This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Innovating Agriculture through Gender Lenses Presented by: Silvia Sarapura, PhD Candidate Professor Advisor: James Mahone
School of Environmental Design and Rural Development UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH December 2009
2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Area of Concentration and Key Definitions 2.1. The analysis of gender in development studies and practice
2.1.1. From “Feminization of Development” to “Engendering Development” 126.96.36.199. The Women in Development Perspective (WID) 188.8.131.52. Women and Development (WAD) Perspective 184.108.40.206. Gender and Development (GAD) Approach 220.127.116.11. Policy Approaches to Women in Development 18.104.22.168.1. Welfare Approach 22.214.171.124.2. The Equity Approach 126.96.36.199.3. The Anti-Poverty Approach 188.8.131.52.4. The Efficiency Approach 184.108.40.206.5. The Empowerment Approach 220.127.116.11. What is Feminism? 18.104.22.168. Other feminist perspectives 22.214.171.124.1. Liberal feminism 126.96.36.199.2. Classical Marxism 188.8.131.52.3. Radical feminism 184.108.40.206.4. Socialist feminism 220.127.116.11.5. The Eco-feminist perspective 18.104.22.168.6. Feminist environmentalism 22.214.171.124.7. Feminist political ecology 126.96.36.199.8. The Gender, Environment and Development perspective 2.1.2. Women’s Rights 2.1.3. Gender Mainstreaming 2.2. Innovation systems and its application to international development 2.2.1. Concepts in innovation, systems and innovation system 188.8.131.52. Application of the Innovation System Concept in Agriculture 184.108.40.206.1. National Agricultural Research Systems 220.127.116.11.2. Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services 18.104.22.168.3. Agricultural knowledge, and information
3 system, (AKIS) Perspective 22.214.171.124.4. Agricultural Value Chain Development 126.96.36.199.5. Territorial Development
188.8.131.52. Innovation Systems 184.108.40.206.1. Introduction of IS in Agriculture in Developing Countries 220.127.116.11.1.1. Strengthening Capacities 18.104.22.168.1.2. Supporting Networking 3. Core Question: Does GAD Inform Innovations Systems in Agriculture? 3.1. Gender Roles and Responsibilities 3.2. Knowledge Base 3.3. Participation in decision-making processes 3.4. Gender Relations 3.5. Gender entails differences in power and knowledge production 3.6. The Root of the Problem: Gender and Unequal Access to Resources in Agricultural Systems 3.6.1. Land tenure and Food Security 3.7. Emerging Trends Affecting Gender Roles in Agricultural Innovation 4. The Challenge of Integrating Gender and Innovation in Agriculture 4.1. Institutions and governance issues 4.1.1. Institutions 4.1.2. Governance 4.2. From knowledge transfer to interactive learning 4.3. Power and innovation – implications for gender relations in households, communities and meso levels 5. Final Synthesis 5.1. Examples of current initiatives for gender and innovation in agriculture 5.2. Towards improved policy and practices 6. Conclusion References
Initiatives and documents that fit more or less into this group are the Kofi Annan Report. . markets and policies in which the process of social and economic change is embedded (Hall. and agriculture itself. 2008). agriculture1 in developing countries has become more complex hence the relations inside it (IFPRI Research Report 162. 2008). which in turn will “kick-start” agricultural development and achieve the first Millennium Development Goals of eradicating poverty and hunger. Vera-Cruz. 2008). Introduction Over the last decade. The World Bank or more broadly the Post Washington Consensus. Agri-pro Focus. Incrementing agricultural productivity is seen by this group as a necessary requirement to achieve food security. For example. agriculture refers to livestock. . The second group can be characterized as those who put more emphasis on improving markets and. it is necessary to reconfigure patterns of interaction between scientists and the ever changing and expanding range of actors. 1 2 For the purpose of the paper. markets. The first group defends that investment in science and technology has to be increased in agricultural productivity2. fishing. the institutional environment3 (Meijerink. Eaton. and changes in the livelihood strategies of rural households (Reardon 2005. Ekboir.5 1. the emergence of high-value agriculture. World Bank 2006a. but also to operationalize AIS under a set of principles in stakeholders’ own contexts and in ways that are suited to their own goals (Hall A. with pro-market advocates to those who are less in favour of markets and market liberalization and advocate a supportive policy environment (linked to a more pro-active role of governments). Torres Vargas. & Mosugu. the deterioration of natural resources. Therefore. Dutrénit. Nowadays. climate change. 2009) as a result of globalization. two main streams of thinking have emerged to prioritize agricultural innovation. The first group is characterized by emphasizing that investment in science and technology has to be increased in agricultural productivity. 2007. more broadly. This reconfiguration would necessitate applying new concepts to analyze existing patterns of interaction and to plan and implement new approaches. Making markets work better for the poor. and the Sachs Report. but consist of all those that emphasize “good governance”. forestry. technical and other forms of applied research effectively to agricultural and rural development is not simply one of that strengthening technology transfer and information dissemination mechanisms. 2006). & O. urbanization. the initiative by Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to launch Africa’s own Green Revolution (The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Davis. the challenge of applying scientific. This group is more heterogenous where members may have conflicting views about institutions. “Getting the institutions right” is one of the arguments that this stream of thinking has used as a prerequisite for development. & Aredo. Martínez V. migration. 2007). 3 This group seems more diverse. as well as the various initiatives that aims to improve markets for small farmers such as Regoverning Markets. yet. As a result of these replenishements. the strategy is not only to bring about knowledge to produce innovations that increase agricultural productivity and reduce new or adapted poverty (Asenso-Okyere.
making the sector a unique instrument for development (Mundlak. technological and institutional innovations. Gender relations and roles at the community and family levels play a crucial role in the success of their efforts to harmonize agricultural innovation and promote social equality of all actors involved in agriculture. agriculture can have a positive impact on poverty alleviation. Agriculture also contributes to development as an economic activity. Creating more understanding of the role of agriculture in development has become a topic of interest. and sustain the environment (Pleskovic. and efficient and fair labor markets are the key instrument to reducing rural poverty (World Bank. and engages strategically in public-private partnerships to promote competitiveness in the agribusiness sector and support the greater inclusion of smallholders and rural workers. et al. seldom analyzed in the context of development. corrects market failures. and as a provider of environmental services. and women are seventy . However. The private sector drives the organization that brings the markets to smallholders and commercial farms. The state. 2008).6 In this innovative vision. the private sector. laborintensive commercial farming can be a better form of production. Approximately 1. in particular when supported by their organizations. 2009). Effervescent new markets. agriculture assumes a prominent role in the development agenda. regulates competition. and rarely reflected in national and rural development policy strategies. An innovative agriculture for development redefines the roles of producers. rural and urban population distribution and the environment. when these organizations cannot capture economies of scale in production and marketing. 2000). May 2008).3 billion people worldwide are living in poverty. the private sector. reduce poverty. who frequently remain the most efficient producers. through enhanced capacity and new forms of governance. Evidence suggests that these indirect contributions to welfare and their mechanisms are not well understood. and civil society all characterize the new context for agriculture. food security. as well as partnership and networking development among all stakeholders. new roles for the state. and the state (Buntrup. Production is mainly by smallholders.” The most important is that agriculture can work in concert with other sectors to produce faster growth. FAO (2006) states that: “If properly managed. In that way strategies stress participation and empowerment of farmers and communities. as a livelihood.
and incentives of the people involved in agriculture (Poats. Unfortunately.7 percent of this group (UNDP. It is also known that both these relations of power and the beliefs surrounding them can change. 1996–2001) . institutional. Experience shows that if women rather than men are targeted with resources. Gender4. 1991). that is socially constructed relations between men and women. the position of women in the household. there is huge scope for change. However. fisheries and forestry programmes). 2008). “Power relations between men and women are complex. constrains. as a result of sexual characteristics of either women or men. Gender inequalities are appraised in contextual realities at the micro level. 1999). and rural men and women themselves are the 4 Gender refers not to women or men per se. It is a central organizing principle of societies and often governs the processes of production and reproduction. opportunities. micro-credit initiatives. This ‘feminization’ of poverty has become influential in the development of policy and identification of practical solutions and this has resulted in the development and implementation of several programmes focusing only on women (e. is an organizing element of existing agriculture practices worldwide and a determining factor of ongoing agricultural innovation and restructuring (Ferguson. While there is bound to be resistance. 1997). but is constructed socially. 1996) that needs to be considered from an analytical. but to the relations between them. the end result is that welfare benefits will accrue directly to them and their children (Buvinic and Gupta. both perceptual and material. development research in agriculture has been ignoring complex aspects of gender relations and roles that results in incomplete and or biased research. providing women with access to resources alone without giving due regard to changing or challenging gender power relations may not lead to empowerment of women. 2004: 7). namely. the emphasis is on analyzing how the weaker economic bargaining power of women is rooted in an unequal institutional and cultural paradigm (Sweetman. These socioeconomic variables are very important and useful to analyze roles. a diversity of tools and angles are needed to disentangle and contest them” (Lewis. Thus. consumption and distribution. Among some of the critical methodological shifts in gender studies in recent years has been the emphasis on understanding the power trajectories in gender relations instead of continuing to view these as being based upon altruistic notions. which in turn leads to the formulation of incomplete development policies and programs (Feldman. The importance of addressing gender in agricultural innovation is also the knowledge of dealing with deeply embedded “power relations” and embedded roles which are often legitimized by strongly ‘cultural’ traditions. 1995). Gender is not determined biologically. multi-dimensional and pervasive. beliefs and prejudices.” (FAO Plan of Action for Women in Development. responsibilities.g. personal and political side (IDRC. 1995).
and triggered its current concern with gender (El-Bushra. commitments to also mainstream science and technology. and she first alerted the development community to the importance of women’s role in agriculture. For gender equality. on occasion. and gender is entrenched in donor goals and strategies. There is a need to add in gender analysis and mixed groups where men can play a role more important when evaluating women’s advance. More than thirty years have witnessed Esther Boserup pioneering work on women’s role in agriculture (Boserup. 2000). The third section concentrates in the core question: Does GAD Inform Innovations Systems in Agriculture? This question brings many other questions and concerns that are contested according to the information gathered by considering the novelty of the field and the preliminary work of few agencies that are incorporating gender into their programmes and interventions. WAD and GAD) will be highlighted and these will emphasize their vision of agriculture and specially women’s role within it.to influence current power structures in their favour (Mayoux. However. the worlds of gender equality and innovation are too often separated. The other aspect that is considered important is AIS and its application to international development and how it has recently been introduced in the international arena especially in developing countries. there is very little crossover between these two areas despite stated commitments to gender mainstreaming and. . the second part will provide a description of the area of concentration and key definitions of the main topics of the paper: the analysis of gender in development studies and practice. 1970). the programs call for an inclusion of gender even though. it can be noticed that the role of women is crucial and important for its functioning. Innovation initiatives are seen as both a means and an end to economic development. these are only speaking about women. But they need support – and wider alliances .8 primary agents of that change. In development. in which the main theories of gender and development (WID. Until now. 2007). After the introductory section. However. it is clear that innovation plays an enormous role in development that will only increase in the coming years. There is evidence of the importance of linking these areas to ensure that innovative efforts do not enhance inequalities at the minimum and can ideally be used to further gender equality. The paper will begin by delineating the main aspects that are considered essential for the inclusion and incorporation of gender thoughts into the Agricultural Innovation Systems in developing countries.
and other factors that influence the development. indeed. 1992. organizational. it is pursued in close interaction between the innovator and her/his environment (Fagerberg & Nelson. in which the state is privileged (Sábato and Mackenzi. Area of Concentration and Key Definitions Gender issues are new neither to farm systems nor to agricultural systems. 1975. I will cover some issues such as gender relations. and from the ‘‘Triangle’’ model of Sábato. I cover the importance of institutions and governance issues. 1982). in the model of “triple helix”5 three sectors are identified as main participants in innovation systems (the public sector. 2. political. Nelson. Specifically. To conclude. 2006). power and knowledge seen from the perspective for feminist and gender specialized academics. their adoption is worldwide uneven. practitioners and activists to have a better idea of the root of inequalities and exclusion of women from the agriculture paramount. 1993) that considers the firm as having the leading role in innovation. in general. diffusion and use of innovations” (Fagerberg & Nelson. While some have made exceptional progress in adopting and implementing gender in their programs and interventions. Next steps should be considered to ensure system-wide attention to gender in the agricultural innovation systems by taking into account and emphasizing that innovation does not take place in isolation. their importance in agricultural research and women’s roles in agricultural production and food systems have been discussed from time to time. a section is dedicated to appraise the challenge of integrating gender and innovation in agriculture. 2006). . Before. institutional. Innovation systems are thus understood to be embedded in a wider socio-economic system “in which political and cultural influences as well as economic policies help to determine the scale. direction and relative success of all innovative activities” (Fagerberg & Nelson.183). 1988. The relevant components surrounding the innovator have been identified to consist of “all important economic. the private sector and the academic sector) (Fagerberg & Nelson.9 Because of the findings. 2006 pp. 2006) where all actors 5 The Triple Helix thesis argues that the university can play an enhanced role in innovation in increasingly knowledge-based societies (Leydesdorff & Meyer. The underlying model is analytically different from the national systems of innovation (NSI) approach (Lundvall. power and innovation – implications for gender relations in households and communities and the analysis of the influence of knowledge transfer to interactive learning in AIS. A final synthesis of the paper is provided with some examples of current initiatives for gender and innovation in agriculture in developing countries.188). 2006:182). 2006 pp. social. Organizations and institutions have been mentioned as being the main components of innovation systems (Fagerberg & Nelson. some policy and practices are recommended for future work in AIS with a gender perspective. Rather.
institutions. (Norem.1. Scholars have also evidence showing that not only knowledge constructions. 1997. and is ascribed value as such. 2005). 2007). Anthra and Girijana. it is most productive to regard the construction of gender and innovation as intertwined. . 2000). depends upon the geographical and social context (Faulkner. many academics identify four main forms of thinking in relation to the differences of gendered differences. Deepika. On the other hand. and macro levels. Whether an innovator or innovation is acknowledged as such. 2008). 1989:94). The meaning of “gender” should go beyond women and children’s studies to include a balanced analysis of women’s roles. (1) Men and women posses a different knowledge of similar things. 2. as differing in innovative capacity6 (Blake. and (4) they have different ways of preserving and transferring knowledge. This is confirmed by Blake & Hanson.Yoder and Martin. After more than three decades of research. the construction of gender and the construction of innovation systems. et al.10 converge and integrate into the innovation systems. For that reason. constraints and opportunities in different activities in relation to those of men (ElBushara. responsibilities. but knowledge networks are gendered in nature (Hassanein. discerning “men” and “women”. 2005 exposing how innovation hence is valued in accordance with a dualistic construction of gender. 2003. men and women are exposed to different environments. as not separated to achieve successful results. (2007) innovative capacity refers to skills and knowledge held by individuals and organizations. and occupy different socioeconomic positions as a result of these different roles and relations (Carr. the conceptual understanding of gender in the body of literature is poor. The analysis of gender in development studies and practice Important information gaps in the literature are present in relation to gender and development. (3) both groups have different forms of organizing their knowledge. patterns of interaction and policies developed. (2) Men as well women have different knowledge of similar things. which enhances the knowledge processes – ranging from its generation to utilization. the issue of women. 2001). In order to achieve equal integration and participation of all actors in agriculture innovation systems. Howard. within particular systems of agricultural production. the visualization of the programs as “gender neutral” or characterizing these as “masculine” on a symbolic level has to come to an end. due to the results of their relationships. The logic behind this pattern of inclusion and exclusion of actors within agricultural innovation systems are based on two mechanisms. as well as “feminine” and “masculine” areas of innovation. As a result of the different roles in the productive and reproductive spheres. Ramdas Yakshi. Gender issues are mostly to be found to be excluded from the design and planning of empirical research and data collection both at the micro. and are likely to develop gender-specific domains of knowledge. The construction of gender is one such contextual factor. and later gender. Also. skills and experiences. it is clear that men and women play different roles. in development has assumed an ever-increasing prominence 6 According to Hall et al. Departing from this assumption.
Women's concerns were first integrated into the development agenda in the 1970s. the women-in-development movement endorsed the enhancement of women's consciousness and abilities. development studies and practices has remarkably advanced since the United Nation's First Development Decade in the 1960s where economic growth and the "trickle-down" approach were the solution to reduce poverty. Contrary to the unified-household model. Reflecting the norms. as well as recognizing women's needs and contributions to society. However. despite (or perhaps because of) numerous theoretical and practical advances and variations. laws. and social values of society. One of the improvements in the debate has been the move to consider gender equality as a key element of development. The end of the 1970s brought in the concern with gender relations in development. the household has been considered an arena of bargaining. which focused on increasing the participation in and benefits of the development process for the poor. the differences in the status of men and women have profound implications for how they participate in market or nonmarket work and in community life as a whole. Disappointment over the trickle-down approach paved the way for the adoption of the basic-needs strategy. approaches to “women’s issues” have changed considerably. cooperation. Following these events. The movement also affirmed that giving women greater access to resources would contribute to an equitable and efficient development process. These debates concern not only the theoretical approach undertaken and intended goals and objectives. In the 1980s and 1990s. Activists articulated women's issues in national and international forums. and these differences therefore influence program outcomes. Ever since the First World Conference on Women in Mexico City in 1975. and social expectations of men and women. 2008). Micro level studies drew our attention to the differences in entitlements. research demonstrated that gender relations mediate the process of development. For example. there is much confusion and debate concerning the means by which ‘gender’ considerations can be integrated into development practice. Nevertheless the presence of these fissures. perceived capabilities. with a view to enabling women to examine their situations and to act to correct their disadvantaged positions.11 and popularity within the development community. boys and girls. These differences embody social and power relations that constitute the setting for the implementation of development programs. analyses of stabilization and structuraladjustment policies showed that gender inequalities have an impact on . but also the practical strategies and methods which can be used to implement these and incorporate ‘gender’ into development projects and programmes (Kilby & Olivieri. or conflict.
2000). as well as the recent need to broaden out the ‘engendering development’ perspective (by departing from a Woman in Development (WID) approach to a Gender and Development (GAD) approach (Razavi & Miller. Development requires good governments that give men and women equal voices in decision-making and policy implementation (El-Bushara. It also marks the significant achievements and limits of the broad ‘feminizing development’ approach. in the background of increasing activism of development practitioners (Pillai. Emerging for almost four decades ago. it more importantly requires the creation of a favourable environment for men and women to achieve those opportunities. Vijayamohanan.12 the attainment of macroeconomic objectives. One of the most fundamental achievements has been the move from a feminization of development to an engendering of development perspective an evolution that is reflected in the different approaches taken by feminists in exploring the relationship between women. And this concern has prompted to refine perspectives on what development should be and how to bring it about efficiently. This development has been informed by a remarkable though gradual shift in the perception about women. from the stature of victims and passive objects to that of independent agents. men and development. Having in mind the perspective that gender matters in development. feminist responses have become central to dismarginalization. Development requires more than the creation of opportunities for people to earn sustainable livelihoods. 2. The concern with gender relations in development has strengthened the affirmation that equality in the status of men and women is fundamental to every society.1. 1995).1. Development implies not only more and better schools but also equal access to education for boys and girls. From “Feminization of Development” to “Engendering Development” Because of the gender-blind and male-centered conceptualization of development practice and theory in the past. The concept of women’s development has now become an integral part of the development and policy initiatives. feminist responses to the marginalization of women in development have gone through a . A significant impetus to raising such an informed platform came with the adoption of development issues within the UN system. Asalatha. & Ponnuswamy. it is time to examine and define the considerable change of feminist and gendered schools of thought that resulted as responses to the marginalization of women in development. 2009).
and feminist theorizing are changing the existing frameworks and creating new ones. 1970 (First South Asian Edition 2008)) and others on Third World development (Maguire. as used by the Women’s Committee of the Washington. The field has been productive for a fundamental shift in the perspectives of and approaches to women in development. Rathgeber (1990) identifies three distinct schools of thought on gender and development. It was “born as a trans-national movement.1. DC.1. Chapter of the Society for International Development. and the need to interrogate women and men as gendered beings (McIlwaine & Datta. as well as the recent need to broad the engendering development perspective to incorporate issues such as human rights. 1984). forestry and so on) were addressing problems faced by men. gender-based violence and sexualities. 2003). One of the most fundamental was the progress from a feminization of development to an engendering of development perspective. It was recognized that women’s subordination . Advocates of WID argued that traditional development processes were at best bypassing and at worse impoverishing women in developing countries. As McIlwaine & Datta (2003) state development also symbolizes the great achievements and restrictions of the extensive feminizing development approach. but ignoring the role women played in rural economies. The Women in Development Perspective (WID) The term ‘WID’ came into vogue in the early 1970s. men and development. a network of female development professionals. hence its emergence was built upon a strong sense of cohesion among women across national boundaries” (Grant and Newland 1991:122). development. in their attempt to bring to the attention of American policymakers the works of Ester Boserup’s Women’s role in economic development (Boserup. the WID arose out of the search for practical solutions to the failures of development concept and the growth of feminism based on a more systematic assessment of the roots of women’s disadvantage. It also examines how new and exciting debates and critiques of globalization. fishing.13 remarkable move. namely. Women in Development (WID). As the oldest and most dominant approach. Below. a brief account of these three schools is explained 2. progress reflected in the different approaches taken by researchers from the west and feminists from the South in exploring the relationship between women. Women and Development (WAD) and Gender and Development (GAD). Technicalfix approaches to rural economies (agriculture. As the significant productive contribution made by women became apparent so the argument was that development needed to target women specifically in order to better their position.1.
presently known as UNIFEM. this view of modernization became increasingly questioned by many researchers. the United Nations took steps to establish an Institute for Training and Research for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW). Virtually every section of the United Nations set up one or another form of programme for women and for development. Programme thus emerged which focused on women’s employment and income-generating opportunities. and a WID office was created in USAID departments. and it equally increased funds for women and development. rather than examine why women had not benefited from earlier development strategies. investment was targeted to areas with high growth potential. In 1973. it. the consequences of modernization and commercialization of agriculture only worsened the inequality. education and resources began. health. The WID approach was closely linked with the modernization paradigm which was developed in the US as an alternative to the Marxist account of development theory after the World War II. Overall. markets. would improve the standard of living in developing countries. and advocated instead for their equal participation in education. and marginalized various social groups. A process of empowering women to demand change in their access to credit. focused only on how women could better be integrated into those development initiatives. and by the end of the 1970s. 2000:33). as part of WID’s outreach. and other spheres of society . with the assumption of "trickle down" effect in favour of the poor. the new amendment required that a proportion of the agency funds be specifically channeled to women’s activities. education and household security. the reality failed this expectation. it avoided questioning the sources and nature of women's subordination and oppression in line with the more radical structuralist perspectives such as dependency theory or Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches. WID movement gained recognition from various governments and international bodies.14 came from their inability to secure access to resources. and many other governments came out to create ministries of women’s affairs. employment. However. As the WID approach was grounded on an acceptance of existing social structures. In other words. and pronounced that ‘modernization. especially women. Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation also responded with different projects of development assistance. WID assumed that the lack of development for women was the result of an over-sight by policy makers (Reeves and Baden. Other institutions like the World Bank.’ usually connected with industrialization. In 1975. Economic growth was the major goal. the US government amended the USAID law – the famous Percy Amendment.
(Lycklama à Nijeholt. women are already fully integrated into the global economy. both the Marxist and liberal feminists share the view that structures of production determine the inferior status of women.1. further incorporation into the system cannot be the solution.15 on the premise that the people involved are the problem and that the solution lies in overcoming the internalized impediments of poor women by changing attitudes and providing education. in the second half of the 1970s. 1995). which ignores the structural context that frames women's underdevelopment. but on unequal terms. while the liberals solely focus on technological change as the causal mechanism. the Marxists consider its impact on class differentiation also (Jaquette. It draws some of its theoretical base from dependency theory. based on neo-Marxist feminism. In this respect. 1987). through domestic and subsistence labour. 1982). 2. Geertje Lycklama à Nijeholt. WAD approach begins from the position that women always have been an integral part of development processes in a global system of exploitation and inequality. and also it did not recognize this exploitation as being in itself a component of a global system of capital accumulation (Lourdes Beneria and Gits Sen 1981). Plewes and Stuart. The factors determining people's lives are both internalized culture and external material factors (Naiman. 1984. and it is from this perspective that needs to be observed why women had not benefited from the development strategies of the past decades. According to the structuralists. Women and Development (WAD). which. 1987. 1991) They represent WID as a blame of the victim strategy. The WID approach also had a tendency to be a historical and overlooked the importance of classes and relations of exploitation among women (Marjorie Mbilinyi. since the system is inherently exploitative of women. in opposition to the optimistic claims of modernization theory. by questioning the sources and nature of women's subordination and oppression. The studies of the Marxist feminists “show that the changing roles of women in economic production are determined by the convergence of a number of historical .2. Women and Development (WAD) Perspective Out of the disappointment with the explanatory limitations of modernization theory that stood as the basis of WID arose a new movement. both have to be considered with.1. on the other hand. maintained that the failure of Third world states to achieve adequate and sustainable levels of development resulted from their dependence on the advanced capitalist world.
