Globalization, Poverty and Food Security: The Linkages of Gender Inequality and Agricultural Growth in Africa: Conceptual and Empirical Issues
By Bola O Akanji, Ph.D., Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Ibadan, Nigeria

Abstract

This paper draws on the extensive but mixed discussions around the concepts of globalization and liberalization with a view to exploring their linkages with gender inequality and economic growth in the specific context of developing countries of Africa.  The equity considerations of globalization allow us to link the touted macro impacts with micro impacts with respect to employment, income, food production and food security. These are expressed via household level responses in the process of agricultural commercialization and export led industrialization. Putting the expectations from liberalization and structural adjustment policies through the gender lens allows us to deconstruct stylized facts about globalization impacts on developing countries’ human development indicators especially poverty, food security and gender relations of production as well as on macroeconomic indicators such as income, employment, wages and so on.  Empirical evidences that either support or deconstruct these stylized facts are presented to show the many facets of globalization on the lives of women and men in agrarian and semi-industrialized countries. The conclusion is that understanding and  eradication of feminized poverty in sub-Sahara Africa must be based on a heterodox feminist, rather than a neo-classical analysis of not only the macro but also the micro dynamics of responses to globalization and liberalization policies.

1.         Dimensions of Globalization

According to UN-DAW (1999), “Globalization has become the catch-all term used to refer to those various phenomena and processes that are brought about by changes towards world economic integration.  It therefore lacks a neat definition”. Its economic dimensions, however, cover the closely related but distinct concepts of openness or liberalization, integration and interdependence of nations.

From this statement, many faces of globalization are widely recognized with varied expectations. These include capital expansion, trade expansion or trade liberalization, cultural integration, financial liberalization, increased information and technology flows, increased labour mobility, changing consumption patterns and so on. Central to all these is increased exchanges or trade. Thus trade liberalization is one of the most touted features of globalization. 

In the agricultural sector or in other primary production or craft economies, trade liberalization was jumpstarted by structural adjustment policies (SAPs). To these economies, SAPs continue to be the major face of globalization and has been analyzed more than other facets. In this regard, it is always difficult to disentangle trade effects from other globalization effects.  In these discussions of the micro level analysis of globalization, we shall also focus on the liberalization policies that have shaped agricultural growth process in Africa.

Central to this is the theory of inequality as it affects unequal partners.  Globalization effects are expected to be positive for all trade participants, and although there will be net gains and net losses; it is propounded that the net gain will outweigh the net loss (World Bank, 2001). But in recognizing the inherent equity considerations in the response to the same set of opportunities by different (unequal) actors, it remains doubtful that the net gain will augur well for long term human development especially in poorer countries or between different groups within the same country. According to Elson (1989), adjustment means change and change means costs as well as benefits, losers as well as winners. Change must therefore be managed so as not to leave inequities in is distribution of costs and benefits. And according to ADB (1992), all must be carried along into the income-growth process that liberalization offers, if Africa is to achieve the self-sustaining growth that has always eluded it. As stated by Elson and quoted in Gladwin (1991)

“And if greater reliance is to be placed on private enterprise, we need to ask, whose enterprise? The enterprise of the woman farmer (on whom household subsistence is hinged) or the enterprise of (male-managed, household, market-bound) agribusiness and merchant with monopoly power? The enterprise of women cooperatives or that of a multinational corporation?” 

These diametric concerns symbolize the lack of synergies between the macro and micro impacts of liberalization and central to this is the creation rather than the eradication of (feminized) poverty and food insecurity in Africa.

2.         Poverty and Food Insecurity in Africa

In sub-Saharan Africa, a large and increasing proportion of the population subsist on per capita income of less than one dollar a day. The share of the population falling below the poverty line is as high as 50 per cent. Although all indices of poverty are well manifested in sub-Saharan Africa’s Human Development Indices (World Bank 1999), the heart of the problem is food insecurity.  From statistical projections (Badiane and Delgado, 1995), aggregate cereals demand and supply balances for African countries indicate a likely increase in imports from 9 million metric tons in 1990 to 27 million metric tonnes by 2020. And given the obvious difficulties in mobilizing resources to finance imports and the implications on local food availability (IITA, 1993), deterioration in the food security will result, unless revolutionary departures are made from current production patterns.

