January-March 2020 ISSN 2141-2170 DOI: 10.5897/JAERDwww.academicjournals.org

OPEN ACCESS

Journal of

Agricultural Extension and Rural

Development

About JAERD

The Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development (JAERD) is a peer reviewed journal.

The journal is published monthly and covers all areas of the subject such as:

Impact monitoring and evaluation system for farmer field schools Metals in biosolids-amended soils

Nitrogenous fertilizer influence on quantity and quality values of balm Effect of irrigation on

consumptive use Water use efficiency Crop coefficient of sesame.

Indexing

The Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development is indexed in:

CAB Abstracts CABI’s Global Health Database China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)

Dimensions Database Google Scholar Matrix of Information for The Analysis of Journals (MIAR)

Microsoft Academic The Essential Electronic Agricultural Library (TEEAL)

Open Access Policy

Open Access is a publication model that enables the dissemination of research articles to the global

community without restriction through the internet. All articles published under open access can be

accessed by anyone with internet connection.

The Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development is an Open Access journal. Abstracts

and full texts of all articles published in this journal are freely accessible to everyone immediately after

publication without any form of restriction.

Article License

All articles published by Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development are licensed under

the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This permits anyone to copy,

redistribute, remix, transmit and adapt the work provided the original work and source is appropriately

cited. Citation should include the article DOI. The article license is displayed on the abstract page the

following statement:

This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 Please

refer to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for details about Creative Commons

Attribution License 4.0

Article Copyright

When an article is published by in the Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, the

author(s) of the article retain the copyright of article. Author(s) may republish the article as part of a

book or other materials. When reusing a published article, author(s) should;

Cite the original source of the publication when reusing the article. i.e. cite that the article was

originally published in the Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. Include the

article DOI

Accept that the article remains published by the Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural

Development (except in occasion of a retraction of the article)

The article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A copyright statement is stated in the abstract page of each article. The following statement is an

example of a copyright statement on an abstract page.

Copyright ©2016 Author(s) retains the copyright of this article.

Self-Archiving Policy

The African Journal of Biotechnology is a RoMEO green journal. This permits authors to archive any

version of their article they find most suitable, including the published version on their institutional

repository and any other suitable website.

Please see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?issn=1684-5315

Digital Archiving Policy

The Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development is committed to the long-term

preservation of its content. All articles published by the journal are preserved by Portico. In addition,

the journal encourages authors to archive the published version of their articles on their institutional

repositories and as well as other appropriate websites.

https://www.portico.org/publishers/ajournals/

Metadata Harvesting

The Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development encourages metadata harvesting of all

its content. The journal fully supports and implement the OAI version 2.0, which comes in a standard

XML format. See Harvesting Parameter

Memberships and Standards

Academic Journals strongly supports the Open Access initiative. Abstracts and full texts of all articles

published by Academic Journals are freely accessible to everyone immediately after publication.

All articles published by Academic Journals are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International License (CC BY 4.0). This permits anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transmit and

adapt the work provided the original work and source is appropriately cited.

Crossref is an association of scholarly publishers that developed Digital Object Identification (DOI)

system for the unique identification published materials. Academic Journals is a member of Crossref

and uses the DOI system. All articles published by Academic Journals are issued DOI.

Similarity Check powered by iThenticate is an initiative started by CrossRef to help its members

actively engage in efforts to prevent scholarly and professional plagiarism. Academic Journals is a

member of Similarity Check.

CrossRef Cited-by Linking (formerly Forward Linking) is a service that allows you to discover how

your publications are being cited and to incorporate that information into your online publication

platform. Academic Journals is a member of CrossRef Cited-by.

Academic Journals is a member of the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF). The

IDPF is the global trade and standards organization dedicated to the development and

promotion of electronic publishing and content consumption.

COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) is an international

initiative serving librarians, publishers and intermediaries by setting standards that facilitate

the recording and reporting of online usage statistics in a consistent, credible and

compatible way. Academic Journals is a member of COUNTER

Portico is a digital preservation service provided by ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization with a

mission to help the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways. Academic Journals is committed to the long-term preservation of its content and uses Portico

Academic Journals provides an OAI-PMH(Open Archives Initiatives Protocol for Metadata

Harvesting) interface for metadata harvesting.

Contact

Editorial Office: jaerd@academicjournals.org

Help Desk: helpdesk@academicjournals.org

Website: http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JAERD

Submit manuscript online http://ms.academicjournals.org

Academic Journals

73023 Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria

ICEA Building, 17th Floor, Kenyatta Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya

Editors

Dr. Kursat Demiryurek Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Agriculture Department of Agricultural Economics Turkey.

Dr. Farhad Mirzaei Department of Animal Production Management Animal Science Research Institute Iran.

Editorial Board Members

Dr. Vasudeo P. Zamabare South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSMT) USA.

Dr. R. K. Mathukia Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh, Gujarat, India.

Table of Content

Comparison between public and private extension services for sugarcane production in Muzaffargarh District, Punjab, Pakistan

Muhammad Zahid Farooq, Badar Naseem Siddiqui, Khalid Masud, M. Rameez Akram Khan, Waqar-ul-Hassan Tareen, Muhammad Ali, Adnan Rayit, Syed Ali Asghar Shah, Khawaja Muhammad Dawood, Muhammad and Ghazanfar Naeem

1

Relationship between women demographic characteristics, household structure and socio-economic status in Morogoro District, Tanzania

Edith T. Kwigizile, John M. Msuya and Michael J. Mahande

6

Vol.12(1), pp. 1-5 January-March 2020

DOI: 10.5897/JAERD2018.0946

Articles Number: D7255F362849

ISSN: 2141-2170

Copyright ©2020

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article

http://www.academicjournals.org/JAERD

Journal of Agricultural Extension and

Rural Development

Full Length Research Paper

Comparison between public and private extension services for sugarcane production in Muzaffargarh

District, Punjab, Pakistan

Muhammad Zahid Farooq*, Badar Naseem Siddiqui, Khalid Masud, M. Rameez Akram Khan, Waqar-ul-Hassan Tareen, Muhammad Ali, Adnan Rayit, Syed Ali Asghar Shah, Khawaja

Muhammad Dawood, Muhammad and Ghazanfar Naeem

Department of Agricultural Extension, Faculty of Crop and Food Sciences, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Received 12 February, 2018; Accepted 26 April, 2018

Sugarcane industry is at second position after textile industry in Pakistan. By the export of refined sugar, it plays a significant role in the economy of the country. Public and private sectors extension field staff work with sugarcane growers to improve their per acre yield. The research was conducted to compare and identify the services provided by those two sectors. A total of 150 respondents were selected randomly and interviewed to collect data through a structured interview schedule. The data were analyzed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS). It was revealed that private sector provided commodity services such as improved sugarcane seed more than the public sector. However, public sector provided agriculture machinery on subsidized basis whereas private sector did not have any of such facility but was ahead in providing the advocacy services, arranging trainings/workshops, paying farm/home visits, organizing method demonstrations and arranging agricultural fares (Kissan Mellas) for farmers due to better funding. However, Agri. Helpline calls system of public sector was found more effective. Key words: Extension services, sugarcane, extension field staff (EFS), public sector and private sector.

INTRODUCTION Sugarcane is one of the main crops among major cash crops of Pakistan. It is cultivated mainly for sugar and sugar related products along with an input for paper and card board industry of the country. Sugarcane provides raw material for the production of white sugar and gur (unrefined sugar balls). Sugarcane tops and molasses

are used for value addition to livestock fodder while bagasse is used for fuel and paper making. The sugar industry is playing a key role in agro based industrial improvement of the country. It accounts for 3.4% in agriculture value addition and 0.7% in gross domestic product (GDP) of Pakistan (Wasti and Ahmad 2017).

*Corresponding author. E-mail: abq678@gmail.com.

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution

License 4.0 International License

2 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. The factors affecting sugarcane production in Pakistan includes high prices of inputs, low prices of sugarcane and its by products, delay in payments by sugar mill owners and lack of scientific knowledge among the farmers for higher production. The land preparation, use of farmyard manure (FYM) and diammonium phosphate (DAP), procurement of quality seed and its proper sowing, weeding, cost of irrigation and fertilizer were found as important factors in gaining net higher income by the sugarcane growers.

The government should focus to reduce the cost of inputs to increase the net income of the sugarcane growers. In this regard Nazir et al. (2013) reported that growers were still using old and traditional methods of sugar production. They did not use the modern methods of cultivation like proper use of FYM; inter culturing, fertilizer application, sprays and timely irrigation to the crop. The problems of post-harvest losses included; improper handling, harvesting and inadequate availability of transport facilities. Labour had also impact on higher input cost of the sugar cane crop.