16 factors: the sexual division of labour in reproduction. Thus there is little analytical attention to the social relations of gender within classes. Gender and Development (GAD) Approach Feminists in general. and social structures by carefully designed intervention strategies rather than by more fundamental shifts in the social relations of gender. has been considered to belong to the "private" domain and outside the purview of development projects aimed at enhancing income-generating activities. they have been much less effective in improving women’s . 1984:502) The WAD approach recognizes that Third World men also have been adversely affected by the structure of the inequalities and exploitation within the international system. 2. 1994). without caring for the time burdens that such strategies place on women. Such common WID-WAD focus on intervention strategies in terms of the development of income-generating activities. it gives scant attention to the sphere of reproduction and household level relations between men and women (Kabeer.3. In essence. care of the ill and elderly. and discourages a strict analytical focus on the problems of women independent of those of men. “The labour invested in family maintenance. The WAD perspective seems to implicitly assume that women's position will improve with more equitable international structures. including childbearing and -rearing. That is.1. local class structure. shows the singular preoccupation of these approaches with the productive sector at the expense of the reproductive side of women's work and lives.” (Bandarage. differing modes of production. and it sides with WID in solving the problem of underrepresentation of women in economic. when assessing the past decades of WID policy implementation. since both the sexes are disadvantaged within the oppressive global structures based on class and capital. and the like. the articulation of specific regions and sectors of production within national economies and the international economy. political. The result is a great diversity and complexity in the integration of women into the processes of capitalist development. and women's subordination and oppression.1. It fails to undertake a full-scale analysis of the relationship between patriarchy. this has been a reflection of the tendency of both modernization and dependency theorists to utilize exclusively economic or politicaleconomy analyses and to discount the insights of the so-called ‘softer’ social sciences” (Eva Rathgeber 1990: 493). housework. have pointed out that although WID policies have been to some extent successful in improving women’s economic condition.
an analysis of social relations of gender and development must start from domestic arena and go beyond the . “The focus on gender rather than women makes it critical to look not only at the category “women”. rather than in terms of their gender. and has complemented the modernization theory by linking the relations of production to the relations of reproduction and by taking into account all aspects of women's lives (Jaquette. and the way in which relations between these categories are socially constructed” (Moser 1993. the GAD approach stresses direct challenges to male cultural. “Beyond improving women’s access to the same development resources as are directed to men. with arguments for approaches informed by a gender analysis of social relations (Kabeer 1994) and aspiration for the ultimate empowerment of women (Moser 1989. that is why the shift to Gender Analysis in Development or simply Gender and Development (GAD) in the 1980s. And ‘power’ is a general characteristic of gender relations (Whitehead. The concern over this problem led to a consensus to reform the WID. Therefore. getting women into development programmes. GAD draws its theoretical roots from the strands of socialist feminism that challenged the orthodox Marxist assertion that only class analysis could explain women’s oppression. it involves a change of approach and a challenge to the development process as a whole. More than just a change of name. WID approach was based on a politics of access. The GAD approach on the other hand recognizes the significance of redistributing power in social relations. so that women are enabled to make equal social and economic profit out of the same resources. It involves leveling the playing field. social and economic privileges. 3).17 social and economic power relative to men in development contexts. but at women in relation to men. The focus on ‘gender’ rather than ‘women’ was influenced by the feminist writers such as Oakley (1972) and Rubin (1975). the social relationship between men and women. since that is only half the story. their biological difference from men. changing institutional rules” (Anne Marie Goetz 1997: 3) The GAD approach was grounded in the argument that an analysis focusing on women alone could not adequately capture the nature of subordination without looking at the concerned social and institutional rules and practices through which gender relations are constructed. 1993). 1979). 1982). who were worried about the general way of perceiving the problems of women in terms of their sex. in other words. where women have been systematically subordinated.
in reality. rather than of just equality in access to resources. Gender subordination is embedded in the hierarchic structures of division of labor and gender. it recognizes that achieving gender equality and equity demands ‘transformative change’ in gender relations from household to global level. it has only rarely been integrated into development planning (Moser. First. et al. Women are agents. Second. it re-examines all social. 1992:51). but may not have perfect knowledge or understanding of their social situation or structural roots of discrimination and subordination (Young. to construct a vision of the kind of world they want. The GAD approach has three departure main points from WID.18 broader economic arena in which these relations are articulated and reconstituted (Young. as one aspect of social relations. 1981). Hence. a holistic framework that looks at the totality of social organizations and economic and political life is needed to understand any particular aspect of relations. but the emphasis is on women’s selforganization. And third. Hence ‘conscientization’ has been seen as “an important step in the struggle through which women increase their capacity to define and analyze their subordination. The process of production alone would not put an end to women's subordinate position in the society. is not the only form of inequality in the lives of women and men as there are other forms of social inequalities resulting from class and race differentiation. which helps to increase political power within the economic system. challenging welfare for equity. Under this conceptual adaptation. and ‘gender mainstreaming’ has emerged as the common strategy for action behind these initiatives. This social relation approach accepts that the welfare and anti-poverty approaches are often necessary preconditions for equity. development programmes have started to focus on the politics of gender relations and restructuring of institutions. et al. and to act in pursuit of that vision” (Kabeer. Exploration of the position of women in socialist countries emphasized the inadequacy of economic analyses of gender relations (Young. Gender mainstreaming was first formulated as a ‘transformative . 1981). political and economic structures and development policies from the perspective of gender differentials. insofar as its productive purpose stands to increase women's bargaining power in the economic system. The WID strategy of groupings is necessary. While this line of argument has had considerable influence on academics. 1989). it shifts the focus from women to gender and identifies the unequal power relations between women and men. 1995:299). 'whether relying on fighting for reforms is sufficient or whether radical social change is imperative' (Young. They critically consider. 1992).
agreed conclusions 1997/2. who bear the increased burden of unpaid work on their already stretched energy and resources when public sector services switch to the household. and the bounty of the natural environment (UNDP 1999: 44). In this light.” (Economic and Social Council. taken for granted and invisible in economic terms. in all areas and at all levels. both because this is a vital ingredient for developing human capabilities. monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political. implementation. the application of IMF and World Bank stabilization and structural adjustment policies (SAPs) has caused many countries to cut back on government sponsored or subsidized social services. state and the family. public provisioning. which is unpaid. they also assume the ‘double work day’. the Economic and Social Council adopted the following definition. The invisibility of women's unpaid work remains a critical issue in national and international macro policy. In 1997. When women assume paid work. including legislation. meant as a guide for all agencies in the United Nations system: “Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process of assessing the implications for men and women of any planned action. paid and unpaid. The Report emphasizes the interpersonal provision of care as a key dimension of human development. As the Human Development Report for 1999 points out. which in turn has adversely affected the wellbeing of women. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality. economic and social spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. women and pro-equality development practitioners have advocated mainstreaming gender analysis into all policy and programming both in design and impact assessment. For example. unpaid work in the household and community is an important provider of human development along with private incomes. that is. I A) At the household level the gendered division of labour traditionally defines women's role primarily in terms of provision of care. Women’s unpaid work at home has however significant impact on the quality of their lives and well-being. . Achieving gender equality requires reorganizing gender roles and the basic institutions of society.19 strategy’ to achieve gender equality at the Fourth World Conference on Women at Beijing in 1995. the market. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design. policies and programmes. and also because it is in itself an important aspect of human functioning (one of the qualities that makes us truly human.
the World Conference on Population in Cairo and plus 5. the Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen and Copenhagen Plus 5 in Geneva. the Declaration and Platform for Action of the World Conferences on Women. mainstreaming gender aims at transformative change in order to bring about an equal partnership between women and men. including social. “Gender planning. Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However. as well as commitments to integrating a perspective of gender mainstreaming with developmental goals. the Earth Summit in Rio. the Habitat Conference in Istanbul and Plus 5 in Nairobi. and the other World Conferences of the 1990s. its purpose is that women through empowerment . ILO Fundamental Non-Discrimination Conventions 100 and 111. where women no longer focused on a narrow range of so-called women’s economic and social issues but were demanding for voice in all arenas of economic and social policy making. Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic. the World Food Summit in Rome. Social and Cultural Rights. A rights-based approach goes beyond viewing gender concerns as primarily instrumental to growth. as well as civil and political rights. with its fundamental goal of emancipation. This approach illustrates a profound political shift that became evident at the Fourth World Conference on Women at Beijing. And it is here that the most aspiring goal of ‘women empowerment’ becomes significant in development discourse and policy. Compared with the less ‘threatening’ approach of WID. which address women’s rights as human rights. as is sometimes the case. Based on the premise that the major issue is one of subordination and inequality. the Preamble of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. economic and cultural rights. The world has already adopted a number of basic human rights instruments and declarations and international covenants and conventions. the Fourth Conference in Beijing and Beijing Plus5 in New York. the Convention on the Rights of the Child. such as: Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. is by definition a more ‘confrontational’ approach. beyond GAD and gender mainstreaming. it should also be noted that women today are demanding. the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. because it recognizes women’s agency and their rights and obligations as citizens. This in turn requires women to take an active part in politics and decisionmaking at all levels of society. the full exercise of their human rights and are on to develop a rights-based approach to economic policy. which aims directly at strengthening the realization of human rights. International Conventions on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.20 Thus.
Thus with its ‘family-centred’ orientation. and (3) child-rearing is the most effective role for women in all aspects of economic development (Moser. The welfare . 1993:59-60. and it identifies the mother-child dyad as the unit of concern. Its initial concerns were on “what could be done to ensure that women had the conditions which enable them to meet the needs of their children and family” (Young 1993: 43). (2) motherhood is the most important social role for women. additional food for children and nutrition education for mothers. Policy Approaches to Women in Development As already explained. 1995:87). and specifically intended for the ‘vulnerable groups’ (Moser 1993: 59).1. Snyder and Tadesse. from modernization policies of accelerated growth. This approach created a gendered educational system and classification of jobs as being the ‘male or female profession’. and population control through family planning programmes. to the more recent compensatory measures associated with structural adjustment policies.” (Moser. It was built upon the First World’s social welfare model.1.1. the WID movement has occasioned an increasing space for policy initiatives and interventions in favour of poor women in the Third world.1.” (Moser 1993: 55). this approach restricts the role of women to reproductive ones – motherhood and childrearing – whereas men’s work is identified as productive. This list mirrors the “general trends in Third World development policies. rather than active participants in the development process. Initially. The development programme is implemented through ‘top-down’ handouts of free goods and services and hence it does not include women or gender-aware local organizations in participatory planning processes (Moser. Women’s development policies and the most popular during the 1950s and 1960s. 1993: 60). 2. Three assumptions underlie the welfare approach: (1) women are passive recipients of development. Welfare Approach The welfare approach.4. Later on Moser (1993) added two more categories of ‘efficiency’ and ‘empowerment’. perceived motherhood as women’s primary role in society. Buvinic (1983 and 1986) categorized the policy approaches under the three heads of ‘welfare’. equity’ and antipoverty’ in an increasing order of shift in focus.4. 2. is called the pre-WID. initiated in Europe after the World War II. since they were largely seen as mothers and caregivers rather than economic actors.1. through basic needs strategies associated with redistribution. 1993:4).21 achieve equality with men in society. one of the earliest. The programme generally consists in direct provision of food aid.
and generally include responses to inadequate living conditions in respect of potable water. Benefits that only target practical needs will not be sustainable unless strategic interests are also taken into account UNEP (2001). welfare programmes were not concerned or designed to meet women’s strategic interests such as their right to have control over their own reproduction or even practical gender needs. 1991:162. 1993:61). Disappointment with the welfare approach started to arise by the 1970s. These include gender division of labour. Practical needs. consequently. which is identified by women within a specific context: these include water provision. and Maxine Molyneux (1985). without questioning the traditionally ascribed role of women. Practical needs are those immediate necessities within a specific context. and she additionally argued that meeting strategic gender needs helps women to achieve greater equality. However. who first made the three-fold conceptualization of women’s interests. The concerns were heard by the UN and led to the First International Women’s Year 7 Strategic needs refer to the status of women relative to men within society. domestic violence. as it is politically safe. Molyneux (cited by Moser 1993:19) stressed the importance of recognizing that women and girls have both strategic and practical gender needs7 which are associated with their generally subordinated role in society. out of the failure of modernization theory as well as the increasing evidence on the negative effects of Third World development projects on women. . also see Moser (1993). health care and social security. health care and employment. 1976: 22). are those that are formulated from the concrete conditions women experience. Development planners were “unable to deal with the fact that women must perform two roles in society whereas men perform only one. Strategic gender needs changes existing roles and consequently challenge women’s subordination that aims to restore a sense of fulfillment and selfconfidence to women. protection from domestic violence. and may include legal rights. shelter. However. and women’s control over their bodies. strategic gender interests and practical gender interests). increased decision-making. equal wages and their control over their own bodies.” (Tinker. Moser. power and control that adversely affects them. They are context-specific and are related to gender divisions of labour.22 approach has promoted (and does promote) the availability of muchneeded maternal and child health care (MCH). income. and the lack of legal rights. it is argued that the top-down nature of so many welfare programmes has only succeeded in creating dependency rather than in assisting women to become more independent (Wallace and March. the welfare approach is still very popular. resources and power. She believed that the practical gender needs within those subordinated roles are generally concerned with shortfalls in living conditions. Molyneux distinguished that practical gender needs. in contrast. are usually a response to an immediate perceived necessity. Besides. with the consequent reduction in infant and to some extent maternal mortality. Note that these concepts are not to be used in an either/or fashion.
Within this framework it is assumed that economic strategies have frequently had a negative impact on women. access to resources and decision-making opportunities. a consequence of the concern for equality between the sexes.2. The Equity Approach Equity approach is the original WID approach. Hence. equity. namely. It identifies the origins of women’s subordination not only in the context of family but also in relations between men and women in the market place. introduced during the 1976-85 United Nations Women’s Decade.1. Lycette and McGreevey. It should be noted that despite their common origin and the consequent confusion of including them all in the WID approach. and therefore.23 Conference in Mexico City in 1975 that formally put women on the agenda and to the subsequent developments. unacceptable and practically inapplicable in many developing nations. men. it places considerable emphasis on economic independence and equality as synonymous with equity. 1986) described the equity approach as primarily concerned with inequality between men and women. The underlying logic is that women beneficiaries have lost ground to men in the development processes. It seeks to gain equity for women and recognizes that women who are active participants in the development process through both their productive and reproductive roles that provide a critical. men have to share in a manner that entails women from all socioeconomic classes ‘gaining’ and men from all socio-economic classes ‘losing’ or ‘gaining less’. especially their education. 2. Families and communities are strengthened when men recognize and support women and girls in all aspects of their lives. thus it accepts women’s practical gender need to earn a livelihood. including dysfunctional schemes and ambiguous initiatives. anti-poverty. relies on legal methods and is rooted in the vision of justice. Buvinic (1983. but unrecognized contribution to economic growth (Moser 1993:63). "where women. the equity approach encountered many problems. efficiency and empowerment. especially of a number of alternative approaches to women. health.4.1. Despite of what was said. there are significant differences among them. in a process of redistribution. 1983). . through positive discrimination policies if necessary (see also Buvinic. It is also argued that the main driving force of the equity approach. girls and boys are valued equally and are crucial partners for sustainable development” (Snyder and Tadesse 1995). in both public and private spheres of life and across socio-economic groups. and equity programmes are recognized as uniting notions of development and equality. and advocates for a place for women in development processes through access to employment and to the market place.
and ensuring an increase in the productivity of poor women.24 One of the major assumptions of the equity approach was that legislated equal opportunity would ensure equal benefits for all. The working poor . For instance.1. It should be noted that the equity approach was designed to meet strategic gender needs through top-down legislative measures. and sexual discrimination in the labour market. Moreover.1. equal rights to education do not mean that girls and boys are schooled in equal numbers or to an equal degree. provision of basic needs. 2. women found that legislation or policy changes alone did not guarantee equal treatment. It was felt with no surprise that the primary problem to be addressed was poverty. was the denomination of Western-exported feminism to Third World women. Modernization theory and its ‘trickle down’ assumption fail led to this shift in approach in favour of employment opportunities as a major policy objective. it goes without saying that despite the decrease in discriminatory laws in many parts of the world. it recognized the productive role of women and sought to increase the income earnings of women through small-scale enterprises. The Anti-Poverty Approach This is the second WID approach. on the basis that poverty alleviation and the promotion of balanced economic growth requires the increased productivity of women in low-income households. the recognition of equity as a policy principle did not guarantee its implementation in practice – a typical situation in many developing countries. The fundamental principle of this approach was the assumption that women’s poverty is the result of underdevelopment and not of subordination. who claimed that to take “feminism to a woman who has no water. Thus the bottom line was the outright rejection of this approach by the developing nations. and is embedded in the concept of growth.4. Moser (1993) mentions that this approach was made on the assumption that the origin of women’s poverty and inequality with men is originated to their lack of access to private ownership of land and capital. Additionally.3. The 1975 Conference went to the extent of labeling feminism as ethnocentric and divisive to WID. Therefore it aims to increase the employment and income-generating opportunities of poor women through better access to productive resources (reducing inequality between men and women to achieve income inequality). the major problem linked with the equity approach. introduced from the late 1970s (by the end of the unsuccessful First Development Decade). an early initiative for the International Labour Organization’s World Employment Programme. It advocates the redistribution of goods. however. no food and no home is to talk nonsense” (Bunch 1980).
This explains the essential difference between the equity and antipoverty Moreover. the solution (Moser 1978. The Efficiency Approach This is the third WID approach.1. 1995). 2.4. they have tended to remain small in scale. (1) Though it has the potential to modify the gender division of labour within the household. often only succeed by extending their working day and thus increase their triple burden. 1978. unless the anti-poverty projects have an inbuilt mechanism to lighten the burden of domestic and child care duties. While income-generating projects for low income women have flourished since the 1970s. Therefore. along with the social needs such as education and community participation through employment and political involvement (Ghai. shelter and fuel.25 became the target group and the informal sector with its assumed autonomous capacity for employment generation. cancelling its preoccupation with economic growth and embracing a new concern with the eradication of poverty and the promotion of ‘growth with redistribution’. and to be assisted by grants. in the context of the Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP) imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in developing countries. This marked the prominence of the basic needs strategy. The anti-poverty approach. clothing. (3) Income-generating projects for women meet practical gender needs by augmenting their income. as Moser (1993) noted has three major problems. but unless and until employment leads to greater autonomy. rather than loans. adopted during the 1980s debt crisis. 1981). that is. with its primary purpose to meet basic needs such as food. it may fail even to meet practical gender need to earn an income. to be developed by NGOs (most frequently all-women in composition). Streeton et al. the anti-poverty programmes assume that women have ‘free-time’. the governments may remain reluctant to allocate resources from national budgets to women. it fails to meet strategic gender needs.1. which inevitably implies changes in the balance of power between men and women within the family. thus opening thequestion of women’s access to formal financial institutions (Snyder and Tadesse. in practice this potential gets reduced because the focus is specifically on low-income women and on sex-specific occupations.4. World Bank followed in 1972. from international and bilateral agencies. Increased efficiency and productivity are the . 1984). (2) Since the programmes for low-income women in the developing countries may reduce the already insufficient amount of aid allocated to low-income groups by the state. The antipoverty approach encouraged the spread of community revolving loan funds (traditional micro-credit schemes).
its origin is more associated with the introduction of SAP in most developing countries. discovering women as ‘workers’. It is recognized as the most prevalent approach used today by the WID movement (Janet Momsen 199. Contrary to the claims of the modernization theory. Efficiency in development was interpreted as consisting in fully utilizing these resources. the informal economy has persisted and grown over the past two decades both in developing and developed countries. and international agencies. As Pettman (1996) noted. Although Kate Young (1993) attributes the emergence of this approach to the reduction of expenditure of the anti-poverty policies of the 1980s. efficiency is popular with many donor agencies. lower status and more precarious forms of informal employment. and women tend to be overrepresented in informal employment. as efficient allocation of resources optimizes growth rates with concomitant social benefits (Willis 2005). This in turn is used for an interpretation that women’s low wages in export agriculture have effectively generated the foreign exchange for the purchase of technologies and capital goods – what Seguino (2005) calls the ‘feminization of foreign exchange’. governments. except North Africa (ILO. Seguino 2000a. on this basis. 2005). there has been little positive impact in terms of narrowing gender gaps. Hsiung 1996. Moser 1993). It is argued that the shift from equity to efficiency reflects a general recognition of a specific economic fact that 50 percent of the human resources available for development were being wasted or underutilized. However. leading to the phenomenon of ‘feminization of labour force’. organizations such as USAID. 2000b). The efficiency approach rests on the neoliberal notions of restructuring to obtain the benefits of market forces. This shift towards development also had an underlying assumption that increased economic participation of Third World women is automatically linked with increased equity. especially in wages. 2004. and of international trade. of economic growth. Trade liberalization has opened an easy gate for women into labour-intensive export-oriented agriculture (UNRISD 2005). The neo-liberal policies have resulted in a growing gap between rich and poor households in many countries. This involves a shift of attention from women to development. where low wages have been shown to be important in gaining market share (Cho et al. in the lower-paid. informal employment has drawn more women than men in all developing regions. the World Bank and OECD have argued that an increase in women’s economic participation in development links efficiency and equity together (Moser 1993). both developed and . 2002). especially in the case of own-account workers (Heintz. more so. seeing WID as a resource-management focus. with women’s hourly earnings falling below those of men in identical employment categories.26 two main objectives of SAP.
she also admits that women’s increased economic participation “has implications for them not only as reproducers. but also evades labour laws and social security obligations. resulting in increasing precariousness of jobs and greater insecurity of livelihoods for both female and male workers. The SAP in the neo-liberal framework has sought to rewrite the role of state as a facilitator of the market forces rather than as the free or subsidized provider of public goods. 2006). whose unpaid care work held the social fabric together without recognition or reward” (Maxine Molyneux and Shahra Razavi. Milanovic 2003). It is now generally agreed that markets are “powerful drivers of inequality. “without gendered participatory planning procedures”.27 developing (Cornia et al. which are now made available only for a user fee. the increased user cost of health services has meant that women can less frequently afford to use such services for themselves and their children (Mackintosh and Tibandebage. with this ‘double day’ resulting in general in a heavier workload on women. only meets relatively practical gender needs at the cost of longer working hours and increased unpaid work (Wallace and March.” (Wichterich. with those in the better paid jobs seeking to employ those at the bottom of the pay scales for domestic support. thanks to SAP. Moser characterizes this approach as top-down. In fact what modernization has achieved is an increase in women’s productive and reproductive roles. The efficiency approach. “Rather than liberating women into the workplace. 2004. 2000). but also increasingly as community managers” being included in the implementation phase of projects (Moser 1993:70-71) – a consequence of the need for greater efficiency: women were reported to be more reliable than men in repaying loans and also of greater commitment as community managers in ensuring the flow of . Indeed. social exclusion and discrimination against women. globalization or modernization has bred a new underclass of low paid or unpaid women workers. This in turn has meant that poorer households have to adjust by shifting more of the care into the household and on the shoulders of women as “shock absorbers” and care giving of last resort for households on the edge of survival (Elson. Moreover. has helped employers not only lower labour costs. along with the casualization of formal sector employment. 2002). 2004). the growth of informal work across the globe. 1991). relying on all the three roles (reproduction. with the unpleasant implication of growing inequalities not only between women and men but also among women. women are seen primarily in terms of their capacity to compensate for the declining social services by extending their working days (and hours). production and community participation) of women and an elastic concept of women’s time.
The Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) has in general been recognized as the best-known supporter of this approach (Snyder and Tadessa. This in turn calls for participation and seeks to create self-reliance.4. ensuring that targeted measures reach women through autonomous women’s organizations. economic and political life. DAWN identifies empowerment with personal autonomy.5. In this context. class.28 services (Fernando 1987. It emerged unlike other approaches less from the research of the First World feminists but more from that of the emergent feminists and NGOs in developing countries.” (Gita Sen and Caren Grown. and nation that can be the basis for the new visions and strategies that the new world needs. And it is their aspirations and struggles for a future free of the multiple oppressions of gender. the empowerment approach developed out of the dissatisfaction with the original WID as equity approach. which means for the poor and for the nations of the developing world that they are able to make their own choices in the realms of social. The fundamental assumption here is the interrelationship between power and development.1. indicates a growth of feminist work in developing countries. Nimpuno-Parente 1987). As the cornerstone of GAD. Moser. and is concerned with counteracting its marginalization. According to DAWN. by integrating gender as a crosscutting issue in development organization and in interventions (often referred to as ‘gender mainstreaming’). race. But this power does not mean domination over others with a win (women) – lose (men) situation.1. the dimensions of participation that could challenge existing practices and power relations are however not engaged with (Willis 2005: 105) – miles to go before empowerment is reached. 1995. . 1987:9-10). The Empowerment Approach This approach is supposed to empower women through greater selfreliance through supporting bottom-up (grassroots mobilization) such as the microcredit scheme. the importance for women to increase the power. whereas the feminist understanding of empowerment should be a dynamic one. 1993). Although the fact that ‘participation’ and ‘participatory approaches’ are encouraged by multilateral organizations such as the World Bank and NGOs suggests that these are the ideas which have been taken on board. “it is the experiences lived by poor women throughout the Third world in their struggles to ensure the basic survival of their families and themselves that provide the clearest lens for an understanding of development processes. “The dominant understanding within social sciences has been of power as ‘power over’. 2.
However. reproduction and production) and seeks to raise women’s consciousness through bottom-up organizations and mobilize them against subordination (Moser 1993). enabling process in turn has implications for political action and for development agencies. such as SEWA in India. the empowerment approach functions in a bottom-up. as exemplified by a number of Third World women’s organizations. but the modus operandi differs: while the former (for that matter. It places far less emphasis than the equity approach on increasing women’s ‘status’ relative to men. systems of property rights.” Afshar (1997:13). Empowerment requires a transformation of the social structure marked by women’s subordination. It also differs from the equity approach in respect of the means of reaching the goal of strategic gender needs. all the previous approaches) relies on top-down legislations and interventions. civil codes. On the other hand. “This is identified as the right to determine choices in life and to influence the direction of change. Moreover. Important entry points of intervention are popular education. It thus seeks to empower women through the redistribution of power within. through the ability to gain control over crucial material and non-material resources.e. The welfare approach also stresses the importance of women’s organizations and utilizes them. Equity approach also identifies these strategic needs. the empowerment approach recognizes all the three roles of women (i. but has to emerge from them. Mitu Hirshman (1995) notes that by establishing women’s labour. but as a top down means of delivering services. participatory planning framework of women’s organizations at grassroot level.29 which conceptualizes power as a process rather than a particular set of results.” (Moser. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and GABRIELA in the Philippines. organization and mobilization. The failure or limited success of the legislative initiatives under the equity policy has stood to temper the moves of the empowerment approach: it seeks to reach the strategic gender needs through the practical needs used to build up a secure support base. as well as between. societies. labour codes. the welfare approach acknowledges only the reproductivehomemaker roles of women. In this context empowerment becomes a process that cannot be given to or for women. which is an androcentric idea of . community participation. Fundamental legal changes are presupposed for justice for women in society – changes in law. there are some postmodernist critiques of the DAWN alternative to conventional development. 1993). control over women’s bodies and the social and legal institutions that endorse male control and privilege. This conception of empowerment as a dynamic.
which is entrenched in the belief that material needs constitute the sole determinant of human existence. which define the sexual division of labout Mitu Hirshman (1995). It changed for a better turn with the publication of the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) 1995 Human Development Report (HDR) that revived the interest in the issue of gender equality with its effort to supplement the human development index (HDI) with the gender related development index (GDI) and a gender empowerment measure (GEM). even after the general recognition of the GAD approach. as used by most of the Third World women’s organizations in terms of seeking to reach the strategic gender needs through the practical needs used to build up a secure support base. 1995.30 capitalism and modernism. This is derived not necessarily from “biological facts”. Crush. The practical empowerment methodology. other international development agencies followed. 1995). It is important to notice that The Gender Equality Strategy (2008–2011) of the UNDP is designed to ensure gender equality and women’s empowerment as an integrated dimension in the UNDP Strategic Plan 2008-2011. the authors commit themselves to a form of essentialism which seeks to establish a priori an indisputable natural and innate essence to Third World women’s lives and experiences. It stands to assist countries to formulate. The empowerment approach had first insignificant influence on mainstream development agencies. implement and monitor Millennium Development Goals (MDG)-based national development strategies centered on inclusive growth and gender equality. but from secondary sociological and anthropological universals. In addition to attaching the focus of gender issue to this policy of meeting practical needs. It also “suffers from the same economistic bias as mainstream development theory. and now almost every agency has an empowerment division attached to its anti-poverty policy forum. as the ‘clearest lens’ through which to understand and analyse their experiences. . lends them a convenient tool for covering up both their anti-poverty and efficiency approaches that now appear as economic empowerment approach. and also as the grounds for their alternative approach to development. even though a few countries like Canada and Norway started to support the empowerment initiatives of NGOs by providing funds. Afterward. Moreover. some critics argue that DAWN's agenda has in-built beliefs in modernization as its goal (Parpert. it creates an unnecessary hierarchy among different aspects of women’s lived realities. “By positing “poor women’s labour” as the defining category and the founding source of women’s experiences in the South. it also looks for a substitution of the agency of civil society for that of the state in development process (the original agenda of neo-liberalism).
Liberal feminism. racial or ethnic.6. political. caste.argues that throughout history people have found many different means of feeding. Feminism8 derives its origin from multiple theoretical formulations and is based on historically. The liberal conception of liberty meant that people were governed only with their consent and only within certain limits.6.2. at work and within the family.and 17th-century liberal philosophy.5. the latter it cannot).) and with diverse personal characteristics (age.1. The liberal conception of equality was based on the belief that all men had the potential to be rational and that any inequality had to be justified in rational terms.1. influenced by many factors like class.1. Most development approaches make the mistake of clubbing seeming similarities into Groups ignoring vast difference amongst women.LF is rooted in the tradition of 16th.1. 2006) .. 2. The social roles and the ways women negotiate the world also differ among women in diverse contexts (cultural. perception and action. social.1.1.31 2. socialization process and its manifestation in their lives. impacting each other in the process. conceptualization and the changing times. Feminist theories seek to uncover (1) The incidence of gendered thinking that uncritically assumes a necessary bond between being a woman and occupying certain social roles. etc. and reproducing 8 A broad definition of feminism is “An awareness of women’s oppression and exploitation in society. which focused on the ideals of equality and liberty. What is Feminism? Feminist theoretical frameworks and development frameworks have influenced thinking and policy.6. (3) The wisdom inherent in such negotiation. sheltering. education. 2. Classical Marxism. Other feminist perspectives 2. .1. caste etc.1. (2) The ways women negotiate the world and.). and culturally concrete realities and levels of consciousness. generally defined in terms of the public and private spheres (the former the government can regulate. and conscious action by men and women to change this situation”(Pati. religious. A historical context is important to understanding development and feminist thinking and how have they progressed.1. clothing. From the 17th century till date the definition has evolved to represent different articulation.
1.. In producing their material life. and deferred action on.6. The Eco-feminist perspective. They added an historical dimension to the concept of patriarchy. that is.3. The subordination of women came into existence with the mode of production that introduced private property. arguing that it takes different forms in different historical periods and in different racial.32 themselves. is more difficult to change than class.1. Socialist feminists argued that class and women’s subordination were of equal importance and had to be challenged simultaneously. cultural.It is also referred to as the Women. procreation. Radical feminists argued that making gender equality secondary to class equality diminished the importance of. Radical feminists insist that women’s subordination does not depend on other forms of domination.5.6. people work together and enter into social relations with one another. They argue that patriarchy.1.6. Women’s subordination. and religious contexts. This perspective holds that there is a natural link between women and environment as both are involved in creation of life. as it is deeply embedded in individual psyches and social practices.1. Radical feminism. 2. Traditional Marxism stated that class was the prime factor in the oppression of working people and that gender equality would follow upon the abolition of class society. Socialist feminism. such as class. even those without classes.emerged in the 1960s in the US in response to the sexism experienced by women working within the civil-rights and antiwar movements. or the domination of women by men. is primary and existed in virtually every known society.1. of producing their material life. Socialist feminists redefined the radical-feminist conception of patriarchy so that it meant a set of hierarchical relations with a material base in men’s control over women’s sexuality.emerged in the second half of the 1970s. 2.. economic. political. The means and social relations of production constitute the modes of production.4.1. Environment and Development perspective. 2.. and labour power. The mainstream post-colonial development characterized by . women’s concerns.