Agriculture is not only the primary source of food in Africa; it is the principal means of livelihood in its predominant rural settlements. The challenges then are, not only to drastically reduce net import demands and make agriculture a major source of export earning, but more critically, to achieve agriculture-led industrialization towards the attainment of structural reforms as are called for by increasing world integration.  Although the problems are both policy-induced and structural in nature, our concern is on the structural challenges that tend to constrain the desired social and economic transformation of agriculture and that reinforce poverty and food insecurity.

3.         Food Security and Poverty: A look at Measurement Issues

The evidences of poverty and food insecurity have never been so clear and alarming in their proliferation as in the last decade.  But more worrisome is the conflict in the manifestations. The World Food summit secured international commitment, in 1990, to reduce the number of undernourished people by half by the year 2015. Five years on, statistics show that an increasing number of people remain food insecure (800 million by 2000) (World Development Report, 2000). Yet this contracts with the supposed progress being made to reduce by half the world’s population living in absolute poverty over the same period, which indicates that the international development community is on track (Meyers, 2001).  This implies that different indices are being measured or equally likely that progress in one area is negatively affecting the other.  So, is hunger or food insecurity a symptom of poverty and in what ways are they linked?

The above paradox makes a clear distinction between food production and food access. Here is where poverty comes into the equation of food security.  A poor nation may increase its food production, national food self-sufficiency and economic growth to lift itself upward in the poverty statistics, but sections of its people may remain food insecure because of other factors that affect their access to the food.  Suffice it, then, to say that development indices that focus on increased production of food alone are inadequate to capture the pattern of its distribution between populations and within populations (Akanji, 2002)

Poverty characteristics are important in the construction of poverty indicators. Therefore, the relevance of human development indicators (HDI) rather than money-metric or income measures, GDP measures or other macroeconomic structure have been seen to be more appropriate (Human Development reports). The characteristics of the poor are also contextual and so are the manifestations of poverty in different populations. The need for the voice of the people in poverty assessment and the design of poverty reduction measures therefore remain very valid.  The PRSP strategy is aimed at streamlining the objectives of macroeconomic growth with those of human development. It also emphasizes the contextual sing poverty knowledge and reduction strategies.

The gender dimension of poverty is particularly reinforced in agrarian economies where the poor are characterized by landlessness, invariable (inelastic) supply of labour, likely to live in female-headed households, likely to be farm labourers rather than farm owners, remote form development assistance due to time constraints, hunger as well as literacy and health constraints and so on (Akanji, 1998). As a result, the consonance of gender development indicators with other human development measures is a necessary condition in poverty assessment. The relationship of growth with poverty has been shown not to be a foregone conclusion, as nations, which recorded high economic growth especially during structural adjustment, also recorded high levels of poverty incidence and high-income concentration. The distributional aspects of growth are therefore more relevant to the measurement of poverty.  This view is reinforced by the fact that there is considerable correlation between the trends in Human Development Indicators, Gender Development Indicators and Human Poverty Indices (Table 1).

Table 1: Poverty Indicators for Selected Countries (1998)

The Table above shows dimensions of the linkages of gender development with growth and poverty reduction.  It shows synergy, not only between growth and poverty reduction, but also between the human development indices and gender development indices.  This implies that growth is a necessary but insufficient condition for poverty reduction.  Sub-Saharan Africa has lagged behind both in its macroeconomic structure, human development and gender development indicators, compared with other developing and developed areas. It would then be tempting to say that the problem of poverty in SSA is induced both by slow growth and social inequalities and that pro-growth policies like liberalization are insufficient to achieve balanced and sustainable growth with equity. Liberalization policies, in their standard prescription will need to be looked at through a different kind of lens.

4.         Expectations from Liberalization for African Agriculture: how shall it address poverty and food security (ST Theory)

The perspective goal of market liberalization worldwide and especially in Africa, as embodied by different forms of economic (structural) adjustment, is structural transformation (ST) (Killick 1990).  This is hinged on market-led growth strategies rather than protectionist ‘soft’ government for Africa’s predominant agricultural sector.

