Unpacking the “Gender Box”: Identifying the Gender Dimensions of Your Research

1. Unpacking the “Gender Box”: Identifying
the Gender Dimensions of Your Research
Photo credit: Agnes Quisumbing
Ruth Meinzen-Dick
Senior Research Fellow
Environment and Production Technology Division
International Food Policy Research Institute

2. Some terminology
Gender = socially constructed relationships/differences between
men and women.
 Includes the roles, responsibilities and opportunities associated with being
male or female in a given culture.
 These characteristics vary among cultures and change over time.
Gender ≠ Sex (biological differences).
Gender ≠ Women (men are also part of gender).
 Refer to “women’s empowerment” or
“gender equality/equity,
NOT “gender empowerment”.
Male and Female are adjectives
(need to describe something);
Men and Women refer to adult people.

3. Gender Analysis
A set of tools for uncovering differences between men
and women in order to ensure that our research
produces policy recommendations that are
appropriate to the needs of both men and women.
Which differences are most important will depend on
the context.
Emphasis is not on having “right” answers, which may
be right only in a specific circumstance, but on asking
right questions.
Page 3

4. Page 4
 When there are systematic gender
differences in…
oOutcomes (yield differentials,
health and nutrition indicators,
poverty rates, etc.)
oDeterminants (effects of male and
female schooling, male and
female land ownership, male and
female headship, etc.)
oProcesses (when there are
differences in the preferences,
motivations, and behavior of men
and women)
When does it make sense to pay attention
to gender in your research?

5. Assets Well-being
Livelihood
strategy Full income
Consumption
Savings/
Investment
Shocks
Men WomenJoint
Context: Ecological, social, economic, and political factors
Source: Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011b
New
technologies
The Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project
Conceptual Framework

6. Research has shown that:
 Unitary model of the household does not apply.
 Households do not act as one when making decisions or
pooling resources.
 One’s share of resources depends on bargaining power;
women control fewer resources than men.
 Women’s assets and incomes are used to improve the
health & food security of their children.
 Gender gap (OECD index) associated with higher Global
Hunger Index (esp. education gap in SSA).
 Improving women’s access to assets can  agricultural
productivity, food security, and children’s nutrition,
health, and education.

7. Gender in Food Systems
Agriculture is highly “gendered” in developing economies (SOFA 2011):
 Women make up a large percentage of the agricultural labor force in developing countries
(average 43%, 50% in Africa).
Women are disadvantaged in productive
asset ownership (including land and livestock),
control of productive inputs (including access
to credit, insurance, technology etc.).
Gender differences in base education levels,
access to services (extension), natural resource
knowledge.
Female farmers produce less than men not
because they are less efficient/able farmers,
but because they lack equal access to
resources. Photo credit: Deborah Rubin

8. By closing the gender-resource gap
 Productivity boost.
 Women could increase productivity on their farms by 20-30%.
 This would raise total output at national level by 2.5-4%.
 Productivity gains of this magnitude have potential to:
 Reduce in the number of hungry people in the world by 12-17%.
 100-150 million people move out of hunger.
 Multiplier effects on broader economic and social realms
 Women, relative to men, spend more on food for the family.
 Women’s incomes are more strongly associated with child health
and nutrition.
Infographic from FAO: http://www.fao.org/gender/infographic/en/

9. Page 9
Reducing poverty
 Women are more constrained than men in terms of control over and access to
resources
 Women often lack the assets and income necessary to exit poverty and are
subject to gender-based vulnerabilities, including:
o Fewer benefits/protections under customary or statutory legal systems
o Lack of decision-making authority and control of financial resources
o Greater time burdens
o Social isolation
o Threats or acts of violence
 Interventions that don’t anticipate the unique dimensions of women’s poverty or
identify the constraints to women’s full participation often fail to reach their
objectives, or may have unintended effects

10. Page 10
Keep in mind
 Intersectionality:
oNarrow focus on differences between men and women may mask
differences among women, e.g. variations by marital status, age, and
the size of women’s land holdings
oEthnicity, religion, caste, class, level of education, etc. may be more or
less important in different contexts
oGender studies show how to analyze this
 Need to give attention to men, as well
 Beyond the unitary household
 Gender > female headed households!

11. Levels of gender analysis
Household type
(“MHH” “FHH”)
This is a comparison of household types, not a full gender analysis

12. Levels of gender analysis
Individual
“Men” “Women”
Household type
(“MHH” “FHH”)

13. Levels of gender analysis
Individual
“Men” “Women”
Household type
(“MHH” “FHH”)
Plot
“Male managed”
“Female managed”
“Jointly managed”

14. Objectives of gender-sensitive development programs
 Three types of gender-sensitive development programs:
 The strategies and activities to achieve these aims will be
different
 Need indicators to monitor these programs
Reach Benefit Empower
Include women in
program activities
Increase women’s well-
being (e.g. food security,
income, health)
Strengthen ability of women to
make strategic life choices and
to put those choices into action
14