It requires a complex set of interrelated changes in the composition of what is produced. and is the source of natural kinship between feminism and ecology (Vandana. regions and contexts.33 capitalism and patriarchy exploited both nature and women’s labour. capitalist. women have a greater interest in ending domination over nature and their own lives. have a very different dependence on and hence relationship with communal forests than do poor rural women.. women acquire special knowledge about resource regeneration. Since knowledge about nature is experiential. Feminist environmentalism calls for a transformational approach.argues that women’s and men’s relationship with environment needs to be understood in the context of specific forms of their interaction with it. Feminist environmentalism. these factors also shape knowledge based on this experience. the knowledge systems on which choices are based and the class and gender distribution of products and tasks. Maria. 1993). ecofeminists see female experiential knowledge as a major source for an ecological vision of reality. and women from rich peasant households who can obtain much of what they need from family land. and industrialist forms.1. Urban women who use little firewood or fodder.e. Factors such as gender and class division of labour. has gone hand in hand with that of women. Accordingly. i. They point out that the exploitation of nature. Arguments tracing a universally caring attitude of women toward nature fail to convince in the face of varying behaviour across classes. As a result of this linkage and dual exploitation.1. 2. the technologies that produce it. the material reality. Shiva and Mies.6. caste divisions. For instance. in particular. The origins of this theoretical tradition are largely associated with Shiva and Mies (1993) who see the patriarchal dominance of women by men as the prototype of all domination and exploitation in various hierarchical. the processes by which decisions on products and technologies are arrived at. militaristic.6. food grain cultivation in agriculture and plant species for meeting subsistence needs. . and the ancient association of women with and nature links women’s history and the history of the environment. distribution of power and property influence the impact of environmental change on people and consequently their responses to it.
participatory. It recognizes that men and women interact with natural resources differently and that gender is a key factor in divisions of labour. regional and global ecological provisioning and local. Environment and Development perspective. Significantly. 2006). and ethnicity to shape processes of ecological change. The Gender. it outlines a strategy for more sustainable. economic and political systems that act in various subtle and not so subtle ways to constrain alternative development possibilities at the local level. caste.. social structures and planning processes and methods.draws from feminist environmentalism and looks at the inter-linkages between organizational relationships. feminist political ecology animates its arguments at a variety of scales and not just at the household and community level. Feminist political ecology perspective. Feminist political ecology builds on an ecofeminist argument and emphasizes gender knowledges. 1996). rights and politics in the context of environmental arguments” (Nightingale. et al. and the prospects of any community for "sustainable development" (Rocheleau. et al. 2.1.6. just and gender-sensitive natural resource management. 1996:4). regional and global political appropriation and redistribution of resources. This approach provides a framework to understand how access to and enjoyment of the material basis of our lives comes about through conjunctures of local. In doing so. culture. the struggle of men and women to sustain ecologically viable livelihoods. rights and responsibilities affecting the management of natural resources. It works with the notion of survival which connects the global north and south and which is understood in the context of capitalist globalization.1.7. interacting with class.8. it calls for a .. Gendered knowledges and spaces and women’s collective struggles are also key themes in feminist political ecology (Rouchleau.6.1.treats gender as a critical variable in shaping resource access and control. Feminist political ecology draws attention to the ways in which local ecological and livelihoods systems are linked to national and global government. Consequently.34 2. race.1.
as well as declarations and the rights articulated by United Nations treaty monitoring bodies (Symington 2002:2). the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (formerly the Association for Women in Development) changed its name in 2001 to reflect this switch: “’WID’ had become outdated and carried negative baggage … and by this time. and basic education. These differences reflect the richness of women’s lives and the need to integrate the experiences and knowledge of women across the globe. Most importantly. A rights-based approach to development builds on both the experiences of the development and human rights fields that places human rights as the “means. sensitive theorizing about both women’s subordination and their power. Human rights are development goals as well. as defined in international human rights conventions. 2002). as opposed to legal rights.35 need to challenge and transform not only notions about the relationship between people and nature but also the actual methods of appropriation between people and nature by a few. Approaching these goals as human rights means ensuring that a person can gain access to the freedom or resource that will enable them to realize their rights. health care. as well as in the general development community. Although they converge on the core issue of women’s subordination. like a decent standard of living. gender equality. more than half of [their] members identified themselves as working in human rights.2. For example. the new name was to signal a shift in thinking and practice in the field … Women’s rights provides the powerful language and monitoring system to assert that women’s rights are an inherent part of all women’s lives and gender and development is an enabling tool for overcoming the social realities that violate those rights” (Kerr. such as health . and a move towards a more inclusive. more and more organizations are moving to thinking about women’s issues and gender equality in terms of women’s human rights. like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). have begun to switch to this “rights-based approach” to development. they differ in their assumptions about the causes or sources of that subordination. and the central focus of human development” (Symington 2002:1) “Rights” in this context refers to human rights. other organizations interested in improving the lives of women and girls. As it can be recognized. the mechanism. 2. Women’s Rights Now. the ends. Recently. there are diverse feminist theoretical approaches.
As a result. In interviews and discussions for this paper. and innovation. However. there were large disparities among opinions regarding the potential for a rights-based approach to STI. it brings the focus on women’s issues and gender equality into all policy development.2. that science and technology communities will better understand and appreciate the language of gender equality rather than the more “demanding” language of rights. p. projects. the gains for women’s rights work have not been apparent. as well as NGOs. many organizations and institutions have adopted gender mainstreaming as a key strategy for ensuring gender equality in their work. Gender Mainstreaming Despite some groups switching to think more in terms of rights. gender-sensitive research. The rights-based approach also establishes an obligation to implement policies and programs that create the conditions in which human rights can be realized. planning. The rights-based approach can be used in conjunction with other approaches. or in addition to targeted interventions to promote women’s empowerment. an action from a rights-based approach might be making political demands on a government or corporation. and institutions. are moving to a rights-based approach to development. women’s perspectives and gender equality goals into mainstream policies. technology. 1). gender equality is central to ensuring human rights. rather than just an “add-on” (Symington 2002:3). . It appears that some donors. Gender mainstreaming grew out of the Beijing Platform for Action (PfA) in 1995 as a “strategy to address inequalities and unequal access to resources in areas of concern in the PfA” (Symington 2004:5). 2. research. This move will be important to consider in regard to STI initiatives because the language of rights has not been used very frequently in relation to science. the standard approach by development organizations and donors to address gender equality is a strategy often called “gender mainstreaming9. Ten years later.” part of the gender and development approach. Many are concerned that this switch will alienate certain groups interested in STI — for example. As such. 9 Gender mainstreaming is a strategy which aims to bring about gender equality and advance women’s rights by infusing gender analysis. a number of organizations (both donors and development NGOs) are re-evaluating the strategy. Because equality and non-discrimination are central parts of human rights.36 care or education. More thought and consideration will be necessary on this topic. implementation and monitoring of programs and projects (Symington 2004. such as gender and development. especially when talking about gender equality. including their ways of working — from their organizational structures and hiring practices all the way to the projects they choose and the results they seek. Instead of having segregated activities for women.1. Gender mainstreaming usually refers to how organizations seek to integrate gender issues into all of their work.
. In fact. in 2002. education. for most others “gender mainstreaming. as practiced. economic policy). This is clearly the case with science and technology. Science and technology in this sense is a hard area where people often assume gender has no place. These are the “hard areas” of development that are often seen as gender neutral. but “in areas such as infrastructure and macroeconomics the application is less clear-cut” (Rath 2005:26). and microcredit. international and inter-governmental organizations” (Symington 2004:2). which is often considered a “hard area. and technology transfers are impacted differently” (Symington 2004:3). IDRC has noted that within its own successful implementation of gender mainstreaming. For others. This debate is currently taking place among gender equality advocates: Is gender mainstreaming a tool we can use? It is a process that is supposed to empower women? According to Mariama Williams10.37 Gender mainstreaming is easier to grasp and apply as it relates to sectors like health. education.” Hard areas are those that have nothing to do with gender (e. 2004:1). resulted in the disappearance of women’s needs and gender analysis in policies and programs (Symington. is more often used as a strategy for obscuring and undervaluing the significance of gender inequality” (Symington 2004:3). there have been varying levels of success (Houlihan. it was seldom followed by adequate funding and high-level commitment or an 10 Mariama Williams consults on international economics and research advisor with the International Gender and Trade Network (IGTN).. Although some organizations have had some success with their gender mainstreaming efforts. providing proof that while gender often implied high rhetorics. Has it worked? How has it been implemented? Although some still see gender mainstreaming as “the only strategy that will lead to the integration of gender equality and women’s rights objectives into the so called ‘hard issues’ of macroeconomics and poverty eradication” (Symington 2004:2). Typically. gender is addressed in health. and ensuring access to information — all areas that are traditional “women’s” issues in development — rather than as a truly crosscutting issues. “women’s and men’s access to medicine. This is clear as well even within STI issues. traditional knowledge.g. However. instead of empowerment for women in development. and Development Alternatives with Women of a New Era (DAWN). “Norway organized a donor meeting. there is also a “persistent and growing gap between macro level planning/macro phenomena and gender mainstreaming at the policy analysis and applications levels in governmental. “the promise of gender mainstreaming is long gone” and has. 2005). “Soft areas” are those that are offsetting the adjustment costs from the planning and decisions that do not address gender.
38 understanding of the transformatory implications of the process” (Symington 2004:5; see also Dubel (2002). The understanding of the concepts of gender analysis, gender mainstreaming, and women’s rights are important for the following discussions. Research has revealed that the single most common approach to gender and STI is to use a gender mainstreaming approach, yet for most donors; there is little evidence that this has resulted in critical use of gender analysis or women’s rights as tools for developing STI policies and programs. Most current work on gender and development reflects three stylised schools of thought concerning the impact of development and growth on gender inequalities (Forsythe; et al, 2000): — The modernization-neoclassical approach holds that gender inequalities likely will decline as a country develops. Economic growth entails an increase in employment opportunities and competition, which gradually eliminates gender inequalities in education, finance, training and so forth. — The Boserup (1970) approach views the relationship between gender inequalities and economic growth in terms of a U-shaped pattern. Where no market economy exists, such inequalities remain negligible. With growth and development, discrimination against women initially increases as a consequence of the specialization of roles, with women having the principal responsibility for childcare and men for earning income. Later, however, and with the overall transformation of society, this trend can reverse owing to increasing opportunities and demand for women in the workforce. — Feminist studies (Tinker and Bramsen, 1976; Semyonov, 1986) emphasize the major role played by institutions such as patriarchal family structures in perpetuating gender inequality. Economic growth is regarded as a factor that increases the vulnerability of women. (Morrisson, 2004). 2.3. Innovation systems international development and its application to
As mentioned earlier, the limited access of conventional research and development approaches in transforming and sustaining agriculture in developing countries has conducted to a series of conceptual, methodological, technical and practical innovations during the last forty years. Production systems opened the way to farming systems research, which gave opportunity to the emergence of participatory and farmers-first approaches (Scoones, 2008), then the livelihoods and knowledge systems approaches at household, communities and meso
39 levels came forward. Each one of these approaches in the uneven evolution expanded the unit of analysis and intervention (Scoones, 2008). “These “dynamized” the framework by acknowledging the nonlinear and iterative nature of change processes, and introduced a larger scale and set of economic, social-cultural, institutional and political factors to understanding and directing the drivers of technological change” (Mation, 2009). Consequently, the innovation systems approach is recently presented as the most complete expression of this chain of evolutions, in which systematically incorporates linkages between stakeholders and organizations within the broader institutional and policy environment; and also incorporates internal organizational changes that are necessary for effective linkage ( (Hall A. , 2007) 2.3.1. Concepts in innovation, systems and innovation system New ideas (knowledge), practices, or products that are successfully introduced into economic or social processes are considered as “innovation”11 (OECD, 1999; Asenso-Okyere & Davis, 2008). The process of innovation further involves the application of technical, organizational, institutional, social or other forms of knowledge to attain positive new changes in a particular situation (Conroy, 2008). In agriculture, innovation can include new knowledge or technologies related to primary production, processing, and commercialization, which can positively affect the productivity, competitiveness, and livelihoods of farmers and others in rural areas (Spielman D. J., 2005). Following the system thinking of the 1980s, after the work of Checkland and his associates, a system is a mutually agreed definition or delineation of entities performing specific functions. What makes it a system is some degree of ‘organizedness’ that defines its structure (Checkland, 1993, Senge et al., 1994). This structure owes its essential characteristics and thereby its functions to the patterns of organization (Capra, 1997; 2002). These patterns of organization are created through a configuration of relationships among components of a system. In a nutshell, the overall design includes aspects such as the roles and expectations of different actors, incentives structure to change habits and practices, patterns of interaction in communication within the nodes, and decision-making processes (Beshab, 2009).
Innovations are classified as a product (plural) when they result in something new that is marketed; or process (singluar) when they modify the way of doing something without modifying the final product (OECD 1999; Conroy, 2008). Overall, an innovation process includes a succession of product and process innovations (Davila, Epstein, and Shelton 2006) and it can be explained as an evolutionary and social process of collective learning (Ronde & Hussler, 2005).
40 On the other hand, an innovation system (IS) is defined as a set of interrelated agents12, network of organizations, enterprises, generating, diffusing and using knowledge and technology to bring new products, new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behaviour and performance (Spielman, 2005; The World Bank, 2007). And an IS can be national, regional, sectoral or technological (Carlsson, Jacobsson, Holmen, & Rickne, 2002). The innovation systems concept extends beyond the creation of knowledge to encompass the factors affecting demand for and use of knowledge in novel and useful ways and is a designed social system facilitated by human agency. The innovation systems notion embraces not only the science supplier but the totality and interaction of actors involved in innovation (World Bank W. , 2006), for that reason, innovation systems not only help to create knowledge; they also provide access to knowledge, share knowledge, and foster learning in useful ways (Rajalahti, Janssen, & Pehu, 2008). The innovation system approach emerged in the mid 1980s as a Schumepeterian perspective that drew significantly from the literature on evolutionary economics and system theory (Speilman, 2005; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Dosi, et al., 1988; Freeman, 1987; Metcalfe, 1988; Lundvall, 1992; Edquist 1997). Theories of technological change in agriculture that developed in the latter half of the 20th century have tended toward the Hicksian notion of innovation induced by relative factor scarcities rather than the Schumpeterian system, in which market structures and socioeconomic institutions affected (and responded to) technological innovation. By introducing relative factor scarcities and prices as the key determinants of innovation, Hicks ( 1946) married the notion of innovation to the larger neoclassical framework. His work informed the modern theories of agricultural development and economic development suggested by Hayami and Ruttan (1971). These work originated dense literature on the role of public research systems in generating technological change in agriculture (Echeverría, 1990; Huffman and Evenson, 1993; Anderson, Pardey, and Roseboom, 1994; Alston, Norton, and Pardey, 1995; and Alston, Pardey, and Smith, 1999, among others), bolstered by studies on the successes of the Green Revolution (Lipton, 1989; Hazell and Ramasamy, 1991; and Hazell and Haddad, 2001, among others). The philosophy of innovation system brought a significant change from the conventional linear approach to research and development by
Carlsson et al. (2002) differences agents under four different types of capacities: selective, organizational, functional, and learning
adapting and using knowledge. e. The institutions (rules. It is an interactive learning process in which enterprises/agents in interactions with each other. social and economic institutions. It demonstrates the importance of studying innovation as a process where knowledge is accumulated and applied by heterogeneous agents. The concept of innovation system is built on several assumptions and integrates current trends in development that includes: a. 2. Innovation takes place where there is continuous learning and opportunity to learn is a function of the intensity of interactions among agents. supported by organizations and institutions play key roles in bringing new products. h. traditions) that govern how these interactions and processes occur. The organizations and individuals involved in generating. and endogenously determined technological and institutional opportunities (Agwu. Linkages and/or interaction among components of the system (knowledge generating. & Madukwe. imitation and the subsequent adoption of technology or application of new knowledge. Innovation is an interactive process and is embedded in the prevailing economic structure and this determines what is to be learnt and where innovation is going to take place. diffusing. 3.41 providing an analytical framework that explores complex relationships among heterogeneous agents. innovation includes institutional. Innovation includes development. transfer and using agents) g. d. 2008). organizational and managerial knowledge. it is a group of agents whose characteristics to operate are coherence. b. adapting and using new knowledge and the way in which this leads to innovation (new products. diffusing. This is not a simple aggregation of organizations. Institutional context rather than technological change drives socioeconomic development. regulations. conventions. Dimely. through complex interactions that are conditioned by social and economic institutions. and formal research is a part of the whole innovation processes. harmony and synergy. Innovation takes place everywhere in the society and therefore bringing the diffuse element of a knowledge system and connecting them around common goals should promote economic development. adaptation. Heterogeneous agents are involved in innovation process. norms. . processes or services). c. In addition to technical change and novelty. 2006). Essential elements of innovation system 1. The interactive learning that occurs when organizations engage in generating. f. new processes and new forms of organizations into social and economic use (Francis.
3.1. Mytelka. the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) evolved as a more sophisticated and less linear approach. lack of efficiency in generating relevant research results applicable in local contexts.1. 2. NARSs have been challenged by failures in production increase. economic and technology strategies have shifted from national agricultural research systems (NARSs) to agricultural knowledge. and information system. The main characteristic of those is that they began with a linear approach and during the transition these have become less linear and more dynamic (review and finish this statement) 2. Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services By the 1990s. Some NARSs have experienced difficulties with bureaucratic planning processes and strong dependence on government administration. It distinguishes the public good nature of agricultural research. others moved ahead to more flexible forms of fostering agricultural innovation. lack of participation of farmers and other stakeholders and tendencies to shrink employment of government researchers (Hall. it emphasizes linkages between . The performance of NARSs has usually been measured in scientific output and through internal rates of return on investment in public research. However.1. 1994). Application of the Innovation System Concept in Agriculture In the last decade. incapacity to deal with issues of local pro-poor development and environmental conservation.1. INIAs in Spanish) have dominated NARSs and have been the receivers of main share of government and donor funding (Trigo and Kaimowitz. National Agricultural Research Systems The NARSs emerged in the 1970s and was informed by neoclassical economics and the inherent failures in the market for agricultural research in developing countries. the role of the state in fostering technology change. and assumed that the social and economic context of technological change is exogenous and unchanging. (AKIS) and more recently to agricultural innovation system (AIS). National agricultural research institutes (NARIs.2. & Oyeyinka.1.3. Contrary to the focus of the NARS.1. It had a tendency towards linearity in movement of knowledge from known source (formal research) flowing to extensionists and finishing in end users (the farmers).1. the introduction of competitive grant schemes and ideas of institutional coordination has opened up the NARSs to participation by other providers of research and development such as universities and other public and private research organizations.3. 2005).42 2.
agricultural policy units. and innovation in a given country’s agriculture. the system projects agricultural research system as the epicentre of innovation as opposed to the multiple knowledge base put forward in innovation system perspective. Public agricultural extension programs and/or technical advisory services agencies have been the mechanisms to disseminate knowledge and technologies that were created in the NARS which were organized locally and regionally through extension offices. field days. 2.3. the institutional context that conditions their behaviours and the learning processes that determine their capacity to change (Speilman. cooperatives. The challenge is here that new ideas have arisen to challenge the idea of simply transferring knowledge and the need to incorporate more systemic approaches and facilitating roles. AKIS is limited in its ability to conduct analysis beyond the nexus of the public sector and to consider the heterogeneity among agents. and the links and interactions between them. transformation. The emphasis is to assist farmers to organize themselves and act collectively in order to look after partnerships with service providers and rural institutions to participate in common and joint learning (Birner. (AKIS) Perspective and information This perspective is an additional development of the agricultural technology system concept (Elliott.3. Extensionists have been in charge of distributing knowledge. transmission. and farmer-to-farmer communication have been provided. and use of knowledge and information. AKIS actors include farmers. 2005). retrieval. integration. universities. and training institutions. diffusion. specialized services. education and extension in generating and fostering technological change. 2006). storage. farmers’ organizations. not necessarily cooperating actors. Agricultural knowledge. In general. et al. public. engaged in such processes as the generation. According to Engel (1990) the performance of an AKIS has to be measured in terms of the contribution to sustained agricultural adaptation and has to be envisaged as the combined outcome of the policies and actions of many. and formal and informal networks of many kinds.1. with the purpose of working synergistically to support decision making. agricultural press and information services.43 research. Supplementary to this. The AKIS concept has been . agro-based industries. extension. groups and study clubs. The AKIS is concerned with the various actors involved along the knowledge generation chain while taking into account the variety of feedback and dynamics between those actors. field schools.and private sector research. problem solving. 1992) through the works of Nagel (1979) and Röling (1986). Röling and Engel (1991) define an AKIS as a set of agricultural organizations and or persons. system.1.
In agriculture. Countries like Colombia. and donors have supported this approach (e. ranging from the agricultural input industry via producers.4.1. 2005). Peru. Although application of the AKIS concept in concrete policymaking has been rather anecdotal. and marketers to the final consumer. 1992). produce. 1999). 2001. Pérez. El Salvador. Humphrey 2005). work on value chains has focused on global governance (Gereffi. transporters. it remains a great achievement to have introduced an explicit farmers’ perspective and to have shifted emphasis to the understanding of interaction and knowledge flows on a farm and community level. Ecuador.1. Other scholars have seen the limits of this approach to pro-poor development—producers often lack the capacity to be included in the cluster—and favor more holistic . Porter. distribution of gains among chain actors (Gereffi. or commodity scale. the development of industries in a certain geographical context to profit from economies of scale. or otherwise deal with a certain agricultural commodity. 2000). and Sturgeon. Daviron and Gibbon. and Sturgeon (2005) see innovation as a major opportunity to “upgrade” technologically underdeveloped producer groups in developing countries. in particular. 2. 2002). product or value chains (agrichains) include all actors that trade. that is. and dynamics of joint learning. For developing countries. processors. the power of buyers (Humphrey and Schmitz 2000).g. and many more have embraced the idea of developing specific agri chains and increasing their competitiveness. et al. Gereffi. 1998).3. Humprey. 1999.44 lately adopted in the World Bank’s approach to extension and is commonly used by practitioners from different development agencies who combine it with participatory research approaches (Chambers. 2000. Many theorists have propagated cluster development strategies based on technologies accessible to all members of the cluster. 2001). program. Some common critiques of the AKIS concept include its insufficient focus on concrete technological solutions and its incapacity to deal with agents on a broader sectoral. and the opportunities of agents from developing countries to get involved in value chains and share parts of the value added they generate (Kaplinsky. in Latin American agriculture (Herrera. In many cases these policies relate to a cluster development approach (Altenburg and Meyer-Stamer. Agricultural Development Value Chain and Cluster Value chains are sectoral arrangements that allow buyers and sellers of a commodity who are separated by time and space to progressively add and accumulate value as products pass from one member of the chain to the next. Humphrey. The value chain approach is more known at national level by many theorists and government development programs (Kaplinski and Morris. buyer and seller networks..
3. 2003). and partnering among various innovative agents (Shejtman and Berdegué. in other words. rural territorial development is the subject of increasing debate in Latin America (Moncayo. technological innovation. private consultants/NGOs. and that measures aimed toward improved competitiveness. innovation. 2. which are aimed at understanding agent relationships that lead to the introduction of new knowledge and technology in social and/or productive processes. and linkages to markets need to be established—and the best way would be on a contractual basis that allows exchange of knowledge. Rural territorial development can be seen as a process of productive and institutional transformation of a rural region or territory.1. farmers. and community dimensions (Alasia. policy and regulatory bodies. 2002). Territorial Development In the search for new ways to overcome poverty. 2001). territorial. Productive transformation aims at improving production processes. in such a way that they better link to opportunities and agents that are able to improve competitiveness in markets and sustainability. 2004).2.45 territorial development approaches (Alburquerque. Among its main challenges is the need to define lines of action and policies that mobilize the underutilized productive potential of local territorial resources and foster innovation.3. local complementarities. acquiring of skills. It emphasizes agricultural innovations and goes beyond . local. 1997). The agricultural innovation system (AIS) comprises a far broader set of actors than the traditional agricultural research.1. farmers’ associations and public services delivery organizations. as a result of multiple definitions. extension. The approach also postulates that productive transformation and institutional development should be addressed simultaneously. and social inclusion of the poor. as a set of agents that jointly and/or individually contribute to the development. little empirical evidence has yet been gathered on the efficacy of the approach. However.5.1. whose final purpose is to reduce rural poverty. diffusion and use of agriculture-related new technologies and that directly and/or indirectly influence the process of technological change in agriculture (Tugrul and Ajit. 2. Here the territorial approach overlaps with the concept of local innovation networks. and education agencies and the organizations also include credit institutions. Innovation Systems Agricultural innovation system evolved directly from the concept of national innovation system with the sectoral level as the unit of analysis and may be defined. A main tenet of the approach is that economic development has regional.
and otherwise use knowledge in social or economic . imitate. public sector alliances with the private sector. Besides. or it may be more tacit or implicit. costless exchanges of knowledge conducted in the public domain. The study of how agents structure their interactions in the exchange of knowledge gives the innovation systems framework its definitive systems perspective. 2003). such as scientific researchers. Malerba. because individuals rarely innovate in isolation. local. extension agents. professional associations. entrepreneurs. An innovation system is also characterized by innovation policies. processes of institutional learning and change. Knowledge rarely presents itself in a form that can be immediately introduced into some social or economic practice. It may occur in a codified or explicit form. adapt. and use existing knowledge to create something new is referred to here as innovative capacity and is central to the study of an innovation system (Cohen and Levinthal. it captures the intricate relationships between diverse actors. Although knowledge is a difficult commodity to characterize. et al. their capacities must be improved by collective systems (private firms. It may originate from foreign sources of discovery or emerge from the use or reorganization of internal and indigenous practices and behaviors (Clark. translate. and farmers (Renzulli. market and non-market institutions.or community-level systems of knowledge sharing. Innovation policies focus on enhancing a country’s capacity to discover. postsecondary educators. Interactions may be spot market exchanges of goods and services that embody new knowledge or technology. 2000. behaviors to create environments that allow individual and collective expressions of innovative capacities. enabling private sector participation in advancing consensus approach to development and promoting demand-driven services. durable exchanges that incorporate complex contractual arrangements and learning processes. public policy. Individual innovative capacities represent the foundations of an innovation system and belong to individual actors. 2002). 1990). or innovation networks) which are embedded with collective innovative capacities (Dosi. An individual’s or organization’s ability to identify. exchange. knowledge may be scientific or technical in nature. or hierarchical command structures. such as political decentralization. the nature of interactions between and among agents is a factor that needs to be considered. or it may be organizational or managerial. The key commodity linking these agents is knowledge. poverty reduction and socioeconomic development.46 previous knowledge system concepts by incorporating the goals of current reform measures. long-term. Because innovation results primarily from the exchange and use of knowledge. 2002. However.
47 processes (Arnold and Bell. It therefore focuses not only on the degree of connectivity between different elements but also on the learning and adaptive process that make systems dynamic and . cooperatives. Recognize the importance of both technology producers and technology users and acknowledge that their roles are both context specific and dynamic. education. 4. NGOs. organizational and managerial knowledge. adaptation and use of new technical. and government-extension services in technology diffusion? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of each diffusion channel? How can they be improved and what can be done to reach more farmers? In answering these questions. innovation policies apply to both the formal and informal sources of innovation. it may provide the following features: 1. for example. we may learn that the most critical bottleneck is not the lack of available technology. What are the constraints that hold them back? Is it the prices in the market. It recognizes that the institutional context of the organizations involved (and particularly the wider environment that governs the nature of relationships) promotes dominant interests and determines the outcome of the system as a whole. Thus. Hall and Yoganand (2002) argue that when applying innovation system to agriculture in developing countries. science. It focuses on innovation as its organizing principles. 2001). bigger issues come into focus than when adopting a more limited NARS or AKIS concept. but whatever prevents other factors from playing their often-far-more-crucial role. By starting at the knowledge-application end. Moreover. trade. It recognizes that innovation systems are social systems. 3. distribution. institutional. processors. or the lack of (or lack of access to) technology? Are farmers passive recipients of technology or do they actively search for innovations? What are the roles of input suppliers. By adopting an AIS perspective. other types of policies may emphasize efforts to promote indigenous innovation by extending credit to small-scale entrepreneurs and artisans. industry. and the wide set of relationships in which research is embedded. Conceptualizes research as part of the wider process of innovation and extends its tentacle to identify actors and their scope. 2. traders. although innovation policies may target the development of formal national agricultural research and extension organizations. 5. production. They include policies in agriculture. the question of why farmers innovate or why they don’t becomes a major issue for debate and research. and technology and provide leverage points for strengthening an innovation system and the networks contained within it. finance and investment. Here the concept of innovation is used in its broad sense as the activities and processes associated with the generation.