ST entails the development of manufacturing and service sectors, such that the relative importance of agriculture declines (over time). That is, the percent of labour-force in agriculture and the percent of GNP from the sector decline as labour specialization proceeds (O’Brien, 1991). An interrelated set of changes in economic structure, including internal consumption, production mechanism, external trade and capital flows, domestic savings and investment behaviour are necessary mechanisms that must catapult the primary production system into a higher technological realm which is required to sustain industrial development (Chenery 1979, Bates 1983, Seikler 1992, Eicher 1986).  In short, globalization as epitomized by liberalization policies is expected to be the cure-all for Africa’s poverty and food insecurity, if and only if Africa’s economic structure can be modified towards more efficient production system, systemic industrialization, modernization of agriculture via increased commercialization, specialization, based on comparative advantage and a gradual shift from agricultural-led to industrial-led macroeconomic development.

In assessing the linkages, Kanji (2002) identifies two main approaches, which may yield different results. Mainstream economic approach and Socio-economic approach. The former takes the neoclassical view of liberalization whereby potential effects of SAPs for instance are beneficial:

·        Free movement of goods and services

·        Increased specialization based on comparative advantage

·        Increased allocative efficiency in resource use

·        Increased technical efficiency by using more capital and technology rather than inefficient labour

·        Enhanced production towards export-led growth

·        Appropriate pricing leading to positive supply response

·        Increased aggregate production leading to increased food security

·        Increased farm income leading to poverty reduction (at least in money-metric terms).

However, these standard response parameters do not consider the way that policies are specified and their differential outcomes, if all cannot respond according to these standards. As a result, the poor and other vulnerable groups may not benefit. Also the perspective of food security is over-generalized.  Food security is not about the food or the commodity but about people and hunger (IFPRI, 1991). Nominal production of food does not guarantee affordability to the poor or accessibility to non-producers. In the last two decades, world output of food has doubled but the world’s population of the hungry has also doubled.  As empirical proof, SSA’s dependence on trade, as measured by share of GDP from trade increased from 38% to 43% between 1988 and 2000. At the same time, her share of world trade had declined in real terms. Its dependence on primary goods still remained above 80% from oil and non-oil, mainly agriculture. Price volatility of primary commodities led to declining terms of trade which was 21% below its 1970 level. Over the same period, the percentage of poor people remained the same in 1998 as it was in 1987, in spite of increased trade volume. Social indicators also showed a decline, going by HDI estimates.  The conclusion is that growth effects need to consider other related social variables, mainly distribution effect of increased income. Growth in the  poor’s income need to be decomposed into growth and distribution effect.

The socio-economic approach introduces the realities of capabilities, vulnerabilities and sustainability of livelihoods. Desirable outcomes, therefore, go beyond income gains to welfare gains, reduced vulnerability, improved food security and sustainable use of natural resources, which have strong equity considerations and therefore work up from micro to macro.

5.         Inequality Concerns in the analysis of globalization  

Divergence is a feature of current globalization. The inherent equity consideration in the implementation of globalization policies lies in:

(i) use of rules that benefit the powerful countries at the expense of he weaker nations or regions, leading to unequal rate of economic and social development which shows as deepening poverty of developing countries compared to developed ones (Human Development Reports)

(ii) its human expression which hinges on the extent to which all groups within a nation can participate in its income–growth process.  Unequal participation of people and groups in the new trade opportunities created by globalization bring about the paradox of income growth and increasing poverty, of segments of the same population. 

In many instances especially in agrarian economies of SSA, equality of participation, equality of response to opportunities is something that cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, while many of the earlier analysis of liberalization effects have been positive on growth, more recent studies have shown that these benefits of globalization are not automatic and are contingent on the management of other evolving phenomena, the two principal concerns being inequalities and market volatility.  Thus a people-centred analysis of globalization effects cannot take a purely neoclassic view of economic growth but rather, a human development approach.

Neoclassical economic analysis assesses outcomes of policy in a gender neutral or household or per capita unit of analysis. Distributional effects are considered or emphasized.  Resultant inequalities are seen as incidental rather that the cause and effect of mainstream policies. Emphasizes aggregates of growth, efficiency, income and consumption. 

