Advertisement

The European Journal of Development Research

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 808–825 | Cite as

Smallholder Milk Market Participation and Intra-household Time Allocation in Ethiopia

  • Birhanu Megersa Lenjiso
  • Jeroen Smits
  • Ruerd Ruben
Original Article

Abstract

We study the effects of smallholder market participation on intra-household time allocation in Ethiopia. We followed 156 households for 2 consecutive days and recorded the time allocated to dairying, domestic chores, schooling, wage work and leisure. Propensity score matching was used to determine the average effect of household market participation on intra-household time allocation. Results show that market participant households spend significantly more time on dairying and non-dairying activities than non-participant households. There are also substantial gender differences in intra-household time allocation. Although men take up only a small part of the dairy activities, milk income shifts from women to men in participant households. Given that in participant households women spent substantially more time on domestic and dairying activities, it is important that time-saving technologies are introduced to reduce their workload in the household. Women’s participation in the formal milk market should also be strengthened to ensure their access to the milk income.

Keywords

Ethiopia intra-household milk market smallholder time allocation 

Abstract

Nous étudions les effets de la participation des petits exploitants aux marchés sur l’allocation du temps au sein des ménages en Ethiopie. Nous avons suivi 156 ménages pendant deux jours consécutifs et avons enregistré le temps alloué à la production laitière, les tâches ménagères, la scolarité, le travail salarié, et les loisirs. Le score de propension a été utilisé pour déterminer l’effet moyen de la participation des ménages aux marchés sur leur répartition du temps. Les résultats montrent que les ménages qui participent aux marchés passent beaucoup plus de temps sur les activités laitières et non laitières que les ménages qui n’y participent pas. Il y a aussi des différences importantes entre les sexes dans la répartition du temps au sein des ménages. Bien que les hommes ne jouent un rôle que minime dans la production laitière, les revenus de la vente de lait passent des femmes aux hommes dans les ménages participants. Étant donné que dans les ménages participants, les femmes passent beaucoup plus de temps sur les activités domestiques et sur la production laitière, il est important que les technologies permettant de gagner du temps soient introduites pour réduire leur charge de travail au sein du ménage. La participation des femmes dans le marché formel du lait devrait également être renforcée pour assurer leur accès aux revenus de la production laitière.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this study from the Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education (Nuffic) and the International Foundation for Science (IFS). We also gratefully thank participants of this research (individuals and organizations) for their time and invaluable informations

