| Literature DB >> 31391733 |
Johnny Mugisha1, Christopher Sebatta1, Kai Mausch2, Elizabeth Ahikiriza1, David Kalule Okello3, Esther M Njuguna4.
Abstract
Female plot managers in Sub-Saharan Africa often realize significantly lower crop yields than their male counterparts. Even for legumes, which are often referred to as 'women's crops', yields are significantly lower. This study investigated the underlying causes of this gender yield gap in groundnut production. The analysis is based on survey data from 228 farm households from two groundnut growing regions in Uganda. We used the Blinder-Oaxaca model to decompose factors that contribute to this yield gap. Results show 63% and 44% gender yield gaps for improved and local varieties, respectively, with female plot managers realizing less than their male counterparts. Improved groundnut seeds increase female plot manager's yields but not the yields of male plot managers. Male advantage and female disadvantage combined account for more than 70% of the yield gap in both improved and local groundnut variety production and exceed pure productivity differences. Labor use differences between female and male plot managers and variety types explain the observed yield gap. Interventions and policies that increase women's access to productive inputs including improved seed will significantly contribute to closing the yield gap, and thereby increase crop production, food security, as well as women's incomes.Entities:
Keywords: Blinder-Oaxaca model; female-managed plot; gender yield gap; male-managed plot
Year: 2019 PMID: 31391733 PMCID: PMC6636893 DOI: 10.1080/09718524.2019.1621597
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gend Technol Dev ISSN: 0971-8524
Variables used in the Blinder-Oaxaca yield gap model.
| Dependent variable = Farmer’s groundnut yield (Kg/ha) | |
|---|---|
| Explanatory variables | Variable Measurement/description |
| Pest and disease constraint (Yes = 1, No = 0) | Dummy (if farmer considers pests and diseases to be a serious groundnut production constraint) |
| Region (Northern = 1, Eastern = 0) | Regional location of the farmer in Uganda |
| Seed productivity trait index | Index of six groundnut seed productivity attributes farmers consider when selecting seed |
| Whether the farmer practiced timely weeding (Yes = 1, No = 0) | Dummy (farmer weeded his/her groundnuts on time) |
| Number of family members involved in groundnut harvest | Number of household members who participated in the harvest of groundnuts in the last two seasons |
| Whether the farmer perceived soil infertility as a production constraint (Yes = 1, No = 0) | Dummy (farmer perception of his/her groundnut plot soil fertility) |
| Total land owned by household farmer (ha) | Total area of land owned by the groundnut farmer |
| How much credit a farmer obtained from VSLA (US$) | Amount of money farmer borrowed from a village savings scheme |
| Farmers’ age (years) | Age of the farmer |
| Farmer considers high yield seed at seed selection (Yes = 1, No = 0) | Dummy (Farmer considers the yield capacity of groundnut seed at seed selection) |
| Crop diversity index | Index calculated as number of crops grown by farmer out of total available in the area |
| Total annual seed and chemical costs (US$) | Annual seed and chemical costs spent on groundnuts |
| Total annual hired labor (man hours) | Total man hours of hired labor used in groundnuts annually |
| Farmer’s education level (years) | Level of education (number of years at formal school) of the farmer |
| Woman decides on how to spend income from groundnuts (Yes = 1, No = 0) | Dummy (woman has power to decide how to use the income earned from groundnuts) |
Seed productivity trait index calculated from binary responses on the farmer’s perception of; yielding capacity, early maturity, grain size, pods per plant, pod size, resistance to pests and diseases.