Heterodox (feminist) economic analysis goes beyond the unitary analysis to a disaggregated view of society to answer the question: are these outcomes equal for all groups or socio-economic groups. If not, growth and efficiency have been attained at the expense of social justice and equity or at the price of inequity. That is why the theory of inequality is central to the analysis of poverty effects of macro policies such as liberalization.

6.         Some Perspectives on The Nature and Measurement of Gender Inequality

First let us look at the dimensions of inequality with a view to situating gender inequality. Inequality exists in a development system which concentrates opportunities.  It results in distributional imbalances in development outcomes such as economic well being, paucity of it or simply lack of it.  Its measurement is usually a measure of concentration, which is estimated as the Gini Coefficient – a measure of the level of evenness of distribution.

Amartya Sen identifies several faces of inequality, with gender inequality being the most profound, being that it crosscuts other forms of inequality. At the micro level therefore, gender inequality has been seen as that which mostly undermines human development. At the macro level, such inequalities transmit their effects either to enhance or to constrain growth. In the latter, where inequality enhances growth, this has been termed the capitalist accumulation effect, while in the former, it has been termed the underdevelopment effect. Either way, inequality manifests as varying levels of lack or poverty, food insecurity (hunger) being a major manifestation.  Gender inequality reinforces the structural dimension of poverty which has also been a concern in the measurement of poverty.

The major types of Gender Inequality that are mostly related to economic production are:

• Employment Inequality reflected often as increased labour feminization without increased gender development or economic empowerment of women;

• Persistent wage gaps between men and women in employment;

• Ownership Inequality reflected often as resource constraints for women in the same production system;

• Household Inequality reflected as unequal power relations and underlies other derivatives such as employment inequality and political inequality.

Causes of Gender Inequality

• Gender role differentiation imposed by the traditional society on time, ability, availability of men and women to respond to changing opportunities;

• Gendered entitlement systems imposing disparities on access of men and women to common property resources, especially productive assets;

• Gendered nature of production which imposes differential outcomes not only on productivity of men and women but also on returns to production due to valuation bias on outputs of production (productive and reproductive work outputs).

How large is gender inequality

Some schools of thought maintain that gender inequality is not as much of a problem as it is made out to be. So how large is gender inequality? Ravi Kanbur’s analysis of the size of gender inequality is very explicit. It posits that there is sub-distribution of gender categories since gender crosscuts all other dichotomies. Total size of inequality is therefore the overall distribution of inequality (V) within each sub group.

Eboh (2003) recognizes the presence of multiple gender categories, each one exerting a gendered impact on the development process. An estimation of the size and effect of inequality must decompose along these structural lines. First to effectively capture all facets and two to assess differences in the impact on sub-categories – a distinction or decomposition of the within and the between effects.  To this extent, intra-gender power structures have been found to be significant in the analysis of gender relations in primary production systems (Akanji, 1994)

7.         Gender Analysis of Liberalization Policies

Inequality becomes a relevant force in globalization because it sets the initial position of men and women at the onset of changing policies of liberalization.  This initial position of advantage or disadvantage determines the responsiveness to the opportunities that liberalization present. On the aggregate, the outcome of liberalization in a production system depends on the gender structure of the actors (producers) and their aggregate supply response.  In the next section, we carry out a gender analysis of liberalization impacts in cross-country studies.

Going by its own doctrines of survival of the fittest and capitalist accumulation, liberalization itself initially reinforces inequalities although it is also believed to potentially have the ability to close gender gaps and other forms of inequalities over time. Another possible outcome of liberalization is to move an economy or nation from one kind of inequality to another. Thus different forms of inequality would impose adversities or negative impacts on lives of both men and women.  Inequalities of different forms that become self-reinforcing culminate in poverty of those affected and underdevelopment in spite of broadening opportunities for growth.

7.1 Gender analysis of liberalization policies is a gendered deconstruction of Stylized Facts around its doctrines as it affects women and men and as it affects macroeconomic growth indicators.

