CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: GENDER AND AGRICULTURE
2.5 Relationship between gender and agriculture
Gender and agriculture came to the fore of development through the writings of Boserup (1970) who drew attention to the gendered division of labour in traditional and non- traditional agricultural systems. She amplified the complexity of women’s work, noting that gender differences in the labour market were due to socially constructed differences. Further studies have been carried out to show that women and men have different production priorities, which are influenced by social constructions and socialisation (Dey, 1985). Building on the work by Boserup, research has also gone ahead to try to understand the dynamics around women, men and agriculture and the social constructs that influence these dynamics. One dynamic is based on the concept of household head. Studies have sought to understand the notion of “household head” in as far as it influences agricultural outputs (Quisimbing, 2003).
21
The sex of the household head has often been used as a gender indicator in studies on gender and agriculture (Doss, 2013). Comparisons are often between men and women when in fact the sex of the household head is often misleading. For instance, “male” households are usually composed of both female and male, where “female headed” is when a male is not present at all (Fafchamps and Quisimbing, 2005). Household heads may also be determined by income contribution and customs, and these vary across contexts (Budlender, 2003). Furthermore, not all male headed or female headed households are the same. The welfare implication of the head is therefore different, depending on how the woman is head, for example, never married, divorced, widowed or abandoned, economic migration of husband. Using headship as a proxy for gender differences may also lead to underestimation of gender differences in agricultural productivity (Peterman et al., 2011). Household members do not always think alike (Strauss and Thomas, 1995; Haddad et al, 1997). For instance, women and men spend money differently, with women tending to focus on overall household betterment. Women are more likely to spend on food, health care, education and services that benefit the whole household (Haddad et al, 1997). Evidence from Malawi and Uganda shows that men will spend their income on assets that do not always satisfy the whole household (Njuki, et al 2011). On average, women spend 23% on food and 14% on assets, whilst men spend only 8% on food and 25 % on assets that benefit them and not necessarily the entire household (Njuki et al, 2011). Use of household assets is also not always a joint decision within household members as assets can be held and governed individually (Haddad et al, 1997). Under this model, if there is disagreement, the final decision is usually made based on bargaining power of the individual and this may be based on ownership and the nexus of control over assets. In general, women have less assets than men.
However, this is also very contextual, for example, in a few areas women are more educated than men, though the general consensus is that men enjoy more advantages over women.
Women’s bargaining power is therefore often limited.
Another issue to consider in discussing gender and agriculture is the life cycle at which women and men are. Many of these factors revolve around the biological. A woman might be constrained by biological needs and the need for child-care obligations which limit the extent to which she can participate effectively in agriculture, especially if she is required to work outside the home (Quisimbing, 2013). Other differences may also arise from women’s and men’s positions in society, depending on their life cycle phases. Some women may be in the
22
child bearing phase and therefore spend more time in the care and reproductive roles within the home whilst the men work outside the home. Even with these considerations, when both market and household work are considered, time allocation studies show that women still work significantly more hours than men and spend more time in subsistence agriculture as they are primarily concerned with household food security (Juster and Stafford 1991; World Bank, 2001).
By default, women live in male headed households but rarely do men live in female headed households, which conflate measures of household structure and composition of sex with the sex of the head. Measuring household heads through the sex of household renders women invisible when in fact they are also involved in other roles. With the impact of HIV and AIDS, women also spend time caring for the infirm (Raniga and Moutlong, 2013). The time they spend on this role is not accounted for in national statistics or in the GDP. These roles which are often unaccounted for have resulted in the over extension of women’s labour in the household and the neoliberal era has been a conduit for perpetuating this (Quisimbing, 2009). These roles are shaped by socialisation and the social constructions of gender.
The dynamics in female headed households (FHH) are also quite different from those in a male headed household. For instance, FHH are disproportionately represented among the poorest households, have lower purchasing power due to fewer economic opportunities, and have more income insecurities (Qusimbing, 2009). In general, women are over-represented in sectors with lower incomes such as the informal sector (Boserup, 1970; ILO, 2015). With the increasing impacts of climate change, some of which include male migration, women and girls’ time poverty is likely to increase as they absorb additional roles such as cattle management, which would have previously been undertaken by men. They are also bound to their homes because of the roles they have to play within the household (Fletcher, 2008). On the other hand, for those in female headed households, they have a dilemma of having to go to work outside the home to fend for the household in addition to the domestic roles.
23