Summary statistics of variables used in the Oaxaca-Blinder model.
| Pooled sample | Farmer grew improved varieties | Farmer grew local varieties | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | Women ( | Men ( | Women ( | Men ( | |||||
| Variable | Mean (Std. Dev.) | Mean | Std. Dev. | Mean | Std. Dev. | Mean | Std. Dev. | Mean | Std. Dev. |
| Groundnut yield (Kg ha−1) | 638.71b (570.81) | 499.27b | 380.43 | 789.52 | 408.63 | 447.33 | 369.69 | 621.15 | 579.49 |
| Pest and disease constraint (%) | 16.22b | 12.20 | – | 5.88 | – | 19.57 | – | 19.67 | – |
| Region (North, %) | 13.83b | 19.51 | – | 14.71 | – | 47.83b | – | 31.15 | – |
| Seed productivity trait index | 6.29 | 10.57 | – | 10.29 | – | 3.08 | – | 6.01 | – |
| Whether the farmer practiced timely weeding (Yes = 1, No = 0) | 59.65 | 56.10c | – | 88.24 | – | 55.43 | – | 52.46 | – |
| Number of family members involved in groundnuts harvest | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 4.00 | ||||
| Total land owned by household farmer(ha) | 4.62c (2.83) | 4.82 | 3.12 | 5.84 | 2.96 | 3.85c | 2.61 | 4.98 | 2.59 |
| How much credit a farmer obtained from VSLA (US$) | 60.47 (66.99) | 88.45 | 101.09 | 53.99 | 49.69 | 47.20 | 49.92 | 91.26 | 175.87 |
| Farmer's age (years) | 43.00b (13.00) | 39.76b | 11.71 | 46.00 | 11.74 | 42.17 | 12.93 | 44.77 | 14.84 |
| Farmer considers yield attribute at seed selection (%) | 71.49 | 82.93 | – | 79.41 | – | 65.22 | – | 68.85 | – |
| Crop diversification index (number of crops grown by farmer out of total available in the area) | 0.27b (0.15) | 0.23 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.14 |
| Total annual seed and chemical costs spent on groundnuts (US$) | 45.22b (64.72) | 46.57 | 65.64 | 70.06 | 80.37 | 32.49a | 56.46 | 51.07 | 64.04 |
| Total annual hired labor (man hours) | 618.91a (5271.66) | 152.13 | 807.98 | 2101.10 | 11,138.45 | 24.44 | 29.97 | 922.25 | 5596.93 |
| Farmer’s education level (years in school) | 6.45c (3.55) | 6.88a | 3.03 | 8.06 | 2.94 | 4.96c | 3.77 | 7.51 | 3.02 |
| Woman decides on spending income groundnuts (%) | 37.28 | 29.27 | – | 47.06 | – | 36.96 | – | 37.70 | – |
Significance (Women-men comparison): a10%, b5%, c1%.
Labor use by gender in groundnut production.
| Number of workers used annually per activity | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local variety | Improved | |||||
| Women | Men | Pooled sample | Women | Men | Pooled sample | |
| Activity | Family labor | |||||
| Bush clearing | 4.33 (2.51) | 4.14 (3.12) | 4.25 (2.76) | 5.57 (6.04) | 4.2 (2.84) | 4.93 (4.82) |
| Seedbed preparation | 8.63 (8.15) | 7.15 (5.30) | 8.04 (7.18) | 6.16 (6.44) | 6.86 (6.91) | 6.47 (6.61) |
| Groundnut planting | 5.56 (3.54) | 5.7 (5.15) | 5.62 (4.21) | 5.36 (3.74) | 6.21 (5.83) | 5.744.76 |
| Weeding | 4.63 (2.54) | 5.94 (3.80) | 5.03 (3.01) | 5.94 (4.42) | 6.38 (7.46) | 6.08 (5.45) |
| Groundnut harvesting | 6.42a (6.16) | 4.41 (4.55) | 5.65 (5.66) | 6.22 (6.37) | 5.17 (5.60) | 5.76 (5.99) |
| Hired labor | ||||||
| Bush clearing | 6.96 (9.52) | 5.92 (12.06) | 6.46 (10.72) | 4.13 (2.87) | 3.38 (2.22) | 3.79 (2.58) |
| Seedbed preparation | 8.21 (13.81) | 10.98 (14.22) | 9.41 (13.98) | 7.59 (5.96) | 7.92 (5.94) | 7.75 (5.89) |
| Planting | 6.64 (6.78) | 8.14 (9.40) | 7.43 (8.25) | 5.4 (4.86) | 6.83 (4.90) | 6.18 (4.88) |
| Weeding | 10.15 (9.80) | 10.14 (8.12) | 10.14 (9.04) | 6.7b (3.37) | 10.91 (7.28) | 8.48 (5.72) |
| Harvesting | 7.07 (8.73) | 6.75 (7.52) | 6.92 (8.03) | 4.11 (2.67) | 3.13 (2.03) | 3.65 (2.37) |
Significance: a10%, b1%.