To overcome these factors extension education is very helpful in increased technical efficiency of the farmers in getting higher production of sugarcane. Training of farmers can take place through routine farm inspection visits by extension staff, formal and regular meetings with farmers’ groups at the time of the relevant farm activity performed by the growers, for example, seed sowing, transplanting, fertilizing, pest and disease control, harvesting etc (Nuthall and Padilla, 2009).

Davidson and Ahmad (2002) argued that both public and private extension systems offer competing, conflicting and overlapping programmes. Both sectors provide extension services only to contact farmers, which severely affect the diffusion of information process. Private sector extension was facilitating to larger, resource-rich farmers and excluding other farmers because of its profit motives. Hussain et al. (1994) further strengthened by arguing that small and illiterate farmers were not being entertained by the extension services of both sectors. Large landholding farmers got information about new technology from private sector that did not pass it on to smallholders and illiterate farmers despite having majority in the country. It was, however, observed that public sector extension was providing services to educate the farmers, not necessarily towards those with large landholdings.

Private extension staff was facilitating the farmers more than the public agricultural extension staff. The vehicles had been provided to every extension field staff for field tours and it was being treated as an attractive travel facility offered by the private sector. Economic analysis revealed that there was a ratio of 1:10 on spending of public and private sector extension agents. The public sector extension agents were only given bicycle to visit the farming communities for extension work (Khooharo, 2008). Swanson and Samy (2016) were of the view that

to increase effectiveness of extension programmes there was a need to promote public - private partnership for any effective national extension system designed for 21st

century. In Pakistan, agricultural extension services are being

provided by the extension field staff (EFS) of Agriculture Department. To up lift the living standard and to improve quality of life of rural people, who are nearly about 67% of the whole population, government has implemented so many extension systems but un fortunately, all of them were abolished and terminated one after the other due to multidimensional problems including use of top down approach and ineffective linkage between the researcher, farmer and extension worker (Lodhi et al., 2006).

In the present study, private sector (Fatima Sugar Mills Limited) is considered which came into being in 1992. It was built in east of the Indus River, more or less in the centre of the country. The challenges faced by the organization in sugarcane cultivation were water logged area and competition with cotton crop sown in available cultivable land for higher income. As such, the Mills had limited availability of sugarcane for sugar production. The private sector was making efforts to increase sugarcane production by working with the farmers through different extension techniques.

Farmers cultivate sugarcane to earn income for improved living and meeting their social needs. These goals are not always met due to low income return to farmers from the cane (Waswa et al., 2012). Production per acre of sugarcane is much lower than expected. That is only 600 to 650 monds per acre then the expected average yield of 850 monds per acre. This decrease in production may due to many reasons which need to explore. In Pakistan both public and private extension services are available to farmers. Both sectors work with different objectives. So there is a need to compare public and private sectors extension services, which sector is contributing towards sustainable agriculture. The present study was conducted with following specific objectives.

(1) To explore the extension services provided by public and private to sugarcane growers. (2) To analyse the various extension teaching methods used by public and private in the study area. MATERIALS AND METHODS Muzaffargarh is the district of Punjab province. It is divided into four tehsils namly, Muzaffargarh, Kot Addu, Jatoi and Alipur. The present study was conducted to obtain sugarcane growers perception in tehsil Kot Addu of district Muzaffargarh for comparing the effectiveness of public and Fatima Sugar Mills (FSM) sector extension services with regard to promotion of sugarcane production in the area. Two sugar mills namely Fatima and Sheikhoo were functioning in the tehsil. They were considered as the main purchasers of sugarcane crop for sugar production.

Therefore, tehsil Kot Addu was purposefully selected to analyze the working of extension services of public and private sector out of

Farooq et al. 3

Table 1. Comparative analysis of the provisions of extension services of public and private sector (n = 150).

Extension services Public Private

t-value Sig* Mean SD Mean SD

Commodity

Sugarcane improved seed 2.13 0.83 2.84 0.85 -3.72 0.000**

Fertilizer 2.67 0.57 2.81 0.69 -0.41 0.72NS

Agricultural machinery 2.29 0.61 0.00 0.00 0 0

Pesticide/weedicide 0 0 0 0 0 0

Advocacy

Communication of farming problems to EFS 2.11 1.3 2.10 1.21 .046 0.964NS

Provision of timely information 1.16 1.1 1.95 1.05 -4.29 0.000**

Awareness of latest research work 1.86 0.59 2.26 0.90 -2.45 0.036*

Solutions about farming problems by EFS 1.00 1.1 1.78 0.71 -4.60 0.000**

Motivation to adopt improved technology 1.96 0.83 2.53 1.03 -2.55 0.017*

Technical facilities

Soil/water testing 1.41 1.2 1.78 1.26 -1.64 0.103NS

Skills improvement 1.00 0.00 1.86 0.95 -10.5 0.001*

Training/workshop 2.21 0.63 2.60 0.59 -2.2 0.024*

Scale: 1= Very low 2 = Low 3 = Medium 4 = high 5 = Very high. *Sig =Significant at 0.05 Level ** Sig =Significant at 0.0 Level, NS = Non-significant.

the two, the extension service of Fatima Sugar Mills was chosen on random basis. From public sector, the agriculture extension department of Government of Punjab was selected for the study. The lists of contact sugarcane growers of both sectors (contact farmers of Fatima Sugar Mills and public sector) were obtained. Simple random sampling technique of sampling was applied and 75 farmers from each sector were selected. An interview schedule was developed. It was pretested and needed changes were made before recording the responses of the study respondents through interviews by the researcher. The collected data were analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Provision of extension services by both sectors

Extension services were provided in terms of advocacy, provision of commodities and technical services both by public and private sectors. Mengal et al. (2012) suggested that instead of selective approach to progressive and large farmers, private and public sectors should give importance and provide services to small farmers as well. Onyenkazi and Gana (2009) observed that private sector extension was more effective in disseminating information to the farmers.

The T-test was applied to study the comparative analysis of public and FSM extension services on the basis of commodities supplied to the respondents for promotion of sugarcane production. Table 1 shows the perception of the respondents regarding both the extension services. Results revealed significant difference

in FSM intervention to provide improved sugarcane seed as commodity support (x = 2.84) to their clients compared to the public sector extension(x = 2.13). While Public sector had an edge in providing the facility of agriculture machinery on subsidized basis(x = 2.29) to their target farmers. It was worth noting that FSM did not provide agricultural machinery to their target clientele at all.

Furthermore, both public sector and FSM extended advocacy services to their clients. Data indicated that among various extension services of advocacy, FSM was found better and significant at 0.0 level than public sector in providing timely information(x = 1.95 and x = 1.16), problem solving (x = 1.78 and x = 1.0), in creating awareness of latest research work significant at 0.05 (x = 2.26 and x = 1.86) and motivation to adopt improved technology(x = 2.53 and x = 1.96). FSM also performed better than the public sector in providing technical facilities like skills improvement (x = 1.86 and x = 1.0) and trainings/workshops (x = 2.60 and x = 2.21) and significantly different with P < 0.05.

However, commodity facilities like fertilizer (x= 2.81 and x = 2.67), communication of advocacy services(x = 2.10 and x = 2.11) and soil and water testing facilities (x =1.78 and x = 1.41) of technical services were statistically non-significant. Application of extension methods by both sectors Farmers were inquired about the extension methods

4 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev.

Table 2. Comparative analyses of the extension methods used by public and private sectors (n = 150).

