Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development Programs: A Conceptual Framework

Abstract

Being able to access, control, and own productive assets such as land, labor, finance, and social capital enables people to create stable and productive lives. Yet relatively little is known about how agricultural development programs can most effectively deliver these outcomes of well-being, empowerment, and higher income in a way that acknowledges differential access to and control over assets by men and women. After reviewing the literature on gender and assets, this paper offers a conceptual framework for understanding the gendered pathways through which asset accumulation occurs, including attention to not only men's and women's assets but also those they share in joint control and ownership. Unlike previous frameworks, this model depicts the gendered dimensions of each component of the pathway in recognition of the evidence that men and women not only control, own, or dispose of assets in different ways, but also access, control, and own different kinds of assets. The framework generates gender-specific hypotheses that can be tested empirically: i) Different types of assets enable different livelihoods, with a greater stock and diversity of assets being associated with more diverse livelihoods and better well-being outcomes; ii) Men and women use different types of assets to cope with different types of shocks; iii) Interventions that increase men's and women's stock of a particular asset improve the bargaining power of the individual(s) who control that asset; and iv) Interventions and policies that reduce the gender gap in assets are better able to achieve development outcomes related to food security, health, and nutrition and other aspects of well-being related to agency and empowerment. The implications of these gender differences for designing agricultural development interventions to increase asset growth and returns to assets as well as for value chain development are discussed. Based on this analysis, additional gaps in knowledge and possible investigations to address them are identified.

Reviving technology demonstration in farmer’s field – an appraisal

“…It was observed that poor involvement of youth cause difficulty in agricultural system (Jothilakshmi et al, 2013) and necessitates condition to improvise the situation. The ability to control nearby resources empowers farming communities and it is appropriate to identify different approaches effective agricultural productivity (Meinzen-Dick et al, 2011). It includes features of technologies that reduce cost of production and enable farmers to take less risk so as to cope with farm intensification (Aune & Bationo, 2008).…”

Men and women farmers’ perceptions of adopting improved diets for pigs in Uganda: decision-making, income allocation, and intra-household strategies that mitigate relative disadvantage

“…household members, second wife and/or family, extended family, lover), based on a mixture of their own and others' interests, or based on their own selfinterest. Thus, Ugandan smallholder pig-farming households cannot be viewed as one entity with a single set of preferences nor as multiple individuals operating solely in their own best interest, just as other authors have cautioned [4,[6][7][8].…”

“…Household members may have differing preferences and abilities to impact intra-household decision-making outcomes [4,7,8]. Agency, "the ability to define one's goals and act upon them" for example through decisionmaking, and gaining, retaining, and exercising command over goods and income [9] may differ between members of the same household.…”

“…Women may not have an incentive to invest in productivity improvements if they are not compensated for any additional labour requirements above and beyond current demands [1,5]. Moreover, a growing body of literature describes the inadequacy of models wherein households are viewed either as one entity with a single set of preferences (unitary models), or as multiple individuals operating in their own best interest (non-cooperative models) [4,6,7]. Rather there is a need for consideration of the complexity of relationships within households, i.e.…”

“…Moreover, there is evidence that productivity improvements result in loss of entitlement by women and that ownership of livestock assets plays a significant role in determining entitlements to the benefits that are associated with those assets [2,3]. "Gender considerations relating to access to and control over assets play a major role in determining how income does or does not translate into welfare" [4]. Women may not have an incentive to invest in productivity improvements if they are not compensated for any additional labour requirements above and beyond current demands [1,5].…”