Oaxaca uncorrected for selection bias pooled model for gender yield gap in groundnut production.
| Uncorrected for selection bias model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmer used improved seed | Farmer used local/indigenous seed | |||||
| Yield | Coefficient (Robust Std. Err) | [95% Conf. Interval] | Coefficient (Robust Std. Err) | [95% Conf. Interval] | ||
| Differential | ||||||
| Prediction_1 (Women) | 6.20a (0.28) | 5.65 | 6.74 | 5.86a (0.17) | 5.55 | 6.21 |
| Prediction_2 (Men) | 6.65a (0.23) | 6.20 | 7.10 | 6.22a (0.22) | 5.80 | 6.65 |
| Difference | −0.46 (0.36) | −1.17 | 0.25 | −0.35 (0.28) | −0.89 | 0.19 |
| Decomposition | ||||||
| Explained | 0.36 (0.34) | −0.32 | 1.03 | 0.05 (0.23) | −0.39 | 0.49 |
| Unexplained | −0.81b (0.33) | −1.46 | −0.17 | −0.40 (0.30) | −0.99 | 0.19 |
| Endowments | 3.46 (4.66) | −5.66 | 12.58 | −0.36 (0.39) | −1.140 | 0.391 |
| Coefficients | −1.61b (0.72) | −3.03 | −0.20 | 12.65 (17.36) | −21.38 | 46.68 |
| Interaction | −2.30 (4.68) | −11.48 | 6.87 | −12.62 (17.39) | −46.70 | 21.46 |
Significance: a1 and b5% level, respectively.
Oaxaca corrected for selection bias (Heckman) model for gender yield gap in groundnut production.
| Corrected for selection bias model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmer used improved seed | Farmer used local/indigenous seed | |||||
| Yield | Coefficient (Robust Std. Err) | [95% Conf. Interval] | Coefficient (Robust Std. Err) | [95% Conf. Interval] | ||
| Differential(gap) | ||||||
| Prediction_1 (Women) | 6.20a (0.28) | 5.65 | 6.74 | 5.88 (0.17) | 5.55 | 6.21 |
| Prediction_2 (Men) | 7.47a (2.83) | 1.93 | 13.01 | 6.11 (0.34) | 5.44 | 6.78 |
| Difference | −1.28 (2.84) | −6.84 | 4.29 | −0.24 (0.38) | −0.98 | 0.51 |
| Endowments | 3.13 (6.31) | −9.23 | 15.49 | −0.38 (0.29) | −0.94 | 0.18 |
| Coefficients | −2.43 (2.91) | −8.14 | 3.28 | 12.76 (16.05) | −18.69 | 44.21 |
| Interaction | −1.97 (6.33) | −14.37 | 10.43 | −12.62 (6.05) | −44.07 | 18.83 |
a1% level.The selection model is estimated with household size, expected groundnut yield, area allocated to groundnuts annually and woman having power to decide on use of land as selection variables.
