This article examines the extent to which home-based production in the garment sector of Ahmedabad, India, serves to empower its female participants, defining empowerment in terms of control over enterprise income and decision-making within the household. It places this question within the literatures on resource theory and bargaining models of the household, both of which posit that improved access to resources increases women's power in the household. This study highlights why access to resources may not lead so directly to improvements in women's position in the household in the Indian context. It then discusses why home-based work may be less empowering than sources of work outside of the home. The arguments about the empowerment potential of women's access to resources through home-based work are tested by examining, first, the determinants of control over the income generated by women in home-based garment production and, second, to what extent access to and control over income from this source translates into involvement in decisions which are atypically women's and yet important to their lives. The results provide a better understanding of the potential of home-based work to offer women in urban India a source of economic activity that also can translate into increased intra-household power.

This paper demonstrates weaknesses in the ability of orthodox microenterprise development theory to represent issues relevant to women's success in the sector. Researchers tend to use gender simply as a variable to explain success without understanding gender as a social construct. Such work disregards how culturally specific power relations influence women's opportunities for success. Gender and microenterprise development theorists do better at incorporating power relations into explanations of why women start microenterprises and why their performance differs from that of men. They also take a broader view of microenterprise success by combining economic and empowerment outcomes, recognizing the diverse roles self employment plays for women. The relevance of power issues to success and the need for cultural sensitivity in evaluating women's opportunities to achieve positive enterprise outcomes are highlighted through the example of women's involvement in the microenterprise sector in South Asia.

No abstract

Microenterprise success is often evaluated solely in terms of economic outcomes. These evaluations do not recognize how opportunities for success may differ across groups and contexts, and disregard the importance of power and control as factors in success. This article investigates the determinants of a two-dimensional concept of microenterprise success for women in Ahmedabad, India, by analyzing data from a 1998 study of home-based garment producers. Growing economic success for these garment producers decreased empowerment outcomes, which suggests that evaluating both economic and empowerment outcomes and their interactions is important to understanding the process of achieving success. Improving the economic outcomes of women's enterprises via better training and access to markets, credit, and capital equipment does not necessarily facilitate women's empowerment. Microenterprise scholars and practitioners must focus on improving women's status within their homes, so they may contribute to and benefit from the decisions made about how to use their resources.Microenterprise development, gender, empowerment, South Asia, India, JEL Keywords: O17, J16,

Development policy increasingly focuses on building capacities to respond to change (adaptation), and to drive change (innovation). Few studies, however, focus specifically on the social and gender differentiation of capacities to adapt and innovate. We address this gap using a qualitative study in three communities in Solomon Islands; a developing country, where rural livelihoods and well-being are tightly tied to agriculture and fisheries. We find the five dimensions of capacity to adapt and to innovate (i.e. assets, flexibility, learning, social organisation, agency) to be mutually dependant. For example, limits to education, physical mobility and agency meant that women and youth, particularly, felt it was difficult to establish relations with external agencies to access technical support or new information important for innovating or adapting. Willingness to bear risk and to challenge social norms hindered both women’s and men’s capacity to innovate, albeit to differing degrees. Our findings are of value to those aspiring for equitable improvements to well-being within dynamic and diverse social–ecological systems.