Methods Public Private

t-value Sig* Mean SD Mean SD

Farm/home visits 1.92 1.005 2.70 0.697 -5.164 0.000**

Office calls 2.55 0.760 1.83 0.747 3.904 0.000**

Group meetings 2.37 0.768 2.48 0.799 -0.726 0.469NS

Result demonstration 1.99 1.028 0 0 0 0

Method demonstration 1.3 0.552 2.97 0.944 0 0.037*

Field trips - - - - - -

Radio talks 2.10 0.557 1.94 0.680 0.834 0.382NS

TV talks/shows 1.50 0.548 2.64 0.729 -4.652 0.000**

Agri. Helpline 2.21 .726 1.37 1.275 2.987 0.004**

Kissan Mellas 0 0 3.04 .930 0 0

Pamphlets 2.71 .682 2.56 .735 1.061 0.282NS

Scale1: 1 = Very low 2 = Low 3 = Medium 4 = high 5 = Very high. *Sig =Significant at 0.05 Level ** Sig =Significant at 0.0 Level, NS = Non-significant.

applied by public and FSM extension field staff .The result revealed that most of the extension methods used by both the sectors were common except the field trips made by the FSM extension service. Farm/home visits made to the farmers by FSM extension field staff was more with (x = 2.7). That was in line with a study result of Mengal et al. (2012) which revealed that private sector extension field staff paid farm visits on fortnightly basis compared to the public sector. Method demonstration, TV, farm/home visits and result demonstrations were came in between fair and satisfactory categories, but first two methods that is, method demonstration, TV showed inclination towards fair category and rest of the two farm/home visits, result demonstrations landed towards satisfactory category. In addition, radio, agri. helpline, group meetings, office calls and pamphlets came in between low and medium categories. The office calls and pamphlets showed their inclination towards medium category. The results of t-test given in Table 2 reveal that there was significant difference between EFS of public and FSM in applying method demonstration for providing information to farmers regarding sugarcane production at 0.05% of significance level. In addition, farm/home visits, office calls, TV talks/show and agri. helpline were having significant difference at 0.01%. However pamphlets, Kissan Mellas, radio talks and group meetings were at statistically non-significant level at 0.05% of probability. Effectiveness of extension methods The perceptions about the effectiveness of the extension methods applied by both the sectors were determined by asking respondents which method was found more suitable to them in diffusion of information by EFS. The data summarized in Table 3 reflects that farm/home

visits, result demonstrations, method demonstrations, pamphlets and Kissan Mellas were showing inclination in between satisfactory and good categories as effective methods applied by the FSM sector extension whereas method demonstrations and Agri. Helpline methods used by the public sector were considered more effective. T-test results indicated that effective extension methods which were significantly different at 0.00 levels were farm/home visits, result demonstrations, Agri. Helpline and Kissan Mellas. Only use of TV talks/shows were found having statistically significant difference at 0.05% whereas office calls, group meetings, method demonstrations and pamphlets were having non-significant difference. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Both public and private sector extension services worked for the promotion of sugarcane production within their available resources. However, the private sector (FSM extension service) provided better services in terms of commodity provision, advocacy and technical assistance to the farmers compared to the public sector extension service. Similarly, same types of extension teaching methods were used by both the sectors for dissemination of information to the sugar cane growers. Kissan Mellas were, however, arranged only by private extension service. Training programmes for awareness of improved sugarcane production technology may be conducted timely and regularly by both sectors. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.

Farooq et al. 5

Table 3. Comparative analyses of the effectiveness of extension methods used by public and private sectors (n = 150).

Methods Public Private

t-value Sig* Mean SD Mean SD

Farm/home visits 1.38 1.075 2.89 0.793 -8.564 0.000**

Office calls 2.36 0.903 2.56 0.511 -1.044 0.394NS

Group meetings 2.44 0.598 2.42 0.552 0.147 0.885NS

Result demonstrations 2.38 0.648 2.88 0.590 -4.374 0.000**

Method demonstrations 3.09 0.854 2.92 0.860 1.178 .241NS

Field trips - - - - - -

Radio talks - - - - - -

TV talks/shows 2.61 0.704 2.30 0.638 1.941 0.053*

Agri .Helpline 2.57 0.535 1.00 0.000 3.960 0.005*

Kissan Mellas 1.42 1.200 2.84 0.868 -7.263 0.000**

Pamphlets 2.73 .521 2.74 0.631 -0.058 0.954NS

Scale1: 1 = Very low 2 = Low 3 = Medium 4 = high 5 = Very high. *Sig =Significant at 0.05 Level ** Sig =Significant at 0.0 Level, NS = Non-significant.

REFRENCES Davidson AP, Ahmad M (2002). Effectiveness of public and private

sector agricultural extension: Implications for privatization in Pakistan. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 8(3):117-126.

Hussain SS, Byerlee D, Heisey PW (1994). Impact of the training and visit extension system on farmers’ knowledge and adoption of technology: evidence from Pakistan. Agricultural Economy 10(1):39-48.

Khooharo AA (2008). A study of public and private sector pesticide extension and marketing services for cotton crop. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Education of Extension and Short Courses, Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam, Pakistan.

Lodhi TE, Luqman M, Khan GA (2006). Perceived effectiveness of public sector extension under decentralized agricultural extension system in the Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences 2(3):195-197.

Mengal AA, Mallah MU, Mirani ZA, Siddiqui BN (2012). An analysis of public and private agricultural extension services in Balochistan, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research 25(4):308-311.

Nazir A, Jariko GA, Junejo MA (2013). Factors affecting sugarcane production in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 7(1):128-140.

Nuthall PL, Padilla DM (2009). Technical efficiency in the production of sugarcane in Central Negros area, Philippines: An application of data envelopment analysis. Journal ISSAAS 15(1):77-90.

Onyenkazi HA, Gana AK (2009). Comparative assessment of public and private extension programmes in Etche local government area of Rivers State, Nigeria. Journal of General Agriculture 5(2).

Swanson BE, Samy MM (2016). Developing an extension partnership among public, private, and nongovernmental organizations. Research.gate. Retrieved from:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267362725 .Accessed on September 21, 2016.

Wasti SE, Ahmad I (2017). Pakistan Economic survey 2016-17. Chapter 2 Agriculture, Finace Division. Government of Pakistan 19-22.

Waswa FJP, Onyango G, Mcharo M (2012). Contract sugarcane farming and farmers’ incomes in the Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 52:3685-3695.

Vol.12(1), pp. 6-17 January-March 2020

DOI: 10.5897/JAERD2019.1089

Articles Number: F7E6F3963229

ISSN: 2141-2170

Copyright ©2020

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article

http://www.academicjournals.org/JAERD

Journal of Agricultural Extension and

Rural Development

Full Length Research Paper

Relationship between women demographic characteristics, household structure and

socio-economic status in Morogoro District, Tanzania

Edith T. Kwigizile1*, John M. Msuya2 and Michael J. Mahande3

1Stefano Moshi Memorial University College, Moshi, Tanzania.

2Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.

3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health,

Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Moshi, Tanzania.

Received 13 August, 2019; Accepted 14 November, 2019

Factors responsible for poor household socio-economic status (hSES) vary in different social groups. Little information exists to explain how demographic and household characteristics are related to hSES in rural societies of Tanzania. This cross-sectional study assessed associations between selected women demographic characteristics, household structure and hSES in a rural area in Morogoro District, Tanzania. The study involved 542 women aged 15 to 49 years, who had given birth to at least two children. Data were collected by face to face interviews using a structured questionnaire and Focus Group Discussions. Principal Component Analysis was used to construct hSES index. Women older than 35 years had higher likelihood of being in the higher SES category compared to their younger counterparts [OR1.26 (95%CI1.82-2.94), p<0.05]. Living in road accessible ward was associated with being in the medium to high hSES [OR4.08 (95%CI2.40-6.94), p<0.001]. Households with at least one child aged between 5 and 9 increased the likelihood of being in the low hSES [OR 0.57 (95%CI 1.3-2.06), p< 0.05]. While road accessibility and age determined a better hSES, most other factors were not related to hSES. The findings underscore the urgency for transportation infrastructural improvement as a reliable means for improvement of rural hSES Key words: Household, socio-economic status, demographic characteristics, women, poverty.

INTRODUCTION Worldwide, women are associated with poor household socio economic status (SES) (Chant and Sweetman (2012); Dutt et al. (2016); Kapunda (2018); Semali (2016) and Tillmar (2016) shows that in comparison to men, women as well as households headed by females are poorer (Cawthorne, 2008; Kabeer, 2015; Lesetedi, 2018;

Magombeyi and Odhiambo, 2017, 2019). Previous investigator has shown that women constitute 75% of the global poor (Chant and Sweetman, 2012). It is worth noting that even the more recent studies which assessed SES of women and their households have not disapproved the former concept relating women and

*Corresponding author. E-mail: edithkwigizile@yahoo.co.uk

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution

License 4.0 International License

poor SES. In Sub Saharan Africa, including Tanzania, women SES takes a similar trend that poverty is higher among women than their male counterparts (Kehler, 2013; Macro, 2011). Poor hSES can be reflected by poor standard of living which is characterized by squalid surroundings, high maternal and child/infant mortality, low life expectancy, low per capita income, poor quality housing, inadequate clothing, low utilization of technology, environmental degradation, unemployment, rural-urban migration and poor means of communication, to mention a few (Ryan et al., 2006).

Poor SES of women and their households has been associated with numerous factors, including involvement of women in multiple roles categorized as productive (economic), reproductive and community engagement roles (Moser, 2012). Other factors throwing women in poor SES are gender wage gap, segregation in economic activities as well as poor participation in productive work (Cawthorne, 2008). Previous scholars have reported that in occupations, women are paid less than men even when they have the same qualifications and work same hours.