8. researchers. carrying out research. and markets in the innovation process. To conclude the preceding discussion on agricultural innovation policymaking. policies. 7. input suppliers. priority setting. Matches better with the non-linear interactive concept of innovation. and (2) the functions of financing. such as: Why do farmers innovate? What constraints hold them back? What are the roles of input suppliers. the interaction among them. and infrastructure. and the relationships between innovation and institutional context in which innovations occur. and institutions that guide agents and their interactions. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). and Mullin (2003) have proposed a practical approach to agricultural innovation systems that distinguishes between (1) the government functions of policy formulation. its early application started with introducing the concepts such as institutional learning and change. It stresses the importance of linkages among different actors. diffusion. The IS approach goes further than the NARS or the AKIS models. For instance. Adopting the innovation systems perspective to agricultural and rural development enables us to investigate issues traditional technology transfer theory could not deal with. creation of linkages. for which governments and innovation actors and stakeholders would share joint responsibility. associations. 9. Paterson. It also shifts the emphasis from research and technology transfer to the innovation process itself. and the rules. should concentrate on setting broad policies . As such it is the farmer or any other productive agent and not the researcher or extensionist who innovates. information transfer. 6. processors. and regulation. processors. extensionists. allocation of funds and incentives. traders. while they may draw from a possibly large set of information and analyses. neighbors. This new perspective puts more emphasis on the roles of farmers. and whole social networks in technology development and diffusion? To what extent do farmers orient towards existing opportunities for innovation and to what extent do farmers get involved in processes of knowledge adaptation? An important issue here is what parts various agents play in an innovation system and how they are linked to other agents. It is only a framework for analysis and planning and can draw on a large body of existing tools in literature. Innovation is the successful introduction of anything new in social and/or economic processes. transporters. Adam. Consequently innovations do not always originate from formal research and development. It is more holistic including the final step (application) in the innovation process and incorporates ideas from various disciplines.48 evolutionary. one could say that various newer theories suggest that policymakers. focusing on core and more peripheral agents in the innovation process. nor are they all exclusively technical.
Innovation takes place throughout the whole economy. However. On the other hand when tracking influences on agricultural innovation. there were some researchers who were working on it before (Babbage. List. Hall 2005. diffusion. transporters. and not all innovations have their origin in formal science and technology nor are they all exclusively technical. The idea of ‘innovation system’ is grounded in the concept of ‘national systems of production’ (List. While each of the three system concepts has its own strengths and weaknesses. Introduction of IS in Agriculture in Developing Countries Much has been written on innovation systems (IS). According to Lundvall (2003).1. 1832. they can be seen as interlinked and cumulative: NARS focuses on the generation of knowledge. who first noted the influence of innovation (new production techniques and new divisions of labor—on output and society. they were the first who used the term ‘national system of innovation’ in an unpublished paper. and answers certain questions that the linear. conventional research and systems are unable to address.2. even if he was not directly involved in it. World Bank 2007). and application of knowledge.49 on the macro level and deal with issues of priority setting and planning as well as financing and enable the collaboration and exchange of information among various public and private agents in the generation and diffusion of innovation..3. This new perspective places more emphasis on the role of farmers. Spielman et al. Speilman (2005) concluded that the application of innovation system analytical framework to agriculture is embedded within the wider context of institutional change.. 2006. 2. input suppliers. AKIS on the generation and diffusion of knowledge. and AIS on the generation. 3rd Edition. preliminary studies on innovation are pointed to Adam Smith ( 1993). policies should provide strong incentives to innovation processes that involve local agents and knowledge and technology providers such as research institutions and advisory services. however. Innovation systems’ research and studies goes back to the 1980s at the Science and Technology Policy Research SPRU at Sussex University where Keith Pavitt was certainly aware of this work.. and because of its success. it has recently been introduced in developing countries contexts (Muchie et al. processors and markets in the innovation process. 1841). Freeman (1982). especially in industrialized economies. 2003. change process. 1931 and Marshall (1965).1. it was Ricardo’s work (1821) that provide a useful starting . On the local level.
it is List who is credited with the earliest description of a “national system of political economy”—a precursor to the innovation system concept—in which production results not only from the activities of the firm but also from those social and economic institutions (education. 87. Ricardo’s analysis gave rise to further interest in the social and economic effects of technological change by such classical political economists as List (1841). In the Schumpeterian system. and diffusion. In fact. water management. Innovation is thus endogenously determined by the behavior of the entrepreneur and his or her financiers. Ricardo distinguished between two types of technology: the first that the land-saving techniques of production undertaken in early 19thcentury England—crop rotation. 2002. and by the institutions of . and intensive use of livestock manure to preserve soil fertility—that combined several inputs to increase output per unit of land (“increases the productivity powers of the land”).50 point for a discussion of both orthodox (neoclassical) and heterodox economic perspectives on innovation and technological change in agriculture. 66.. Freeman.  1961. Leontieff (1941) further contributed with his celebrated input/output analysis that established an industry level “system” approach to production used later by scholars to explain innovative processes. pp. and Marx ( 1990). 1939) who laid the cornerstone of the modern innovation systems approach. 1996. Mill ( 1965). 1982). and organizational innovation (1939. He added further nuance to the concept of innovation—defined as any addition to the existing body of technical knowledge or know-how that results in an outward shift of the production function and a downward shift of the associated cost curves—by distinguishing between product. it was Schumpeter ( 1961. and the importance of technology in shifting agricultural production possibilities. Schumpeter provided the first nuanced definition of technological change by distinguishing between invention. process. Here. Blaugh. 454–455). innovation. infrastructure) that make production possible (Lundvall et al. 54). Ricardo provided an early analytical framework for studying the form and nature of innovation and its impact on social and economic well being. But Schumpeter’s real insights were in his analysis of the market and institutional conditions that generate innovation. p. and the other described the use of improved agricultural tools and machines that substituted capital for labor (“obtains its produce with less labor”)did not have effect on land productivity (p. 1995). In his research. However. p. technological change results from the innovative activities of large firms that are afforded market power at the expense of short-term social welfare (Nelson and Winter. Ricardo’s analysis captured the fundamental challenges of agricultural production: land’s diminishing marginal returns.
1987). 1988) contained four chapters on national innovation systems (Freeman. 2004). the term ‘regional innovation systems’ was used. Nelson. was the deviation of linear approach to technological progress and considered innovations at the micro. It went beyond the narrow restrictions of product and process innovation. 1966:47).51 private property. a group of Swedish scholars began parallel work on ‘technological systems’. Later on. Similarly. Another book published the same year (Freeman and Lundvall. and that institutions change in response to innovation. The achieved from all these contributions. that is. 1988) also contained a couple of chapters on national innovation systems (Andersen and Lundvall. sectoral (Malerba. Schumpeter suggested that innovation results from the character of social and economic institutions. Then. 2002 and 2004). focusing on interactive learning and emphasized inter-dependence and nonlinearity wherein institutions play the central role (Joseph. these may or may not be geographically and institutionally localized within nations or regions. although without the adjective ‘national’. 1995) and corporate levels (Grantstrand. 2002). that the relationship between society and innovation is endogenously determined. . 1997). 1988. & Chaminade. The initial work of innovation systems at the national level inspired others in applying it to regional level (Asheim and Getler. These systems may have links to supporting institutions elsewhere. Thus. and focused on innovative activities within geographic regions at the subor supranational level (Cooke. yet. meso and and macro level as a driving force behind growth. The following year an edited volume on Technology and Economic Theory (edited by Dosi et al. Pelikan. (Lundvall. 2006). in which techno-economic areas were focused. 1988.. 1988. in 1997 the notion of ‘sectoral innovation systems’ was launched (Breschi and Malerba. 1988. Gregersen. Vang. 2009). After working under the NIS perspective. technological (Carlsson and Stankiewitz. researchers and academics recognized that depending on the purpose of the inquiry. This work has resulted in a stream of publications beginning with Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1991) and summarized in books edited by Carlsson (1995. In sum. In 1988. 1988). 1988). Joseph. 1992). Lundvall (1985) at Aalborg University published a book in 1985 in which the concept ‘innovation system’. and capitalist competition (Clemence and Doody. business traditions. 1997. 2006). the idea was taken by scholars in both Europe and the United States networking with Freeman and his colleagues at SPRU. the most useful definition of innovation systems might not coincide with national borders. Lundvall. The first publication using the term ‘national innovation system’ was Freeman’s book on Japan (Freeman.
1. regional.1. We refer here primarily of the experience of the Prolinnova programme. In relation to promoting local innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and natural resource management. Strengthening Capacities The overall performance of a particular system of innovation depends partly on the existence of a critical mass of relevant players. But it also reflects the ability of these organizations to carry out important functions. Mali. Sudan. Tanzania and Uganda. recently there has emerged a branch of literature dealing with other concepts of innovation systems. such as companies. Similar work is underway in several countries of Asia. van Veldhuizen. 2006) In each country.52 there are now four definitions of innovation systems commonly used in the literature: national. such as R&D. Prolinnova (Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically-oriented agriculture and NRM) includes programmes in Ethiopia. and their imitation. technological learning — defined as the process of accumulating a capacity to innovate — usually results from the experience gained during a series of increasingly complex activities. taking local innovations as starting points. Mozambique. The Country Programmes share common values and concepts. 2. 2010). New programmes are emerging in still more African countries (Burkina Faso. Finally — as illustrated by the newly industrialized countries in East Asia — an indigenous capacity to carry out R&D-based innovation can emerge. efforts are underway to build multi-stakeholder partnerships in ARD by entering through the window of identifying local innovations. which builds on the experience of its predecessors PFI (Promoting Farmer Innovation) and ISWC (Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation). Wongtschowski. Kenya. (Waters-Bayer. Latin America and the South Pacific. Initially these tend to focus on the acquisition of foreign technologies. In Africa.2. Ghana. South Africa. but the essence of each programme consists of: . the provision of technical services. particularly at the firm level (Hall. a national NGO is facilitating multi-stakeholder partnerships to promote participatory research and development. Niger. In developing countries. and the development of policy. and Senegal). but are autonomous in their activities and design their own plan of action.3. government ministries and universities.1. sectoral and technological. somewhat different methods are applied. In each country. Subsequently there are attempts to modify imported technologies through incremental changes. In addition. & Wettasinha.
2.3. as well as increase the education levels of the population. policies should support efforts to imitate and adapt foreign technologies.1. Government policy should respond to the needs of both countries and organizations at each stage of this evolutionary process. changes in the way people in organisations think and behave and organise themselves for interaction with others. The personal change is the first step towards institutional change.in the business sector. When formal researchers and extensionists and their managers examine how the structures and procedures in their institutions help or hinder their efforts to engage in local innovation processes. Furthermore the capacity to formulate and implement such policies should not remain an exclusive privilege of the state. and in public research laboratories. organizations and government ministries responsible for drawing up and implementing policy must develop the capacity to carry out these tasks effectively. In the national multi-stakeholder Prolinnova platforms. 2. . i. that the efficient operation of a system of innovation involves not only the activities of its component parts. people from governmental and non-government organisations find space for mutual learning and devising strategies for policy influence and institutional change. Other stakeholders — such as firms.53 Identifying and giving recognition to innovations developed by local people Participatory Innovation Development (PID): entering into partnerships at field level that bring difference sources of knowledge. For example. policy measures should focus increasingly on strengthening R&D capabilities — particularly those relevant to local needs -. at an early stage of a country's economic development. focused on joint exploration or experimentation starting from the local innovations identified Combining forces of the different stakeholders involved to bring about policy and institutional change so that more space for PID processes can be opened up. Capacity-development activities accompany and strengthen all of the above. Supporting Networking Finally. As the capacity to adapt technologies increases.2. in higher education institutions (such as universities).e.1. Equally importantly. They usually take the form of learning through action and reflection. they begin to see what needs to be changed. developing countries need to address the fact. ideas and skills together. but also the interaction among them. universities and research organisations — need to develop the capabilities to participate in the policy process.
the main form of learning — particularly in private companies. It is important to look at what different women and men are doing and what affect this has on their livelihood options. Despite this limited demand for external inputs. The networks created in this way also help to improve coordination among policy initiatives. It is important for stakeholders to interact in policy issues in order to ensure that their demands are represented in discussions around such issues. Indeed. First of all. such networks are either weak. such interdependence is important both for producing and distributing knowledge. 3. and to support investments in research and development that respond to the types of demand encountered at each stage of development. As far as the knowledge-oriented networks are concerned. and help build a consensus around an agreed course of action. wealth and marital status. as mediated by factors such as age. But in general.54 Furthermore. Gender . They tend to emerge in response to intra-organizational factors — such as an organizations' level of both absorptive and generative capabilities — and the incentives of external policies. or absent. These activities are usually carried out in-house. there are isolated cases where networks for technological learning and innovation in developing countries have developed successfully. understanding gender roles involves looking beyond differences in activities between men and women to also looking at differences in activities between different women and between different men. Core Question: How Does GAD Inform Innovations Systems in Agriculture? Gender informs innovation systems in agriculture by concentrating in the ways roles are performed by men as well as women and how these influence AIS and gender relations given between men and women. Such policies should therefore focus on the need to strengthen the demand for knowledge in the business sector. policy-oriented networks that link not only individuals but also organizations can reduce the dangers of unintentional (or intentional) bias against specific interests. and for developing policy. even in the most advanced of developing countries — remains assimilating and adapting technologies developed elsewhere. and seldom require the input of knowledge from other sources.
only labor-intensive tasks such as weeding and harvesting are shared. in some situations women assume a big responsibility like farm management. Women and men produce the same crops but in different fields. 3. women have additional responsibilities. Gender Roles and Responsibilities While both women and men are involved in economic activities such as farming to sustain food production. cowpeas and other legumes. In many systems. There are two possible scenarios here: De facto: This occurs when men work away from the farm while women manage in their absence. vegetables or tree crops. (2) Separate fields. beans. vegetables.55 studies emphasize at whether these roles change over time. it is important to note that gender roles are determined by what are recognized as ‘five general patterns of gender responsibility in agriculture’ (Sims Feldstein & Poats.1. (3) Shared Tasks. men prepare the ground while women plant or transplant the crop. and hunting. Mostly. Women grow different crops than men for different purposes. In understanding these differences. tree crops dairy products. whereas men’s may have a regional or national market. Women may grow subsistence crops while men grow cash crops. access to and control over resources. Women may also specialize in poultry. This may suggest greater flexibility in meeting labor demands for the activity. fishing. childcare and maintaining family health. food preparation. which include housekeeping. gathering of wild crops. Although men have primary responsibility for harvesting and storing crops. knowledge base. a situation that is not properly recognized. and how this room for maneuver may be used to improve access to innovation opportunities. or horticultural crops to men’s cereal crops. and participation to make decisions. maintaining equipment. and care of animals when they are young and sick. it is necessary to examine women's and men's roles and responsibilities. Women’s crops tend usually to be for home consumption and local markets. and gathering. Women’s tasks also often include processing and storing of cereals. small ruminants. men and women share tasks on the same crop. fetching water and wood. what factors can influence their change. 1989). women engage in seed selection and storage. women and men are responsible for production and removal of different crops and livestock within the household production system. In many . almost exclusively outside the home. Women may specialize in certain crops while also working with men in the production of others. (5) Women-managed farms. (1) Separate enterprises. To understand how gender shapes activities and functioning of AIS and at the same time understand gender impacts of AIS. (4) Separate tasks. Plowing is done by men in most systems. in order to gain a greater understanding of how flexible gender roles and relationships can be.
Yoder & Martin. 2001). Women decide on how their children will be raised and educated. 3. (3) Women and men may organize their knowledge in different ways and. Women’s situations. and knowledge are often overlooked. and what to feed their families (FAO. Crops in many instances are “gendered” (Rojas. De jure: This exists in legal women-headed households. However. but lack legal authority to sign credit agreements and commit resources. 2006). the same applies for women (American States. how earnings will be allocated. sometimes with significant resources. power and authority tend to rest on men. women have their own areas of authority.. and ethnicity. concerns. underscoring its complexity. Understanding the different knowledge of women and men in different socioeconomic circumstances helps to determine appropriate and sustainable interventions. High rates of male out-migration from rural areas in search of employment have exacerbated women's work burdens. men have greater say in such matters as . Women possess much of the world’s local knowledge on natural resource management. 2003). but they may know about different species and practices according to their activities. (2) Men and women have different knowledge about the same things. Migration is one factor that influences women's workload. has four key characteristics (Norem. Women have often been displaced and marginalized by science and technology development. when and how much of their crop harvest will be sold. An older man from the same group may have different ways of working with land and forests than a young man living outside his native community. which tend to be poor. (4) Men and women may receive and transmit their knowledge by different means. Gendered knowledge also varies by class. herbs and medicinal plants. intellectual property rights (IPR) have tended not to take into account gender attitudes and access to resources. since female ownership and rights do not tend to be valued equally.56 systems women become the effective farm managers. age. (1) Women and men have knowledge about different things. 1989). R. 2004).2.3. as outside it. 3. Knowledge Base Women and men are both sources of knowledge about sustainable resource management practices. To date. including knowledge for managing agricultural systems. 1995). The gendering of knowledge. with many of their activities becoming sidelined or taken over by men (UNCSTD. with few resources and severe labor constraints (Sims Feldstein & Poats. technological skills. Participation in decision-making processes It is a common observation that within the home. use of technologies. In contrast.
political. relations of power between women and men. planning. Gender relations influence how communities. “The term gender” refers to the differences and relationships formed socially between men and women that vary in situation.6) The nature of gender relations. respectively (Moser. The gender approach facilitates understanding of other interrelated social variables” (Schmink in Poats. remunerative work and market . and religion. 2001) Therefore. But these relations impinge on economic outcomes in multiple ways (World Development. the gender division of labor usually implies that men and women are relegated to the public and private spheres. Sex is the biological attributes that a man and women carry with them (Reeves and Baden. 2001. In general. gender has frequently been misunderstood as being only about the promotion of women (Moser. 1989. 1997. gender relations determine household security. Gender is a social category distinct from sex. 1992). how decisions are made. and institutions are organized. 1994. 1995). 1993. and economic institutions. legal and governance structures. and are crosscut by a multitude of identities (e. p. division of labour and needs (Papart. and the marginalization of the disadvantaged sector of society and a large part of the agricultural workforce.g. ethnicity and class).4. 2000). and proposed solutions are often ignored. Moser. needs. Sen. 1993. Kabeer. context and time. well-being of the family. is not easy to grasp in its full complexity. 2000. 2000). households. and how resources are used (Sass. This means that men undertake public activities. gender focuses on the relationship between men and women. Agarwal. knowledge. 3. agricultural production and many other aspects of the agricultural life. including the household. markets. access to and control over resources. 2000). Quisumbing. Women are thought to be ‘natural’ caregivers and men ‘benevolent dictators’ who adequately supply material needs to their families (Bruce. 1998. King and Mason.57 investment and loans. their roles. In addition. This limited participation in decision-making means that women’s perspectives. These ideas and practices are sanctioned and reinforced by a host of cultural. Failure to take into account gender relationships leads to unsuccessful extension activities. Gender Relations Today there are many definitions of “gender”. et al. 2003). While gender roles vary among cultures and over time. 2001. Lind. e. However.g. Arroyo and Asar. failure to take account of women's and men's activities and to include both in the decisionmaking process can lead to policies that may affect either negatively.
Defining gender as an organizing principle does not imply that women are a homogeneous group defined only by their gendered interests but rather that gender is one source of identity that women may mobilize around at local. 1997. and receive little recognition for their unpaid work. and responsibilities within the household (Agarwal 1992. 2000). membership in formal participation in political institutions. Sen 1990). The accuracy of this model however. Gender represents a multifaceted set of relations and roles and . & Marcelino. resources. Moser 1993. Pryer 2003. because of the social norms that restrict women’s sphere of activity.’ Household members cooperate so long as doing so improves their individual position. Because women often undertake more reproductive (household management) tasks and fewer productive (wage-earning) tasks. 1995. social. and community management activities. Women’s negotiating power within the household is low compared to men’s and their reduced ability to negotiate further perpetuates gender inequality. often are constrained to household and community management activities (childcare. community organizations. their access to additional human. and financial capital is limited. For example. The extent of cooperation depends on members’ contributions to the household. access to asset endowments. Finally. productive. Quisumbing 2003. and the consequent strength of their ‘fall-back’ position. women and men’s roles and responsibilities are separate but complement one another. an identity around which women (or men) may organize in response to constraints within the household or the broader social environment (Catacutan. as they are responsible for reproductive. Sen (1990) proposes a bargaining model of the household typified by ‘cooperative conflict. gender can also serve as an organizing principle for collective action. and Women’s activities. Sen 1990). Moser (1993) refers to women assuming a triple role. where the latter include the reproduction of the family and even of society itself. Alderman et al. natural.58 activities. has been called into question by anthropologists for at least two decades and more recently by economists who find that gender is an important determinant of the distribution of rights. Another way of broadly characterizing gender roles is that men take the lead in productive activities. national and transnational levels. Mercado. Haddad et al. they are commonly perceived as contributing less to household welfare than men. subsistence agriculture). in turn. One’s fallback position also is based in part on the perception of each member’s contributions to the household (Agarwal 1997a. food preparation. While gender is a source of power differentials that shape women’s and men’s access to a range of resources. and women in reproductive activities. The unitary view of the household suggests that in the gender division of labor.
In this analysis it is fundamental to consider (1) the division of work in productive. problem. in interaction with other structures of social hierarchy such as class. GA includes the careful analysis of gender roles and internal dynamics between households and between social actors within a working area and its zones of external influence. (3) Analysis of the differentiated values allotted locally to roles and knowledge. and race that influence social outcomes and interact with gender in different ways (German & Taye. Quisumbing. 2001. Agarwal. (2) the access to resources and benefits derived from said activities. embody both the material and the ideological. To make the gender variable operational. personality traits. The study of gender relations explores the different and often highly uneven roles. In gender analysis. 2000. The complexity arises not least from the fact that gender relations like all social relations. (4) Analysis of differentiated access to different resources. So. King and Mason. February 2000). conflict or specific context. decision-making patterns and perceptions about gender held between men and women within societies. desires. 1997. the focus is in understanding the relationships between genders regarding a need. 2001. The key components of gender relation analysis include: (1) Definition of gender roles within the context. and the application of this analysis to decisions in an activity or project. caste. 1994. as well as their control. institutional and environmental factors that condition the two aforementioned aspects. economic. Gender relations are both constituted by and help constitute these practices and ideologies. gender analysis is the systematic effort to document and understand men’s and women’s roles in a determined context (Reeves. (2) Determination of how the roles influence the division of the work force and local knowledge. Gender is socially constructed and it is the reason why is interpreted through social interactions that differ across time. Neither are these uniform across societies nor historically static. and (3) the social. attitudes. community management and natural resource management activities. we speak of gender analysis (GA)13. Lind.59 characteristics that are related to a man or a woman biological sex that also entails social meanings. 1993. space and culture (Bezner Kerr. 13 GA is the systematic gathering and examination of information on gender differences and social relations in order to identify. 2008). Kabeer. authority. understand and redress inequities based on gender . responsibilities. They are revealed not only in the division of labour and resources between women and men (Moser. 2008). reproductive. behavior patterns. 2003) but also in ideas and representations—the ascribing to women and men of different abilities. access to resources. positions and relationships to others as man or woman.
individual rights were emphasized from a strong . typical invisible activities and knowledge of both women and men. woman minds the home”. 2. services and capabilities of decision-making owing to differentiated evaluation. WID’ s focal point was on enhancing women’s access to training and resources.60 benefits. Around that time. and (5) Analysis of the power and control relations resulting from a differentiated evaluation of work and access that supports maintaining existing relations and gender roles. The Conference of the Status of Women raised the profile of what were framed as uniquely women’s issues within the UN system. Esther Boserup. economic and political advancements that became an operating guideline for development agencies in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Gender analysis is useful as an agricultural innovation systems tool because it helps in: 1. Mny theorethical approaches have informed research in gender relations. concerns aroused in relation that WID approach was inclined to marginalize women’s concerns concentrating in specifically women’s office or program as they were ignored inside the most significant development policies. in terms of development policy and planning. The 1975 UN Mexico City Conference on Women that happened together with the first international Women’s Year highlighted the need for enhanced legal rights for women and for their economic empowerment. brought a new attempt to conceptualize and analyze the role of women in agricultural systems by examining women’s roles in different farming systems and how such cultural practices as dowries and bride price are related to women’s economic status (Boserup. was the adoption of women in development (WID) approach. The most recognizable outcome of the conference. 4. 1970). and the establishment of the Office of Women in Development within the U. And revealing the multiple institutions and social groups within a community that must be considered and included in participatory agricultural innovation systems. By the end of the 1980’s. The WID approach brought attention to the issue of gender equality as well as money to women’s programming. Breaking with stereotypes such as “man works the land. emphasizing women’s individual legal rights to social. Revealing roles. And also. women’s issues were brought to various international and national bodies.S Agency for International Development (USAID) brought development issues specific to women within the sphere of official development assistance. 3. Assuring representation of social diversity in all aspects of participatory agricultural innovation systems.
1984). enabling women to develop the necessary skills and access the necessary resources to achieve their aspirations. Gender production entails differences in power and knowledge Gender orders social relationships in a way that some individuals exercise and bargain power. and political) and at different levels (individual. enabling women to articulate their own aspirations and strategies for change. hold and wield. empowerment approaches to addressing the needs of poor women in developing countries (Young. and (4) ‘Power over’. Women usually have less “power to: inherit land etc. household. Women generally have less “power over” than men in all facets of society. 1994. money. Individuals with “power over” are able to asset their wishes and goals even in the face of opposition from others. Nelson &Wright. changing the underlying inequalities in power and resources that constrain women’s aspirations and their ability to achieve them. 3. It is considered as “a multidimensional and interlinked process of change in power relations” (Mayoux. At the same time. It refers to the ability to act and often requires access to social resources such as education. et al. market. to achieve them and to link with other women and men’s organizations for change. These dimensions of power focus at some point on the repressive side of power (Gaventa. enabling women to examine and articulate their collective interests. as well as by outside forces held by the “other” (Kabeer. 2009) and conceptualize power as a resource that individuals gain. They usually have less say than their husbands in family . institutional). (2) ‘Power to’. (3) ‘Power with’. The gender and development approach (GAD) encouraged what became known as “gender mainstreaming” which is the integration of gender concerns into all development programs (Young et al. Power relations operate in different spheres of life (economic. ignored structural economic inequalities In the 1990’s a new approached became known based on the argument that considering women’s issues in a package was counterproductive and that a fundamental change in gender relations required the integration of men’s perspectives and concerns with those of women. 1995). 2000) and consists of: (1) ‘Power within’.61 western position that (Rathgeber. 1990). 1995 and Rowlands. GAD emphasizes the diversity of cultural perspectives on gender issues in the globe and the need to take participatory. community. 2002). land and time. Women are less likely to develop individual characteristics (such as higher levels education or participate actively in extension programs) that limit them to enhance them this type of power. This type of power is shaped by one’s identity and self-conception of agency. social. to organize.5.
the last alternative is the emphasis is . It subsists only through action and works through institutions and practices that are productive of power effects. 1979) or Frerian ideas of the ways in which knowledge is internalized to develop a culture of silence of the oppressed (Freire. knowledge is produced for including or excluding certain voices. Finally. Countering power entails using and producing knowledge in a way that affects popular awareness and consciousness of the issues that affect lives (Gaventa. and how it relates to power as well as strategies to give and use power. 2009). nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations (Foucault. Power begins to resemble Gramscian notions of hegemony (Entwistle. There are countless examples of how consciousness transformation has made a contribution to social transformation. 1981). Individually. Civil law and religious customs in various countries. Power relation does not exist without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge. New social movement theory recognizes the importance of consciousness by raising such issues as the development of collective identity. and of the construction of meaning and of culture in galvanizing citizen action (Morris. used and mobilized to inform decision-making on key public issues. Mueller. The differences in views do not necessarily show these approaches as competing. which constitutes social relationships. Finally. it is very important to understand the notions of relationships of power and knowledge to promote women and less favored groups’ inclusion in agro ecological practices. 2009). may restrict a woman’s ability to own land or work in certain occupations in agriculture. In other cases. 2009). in that sense. et al. for example. Other see power as productive and relational (Gaventa. and other social institutions. rural organizations. 2009).62 decisions and less authority than men in the management of resources. Hayward reconceptualizes power as a network of social boundaries that constrain and enable action of all actors (Hayward. 1984. the political system. Therefore. et al. power is converted into a multiplicity of force relations (Foucault. et al. 1992). framing the boundaries of possibility that govern action (Gaventa. Gender inequality may also be structured and perpetuated by the economy. the approaches to power bring with them implicit or more explicit conceptions of knowledge. 1979). 1977). knowledge is a resource. et al. they have little impact on decision-making or public policies. In some cases. Because women hold far fewer positions in governing bodies in cooperatives. each with differing points in addressing mutually reinforced levels of power. it is better to think them as complementing each other. 1998). Knowledge is power: power and knowledge directly imply one another because knowledge is a resource of power (Gaventa.