15. Example: Nutritious crop disseminated through
agricultural extension
Objective
Reach Benefit Empower
• Deliver agricultural
extension services
to women
• Increase women’s
well-being
• Increase women’s agency
in production and nutrition
decisions
Strategies • Provide
transportation
• Conduct training
during convenient
times of the day
Indicators • Proportion of
women attending
training, receiving
extension advise
• Consider women’s
preferences and
constraints in
design and content
of training
• Sex-disaggregated
data for yields,
income, land use,
nutrition, time use, etc
• Decision making power on
production, income, food
consumption
• Reduction of GBV, time burden
• Enhance women’s
decision making power in
households and
communities, especially on
crops to grow
15

16. Definition of empowerment
The various material,
human, and social
resources that serve to
enhance one’s ability
to exercise choice
The capacity to define
one’s own goals and make
strategic choices in pursuit
of these goals, particularly
in a context where this
ability was previously
denied
The achievement of
one’s goals
Agency
AchievementsResources
Source: Kabeer (1999)
16

17. Measuring Empowerment
Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)
 Measures inclusion of women in the agricultural sector
 Survey-based index - interviews men and women in the same
household
 Designed for population-based surveys
 Launched in 2012 by USAID, IFPRI, and OPHI
 Details on index construction in Alkire et al. (2013)
Project-level WEAI (pro-WEAI)
 Survey-based index - interviews men and women in the same
household
 Builds on abbreviated WEAI
 Adapted to assess impact of agricultural development projects,
with additional indicators (e.g. mobility)
 Details on index construction in Malapit et al. (2019)

18. Three types of
agency measured in
pro-WEAI
Power to
(instrumental agency)
Power within
(intrinsic
agency)
Power with
(collective
agency)

19. Pro-WEAI is made up of two sub-indices
Three domains
of empowerment
(3DE)
A direct measure of
women’s empowerment
in 3 dimensions
Gender parity
Index (GPI)
Women’s
achievement’s
relative to the primary
male in household
Project-level
Women’s
Empowerment
in Agriculture
Index
(pro-WEAI)
All range from zero to one;
higher values = greater empowerment
90 % 10 %
19

20. 12 indicators of empowerment
Each
indicator
receives an
equal
proportion
(1/12) of the
overall
weight
Empowered
if adequate
in 75% of
indicators

21. Key questions to ask
 What different roles/stakes do women and men have in XXX?
 How might a policy or intervention affect them differently?
 Will both men and women realistically be able to participate and to benefit? (look
at time, assets)
 How might differential participation of men, women affect project activities and
impact?
 How could the research contribute to gender equity?
Page 21

22. Page 22
Resources
 WEAI Resource Center” http://weai.ifpri.info/
 Gender, Agriculture and Assets Program website (Methods toolkit, practitioners’ guide, etc.)
http://gaap.ifpri.info/
 IFPRI Gender tool box: www.ifpri.org/themes/gender/gendertools.asp
 World Bank/FAO/IFAD Gender & Agriculture Sourcebook www.worldbank.org/genderinag
 FAO State of Food and Agriculture 2011: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf
 A. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman, and A. Peterman (Eds.)
Gender in agriculture and food security: Closing the knowledge gap. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer and FAO. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4.
 Quisumbing, A.R., et al. 2014. Reducing the gender asset gap through agricultural development: A
technical resource guide. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/gaap_techguide.pdf
 https://genderfoodpolicy.wordpress.com/ --sign up for notifications

23. References/Resources
 Malapit et al. - Development of the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-
WEAI) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.018
 Blog: Reach, benefit, or empower: Clarifying gender strategies of development projects http://a4nh.cgiar.org/2016/11/29/reach-benefit-or-
empower-clarifying-gender-strategies-of-development-projects/?utm_source=Email&utm_campaign=GNIE29Nov
 Doss CR,Kovarik C, Peterman A, Quisumbing AR, van den BoldM. 2013. Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa:
myths versus reality. IFPRI Discuss. Pap. 01308, Int. Food Policy Res. Inst., Washington, DC Or Doss, C. R., C. Kovarik, A. Peterman, A.
Quisumbing, and M. van den Bold. Forthcoming. “Gender Inequalities in Ownership and Control of Land in Africa.” Journal of Agricultural
Economics. (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/gender-inequalities-ownership-and-control-land-africa).
 Cheryl Doss: "If women hold up half the sky, how much of the world's food do they produce?"
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am309e/am309e00.pdf)
 "Standards for collecting sex disaggregated data for gender analysis" (http://www.pim.cgiar.org/2014/07/31/standards-for-collecting-sex-
disaggregated-data-for-gender-analysis/)
 "Data needs for gender analysis in agriculture" (http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01261.pdf)
 Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, P. Biermayr-Jenzano, V. Wilde, M. Noordeloos, C. Ragasa, and N. Beintema. (2011a).
Engendering agricultural research. IFPRI Monograph. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/rr176.pdf
 Meinzen-Dick, R., N. Johnson, A. Quisumbing, J. Njuki, J. Behrman, D. Rubin, A. Peterman, and E. Waithanji. (2011b). Gender, assets,
and agricultural development programs: A conceptual framework. CAPRi Working Paper 99. Washington, DC: IFPRI. 2008.
http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/capriwp99.pdf.
 Meinzen-Dick, R., Q. Bernier, and E. Haglund. (2013). The six “ins” of climate-smart agriculture: Inclusive institutions for information,
innovation, investment, and insurance. CAPRi Working Paper No. 114. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/capriwp114