Impact of Gender Inequality on Economic Growth, Poverty and Food Security: Stylized Facts and Empirical Evidences around the developing world

7.1.1 Impact of gender inequality on efficiency and output of agriculture

The broad macroeconomic outcomes of liberalization are as follows:

Increased commercialization, increased specialization and concentration, expanded market for output export promotion via the availability of farm surplus, industrial linkages are promoted. The effects on macroeconomic variables are enhanced price of commodities, increased farm income, increased flow of private investment, increased savings and increased paid employment.

However, feminist analysis has brought out other unintended likely and documented outcomes, which are the effects of gender inequalities in the agricultural work force:

Increased feminization of the labour force, increased wage inequality, pressure on women’s time budget, pressure on household subsistence, negative impact on health and nutrition, negative environmental consequences as women and the poor exploit natural resources, net shortfalls in consumption.

Several Micro studies in agriculture largely support these outcomes. Quinsumbing et al (1995) tested the assumption of pareto efficient household allocation of production resources in Burkina Faso.  They found that farm level output was shortchanged by up to 10% due to allocative inefficiency in household productive resources – a result of differential gender entitlement, even in households where farm plots were evenly distributed between male and female farmers. The assumption of pareto efficiency in outcome was debunked. Thus inequality impedes agricultural growth and household food security.

In Cameroun, gender inequality in technological capability and access as shown by unequal power relations in the control of yield-enhancing technology, led to substantial income loss to poor households. Women farmers persisted in growing sorghum in spite of higher returns on rice and household poverty profiles worsened (Jones 1986).

In Zambia, women farmers refused to intercrop female crop (beans) with male crop (maize) despite potential savings of 50% on weeding labour and cost.  This was related to land (Poat, 1991).

Macro studies often give contradictory evidence. Kanbur, 2002 argues that findings are mixed and “the jury is out”.  In spite of some empirical evidences to the effect of positive benefits of gender equality for growth, the groundswell of opinion is not strong enough.  He concedes that inequality impedes growth and redistribution releases constraint on growth and production, leading to welfare gains, although more from he economic and social dimension and less on the power dimension. Nonetheless, it is shown that pro-growth policy choices are promoted when endowments and capabilities are more equally distributed between women and men.  The evidence against the relative importance of power inequalities needs to be reassessed against the above evidences from Zambia and Cameroun!!

Biliamoune (2002) on the other hand, supports the hypotheses that increased inequality between countries of north and the south are stronger for African women than they are for African men. While globalization has favoured certain nations at the expense of others, many African countries have lost potential markets, potential foreign capital flows and globalization has forced non-competitive producers out of the market . The results show that globalization has an ambiguous effect on gender inequality in a mixed sample of developing countries, but does have a negative effect on gender inequality in Africa. This implies that gender inequality in Africa is rising as globalization proceeds.

7.1.2 Impact of Liberalization on Employment

The normal stylized argument is that as liberalization progresses, income growth in the productive sector leads to massive entry of women into the labour force (Feminization of the labour force).  However as income growth progresses, the rate of feminization changes depending on the stage of development. This is the theory of the Feminization U’.  Many empirical studies support this theory but the study by Darity and Ertuk clarifies the segmented effect in different countries at different stages of economic growth

Changes in feminization ratio can apply through two different effects:

Buffer hypothesis: women’s labour is secondary due to lower labour value and so as industrialization proceeds, female labour declines

Substitution hypothesis: SAP induced substitution of female labour for male labour as a cost reducing strategy. Feminization enhances economic growth.

In the craft economy (agrarian), at the initial stage of market expansion, there is massive feminization (Darity and Ertuk, 2000).  Feminization rate however falls with rising income due to greater competition with (male) skilled labour. Job losses result for women.

In middle income (semi-industrialized) countries, feminization rate proceeds at the same rate as income growth because net job loss tends to equate net job gains as women’s education and skill increases.

In high income countries, feminization rate increases with increasing income (economic growth) because the opportunity cost of women’s time is now higher than its subsistence value. You may find the phenomenon of “sit-at-home-husbands”. 

Recent efforts towards conceptualizing gendered impacts of openness (liberalization) through price, income and employment have verified this U-shaped feminization effect in many newly industrializing nations. Export promotion and trade liberalization have led to massive movement of women into the labour force (Wood 1991, Cagatay and Osler, 1995, Floro 1992). Whether this is good for women or good for growth has also been a subject of further analysis. Ertuk and Darity (2000) showed that the new global division of labour between the North and the South could thwart economic benefits normally associated with trade liberalization.

