Advertisement

Maritime Studies

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 133–143 | Cite as

Gendered livelihoods in the global fish-food economy: a comparative study of three fisherfolk communities in Kerala, India

  • Holly M. Hapke
  • Devan Ayyankeril
Research
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Over the past several decades, global economic relations within the fisheries sector have intensified creating a “global fish-food economy”. Until recently, relatively little attention has been paid to the gendered spatial relations underlying this system and the differential way globalization shapes men and women fish workers’ livelihood options. This paper integrates insights from feminist commodity chain analysis and livelihood analysis to analyze household-level economic data and gendered patterns of labor among three fisherfolk communities in Trivandrum District, Kerala, India. The objective is to investigate the diverse impacts of globalization within fisheries on women and men in local fishing communities. Different gender divisions of labor across the three communities studied inform very different livelihood strategies in response to economic transformations. Thus, globalization in the fisheries plays out differently for men and women in different fishing communities as a result of different configurations of gender, work, culture, identity, and economy and the different ways households and communities are connected to fish economies at different scales. Identifying these differences offers a means by which we might broaden our theoretical understanding of the gendered nature of globalization in resource-based economies.

Keywords

Gender Globalization Commodity chains Livelihoods Fish markets India 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation, a Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad fellowship, the Association of American Geographers Anne U. White Fund, Syracuse University, and East Carolina University. All findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations are those of the authors alone and do not reflect the view of the National Science Foundation or U.S. Department of Education. We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agnew, John A. 1987. Place and politics: the geographical mediation of state and society. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  2. Aleyamma, V. 1995. Document I: The seafood processing industry and the conditions of migrant women processing workers. In Women in Fisheries Series, No. 1: Public hearing on the struggles of women workers in the fish processing industry in India, June 23–24, ed. Samudra Dossier. Chennai: International Collective in Support of Fishworkers.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, Edward H., and Frank Ellis. 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 25: 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bair, Jennifer (ed.) 2009. Frontiers of commodity chain research. Palo Alto, CA: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barndt, Deborah. 2002. Tangled routes: women, work, and globalization on the tomato trail. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Challies, E.R.T., and W.E. Murray. 2011. The interaction of global value chains and rural livelihoods: the case of smallholder raspberry growers in Chile. Journal of Agrarian Change 11 (2): 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbridge, Stuart. 1986. Capitalist world development: a critique of radical development geography. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunaway, Wilma A. 2001. The double register of history: situating the forgotten women and her household in capitalist commodity chains. Journal of World-Systems Research 7 (1): 2–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunaway, Wilma A. (ed) 2014. Gendered commodity chains: seeing women’s work and households in global production. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, Frank. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Friedland, William H. 2004. Agrifood globalization and commodity systems. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 12: 5–16.Google Scholar
  12. Hapke, Holly M. 2001a. Petty traders, gender and economic transformation in an Indian fishery. Econ Geogr 77 (3): 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hapke, Holly M. 2001b. Gender, work and household survival in a South Indian fishery. Professional Geographer 53 (3): 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hapke, Holly M. and Devan Ayyankeril. 2018. Gulf migration and changing patterns of gender identities in a South Indian Muslim community. In Gender, work, and migration: agency in gendered labour settings, eds. Megha Amrith and Nina Sahraoui. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Jarosz, Lucy. 1996. Working in the global food system: a focus for international comparative analysis. Progress in Human Geography 20 (1): 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurien, John. 1984. The marketing of marine fish inside Kerala State: a preliminary study. Trivandrum: Centre for Development Studies.Google Scholar
  17. Kurien, John. 1994. Kerala’s marine fisheries development experience. In Kerala’s economy: performance, problems, prospects, ed. B.A. Prakash, 195–214. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Marcus, George E., and Michael M.J. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Marine Fisheries Census. 2005. Marine Fisheries Census, Part III – Kerala. New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Cochin: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Massey, Doreen. 1984. Spatial divisions of labour: social structures and the geography of production. Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Murray, Colin. 2001. Livelihoods research: some conceptual and methodological issues. CPRC Background Paper No. 5. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre.Google Scholar
  22. O’Laughlin, Bridget. 1996. Through a divided glass: dualism, class and the agrarian question in Mozambique. J Peasant Stud 23 (4): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Programme for Community Organization (PCO) and South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS). 1991. Motorisation of fishing units: benefits and burdens: summary report. Trivandrum.Google Scholar
  24. Ram, Kalpana. 1991. Mukkuvar women: gender, hegemony and capitalist transformation in a South Indian fishing community. New Delhi: Zed Books, Limited.Google Scholar
  25. Ramamurthy, Priti. 2000. The cotton commodity chain, women, work and agency in India and Japan: the case for feminist agro-food systems research. World Dev 28 (3): 351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salagrama, V. 2006. Livelihoods in fisheries: what can we do? Discussion paper for FAO-UNTRS. Accessed on-line at: http://www.onefish.org/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0yNDM3MzMmY3RuX2luZm9fdmlld19zaXplPWN0bl9pbmZvX3ZpZXdfZnVsbCY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9a29z. November 2008.
  27. Scoones, Ian. 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J Peasant Stud 36 (1): 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sturgeon, Timothy J. 2009. From commodity chains to value chains: interdisciplinary theory building in an age of globalization. In Frontiers of commodity chain research, ed. Jennifer Bair, 110–135. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of California-IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations