2015
DOI: 10.1111/agec.12167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decomposition of gender differentials in agricultural productivity in Ethiopia

Abstract: The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Ba… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
53
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 138 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
4
53
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The single most important factor explaining gender differences in agricultural productivity is land. Women work on smaller plots (Table 1) and because 12 We stick to the terminology used in Kilic et al (2014), Aguilar et al (2013) and Oseni et al (2014), although male structural advantage is misleading since the comparison group encompasses all plots that are not managed by a sole woman (not only sole male managed plots but also plots managed by more than one family member regardless of their gender). of the inverse relationship between agricultural productivity and land area, they appear as productive as all other managers.…”
Section: Decomposition Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The single most important factor explaining gender differences in agricultural productivity is land. Women work on smaller plots (Table 1) and because 12 We stick to the terminology used in Kilic et al (2014), Aguilar et al (2013) and Oseni et al (2014), although male structural advantage is misleading since the comparison group encompasses all plots that are not managed by a sole woman (not only sole male managed plots but also plots managed by more than one family member regardless of their gender). of the inverse relationship between agricultural productivity and land area, they appear as productive as all other managers.…”
Section: Decomposition Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The method has been traditionally used in labor economics to decompose wage inequality by gender, race, union membership, and over time (Fortin et al, 2011). Recently, the approach has been adopted for the analysis of gender inequality in agricultural productivity as well ( Aguilar et al, 2013;Kilic et al, 2014;Oseni et al, 2014). The factors that are quantitatively important merit further exploration.…”
Section: Understanding the Mechanism Through Decompositionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This finding tends to concur with Oseni, Corral, Goldstein, and Winters (2015) that women comprise nearly half of the labour force in Nigeria's agricultural sector, but they produce less per hectare than men. Also Aguilar, Carranza, Goldstein, Killic, and Oseni (2015) in Ethiopia agree that the numerous disadvantages that women in agriculture face include accessing the same resources, land assets, inputs, training, markets, and opportunities as men. In Malawi, Karamba and Winters (2015) remarks that women also face ingrained norms and institutional barriers that further widen the gap.…”
Section: Main Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1See Backiny-Yetna and McGee, 2015, Kilic et al, 2015, Aguilar et al, 2015, Oseni et al, 2015, Slavchevska, 2015, O’Sullivan et al, 2014.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…29The estimated gender gap in land productivity (defined as the value of agricultural output per unit of cultivated area), based on the LSMS-ISA data, between male and female managed plots (or between male and female individual operators in the case of Ethiopia), stand at 23% for Ethiopia (Aguilar et al, 2015), 25% for Malawi (Kilic et al, 2015), 18% for Niger (Backiny-Yetna and McGee (2015), 4% for northern and 24% for southern Nigeria (Oseni et al, 2015), and 8% for Tanzania (Slavchevska, 2015). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%