2001) Agricultural results are greatly influenced by gender relations in many forms (Bezner Kerr. Doss (1999) also finds that African households are complex and heterogeneous. This persistent . the cost of these gender disparities in productive resources has been well documented (World Bank.g. they still have unequal access to resources in agriculture and the institutions that support the sector (Razavi. is typically confined to one key resource (such as land). Most of the studies point to women’s lack of access to productive resources and low levels of human capital. for example. and for that reason. 2008). pays particular attention to possible inefficiencies in intrahousehold allocation and the interaction between economic factors and gender roles as constraints to improvements in productivity and well being in Sub-Saharan Africa. and nutritional status are well documented (e. that gender roles are equally complex and embedded in agricultural and non-agricultural production systems. King. and that these roles and responsibilities are dynamic. education. Klasen. responding to changing economic circumstances (Quisumbing & Pandolfelli. 2006. Recognizing that “gender matters. & Porter. Interventions to improve women’s health. both in the role played by women and in the understanding of this role. 2009).” many development interventions have aimed to close the gender gap in both human and physical resources. 2002) without considering men’s constrains. but the continued absence of appropriate policy and program strategies mean that women’s contribution to agriculture remains invisible. 2001). does not consider the interactions among other resources. Whiteside and Kabeer. Significant changes have occurred in the agricultural sector over the past twenty years. the root of inequality in agriculture is surrounded by a large amount of misunderstandings and myths. the literature on innovations that addresses the productive needs of poor female farmers is relatively limited. 2001). and control of. Even though women are considered as critical custodians of agriculture. et al. Kevane (2004).6. productive resources is quite voluminous (World Bank. 3. However.. The Root of the Problem: Gender and Unequal Access to Resources in Agricultural Systems Most of the literature alerts about the gender-specific constraints faced by poor female farmers (Gladwin. is not published however.63 more upon the ways in which production of knowledge becomes a method for building greater awareness and more authentic selfconsciousness of one’s issues and capacities for action (Gaventa. 2007). 2009). the evident documentation showing the greater constraints that women face in access to.
. & and Udry. the active participation of women in the agricultural sector has not been taken into account in the development of agricultural policies and . 2001). Studies indicate that decision-making patterns about the use of productive resources vary greatly. a cause of lost income. Women’s most fundamental role in society – reproduction – is very often given a negative value. This absence of data is a significant omission in the data set used to formulate strategies for promoting gendered programs and promoting equal access to resources (Doss C. 2003). still tends to receive less institutional support than cash crop production. The number of female extension officers can be limited. 1994). Despite women’s critical role in agriculture (globally they are responsible for at least fifty percent of food produced). The absence of quantitative and qualitative data on women’s role in agricultural and rural development is the most notable and hidden factor. Haddad. The introduction of cash cropping can present problems for women's agricultural tasks. incentives. Subsistence crop production. 2005). Hoddinott. Small farm households are not necessarily consensual or cohesive decision making units (as planners have generally assumed). policies and programs. particularly with regard to child rearing. Terms have not been defined or given a value to describe women’s economic activity such as unpaid work or even family responsibilities (Quisumbing & McClafferty. seed supply and labour saving devices. There tends to be little consultation with women on the development of new technology. women generally lack access to effective technologies and resources such as credit. and as a result women may be less likely to receive agricultural extension services. Often a greater proportion of female income is devoted to the family's basic needs and daily survival. as it is seen as interference to productive activities. lower productivity and increased costs. It may result in competition for labour and land that would if not be committed to producing food (FAO. and to integrate the reality of women’s situation into development theories. extension.64 failure to recognize and account for the value of women’s knowledge and labour in the agricultural sphere. and therefore it is generally the men's tasks that benefit from improved technology. and interests of both male and female household members (Feldstein and Jiggins. It is difficult for women to secure land and other forms of collateral to be able to access credit and increase their productive capacity (Alderman. Neither is a value given to the emotional and social support women provide for the family and community. 2006). is evident throughout the global economic development environment. even though it may be crucial for household survival. in which women are usually involved. but a complex interaction of needs. In many cases. Cultural factors can mean that agricultural work done by women and girls has little or no recognized economic value.
With the Patent law. The globalization process does not recognize women’s knowledge on agriculture especially seed collection and preservation as well as the use of water. they are part of a complex web of interactions entailing both cooperation and power plays. women are even denied the right to preserve and promote their indigenous knowledge. whether through the different asset and opportunity sets of men and women. and women-headed households are amongst the poorest in the world (Datta & McIlwaine. Patterns of temporary. 2003). As daughters or wives. and exposures to uninsured risks. land titling programs in many countries have often reinforced men’s land rights.65 agrarian reforms (CIDA. and even when they do own land. family and community norms. November 2000). as households design livelihood strategies to map a pathway out of poverty (FAO. . 2002). The marked gendered character of land inequality must first be understood in the context of gendered division of agricultural labour (Brown & Das Chowdhury. 2005). 1997). or the design of policies that set the household context in which the strategy is implemented (Herrera. . storage and protection of grains (Agarwal B. Unfavorable marital and inheritance laws. Women’s traditional knowledge and their access to common property are being eroded all over the world. Households headed solely by women may have very different needs from those where women and men are both active producers. social norms. Women are perceived as subjects or beneficiaries and that is why the state and national policies tend to provide only ‘soft’ advantages (Argawal. their landholdings are smaller (Agarwal B. which itself depends on her asset endowment (including human capital) and her access to and control of the household’s assets (Mehra & Hill Rojas. . 1989). When it comes to the question of women. These livelihood strategies adapt to suit the women’s asset endowments and account for the constraints imposed by market failures. November 2001). Every aspect of these strategies has gender dimensions. A woman’s negotiating power is affected by her participation in economic activity.such as “micro” credit not “macro” credit. 2008). state failures. Women’s status in particular societies is quite dependent. governmental schemes are on credit. Women’s access to resources has frequently been delimited and mediated by fathers or husbands. the constraints that men and women operate under. 1999). Environmental and demographic factors always need to be considered when planning and programming for agricultural development activities. and unequal access drive this inequality to markets. On the other hand. seasonal and permanent migration (amongst males and females of all ages) may also seriously affect the likelihood of project success. Women are less likely than men to own land.
Tenure enables the holder to make management decisions on how land-based resources will be used for immediate household needs and long-term sustainable investment. obtain a timely and fair return and be able to enforce the right against non-holders (Figueroa and Barrón. Women own not even two percent of land. The importance of women’s land rights has become well established within research and development policy during the last years. One of the most serious obstacles of rural women is their lack and security of land tenure. the most prevalent barrier to acquiring real property is inheritance law that favour male inheritance over female. 2004. 2003). If a woman inherits property. Therefore government policies are hardly pro-poor and hence not womenfriendly. while the proportion of female heads of household continues to grow. The schemes designed are not appropriate and lack the women’s perspective. Kevane. 2005). Land tenure refers to a set of rights which a person or organization holds in land. her husband manages it. at death it reverts back to . 2003). the holder can reasonably expect to use the land to its best advantage in accordance with the right. 2007). Lastarria-Cornhiel. In order for women farmers. who are responsible for 60 to 80 percent of the food production in developing countries. to use land more efficiently and thereby make a greater contribution to food security. Land reform programmes together with the break-up of communal landholdings have led to the transfer of exclusive land rights to males as heads of households that ignores both the existence of femaleheaded households and the rights of married women to a joint share (Kimani. 2008). Along with this there has been more attention to what is often referred to as the gender wealth gap. 1995). not ownership (Shimwaayi & Chimedza. Historically women's access to land was based on status within the family and involved right of use. 1996). Security of tenure is not limited to private ownership but can exist in a variety of forms such as leases on public land or user rights to communal property (Akram-Lodhi. 2006. 2003. This is obviously discrimination and division based upon gender which is widespread in the national economic order (Wangari. 1997). management control of land-based resources and economic incentives that security of tenure provides (FAO. Women are often disadvantaged in both statutory and customary land tenure systems (Agarwal.66 “small” savings not stock market or even not big companies. 1994. In Asia. Hindu women formally hold property rights for life only. Deere and León. they need access to land. Katz. If tenure is secure. A & Borras. referring to the lack of important productive assets as land and other natural resources women suffer from (Deere and Doss.
however. agrarian reforms replaced the feudal system where women traditionally held a subordinate role in family production.Proyecto Especial de Titulación de Tierras y Catastro Rural was initialized in 1992 with the objective of formalizing the legal situation of all rural properties in the country (MINAG 2007). Agrarian reform or resettlement programmes use the "head of family" concept.9 million plots of rural land. In Latin America. for example. Nicaragua. Legislative reform and the forces of modernization have had a mixed effect. religious or statutory systems coexist. In some countries. In some cases. In Africa. 2008). 2007). custom rather than religious practice excludes women from ownership. and it has provided formal titles on about 1. in Peru the land titling project PETT. agricultural land is even excluded in some new inheritance schemes (Lastarria Cornhiel. Even under resettlement schemes in irrigated areas. economic and environmental pressures. Few have significant numbers of female beneficiaries or even pay attention to gender as a beneficiary category. there is still a great gender gap in land titles as men own significantly more plots. 1997). A widow's right to remain on the land is not secure. Traditional or customary systems that might have protected a woman's access to land during her lifetime are breaking down under population. as well as larger plots than women (Orge. usually a male. Statutory reform of customary law is confusing and open to interpretation. women de facto heads of households rarely benefit (Lastarria-Cornhiel. 2007 found that women are overall assigned more land rights when comparing with previous statistics on distribution of land rights by gender in Peru. Growing male rural-to-urban migration is leaving women as de facto heads of households without management authority over land resources. women have gained better access to land through land reform. New legislation on equality for women is more applicable to the urban-employed class than rural persons. For example. However. China. Women's organizations in Thailand. the law least favourable to women is often selected. when customary. discrimination results more from limited status under the law. 2003). Malaysia and Cuba have helped to overcome existing barriers or to protect women's rights regarding inheritance of land.67 the male line. but still represented by their husbands in all legal capacities (Katz. may reach majority age at 21. Women have gained rights both individually and together with their partners as joint titles. There are also many instances . Women. generally where the participation of rural women is a well-defined state policy. as well as compared with the distribution of rights between men and women in the titled and the non-titled plots. property is held in a man's name and passed partrilineally within the group. A study reported by Orge. as the basis of land reallocation.
2006). Because women shoulder the bulk of domestic responsibilities in most societies. technologydriven. there are some contextually specific reasons for the failure of post. Gender analysis is not present from stand-alone irrigation projects because such projects are highly technical and implemented by engineers who lack the training to integrate gender concerns (Rathgeber.68 where women's organizations have fought to gain access to land that they farm collectively. (Quisumbing & Pandolfelli. the impact of these reforms on female farmers is still unclear. 2003). high transactions costs. & Hoddinott.. particularly in domestic activities. political parties and social movements named a having crucial rules in addressing rural women’s needs in agriculture (Razavi. However. limited education and mobility. 2007). but the lack of technologies to reduce drudgery. a study carried out by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD. Although extension design is moving away from top-down. 2009). is also an important constraint (Quisumbing & Pandolfelli. it is also the possibility of having fertile soils and water use. 2007) has found that women access to and control over land has not improved on a global level (UNISRD. women are unable to allocate their time to more productive (or remunerative) uses unless their labor productivity increases. male-dominated approaches to demand driven. 2009). and caregivers (Behrman. including women’s distinct nutritional needs for micronutrient-fortified crops. gendersensitive approaches focusing on broader..Alderman. 2004 and King et al. In relation to credit and financial services.inter-related issues and facilitation. with the state. mothers. they are part of an array of changes to needed to improve women’s access to land. Low levels of investment in human capital also constrains poor women in agriculture in their multiple roles as agricultural producers. intermittency of employment. Although. 2007). it is not only the access to land tenure that obstructs women’s access to agriculture. preferences. and resources. and colors (Bourdillon et al. tastes. social and cultural barriers. Women and men often have different preferences for maturation periods. workers. those programs that were successful like the Peruvian case. Labor is another issue that needs to be considered.1990s land titling. and the nature of women’s businesses . many improved varieties do not take into account women’s needs. Low levels of human capital may be an important reason for low labor productivity. yields. Access to new varieties and technologies is limited to women since traditional agricultural research and development systems typically do not consult female farmers and end-users. demonstrate that legal improvements alone are not likely to be a transformative force. On the other hand. 2007). collateral requirements.
Social norms may also prohibit women from receiving information from outside lenders—which would be important if information is not fully transmitted from husband to wife. who also have primary responsibility for food security. and enhance their status and well being. 2008). Modes of transportation may be culturally inappropriate for women. working with groups is a major mechanism through which development programs can enable women to increase their control of assets. differences across the life cycle also need to be considered. in designing loan packages and variations on these for heterogeneous clientele.6. & Dohrn. lenders need to explore innovative ways to meet clients’ needs. various programs and interventions have attempted to design credit and insurance delivery systems to overcome women’s constraints. 2008). female farmers risk losing control of their products as they move along the value chain from farm to market (World Bank.FAO. When targeting women. 2009). But building social capital is not costless. In fact. And marital conflict may ensue if fluctuating prices incite husbands to suspect that their wives are withholding money (Barham & Chitemi. Their success in meeting daily household needs depends on how well they manage and supplement a limited and delicately balanced set of resources: cropland.69 limit women’s ability to obtain credit. pasture and forest. Time burdens constrain women from seeking the best prices for their output. When accessing markets. Women in poor households face particularly serious time constraints because of their various livelihood activities and childcare responsibilities (Pandolfelli. the social capital that groups generate has been recognized as an important asset in itself. 3. In fact. Market or health officials often harass women who market their wares just outside the market boundaries owing to the high cost of permits. such as theft and inadequate information about current market prices. Land tenure and Food Security Fifty percent of the world's resource-poor farmers are women. Under these conditions of imperfect information and barriers to access.1. and IFAD. even if it means departing from a traditionally successful business model (Quisumbing & Pandolfelli. female farmers face many gender-specific barriers to accessing markets. And also. Finally. Men may also appropriate crops for which women are traditionally responsible once they enter into the market economy and become profitable. In addition to typical production and market risks. Meinzen-Dick. improve their productivity. Without land and secure tenure a woman . 2008).
70 cannot access credit and membership in agricultural associations, particularly those responsible for processing and marketing (FAO, 1997). If tenure is secure, a woman can invest in, rather than exploit, the land's productive potential and she is more likely to adopt environmentally sustainable farming practices. A woman has the ability to plan and quickly adjust resource allocation decisions under changing climate or economic conditions and relies on the productive results of her labor (IFPRI, 2000). Control of the product is also an important consideration in examining women's land rights. Security of tenure is often the key to having control over major decisions such as what crop to grow and what techniques to use as well as what to consume and what to sell. Given women's tendency to grow food as opposed to cash crops and to spend income on family food, security of tenure for women must be viewed as a key link in the chain from household food production to national food security (IFPRI, 2000). Access and control of both genders in agricultural resources should include access to land, labor, credit, capital, raw materials, inputs, farm equipment/tools, information, technology, and extension services. In most of the societies of developing countries, men has access and control of almost all the resources except for information since most of the time he stays in the farm and gets to interact less with sources of information. The women on the other hand, have access to all the factors mentioned except for labor. Women however do not have control over capital resource. The importance of addressing gender in agricultural innovation systems is also the knowledge of dealing with deeply embedded “power relations”, which are often legitimized by strongly ‘cultural’ traditions, beliefs and prejudices. “Power relations between men and women are complex, multi-dimensional and pervasive, a diversity of tools and angles are needed to disentangle and contest them” (Lewis, 2004: 7). It is also known that both these relations of power and the beliefs surrounding them can change. Among some of the critical methodological shifts in gender studies in recent years has been the emphasis on understanding the power trajectories in gender relations instead of continuing to view these as being based upon altruistic notions. Gender inequalities are appraised in contextual realities at the micro level, namely, the position of women in the household. Thus, the emphasis is on analyzing how the weaker economic bargaining power of women is rooted in an unequal institutional and cultural paradigm (Sweetman, 1999). While there is bound to be resistance, there is huge scope for change, and rural men and women themselves are the primary agents of that change. But they need support – and wider
71 alliances - to influence current power structures in their favour (Mayoux, 2007). The Innovation System process in agriculture has important gender dimensions that are quickly evolving. AIs from a gender perspective has to consider how the existing social constructions of gender influence the development or adoption of innovations in agriculture and also how these innovations influence the gender constructs (Padmanabhan, 2002). Men and women in the rural sector frequently grow different crops, rear different livestock, and perform different agricultural tasks. As the share of female-headed’s households increases, these distinctions become less clear and women take on activities that were previously undertaken by men. But certain activities tend to remain women’s responsibility, particularly growing food crops, and postharvest activities ranging from crop preservation to processing and storage. Women are also increasingly taking advantage of employment opportunities in high-value crops, such as fresh fruit, vegetables, fish, and flowers, which offer farmers the opportunity to compete for a share of export markets. Diversification to high-value export commodities offers farmers new opportunities of wage employment (in the processing and packing industries) and issues such as equal pay, job security, labor standards, and a safe working environment are very important for women. In many cases women farmers also enter into contracts to produce highvalue crops for exporting companies. Agricultural research and extension agenda must reflect the needs of these often resource poor women farmers. Specific topics can include postharvest methods, market and price information, and information needed to comply with food safety standards. Men and women farmers tend to have different access to and control of resources, which can be a very important factor determining adoption of new technologies. When women lack secure tenure over land, they will be more reluctant to adopt land use practices that are environmentally sustainable but have high upfront cost and long lag periods before becoming economically productive, such as tree planting, irrigation infrastructure or terracing. Socioeconomic research livelihood approaches) used to identify research priorities of smallscale producers should map these enabling asset ownership issues. Compared to men, women generally are in charge of a wider range of crops; livestock and agro based activities, and perform a wider range of pre-planting and postharvest tasks. As men move into off-farm employment, women’s farming roles and responsibilities expand further and evolve; however, as in the case of asset ownership, women farmers have often lacked access to technical information from
72 extension agents. Women farmers have had less access to these services because they tend to have smaller farms and less “voice” in demanding services, the timing of meetings with extension workers does not fit the women’s daily work routines; and also, there are cultural barriers for women to meet together with men or in some cases extension workers, mostly men, tend to prefer interaction with other men. An advantage to it is that technology providers are increasingly pluralistic, including input dealers, NGOs, and private agricultural companies. The means of facilitating the transmission of knowledge is also rapidly evolving, from one-on-one contact between the extension agent and the farmer, to the use of information and communication technology (ICT). To address these challenges, the strengthening research systems and knowledge transfer gradually has been shifted from towards building innovation capacity, enhancing use of knowledge and creating social and economic change (World Bank, 2006). Parallel to these efforts at reforming and improving knowledge systems, the context and knowledge intensiveness of agriculture have changed rapidly and drivers of innovation are rapidly changing. Agricultural development is increasingly driven by globalization, urbanization and markets rather than by production; the role of the private sector in knowledge processes (in generation, use and dissemination) has significantly increased; ICT has radically changed the pace and accessibility of knowledge and information; the knowledge structure of agriculture is changing – knowledge is increasingly relying on multiple knowledge providers, not that of public agricultural R&D and R&D organizations only (World Bank 2006). Within the AIS, women are considered to be critical actors, even though, AIS frameworks stress out that women is the centre of the programs, they do not ignore men at all however, men are not yet included inside women’s groups. AIS is still deficient in the analysis of gender of some fundamental concerns, which are key to reducing poverty and promoting agricultural growth for development. However, innovation is viewed as a social and economic process that draws on discovery and invention but recognizes that the most important role that these innovations have is to improve the livelihoods of all people through innovating agricultural crops (FAO, World Bank, CGIAR, IFAD and IFPRI); and increasing their options to feed livestock (International Livestock Research Institute), especially those of women and other vulnerable groups where men are included, by using different approaches and resources. From the perspective of the AIS framework, the active engagement of women is no longer only a right but is an imperative to future farming, processing, and marketing systems that can improve livelihoods and agribusiness development (Byravan,
small-scale. and equal representation as a means influencing policy-making processes. 2008). Thus. It means that the traditional top-down. and market driven (Swanson. The AIS approach can reach its stated potential to benefit small-scale women and men farmers if it develops mechanisms to foster their organization into groups based on common interests and resources so that they can consider the economic feasibility of producing and . together with social and environmental sustainability. access to and utilization of knowledge and the progressive economic and social changes that go with it. This framework proposes that innovation involves not only new actors but also new roles and many relationships that can sustain knowledge generation and learning if technical and economic successes. leadership. and markets. policies and extension not only have to concentrate on natural resource management. women. and support to producer organizations. and market opportunities.” she says. services. human nutrition. conditions. “Innovation is the generation. management. technological and institutional innovations have to go together if we want a social practice or a technology to bring about a lasting transformation (Raina 2006). but also have to develop and or strengthen the capacity of the actors. technological. and investment capacity they will need to engage. they believe the improvement of rural livelihoods essentially require non-formal education and capacity development to remain within the category of public goods. so that actors who are more vulnerable can successfully pursue new crops. are to be achieved (Spielman and Birner. Capacity development and extension systems support the construction of human and social capacity in the AIS community. Some scholars like Raina (2006) argue that AIS does not recognize social and technological innovation as being located in distinct categories and believe that they go hand in hand. farmer-centered. technology-driven extension model is transformed into a new approach that is more decentralized. as well as on opportunities for participation. or other enterprises suitable for local resources. inputs. Although the agricultural innovation system framework focuses on equality in access to technology.73 2008). Public research. livestock. Social. innovation can be considered in the specific context of knowledge (generation of. Considering AIS from this perspective. access to utilization and sharing of it) and the progressive economic and social changes that go with it. and indigenous farmers continue to be left behind unless they receive effective support to build the organizational. institutions and networks. fisheries. 2008b).
What can be clear is that changes have occurred through the different systems of innovation and agriculture. Beginning the 1995. proposals to privatize extension services will need to be reviewed if these farmers are to benefit from them. from locally farming to the globe. or enterprises to both mitigate their risk and enable them to further enhance their incomes and livelihoods (Swanson 2008a). inputs. This view impeded the possibility in taking women farmers into account as both key actors and stakeholders. These changes have brought little change to the ways gender is incorporated. The Farming Systems perspective of the. and larger/commercial farm households. the most important is that female and male actors have to face the challenge to identify and develop organizations and institutions that are best suited to support these groups so that they can (1) determine their comparative advantage in producing and supplying different products for available markets. (2) gain the necessary technical and marketing skills to implement their decisions. There are still restrictions for smaller-scale women farmers to meet the demand for high-value. 2007) in an attempt to rethink the way agricultural systems are seen. However. 1980s encouraged countries and organizations to look beyond the idea of a household whose members had common interests. and participatory approaches are critical to building the quality of social capital needed for resilient and sustainable innovation systems. labor-intensive products. According to it. inclusion. technology. Because of these imperfections and gaps. products. and certification requirements. Women and men farmers are limited of resources (credit. It focuses on strengthening the system from both the supply and demand sides of . sanitation.74 marketing. and collective cohesion) and they do not have the opportunity to innovate because of the risks and investment required. the World Bank has developed the AIS framework (World Bank 2008. for an understanding of the intrahousehold gender relations regarding production responsibilities in agriculture. It is now becoming known that women and men have different roles within the household and that these roles differ in different societies and in different kinds of production units: small-scale/subsistence. Most of the time. it was assumed that men “heads of households” made most decisions or were in charge of most aspects of the production processes in which small-scale farm units were engaged. These groups will need to have access to support from research so that they can fine-tune technologies to specific conditions and they will need to develop the skills and practices needed to be able to meet export. and (3) continue diversifying into other high-value crops. Here. medium-scale. to determine which products can be feasibly produced and marketed. diversity. and the most important.
4. 7. 8. 3. communication. New insights bring us hopes that eventually the AIS will be different from other agricultural systems because “it moves the discussion from seeds and breeds to one that centers on actors and stakeholders together with the rules and mechanisms that govern the way the different actors interact” (World Bank 2007b: 135). research. and alliance building Investment in diverse forms of research and advisory services Recognition for organizations that pay attention to representation by women Monitoring progress of multi stakeholder involvement 5. as well as diverse organizational forms that can facilitate education. According to the Gender and Agriculture sourcebook (2009) there are some key issues that need to be considered when AIS are going to be looked from the gender perspective 1. 5. The Challenge of Integrating Gender and Innovation in Agriculture The development field in agriculture embraces tension often characterized as a division between theory and practice. 4. social processes. Organizational arrangements that support women’s involvement Participation in research and extension Increased access for women to education and training Labor-saving technologies for women 4. and groups. including policies. 9. formal and informal organizations. Agricultural policies that support women’s involvement in innovation systems Informal organizations and women’s access to information and services Social processes of communication and information exchange Practices that increase the commitment and empowerment of women Strategies that engage women in agricultural innovation Innovation platforms for learning. The AIS framework takes into account the many actors along the value chain. 3. learning and education. attitudes. enterprises. 6. 2. and policies that frame agricultural production and trade (as it is demonstrated in the comparison among different approaches to investment in agricultural innovation with the gender dimension included within the framework) (Table 1).75 the broad spectrum of science and technology generation through the exchange activities of organizations. 2. and extension systems as well as the practices. Emerging Trends Affecting Gender Roles in Agricultural Innovation Several emerging trends are affecting the gender-responsiveness of agricultural innovations. Development agricultural practitioners have long complained about the apparent . monitoring and evaluating progress and information and communication technologies 1.