References

  1. Abbas, J. (1997) Gender asymmetries in intrahousehold resource allocation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Some policy implications for land and labour productivity. In: L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott and H. Alderman (eds.) Intra-Household Resource Allocation in Developing. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 249–262.Google Scholar
  2. Agarwal, B. (1997) “Bargaining” and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3(1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, P.C. (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 46(3): 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caliendo, M. and Kopeinig, S. (2005) Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching: Discussion Paper Series 1588, The Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA), Bon, Germany.Google Scholar
  5. Chagwiza, C. (2014) Enagaging Cooperative Farmers in Agricultural Intensification: Case Studies on Honey, Dairy and Linseed Value Chains in Ethiopia. sfer.asso.fr. The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  6. Chiappori, P. (1992) Collective labour supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy 100(3): 437–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coles, C. and Mitchell, J. (2011) Gender and Agricultural Value Chains and Practice and their Policy Implications; A review of current knowledge and practice and their policy implications Working Paper No. 11–05. Agricultural Development Economics Division, FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. De Hoop, T.J. (2012) How Context Matters for Development Effectiveness: A Study into Social Norms and Heterogeneous Impacts. The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  9. Endeley, J. (2001) Conceptualising women’s empowerment in societies in Cameroon: How does money fit in? Gender & Development 9(1): 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fafchamps, M. (2001) Intra-household access to land and sources of inefficiency: A case study of Ghana. In: J. P. P. A. de Janvry and G. de Anda (eds.) Access to Land, Rural Poverty, and Public Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fairhead, J. and Leach, M. (2005) The centrality of the social in African farming. IDS (Institute of Developmente Studies) Bulletin 36(2): 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feleke, G. (2003) Milk and Dairy Products, Post-harvest Losses and Food Safety in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East. A Review of the Small Scale Dairy Sector – Ethiopia. FAO Prevention of Food Losses Programme. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  13. Fontana, M. and Wood, A. (2000) Modeling the effects of trade on women at work and at home. World Develepmet 28(7): 1171–1190.Google Scholar
  14. Fukuda, D., Nepal, K.P. and Yai, T. (2005) Microeconomic models of intra-household activity time allocation. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 6: 1637–1650.Google Scholar
  15. Goyal, A. (2007) Women making choices: Masked but aware? Indian Journal of Gender Studies 14(3): 409–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J. and Alderman, H. (eds.) (1997) Intrahousehold resource allocation in developing countries: Models, methods, and policy. Culture & Agriculture. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harun, M.E. (2014) Women’s workload and their role in agricultural production in Ambo district, Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics 6(8): 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinrich, C., Maffioli, A. and Vázquez, G. (2010) A Primer for Applying Propensity- Score Matching, Impact-Evaluation Guidelines Technical Notes (No. IDB-TN-161). Washington DC.Google Scholar
  19. Jaleta, M., Gebremedhin, B. and Hoekstra, D. (2009) Smallholder commercialization: Processes, determinants and impact. Discussion Paper No. 18. Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers Project, ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 55 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Kaaria, S. and Ashby, J. (2001) An Approach to Technological Innovation that Benefits Rural Women: The Resource-to-Consumption System. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Working Document No. 13. Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
  21. Kabeer, N. (1999) Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change 30(3): 435–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenjiso, B.M. (2013) Is money a magic bullet for empowerment? The impact of market-oriented dairying on the socio-economic position of women farmers in selale area, Oromia national regional state, Ethiopia. In: M. Prah (ed.) Insights into Gender Equity, Equality and Power Relations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Addi Ababa, Ethiopia: OSSREA and Fountain Publishers, pp. 157–171.Google Scholar
  23. Mahelet, G.F. (2007) Factors Affecting Commercialization of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia: The case of North Omo Zone, SNNP region. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy, Addis Ababa, 7–9 June, (May).Google Scholar
  24. McPeak, J.G. and Doss, C.R. (2005) Are household production decisions cooperative? Evidence on pastoral migration and milk sales from northern Kenya. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(3): 525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MoFED (2010) Growth and Transformation Plan, 2010/11-2014/15, Volume I. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, FDRE.Google Scholar
  26. Njuki, J., Kaaria, S., Chamunorwa, A. and Chiuri, W. (2011) Linking smallholder farmers to markets, gender and intra-household dynamics: Does the choice of commodity matter? European Journal of Development Research 23(3): 426–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ogato, G., Boon, E. and Subramani, J. (2009) Gender roles in crop production and management practices: A case study of three rural communities in Ambo district, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Ecology 27(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  28. Pingali, P.L. (1997) From subsistence to commercial production systems: The transformation of Asian agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(2): 628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quisumbing, A. and Maluccio, J. (2000) Intrahousehold allocation and gender relations: New empirical evidence from four developing countries. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division (FCND) Discussion paper No. 84, Internation Food Policy research Institute (IFRI), Washington DC.Google Scholar
  30. Sahan, E. and Fischer-Mackey, J. (2011) Making markets empower the poor. Programme perspectives on using markets to empower women and men living in poverty, Oxfam Discussion Paper, Oxford: Oxfam.Google Scholar
  31. Schwartz, L., Herz, D. and Frazis, H. (2002) Measuring intrahousehold allocation of time: Response to Anne E. Winkler. Monthly Labour Review 2: 53–59.Google Scholar
  32. Seebens, H. (2010) Intra-Household Bargaining, Gender Roles in Agriculture and How to Promote Welfare Enhancing Changes. ESA Working Paper No. 11-10, Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
  33. Skoufias, E. (1994) Market wages, family composition and the time allocation of children in agricultural households. The Journal of Development Studies 30(2): 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Solomon, A., Workalemahu, A., Jabbar, M., Ahmed, M.M. and Hurissa, B. (2003) Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: A review of structure, performance and development initiatives. Socio-economics and PolicyResearch Working Paper 52. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
  35. Staal, S.J., Pratt, A.N. and Jabbar, M. (2008) Dairy Development for the Resource Poor Part 2: Kenya and Ethiopia Dairy Development Case Studies, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) http://www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html. Development, (44).
  36. Tangka, F., Ouma, E.A., Staal, S.J. and Shapiro, B. (1999) Women and the sustainable development of market-oriented dairying: Evidence from the highlands of East Africa. Paper presented at the International Sustainable Development Research Conference held at University of Leeds, 25–26 March,Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Timmer, C.P. (1997) Farmers and markets: The political economy of new paradigms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(2): 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. World Bank (2008) Agriculture for Development: Overview. World Development Report 2008. Washington DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birhanu Megersa Lenjiso
    • 1
    • 1
  • Jeroen Smits
    • 2
  • Ruerd Ruben
    • 3
  1. 1.Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Ambo UniversityAmboEthiopia
  3. 3.Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations