labour by Sex in Rural Societies." In ILO. (1980). Women in Rural Deve10pment: Criticpl Issues. Geneva. International Labour Office. . (1981). "Conceptualizing the Labor Force: The Underestimation of Women’s Economic Activities." In Nelson. Nici. (1981). African qugn in the Development Ppocess. London. Frank Cass and Company Limited. . ed. (1982). Women and Developpgnt: Thg Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies. New York. Praeger Publishers. Berger. Marguerite: Virginia DeLancey and Amy Nellencamp. (1984). "Bridging the Gender Gap in Agricultural Extension." Washington. D.C.. International Center for Research on Women. Birdsall. Nancy. (1983). “Neasuring Time Use and Nonmarket Exchange." In NcGreevey. William P. ed. (1983). Third 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. World Poyprty. Lexington. Ma.. Lexingtion Books. Blumberg. Rae Lesser. (1981). “Females. Farming and Food: Rural Development and Women's Participation in Agricultural Production Systems." In Lewis. 8.. ed. (1981). Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Aqriculturg, Washington. D.C.. Agency for International Development. Office of Women in Development. Bond. C.A. (1974). "Women's Involvement in Agriculture in Botswana." Gaborone. Botswana Ministry of Agriculture. Mimeo. Boserup. Ester. (1970). Woma ’s R e in co m' D v lo men . New York. St. Martin's Press. Boulding. Elise. ( ). "Dualism and Productivity: An Examination of the Economic Roles of Women in Societies in Transition." Boulder. University of Colorado. Draft. . (1975). "Women and Food Systems: An Alternative Approach to the World Food Crisis." Paper prepared for a symposium on the World Food Crisis at the University of Dakota in May. . (1975a). "Women Bread and Babies: Directing Aid to Fifth World Farmers." Boulder. University of Colorado. Institute of Behavioral Science. Program of Research on General Social and Economic Dynamics. International Women's Year Studies on Women. Paper No.4. . (1977). Women ip thp Twentieth Ceniupy Wgri . New York. Sage Publications. . (1983). "Measures of Women’s Work in the Third World: Problems and Suggestions." In Buvinic. M.: M.A. Lycette: and W.P.McGreevey. (1983). Women and Povgrty in the Third World. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Boye. Mame Madiore. (1980). “Women Who Submit and Are Silent." People. 7(3):16-18. Broch-Due. Vigdis: Else Garfield: and Patti Langton. (1981). In Galaty. J.G.. et al. eds. Future of Ppptoral People. Owatta. International Development Research Center. Brown. Maxwell. (1979). Farm Budgets: From Farm Income Analysis to Agricultural Prolgct Analysis. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Bryson. Judy C. (1981). "Women in Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for Development (An Exploratory Study). In Nelson. Nici. ed. (1981). African Woppn in the Develop- mgnt Procggs. London. Frank Cass and Company. Ltd. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 137 Bukh. Jette. (1979). The Village Woman in Ghana. Uppasla. ScandinaVian Institute of African Studies. . (1980). “Women in Subsistence Production in Ghana." In ILO. (1980). Women in Rural ngelopment: Critical Issues. Geneva. International Labour Office. Burfisher. Mary E. and Nadine R. Horenstein. (1983). ”Sex roles in the Nigerian TIV Farm Household and Differential Impacts of Development Progects." New York. The Population Council. International Programs. Case Studies of the Impact of Large-scale Development PrOJects on Women. Study No. 2. Butler. Lorna Nichael. (1979). "International Development-A Responsibility For the Land Grant University.“ Paper presented to University of Hawaii. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources All-Faculty Conference. Honolulu. Hawaii. 'January 8. Buvinic. Mayra and Media H. Youssef. (1978). “Women-Headed Households: the Ignored Factor in Development Planning.“ Washington. D.C.. International Center for Research on Women. Buvinic. Hayra: Margaret A. Lycette: and William Paul McGreevey. eds. (1983). Women and Eovgppy ip pp. Thipg ngig. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Buvinic. Mayra and Jennefer Sebstad. (1980). ”Women’s Issues in the Design of Progress Indicators of Rural Development.” In International Center for Research on Women. (1980). P iori i n th D i f D v lo m n ' m ’ Lpggg_. Washington. D.C.. Agency for International Development. Bureau of Development Support. Cain. Herlinda L. (1981). "Java. Indonesia: The Introduction of Rice Processing Technology." In Dauber. R.. and M.L. Cain. eds. (1981). Women and Technological Change in Developing Qpppppigp. Boulder, Westview Press. Inc. Caplan. Pat. (1981). “Development Policies in Tanzania-Some Implications for Women.“ he Journal of ngeiopment Studies. 17(3):98-109. Carr. Marilyn. (1980). "Technology and Rural Women in Africa." Geneva. International Labor Office. World Employment Program Research Working Papers. Caton. Douglas D. (1978). "Elements of the Food Production/Distribution System: An Overview on How Women Can Contribute." Tucson. University of Arizona. Center for Educational Research and Development. Casley. D.J.. D.A. Lury. (1981). Data Collection in Developing Cpupppies. New York. Oxford University Press. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 138 . (1982). Monitoring;pnd Evaluation of Agri- culture and Rurgl Dgyglopment PrOJects. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Caughman. Susan. (1981). “Women at Work in Mali: The Case of the Markala Cooperative." Boston. Boston University. African Studies Center. Working Paper No. 50. Cebotarev. L.A. (1982). “Research on Women: An International Perspective." esources igr Femipist Resegrch. Toronto. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Department of Sociology: 28-31. Chambers. Robert and Jon Moris. eds. (1973). MWEA: An Irri ated Ri e ettl ment Ken . Munich. Weltforum Verlag. Chaney. Elsa M. (1983). “Scenarios of Hunger in the Caribbean: Migration. Decline of Smallholder Agriculture and the Feminization of Farming." East Lansing. Michigan State University. Women in International Development Working Paper No. 18. Charlton. Sue Ellen M. (1983). Women in Thirg Worlg ngelopment. Boulder. Westview Press. Cheater. Angels. (1981). "Women and Their Participation in Commercial Agriculturaal Production: The Case of Medium-Scale Freehold in Zimbabwe.“ evgiopment apd Cpgpgg. 12:349-77. Chiang. Alpha C. (1974). Epndamgnpal Methpgs pf Mathematicai Economics 2nd ed. New York. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Clark. Barbara A. (1975). "The Work Done By Rural Women In Malawi.“ astern African Journal of Rural Development. 8(1 and 2):80-91. Cleave. John. (1974). African Farmers: Lpbor Use in the Develop- ment of §mallholder Agricuture. New York. Praeger Publishers. Cloud. Kathleen. (1977). "Sex Roles in Food Production and Food Distribution Systems in the Sahel.“ Tucson. University of Arizona. Center for Educational Research and Development. Cohen. John et al. (1983). Knowledge-Building for Rurpi ngelopment: Social Science and the Cooperative Agreements. Paper by Harvard Institute for International Development for the Office of Multisectoral Development. Bureau for Science and Technology. U.S. Agengcy for International DevelOpment. Cohn. Steve: Robert Wood: and Richard Hagg. (1981). "U.S. Aid and Third World Women: The Impact of Peace Corps Programs." Economic Development and Cultural Change. 29(4):795-811. 62. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 139 Cortes. Irene. (1980). "Philippines: Fighting for Real Equality." People. 7(3):23-24. Cox. Milo. (1978). “A Simplified Approach to Agricultural Systems.” Tucson. University of Arizona. Center for Educational Resaerch and Development. Dauber. Roslyn. and Melinda L. Cain. eds. (1981). Women and Technological Change in Devglpping Countpig . Blouder. Westview Press. Inc. Deane. Phyllis. (1978). The Evolution of Economic ideas. New York. Cambridge University Press. Deere. Carmen Diana. (1982). “The Division of Labor by Sex in Agriculture: A Peruvian Case Study.“ c nomi Dev ‘oomen and Cultural Change. 30(4):795-812. . 1983. "Cooperative Development and Women’s Participation in the Nicaraguan Agrarian Reform." merigan Journal of Agricultural Economics. 65(5):1043-48. Deere. Carmen Diana and Magdalena Leon de Leal. (1983). ”Peasant Production. Proletarianization. and the Sexual Division of Labor in the Andes.“ In Beneria. Lourdes. (1983). Women gnd D velo m : Th 5 xua D'v’s n a in R a at e . New York. Praeger. Delgado. Christopher L. (1979). Livpgtock Vgrsug Grain Production in Southegt Upper Voltp: A Resourgg Allocation Anaylsis. Ann Arbor. Center for Research on Economic Development. DeWilde. John. (1967). Expgpiences with Agricutural DevelOpment in Tropical Africa. Baltimore. Johns HOpkins University Press. Dey. Jennie. (1981). "Gambian Women: Unequal Partners in Rice Development PrOJects.“ Journpi of Developpgnt Studies. 17(3):109-123. Dillon. J.I. and J.B. Hardaker. (1980). Farm Management Research. Rome. FAO. \v/73f/ Dixon. Ruth. (1981). "Jobs for Women in Rural Industry and 74. 75. Services." In Lewis. B.. ed. (1981). Invigible Farmegp; Women and the Crisis in Agriculture. Washington. D.C.. Agency for International Development. Office of Women in Development. . (1982). "Moblizing Women for Rural Employment in South Asia: Issues of Class. Caste. and Patronage." Economic Development and Cultural Change. 30(4):373-390. . (1982a). "Women in Agriculture: Counting the Labor Force in Developing Countries.“ opulationpppd Development Reveiw. 8(3):539-66. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 140 D’Onofrio-Flores. Pamela M. (1982). "Technology. Economic Development. and the Division of Labour by Sex.“ In D’Onofrio-Flores. P.M.. S.M. Pfafflin. (1982). Scignific-technological Change and thgpgole of Women in Development. Boulder. Westview Press. Inc. D’Onofrio-Flores. Pamela M.. and Shelia M. Pfafflin. (1982). Scienific-technological Chgnge and the Rple of Woppn in Development. Boulder. Westiew Press. Inc. Dupriez. Hughes. (1978). Intggrated Rural Develppmenp Projects Carried Out in Black Afripa With §DF Aid: Evaluation ang Outlook fgr phe Future. Brussels. Commission of the European Communities. Collection Studies. Development Series No. l. Eicher. Carl K. (1982). "Facing up to Africa's Food Crisis." Foreign Affairp. 61(1):151-74. Eicher. Carl M.. and Doyle C. Baker. (1982). Regeapch on Agriculturpl Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Survey. East Lansing. Michigan State University. International Paper No. 1. Eicher. Carl R.. and John Staatz. (1984). Agricuiturai Devglopment in the Thirg prl . Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Evenson. Robert E. (1983). "The Allocation of Women’s Time: An International Comparison." ehaviop Sgience Reseapch. 17(3 and 4):196-215. Everett. Jana. (1982). "The Analysis of Women’s Oppression in Dependent Capitalist Countries: Strengths and Limitations of Marxist Theory.“ (draft). Denver. University of Colorado. Department of Political Science. Farrington. J. (1975). "Factors Influencing the Length of Working Day in Malawi Agriculture.“ Eastern African Journal of Rurai Development. 8(1 and 2):61-80. Ferguson. C.E. and J.P. Gould. (1975). Microeconomic Theroy. Homewood. Richard D. Irwin. Inc. Fisher. John L. (1978). "The World Food ’Crisis’ and the New Look in Agriultural Sector Development Strategies." Tucson. University of Arizona. Center for Educational Research and Development. Fisseha. Yacob and Omar Davies. (1981). "The Small-Scale Manufacturing Enterprises in Jamaica: Socioeconomic Characteristics and Constraints.“ East Lansing. Michigan State University. Rural Development Series. Working Paper No. 16. 88. 89. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 141 Folbre. Nancy. (1983). "Household Production in the Philippines: A Non-Neoclassical Approach." East Lansing. Michigan State University. Women in International Development. Working Paper No. 26. Fortmann. Louise. (1980). "Women's Involvement in High Risk Arable Agriculture: The Botswana Case." Washington. D.C.. USAID. Office of Women and Development. . ( ). "Tillers of the Soil and Keepers of the Hearth: A Bibliographic Guide to Women and Development." Ithaca: Cornell University. Bibliographic Series. No. 2. . (1981). "The Plight of the Invisible Farmer: The Effect of National Agricultural Policy on Women in Africa." In Dauber. R.. and M.L. Cain. eds. (1981). Women and Technological Change in Developing Copptries. Boulder. Westview Press. Inc. - . (1982). “Women’s Work in a Communal Setting: The Tanzanian Policy of Ujamaa.“ In Bay. Edna 6.. ed. (1982). Women and Work in Africa. Boulder. Westview Press. Fusfeld. Daniel R. (1977). The Age of the Economigg §ng. pd. Glenview. Scott. Foresman and Company. Galaty. J.G: D. Aronson: P.C. Salzman: and A. Chouinard. eds. (1981). Fupure pf Pastorgl ngpig. Ottawa. International Development Research Center. Garabaghi. Ninou K. (1983). "A New Approach to Women’s Participation in the Economy." Intepngtiongi Sociai Sgiepce quppal. 35(4):659-82. Garrett. Patricia. (1983). “Women and Agrarian Reform: A Brief Comment on the Literature.“ esourges {gr Feminist Researc . Toronto. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Department of Sociology: 49-50. Ghai. D.: E. Lee: J. Needs: 5. Radwan.. eds. (1979). Overcoming Rural Underempioyment. Proceedings of a Workshop on Alternative Agrarian Systems and Rural Development. Arushs. Tanzania. 4-14 April. 1979. Geneva. International Labor Office. Gittinger. Price J. (1982). conomic Analysis of Agricultural PrOJects. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Gladwin. Christina H.. Kathleen Staudt and Della McMillan. (1984). “Reaffirming the Agricultural Role of African Women: One Solution to the Food Crisis." Gainsville. University of Florida. Gladwin. Christina H. and Kathleen Staudt. (1983). "Women’s Employment Issues: Discussion." American Journal of Agricpltgral Economicg. 65(5):1055-57. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 142 Gladwin. Christina and Susan Almy. (1984). "A Proposal for a Women’s Farming Systems Research/Extension Progect in Kenya and the U.S.A.. 1985-87." Gainsville. University of Florida. Draft. Goldschmidt-Clermont. Luisella. (1982). Unpaid Work in the Household. Geneva. International Labour Office. Gordon. Elizabeth. (1981). ”An Analysis or the Impact of Labor Migration on the Lives of Women in Lesotho." In Nelson. Nici. ed. (1981). African Women in thg Development Process. London. Frank Cass and Company. Ltd. Greenstreet. Miranda. (1981). “When Education is Unequal." Sussex. Institute of Development Studies. Bullgtin. 12(3):14-8. Guyer. Jane I. (1980). “Household Budgets and Women’s Incomes." Boston. Boston University. African Studies Center. Working Paper No. 28. . (1980a). “Female Farming and the Evolution of Food Production Patterns Amongst the Beti of South-Central Cameroon." Africa. 50(4):341-356. . (1981). “Household and Community in African Studies." ipicap Studies vaipw. 24(2/3):87-137. . (1984). “Intra-Household Processes and Farming Systems Research." Bellagio. Italy. Paper prepared for the Joint Rockefeller Foundation/Ford Foundation Conference on Intra-Household Processes and Farming Systems Analysis. Draft. Hale. Sylvia. (1982). “Women as Change Agents: A Neglected Research Area." Resources for Feminist Research. Toronto. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Department of Sociology: 43-47. Hammand. Jeremy. (1980). "Ivory Coast: Laws for the Next Century." eople. 7(3):21-22. Hart. Gillian. (1983). "Productivity. Poverty. and Population Pressure: Female Labor Deployment in Rice Production in Java and Bangladesh." Americpn Jourppl of Agricultural Economics. 6S(S):1037-42. Harwood. Richard R. (1979). Sppll Farp:Development: Understanding and Improving Farming Systems in thp_Humid Tropics. Boulder. Westview Press. Henn. Jeanne Koopman. (1979). "Peasants. Workers. and Capital: The Political Economy of Labor and Incomes in Cameroon." Ph.D. disertation. Harvard University. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 143 . (1983). "Feeding the Cities and Feeding the Peasants: What Role for Africa’s Women Farmers?" World Development. 11(12):1043-55. Heyneman. Stephen P. (1983). "Improving the Quality of Education In Developing Countries." Finance and Degeloppent 20(1): 18-21. Heyzer. Noeleen. (1981). "Towards a Framework of Analysis." Sussex. Institute of Development Studies. Bullepi . 12(3):3-7. Hill. Frances. (1981). “Women in Agriculture: American Farm Women in Global Perspective." In Lewis. 8.. ed. (1981). Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agricultupe. Washington. D.C.. Agency for International Development. Office of Women in Development. Hirshleifer. Jack. (1980). Price Thegry and Applications. Englewood Cliffs. N.Y.. Prentice-Hall. Horwitz. Micheal M. (1981). "Research Priorities in Pastorial: Studies and Agenda for the 1980s." In Galaty. J.G.. et al. eds. (1981). Future of Ppptorplifieoplg. Ottawa. International Development Research Center. Hoskins. Marilyn W. (1981). "Women in Forestry for Local Community Development: A Programming Guide.” In Lewis. B.. ed. (1981). Invipible Farmers: Women and phe Crisis in Agriculture. Washingtion D.C.. Agency for International Development. Office of Women in Development. Huffman. Wallace E. (1983). "Women’s Employment Issues: Discussion." merican Journal of Agricuituppl Egonomics. 65(5):1058-9. Huggard. Marianne. (1978). "The Rural Woman as Food Producer: An Assessment of the Resolution on Women and Food from the World Food Conference in Rome. 1974." Tucson. University of Arizona. Center for Educational Research and Development. Hunt. Diana. (1979). "Chayanov’s Model of Peasant Household Resource Allocation." The Journal of Peasant Studies. 6(3):247—58. International Center for Research on Women. (1980). "The Productivity of Women in Developing Countries: Measurement Issues and Recommendations.“ Washington. D.C.. ICRW. . (1980a). Keeping Women Out: “A Structural Analysis of Women’s Employment in Developing Countries." Washington. D.C.. ICRW. . (1980b). “Limits To Productivity: Improving Women’s Access To Technology and Credit.” Washington. D.C.. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 144 International Center for Reseach on Women. International Labor Office. (1976). Epploymgpt.46rowth and Basic Needs: A One-World Problem. New York. Praeger Publishers. . (1979). "Women’s Participation in the Economic Activity of Latin American Countries.“ Document prepared by the Regional Employment Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean (PREALC). Geneva. ILO. . (1980). Women in Rurai Devglopment: Critical Issues. Geneva. International Labour Office. International Rice Research Institute. (1983). “Women in Rice Farming." In Nestel. Barry. ed. (1983). Agriculural Research for Development: Potentials and Chpllenges in Asia. The Hague. International Service for National Agricultural Research. Issacman. Barbara and June Stephen. (1981). Mocambigue: A Mulher. A Lei e a Reforma Agraria. Addis Abeba. Ethiopia. Economic Commission for Africa. Jahan. Rounaq and Hanna Papanek. (1979). Women and Development: Perspectives From South pnd Southeast Asia. Dacca. Asiatic Press. Jayasuriya. D.C. (1980). “Sri Lanka: The Few and the Many.“ People. 7(3):25. Johnston. Bruce F. and William C. Clark. (1982). Redesigning Rural Development: A Strategic Perspective. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Jones. Christine. (1981). "Women’s Legal Access to Land." In Lewis. 8.. ed. (1981). Invisible Farmers; Women and the Crisis in Agriculture. Washington. D.C.. Agency for International Development. Office of Women in Development. . (1983). "The Mobilization of Women's Labor for Cash Crop Production: A Game Theoretic Approach." American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 65(5):1049-53. . (1984). "Intra-Household Arrangements and Farming Systems Research." Bellagio. Italy. Paper prepared for the Joint Rockefeller Foundation/Ford Foundation Conference on Intra-Household Processes and Farming Systems Research. Draft. King. Elizabeth and Robert E. Evenson. (1983). “Time Allocation and Home Production in Philippine Rural Households." In Buvinic. M.: M.A. Lycette: and W.P. McGreevey. eds. (1983). Women and Povgrty in the‘Third World. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. A.) on to 140. 141. 142. 143. as 146. 147 . 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 145 Kisekka. Mere. (1981) "The Role of Women in SOCio-Economic Developmnt: Indicators as Instruments of Social Analysis." In UNESCO. (1981). Women and Development: Indicators of Their Changing Role. Paris. UNESCO. Ladipo. Patricia. (1981). “Developing Women’s Cooperatives: An Experiment in Rural Nigeria." The Journal of Deyplopment Studies. 17(3):123-137 Lele. Uma. (1975). The Design of Rural Development: Lpssons from Africa. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Lele. Uma and Wilfred Candler. (1981). "Food Security: Some East African Considerations." In Valdes. Alberto. ed. (1981). Food Secupity fog Developing Countries. Boulder. WestView Press. Inc. Leon de Leal. Magdalena. and Carmen D. Deere. (1980). "The Study of Rural Women and the Development of Capitalism in Colombian Agricuture." In ILO. (1980). Women in Rurai Development: Crtical Issues. Geneva. International Labour Office. Levi. John and Michael Havinden. (1982). Egonomics of African Agriculturg. Essex. Longman Group Limited. Lewis. Barbara. ed. (1981). Invisibip Farmeps: Wompp pnd ihe Cripis in Agriculture. Washington. D.C..Agency for International Development. Office of Women in Development. Lipton. Micheal. (1981). "The Theory of the Optimising Peasant." In Livingstone. Ian. (1981). Development Economics and Policy Readings. London. George Allen A Unwin Ltd. Lockheed. Marlaine E.. Dean T. Jamison. Lawrence J. Lau. (1980). "Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency: A Survey.“ Economic Development and Culturgl Change. 29(Oct):37-76. Long. Norman. (1980). An Introduction to thp;Socioloqy of Rural Development. Blouder. Westview Press. Lycette. Marget. (1984). Improving Women’s Access to Credit in the Third World: Policy and ProJect Recommendations." Washington. D.C.. ICRW. Occasional Papers. no. 1. MacCormack. Carol P. (1982). "Control of Land. Labor. and Capital in Rural Southern Sierra Leone." In Bay. Edna G.. ed. (1982). Wompn and Work in Africa. Boulder. Westview Press. Maguire. Patricia. (1984). Women in Development: An Altgpnativg Analysis. Amherst. University of Massachusetts. Center for International Education. Massiah. Joycelin. (1981). "Participation of Women in SOCio- Economic Development: Indicators As Tools for Development 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 163. 164. 146 Planning." In UNESCO. (1981). Women pnd Devglopment: Indicators of Their Changing Role. Paris. UNESCO. Mbiliny. M. (1982). ”Women in the Rural Development of Mbeya Region." Report prepared for the Government of Tanzania/FAO Mbeya RIDEP PrOJect. Mimeo. McDonald. Robert E. (1984). "Livestock Nutrition in Subsaharan Africa: An Overview." In Simpson. James R. et al.. eds. (1984). Livestock Developpgpt in Subsaharan Africa: Constpaints, Prospects. Policy. Boulder. Westview Press. McGreevey. William Paul. (1980). Third-Wopld Poverty. Lexington. Massachusetts. Lexington Books. Mellor. John W. (1976). The pr Economics pf Growth: A Strategy for India and the Developing Wopid. Ithaca. Cornell University Press. Mikell. Gwendolyn. (1982). “Expansion and Contracting in Economic Access For Rural Women in Ghana." Washington. D.C. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association. Moock. Peter R. (1976). ”The Efficiency of Women as Farm Managers: Kenya." merican Jpgppgi oi Agricuitgpe Econpmigp. 58:831-835. Moris. Jon R. (1970). "Multi-SubJect Farm Surveys Reconsidered.“ Dar es Salaam. University of Dar es Salaam. Faculty of Arts and Science. Methods of Social Science Research Workshop Paper. Morris. Morris D. (1979). Measuring the Condition of tpg Woglg’s Poor. New York. Pergamon Press. . Mutinptiongl Monitor. (April 1984). “Of Machines and Men." Mueller. Martha. (1977). "Women and Men. Power and Powerlessness in Lesotho." In Wellesly Editorial Committee. (1977). Women and Nationai Development: Complgxities of Change. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Muntemba. Maud Shimwaayi. (1982). “Women and Change in the Railway Region of Zambia: Sispossession and Counter Strategies. 1930- 74.“ In Bay. Edna. ed. (1982). Women and Work in Africa. Boulder. Westview Press. Inc. Nash. June. (1983). "Implications of Technological Change for Household Level and Rural Development." East Lansing. Michigan State University. Women in International Development. Working Paper No. 37. Nelson. Nici. (1979). Why Has Development Neglected Rural Women? New York. Pergamon Press. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 147 (1981). Africgn Women in the DevelOpment Process. London. Frank Cass and Company Limited. . (1981a) “Mobilising Village Women: Some Organizational and Management Considerations." Journal of Developmgnt Studiep. 17(3):47-59. Norman. D.W. (1973). Methodology and Problems of Farm Management Investigations: Experiences From Northern Nigeria. East Lansing. Michigan State University. Department of Agricultural Economics. Norman. Micheal and John Thronley. (1979). Annual Cropping Systems. Clearwater. University Presses of Florida Noronha. Raymond and Francis J. Lethem. (1983). “Traditional Land Tenures and Land Use Systems in the Design of Agricultural projects." Washington. D.C.. World Bank. Staff Working Paper No. 561. Obbo. Christine. (1980). African ngpn: Thei; Siruggle for Egonomic Independence. London. Zed Press. Palmer. Ingrid. (1981). "Women’s Issues and PrOJect Appraisal." Institgpg of Development Studies Bulletin. 12(4):32-39. Sussex. IDS. Perraton. Hilary: Dean Jamison: and Francois Orival. (1983). "Mass Media for Agricultural Extension in Malawi." In World Bank. (1983). Basic Education a d A r t a xt ns'on: Cost Effects and Alternatives. Washington. D.C.. World Bank. Staff Working Paper. no. 564. Peters. Pauline E. (1984). “Household Management in Botswana: Cattle. Crops and Wage Labour.“ Bellagio. Italy. Paper prepared for the Joint Rockefeller Foundation/Ford Foundation Conference on Intra-Household Processes and Farming Systems Analysis. Draft. Resser. Cynthia. (1983). "Women’s Energy Expenditure in Africa.“ Resoprces for Feminist Research. Toronto. Ontario Institute Studies in Education. Department of Sociology: 35-37. Rogers. Barbara. (1979). "Women and Land Rights." ISIS International Bulletin. 11. Spring:5-9. . (1980). The Domestication of Women. New York. St. Martin’s Press. Safilios-Rothschild. Constantina. (1979). "Access of Rural Girls to Primary Education in the Third World: State of the Art. Obstacles. and Policy Recommendations." Mimeo. . (1981). "The Role of Women in Modernizing Agricultral Systems." State College. Pennsylavania State 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 148 University. SanJek. Roger. (1982). "The Organization of Households in Adabraka: Toward a Wider Comparative Perspective." Compara- tive Studigp in Society and History. 