In one likely effect, female unpaid labour in the household subsidizes the reproduction of labour. This is a cost on women, which diminishes and passes to the market as higher cost of household welfare and food security as labour force feminization proceeds. On the other hand, wage discrimination against women in the paid employment is a net gain on growth.

Floro examines the same effect in agricultural households in the Philippines and notes substantial substitution of labour between men and women as agricultural export increases, putting pressure on subsistence and welfare. In Nigeria, the substitution effect on household welfare and nutrition was evident during the structural adjustment programme (NISER/CBN, 1991).

7.1.3  Impact of liberalization policies on value of labour

The reproduction of labour is normally subsidized by women via domestic roles of nurturing, welfare provisioning etc. As income growth proceeds and labour force is feminized, cost of reproducing labour becomes positive as industrialization proceeds. In a craft economy, the burden of care falls on the market and because of infrastructural deficiencies and underdeveloped goods and services markets, the value of labour increases as labour quality is compromised leading to inefficiency in production, declining output, declining income, high food prices and food insecurity (Floro (1992) in the Philippines, Dolan and Sutherland (2002) in Kenya).

In an industrialized economy, the cost of labour is minimized due to efficient goods and services market. Thus liberalization may leave the value of labour unchanged.

7.1.4 Effect on composition of output

With industrialization, composition of output changes from primary products to industrial goods and export-led industrialization. Female labour has been seen to subsidized production of industrial goods as unionization breaks down (sweatshop effects) (Ozcan and Ozcan, 1999). Economies change production to industrial goods at the expense of women’s sweat. The phenomenon has been noted in Export Processing Zones (EPZ) and in Commodity Value Chains (Kenya), although they have been shown to provide great opportunities for women to benefit from globalization, with short-term benefits for income and household poverty.

7.1.5 Impact on Investment and Savings

Where the substitution effect is higher, labour force feminization is efficient. Investment increases due to the minimal cost incentive. In a cross country analysis (Sequino, 2000), empirical data not only shows that GDP growth is positively related to gender wage inequality but that part of the impact is transmitted through its positive effect on investment.

During liberalization such as SAP, women’s work burden increases due to cut down in governments social spending. The share of household goods that substitutes for market  defeminization, leading to desaving. But the higher the household provisioning, the higher the savings. Poverty management and food security occurs at the expense of women. 

Higher subsistence leads to higher savings and declining poverty. On the other hand, higher market income leads to increasing opportunity cost of female labour, decreasing subsistence and decreasing savings. Liberalization may affect savings negatively.

7.1.6   Increased Paid work leads to economic empowerment for women

Again, findings are highly mixed and contextual. While in agrarian economies, the economic opportunities are enlarged for women, in other subsistence and newly industrializing economies, there are often less clement effects on women’s position in the workforce.

Changes in the conditions of (paid) work due to more informalisation of work, less unionization have led to depressed wages and the sweatshop syndrome. Wage differentials are reinforced.  In developed countries, there is evidence of drop in gender wage gaps, given enhanced competition between men and women skilled workers in the work place. In developing countries, wage gaps are exacerbated due to low skill of new female market entrants, high supply of labour and low bargaining power of the unskilled vis a vis the skilled. Work normalization and feminization of work rather is the norm to the advantage (capitalist accumulation) of the market economy.

Occupational segregation also persists due to skill differentiation and because skill upgrading is costly for women. Net job creation effects may be unclear. Net job creation increases for women irrespective of skill category. But net job destruction is also rising in high technology-intensive environment.  Volatility of employment and income is therefore on the rise for female labour.

For large industrial firms, the above picture is clearer. Extensive studies in South East Asia and Latin America have been more amenable to the analysis (Ozler, Seguino, Ozan and Ozcan etc). For agriculture, the informal nature of employment, smaller firms, and high-unpaid work burden makes t more difficult to show the effects from cross-sectional data because of preponderance of unskilled workers. Net job creation may appear to be higher. However income effect is usually negative while wage gap effects are reinforced.

Trend analysis of agricultural data shows the structural effect more clearly as the sector is being transformed in size and technology and income. Income effect becomes lower and wage gap between skilled and unskilled jobs increases. In developed economies, the reverse is usually the case. So in agrarian economies, the stylized feminization ‘U’ shows up only at the later stages of structural transformation.

7.1.7   Impact on Agricultural Growth via Small Farmer Commercialization (SFC)

Increased commercialization of agricultural production is seen as a positive response to adjustment policies.  The optimal response is expected to ‘hasten’ the process of structural transformation.  Therefore, any constraints to supply-response would naturally show down the rate of commercialization.  Conversely, optimal trends in the factors that are critical determinants of supply-response should be positively related to the pace of commercialization. In the sense that such factors or the availability of factors of production vary by gender, it is expected that rate of commercialization will vary by gender. 

An identification of the critical determinants of supply response and differentials in these parameter estimates for male and female farmers (degree and dimensions of gender inequality in assets ownership, capabilities and accessibility) will lead to different set of outcomes than projected by policies.  Priorities for bridging gender gaps are called for in hastening the process of agricultural commercialization and growth. 

Some of the determinants of commercialization have been analyzed conceptually and empirically and gender differentials are estimated (Akanji, 2003).  The critical determinants are largely related to the macroeconomic growth variables, albeit at the micro level. 

Level of investment which may derive from capital accumulation from women in terms of inelastic labour demand is shown to be important. Gender inequality in labour utilization may enhance commercialization for men. On the aggregate, the gross investment is likely to be shortchanged. Credit (Leff and Sato, 1988) becomes crucial in an analysis of investment behaviour of commercial farmers.  Therefore, what credit volume is available to male and female farmers is a determinant of commercialization.

Land Asset is another critical factor, and consistent with the ‘financial hierarchy hypothesis’, bigger financial (asset) base predisposes to higher access to credit and better supply-response or rate of commercialization, inter alia.  Land is the most important asset base in small-scale agriculture.  To the extent that access of farmers to land vary significantly by gender (Akanji, 1991, 2002) this variable is crucial to the analysis of commercialization. 

Cropping pattern as a derivative of land size is also important. Land, on its own, may be insufficient, rather the optimal land use within the framework, of commercialization is more important.  In this sense are the allocation of land to commercial and non-commercial production and the ratio of traded to non-traded crops on male and female farms become critical.

Inequalities in these initial positions during Small Farmer Commercialization (SFC) have been seen to negate the expected aggregate outcomes from SFC. Food security objectives are still paramount with small farmers (Kunze, 2003).  In a study of several African countries, the following patterns were observed:

7.1.8   Impact of Socio-cultural variables

In the sense that the socio-cultural variables exert particular power structures between men and women in rural communities (Bari, 2001), they are all expected to produce differential gender effects on investment behaviour and level of farm commercialization.  Variables like literacy will enhance participation in the market economy via greater access to information and higher technological learning (Koffi-Tesso, 2001). The age and gender of the farmer are important power variables in a rural community. Even among women, age crosscuts with gender to exert particular influences. An older woman in a farm household has the status of a man among other women while her position among the wives may confer her privileges such as greater access to land and other communal property resources.  The nature of employment is also important. Being primarily engaged in a particular crop production confers social capital, which is found in commodity-based social institutions, like farmers associations or cooperatives. Other (part-time) growers may lack such influence while on the other hand, having another source of income apart from rice farming could be a boost to investment capacity.  These are contentious issues and contextual in manifestation and therefore need to be empirically validated.

Conclusion

The foregoing has shown the extent that liberalization policies impact of different people in different sectors of an economy. While liberalization policies will be gender-neutral in their indication, they are hardly gender-neutral in their outcomes. It takes an analysis of such outcomes by gender categories to see the differential impact. It has also been shown that such outcomes of gender inequality do impact on the overall economy, mostly in negative ways. One, disincentives are set up, productivity is shortchanged, discrimination in wages either fuel growth of profit-oriented firms but against unethical operating standards and/or creates disenfranchised population of workers. Inequalities in liberalization effects affect productivity and output especially in agricultural systems, thereby worsening food security.  It takes a gender analysis framework to unpack these effects. Gender analysis instruments are an important tool for interrogating reform policies in order to provide a framework to mainstream gender in the workings of policies themselves.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akanji. Bola 2002. “Globalization, Poverty and Food Security: Some  Conceptual Linkages. “Paper Presented at the International Conference of Poverty and Food Security ECOWAS Secretariat, Abuja.