Demographic characteristics refer to variables or attributes that are used to describe a person or a population. Individual demographic characteristics include gender, race, age, income, marital status, educational achievement, occupation, geographic location of respondent‟s religion, as well as numerous other variables of interest (Huff and Tingley, 2015; Purdie et al., 2002). Previous investigators have provided different opinions regarding the relationship between individual demographic factors and SES. Some have demonstrated that demographic factors do not relate with SES (Pressman, 2003). Some of the available literature proposes different demographic factors to affect SES differently and through different mechanisms (Awan et al., 2011; Topouzis, 1990; Udry, 1996; URT, 1998, 2018a, b). Reports are available that report the relationship between women specific demographic attributes with poverty (Awan et al., 2011; Chant, 2012; Kabeer, 2003; Leavens, 2011; UNESCO, 2000a; URT, 2018, 2019a), but not with household SES.

Literature shows that changing population and individual demographics shape the trajectories of economic development in households, societies and countries, through the emergence of new opportunities and challenges (Birdsall et al., 2001; Bloom and Finlay, 2009; Dao, 2012; Lee, 2003; Sinding, 2009; Williamson, 2001). It is therefore notable that the factors that link women and poor SES are multiple and complex. Knowledge on the complex interrelationships between demographics in relation to economic development in society is important for transforming development strategies. This is because demographics as well as economic processes and outcomes not only vary from one society to another, but also, change with time (Breuer and Wicker, 2008).In addition to this, majority of

Kwigizile et al. 7 previous studies have primarily reported on women‟s time use, particularly their duties outside home, comparing the labor participation rate of women in different communities and countries, or the number of hours they work (Blossfeld and Hakim, 1997; Gornick and Meyers, 2003; Gornick, 1994; Stier et al., 2001; Tijdens, 2002; Van der Lippe, 2001; Van Dijk and Van der Lippe, 2001).The variation in opinions regarding demographic factors in relations to SES suggests the importance to establish the relationship that exists between the demographic women factors and SES with specific socio-economic groups. In this line of thought, it is critically important to understand the demographic transitions of the population so as to timely devise appropriate strategies for improving rural household SES.

Efforts to improve the living standards of its people and through improved livelihoods (SES) of individuals, families and communities are mostly reflected in the contexts of socio-economic development, poverty reduction and economic growth as documented in different national policies and strategies. These strategies include the national Five Year Development Plan (FYDP) I and II, the national Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP)/ MKUKUTA I and II and the National Poverty Eradication Strategy Rural Development Strategy [2001, the national poverty reduction strategy (1998)] (URT, 1998, 2016).

The majority of rural households are living in poverty whereby more than half of the poor households are rural dwellers (World Bank Group, 2016). With reference to the 2017-18 National Household Survey (Tanzania)(URT, 2019), wealth distribution is categorized into five (5) wealth quintiles in which 80% of the rural population is in the three lowest wealth quintiles. In contrast, 88% of the urban population belongs to the two highest wealth quintiles. This implies that only 20% of rural Tanzanian households are in the two higher quintiles whereas only 12% of the urban households are found in the 3 lowest wealth quintiles (URT, 2019b). In Morogoro District where this study was conducted, more than half (55%) of households are poor (Lusambo 2016b). This study, therefore, sought to investigate whether women‟s demographic characteristics (age, education level and marital status) and household structure (sex of household head, number of household members and age composition of households) are related to household SES. Understanding the demographic and household factors that constrain women‟s economic contribution is important because women constitute more than half (54%) of the productive force in agricultural sector in Tanzania, which is the main contributor to the national GDP (Leavens, 2011; Palacios-Lopez and Lopez, 2014). It is envisaged that, findings from this study will complement government‟s efforts of improving the living standards of Tanzanians as shown in the Second Five Year Development Plan (FYDP II) of 2016/17-2020/21 (URT, 2016). The global Sustainable Development Goals

8 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. (SDGs 1 and 8) and national development strategy (FYDP II) targets to ensure that women‟s production potential is fully utilized and all men and women have equal rights to economic resources, access to basic services and promotion of decent work and economic growth.

This study is based on the Gender Poverty Gap theory (Pressman, 2002), which is part of the feminization of poverty theories that analyzed, among other things, the demographic, household and human capital factors in relation to SES. According to the Gender Poverty Gap theory, the theorist argue that demographic factors that include education level of household members; occupation where adults in the family are employed, age distribution of family members, household size, ethnicity and race, and the marital status of the family or household head had no empirical relationship with poor SES among women (Pressman, 2002). Based on the theory, the current study explored the relationship between women‟s demographic characteristics, household structure and socio-economic status in a rural site in Morogoro District, in Tanzania.

METHODOLOGY Description of study area The study was conducted from June 2015 to December 2016 in Morogoro District in Tanzania. The area was chosen purposively because of the high prevalence of poverty in the areas. According to the Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey 2010, out of five wealth levels (quintiles), more than half (56.2%) of households in Morogoro region fall between the lowest and the middle quintiles (Macro, 2011). Furthermore, more than half (55%) of households in Morogoro District were regarded as poor based on multitude of approaches (Lusambo, 2016a; Lusambo et al., 2016). The study was conducted in six villages which were randomly selected from three wards of Morogoro District. The villages were Kinonko and Maseyu from Gwata ward, Madamu and Kibwaya village from Mkuyuni ward as well as Tandai and Ludewa villages from Kinole ward. The prevalence of poverty was important because the study variables were related with SES hence representation of both welfare categories of well-off and poor households was important.

Morogoro District is one of the six districts of Morogoro Region in Tanzania. Other districts are Gairo, Kilombero, Kilosa, Morogoro Urban, Mvomero and Ulanga. The main economic activity for people residing in Morogoro District is agriculture and some livestock keeping. Different form other wards, Gwata ward is located along the Dar es Salaam – Morogoro highway and thus readily accessible by tarmac road. The study included two villages from each of the selected wards. Residents of the study area belong to the matrilineal (matriliny) society, adhering to a kinship system in which ancestral descent is traced through maternal lines.

Study design

This was a community-based cross-sectional study. The cross-sectional study design was preferred over others because of its convenience of collecting data once, and therefore allows for estimation of the study variables in the study population at one point in time (Kothari, 2004).

Sample size estimation

Out of the 627 women who were interviewed in the present study, 542 women from 542 households qualified for analysis. The sample size was estimated using the formula and assumptions:

n = (Z2 *P (1- P)/e

2

where „Z‟ = value from standard normal distribution corresponding to desired confidence level (Z=1.96 for 95% CI), „P‟ is the prevalence of poverty in the study area (55%) and „e‟ is the desired precision (0.05). A minimum of 380 participants were required.

Inclusion criteria

This study focused on women of reproductive age who were between 15 and 49 years old (TDHS, 2016). The Reproductive age was important to capture information about composition of under-five children in households. The participating women were from either female or male-headed households, who were residents in the study area. The ultimate units of analysis were individual participating women. Three characteristics; gender, age, area of residence were used for selection of participants.

Sampling procedure

Purposive sampling was used to generate a list of women from the study villages. Village registers were used to generate the sampling frame in order to avoid selection bias. Listed women were those who had the required characteristics for participating in the study. From the lists, all women who were household heads representing female-headed Household (FHH) were purposively included in the study while women from male-headed households were randomly sampled. All female-headed households were included in the study because they are generally fewer in communities (Macro, 2011). In total 323 and 219 women from male and female-headed households, respectively, were included in the study.

Tools for data collection and their pretesting

Data collection involved the use of structured questionnaire in collecting primary data through interviews. The questionnaire was pre-tested to 10 women to find out whether respondents could understand the questions in the same way thus give valid and reliable results (Collins, 2003). This method was previously used by other scholars (Azzarri et al., 2006; Collins, 2003). Revision of questions was done where necessary. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were guided by a pre-determined check list.

Data collection methods

Data collection methods included face-to-face interviews, FGDs and observations. While the structured questionnaire was used to guide interviews for participating women, a check list guided FGDs. Observation was useful for assessing households‟ assets which were used for determination of household wealth hence SES. Data were collected to capture information about respondents‟ background information, demographic and household characteristics.

Study variable

Explanatory variables The independent variables emanated from two study objectives. Based on the first objective , “to analyze the relationship between

women‟s demographic characteristics with household SES in rural settings”, the variables were: respondent‟s age, education level, marital status and the woman‟s place (ward) of residence. Based on the second objective, “to examine the relationship between household structure and household SES of study women‟s households of residence”, explanatory variables were: sex of household head, household size and age of household members. The age refers to a number of years the respondent had lived. The age of a participant was recorded as continuous variable, then was categorized as 15 – 24 years (youth), 25 – 34 years (middle age) and 35-49 as an adult. The age (years) range was adopted from the TDHS (Macro, 2011). Education level refers to the maximum education that a participant had attained according to the education system of Tanzania and it was predefined in the Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey. The categories were namely, no formal education, primary school education and secondary school education or higher (URT, 2016). A household is defined as a unit composed of one or more persons living together under the same roof and eating from the same pot and or making common provision for food and other living arrangements (Lesetedi, 2018)). Household characteristics included sex of household head, household size and age of household members. Outcome variable The outcome variable of this study was the household socio-economic status (hSES), measured by wealth index (asset possession) and housing characteristics as described in the Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey 2010 (Jeckoniah et al., 2014; Macro, 2011). Polychoric principal component analysis (PCA) was used to construct household SES. This method was appropriate due to the categorical nature of outcome variables (Kolenikov and Angeles, 2009). The SES was defined based on wealth index generated from house ownership and material used to build the house as well as the toilet facility (Vyas and Kumaranayake, 2006). The wealth index that was used to define hSES was created from household characteristics, that is, ownership of a house and material used to build the house and the toilet facility (Vyas and Kumaranayake, 2006). Also, possession of assets that include a motorbike, radio, bicycle, generator and solar power facility was used as another indicator. This method was also recommended by other researchers due to the reason that wealth reflects long-term wellbeing since it is less volatile than income or consumption (Azzarri et al., 2006; Rutstein and Johnson, 2004; Sahn and Stifel, 2003). Variables with very low counts (television and car) were excluded from the index and all cases with missing values in any of the variable were removed from analysis. The missing values accounted for 3.7% of the sample. The first component of polychoric PCA was used to generate wealth scores and the scores were then divided into 5 quintiles. These quintiles were further classified into two categories of household SES as Low (1

stand 2

ndquintiles) and Middle-High (3rd- 5th quintile) so as to

have two categories of approximately similar size. Statistical analysis Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22 software (IBM SPSS Armonk, NY, USA). The measures of central tendency (means and/or medians) were used to summarize continuous data while frequencies and percentages were used for categorical variables. Linear logistic regression analysis was used to measure the relationship between the categorical dependent variable and input variables. The relationship was estimated between independent variables with the dependent variable (household SES). The independent variables were individual demographic factors, household characteristics and area (ward) of residence. Univariate

Kwigizile et al. 9 and multivariate models were used to for test associations between independent variables and hSES after accounting for the effect of other explanatory variables. Odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval was estimated for the study variables. A p value‟ of <0.05 was considered to be the cut off for statistical significance. Content analysis procedure was used to analyze qualitative data as previously recommended (Krueger et al., 2014). RESULTS Demographic characteristics of respondents Demographic characteristics of study respondents are presented in Table 1. A total of 542 questionnaires were analyzed. The age of respondents ranged from 18-49 years with a mean age of 33.6 (SD±7.9). More than a half of the respondents (56.4%) had attained primary school education and about forty percent (40.6%) of participants had no formal education. Based on FGDs, reasons for high illiteracy among women were gender discrimination, poverty and cultural beliefs. About a third of the participants (29.2%) were previously married but they were widowed, separated or divorced at the time of the survey. FGDs results revealed that instability of marriage was attributed with gender-based violence, early marriage, and poverty. More than a half of the interviewed participants (56.5%) came from Kinole ward and the rest came from Mkuyuni and Gwata wards. Majority of the interviewed participants (65.9%) came from households consisting of 4-6 persons. The median household size was 5 (IQR=4 – 6). Household characteristics Data on household composition by age is shown in Table 2. Almost sixty percent (59.6%) of the participants came from male-headed households. Of the 542 participants, 314 or 57.9% were from households with under-fives (<5 years), whereas 72.9% of those households had only one under five child.

Characteristics of household composition by age and number of children are shown in Table 2. Four hundred and eighty respondents came from households consisting of children aged between 5 and 14 years whereby nearly three quarters (71.5%) of the households consisted of 1-2 children and the rest of the households had 3 children or more (Table 2). Socio-economic and housing characteristics of respondents’ houses Socio-economic characteristics of respondents are summarized in Table 3. Majority of the respondents (99.3%) depend on agriculture as the main economic activity while only 2.2% depend on livestock keeping. The remaining participants (0.9%) depend on business/trading.

10 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents (N=542).

Characteristics Frequency (%)

Age category (years)

18 - 24 62 11.4

25 - 34 275 50.7

35 -49 205 37.9

*Mean (SD); Range 33.6 (7.9); 18-49

Education level

Noformal education 220 40.6

Primary 306 56.4

Secondary or higher 16 3.0

Marital status

Never married (Single) 56 10.3

Married/cohabiting 328 60.5

Divorced, widow, separated 158 29.2

Ward of residence

Gwata 105 19.4

Kinole 306 56.5

Mkuyuni 131 24.2

*SD=Standard deviation. Proportions of activities reported in Table 3 overlap in a way that, some respondents are engaged in more than one economic activity. Most of the participants (85.4%) live in their own houses, the rest live in either rented or relatives‟ homes. Very few participants owned assets such as car (0.4%), generator (0.9%) and solar panel (0.9%) of participants.

Eighty eight percent (88.3%) of the houses had earthen floors whereas those constructed with cement or concrete floors were only 11.7%. Regarding materials used to make house walls, 80.1% were constructed with mud while 19.3% were constructed using bricks. More than half (54.4%) of respondents‟ houses were roofed with iron sheets. More than sixty percent (61.7%) had their toilet buildings made of mud walls and 46.8% thatched roofs while 38.4% were not roofed. Most respondents (61.5%) reported to possess none of the assessed assets (Table 3). Except for radio, other durable goods such as bicycle, solar electricity and motorcycles were possessed by small proportions of participants. Association between demographic characteristics and hSES The demographic factors included in the analyses were age of respondent, marital status, education level and ward of residence (Table 4). Women older than 35 years

had higher likelihood of being in the medium to high household SES category compared to women who were younger than 35 years [OR1.26(95% CI1.82-2.94), p<0.05]. Living in Gwata ward which was more accessible by road compared to the other study wards was associated with being in the medium to high SES category [OR4.08(95%CI2.40-6.94), p<0.001]. Households with at least one child aged between 5 and 9 increased the likelihood of being in the low hSES [OR 0.57 (95%CI 1.3-2.06), p< 0.05] DISCUSSION It was observed that there was relatively high proportion (40.6%) of respondents who had not attained basic/primary education. This is in agreement with previous studies conducted elsewhere that show a high level of illiteracy in sub Saharan Africa (Jogwu, 2010; Krueger et al., 2014; Lauglo, 2001; Mtega, 2012; Tabutin et al., 2004). The proportion of respondents who had not received formal education was above the national illiteracy rate of 22% in 2010 and 18.0% for 2012 in Tanzania. In the case of Tanzania, in 2012, the highest proportion of the population who had never been to school was found in Tabora (42% for females and 34% for males). The lowest proportions of household members who had never attended school were in Kilimanjaro (10% for females and 4% for males) and Dar

Kwigizile et al. 11

Table 2. Household characteristics of respondents (N=542).

Characteristics Frequency (%)

Sex of household head

Male 323 59.6

Female 219 40.4

Age of household head (years)

< 25 24 4.4

25-34 223 41.1

35-49 256 47.2

≥50 39 7.2

Mean (SD*, Range) 37.5 (8.7, 18-49)

Household (HH) size**

< 4 75 13.8

4 - 6 257 65.9

> 6 110 20.3

Median (IQR)*** number of HH members 5 (4 – 6)

HH composition by age (years)

Under five (n=314)

1 Child 229 72.9

2 or more children 85 27.1

5 - 14 years (n=480)

1 - 2 children 343 71.5

3 or more children 137 28.5

15 years and above (n=452)

1 - 3 persons 425 78.4

4 or more persons 117 21.6

*SD=standard deviation; **HH = Household ***IQR=Interquartile range. es Salaam (11% for females and 4% for males (Macro, 2011). Through FGD, it was observed that the main reason for non-attainment of basic education for women in the study area was gender discrimination, patriarch, poverty and cultural beliefs whereby there is little priority for enrolling and supporting girls to attend school compared to boys. Moreover, due to poor economic status, in previous years, some families were withdrawing girls from schools to reduce family costs. However, FGDs revealed that this trend is declining due to the government waiver of school fees from primary to secondary schools which insist education for all. In addition, the matrilineal system to which the study population belongs contributed to the challenge of education to girls in the sense that it was preference for girls to get marriage early so as to get children thus extend the clan (reported by FGDs participants). Illiteracy constrains women from accessing different economic opportunities and hence their low SES (Godoy, 2004)).

