What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania

Sophie Theis,Elizabeth Bryan,Nicole Lefore,Ruth Meinzen-Dick

doi:10.1007/s10460-018-9862-8

Abstract

Diverse agricultural technologies are promoted to increase yields and incomes, save time, improve food and nutritional security, and even empower women. Yet a gender gap in technology adoption remains for many agricultural technologies, even for those that are promoted for women. This paper complements the literature on gender and technology adoption, which largely focuses on reasons for low rates of female technology adoption, by shifting attention to what happens within a household after it adopts a technology. Understanding the expected benefits and costs of adoption, from the perspective of women users in households with adult males, can help explain observed technology adoption rates and why technology adoption is often not sustained in the longer term. Drawing on qualitative data from Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania, this paper develops a framework for examining the intrahousehold distribution of benefits from technology adoption, focusing on small-scale irrigation technologies. The framework contributes to the conceptual and empirical exploration of joint control over technology by men and women in the same household. Efforts to promote technology adoption for agricultural development and women’s empowerment would benefit from an understanding of intrahousehold control over technology to avoid interpreting technology adoption as an end in and of itself.

Highlights

In light of evidence that women’s limited access to agricultural technology is an important constraint to women’s agricultural productivity (von Braun and Webb 1989; Quisumbing 1995; Peterman et al 2010), increasing technology adoption among women farmers has emerged as a key strategy to close the gendered productivity gap in agricultureGiven these expected benefits, research has sought to understand what keeps women’s observed rates of agricultural technology adoption low
Tryout is limited by access to and control over the land, water, labor, inputs, and other assets required to use the technology (Ani et al 2004; Drechsel et al 2006; Meinzen-Dick et al 2011; Ragasa et al 2014; Johnson et al 2016); access to capital or credit to invest in the technology (Tiwari 2010; Ragasa et al 2014; Doss et al 2003; Olwande et al 2009); access to social networks, learning, and social capital to reduce perceived risks associated with technology adoption (Conley and Udry 2001; Magnan et al 2014; Hunecke et al 2017); and appropriateness of design, including affordability, cultural acceptability, and suitability for women’s specific agricultural tasks and physical requirements (Quisumbing and Pandolfelli 2010)
We examine evidence on the intrahousehold negotiations and roles in technology adoption gathered through qualitative fieldwork on dual-headed households using small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania

Summary

Introduction

In light of evidence that women’s limited access to agricultural technology is an important constraint to women’s agricultural productivity (von Braun and Webb 1989; Quisumbing 1995; Peterman et al 2010), increasing technology adoption among women farmers has emerged as a key strategy to close the gendered productivity gap in agriculture. Given these expected benefits, research has sought to understand what keeps women’s observed rates of agricultural technology adoption low. Many of the constraints that technology promises to alleviate are the same constraints that hamper adoption in the first place

Methods

Results

Conclusion