assets: keys to prosperity

Assets: Keys to ProsperityRuth Meinzen-Dick, IFPRI

Nancy Johnson, IFPRI

Jemimah Njuki, IDRC

Agnes Quisumbing, IFPRI

Addis Ababa, 12-14 April 2016

Why focus on assets?

Access to, control over, and ownership of assets are

critical components of well-being

Productive assets can generate products or services

that can be consumed or sold to generate income

Assets are stores of wealth that can increase in value

Assets can act as collateral and facilitate access to

credit, financial services, increase social status

Assets give individuals the capability to be and to act

Increasing control over assets enables more

permanent pathways out of poverty compared to

increased incomes or consumption alone

Why focus on women’s assets?

Intrahousehold literature shows the importance of

women’s asset ownership for important individual

and family outcomes like education and nutrition.

Within households, it matters who owns the assets

Assets Well-beingLivelihood

strategyFull income

Consumption

Savings/

Investment

Shocks

Men WomenJoint

Context: Ecological, social, economic, and political

factors

GAAP Conceptual Framework

FOR EXAMPLE:

Men and women have different rights to own land and different

access to irrigation, and therefore experience low levels of

rainfall differently.


strategyFull income

Consumption

Savings/

Investment

Shocks

Men WomenJoint


factors


Assets

Assets can be owned individually or jointly,

but joint ownership does not mean an asset

is owned EQUALLY.

Assets

The jointness may not always be an equal

division


strategyFull income

Consumption

Savings/

Investment

Shocks

Men WomenJoint


factors


Assets Livelihood

strategy

Assets Livelihood

strategy


strategyFull income

Consumption

Savings/

Investment

Shocks

Men WomenJoint


factors


Assets Livelihood

strategy

Shocks

Assets Livelihood

strategy

Shocks


strategyFull income

Consumption

Savings/

Investment

Shocks

Men WomenJoint


factors


Full incomeLivelihood

strategy

VEGGIES

CASH CROPS/STAPLESFull income

Livelihood

strategy

FULL INCOME is not only

the cash that the family

brings in (via cash crops

and wage income) but

also the value of crops

for home consumption,

and most importantly,

the value of a family

member’s TIME.


strategyFull income

Consumption

Savings/

Investment

Shocks

Men WomenJoint


factors


Consumption

Savings/inves

tment

Full income

Consumption

Savings/inves

tment

Full income

CONSUMPTION

Consumption

Savings/inves

tment

Full income

SAVINGS FUTURE LAND

TITLE

DOWRY

INVESTMENT

FARM EQUIPMENT

FERTILIZER TO

INCREASE YEILDS

DRIP IRRIGATION

SYSTEM

Consumption

Savings/inves

tment

Full income

DOWRY

FERTILIZER TO

INCREASE YEILDS

SAVINGS

FULL INCOME

Consumption

Savings &

Investment


strategyFull income

Consumption

Savings/

Investment

Shocks

Men WomenJoint


factorsMen WomenJoint


Well-being

Consumption

Assets

Savings/inves

tment

Education and food

security enhance

well-being

Educating children, saving up for a daughter’s

dowry so that she has assets in her marriage,

or buying a plot of land as an investment all

increase one’s well-being and stock of assets

Having land can

make one feel more

secure, allowing one

to invest and plan

ahead even before

they generate

income or crops from

that land.

Health

Nutritional

status

Empowerment




strategyFull income

Consumption

Savings/

Investment

Shocks

Men WomenJoint


factors

The Gender, Agriculture and Assets

Project (GAAP)

Sought to answer the question: What is the impact of

agricultural development projects on men’s and

women’s assets and the gender asset gap?

Funded by BMGF from 2010-2014. Led by IFPRI and

ILRI.

Based on evidence from the evaluation of 8 projects

in Africa and South Asia

Projects were already doing evaluations; GAAP

provided a top up to look at gender and assets

Projects had diverse interventions and

approaches to genderProject

implementerCountry Main agricultural intervention

Approach to gender

at start of project*

Landesa India Land transfer and regularization Gender aware

BRAC Bangladesh Land and livestock transfer Gender aware

CARE Bangladesh Increasing production and income Gender

transformative

Land O’Lakes Mozambique Cow transfer Gender blind

Helen Keller

International

Burkina Faso Land and tools transfer Gender

transformative

HarvestPlus Uganda Increasing access to planting

material of micronutrient food

Gender aware

IRRI India Increase awareness and availability

of agricultural technologies

Gender blind

KickStart Kenya and

Tanzania

Marketing of pumps Gender blind

And approaches to evaluation

Project implementer Evaluation design (Quantitative)

Landesa Propensity-weighted regressions

BRAC Randomized controlled trial

CARE Propensity-weighted regressions

Land O’Lakes Early vs. late cow recipients

Helen Keller International Randomized controlled trial

HarvestPlus Randomized controlled trial

Cereal Systems Initiative for

South AsiaComparator control villages

KickStart* Early vs. late pump buyers

Two main findings that cut across

projects

Gendered use, control, and ownership of assets

affect the take-up of agricultural interventions

Agricultural interventions affect the gendered use,

control, and ownership of assets

“if you build it, they will come”

“If you have a good intervention, people will participate”…not

necessarily

For example, dairy value chain projects require having a cow!