It can be observed that mainstream economic thought critiques represented by feminist economists are absent as well as the wider views in development that embrace human rights and the emancipation of women views are not addressed under this framework (WDR. . One important area in which this tension plays out is gender and development. AIS makes an attempt at analyzing gender inequality. 1993a. This means there is no automatic synergy between gender equality and increased growth. Indeed.76 irrelevance of theoretical and conceptual literatures to the everyday practice of development. Thought. this complex picture will provide a cross-check for such consultations. and by association the different social groups linked with these modes. 1994. Ferguson. it falls short of showing how agricultural policies can contribute to tackling the underlying causes of gender inequality. It does not either address the fact that gender inequality actually often underpins national economic growth. Geisler. to judge by the substantial majority of work on gender and development that has been undertaken in the wake of these writings. these authors have had little impact on the overall use of gender in either development studies or development practice. & Ehui. 2008). Jackson. 2000). only through this process can we identify and employ gender categories in agricultural innovation planning in a meaningful way. the very systems of oppression that a focus on gender in development was meant to address. Nicholson. 1993b. which need to be addressed in order to give women an equal chance of using agriculture as a pathway out of poverty. Though such critiques seem to cut to the heart of the development project. At the very least. 2008). Peters. while conceptual writers often complain about the apparent thick-headedness of the practitioners who seem destined to repeat the errors of the past (Carr. What is interesting tough is that these often-theoretical critiques might provide a conceptual basis for ‘‘practical’’ development efforts that result in measurably improved project outcomes of agricultural innovation where different vulnerabilities can be identified by evaluating the challenges facing each mode of livelihoods. by offering work to women workers desperate for employment at any price. 1998. 1993. Staal. 1995 argue that the common use of gender in the development literature not only fails to move development toward its liberating objectives. This will allow for the identification and targeting of the needs of minority or underrepresented populations that might not be heard in even the most sensitive participatory development consultations. but also reinforces. where this is based on attracting global investment in agribusiness. Delgado. to ensure that participatory development efforts truly engage the diversity of needs in a given community or organization (Holloway.
the World Bank has produced a number of substantial publications on gender that focus. debates. but. and less investment in generational reproduction. on economic growth.77 Gender practitioners hoped the presence of a clear message where gender inequality leads to inefficient and irrational allocation of agricultural resources on the part of state. However. and that gender inequality leads to submissive female paid labour forces in large-scale agriculture and agro-industry. in common with many other development organizations. and analyses have been left out of AIS because of its operating parameters. and the importance of understanding that women need access to productive assets and activities. It cannot be said that it is a gender-blind institution. It doesn’t explicitly and overtly take account of feminist critiques of mainstream economics models for using women and gender ideologies to create growth at the expense of the rights of women and their dependants. contribution made by women to the economy. It recognizes that distortions in markets may currently benefit men at the expense of efficiency and equal benefits of growth for women. In addition. to maximize growth potential. community. and for development to occur without compromising women’s rights. Cultural and political constraints on . and perpetuate and shape inequality. and voice (Morrison et al. It does not suggest that the World Bank. Enormous and unpaid. resources. due to male control of income and expenditure. 2007). and suggests how economic policies might begin to address these distortions. it is a lending institution that depends on. who accept wages and conditions which force households to reproduce themselves at unsustainable levels. 2004). Royal Tropical Institute. respectively. a certain economic ideology. that it leads to insufficient investment in human capital. and are affected by. Gender inequality has become to be understood as a factor of social relations that affect. and household. effective linkages between those who work on gender and those who work on sectoral issues are not yet effectively realized (KIT. political and economic change. On the other hand as the Gender and Agriculture Sourcebook (2009) reports that the fight to incorporate gender equality in the programs has slowly begun to provide positive results. and believes in. It is perhaps inevitable that AIS provides only a partial roadmap of gender issues in agriculture. It is assumed that these crucial gender issues. does not have the capacity to address deeper-rooted structural and social inequalities. It offers an economic analysis and advocates changing gender relations in the economic sphere to enable women to maximize their role in production. together with ways in which unequal social and economic structures create gender-related poverty. inside its operational lending or policy and research divisions. that it leads to distress migration. women’s rights. in terms of reproductive activities are recognized.
It identifies the changing roles and growing contributions of women in agriculture and rural livelihoods. like all social relations. activities and domains. thus. and they assign authority. wages. However. women’s empowerment and participation. Indeed. particularly land are stressed out. Gender relations. AIS inform that gender inequality interacts with poverty and with agricultural productivity and growth.78 women’s increased participation in production are noted. and policies? How exactly? Who benefits from them? Who remains excluded or isolated? These are becoming crucial questions to be considered and integrated into intervention strategies if the aim is to support the more equitable—and sustainable—use of natural resources and the derived benefits. Forms of agricultural work undertaken by women are varied. Who participates in development (research) interventions. globalization and migration. they determine the distribution of resources. but little is mentioned on economic constraints (WDR. as well as explanations as to why productivity and growth itself are hindered by gender inequality (such as unequal control of productive assets like land). Some policy makers. agency and decision-making power. projects. work. Nowadays. are multi-stranded: they embody ideas. They may contain contradictions and imbalances. changes in opportunities in labour markets. changes in demography and household structure as a result of migration. particularly as it . 2008). The hypothesis is that women’s labour is elastic and that they can take up more responsibilities and their reproductive work has little or no economic value. there is better understanding of the gender specific barriers to engagement in productive activities (for instance. and labour market opportunities. particularly when there have been changes in the wider socioeconomic environment. This means that gender inequalities are multi-dimensional and cannot be reduced simply to the question of material or ideological constraint. and to some extent. efficiency and productivity in the AIS will be increased. and thereby contribute towards growth and poverty reduction. they allocate labour between different tasks. There some key factors that still needs to be considered to successfully incorporate gender in the AIS and these are: access to assets. activists and researchers recognize the need to reflect on and integrate social and gender equity. Programs need to challenge gender inequality and invest in addressing the barriers that women face. It also suggests that these relationships are not always internally cohesive. programmes. Gender roles and division of labour in the context of emerging employment opportunities. values and identities. where unequal household bargaining power means women are less likely to be engaged in cultivating cash crops). and women’s need for equal control of assets and resources.
The most important innovations are those that bring about a positive change in the way smallholders and other rural poor people invest in. they stem from systemic factors and can. cultural). organizational. methodological. technological. and influence policies and institutions. fertilizer and membership in necessary trade groups). • Through networking. such as credit. identify suitable technologies available to reduce the time and/or energy needed for such tasks. • Increase the supply of information.79 relates to participation. groups are meant to involve and benefit all sections of the AIS actors. • Identify activities are particularly time and/or energy consuming for women. Apparently set up to operate on principles of cooperation. unfavorably affect both equity and institutional efficiency. seeds. How to Integrate successfully: • Gender into Agricultural Innovation Systems Review the entire chain of actors and women’s role in the actual production to value added steps as well as in decision-making. water. nongovernmental organizations. Innovations are also needed in the way that agencies (governments. such as women. manage their assets. • Ensure that the full range of women and men’s activities is reflected in the research agenda along the innovation system. communicate and interact with their partners. in turn. inclusion and exclusion. inputs and assets) of men and women. In particular. research and finance institutions. access to needed complementary inputs by gender. appropriate tools and equipment. Actors of AIS must express habits and practices that enable successful innovation (Raina. intermediate transport technologies. innovations are the result of a process of interplay among actors within a specific institutional setting. review the suitability of technologies available in other developing countries. security of resource tenure (land. In most cases. Yet effectively they can exclude significant sections. technologies and facilities that women specifically need (market information. constitute more than a time-lag effect. and private enterprises) support agricultural innovation by lifting barriers and creating new platforms for actors’ action. financial. decision-making and power relations. As IFAD (2009) argues innovations promoted may take many forms (institutional. consideration of the following aspects are . These 'participatory exclusions' (that is exclusions within seemingly participatory institutions). Contrary. Agarwal (2001: 1623) has forcefully drawn attention to processes of exclusion in agricultural development. etc). • Identify socio-economic factors that may affect the adoption of proposed technologies (e. produce and market their products. organize themselves. administrative and legal) and occur within many contexts (social. Rather.g. procedural. 2006). quick technology fixes such as training programmes and technology transfers do not work in AIS. Based on these principles. political.
knowledge inputs. . routines. Mytelka. later. 14 In the Innovation system literature institutions are defined as sets of common habits. The players of the innovation system must express habits and practices that enable successful innovation (Raina. the right institutional environment and governance to make the system work. for a successful system. There must be room for learning by doing. One cannot view them in separate compartments since each aspect is an integral part of a successful innovation system. Second. 1997). (Morgan. one of the key organizational innovations of the twentieth century (Freeman et al.. & Baptista. it was admiration for the individual as `heroic’ entrepreneur. Institutions and governance issues Studies demonstrate that institutions14 that are not representative of the population. 5. the process of innovation had become routinized in the form of the research and development. Institutional settings play a central role in shaping the processes that are critical to innovation: interaction. and norms of society that determine how different agents interact with and learn from each other. In the case of AIS needs to incorporate organizational and institutional measures to promote diversity and equality among all actors system is required. Third. & Oyeyinka. learning capacities and interests and these players are all part of the agricultural innovation system that is developed. technological. conventions. The key agents of the innovation process changed over time. traditions. social and institutional innovations go together. working through others at the local level when necessary and even playing by their rules if that will build trust. are unlikely to deliver socially responsive outcomes. making corrections and adjustments while the programme evolves. 2000). and utilize knowledge (Hartwich. Innovation systems: Implications for agricultural policy and practice. 1982). the need to recognize that one has to work with several actors or players with differing skill levels. Open learning attitude. In the case of AIS. Alexaki. S. 2005). rules or laws that regulate the relationships and interactions between individuals and groups (Hall A. regulations. These broad principles provide an excellent framework to begin the study of diffusion of innovations in any context. Fourth. and how they produce. Finally it has become less horizontal where all actors have the option to participate equally where a process in which some of the concepts of the network paradigm like institutions play a major role. those that affect the process by which innovations are developed and delivered—the laws. 2006).80 required if successful diffusion of AIS is aimed. knowledge and learning must take place at different levels and on an ongoing basis. there must be enabling policy. it is not an exemption to include institutions. First. disseminate. practices. Initially.1. and that are not themselves gender sensitive. routines. learning and sharing knowledge (Hall.
However. 2005). Organizations and individuals pursue their interests within an institutional structure defined by formal rules (constitutions. 5. An institution may be no more explicit than a traditional tendency toward (or away from) informal entrepreneurial behavior in agrarian society. or it may be more codified in the laws that govern how private. Actions are required to challenging the power of those who benefit from the status quo (Jütting. and utilize knowledge. which constrain the behaviour of their members (Burki and Perry. In some cases. such as farmer exchanges of seed and other planting materials. trust. The former does not imply the latter. although they embrace them. 1998: 11). laws. which are administered by organizations15 (North. and whether agents in an innovation system are able to interact so as to generate. diffuse. have internal rules (i. Unfortunately this is impossible without a proactive innovation system that is willing to face its own institutional weaknesses as well as the changing technological and social contexts. and the extent to which such firms can appropriate the rents from innovation (Spielman D..’’ . These are the factors that determine the efficiency and stability of cooperation and competition. in turn. and taxed.81 2007). independent professional assessment of the scientific quality of research” (Vaidyanathan 2000a: 1739). institutional constraints would block the innovation process. Most organizations have neither the inclination nor the capacity to challenge institutional norms because the still presence of social norms may prevent poor women. institutions or norms that govern research organizations do not grant scientists the professional authority to debate and interact with relevant stakeholders to help policy formulation. Organizations. organizations are entities composed of people who act collectively in pursuit of shared objectives. budgets. regulations. one clear understanding that has emerged is that institutions change (in large part) as a result of the actions of organizations. it has the ongoing choice whether to challenge or support existing community gender-related norms. contracts) and informal rules (ethics. and even poor men from taking on certain 15 ‘‘Institutions are formal and informal rules and their enforcement mechanisms that shape the behaviour of individuals and organizations in society. institutions) to deal with personnel. and where the latter is ignored. 2005). procurement. licensed. Institutions Institutional change involves transformation of the rules and norms that govern agricultural innovation and development (Rajeswari S.e. J. By contrast. Institutions are not organizations. Whenever an organization intervenes in the life of a community. 2005). reviews of public sector research that recommend mere organizational changes are not enough.1. and who decides. and reporting procedures. Thus. and other implicit codes of conduct). The analytical issue of distinguishing between organizational change and institutional reform is critical for the effectiveness of policy and the innovation process. 2003). There must be a “substantive. religious precepts. but are best understood as a set of formal and informal rules. knowledge based firms are established.1. who does what. They determine who gets what.
Power hides the fact that organizations are gendered at very deep levels. learning. The most important of these is exclusionary power. how. values. alliances). ideas and decision-making intact. land. they tend to generate routinized practices. Therefore. These rules are distinct institutional patterns of behaviour in the official and unofficial. Although most organizations pride themselves on participation. contacts. culture and practices) form the unquestioned. Resources – what is used or produced: All institutions can mobilize resources – human (labour. goodwill.82 roles required for innovation. who is out and who does what: Institutions are constituted by categories of people – with the institution’s rules and practices A good deal of effort has gone into changing organizations themselves. 2005) that are supposed to be gender-biased and in some ways constrain their functioning. knowledge. reasonable way of work in organizations and these must be understood and known in order to be uncovered (Rao. These activities can be productive. A. Stuart and Kelleher. More specifically. Activities – what is done: In essence institutions are ‘rule-governed’ sets of activities. 1999). political clout. change agents must understand and link organizational change. assets. by whom and who will benefit from the Agricultural Innovation Systems. institutional change and gender equality. People – who is in. and how it is used to keep women’s interests and perspectives out. Box 1 outlines how institutions can be usefully ‘unpacked’ for gender-aware planning and for raising awareness about gender issues inside the AIS. material (agriculture products. To promote organizational change that will enable the organization to challenge gender inequality. money) or intangible (information. women are prevented from challenging institutions by four interrelated factors: (1) Lack of political access: There are neither systems nor powerful actors who can bring women’s perspectives and interests to the table. traditions. Institutional rules govern how these resources are allocated in the AIS. networks. This is why organizational change is so critical to the enterprise of achieving gender equality through development interventions. partnerships. capacities and skills). in order to enhance their ability to challenge and change gender-based rules in a variety of institutional arenas (Padmanabhan M. the explicit and implicit. Very few enforce accountability mechanisms. norms. history. Very few organizations have mechanisms or ways of balancing or restraining the power of those at the top. distributive or regulative – and because of their rule-governed nature. laws and customs which constrain or enable what is done. this is almost always the type that keeps the authority structure of people. Unpacking institutions in the AIS Rules – (or how things get done): Institutional behaviour is governed by rules.. inputs. (2) Lack of appropriate accountability systems: . institutional practice is a key factor in reconstituting social inequality – and must change if unequal gender relations are to be transformed. organized around meeting specific needs or the pursuit of specific goals of the AIS. The deep structures of organizations (collection of values.
These rules would include values that maintain the gendered division of labor. This motion gives women a legitimate space to participate. 2001). changing institutions is not easy and our global understanding of it is far from sophisticated. (3) Cultural systems: The work–family divide perpetuated by most organizations prevents women from being full participants in those organizations as women continue to bear the responsibility for child and elderly care. 2001). Bockett. institutions must be changed (Padmanabhan. The inadequacy of organizational changes needs to be considered when it becomes apparent despite successes in production and or productivity of agriculture. Certainly. & Clark. social or economic rights (World Bank. The terms institution and organization are often used synonymously. Although much has been accomplished by now in the name of gender equality. Bockett. it is still true that in not region of the world women and men are equal in legal. land tenure. with little or no debate or participation of all actors including women. gender-biased norms and understandings. it is useful to distinguish the two (Hall. An analytical distinction between institutions and organizations is essential to determine the purpose and consistency of reforms. Innovation systems in agriculture can play a significant role in supporting women to challenge unequal gender relations. are inadequate to determine organizational changes before resolving deeply entrenched institutional problems in any system (Hall. however it does not guarantee their immediate influence in AIS. This inability of the organizations of agricultural policy. there is an opportunity to achieve that given the dynamics and structure of the AIS. research and extension to achieve sustainable innovation and development that would benefit the rural poor is evident and widely discussed. Sivamohan. There is a growing consensus among feminists across the world that to make a significant impact on gender inequality. The rules that maintain women’s position in societies may be stated or implicit. 2008).83 Organizational resources are steered toward quantitative targets that are often only distantly related to institutional change for gender equality. Taylor. and possibly a voice. It is because the bulk of development work toward gender inequality ignores the role of the institutions (formal and informal) that maintain women and men’s unequal position. & Clark. and restrictions on women’s mobility. It anticipates the change of largely informal institutions that constrain women’s participation (political) and influence in the decision-making of the AIS functioning (Székely. Perhaps the most fundamental is the devaluing of reproductive work. Sivamohan. and (4) Cognitive structures: Work itself is seen mostly within existing. for that reason. 2002). Bureaucracy –led and prompt organizational changes. 2001). Most of the initiatives that involve . However. Taylor.
Investing in agricultural research is important to reach this goal. sustained and utilized (Berdegué. there are principles and generic issues. and that competitors join forces with each other to constantly adapt institutional and policy framework conditions for innovation (Hall A. The concept of the “Agricultural Innovation System” draws attention to wide range of actors and organizations from the public. modified. Strengthening agricultural innovation systems is also thus less about specific operational and policy recommendations. voluntary or other organizations and actors whose interactions and networking processes produce. but it is not sufficient. 2005).84 development work have failed to do so because they pay insufficient attention to the importance of social institutions in perpetuating inequality (Horton & Mackay. Each of these groups is likely to have their own interests and priorities and the way they are best involved in trials can be different as well (Heemskerk. Agricultural development depends on innovation. 2003). diffuse and use economically useful knowledge. a first distinction is to be made between women heading a household (female-headed households) and married women (members of male headed households). 2007). The AIS is more inclusive than the rather narrow notion of a research system. rather. The AIS produces technological and institutional innovations. but creating the conditions that allow smallholder farmers to innovate and to use new technologies and practices is one of the major challenges that agricultural policy-makers face. Inequality can also be present among women. It is a system of public sector organizations and actors engaged in generating knowledge and technologies. 2004). there also exist many differences between women in terms of access to resources and their say in decision making. . private and civil society sectors that are involved in bringing new agricultural products. The most valuable contribution of the innovation systems framework lies in its ability to widen otherwise narrow or conventional analytical perspectives on developing-country agricultural research and innovation. Thus. it is about ensuring that conditions that nurture diverse approaches to innovation exist. private. This concept also acknowledges the role of the institutional and policy environment that affects agricultural innovation. The framework is a more comprehensive analytical perspective because it emphasizes on the study of interactions and processes among diverse . processes and forms of organization into economic use. Although. Female farmers are not a homogenous group like between male farmers. The innovation system encompasses all components of the system of public. In AIS both technological and institutional innovations are generated.
most innovation processes will not be gender neutral and often will limit opportunities for women to participate and benefit (Crowden. 2003). agent. Formal innovation systems with public/private research and extension providers are increasingly tapping into the farmers’ own innovation systems. and Roseboom.85 agents and institutions involved in the innovation process. less informative approach that revolves around the trials and tribulations of a single. 2004. which lay at the heart of innovation and innovation networks. The gender dimension of the institutions that regulate innovation processes is very important. The opportunities to participate in inter-agent communication. It has to be admitted that agricultural research and innovation in many developing countries are focused on attaining food security and alleviating poverty by enhancing crop yields for farmers and improving food availability for consumers with limited market access or purchasing power. This overlooks the analytical strength of the innovation systems framework and its unique approach to understanding complex and diverse agents. institutions. there are concerns that the full value of the framework has been applied in order to understand how innovation occurs and what are the designing mechanisms that strengthen agricultural innovation systems in developing countries. 2001. are also gendered. Gilbert. However. 2003). Some of the emerging literature on agricultural innovation systems remains tied to conventional interest in the structure and reform of brick-and-mortar public sector “institutions” rather than the “rules of the games” that describe the wider characteristics of an innovation system (Chema. public sector partners without fully recognizing the complexity of the processes and systems within which these partners operate (FARA. as they entail perceptions of social risk in male-dominated environments (Berdegué. In sum. In order to establish or enhance a working relation between service providers for innovation development (such as research and extension) and farmers. Another aspect is that many agricultural research initiatives seem to be committed to the conventional priority of strengthening national. 2005). et al. This strategy has traditionally required that research outputs be generated . typically public sector. Unless gender is addressed explicitly. and interactions. Institutional and organizational innovation is needed to better integrate both formal and farmer innovation systems into one single system (Reij and Waters-Bayer. Chema. Roseboom. the early applications set to developing-country agriculture suggest a far narrower and. 2003). A major recent step forward has been the recognition that innovation is not something alien to farmers and those farmers do have their own innovation system based on farmers’ knowledge and connectedness within and between communities. 2004). both sides have to see incentives to be interested.
What is striking however is that relatively little attention is given to how institutional changes might be brought about (Löfler et al. these narrow approaches do little to change the nature of how innovation occurs in developing-country agriculture. these narrow approaches overlook the importance of understanding the wider system and process of social and technological change in agriculture. An environment that supports or encourages innovation is not the outcome of a single policy but relies on a set of policies that work together to shape innovative behaviour. but also inequalities and exclusion of women and men from all fronts involved in the AIS. so when designing effective policies. 2004). But it is no less relevant in Asia and Latin America. the habits and practices of the people affected need to be taken into account (Mytelka. the institutional factors that underlie these processes. nonrival (public) goods.. 2007). Here.86 as nonexcludable. 2000). in turn. This is most acute in Sub-Saharan Africa. Policies also influence the way people behave. the importance of providing policy instruments that enable introspection (self examination). However. Furthermore. requiring. For example. public sector investment in research and innovation. In many cases. 2007). policy reluctance to reform the institutions of agricultural innovation will mean that not only the ‘bureaucratic and procedural impediments’ that prevent effective agricultural innovation and development will persist. will prevent opportunities for sustainable development. capacity development and institutional learning is crucial for agricultural research and development in developing countries where institutional reform is long overdue. “Getting the institutions right” is one of the arguments that this stream of thinking has used as a prerequisite for development. The Participatory Market Chain Approach’s objective is to bring diverse partners together for stimulating market driven innovation through stakeholder platforms to promote interaction and potential collaborative actions around market opportunities by a framework of innovation systems. habits and practices interact with polices. The Stakeholder platform promotes interaction and collaboration of diverse range of actors by providing space for . A good example of that change is the introduction of the Participatory market Chain approach in Peru by promoting pro-poor innovation for linking resource-poor farmers to market (Devaux. where more than 97 percent of agricultural research is undertaken by the public sector (Beintema and Stads. the introduction of a more participatory approach to research is often ineffective unless scientists change their habits and working practices. and the potential impacts on research and innovation. More importantly. leaving many puzzles unanswered.
weaknesses. facilitating linkages between farmers and other public and private actors and. 2006).. and diffusion of knowledge and technologies.87 interaction to reduce conflicts. more profound study of the dynamics of innovation is needed. Women are often the last to benefit from economic growth and development . or even in spite of public sector research organizations. Therefore. in most. and the style of governance (Hartwich. The approach is innovative and transformational because it introduces and endorses new concepts. Political reform processes demonstrate only limited efficiency and effectiveness if the needs and potential of important actors (stakeholders) in the society and economy are excluded or only marginally considered. René. 2002.in some cases women have even been negatively affected. Frank and Jansen. The role the government plays in fostering agricultural innovation depends on institutional regulations. Several studies (Hall et al. (Rajalahti. and has more to do with guiding diverse actors involved in complex innovation processes through the rules and incentives that foster the creation. supporting small farmers to take advantage of market opportunities (Thiele. Heinz-Gerhard. 2006). 2007).1. Frank. promotes and facilitates partnership and alliances with diverse actors and finally. 2008). separate from. changes in the institutional contexts in which heterogeneous actors operate. build trust and lead to join action. This includes the study of non-state actors in relation to. 5. Governance Governance in innovation systems is less about executing research and administering extension services. & Pehu. the governance of innovation systems from a gender perspective is still an unexplored territory in developing country and development policy. supports experimentation with new forms of organizations (CIP. awareness of gender issues and willingness to address them has grown. Alexaki. the strength. 2008). Gender bias and gender blindness persists. 2004) attempt to do this. But more study is required on heterogeneity among non-state actors.2. In many countries. On the other hand. representing an important directional indicator for the literature. application. Promotion of gender equality is an integral part of supporting good . the governance of an innovation system can be understood as the structures and procedures policymakers set forth to foster innovation and provide incentives to innovating agents and the interaction among them (Hartwich. and alternative forms of interaction among various actors. Anastasia and Baptista. However. women's or gender policies have been formulated. Janssen. and motivation of the actors who contribute to innovation.
Gender equality is an indicator for good governance. Strengthening the social status of women is one of the decisive challenges of our time worldwide. the capacity of the government to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies. It also contributes to the realization of internationally agreed development objectives. legal and social framework conditions. calling for pro-active policymaking and goaloriented action. But there is no such thing as gender-neutral governance reform. 2009). There is a need to concentrate efforts in the orientation of public services. there are numerous interpretations of what the term actually describes.. such as that those in authority should be monitored (Goetz. processes. The term encompasses all the traditions. monitored and replaced. equitable participation of women and men. If governance reforms do not address the social relations that undermine women’s . is more concerned with the economic part of governance and includes issues involved with human and civil rights. be it in creating political. 17 Good governance is recognized as essential to poverty reduction efforts and respect for human rights. citizens are given a voice. et al. growth. Accounting for the different needs of women and men in decision-making processes is conducive to social development and propoor-based growth.org/wbi/governance/about. institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised. political. the exercise of economic. they are implicitly based on normative assumptions. 2002). meet their obligations.. the capacity of the government to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies. This includes the process by which those in authority are selected.” (http://www. Although such definitions appear neutral. their policies and programs towards gender-specific needs of the population.html#approach).88 governance. meaning an agenda for participation. overcoming existing discrimination against women in the public as well as in the private sphere. monitored and replaced. It refers to governance as “the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for the common good. Definitions of “good governance”17 explicitly have a normative content. and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests. and social justice. The keys to gender equality are equal access to and control over resources and power. and mediate their differences” (UNDP 1997). exercise their legal rights. action programs and accords. and decisions are made on issues of public concern (Institute of Governance. ultimately. It refers to the ways in which institutions function. Women ought to benefit as much as men from governance reforms that focus on reducing corruption and increasing opportunities to participate in public decision-making.. economic. Good governance implies democratic governance. and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.worldbank. It comprises mechanisms. human rights. This includes the process by which those in authority are selected. 16 The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) defines governance as “. and thus. The World Bank on the other hand. as well as conflict prevention. and environmental protection. and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. Governance16 by its own means is a “slippery” term even though it is an oft-used term in international development. It is how power and resources are distributed and managed within institutional structures.
Another aspect that needs to be considered is that until now. most of the programs have included women as a group (self-groups). capacity to participate in public decisions. et al. even broader concerns such as social equality and justice. 2009). public-private. The definition of governance includes a range of organizations.. . in that sense. Improving or “reforming” governance is not only about building and strengthening public and private institutions. It is also about building citizen engagement and voice. the demand side (World Bank. This new emphasis in governance has come from the understanding of the development process itself which encompasses expansion of real freedom that actors enjoy to pursue the objectives they have reason to value and. private and civil society sectors that are involved in bringing new agricultural products. there are several alternative conceptualizations of governance that recognize the plurality of actors involved. A distinction has to be made between (1) identifying governance elements that are instrumental to reach other goals. but it is also incorporating women as part of the whole system equally to other actors. and cooperation and complex relationships between and among them. Citizen participation. These new definitions are more broad based and consider governance as a process that encompasses state-society interactions and partnership. as elements of good governance (Goetz. rule of law and stability are common elements in many definitions of good governance. In that sense. accountability. and (2) defining governance elements that constitute values in their own right (Resnik & Birner. Equality needed to include women and men in similar conditions. Thus. It is another commonality that governance shares with AIS. Some definitions of good governance go beyond these components and include the adoption of specific policies. It is not including women inside of some of the chains of the AIS.89 identifying what the organization or author proposing the definition considers desirable. 2007). Governance emphasizes participation. Women need to be included in mixed groups where they can share experiences with males. 2002). The concept of the “Agricultural Innovation System” draws attention to wide range of actors and organizations from the public. accountability and responsiveness. processes and forms of organization into economic use. such as poverty reduction. the supply side. notions of governance are similar to those of AIS that include not merely institutions of national government but those of local and global governance (Ballabah. decentralization. they run the risk of reproducing gender biases and patterns of exclusion in the management of public affairs. 2006) as it shows in figure 1. such as policies promoting private-sector led growth. 2006). transparency. the expansion of capacities is seen as the central feature of the process of development (Dreze & Sen.
