Empowerment and agricultural production:

Evidence from the WEAI in NigerŦ

Fleur Wouterse

Work funded by the Millennium Challenge Corporation and part of a broader analysis on Trade, Gender Equality and Enterprise Growth to guide MCC investments in Niger.

Problem statement Rural households in Niger remain heavily dependent

on agriculture for their livelihoods Women play a critical and potentially transformative

role in agricultural and rural sector growth but face persistent obstacles and economic constraints limiting further inclusion in agriculture and rural development

Arguably, these obstacles are particularly pronounced in primary households headed by a female

The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) is a survey-based index designed to measure the empowerment, agency and inclusion of women in the agricultural sector

Here, we consider the WEAI as a human capital variable and assess the role of the state of empowerment in agriculture

Background Human capital refers to any aspect of a person that

produces economic value and from which one cannot be separated the way one can be from physical or financial assets (Becker, 1975)

The role of human capital as an engine of agricultural growth has been given due attention in the literature

Increases in output beyond increases in land, man-hours and physical reproducible capital have been attributed to investment in human capital (Schultz 1961)

In the field of microeconomics, role of human capital assessed by estimating a production function with human capital variables entering linearly as additional inputs

Background Two problems with this approach:

1. There may be nonlinearities in the production-human capital relationship

2. Environmental variables, such as human capital variables, not only affect the location of a household on a given production function but also determine the choice of the implemented technique so that the assumption of constant coefficients on traditional inputs may be invalid

Data Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index

(WEAI) and agricultural household surveys used to collect data in 500 households in three communes (Dogueraoua, Malbaza and Tsernaoua) in the Tahoua region of Niger during April-May 2015

Villages randomly selected using probability proportional to size sampling while households were randomly selected using the quota method.

Setting Three-fourths of Niger is covered by the Sahara

desert The rainy season lasts only three months, with

total rainfall of 150–600 mm per year Maximum temperatures are high (45 degrees

Celsius in the shade in April–May) Livestock production is a major component of

farming Millet is the most important staple crop,

occupying nearly half of the total harvested area in the country

No land market Traditional production practices with little

external inputs Cultivation largely rain-fed

Individual level disempowerment

  Males Female T-testInput in productive decisions 0.00 (0.05)a 0.32 (0.47) -12.74Autonomy 0.47 (0.03) 0.39 (0.49) 2.26Asset ownership 0.05 (0.22) 0.42 (0.49) -11.40Input in asset decisions 0.12 (0.33) 0.47 (0.50) -9.71Access to and decisions about credit

0.03 (0.17) 0.20 (0.40) -3.33

Control over use of income 0.04 (0.19) 0.16 (0.37) -5.47Group membership 0.76 (0.42) 0.94 (0.25) -6.87Speaking in public 0.26 (0.44) 0.68 (0.47) -12.71Workload 0.10 (0.02) 0.21 (0.40) -4.27Leisure 0.09 (0.28) 0.08 (0.27) 0.35Weighted disempowerment 0.37 (0.18) 0.42 (0.20) -3.66Number of observations 360 409

Contribution of indicators to disempowerment

Disempowerment by household type

  All Dual Primary (female)

Primary (male)

Input in productive decisions

0.33 (0.38)

0.30 (0.25) 0.40 (0.49) 0.31 (0.46)

Autonomy 0.42 (0.46)

0.46 (0.43) 0.38 (0.49) 0.39 (0.49)

Asset ownership 0.29 (0.33)

0.30 (0.25) 0.29 (0.40) 0.27 (0.40)

Input in asset decisions 0.36 (0.33)

0.36 (0.27) 0.38 (0.41) 0.34 (0.38)

Control over use of income

0.31 (0.38)

0.31 (0.28) 0.36 (0.48) 0.25 (0.44)

Group membership 0.73 (0.39)

0.74 (0.31) 0.78 (0.42) 0.65 (0.48)

Speaking in public 0.51 (0.42)

0.45 (0.32) 0.62 (0.48) 0.55 (0.50)

Workload 0.14 (0.30)

0.16 (0.29) 0.16 (0.37) 0.06 (0.24)

Leisure 0.09 (0.24)

0.07 (0.18) 0.09 (0.28) 0.12 (0.32)

Weighted Disempowerment

0.40 0.39 0.43 0.39

Number of observations 479 258 126 95

Agricultural production descriptives  All

(N=478)Dual

(N=256)Primary (female) (N=125)

