Agricultural transformation in Rwanda: Can Gendered Market Participation Explain the Persistence of Subsistence Farming?

C. Ingabire, P. Mshenga, Michèle Amacker, J. Langat, Christine Bigler, E. Birachi
{"title":"Agricultural transformation in Rwanda: Can Gendered Market Participation Explain the Persistence of Subsistence Farming?","authors":"C. Ingabire, P. Mshenga, Michèle Amacker, J. Langat, Christine Bigler, E. Birachi","doi":"10.31532/gendwomensstud.2.1.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the efforts to agricultural transformation in Rwanda, farming systems are \npredominantly still in subsistence production. Women are more involved than men, and \ntheir number has even increased in the past decade. The reasons for this remain unclear, \ngiven the country’s efforts for gender mainstreaming towards market-oriented \nagriculture. Guided by the current debate on feminization of agriculture, we base this \nstudy on the thesis that higher market participation among women farmers could \ncontribute to the so-called transformation. The study uses the case of the Northern \nProvince of Rwanda. It involved 368 smallholder dual-headed households among which \n208 and 160 were respectively producing beans and potato. It used a mixed method \napproach by sequential exploratory design, involving a quantitative survey households \nfollowed by Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Both Household Commercialization Index \n(HCI) and Thematic Analyses were used. Findings showed a high degree of \ncommercialization for potato, with 75% of farmers participating in output markets, and \n72% among them being market oriented. In contrast, only 26% of bean farmers sold their \nproduction. The commercialization of potato is in the hands of men, while beans are \nmainly sold by women. This was also confirmed with the findings from FGDs. Three issues \nwere identified as hindrances to agricultural transformation and likely to keep households \nin subsistence production: the low participation of women in input and output markets; \ntheir limited control over agricultural income; and their increased workload that combines \non-farm and reproductive works. Therefore, despite the efforts at policy level, there are still gender inequalities within dual-headed farming households, and the agricultural \ntransformation risks increasing the gap through all or some of the three identified issues. \nRemoving these inequalities could increase households’ market participation and \ncontribute in the process of agricultural transformation.","PeriodicalId":228317,"journal":{"name":"Gender and Women's Studies","volume":"181 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gender and Women's Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31532/gendwomensstud.2.1.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Despite the efforts to agricultural transformation in Rwanda, farming systems are predominantly still in subsistence production. Women are more involved than men, and their number has even increased in the past decade. The reasons for this remain unclear, given the country’s efforts for gender mainstreaming towards market-oriented agriculture. Guided by the current debate on feminization of agriculture, we base this study on the thesis that higher market participation among women farmers could contribute to the so-called transformation. The study uses the case of the Northern Province of Rwanda. It involved 368 smallholder dual-headed households among which 208 and 160 were respectively producing beans and potato. It used a mixed method approach by sequential exploratory design, involving a quantitative survey households followed by Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Both Household Commercialization Index (HCI) and Thematic Analyses were used. Findings showed a high degree of commercialization for potato, with 75% of farmers participating in output markets, and 72% among them being market oriented. In contrast, only 26% of bean farmers sold their production. The commercialization of potato is in the hands of men, while beans are mainly sold by women. This was also confirmed with the findings from FGDs. Three issues were identified as hindrances to agricultural transformation and likely to keep households in subsistence production: the low participation of women in input and output markets; their limited control over agricultural income; and their increased workload that combines on-farm and reproductive works. Therefore, despite the efforts at policy level, there are still gender inequalities within dual-headed farming households, and the agricultural transformation risks increasing the gap through all or some of the three identified issues. Removing these inequalities could increase households’ market participation and contribute in the process of agricultural transformation.
卢旺达的农业转型:性别市场参与能否解释自给农业的持续存在?
尽管卢旺达努力进行农业改革,但农业系统仍主要是维持生计的生产。女性比男性参与得更多,在过去十年中,女性的数量甚至有所增加。考虑到该国正在努力将性别问题纳入面向市场的农业主流,出现这种情况的原因尚不清楚。在当前关于农业女性化的争论的指导下,我们基于女性农民更高的市场参与度可能有助于所谓的转型这一论点进行了这项研究。该研究以卢旺达北部省为例。调查涉及368户双头小农,其中生产豆类的有208户,生产马铃薯的有160户。该研究采用了顺序探索性设计的混合方法,包括定量调查家庭,然后是焦点小组讨论(fgd)。采用家庭商业化指数(HCI)和专题分析。结果表明,马铃薯的商业化程度很高,75%的农民参与了产出市场,其中72%的农民以市场为导向。相比之下,只有26%的豆农出售了他们的产品。马铃薯的商业化掌握在男性手中,而豆类主要由女性销售。FGDs的研究结果也证实了这一点。确定了阻碍农业转型并可能使家庭继续从事维持生计生产的三个问题:妇女在投入和产出市场的参与率低;他们对农业收入的控制有限;他们增加的工作量结合了农场和生殖工作。因此,尽管在政策层面做出了努力,但双头农户内部仍然存在性别不平等现象,农业转型可能会通过上述三个问题中的全部或部分问题扩大这一差距。消除这些不平等可以增加家庭的市场参与,并有助于农业转型进程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信