Approaches can be differentiated to improve governance that require institutional and legal changes. Programs. IFAD. such as decentralization. affirmative Contextu al factors: * Political * Economic * SocioGood coordinatio Measures to improve public sector capacity: Civil service reform. Participatory planning. public expenditure reform. Demand side: Ability of men and women to demand good governance and hold representatives (elected and nonelected) Supply-side: Improving the capacity of politicians and administration to be effective and Good fit Measures to improve voice and accountability from a gender perspective: Decentralization. public sector management reforms. agricultural livelihoods can be promoted by governance reforms specific to the agricultural sector. it cannot be assured that any of these governance reforms will also promote gender equity in the AI (FAO. Budgeting. 2009). . legal reforms. The. Gendered good governance in the agricultural sector: * Quality of policies and regulations to promote inclusion of gender analysis in all programs * Efficiency and equity in providing services and infrastructure * Control of corruption and abuse to disadvantaged women and men * Access to justice and enforcement of rights for women Reforms that aim at promoting good governance have become an important policy area (World Bank 2007a). World Bank. publicGood fit Source: Modified from the Gender and Agriculture Sourcebook. promotion of community-driven development. agriculture can benefit from overall reforms that aim at improving governance. 2009 Nature of the problems affecting performance of service providers (such as incentives. and approaches that can be pursued within an existing institutional and legal framework (FAO. relations.90 Figure 1: Demand. and anticorruption measures. projects.and Supply-Side Strategies to Improve Governance with the Inclusion of Gender Nature of the problems affecting the effective engagement of women and men (roles. However. such as strategies to improve agricultural policy making and reforms of agricultural service provision. and. outsourcing. and investments that support governance reforms are relevant for agricultural livelihoods and for instance for the AIS in two respects: First. Second. Although all four types of reforms create significant opportunities for improving agricultural livelihoods for actors who are participating in the AIS or those who have the possibilities to be integrated in the AIS by making agricultural policies and programs more effective.
earn fair wages. for instance. The rights. Women engage in production. 2000). responsibilities. women’s access to productive assets. ‘Gendered exclusion is linked to the public/private divide that identifies men’s role as being in the public world of politics and paid employment. One can consider governance reforms that are relevant for agriculture to be “gender sensitive” if: they are (1) sensitive to gender differentials. by making provisions for affirmative action and creating more opportunities for rural women’s participation in political processes. Benefits can occur by promoting women’s abilities to secure access to agricultural assets. Consideration of women is important in planning a successful innovation of the agricultural sector. & . raising of children and domestic violence) are not interpreted as a community or nation’s “common good” (good for the whole community) (Meer and Sever. and. for instance. and are often distinct. by attempting to change prevalent attitudes and social norms that lead to discrimination against women in the AIS (FAO. processing. or (4) transformative. both on their own account and on behalf of their families. 2003). IFAD. Governance is founded on citizens’ ability to claim entitlements in three broad areas: the right to participate in decision-making. The. World Bank. that is. Dayton-Johnson. IFAD. (2) gender specific. by making sure that women in the agricultural sector do not lose out in the reform process. Inclusion of women improves their ability to benefit from a focus on agricultural development. reforms can even increase gender inequalities. otherwise. Therefore. and/or receive fair prices for products (Jütting. obtain credit to purchase improved agricultural inputs and tools. by addressing specific needs that differ between men and women engaged in agriculture. information. 2009) S.91 and. the inclusion of people’s needs and interests in policy. and the allocation of resources (Baden 2000). specific efforts are needed to make governance reforms gender sensitive and to address the specific challenges of gender inequality in the agricultural sector. 2009). World Bank. The. This has the effect of depoliticizing women’s interests and failing to fully acknowledge the power issues involved in redressing inequalities between women and men (Baden. and marketing tasks. and women’s in caring and child-rearing in the home’ (Meer and Sever 2004: 5). however. Women are generally not considered to be political actors and their ‘gendered interests’ (for example health needs. for instance. and services is significantly constrained. As noted. Overall productivity suffers as a result. These reforms have to be implemented without a gender blind way. (3) empowering to women. Morrisson. The ability to claim and exercise these entitlements is based on gender roles and relations of unequal power. and roles of men and women in agriculture vary.
This process often requires quite extensive linkages with different knowledge sources (Rajalahti. but equally they can be a source of other forms of knowledge. 5. 2006). 2008). Sound governance also promotes investment and provides appropriate support to overcome market weaknesses. Good governance is an essential element of the enabling environment for AIS. including farmers’ organizations. These analyses will also provide community and private sector groups with a stronger voice in lobbying for change. From knowledge transfer to interactive learning In contrast to traditional modes of knowledge production and learning that tended to follow a linear approach. Innovation is an interactive process through which knowledge acquisition and learning take place. 1994). It involves different sources of knowledge interacting with each other in order to share and combine ideas (The World Bank. The combined impact of social. & Pehu. Janssen. Expanded and diverse participation of all citizens in decision making enhances the probability of good governance.92 Drechsler. economic. Innovation requires knowledge from multiple sources. challenges cannot be addressed by the state alone. affecting funding for agricultural programming as well as the economic context in which international financial institutions and agricultural producers operate. While some countries are making excellent progress toward good governance. including from users of that knowledge. Critical analyses of impediments to progress will help national governments identify their costs and develop the political commitment to support change. others face obstacles. In the AIS. Such participation not only empowers men and women to hold government accountable but encourages them to be responsible for their communities and begin solving their own problems. in which researchers and experts produce new knowledge or have the knowledge and then transfer it (mode 1 of knowledge production ) (Gibbons. and each context has its own routines and traditions that reflect historical origins shaped by culture. policies and power. other non-state agents. politics. women and men . farmers groups that include women and the private sector. political. 2008). These sources may be scientific and technical. Governance at all levels is critical to ensuring the stable and secure environment in which market systems can operate. These interactions and processes are usually very specific to a particular context. are key stakeholders for governance. Patterns of interaction between different knowledge sources form a central component of an organization or sector’s capacity to innovate. both tacit and codified.2. and technological transformations has been far-reaching. Here. et al.
information users and a need based exchange of knowledge. They can be partnerships. make their own decisions. Where there are differences in the agenda of communities and researchers that are not made explicit. particularly in terms of collective learning and interaction between stakeholder groups and researchers. every person analyses. The effectiveness of meetings and interaction depends on sharing knowledge around agreed common interests. there is a risk of an inefficient use of research time. At this level. Networks also embody the “know who” of knowledge sources. for example. or they can be commercial transactions. which can be tapped as the need arises. in which an organization purchases technologies (in which knowledge is embedded) or knowledge services from another organization. These linkages and the relationships that govern them concern knowledge flows. in order to claim and expand agency. shifting roles for information producers. alter inequitable structures.93 become agent players. continuous evolutionary cycles of learning and innovation. from less to more. and so realize rights and livelihood security in the agricultural innovation system. (Hall. combinations of technical and institutional innovations. because they have the chance to carry out their own analyses. The relationships that sustain the acquisition of knowledge and permit interactive learning are critical and can take many forms. women and men are involved in a journey through which they increase their agency. decides. Learning processes are vital in engendering a sense of ownership. although many of the same actors may be involved. A sense of ownership of the research agenda is one of the early building blocks on which communities can increase their sense of . development practitioners and community members may have different perspectives on learning. of misunderstanding or even conflict. coalitions. Thus. joint efforts. Lundvall (1992) places learning and the role of institutions as the critical components of innovation systems. Agency is a continuum. an institutional context that supports interactions and knowledge flows between actors. They must not be confused with the linkages and relationships that govern the movement of commodities through value chains. 2001). Features of successful innovation systems identified by social scientists are. Researchers. and take their own actions. in which case the relationship is defined by a contract or license. Every person has agency. and mutual support. interaction of diverse research and non-research actors. individually women and men build relationships. and acts. et al. which provide an organization with market and other early-warning intelligence on changing consumer preferences or technology. in which two or more organizations pool knowledge and resources and jointly develop a product. Linkages may also take the form of networks.
94 empowerment in managing their resources and their livelihoods. and routines. It is also widely accepted that all knowledge is contextual – as it is created by interaction with the environment and is embedded in the practices and epistemologies of the actors (Latour 1987. group. adaptation and use of new knowledge leading to innovation (new products and processes) (A. Law 1994). 2001). competence. diffusion.J. That is the reason why traditional linear approaches fail to respond to complex challenges and rapidly contexts. in particular. Rolings (2002) states that it is necessary to move out from individual “multiple cognitions” to interrelated “distributed cognition” and to an understanding of group processes to capture the essence of social learning when divergent interests. or wider social level. A joint learning process not only empowers and challenges both researchers and women and men farmers to extend their knowledge and action into new areas (Hagmann et al. This is particularly important for the understanding of complex social processes. but also. belief systems. norms. its meaning and significance is interpreted and integrated within existing belief and knowledge systems. It is the collective action and reflection that occurs among different individuals and groups as they work together to improve the management of human and environmental interrelations. learning is also contextual with regard to actors actively and deliberatively engaging in a learning process to develop knowledge pertinent to their specific circumstances (Jasper and Stuiver 2005). Knowledge exchanged with farmers and women is not merely technical knowledge. the definition of learning has given rise to debate among scholars from various disciplines. rather than the adoption of discrete technologies. foster innovation processes. ways of seeing. The agricultural innovation system brings a new and exciting possibility to overcome traditional approaches for the generation of knowledge and thus. for highly specialized technical knowledge not available within the farming community and for technology which requires changes in behavior and management practices. Even though. The promotion of the called “mode 2 “type of knowledge is propitious to the AIS framework. 2007). A consensus exists that learning is the key driver in constructing new knowledge. & Bockett. Clark. values and constructions of reality meet in an environment that is conducive to learning (Wals. . Technology is socially embedded. promotes interactive learning that occurs when organizations engage in generation. as regards at which level learning takes place and should be analyzed: the individual. and skills while altering ways of thinking. Taylor. Sivamohan. 1999).
Women and men are forced and required to develop new knowledge. Helen and Sarapura. awareness. Njuki. and selection. structures and competence in organizations. In other words. it is an opportunity for learning alliances or “social learning”. or (2) through incorporating new members who have knowledge that the organization does not . Based on this. 2009). but it is a special form of capital. systemic. Waters-Bayer. cumulative. no one of them holds the necessary information. social and institutional innovations to respond to the changing contexts and demands. which enable improved and faster performance of tasks and the identification of new opportunities (Dodgson. Silvia. Learning alliances among all components of the AIS transform functions. 2009). Njuki. attitudes. Learning is defined as the process by which people and organizations create knowledge and acquire capacities. Thirdly. Knowledge is the fruit of the learning process.95 it promotes the interaction of multiple actors with multilayered sources of knowledge to cope with the complexity of fostering continuous technological. experimentation. It is a complex process based on repetition. Learning has been recognized as an essential component of human capital. and the application of knowledge is a feedback to the process. human agency (Hambly-Odame. learning takes place basically at three levels: individual. strengthen the capacities of people and the abilities of the institutions to work together to promote agricultural innovation (Sanginga.which are the key points to make progress in the inclusion of gender in the innovative system. the opportunity to work into a long term working relationship. skills and behaviors to deal with differences constructively. Simon (1996) points out that all learning begins at the individual level—thus an organization learns in two ways: (1) through the learning of its members. 1993). Social learning attempts to provide opportunities for sharing experience and knowledge through active social networks and understand and act on the systemic nature of power relations (systemic level). organizational. Kaaria. supports the enhancement of their innovative capacity because of the collaboration and coordination of their actions inside the organization. & Wettasinha. Waters-Bayer. and network. understand and emphasize individual “self” (autonomy. because it increases with use and depreciates if it is not applied (OECD 1996). and idiosyncratic character. recognize and emphasize collective action (collective level) and the most important. Kaaria. & Wettasinha. Relevant stakeholders including women have the prospect of being involved in the innovation system and they need to collaborate since. the innovative process is a learning process. 2009). to adapt to change and to cope with uncertainty (Sanginga. Learning processes have a gradual. Secondly.
and resources among different actors and institutions that make up systems at the local. that is. Epstein. because they weaken routines that have yielded positive results in the past and are still considered useful (Bailey and Ford.96 possess. and Nonaka. But this classification is insufficient. In organizations. For these reasons. as it does not account for knowledge developed jointly by several individuals. routines are the manifestation of these codes and procedures (Teece. and Winter. Pisano and Shuen. In general. national. Ichijo. like the master–apprentice relationship. 1997). 1993). and volatile. Knowledge is complex. routines are an expression of collective learning (Dosi. Innovation is increasingly the result of cooperation. Epstein. and therefore of knowledge. Therefore. 2003. Networks allow interchange of knowledge. Davila. Davila. Nelson. regional. Organizations often are not aware of everything they know. 2003). although organizational learning occurs through individuals. For this reason. Nelson. In addition. that is. and Shelton 2006). abilities. making the construction of an institutional memory a key element of organizational learning. individuals define new operational routines. it is not the sum of the individual learning of the organization’s members (Dodgson. through interactions. Thus the definition of learning. organizations do not allow for innovations. and Shelton. all stakeholders inside the AIS increasingly need to cooperate and share information and innovative capacities. Individual learning is also a social phenomenon: what an individual learns largely depends on what is known by other members of the organization and what the organization allows in terms of experimentation (Von Krogh. 2006). In turn. two important components of organizational learning are (1) being able to share knowledge with different areas of the organization and with new members of the development team and (2) making tacit knowledge explicit so as to be able to reflect on it and transmit it across time. Collective learning occurs not only through individuals’ imitation. Organizational capabilities are a combination of elements sometimes explicit and articulated and sometimes tacit and subconscious (Dosi. is in the first instance an individual affair. 2000). they need to integrate into networks. 2000). but also as a result of the combination of individual efforts to understand complex problems. Lundvall (1992) . especially after the owners of the tacit knowledge leave the organization. Collective knowledge depends on routines and conventions developed (often unconsciously) and accepted by members of the organization. its availability has grown exponentially in recent decades. and international levels (Powell and Grodal 2005. Learning requires developing shared codes of communication and search procedures. and Winter. Bailey and Ford. diverse. 2000.
Fifth. Strengthening the mechanisms by which learning and distribution of knowledge occur and encouraging the formation of networks have become key issues for policymaking and decision makers. it should identify the learning mechanism.3. and users. that is. Large parts of the AIS that are essential to upgrading. Second. domestic. communities and meso levels At different stages of the agricultural innovation systems. are often ignored. The effectiveness of these networks depends on flows of knowledge. processing and in marketing. it should specify who learns (individuals. A strong learning strategy needs to include various dimensions. and licensing. suppliers. team work. it should identify the localization of the knowledge (that is. These are generally very important in explaining how the AIS operate and indicate critical links at which upgrading or change should happen in order to bring about development of the system as a whole. 5. in other words. and the acquisition of capacities through interaction. the means or activities through which the actors learn (VeraCruz 2004). Those areas where women are involved are often less visible and may be overlooked in both analysis and development. Power and innovation – implications for gender relations in households. visits to other firms. it should identify sources of learning and knowledge (internal. Fourth. including companies. leaders. farmers. First. strategic alliances (with other firms and/or research institutions). in production. how power is exercised and where and how change can occur in order . analysis of competitors’ innovation portfolios (including the product basket and research and development projects). women and men are expected to be involved as producers and entrepreneurs. research centers. reverse engineering. in which areas of the organization the knowledge will be produced). Sixth. monitoring internal work. including production. Learning can occur through a number of activities. or networks). particularly home working. it should define the goals of the learning. it should simultaneously include both operational and strategic components. the organization. Gender inequalities affect where power is located. what the organization needs to learn. external. research and development. including technological and organizational elements. which depends on the formation of networks made up of different actors from the innovation system. the mechanisms used by agents and institutions to learn collectively. or foreign). small-farming and temporary work.97 highlights the interactive character of learning. Third.
the arrangement of gender relations is not static but it is a changing process and situated in particular context (household. and so on). culturally and historically constructed and re-constructed (Argawal. Considerations must be given to the complex range of factors that might determine bargaining power. These factors can impinge crucially on the accuracy of theoretical formulations. So. gender inequalities also affect men's behavior in the field. This means that gender relations are continuously reorganized in order to be relevant to production process which is influenced by both internal factors (such as lifecycle of a household. desire of producer) and external factors (such as changes in state policies. but active participants who process information and strategize in their dealing with local actors as well as outside institutions (Maertens. data gathering. As gender relations or power relations in general are socially. enterprises and markets as well as the household. in what circumstances women have been able to become successful at creating employment in the field and enterprises. 1994 and 1997). empirical predictions. therefore. and analyses (Argawal. 1992:21) Analysis of power relations has to begin by understanding intrahousehold dynamics from a gender perspective. F. without examining the extra-household socioeconomic and legal institutions within which households are embedded. Besides. Policies may go twisted if intra-household dynamics of power are assumed (as they often are) to exist in isolation. the role social norms and perceptions play in the bargaining process. negotiations and social struggles that take place between different kinds of actor” (Long. and must therefore be given cognizance in framing hypotheses. and policy interventions. 1997). Gender inequalities are often important in explaining why different parts of the AIS chain are blockages to growth. Gender analysis is needed to explain why particular chains are dominated by men or women. in input and output markets. in technical renovation. according to Long (1992) they are “…not simply seen as disembodied social categories (based on class or some other classificatory criteria) or passive recipients of intervention. Women are social actors in any society.M. the effect of gender differences in the exercise of self-interest might have on bargaining power. and how women can be supported to make a more effective economic contribution. 2009) The different patterns of social organization that emerge result from the interactions. community and systemic).98 to translate chain upgrading in the AIS. Mia and Swinnen. and how these institutions .
In addition. At community level. they get more advantages in gender relations at different levels. Innovative capacities and higher incomes are likely to facilitate the access to education and health services with long term developmental benefits for these communities. Women negotiate not just because they are women. Both men and women’s productive capacity and their capacity to participate are shaped by their gender roles.99 might themselves be subject to change (Aragwal. rural women will have the opportunity of improving and enhancing own capacities and those of the household. customs and constraints. in the macro level. women have to negotiate for their livelihood diversification. in other words. women remain a crucial workforce in agriculture either as farmers or as wage laborers. medium and large farms). Mills (2001). Gender relations impact agricultural outcomes and affect economic efficiency. there are also conflicts existing among them in terms of interest distribution and exercising power. women negotiate for their own power. Household members can cooperate as cooperative arrangements make each of them better-off than noncooperation. In addition. enables them to respond to the demands of food assistance programs may turn the threat of high food prices into an opportunity for producing surplus food and raising the family income. women are progressively becoming involved in offfarm sectors where they occupy the lower position with poorer wage. and others in the family women negotiate with male authority and traditional ideology of “altruism” and “dutifulness” for their economic independence with the hope that it can more or less empower them. Secondly. 6. where the majority of whom are women. Agarwal (1994). The reason is the fact that the nature of intrahousehold interaction could be described as enclosing elements of both cooperation and conflict. cooperative-conflict relations can be seen in other arenas such as community. However. but also because they are producers and workers. Beginning from the smallest social unit (household). However. gender relations are not much changed. Final Synthesis The necessity of incorporating women and men in the agricultural innovation and making it accessible to farmers in developing countries. local labor market and the state. In most of the developing world. As pointed out by Ong (1987). Through negotiation process. There is evidence that gender equality is linked to increased efficiency and increased prospects for rural growth and the . women negotiate with norms. but also on other farms (small. A remarkable change is the fact that rural women work not only on their own farms. 1997).
However. processing and marketing. with the assumption that all participants are male. thus deserving explicit analytical attention. learning. and a tendency to utilize abstract terms so that the markets are treated as ungendered. participation. A variety of constraints encroach upon their ability to participate in collective action as members of agricultural cooperative or water user associations. The AIS approach reaches its stated potential to benefit women and men if it develops mechanisms to foster their organization into groups based on common interests and resources so that not only they can consider the economic feasibility of producing and marketing (IFAD. governance. The participation of women at each level of the agricultural innovative system needs to be satisfactory and inclusive to produce the greatest impact on the reduction of hunger and poverty by increasing opportunities for women in income-generating activities. et al. availability of resources and capacity innovation. In both centralized and decentralized governance systems. these are embedded in the social relations that are culturally constructed. The benefit of studying women together with men in the system helps on the identification of women’s risks and achievements in the innovation production. but also actors and organizations incorporate equality of participation and representation by showing how these interact. These aspects are highlighted at each node of the AIS starting from innovative choices. power dynamics and roles arise out of particular set of sociallydetermined gender relations which determines who buys and produces. they have less access to productive assets such as land and services such as finance and extension. when and how. decision-making. women tend to lack political voice. The gender division of labour. Another aspect that is important to . knowledge-sharing. involving a direct neglect of women. In the study of innovative agriculture. and the most important networking. resources accessibility. Women farmers are frequently underestimated and overlooked in development strategies. environmental (biodiversity) management and commercial innovations. where. as an integral part of policymaking and implementation. Yet relative to men.100 development of the rural economy (Holmes. women play a vital role as agricultural producers and as agents of food and nutritional security. processes and sells what. income generation. 2007). By understanding the importance of gender dynamics within the AIS. it is evident that appropriate gender strategies have to be included. biodiversity conservation. the problem is dual. 2007). crops production. However. It follows that gender ought not to be considered as a purely social issue or an addon category to decision-making but rather.
The rapid changes occurring in the agriculture sector present opportunities and challenges for the sector’s central role in poverty reduction and food security. concerned with the underlying causes of inequities and aims to achieve positive change for women. Through gender lens. where it is produced. Advances in agricultural knowledge and technology that accompany the changes are creating an assortment of new choices for small – scale producers. and how it is produced. for women in particular. It can be defined as 'more than biological differences between men and women. 2006). These changes may create opportunities for greater market participation for both women and men. World Bank 2007a). In particular. the interests that women have in . climate change is now affecting water availability and weather conditions and consequently is impacting agricultural production (Bode et al. Consequently.101 notice is that very little is known about who in the AIS needs what type of information and knowledge in order to make well-reasoned decisions. however. altering what is produced. especially for higher-value products. have been valued. Understanding the dynamic processes of change in the innovative system is crucial to better position the agricultural sector for faster growth and sustained development. 2008). The significance of these differences is that the lives and experiences of women and men. whether real or perceived. Markets and the demand for agricultural commodities are changing rapidly. we can recognize: Women’s and men's lives and therefore experiences. occur within complex sets of differing social and cultural expectations. Women’s lives are not all the same. used and relied upon to classify women and men and to assign roles and expectations to them. The term 'gender' refers to the social construction of female and male identity. equal access to these markets is still limited. which is vital for food and livelihoods security for millions of men and women worldwide. Outside factors such as environmental change. issues and priorities are different. including their experience of the legal system. and applies this understanding to policy development and service delivery. and climate change are also altering agricultural potentiality all over the world. This includes the ways in which those differences. Agriculture is vital to the livelihoods of the rural poor and in the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). globalization. There is an obligation to examine the differences in women's and men's lives. Agriculture is the engine of growth and is necessary for reducing poverty and food insecurity (IFAD 2001. to learn and innovate constantly and finally to upgrade to meet shifting market conditions (Vermeulen and Ras. needs. including those which lead to social and economic inequity for women.
the potential of social and technological innovations to address a range of deeply embedded and seemingly intractable . However. no one of these specifically analyze gender neither do these differentiate the women’s and mens’ roles. roles. Through gender analysis. needs. Women’s life experiences. selection of public actions. researchers are entailed. marital status. However. sexual orientation and whether they have dependants).102 common may be determined as much by their social position or their ethnic identity as by the fact they are women. issues. Through this collective action. income levels. Different strategies may be necessary to achieve equitable outcomes for women and men and different groups of women. and resources. the goal for any innovative agricultural system is to bring stakeholders together to gain collective awareness of the system where they are working. in asking questions about the differences between men's and women's activities. Assessing such differences also makes it possible to determine men's and women's constraints and opportunities within the agricultural system. Stakeholder participation and networking are essential elements in each stage of the AIS to ensure that the views of all groups are reflected in the functioning of the system. employment status. evaluation of outcomes and impacts. and ensuring commitment of all actors. building trust amongst them and creating opportunities for joint action. needs. they will develop and strengthen capacities that will become important assets in sustaining and supporting the AIS’s sustainability. these will reveal successes and failures in innovation systems. disability. At the end. first and foremost.1. The life experiences. Conclusions can be valuable in regards to the principles and opportunities for improving the governance of agricultural innovation systems. Examples of current initiatives for gender and innovation in agriculture Over the last decades a number of innovative approaches to solving various weighty development problems have begun to dot the landscape. especially small-scale producers by considering the dynamics of local innovation processes. and priorities vary for different groups of women (dependent on age. Therefore when analysing the innovative agricultural systems. Policymakers can best approach any AIS to align their development priorities and the demands of beneficiaries. Continuous monitoring and reflection during the process is critical to make adjustments along the way. issues and priorities are different for different ethnic groups. This is done in order to identify the developmental needs of men and women. 6. responsibilities and relations. ethnicity. governance and policymaking. integration.
and Heidenreich. in different time periods (Anderson and Teubal. 1993. 2002). The innovation systems approach has been applied to agricultural development in developing countries by Hall (2002). The need for institutional changes to deal with the challenges is also being recognized (CRISP. has been replicated in numerous countries including North America. A common feature among those authors is that they emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and technology in the development of small farmers. Braczyk. 2000. 2007). The Grameen model of microfinance. New non-linear models of innovation systems in agriculture in developing countries. Fritsch. Malerba. including India. the World Bank (2006) Johnson and Segura Bonilla (2001). 2002). and. For example. At national and regional level the concept was adopted by Samberg . 1998. Andersen. the United Nations Commission on Trade and Development. are beginning to demonstrate the importance of going beyond the traditional model consisting of technology transfers and information dissemination. (2001.103 development challenges such as poverty alleviation. Clark et al. Application of the innovation systems approach has since been explored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD. the European Commission. agricultural innovation policies must differentiate among potential targets. et al. at different sectoral levels (Breschi and Malerba. 2004) related to a given technology set (Carlsson and Jacobsson. including the study of systems at different spatial (i. Berdegué and Escobar (2002) have pointed out that because of the nature of rural poverty and the embeddedness of the rural poor in diverse livelihood strategies. et al. and poverty alleviation in rural areas (Berdegué 2005). 2005). innovation systems such as Product Development Partnerships and Advance Market Commitments have been launched to develop and distribute drugs and vaccines for various diseases (Gardner et al. an excellent example. the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Lundvall. geographically determined) levels (Saxenian. sustainable transportation.e. Carlsson. 2001). more recently. energy services and education has led to excitement among various experts including funding agencies and research institutions. 2002). 1997). (2003) Arocena and Sutz (2002) and Hall.. 1995. Latin America and Africa (Yunus. 1997.. public health. 2004). Recent work in innovation systems has added new analytical dimensions. the pro-poor aspects of innovation systems (Alcorta and Peres 1995). 1997) and its members (Arnold and Bell. 1994. Cooke. 1999. Authors in the Latin American context have focused on innovation systems in general (Melo 2001a). 1999). Spielman (2006).
Further. and Hall and Yoganand (2004) in sub-Saharan Africa. and private firms. by studying the institutional learning and change processes that were incorporated into the project design.104 (2005). publicprivate partnerships). cooperation.. Other scholarly studies focused on technologies opportunities.g. for example zero tillage cultivation survey in Argentina conducted by Ekboir and Parallada (2002) that revealed social. the institutions that shape these motives and behaviors. (2002) provide an indepth study of the institutional and organizational learning processes that stimulated the diversification of agricultural research financing in India to include new actors (medium-sized firms and producer cooperatives) and new modalities (e. They also provide analyses that extend beyond single industries or markets to capture a wider range of agents (public and private). Hall et al. The common thread in all these studies is the emphasis placed on the role of diverse actors and interactions within complex systems of innovation. Innovation systems studies often open the “black box” of innovation to analyze actors’ motives and behaviors. and in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Hall et al. and the dynamics of institutional learning and change. it was adopted by Vieira and Hartwich (2002) and in India by Hall et al (1998). Chema (2003). For example. contract research. These studies are distinguished from the many other works on agricultural R&D because they embed analyses of innovation within the wider context of institutional change and change processes. and . Gilbert and Roseboom (2003). a process that resulted from a complex series of events and interactions among farmers. and the institutional context within which these processes occur. India. Studies that use an innovation systems framework are recognized by their ability to analyze processes that are typically overlooked in the linear approach to R&D. In Latin America. Generally. Allegri (2002) and Kangasmemi (2002) focused on producers’ organizations. public researchers. Gijsbera and Wilks (2003). interactions (competition. Peterson. they offer some answers to certain research questions that the conventional R&D literature is often unable to address. and complementary processes of innovation. (2003) unlock the mysteries of a successful donor-funded project in postharvest packaging for small farmers in Himachal Pradesh. Clark et al. (2002) emphasized on public-private interactions in agricultural research in India. interactive. most of its application across countries focused on institutional arrangements in research and innovation. joint. Ekboir and Parellada (2002) offer a detailed look into the social and economic changes that encouraged the diffusion of zero-tillage cultivation in Argentina. farmers’ organizations. and economic change that encouraged the diffusion of technological practices. Roseboom (2004).