The level of education was not related to hSES in the

current study. This was contrary to some scholars who had previously shown that attaining education is important in attaining better household SES (Awan et al., 2011; UNESCO, 2000b). In the current study, explanation for the absence of relationship between education and hSES status in this study was also sought through FGDs. It was noted that education had no influence on accumulation of wealth in the area. Almost all (99.3%) of the respondents in the study area were engaged in subsistence farming, that utilize primitive tools such as hand hoes while only a few of them were engaged in other economic activities such as casual labor in farming, trading and traditional domestic livestock keeping. Under this scenario, both the educated and uneducated have the same economic opportunities and undertake such activities the same way. The result of this is that, women in the study site are likely to have similar hSES regardless of their levels of education since education levels could not create additional economic opportunities for improving their hSES. Consequently, the community

12 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev.

Table 3. Socio-economic and housing characteristics of respondents‟ houses (N=538).

Characteristics Frequency (%)

Economic activity* (n=538)

Crop cultivation 534 99.3

Livestock keeping 12 2.2

Business 5 0.9

Asset ownership (n=534)

House ownership

Own 456 85.4

Don‟t own 78 14.6

HH possessions (n=538)

Car 2 0.4

Motor cycle 12 2.2

Radio 118 21.9

Bicycle 53 9.8

Generator 5 0.9

Solar panel 12 2.2

TV 5 0.9

Possess none of the above 331 61.5

Housing characteristics(n=538)

Type of the house floor (n=539)

Cement 63 11.7

Earth floor 476 88.3

Type of the house walls(n=538)

Concrete/burnt bricks 104 19.3

Mud bricks 434 80.1

Type of the house roof (n=540)

Iron sheet 294 54.4

Thatch roofing 246 45.6

Type of the toilet wall (n=538)

Burnt bricks 35 6.5

Mud 332 61.7

Grass 149 27.5

No toilet 22 4.1

Type of the toilet roof (n=537)

Iron sheet 47 8.8

Thatch/plastic sheets 262 48.8

Unroofed 206 38.4

Not applicable 22 4.1 *Variable with multiple responses.

felt that going to school was a waste of time and resources. A woman in Kibwaya village had the following to say:

If you go to school you waste your time because when you come back there is nothing to do with your education, rather, you will find your friends have already

Kwigizile et al. 13 Table 4. Association between demographic characteristics and household SES (N=542).

Variable Low Medium-High

Crude OR P-Value 95% C.I.

Adjusted OR P-Value 95% C.I.

No % No % Lower Upper Lower Upper

All clients 242 44.7 300 55.4 - - - - - - - -

Age of respondent (years)

≤35 162 48.1 175 51.9 1 - - - 1 - - -

>35 80 39.0 125 61.0 1.45 0.040 1.02 2.06 1.26 0.028 1.82 2.94

Marital status

Never married 21.0 37.5 35.0 62.5 1 - - - 1 - - -

Ever married 221 45.5 265 54.5 0.72 0.257 0.41 1.27 1.01 0.981 0.52 1.96

Education level

Up to primary 238 45.3 288 54.8 1 - - - 1 - - -

Secondary school or higher 4 25.0 12 75.0 2.48 0.120 0.79 7.79 2.33 0.167 0.70 7.69

Ward of residence

Kinole or Mkuyuni 221 50.6 216 49.4 1 - - - 1 - - -

Gwata 21 20.0 84 80.0 4.09 0.000 2.45 6.84 4.08 0.000 2.40 6.94

HH with at least one <5 child

No 99 43.4 129 56.6 1 - - - 1 - - -

Yes 143 45.5 171 54.5 0.92 0.624 0.65 1.29 1.10 0.669 0.71 1.69

HH with at least one child 5-9yrs

No 26 34.2 50 65.8 1 - - - 1 - - -

Yes 216 46.4 250 53.7 0.60 0.050 0.36 1.00 0.57 0.046 1.30 2.06

HH with at least one child 10-14yrs

No 81 44.8 100 55.3 1 - - - 1 - - -

Yes 161 44.6 200 55.4 1.01 0.973 0.70 1.44 1.06 0.792 0.69 1.61

HH with at least one child 15-18yrs

No 4 44.4 5 55.6 1 - - - 1 - - -

Yes 238 44.7 295 55.4 0.99 0.990 0.26 3.73 1.72 0.479 0.38 7.77

Sex of household head

Male 147 45.5 176 54.5 1 - - - 1 - - -

Female 95 43.4 124 56.6 1.09 0.624 0.77 1.54 0.97 0.876 0.64 1.47

Number of household members

5 or less 143 43.5 186 56.5 1 - - - 1 - - -

More than 5 99 46.5 114 53.5 0.89 0.491 0.63 1.25 0.75 0.188 0.49 1.15

14 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. established their families and farming plots... Undersized diversity in economic and income generation activities in the area was observed in this study. Education has been mentioned as an important aspect of social and economic development (World Bank, 2010, 2014; Hofferth et al., 2001; Javed et al., 2008). Nevertheless, there is ample literature that reports on the „non-return‟ gap of education attainment on improved SES through agriculture. Studies in Africa and Asia report an absence of effect of basic education on the improvements in household SES, but the presence of an association between attainment of tertiary (vocational) education of household bread earners and better household SES (Awan et al., 2011; Glewwe, 1991; Himaz and Aturupane, 2011; Javed et al., 2008; Kurosaki, 2009; Ogundari and Aromolaran, 2014).

Women older than 35 years had more chances to belong to a better hSES. In a rural community, where formal employment is not the primary source of income, wealth and asset accumulation is a process and takes time. It is therefore appropriate to argue from our finding that older women had the opportunity to accumulate assets compared to their younger counterparts. Similar trend was reported by previous scholars (Schmidt and Sevak, 2006).In addition, the relatively higher age around 40‟s is also associated with forming and maintaining social networks which is important for accessing production resources (Ajrouch et al., 2005). It is also established that wealth (asset) accumulation is largely due to savings (Ajrouch et al., 2005; Pawasutipaisit and Townsend, 2011). A study done before in the same district (Morogoro-Tanzania) showed that women diversification and involvement in in non-farm economic activities enhances productivity (Lyimo-Macha and Mdoe, 2002). Therefore, enhancing women productivity is likely to contribute to hSES since it will enable saving.

In connection to this, the study found that majority of participants owned houses constructed by cheap and locally available materials, with a notable low rate of asset possession. Low rate of asset passion observed in this study is by far below the reported possession rate by the Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey 2010 (Macro, 2011)). One reason for this could be the study group (women aged 15-49 years) was associated with relatively young household members (family members) and thus parents were more entangled in child care and subsistence than asset accumulation.

The ward of residence showed strong associations with hSES whereby, participants residing in Gwata ward were slightly more than four times likely to attain higher (medium-high) SES compared to Kinole or Mkuyuni. One important factor noted during the study was the difference in the levels of road accessibility. Gwata ward is located along the Dar es Salaam-Morogoro high-way whereby most of its residents can be accessed easily compared to Kinole and Mkuyuni wards. Easy access to the main road

made easy engagement of residents in income generating activities since they were able to exploit market opportunities for their products at surrounding towns. Transport is an important factor of economic growth as it allows interactions in economic activities. Many rural areas have limited or no connection to public transport; and traditionally transport in rural areas has been based predominantly on road vehicles (Dingen, 2000; Gray et al., 2001; Macro, 2011).

A very strong impetus has recently been directed to infrastructure investments in Sub-Saharan Africa. For the period 2008-2010, the Chinese EXIM bank committed billions of US dollars in infrastructure development Africa such as railways, roads and dams. The African Development Bank has spent over $5 bn in the last three years, of which over 60% in infrastructure (mainly roads, energy and water). The World Bank committed in 2009 more than $7 bn in Sub-Saharan Africa (with almost $1.5 bn in roads) (Gachassin et al., 2010). Among the types of infrastructure, roads are considered the highest priority for reducing poverty due to the widely accepted consensus that transport infrastructure has a significantly positive impact on economic growth and poverty reduction as it enhances the connectivity of isolated and remote areas (Pomfret, 2006). Available literature on poverty defines three indirect mechanisms through which road access contributes to poverty reduction: access to inputs and output markets, access to education and health services and access to labor opportunities.