Different approaches to this:

Target households that already have cows: CARE-

Bangladesh

Transfer cows: BRAC-Targeting Ultra Poor

Transfer cows and provide training: Land O’Lakes

Mozambique

Other projects (e.g. Kickstart treadle pumps) have market

driven approaches—no subsidy on pump buying

Dissemination of seeds, new varieties, assume use or control

rights over land (even if not ownership)

Who gets to come?

In Land O’lakes

program, training

was initially

given only to men

because they

own cows. But

women play an

important role in

dairying, so the

cows suffered.

Training was

expanded to 2

members per

household.

Photo

credit: L

and O

’Lakes-M

ozam

biq

ue: M

SD

DP

Who within the household decides what

to grow?

The HarvestPlus REU project

in Uganda found that the

probability of orange-flesh

sweetpotato (OSP) adoption

was highest for parcels over

which there was joint control

but where women took the lead

in deciding which crops were

grown. The probability of

adopting OSP was lowest for

parcels exclusively controlled

by men.

Photo

credit: H

arv

estP

lus U

ganda

Do men and women have equal control of

resources that enable adoption?

Kickstart: Adoption

of treadle pumps by

women buyers was

much lower than that

of male buyers,

owing to women’s

limited financial

resources.Photo

credit: K

icksta

rtIn

tern

atio

nal

Projects often propose solutions to the “need asset to adopt” problem

Landesa• West Bengal allocation of

microplots: • Allocate microplots to

households, prioritize female-headed households and widows

• Joint titling to primary male and female adult

• Odisha government land titling programs• Grant title to households

already occupying government land

• Distribute individual title to households residing on previously communally-titled land.

• Make sure woman’s name on patta

Burkina HKI Enhanced Homestead Food Production project

• Make land available for community gardens through agreements with land owners

Agricultural interventions can affect the gendered use, control, and ownership of assets

Project increased household assets, and projects that targeted

women increased women’s assets.

Photo

credit: H

KI’s E

nhance

d H

om

este

ad

Food P

roductio

n (E

-HFP)

This was true even for projects that did not distribute assets. Men

were also able to build assets through projects, even those that targeted women.

Photo

credit: A

kra

mA

li, CA

RE B

angla

desh

SD

VC p

roje

ct

In some cases, increases in assets were associated with greater

participation in decisionmaking, but not all.

Photo

credit: S

upriy

aChatte

rjee, L

andesa

Both projects in Bangladesh increased women’s assets but contributed

to a shift towards women working inside the home.

Photo

credit: B

RA

C

Most projects, especially livestock projects, were associated with

increases in labor of women and other household members.

Photo

credit: L

and O

’Lakes-M

ozam

biq

ue: M

SD

DP

All projects reported increased production and income, however

women were usually not able to maintain control of income when

output was sold.

Photo

credit: A

kra

mA

li/CA

RE B

angla

desh

) t

Project beneficiaries reported a range of intangible benefits

including self esteem, family unity and mobility. They also noted

shifts in community attitudes about gender, including women’s

ability to own assets such as land.

Photo

credit: L

and O

’Lakes-M

ozam

biq

ue: M

SD

DP

Conclusions

Projects that unambiguously benefit households may have mixed

effects on individuals within those household, especially women

In general projects provide evidence supporting the conceptual

framework, however the outcomes are complex and often imply

trade offs

More research is needed to understand and measure how assets

affect and are affected by agricultural development, in different

contexts

Implications for agricultural research

Our findings from GAAP can be used to inform agricultural

research and development to enhance uptake and impact.

Agricultural research has typically focused on increasing yields

and productivity, and only more recently, poverty reduction

An assets perspective highlights asset-related barriers to

adoption of agricultural technologies; a gender-assets

perspective focuses on differences in barriers than men and

women face

A gendered perspective also sharpens the focus on well-being,

more broadly defined, and links agricultural research to health

and nutrition outcomes that we also want to improve

assets: keys to prosperity

Science