Akanji, Bola O. 2003. “Determinants and Indicators of Commercialization on  Male-managed and Female-managed Rice Farm in Nigeria “Paper Presented at  International Conference on Gender and Agricultural Commercialization IITA.  

Ahmed Ismail and Michael Lipton. “Impact of Structural Adjustment on Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A review of the literature.

Amartya Sen. 2001. “Many Faces of Gender Inequality”. The frontline,  India November 9, 2001.      

Baden Sally 1997. “Economics Reform and Poverty: A Gender Analysis”. Report Prepared for the Gender Equality Unit, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).

Baliamoune Mina 2002. Globalisation, Economic Growth and Gender Inequality” What Fate awaits African Women? Conference on Globalization Economic Liberalization and the Role of Women in Economic Growth and Development of Africa. Wakeforest University, Winston Salem, North Carolina.

Cagatay Nilufer and Sule Ozler, 1995. “Feminization of the Labour Force: The Effects of Long –Term Development and Structural Adjustment” World Development Vol.23, No.11 pp. 1883-1894.

Chinkin, Christine. 2001. “Gender and Globalization”. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequa/0221.htm

Dorlan, Christine S and Kirsty Sutherland. Gender and Employment in the Kenya Horticulture Value Chain “Globalization and Poverty”.

Elson Diane 1989 The Impacts of Structural Adjustment on women: Concepts and Issues The IMF, World Bank and the African Debt,  Vol 2 Bade Onimode ed London/New Jersey Zed Books

Erturk K. and William Darity Jr. 2000. “Secular Changes in the Gender Composition of Employment and Growth Dynamics in the North and South”. World Development Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 1231 – 1238.

Floro, Maria S .2002  “Women, Work and Agricultural Commercialization in the Philippines”.

Fontana Marzia, Susan Joekes and Rachel Masika. 1998. “Global Trade Expansion and Liberalization: Gender Issues and Impacts”. Department of  International Development (DFID) UK.                                  

Gladwin Christina H 1991 Structural Adjustment and African Women Farmers. University of Florida Press. Center for Afrian Studies, Gainsville.

IIED. 2002. Gender, Markets and Livelihoods in the context of Globalization: A Study of the Cashew Sector in Mozambique. “International Institute for Environment  and Development”.

Kanbur Ravi. 2002. “Education, Empowerment and Gender Inequalities.”
www.people.cornell.edu/pages/sk145@cornel.edu

Kanji N and Barrientos S 2002. Trade Liberalization, Poverty and Livelihoods: Understanding the Linkages. IDS Working Paper 159 Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.

Kanji Nazneen  and Sarah Salway. 2000. “Promoting Equality Between Women and Men”. Social Development Department. SD Scope Paper No 2.

Ozler, Sule  2000. “Export Orientation and Female Share of Empowerment:

Evidence from Turkey” World Development vol. 28, No.7, pp. 1239-1248.

Seguino, S. 2000. “The Effects of Structural Change and Economic Liberalization on Gender Wage Differentials in South Korea and Taiwan”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, 437 – 459.

Seguino, S. 2000. “Gender Inequality and Economic Growth:  A cross-country Analysis”. World Development Vol. 28, No 7 pp. 1211-1230.

Udry, Christopher, John Hoddindtt, Harold Alderman and Lawrence Haddad. 1995. “Gender Differentials in Farm Productivity: “Implications for Household Efficiency and Agricultural Policy” Food Policy vol. 20, No.5, 1995.

UN. DAW. 1999. “World Survey on the Role of Women in Development, Globalization, Gender and Work”. United Nations, New York.

Webb Patrick and Katinka Weinberger. 2001. “Women Farmers: Enhancing Rights, Recognition and Productivity. “Development Economics and Policy.