Primary (male)(N=95)

Output (kg) 1486.06(4515.45)

2082.77 (5885.46)

629.26 (1311.47)

999.14 (2111.63)

Output/ha 422.89 (1086.82)

509.82 (1260.79)

296.18 (454.80)

355.39 (1156.31)

Labor (days)

120.40(124.17)

132.91 (131.65)

107.08 (117.26)

104.08 (108.64)

Fertilizer (kg)

36.36(103.59)

43.26 (104.02)

29.06(109.20)

27.28 (94.14)

Land (ha) 5.75(8.07)

6.48 (9.05)

3.85 (5.18)

6.27 (8.02)

Equipment (FCFA)

106 402(180 063)

122 582 (179 932)

55 873 (124 693)

129 117 (225 542)

Model Smooth variable coefficient Cobb-

Douglas production function

ln

(empowerment and education) (land, labor, fertilizer, value of equipment and traction animals)

Estimation strategy1. IV methods to identify fertilizer use,

labor input and empowerment • household composition variables • number of plots cultivated • time to paved road • time to nearest potable water source • distance to nearest potable water source• number of months village is accessible

2. Li and Wang (1998) generalized consistent conditional model test for functional form selection

Results: non linearities

• The relationship between empowerment and agricultural production is nonlinear and rather concave

• Although flat for values of disempowerment of up to 0.30 as individuals become increasingly disempowered, returns become consistently negative

-3-2

-10

Gra

dien

t

-1.5 -1 -.5Ln Disempowerment

Results: interaction effects  Linear Education Disempowerment

Ln Land 2.03 (0.86)a** -0.02 (0.16) 1.85 (0.85)**

Ln Value of equipment

-0.52 (0.29)* 0.05 (0.06) -0.61 (0.26)**

Ln Fertilizer use 1.71 (0.57)** -0.19 (0.11)* 1.31 (0.61)**

Ln Labor -1.92 (1.21)* 0.12 (0.21) -2.34 (1.26)**

Intercepts 12.87 (5.20)** -0.86 (0.89) 11.13 (5.03)

R-squared 0.59    

Breusch-Pagan test for heteroskedasticity , prob>=0.39Ramsey’s RESET test F(3, 461) =0.97, prob>F=0.36 F-test of random effects on intercept F(2,461)=2.82, prob>F=0.06F-test of random effects on coefficient F(8,461)=2.20, prob>F=0.03

Results: interaction effects Empowerment is technology changing Disempowerment interacts positively with

returns to land and fertilizer and negatively with returns to labor and equipment

Disempowerment hampers returns to labor and, to a lesser extent, equipment

Given, for example, the important contribution of group membership to empowerment, increased group membership through its effect on empowerment would enhance the efficiency with which labor is applied and equipment is used

Results: elasticities

Household type

All Dual Primary (female)

Primary (male)

Productivity elasticity for human capital variablesDisempowerment

-0.77 (1.09)

-0.81 (1.27) -0.98 (1.11) -0.53 (1.08)

Education -0.09 (0.12) -0.11 (0.15) -0.08 (0.11) -0.12 (0.11)Production elasticity for traditional input variableLand 0.23 (0.22) 0.20 (0.20) 0.29 (0.23) 0.15 (0.33)Labor 0.52 (0.29) 0.54 (0.28) 0.38 (0.32) 0.62 (0.44)Fertilizer 0.26 (0.23) 0.25 (0.23) 0.39 (0.25) 0.19 (0.29)Equipment 0.13 (0.09) 0.14 (0.09) 0.09 (0.10) 0.17 (0.12)

Results Increased formal education is associated

with a deterioration in output Returns to empowerment differ across

households groups and are much higher for primary female headed households and lower for primary male headed households

Relatively higher disempowerment in female headed primary households strongly affects returns to their labor input and equipment use

 

Results

0.1

.2.3

.4D

ensi

ty

2 4 6 8 10Ln predicted output

All householdsDual householdsPrimary femaled headed householdsPrimary male headed households

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.2608

Conclusions and policy recommendations

Female headed household less empowered

Contributors are autonomy and control over use of income, group membership and speaking in public

Empowerment is technology changing: different production functions for different households depending on the level of empowerment

Less empowered female headed households generate lower returns from labor and equipment

….and produce consistently less