Decomposition model by farmer gender and variety type produced.
| Farmer used improved seed variety | Farmer used local seed variety | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | Women | Men | |
| Variable | Coef. (Std. err) | Coef. (Std. err) | Coef. (Std. err) | Coef. (Std. err) |
| Pest and disease constraint (Dummy) | 1.00 (1.20) | 0.80 (1.32) | 0.09 (0.40) | 0.98 (0.62) |
| Region (North = 1, East = 0) | −2.34c (0.92) | −2.50 (3.30) | −0.17 (0.56) | 0.27 (0.62) |
| Seed productivity trait index | 2.79c (1.10) | 1.56 (2.41) | −1.33 (2.57) | 0.48 (1.42) |
| Whether the farmer practiced timely weeding (Yes = 1, No = 0) | 1.43c (0.63) | 0.96 (0.81) | 0.76b (0.33) | −0.34 (0.45) |
| Total land owned by household farmer (ha) | −0.26a (0.05) | 0.08 (0.10) | 0.00 (0.08) | 0.20c (0.10) |
| How much credit a farmer obtained from VSLA (US$) | −0.01 (0.00) | −0.00 (0.01) | −0.01a (0.00) | −0.00 (0.00) |
| Farmer considers high yield seed at seed selection (dummy) | −1.50c (0.62) | 0.70 (0.61) | 0.42 (0.39) | 0.28 (0.80) |
| Crop diversification index (number of crops grown by farmer out of total available in the area) | 5.81a (1.17) | 7.44 (9.88) | −1.51 (1.48) | 0.09 (1.99) |
| Total annual seed and chemical costs spent on groundnuts (US$) | 92.65 (202.51) | −106.83 (344.02) | −15.84 (16.70) | 368.91 (236.35) |
| Total annual hired labor (man hours) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.01 (0.01) | −0.00a (0.00) |
| Farmer’s education level (years in school) | −0.14 (0.09) | −0.03 (0.21) | −0.02 (0.08) | 0.04 (0.09) |
| Woman decides on how to spend income from groundnuts (dummy) | −1.25 (0.71) | 0.60 (1.28) | 0.52 (0.32) | −1.11b (0.49) |
| Constant | 7.02a (0.90) | 3.23 (2.40) | 6.01a (0.88) | 3.46b (1.24) |
| Model summary | ||||
| Number of observations | 38.00 | 29.00 | 69.00 | 52.00 |
| Prob > | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.95 | 0.77 | 0.41 | 0.65 | |
Significance: a1%, b5% and c10% levels, respectively.
Geometric means decomposition of yield gap by gender and variety type.
| Yield | Improved variety | Local/indigenous variety | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| exp(b) (kg ha−1) | [95% Conf. Interval] | exp(b) (kg ha−1) | [95% Conf. Interval] | |||
| Differential(gap) | ||||||
| Prediction_1(women) | 490.61 | 296.10 | 812.91 | 356.18 | 268.25 | 472.92 |
| Prediction_2(men) | 774.76 | 567.81 | 1057.16 | 504.38 | 348.24 | 730.54 |
| Difference | 63.30% | 35.00% | 114.60% | 70.60% | 44.30% | 112.60% |
| Decomposition | ||||||
| Explained | 1.43 | 0.73 | 2.801 | 1.051 | 0.676 | 1.635 |
| Unexplained | 44% | 23% | 84.50% | 67.20% | 37.20% | 121.30% |
Decomposition of the yield differential between men and women using a linear regression model.
| Improved variety | Local variety | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | Coef. | Percentage | Coef. | Percentage |
| Omega = 1 (Men) | ||||
| Characteristics | −3.46 | −757.49% | 0.38 | 107.71% |
| Coefficients | 3.92 | 857.49% | −0.03 | −7.71% |
| Omega = 0 (Women) | ||||
| Characteristics | −1.157 | −253.22% | 13.00 | 3,735.92% |
| Coefficients | 1.614 | 353.22% | −12.65 | −3,635.92% |
| Omega = wgt (Neumark weight) | ||||
| Productivity | 0.10 | 22.80% | 0.10 | 28.77% |
| Advantage | 0.18 | 39.64% | 0.14 | 40.26% |
| Disadvantage | 0.17 | 37.56% | 0.11 | 30.97% |
| Raw | 0.46 | 100% | 0.35 | 100% |