There is a general consensus, well documented, on the idea that transport infrastructure reduce poverty by creating employment and new job opportunities (Jacobs and Greaves, 2003). First the construction and maintenance of a road is labor-intensive operation and can provide job opportunities to people living around. Second the provision of roads entails a greater and/or cheaper availability of labor markets. For example, a study conducted in Vietnam showed that road projects in Vietnam increased employment opportunities by 11% for unskilled labor (Mu and Van de Walle, 2007). Literature also provides critical arguments on the relationship between road access and the diversification of income sources (Barrett et al., 2001). It is reported that road rehabilitation projects in Uganda extended job opportunities in the service sector (Smith et al., 2001). In Tanzania, reports show that road construction projects have created job opportunities for non-agricultural employment (Lanjouw et al., 2001). Households accessible by road project are less likely to rely on agriculture or forestry as their main source of revenues and switch to the service sector (Mu and Van de Walle, 2007).Trading and diversity of income generating activities is more likely to provide opportunities for women particularly in rural areas where formal employments are rare, and also where women rarely own land which is a major means of production in rural areas (Tsikata, 2003; Yngstrom, 2002). Consequently, improved road

accessibility is likely to enhance participation of women in economic activities. Other studies have reported road accessibility to improve communities through increased awareness, recognition and access to poverty reduction opportunities (Kwigizile et al., 2011).

Marital status and household headship were not related to hSES although women who had been married sometimes in their lives showed a low likelihood to attain low SES. However, household headship did not show any difference between male and female household headship. The unclear relationship between marital status and hSES was not in congruence with what other studies reported (Gallagher and Waite, 2000) that marriage is viewed as a source of financial security, particularly for women. Study findings also contradict with findings by Chant and Cawthorne that FHHs are poorer (Cawthorne, 2008). Possible reason for the findings is that results on marital status showed that 90% of respondents had entered marital union although during the study there were many participants who were divorced, widowed or separated. It is only 10.3% of them who were never married. Since SES was measured by asset accumulation, there might be an illusion of household characteristics, as far as wealth accumulation is concerned, since there is a possibility to have included some assets that were purchased during existence of marriage. It is therefore suggested that in order to establish the real economic situation of FHHs or MHHs, selection of respondents should be such that the study involves those who had never entered marital union so as to have a clear distinction between household categories. In the study area, the main economic activity is agriculture, with very limited if any, alternative economic opportunities. Women provide the largest proportion of the workforce in the study area. Under these circumstances, female headship of households could not be an important factor that predisposes FHHs to lower hSES.

A number of household members and the age composition had no association with SES. A number of studies have reported ambiguities when relating household size and SES since trends vary depending on the methodology used to test the relationship (Kamuzora and Mkanta, 2000; Mwisomba and Kiilu, 2002). For example, when SES is measured at per capita basis, larger households are more prone to lower hSES than smaller households (Kamuzora and Mkanta, 2000). However, on the other hand, a positive correlation between hSES and household size has been reported in Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania such that larger-sized households tended to be less poor than others (Macro, 2011). It is argued that contrary relations between household size and household SES are possible especially when there are many children dependents and elderly people in the family (URT, 1998). In this study, majority of participants (57.7 and 88.6%) of the study participants came from households consisting of under-

Kwigizile et al. 15 fives and schooling children respectively. Therefore, it is likely that the composition of children in participants‟ households of residence may have interfered with the relationship of the variables studied. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study provides information on the relationship that exists between women demographic factors, household structure and household SES. Linear logistic regression analyses revealed that there is no relationship between education and marital status and household SES. Women‟s age was related to a better hSES while school education level had no relationship with hSES. This study reports that education and marital status were not important determinant of hSES in the study area. Although secondary school education in this study was not associated with better hSES, efforts should be reinforced towards provision of vocational education to women to enable them access in addition to agricultural activities, non-agricultural economic opportunities. Our findings indicate that living in Gwata where most of its villages are more accessible by roads relates with higher likelihood to attain a better hSES, perhaps indirectly through diverse ways that promote both agricultural markets and non-agricultural economic activities. Our findings underscore the importance of improved transportation infrastructure as a reliable means of accelerating economic growth and poverty reduction in rural communities. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. REFERENCES Ajrouch KJ, Blandon AY, Antonucci TC (2005). Social networks among

men and women: The effects of age and socioeconomic status. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 60:S311-S317.

Awan MS, Malik N, Sarwar H, Waqas M (2011). Impact of education on

poverty reduction, pp. 659-664.

Azzarri C, Carletto G, Davis B, Zezza A (2006) Monitoring poverty without consumption data: an application using the Albania panel survey. Eastern European Economics 44:59-82.

Barrett CB, Reardon T, Webb P (2001). Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 26:315-331.

Birdsall N, Kelley AC, Sinding SW, Sinding S (2001). Population matters: demographic change, economic growth, and poverty in the developing world. Oxford University Press, London.

Bloom DE, Finlay JE (2009). Demographic change and economic growth in Asia. Asian Economic Policy Review 4:45-64.

Blossfeld HP, Hakim C (1997). Between equalization and marginalization: women working part-time in Europe. Oxford University Press, London.

Cawthorne A (2008). The straight facts on women in poverty. Center for American Progress 8:1-3.

16 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. Chant S (2012). Feminization of poverty. The Wiley & Blackwell

Encyclopedia of Globalization, London. Chant S, Sweetman C (2012). Fixing women or fixing the world? 'Smart

economics', efficiency approaches, and gender equality in development. Gender and Development 20:517-529.

Collins M (2003). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Computational Linguistics 29:589-637.

Dao MQ (2012). Population and economic growth in developing countries. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 2:6.

Dingen R (2000). A guide to integrated rural accessibility planning in Malawi. ILO/ASIST, Harare.

Dutt A, Grabe S, Castro M (2016). Exploring links between women's business ownership and empowerment among Maasai women in Tanzania. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 16:363-386.

Gachassin M, Najman B, Raballand G (2010). The Impact of Roads on Poverty Reduction: a case study of Cameroon. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper

Gallagher M, Waite L (2000). The case for marriage. Random House. New York. pp. 111-118.

Glewwe P (1991). Investigating the determinants of household welfare in C+¦te d'Ivoire. journal of Development Economics 35:307-337.

Godoy L (2004). Understanding poverty from a gender perspective, 52 edn. United Nations Publications, Washington DC.

Gornick JC, Meyers MK (2003). Welfare Regimes in Relation to Paid Work and Care. Advances in Life Course Research 8:45-67.

Gornick L (1994). Women treating men: Interview data from female psychotherapists. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis 22:231-257.

Gray D, Farrington J, Shaw J, Martin S, Roberts D (2001). Car dependence in rural Scotland: transport policy, devolution and the impact of the fuel duty escalator. Journal of Rural Studies 17:113-125.

Himaz R, Aturupane H (2011). Education and household welfare in Sri Lanka from 1985 to 2006. Economics series working papers 527. Oxford.

Hofferth SL, Reid L, Mott FL (2001). The effects of early childbearing on schooling over time. Family planning perspectives. pp. 259-267.

Huff C, Tingley D (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research and Politics 2:2053168015604648.

Jacobs GD, Greaves N (2003). Transport in developing and emerging nations. Transport Reviews 23:133-138.

Javed ZH, Khilji BA, Mujahid M (2008). Impact of education on socio-economic status of villagers life: A case study of Shrien Wala village of Faisalabad district. Pakistan Economic and Social Review 46(2):133-146.

Jeckoniah JN, Nombo CN, Mdoe NSY (2014). Socio-economic status and women empowerment in rural Tanzania: a case of onion value-chain in Simanjiro district. Tanzania Journal of Development Studies 14(1&2):65-76.

Jogwu CO (2010). Adult illiteracy: The root of African underdevelopment. Education 130:490-499.

Kabeer N (2003). Gender Mainstreaming in Poverty Eradication and the Millennium Development Goals: A handbook for policy-makers and other stakeholders. Commonwealth Secretariat.

Kabeer N (2015). Gender, poverty, and inequality: a brief history of feminist contributions in the field of international development. Gender and Development 23:189-205.

Kamuzora CL, Mkanta W (2000). Poverty and household/family size in Tanzania: multiple responses to population pressure? Research on Poverty Alleviation, Report no 004.

Kapunda SM (2018). Gender inequality, poverty and food insecurity in Tanzania. Gender, family and work in Tanzania. Routledge, pp. 220-236.

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315190099/chapters/10.4324/9781315190099-8

Kehler J (2013). Women and poverty: the South African experience. Journal of International Women's Studies 3:41-53. Kolenikov S, Angeles G (2009). Socioeconomic status measurement with discrete proxy variables: Is principal component analysis a reliable answer? Review of Income and Wealth 55:128-165.

Kothari CR (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques.

New Age International, Delhi. Krueger DC, Mellat Parast M, Adams S (2014). Six Sigma

implementation: A qualitative case study using grounded theory. Production Planning and Control 25:873-889.

Kurosaki T (2009)..Vulnerability in Pakistan, 2001-2004. Background paper for the Pakistan Poverty Assessment Project, World Bank, Washington DC.

Kwigizile E, Chilongola J, Msuya J (2011). The impact of road accessibility of rural villages on recognition of poverty reduction opportunities. African Journal of Marketing Management 3:22-31.

Lanjouw P, Quizon J, Sparrow R (2001). Non-agricultural earnings in peri-urban areas of Tanzania: evidence from household survey data. Food Policy 26:385-403.

Lauglo J (2001). Engaging with adults: the case for increased support to adult basic education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa Region, World Bank, Washington DC.

Leavens MK (2011). Gender and agriculture in Tanzania. Evans School Policy Analysis and Research (EPAR) Brief No. 134, University of Washington, Seattle.

Lee R (2003). The demographic transition: three centuries of fundamental change. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17:167-190.

Lesetedi GN (2018). A Theoretical Perspective on Women and Poverty in Botswana. Journal of International Women's Studies 19:193-208.

Lusambo LP (2016a) Household Energy Consumption Patterns in Tanzania. Journal of Ecosystem and Ecography 1.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/household-energy-consumption-patterns-in-tanzania-2157-7625-S5-007.pdf

Lusambo LP (2016b) Households income poverty and inequalities in Tanzania: analysis of empirical evidence of methodological challenges. Journal of Ecosystem and Ecography 6:183. doi:10.4172/2157-7625.1000183

Lusambo LP, Lupala ZJ, Midtgaard F, Ngaga YM, Kessy JF (2016). Increased biomass for carbon stock in participatory forest managed Miombo Woodlands of Tanzania. Journal of Ecosystem and Ecograph 6:2.

Lyimo-Macha J, Mdoe N (2002). Gender and rural poverty in Tanzania: Case of selected villages in Morogoro rural and Kilosa districts. LADDER Working Paper No.18. Morogoro.

Macro II (2011). Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey 2010. Dar es Salaam.

Magombeyi MT, Odhiambo NM (2017). Foreign direct investment and poverty reduction. Comparative Economic Research 20:73-89

Magombeyi MT, Odhiambo NM (2019) Poverty alleviation policies in Tanzania: Progress and challenges. EuroEconomica 38(1).

Moser CO (2012). Gender planning and development: Theory, practice and training. Routledge, London and New York.

Mtega WP (2012). Access to and usage of information among rural communities: A case study of Kilosa District Morogoro Region in Tanzania. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 7(1).

Mu R, Van de Walle D (2007) Rural roads and poor area development in Vietnam. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Mwisomba ST, Kiilu BHR (2002). Demographic factors, household composition, employment and household welfare. AfricaPortal.

Ogundari K, Aromolaran AB (2014). Impact of education on household welfare in Nigeria. International Economic Journal 28:345-364.

Palacios-Lopez A, Lopez R (2014). Gender differences in agricultural productivity: the role of market imperfections. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, the University of Maryland. Baltimore.

Pawasutipaisit A, Townsend RM (2011). Wealth accumulation and factors accounting for success. Journal of Econometrics 161:56-81.

Pomfret J (2006). Chinese lessons: Five classmates and the story of the new China. Macmillan, London.

Pressman S (2002). Explaining the gender poverty gap in developed and transitional economies. Journal of Economic 36:17-40.

Pressman S (2003) Feminist explanations for the feminization of poverty. Journal of Economic Issues 37:353-361.

Purdie DM, Dunne MP, Boyle FM, Cook MD, Najman JM (2002). Health and demographic characteristics of respondents in an Australian national sexuality survey: comparison with population norms. Journal

of Epidemiology and Community Health 56:748-753. Rutstein SO, Johnson K (2004). The DHS wealth index. DHS

comparative reports no. 6. Calverton: ORC Macro. Ryan RM, Fauth RC, Brooks-Gunn J (2006). Childhood Poverty:

Implications for School Readiness and Early Childhood Education. American Psychological Association. 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC

Sahn DE, Stifel DC (2003). Urban–rural inequality in living standards in Africa. Journal of African Economies 12:564-597.

Schmidt L, Sevak P (2006). Gender, marriage, and asset accumulation in the United States. Feminist Economics 12:139-166

Semali LM (2016). Women in development mobilize grassroots enterprises to reduce household poverty. International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change (IJCESC) 3:28-49.

Sinding SW (2009) Population, poverty and economic development. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364:3023-3030.

Smith DR, Gordon A, Meadows K, Zwick K (2001). Livelihood diversification in Uganda: patterns and determinants of change across two rural districts. Food Policy 26:421-435.

Stier H, Lewin-Epstein N, Braun M (2001). Welfare regimes, family-supportive policies, and women's employment along the life-course. American Journal of Sociology 106:1731-1760.

Tabutin D, Schoumaker B, Rabenoro M (2004). The Demography of Sub-Saharan Africa from the 1950s to the 2000s. Population 59:455-555.

Tijdens KG (2002). Gender roles and labor use strategies: Women's part-time work in the European Union. Feminist Economics 8:71-99.

Tillmar M (2016). Gendering of commercial justiceGÇôexperience of self-employed women in urban Tanzania. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 10:101-122.

Topouzis D (1990). The feminization of poverty. Africa Report 35:60. Tsikata D (2003). Securing women's interests within land tenure

reforms: recent debates in Tanzania. Journal of Agrarian change 3:149-183.

Udry C (1996). Gender, agricultural production, and the theory of the household. Journal of Political Economy 104:1010-1046.

UNESCO (2000a). Focusing Resources on Effective School Health: a FRESH start to enhancing the quality and equity of education. World Bank. Washington DC, USA.

UNESCO P (2000b). The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All: Meeting Our Collective Commitments: Including Six Regional Frameworks for Action. UNESCO, Washington DC, USA.

URT (1998) The National Poverty Eradication Strategy. United Republic of Tanzania, Vice-President's Office, Dar es Salaam.

URT (2016). National Five-Year Development Plan 2016/17-2020/21. Ministry of Finance and Planning. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

URT (2018a). The Economic Survey 2017. Ministry of Finance and Planning. Dodoma, Tanzania.

URT (2018b). Women and Men: Facts and Figures. National Bureau of Statistics. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

URT (2019a). Household Budget Survey 2017-18: Key indicators Report. 2019a. Dodoma, Tanzania, National Bureau of Statistics and Ministry of Finance and Planning.

URT (2019b). Tanzania in Fugures 2018. National Bureau of Statistics. Dodoma, Tanzania.

Kwigizile et al. 17 Van der Lippe T (2001) .The effect of individual and institutional

constraints on hours of paid work of women. Women's employment in a comparative perspective.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.S 221-243.

Van Dijk L, Van der Lippe T (2001). Women's employment in a comparative perspective. Transaction Publishers, New York.

Vyas S, Kumaranayake L (2006). Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy and Planning 21:459-468.

Williamson JG (2001). Demographic change, economic growth, and inequality. Population Matters: Demographic Change, Economic Growth, and Poverty in the Developing World, pp. 106-136.

World Bank (2000). Gender and Economic Growth in Tanzania: Creating Opportunities for Women. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Washington DC, USA.

World Bank (2014). Tanzania - Big Results Now in Education Program Project. World Bank Group. Washington, DC, USA.

World Bank Group (2016) World development report 2016: digital dividends. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC, USA.

Yngstrom I (2002). Women, wives and land rights in Africa: Situating gender beyond the household in the debate over land policy and changing tenure systems. Oxford Development Studies 30:21-40.

Related Journals:

www.academicjournals.org

O PE N ACCE S S

O PE N ACCE S S

O PE N ACCE S S

O PE N ACCE S S

O PE N ACCE S S

Journal of

Agricultural Extension

and Rural Development

International Journal of

Fisheries and Aquaculture

Journal of

Cereals and Oilseeds

Journal of Agricultural

Biotechnology and

Sustainable Development

International Journal of

Livestock Production

African Journal of

Agricultural Research

O PE N ACCE S S

O PE N ACCE S S O PE N ACCE S S O PE N ACCE S S

Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science

Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research

Journal of

ent

Soil Science and Environmental Managem