24(1):57-101. Schick. Barbara. (1978). "Overcoming Malnutrition in Developing Countries: Focus on Women and Food.“ Tucson. University of Arizona. Center for Educational Research and Development. Schuh. G. Edward and Robert L. Thompson. (1983). "Assessing Agricultural Progress and the Commitment to Agriculture." In McGreevey. William P. ed. Third Worid Poverty. Lexington. Ma.. Lexingtion Books. Schultz. Theodore W. (1964). Transforming Traditigp Agricuiture). Chicago. Chicago University Press. Sektheera. Rapeepun. (1979). "The Allocation of Family Resources to Farm and Non-farm Activities in a Village in Northern Thailand." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. Sen. Gita. (1980). "Rural Women and the Social Organisation of Production - Some Conceptual Issues.“ In ILO. (1980). Womgn ip Rpgal ngelopment: Critigai Issups. Geneva. International Labour Office. Sene. Ibrahima. (1980). “Farmers’ Behavior Towards New Technology: The Senegalese Case." East Lansing. Michigan State University. Department of Agricultural Economics. Masters Thesis. Shaner. W.W.: P.F. Phillipp: and W.R. Schmehl. (1981). Farming Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries. Boulder. Westview Press. Simpson. James R. and Phylo Evangelou. eds. (1984). Livestock Development in Subsaharan Africa: ContraintsI Prospects. Policy. Blouder. Westview Press. Smale. Merlinda. (1980). Women in Mauitania: The Effectp_of Drought and Miqrgtion on Thgir Econppic Staus and Implications For Development Programs. Washington. D.C.. Agency for International Development. Office of Women in DevelOpment. Soewondo. Nani. (1980). "Reforming Family Laws in Asia." Sollod. Albert: Katherine Wolfgang: and James A. Knight. (1984). In Simpson. J.R. et al.. eds. (1984). Livestock Development in Subsahappp Africa: ContraintsI Prospects, Policy. Boulder. Westview Press. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 149 Spencer. Dunstan 5.0.. (1976). “African Women in Agricultural Development: A Case Study in Sierra Leone." East Lansing. Michigan State University. Department of Agricultural Economics Working Paper No. 11. . (1972). Mico-leygifiFarp_Management and Production Economics Research_Ap9nq,Trpgitionpl Farmers: Lpppionerrom Sigrra Leone. East Lansing. Department ' of Agricultural Economics. African Rural Employment Paper. no. 3. Staudt. Kathleen. (1978). "Agricultural Productivity Gaps: A Case Study of Male Preference in Government Policy Implementation." Development and Change. 9:439-57. . (1980). "The Landless Ma)ority." eople. 7(3):7-9. ‘ . ( ). “Women and Participation in Rural Development: A Framework for PrOJect Design and Policy-Oriented Research. Ithaca: Cornell University. Occasional Paper No. 8. . (1982). “Women Farmers and Inequities in Agricultural Services." In Bay. Edna G.. ed. (1982). Women gpg Wopk in Africa. Boulder. Westview Press. Staudt. Kathleen. and Jane S. Jaquette. eds. (1983). Women in Devplgpipg Countrieg: A Policy Focpg. New York. The Harworth Press. . Stavrakis. 0.. and M.L. Marshall. (1973). “Women. Agriculture and Development in the Maya Lowlands: Profit or Progress." Tucson. University of Arizona. Center for Educational Research and Development. Steel. William F.. and Claudia Campbell. "Women's Employment and Development: A Conceptual Framework Applied to Ghana." In Bay. Edna G.. ed. (1982). Women and Work in Africa. Boulder. Westview Press. Stickley. Thomas. (1980). "Strengthening Women’s Roles in Development." Washington. D.C.. Development Alternatives. Inc. Consultancy report on USAID proyect number 686-0211. . (1980). "Training of Women in the Sahel (ORD).“ Washington. D.C.. Development Alternatives Inc. Consultancy Report on USAID progect number 686-0226. Stoler. Ann. (1977). "Class Structure and Female Autonomy in Rural Java." In Wellesley Editorial Committee. Women and National Development: The Complexities of Change. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212 . 213. 214. 215. 216. 150 Storgaard. Birgit. (1975). "Women in Ujamaa Villages.‘ Africana. No.29:l35-155. Rural Streeten. Paul. at al. (1981). First Thing; Firptz Meeting Basic Need; in Developing Countries. New York. Oxford University Press. Sudarkasa. Niara. (1977). "Women and Migration in Contemporary West Africa." In Wellesley Editorial Committee. Women and National Development: The Complexities of Change. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Tadesse. Zenebeworke. "Women and Technology in Peripheral Countries: An Overiew." In D’Onofrio-Flores. P.M.. and Pfafflin. S.M. (1982). Scientific-technological Change and the Role of Wopgn in Development. Boulder. Westview Press. Inc. Tadesse. Zen. (1979). "The Impact of Land Reform On Women: the Case of Ethiopia." ISIS: Internptional Bulletin. 11. Springzl8-21. Thorner. Daniel. (1966). "Chayanov’s Concept of Peasant Economy." In Thorner. Daniel. Basile Kerbley. and P.E.F. Smith. eds. A.V. Chayanov on the Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood. Il. Irwin. Tiano. Susan. (1981). "The Separation of Women’s Remunerated and Household Work: Theoretical Perspectives on ’Women in Development’." Albuquerque. University of New Mexico. Department of Sociology. Working Paper No.02. Timmer. P.C.: S.R. Pearson: W.P. Falcon. (1983). Food Poligy Analysis. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Tinker. Irene. (1981). "New Technologies for Food-Related Activities: Equity Strategy." In Dauber. R.. and M.L. Cain. eds. (1981). Women and Technological Change in ngeIOping Countries. Boulder. Westview Press. Inc. United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1981). Women and Development: Indictors of Their Changing Role. Paris. UNESCO. United Nations Development Programme. (1979). Rural Develop- ment: Issues and Approaches for Tpchnicpl Co-operation. New York. UNDP Evalution Study No. 2. . (1980). Rural Women’s Participation in Development. New York. UNDP Evaluation Study No. 3. United Nations Economic Commission on Africa. ATRCW’s Human Resources Development Division. (1975). "Women and National Development in African Countries: Some Profound 151 Contradictions." African Studies Rgview. 18(3):47-70. 217. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizaiton. (1977). Report on the 1970 World Census of Agriculture. Rome. FAO. Statistics Series No. 10. 218. . (1979). The Legal Status of Rural Women: L1m1tat10Q§ on thg Economic Participation of Women in Rural Development. Rome. FAO. 219. . (1979a). "Women in Food Production. Food Handling and Nutrition With Special Emphasis on Africa." Rome. FAO. Protein-Calorie Advisory Group of the United Nations System. 220. United States Agency for International Development. (1978). "Socio-Economic Indicators of Basic Needs: Progress and Commitment for 92 Developing Countries." Washington. D.C.. USAID. Bureau of the Near East. 221. . (1978). Women in Development: Perceedingp and Papers of thngntepnational Conference on Women and Food at University of ArizonaI Vol 3. Washington. D.C.. USAID. Office of Women in Development. 222. Uphoff. Norman T.: J.M. Cohen: A.A. Goldsmith. (1979). Feasibility and Application of Rural Development Participation: A State of Art Paper." Ithaca. New York. Cornell University. Rural Development Committe. 223. Valdes. Alberto. ed. (1981). Food Security for Developing Countrigs. Boulder. Westview Press. Inc. 224. Vincent. Warren. ed. (1962). Economics and Management in Agriculture. Englewood Cliffs. Prentice-Hall. Inc. 225. Wellesley Editorial Committee. (1977). Women and Napional Development: The Complexities of Change. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 226. Weaver. J.H.: K.P. Jameson: R.N. Blue. (1973). " A Critical Analysis of Approaches to Growth and Equity." In Wilber. C.K..ed. (1973). The Political economy od Deyglopment and Underdevelopment 2nd ed. New York. Random House. White. Christine. (1983). "Women and the Socialist Transformation of Agriculture. Rpgoucg§:for nginippiRgpearch. Toronto. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Department of Sociology: 47-8. Ix) k) \1 228. Wilber. Charles M.. ed. (1973). The Political Econopy of Development and Underdevelopment 2nd ed. New York. Random House. 152 229. World Bank. (1980). "Women in Agriculture: Review of Some Sector Reports." Washington. D.C.. World Bank. Office of the Advisor on Women in Development. Notes on Women in DevelOpment. no. 9. mimeo. 230. World Bank. (1981). Accelerated Deyglopment in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda for Action. Washington. D.C.. World Bank. 231. . (1982). World Develooment Report 1982. Washington. D.C.. World Bank. 232. Yanagisako. Sylvia Junko. (1979). "Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups." Annual Rgvigw of Antropology. 8:161-205. 233. Youssef. Nadia H. (1980). "Sex-Related Biases in Census Counts: The Question of Women’s Exclusion From Employment Statistics." In Internationl Center for Research on Women. (1980). Priorities in thg Design pi Dpvelopment Programs: Women’s Issues. Washington. D.C.. ICRW. HICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES ll HIHHlIHHIIHII llWlillllMW IlHllN “H l HIHIIHII 31293010025066