Abstract

Ownership of assets is important for poverty reduction, and women's control of assets is associated with positive development outcomes at the household and individual levels. This research was undertaken to provide guidance for agricultural development programs on how to incorporate gender and assets in the design, implementation, and evaluation of interventions. This paper synthesizes the findings of eight mixed-method evaluations of the impacts of agricultural development projects on individual and household assets in seven countries in Africa and South Asia. The results show that assets both affect and are affected by projects, indicating that it is both feasible and important to consider assets in the design, implementation, and evaluation of projects. All projects were associated with increases in asset levels and other benefits at the household level; however, only four projects documented significant, positive impacts on women's ownership or control of some types of assets relative to a control group, and of those only one project provided evidence of a reduction in the gender asset gap. The quantitative and qualitative findings suggest ways that greater attention to gender and assets by researchers and development implementers could improve outcomes for women in future projects.

Highlights

  • Qualitative work (FGDs, KIIs, life histories); input into quantitative survey module Qualitative work; input into gender and assets modules in endline Qualitative work; input into gender and assets modules, additional modules for endline Qualitative work (FGDs, KIIs, life histories); input into quantitative survey module Qualitative work; input into gender and assets modules Qualitative work, including social network analysis; input into gender and assets modules Qualitative and asset module in midline quantitative survey; funding for analysis time to focus on social networks Funding for qualitative work

  • Note: FGDs = focus group discussions; KIIs = key informant interviews. * In KickStart, only qualitative results were used in the analysis

  • The studies in the GAAP portfolio show the myriad ways in which use, control, and ownership of a wide range of assets affect the ability of men and women to benefit from agricultural interventions

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

For many years development interventions focused on increasing incomes to reduce poverty; a growing body of evidence emphasizes the importance of assets for poverty reduction (Adato, Carter, & May, 2006; Barrett & Swallow, 2006; Carter & Barrett, 2006; Carter, Little, Mogues, & Negatu, 2007; Carter & May, 2001; Jalan & Ravallion, 2002; Lybbert, Barrett, Desta, & Coppock, 2004; Naschold, 2012, 2013; Winters et al, 2009) as well as for individuals’ and households’ current and long-term well-being (Schreiner & Sherraden, 2007). While we were able to collect and use quantitative data on gendered ownership of key assets in seven of the eight project evaluations, the rigor and quality of the evaluation designs (Table 3) and the data were variable, in particular in terms of the ability to answer questions about the net effects of interventions on the total asset base rather than on individual assets or asset categories, and in terms of the ability to synthesize results across studies This was largely because the studies were initiated separately to answer project-specific questions and evaluation needs, and because we were aiming for representativeness across different types of assets. Gender blind refers to efforts that ‘‘typically do not acknowledge the role of gender in different social contexts and ignore the different ways that men and women engage with productive resources.” Gender aware refers to approaches that ‘‘have an understanding of the different needs and interests of men and women.” Gender transformative refers to approaches that ‘‘explicitly engage both women and men to examine, question, and change those institutions and norms that reinforce gender inequalities.”

Evaluation design
ASSETS TO LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES
IMPACT ON WOMEN’S AND HOUSEHOLDS’ WELFARE
CONCLUSIONS
72. Brighton
Data sources for Table 4
Data sources for Table 5
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call