1994. Hicks ( 1946) married the notion of innovation to the larger neoclassical framework. Yet the NARS approach tends toward linearity in so far as the movement of knowledge is described as originating from some known source (the scientific researcher) and flowing to some end user (the farmer). rather than the Schumpeterian system described above. Huffman and Evenson. in effect. gave rise to a dense literature on the role of public research systems in generating technological change in agriculture (Echeverría. Alston. and Pardey. Pardey. Norton. and systems theory have contributed to the development of the innovation systems perspective. and extension. 1993. and Hazell and Haddad. Further. Pardey.105 learning). 1995. they often provide analyses of policy design from the perspective of policy as a continuous process that adapts to institutional and technological opportunities presented by socioeconomic change and development (Metcalfe. 1999. . Their work. with the assumption that social and economic institutions in which this process occurs are largely exogenous and unchanging. development. bolstered by studies on the successes of the Green Revolution (Lipton. Hazell and Ramasamy. has translated into the study of how national agricultural research systems (NARS) effect technological change through a linear model of research. and investment) that condition agents’ interactions and responses to innovation opportunities. evolutionary economics. it is Hicks’s work that gave rise to the modern theories of agricultural development and economic development posited most notably by Hayami and Ruttan (1971). 1991. and Alston. Thus. 1995. institutions (social practices and norms). The primary focal point of this literature has been the public sector agricultural research organization. 1989. The NARS perspective recognizes the public goods nature of agricultural research and the absence of market access or purchasing power among many agrarian agents. and Roseboom. This differs significantly from the neoclassical assumption that policy is the domain of fully informed social planners who reconcile social and private welfare within a system of rational maximizers. 2000). technology. 2001. among others). which. among others). and thus places necessary emphasis on the role of the state in fostering technological change. in turn. trade. and policies (science. Theories of technological change in agriculture developed in the latter half of the 20th century have tended toward the Hicksian notion of innovation induced by relative factor scarcities. But while insights from Schumpeter. and Smith. By introducing relative factor scarcities and prices as the key determinants of innovation. they have had little influence on the study of agricultural research and technological change in developing countries. education. Anderson. 1990.
Porter and Phillips-Howard (1997) on contract farming in South Africa. Gilbert.106 A slightly more sophisticated approach is found in the agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS) perspective. and Wilks (2003). is less linear than the NARS approach. Yet it may be argued that the perspective is limited in its ability to conduct analysis beyond the nexus of public sector research. and Hall and Yoganand (2004) Sub-Saharan Africa. Hall et al. and the relationship between innovation and the institutional milieu in which innovation occurs— that become central to later innovation systems studies on developing-country agriculture. Hall et al. The AKIS perspective highlights the linkages between research. Vieira and Hartwich (2002) for Latin America. the organizational and individual competencies of such agents. education. and Hall et al. and Roseboom (2003). by focusing on the dynamics of dissemination through extension. and the learning processes that determine their capacity to change and innovate. Johnson and Segura-Bonilla (2001). and the market and nonmarket institutions that affect the innovation process. disseminating. Roseboom (2004). Later studies by Hall and Clark (1995). More importantly. Regional and national applications of the innovation systems approach include Sumberg (2005). Yet the innovation systems approach is still nascent in the study of developing country agriculture. 1988). and extension services and to consider heterogeneity among agents. the nature and character of their interactions. (1998) for India. the institutional and historical context that conditions their behaviors. (2002) on public-private interactions in agricultural research in India. Arocena and Sutz (2002). Allegri (2002). and utilizing knowledge. or Hall et al. Röling. which incorporates important concepts from the study of information and knowledge economics. and Kangasniemi (2002) on . Peterson. Several studies focus on the institutional arrangements in research and innovation—for example. The innovation systems approach broadens the NARS and AKIS perspectives by focusing on the processes by which diverse agents engage in generating. and Hall et al. university research. The AKIS perspective. 1986. (1998). Biggs and Clay (1981) and Biggs (1989) offer an early foray into the approach by introducing several key concepts—institutional learning and change. Clark (2002). and extension in generating knowledge and fostering technological change (Nagel. Chema. (1998). Gijsbers. embedded as it is in the study of how knowledge flows between and among agents. 2003) introduce the innovation systems approach to the study of developing-country agriculture and agricultural research systems. the approach rectifies some of the conceptual gaps that had impeded analyses of how knowledge moves between researchers and end users. 1979. (2002.
107 producers’ associations in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.. (2002) provide an in-depth study of the institutional and organizational learning processes that stimulated the diversification of agricultural research financing in India to include new actors (e. and the institutional context within which these processes occur. Clark et al. Other studies focus on technological opportunities. by studying the institutional learning and change processes that were incorporated into the project design. identifying the practices followed in developed countries. (2003) unlock the mysteries of a successful donor-funded project in postharvest packaging for small farmers in Himachal Pradesh. The common thread in all these studies is the emphasis placed on the role of diverse actors and interactions within complex systems of innovation. 2002). contract research. For example. and systemic failures within such systems in more advanced developing countries Indeed. they offer some answers to certain research questions that the conventional R&D literature is often unable to address. and . such as Ekboir and Parellada (2002) on zero-tillage cultivation. Care must be taken in applying to developing countries any approach developed in industrial nations. India.g. The approach can help identify context-specific factors that obstruct the creation of systems of innovation in the least developed countries. These studies are distinguished from the many other works on agricultural R&D because they embed analyses of innovation within the wider context of institutional change and change processes. and private firms. as well as imbalances and distortions within any type of innovation system that already exists. it can highlight what is absent within a particular country. public researchers.g. Further. public-private partnerships).. Hall et al. The innovation system approach is now becoming very popular in developing countries. medium-sized firms and producer cooperatives) and new modalities (e. a process that resulted from a complex series of events and interactions among farmers. There is a growing consensus that the range of activities highlighted in the innovation system approach are important for fostering innovation in developing as much as developed countries. As an analytical tool. Nevertheless its core insights about the factors influencing innovation make the innovation system approach a valuable analytical and prescriptive tool for policymaking in developing countries. For example. Ekboir and Parellada (2002) offer a detailed look into the social and economic changes that encouraged the diffusion of zero-tillage cultivation in Argentina. the approach can also identify obstacles to the formation of a well-functioning system of innovation in countries where such a system may only exist in embryonic form (Viotti. farmers’ organizations.
triggers and support structures needed to stimulate and sustain creativity. Acknowledgement of the need for a greater role for the private sector in agricultural research. fostering inter-organizational linkages. it involves thinking more broadly about the range of polices relating to innovation and how different policy domains can be coordinated. policy has to address the incentives.108 contrasting them with the reality found in developing countries. and of the challenges • . will only be met if habits practices and institutions are in place to pursue such goals. and that while financial resources have declined. and encouraging a continuous feedback between institutions engaged in research. can be the first step towards implementing the innovation system approach. production and marketing. In this sense. Discussions about the role of institutions are often constrained by language. 1998). it may identify a need to develop intermediary organizations or to increase a demand for science and technology in the private business sector. For example. Changes as a result of Processes in Agricultural Innovation • The growing realization that the old national agricultural research system model is obsolete as an organizational focus for capacity development. The best that the innovation system approach can do is provide a series of guidelines. such as the need to reduce poverty. probably at the expense of other competing agendas. it provides a way of designing policies that respond to the specific needs of developing countries at different stages of their development. 2000).2. many of the constraints faced by research systems are institutional in nature (Byerlee and Alex. can help guide policy initiatives that are intended to address all the components needed by an economic system to facilitate learning and innovation. It is also important to recognize that policy imperatives. such as the importance of capacity building in both the business sector and supporting research organizations. It is no longer sufficient to focus on research policy alone as the driver of innovation. Towards improved policy and practices Rural planners and researchers need to pay much greater attention to policies and institutions. instead. There are no blueprints for these complex tasks. Another role is as a prescriptive tool for policymaking (Arocena & Sutz. engineering. development. such as viewing the whole innovation process in a systemic way. The practices that it encourages. recognizing their dynamic interactions and the need to include them as critical variables in analyses. 6.
and mechanisms for access to micro financing . Financial services to poor women and men can be improved. Improved access to markets and market facilities improves the productivity and the profitability of family farms. Access to and control over agricultural resources such as land.. this leads to higher incomes for farmers. Changing paradigms in development practice. 2001). 2004). whereby participation. Concerns about the impact of agricultural research and conventional economic impact assessment as a way of capturing impact and the recognition that institutional learning could be an important tool for improving performance (Watts et al.. • • • • • • Public-private coordination is vital and sector reforms represent new opportunities in agriculture.109 of building public–private partnerships to achieve this (Spielman and von Grebmer. 1983). to promote gender equality. 2003). The broadening of the policy agenda of agricultural research to include poverty reduction and environmental sustainability (Hall et al.. both women and men. 2000). to sustain their families. Recognition that civil society organizations and other nonresearch organizations (including farmer groups) are valuable sources of technical and institutional innovation (Biggs. Reforms to improve the agricultural environment through removal and reduction of barriers to movement of produce and registration of companies represent a window of opportunity for gender equality. Such reforms provide an excellent opportunity to incorporate gender equality perspectives. Increased access to resources and assets for women and men is likely not only to reduce economic inequalities. but also. rapid urbanization and increasing competitive pressure in global agricultural commodity markets (Ashley and Maxwell. technology and inputs can be enhanced through awareness-raising and improved enforcement of legislation. Greater awareness of a rapidly evolving development scenario characterized by changing relationships between agriculture and the poor. women affairs and fisheries) and provide the political and regulatory framework for development and growth leaving the productive activities to private stakeholders. 1990). Sector reforms aim to carve out the role of central government (such as ministries of agriculture. industrialization of the food chain. diversity and reflection are becoming the expected modes of professional behaviour (Chambers. 2004). Greater awareness of the opportunities presented by rapid technology development and how this is reconfiguring disciplinary groupings (Hall et al.
Failure to recognize the roles. Third. affect the distribution of resources between them and cause many disparities in the outcomes. effective tools services and training. capacities. gender roles and relations affect the critical indicators of human development. Second. 7. arising from the socially constructed relationship between men and women. and inequalities poses a serious threat to the effectiveness of the agricultural development agenda as a whole. divisions of labour and the relations of power (World Bank. to manage innovatively the risks and challenges associated with rapid changes. Participatory efforts are required to use the strengths and diversity among the different actors of the AIS and their institutions. Gender differences. The appropriateness of innovations (institutional. Ownership of an agro-enterprise can enable a woman to move out of traditional subsistence-oriented roles and into a profitable market producing or selling commercial agricultural products.110 facilities. In the agricultural sector gender inequalities are persistent undermining sustainable and inclusive development of the agricultural sector. one that has value in and of itself. extension . and skills than men. equity or distributional issues are related to gender differences in outcomes. for women who have different needs. organizational) along with technologies can be a crucial consideration. and to ensure that growth reaches the most disadvantaged poor women and men. gender equality is a basic human right. Finally. differences. Gender issues must be addressed in the agricultural innovative systems because gender dimension is crucial for economic reasons and from the efficiency point of view. Conclusion The Agricultural innovation system opportunities can break down traditional gender roles. 2008). include relevant information.
S..111 References A. institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor. & Borras. Hoddinott. (1997). O.. Agwu. A. Dimely. Technology. J.C: ASO. washington D.. and Udry. J. Haddad. Office of Education.. Executive Secretariat for Integral Development.J. A. Sivamohan. Quisumbing. Engineering and Innovation for development. Gender and Development .. N. & Madukwe.. M. property and livelihoods in an era of globalization. Science. G.. World Development 29(5) . African Journal of Biotechnology. Science and technology. M. (2001). M. Alderman. A.. Agarwal. Why research partnerships really matter: Innovation theory. Vol7(11) . 783-797. A synthesis of Recent Research.. J. C (2003). C. ed. Alderman. Haddad. L. Akram-Lodhi. Innovation System Approach to Agricultural Development: Policy Implications for Agricultural Extension Delivery in Nigeria. Oxon: Routledge. S. IFPRI. Hoddinott. A vision of the Americas for Integral development. 1604-1611. & Bockett. Clark. (2003). . (2007). B. H. Household decisions. H. A. “Gender Differentials in Farm Productivity: Implications for Household Efficiency and Agricultural Policy. & and Udry. American States. H. (2006). Bargaining and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Land. L. H. (2008).. Taylor.
M. & Das Chowdhury. R. Beshab. M. E. Academic Foundation. K. D. Rural Development Institute. (2002). Family and Market. B. (2008). Jacobsson. H. Arocena. . Looking at National Innovation Systems from the South. & Davis..C: International Food Policy Research Institute. 28pp). (2009. (2000). Agarwal. In V.. London: Elseviere. J. (2008). Ballabah. Vol 37 . K. Carlsson. VA: Earthscan. Introduction: Governance Challenges in Agriculture. Gender and Agricultural Inequality at the Local Scale. 233-245. (2008. (2005). S. 184-224. Institutional Alternatives and Governance of Agriculture. Retrieved August 25. Boserup. Washington. UNRISD Conference on Agrarian Reform. R. Gender and Innovation in South Asia. A. June 30). Multiple Predictors of Contribution by Women to Agriculture. a. Research Policy 31 .. & Sutz. (November 2001). J. Vol. 3 (1 and 2) . Innovation Systems in Agriculture and Rural Development. Women's role in Economic Development. Barry. (2007). Blake.112 Washington D. sid 681-701. Innovation Systems: Analytical and methodological Issues. Agricultural Systems: Agro-ecology and Rural Innovation for Development (p. Advancing Agriculture in Developing COuntries through Knowledge and Innovation. (1970 (First South Asian Edition 2008)). February). Ballabh. from http://www. Industry and Innovation. J. Rome: International Foundation for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Crosscultural Research 36(3) . S. (2005). T. India. 386). Environment and Planning A. Gender and Land Revisited: Exploring New Prospects via the State. & B. a. Journal of Agrarian Change. 286-297. Pound. K. Family and Market. Berdegué. Rethinking innovation: context and gender. Geneva: UNRISD. Brown. (2003). Holmen. 55-75. Agarwal. Background Paper. V.C: International Food Policy Research Institute.org/ Bezner Kerr. (2002). Gender and Land Rights Revisited: Exploring New Prospects via the State. Asenso-Okyere. S. B. In: Bezner Kerr. Women’s Land Rights in West Bengal: A Field Study. (2002). Pro-Poor Innovation Systems.. 7(1) . & Rickne. B. Synopsis of an International Conference (p.ilri. Lonodn: Sterling.. 2009. Byravan.
(2006). (2008). World Development. & O. Fagerberg. Pound. & Marcelino. . Institute of Development Studies. No. C. The Nature of Agricultural Innovation. 55-62. Demetriades. C. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crowden. Dianne Rocheleau. 900-905. Gender and farming systems Lessons from Nicaragua.113 Carr. G. B. K. (2003). C. 3 . Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). No. A. Men’s Crops and Women’s Crops: The Importance of Gender to the Understanding of Agricultural and Development Outcomes in Ghana's central Region. E. 29 (12) . Agricultural Systems: Agroecology and Rural Innovation for Development (pp. (1996). D. C.. London and New York: Routledge. 8. J. (2008).” Report for the Women’s Advisory Group on Innovation Studies .. cavite. Research Report 162. M. T. G. Vancouver: (Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology (CPROST). Silang. . N. J. pp. FAO. (2001). Vera-Cruz. FAO (2005). World Development Vol. Philippines. 1597-1609.-S. Doss. Doss. Bridge Development Gender. Testing among models of intrahousehold resource allocation. The Mexican Produce Foundations. Snapp. (2005). (2005). Ekboir. Modalities for scaling-up technology and NRM planning process in Northen and Central Mindanao. 36. (2009). S. Supporting Resources Collection. El-Bushara. D. & Nelson. Vol 8. No 5. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. J.. CGIAR-NGO Committee International Workshop on "Going to Scale: Bringing more benefits to more people more quicly". A. Torres Vargas. “Examining Gender Bias in Studies of Innovation. Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences.. Amsterdam: Elseviere/Academic Press. J. agro-biodiversity and local knowledge: A training manual. Conroy. Martínez V. FAO. Mercado. Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience. 1 . In S. Datta. Dutrénit.. Building on gender. & B. P. World Development 24 (10) .. Empowered leaders? Perspectives on women heading households in Latin America and Southern Africa. (November 2000). (2000). Gender and Development Vol. A. & McIlwaine. Successful organizational learning in the Management of Agricultural Research Innovation. 1996. Philippines: International Institute for Rural reconstruction. 309-323). C. (2000). Gender and Governance. Rethinking gender and development practice fro the twenty-first century. Simon Fraser University. Catacutan. (1996). IFPRI. Gender and Development.
National Sectoral Report. Progress of the World’s Women 2008/2009.. a.038. S. Food and Agriculture Organization. Hall. FAO. (1997). J. (1995). FAO. technology and policy 13(1) . American Anthropologist . (1996).. S. H. Cueva-Beteta. M (2009). (2007).A critique of agricultural development.. W. Doraid. & Clark. German. present and future (p. Feminist knowldge claims. World Bank (2009). N. UNIFEM. Eddon. 42). A. Bhandarkar. Women: The key to food security. H. Gendered Science . Ferguson. M. Working Paper Series #2007-013. New agendas for agricultural research in developing countries: policy analysis and institutional implications.Constructing a successor science. Sandler. The origins and implications of using innovation systems perspectives in the design and implementation of agricultural research projects: Some personal observations. Agriculture and World Development. A. and International Fund for Agricultural Development. Taylor. Challenges to Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems: Where Do We Go From Here? Working Paper Series . Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. S. (2000).. A. Rural Sociology 60 (1) . Women. (1995). Hall. Lulea University of Technology. Knowledge. Feldman. A framework for evaluating effectiveness and inclusiveness of collective action in watershed management.114 GENDER AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT. L. local knowledge and gender division of agricultural labor . (2007). 540-552. (2001). FAO. Faulkner. Rome: . Issue 1 . Sweeden.. Past. Journal of International Development Volume 20. Why Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory... A. Hall. Bockett. (2008). Institutional Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor’.. (2007). 99-116. A. 73-91. Goetz. United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology . A. Sivamohan. World development 29:5 . M. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. UNU-MERIT.. 23-43. Agriculture and Rural Development. Hall. TheWorld Bank. Deconstructing Gender and Innovation: Four regional Networks Challenging Swedden' Innovation Policy. Rome: National Sectoral Report for the Philippines. Umea. & Taye. . G. Gender and Accountability. IFAD. Sweeden: Malin Lindberg. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Maastricht: Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on innovation and technology. Women and Population Division Sustainable Development Department. A.
B. Taller "Genero y Desarrollo" en la region Andina. 1-30). Cooperatives and Milk-market Development in the East-African Highlands". Anastasia and Baptista. (2002). (2007). . International Service for National Agricultural Research Division. (2000). Rome: FAO. Heinz-Gerhard. Looking into the household. ILAC Brief No. 279–288. Montevideo: Oficina regional para America Latina y el Caribe IID/IDRC. Hartwich. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00732. Silvia. R. a.. Women the key to food security. 127–142 . . Innovation Systems Governance in Bolivia.. trends and current research in gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment: differentiated pathways out of poverty (pp. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical institute (KIT). Reflexiones y propuestas para una agenda de investigacion en genero y desarrollo en la region andina. The Role of Government in Agricultural Innovation: Lessons from Bolivia. Alexaki. IFAD and ILO. Frank. (2006). Frank and Jansen. Holloway. Hall. (2003). Mytelka. & Baptista. Helen and Sarapura. A. Alexaki. Innovation Systems: Implications for Agricultural Policy and Practices. Ensuring Gender Equality and Capacity Development – opportunities for rural employment and sustainable development. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE.115 783-97. Building Social Capital for Agricultural innovation.. S. (2009). C. G. Using evaluation to enhance institutional learning and change: recent experiences with agricultural research and development. & Mackay.. Experiences with farmer groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. R. "Agroindustrialization through Institutional Innovation: Transaction Costs.. Vol 30(3) . Hartwich. Herrera. Jackson. C. Hartwich. & Ehui. Agricultural Economics 23(3) . W. S. Heemskerk. Horton. (1999). 497-509. (2000). Agricultural Systems 78(2003) . (2005). Delgado. Disciplining Gender? World Development. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00732. Staal. (2007). Hambly-Odame. L. D. A. C. Lessons for Agricultural Innovation Policies. 2. Workshop on “Gaps. FNACSO-Ecuador. IFPRI. René.. F. Lessons for Agricultural Innovation Policies. G. Nicholson. & Oyeyinka. (2004). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Innovation Systems Governance in Bolivia.
and current research in gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment: differentiated pathways out of poverty. Impact of privatization on gender and property rights in Africa. Vol. (2008).) Food. (2003). Dayton-Johnson. Rome: Economic and Social Department. . & Drechsler. J. Australian Journal of International Affairs.In Davis. trends. 2006. Working paper No 247.. A. (2009). Are African high-value horticultural supply chains bearers of gender inequality? FAO-IFAD-ILO Workshop on Gaps. P. Kabeer. 25 (8) . Kimani. FAO. (1997). Policy Brief No 27. J.. 62 Issue 3 . a. Katz. ‘Institutions. Research programme on: Social Institutions and Dialogue. Joseph. M.. OECD Development Centre. and Client-oriented Delivery of Agri-services: Practical Experiences of the Royal Tropical Institute with Facilitating Rural Innovation Processes in Africa. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 357. & Olivieri. Vang. & Chaminade. Lastarria Cornhiel. KIT. Feminization of Agriculture: Trends and Driving Forces. K. Morrisson. B. Mia and Swinnen. Brighton: IDS. 1317-1333. J. 1441-1449. P. IFAD and ILO. D. (2008). R. Relations and Outcomes: Framework and Tools for Gender-Aware Planning. (2009).. B. (2005). (ed. J. S. Africa Renewal. Maertens. (2004). Currrent and Emerging Issues for Economic Analysis and policy research (Curemis II). 22#1 . (2006). Hard fight for access and decision-making power.. Measuring gender (In)equality: Introducing the Gender. Vol. Bridging innovation research and development studies: challenges and research opportunities. Jütting. Issue 10 . L.M. . Agricultural Innovation Systems. Changing Social Institutions to Improve the Status of Women in Developing Countries.. & Meyer. M. C. Institutions and Development Data Base (GID). (2006). Volume 35. Women struggle to secure land rights. Kilby. Lundvall. K.116 Jütting. (2008). Multistakeholder Processes. . F. (1996). Leydesdorff. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute. Lastarria-Cornhiel. S. OECD Development Centre. The Changing Role of Women in the Rural Economies of Latin America. N. Royal Tropical Institute. Agriculture and Rural Development. Rome: FAO. Triple Helix indicators of Knowledge-based Innovation Systems: Introduction to the Special Issue. Background paper for the World Development Report. Research Policy. World Development. C. E. 319-331. Gender and Australian Aid Policy: can women's rights be advanced within a neo-liberal framework? . & Subrahmanian.
Berlin: World Bank Publications. (2006). Social Institutions and Dialogue. 4 . 31. Theory and measurements. Y. (pp. The Role of Gender in Agricultural development. Muenster: LIT Verlag. 491-503. Place and Culture.-L. food security and agriculture in a global marketplace where insight and action connect. . H.. 13119. Institutional Innovations towards Gender Equity in Agrobiodiversity Management: Collective Action in Kerala. International Centers Wekk CGIAR (p. K. Disecting the discourse. 39. C. M.. Regional Studies. Innovation and Regional Renewal. P. (2002). Padmanabhan.. (2004). No. Eaton. K. Bali.. Morgan Kevin (1997).C: CAPRi Working Paper No. The Impact of Social Institutions on the Economic Role of Women in Developing Countries. Development Paradigms. A. Vijayamohanan. Women in Development. (2001). The Learning Region: Institutions. 369-382. (1999). (2003).C: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. . South India. & Martin. From Feminising to engendering development. Pleskovic. Managing National Innovation Systems. Pati. Mehra. Working Paper No.. M.). 63 pp. Massachussetts: harvard Unoversity Press. & Mosugu. Cambridge. Agriculture and Development. OECD development Centre. (2008). In F. 10. Trying to Grow: Gender Relations and Agricultural Innovations in Northern Ghana. Poats. & Datta. A. Indonesia. International Policy Brief . SocioEconomic and Gender Analysis Programme. Morgan. Padmanabhan. Morrisson. Pillai. (2009). Meijerink. Y. (May 2008). Vol. R. S. G. & Ponnuswamy. Rethinking the role of Agriculture: An Overview. Norem. Washington. D. C. Mundlak. R. Vol. Feminist Perspectives and Commons. R. V. N. Nations. (2000). Eleventh Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). May). Asalatha. S. International Food Policy Research Institute. a. Gender. (2005). International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). Washington D. Munich: MPRA Paper No. B. G. & Hill Rojas. M. (1991). Intermediate Level handbook. A. Rome: FAO. OECD. K. (1997). Women. Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge and Gender Issues in Third World Agricultural Development.117 McIlwaine. (2006. 1-30). Agriculture and Economic growth. 234. B.5 . D. Yoder. Paris: OECD. M.
(2009). Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers: Resources.Institute of Development Studies. Resnik. Does Governance contribute to pro-poor growth?: A review of the evidence form cross-country studies. In P. R. S. Volume 34(8) . C. 1-12. B. a. A gender disaggregated activity calendar. R. 254). Constraints. & Hussler.. A. ( 2000). & McClafferty. In H.. M. IUCN.C: The World Bank. Ronde. (2006). Raina. J. H. a. W. M.118 Quisumbing. and Interventions. (2008). Agricultural Innovation Systems:From Disgnostics toward Operational Practices. & Pehu. Nature. R. (2005). (2009). Innovation Africa: Beyond Rhetoric to Praxis. Rajalahti. C. Quisumbing. R. H. (1995). “Gender Makes the Difference: Agriculture”.IUCN Fact Sheet. & Miller. Innovation in regions: What does really matter? Research Policy. Innovation Africa: enriching farmers' livelihoods (p. (2005). Shimwaayi. Sanginga. R.. Jiggins. a. Razavi. L. From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the women and development discourse. Institutions and organizations enabling reforms in Indian agricultural research and policy. Waters-Bayer. Gland. Sanginga. E. Sims Feldstein. Rajeswari S. (2006).. & S. Gender and Development Concepts and Definitions. Spielman. Report N0 55 . Reeves. 405). S. Innovation Systems Perspectives on Developing-Country .. University of Sussex. P. IFPRI publications.. a. & Wettasinha. C. Janssen. 1150-1172. a.. Kaaria. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development Vol. Tools for the field: methodologies handbook for gender analysis in agriculture (p. 2 Issue 2 . Waters-Bayer.. D. H. R. & Poats. P. Development and Diffusion of Energy Efficient Devices–Lessons for pro-poor innovation from TIDE. Rojas. S.. New York: UNIFEM. (2003). World Development: In press . Kaaria. & J. & Chimedza. Women spearhead food security: science and technology for development. & Birner. (2003). Trivandrum. & Pandolfelli.. D. J. Kerala: Innovation Systems for Competitivenes and Shared Prosperity in Developing Countries. Sims Feldstein.C: IFPRI. S. Sussex: BRIDGE. 97-116.. D. Kumarian Press. (1989). Food security in Practice: Using gender research in Development. R. Washington D. UNRISD.. (2006). (1995). Washington. A. Njuki. A. A.
The World Bank Report: Agriculture for Development. land and agriculture. (2004). Women. Oxford: Oxfam Publications. World Bank (2006).680. World Bank (2005. Morrison.. C. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. The Road to 2050. World Bank (2008). World Bank (2008). In D. 293-310). a. In M. R. P. L. ISNAR Discussion Paper. ‘Gendered Visions for Survival. (1999). Linking Producers to Markets. Uganda: Prolinnova. WORKING PAPER Invited lead paper. Mayra Buvini´c. Rocheleau. 653. M. Waters-Bayer. E. (2008). 69 . Agency for International Development . Equality for Women Where Do We Stand on Millennium Development Goal 3? (pp. & Morrison. C. E. . June). DC: Economic and Sector Work. (2006). (2004).C: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. Wangari.C. World Bank (2006). Regional Consultative Experts Workshops. Innovation Africa Symposium. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. M. Understanding the gender Dimensions of Biotechnology Research and Development. U. Washington D.119 Agriculture: A Critical review. Semi-arid Regions in Kenya’. UNCSTD. Washington. “Cultivating Knowledge and Skills to Grow African Agriculture". D. World Bank. A. Gender Dimensions of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. Székely. USAID. U.S. Washington. USAID Agricultural Strategy. National Learning Systems: A new approach on technological change in the late industrializing economies and evidence from the cases of Brazil and South Korea.A. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Wongtschowski. United Nations Commission on Science and technology for Development. van Veldhuizen.. (1996). A. (2002).. Recognising and enhancing local innovation processes. Kampala. USAID (2004). New York: The World bank Publications.S. Viotti. Sweetman. & Wettasinha. Sustainable Development for the 21st Century. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening research systems. ISNAR.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.