Disparities and diversities among female‐headed households in rural Malawi after 20 years of economic liberalization

Abstract

Using data from a survey carried out in six tobacco growing villages across Malawi in 2004-5, this paper summarizes some main differences found in subsistence production and income levels between male-and female-headed households and the disparities among female-headed households in the light of economic liberalization policies of the past two decades. The disadvantaged position of female-headed households in terms of land and labour endowment, together with the high cost of inputs since the structural adjustment programmes and removal of subsidies since the 1980s has prevented poorer female-headed households not only from attaining maize selfsufficiency, but also from engaging in high-return agriculture such as tobacco production. Although livelihood diversification is adopted by both male-and female-headed households, many female-headed households still depend on low-entry-barrier activities such as agricultural waged labour and are unable to break out of the poverty cycle. However, female-headed households are a heterogeneous category and factors such as the availability of nonfarm income opportunities, social networks to access labour and capital, land acquisition through flexible applications of patrilineal inheritance rules, and the existence of formal channels for credit and informal tobacco trading have enabled some to improve agricultural productivity and achieve high incomes.

Feminization of multidimensional urban poverty in sub‐Saharan Africa: Evidence from selected countries

“…Though the estimates for MHHs are found to be statistically insignificant, the log of being poor increased by about 0.124 on average for every increase in member of a household among FHHs, other factors remaining constant. Takane (2009), and Noglo (2017) found the same negative effect of larger household size on household wellbeing.…”

“…The studies also observed that the effect of some demographic and socioeconomic factors is biased against FHHs. For example, Takane (2009) studied FHHs from six villages in Malawi and found that FHHs are highly disadvantaged as compared to MHHs. Berhanu (2011) also studied the incidence of urban poverty among FHHs in Ethiopia and found that the prevalence rate of poverty among FHHs was high (73%) with a poverty gap of 20%.…”

“…Accordingly, a number of studies such as Takane (2009), Berhanu (2011), Adeoti (2014) confirmed that there is a positive association between female household headship and the prevalence of poverty. However, there are still remaining unsettled issues among previous studies on the implications of female household headship on poverty.…”

Maternal Education, Fertility, and Child Survival in Comoros

“…There have been mixed results on the role of household heads’ gender in child’s survival. In some previous studies, it had been argued that male headship comes with many financial benefits that can promote healthy living among children, and reduce their susceptibility to sicknesses and diseases [78,79]. In some other studies, however, female headship enhanced child survival [80,81] on the account that the mothers are able to seek timely healthcare services when headed by women.…”

Does providing agricultural and nutrition information to both men and women improve household food security? Evidence from Malawi

“…General explanations include overuse of land due to high population growth, limited access to improved inputs, and dependence on rainfed agriculture (Babu and Sanyal 2007;Benson 2015). Additionally, some research in Malawi indicates that gender differences in access to resources and services lead to gender gaps in technology adoption and agricultural productivity (Fisher and Kandiwa 2014) and contribute to food insecurity in the country (Riley 1995;Takane 2009;Kilic, Palacios-Lopez, and Goldstein 2013;Snapp and Fisher 2015). Moreover, few studies show that extension services are mostly provided to male heads, who often do not work with female household members, and also tend to overlook the fact that women have "different roles, resources, constraints and responsibilities" (Riley 1995, 31).…”