gender considerations in decision-making in rural nigeria
TRANSCRIPT
1
GENDER CONSIDERATIONS IN DECISION MAKING IN RURAL NIGERIA: IMPLICATIONS ON HOUSEHOLDS’ FOOD SECURITY IN EKITI STATE
I. B. Oluwatayo (PhD)
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Services, University of Ado-Ekiti, P.M.B. 5363, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria. E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract This study examined how the level of participation in decision-making influences households’ food security status in Rural Nigeria. Ekiti State was particularly chosen for this study because of its prime position among the poorest States (top five) in the country and that it depicts the nation’ s true agrarian nature. This study used the data collected from a random sample of 254 households, covering five local governments out of the sixteen local government areas in the state and the Federal Government’s Special Programme on Food Security (SPFS) unit located at Erinfun all in Ekiti State. The data were collected though the aid of well-structured questionnaire and interview schedule. Analytical techniques used include descriptive statistics (tables, frequencies, mean e.t.c.-used to analyse households’ socioeconomic characteristics) and probit model (used to examine the determinants of food security among households surveyed). From the study, it was observed that there were more male respondents than female respondents in the study area. The female respondents (28 percent) were more educationally disadvantaged than their male counterparts (43 percent) and the main sources of farmland used by female farmers were through hire/rent (9 percent), part of husband’s land (6 percent) and the ones inherited from family (7 percent). On the food security status of the households, it was found out that households experience increased food insecurity especially during the planting season (lean period). Meanwhile, the results of the probit analysis showed that age (0.0317*), gender (0.1251***), household size (-0.0557**), educational level (0.1932***), belonging to social group (0.2469**) and Income (0.1297***) were the determinants of food security in the study area. For instance, the higher the age (positive coefficient) of the respondents, the higher the food security level. On the other hand, respondents with formal education were more food secured than those with no formal education. Meanwhile, the most startling observation from this study was that less then 30 percent of the female respondents actively participated actively in all the decision-making roles considered except the decision-making on the types of food to buy (where only about 40 percent females took the decision). The findings therefore underpins the need to implement the recommendation made at the Beijing Conference that at least 30 percent of decision-making on any issue should be left to women. Based on the study findings, it is recommended that empowerment of women educationally and financially (giving them more access to resources) and awareness of men on gender issues should be intensified and given utmost priority in the study area and the country at large if the clamour to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs 1 and 3- i.e. reduce poverty by half and ensure gender equity by 2015) is anything to go by. Key words: Gender, Participation, Decision-making, Food security, Ekiti State, Rural Nigeria The grant received from F. S. Idachaba Foundation for Research and Scholarship (IFRES), Ibadan, Nigeria to carry out this study is gratefully acknowledged.
2
INTRODUCTION
In developing countries across the globe, over eight million people currently face food insecurity, and the
challenge of meeting their food and nutritional requirements is likely to become greater in the years ahead
(Quisumbing and Maluccio, 2005). One untapped source of agricultural growth to help meet these needs could lie
in reducing the bias against women in agriculture. Women in developing countries play significant roles in
maintaining the three pillars of food security- food production, economic access to available food, and nutritional
security. But they play these roles in the face of enormous social, cultural and economic constraints. In other
words, the place of gender as a fundamental issue in assuring food security both at national, household and
individual levels cannot be overemphasized. This is because increasing attention is now being paid to the gender
dimension of poverty and development particularly in relation to the role of women in agricultural processes. Some
organisations like the Food and Agricultural Organisation-FAO have started talking about the “feminization of
agriculture” in the developing world, based on the facts that women represent 66 percent of the economically
active population working in the sector and are identified as major providers of food and income for their families
and communities in rural areas.
Meanwhile, the word ‘gender’ relates to the socially assigned roles and behaviours of men and women. It is the
social meaning of biological sex differences. “It affects the distribution of resources, wealth, work, decision-making
and political power, and the enjoyment of rights and entitlements within the family as well as public life” (DAW,
1999). While food security is traditionally viewed as having two dimensions – spatial and temporal, in fact, it has
three, with gender being the third and most overlooked (FCND, 1999). Identifying individuals’ differential access to
resources and benefits is the fundamental feature of gender analysis, and ensuring equitable access and
distribution will enhance food security. Research and field experience have clearly illuminated the different roles
and responsibilities that men and women have in their individual lives, in their families and households, and in
their communities. While both men and women are income earners and agricultural producers, women also
process and prepare food, and use their income for their children’s benefit (Thomas, 1997; Carr, 1991). Women
also provide the majority of care for their families, take their children to health services, and ensure a healthy
environment – the very components of good nutrition (Levin et al, 1999). Yet women make these critical
contributions with limited access to necessary resources, to decisions on allocation and use of those resources,
and to the derived benefits (Johnson-Welch, 1999). Individual and household food security is mediated by
individual actions and the choices they make in producing food, earning income or acquiring assets, feeding and
caring for family members. Thus, it is critical to maximize these individuals’ contributions by ensuring their
equitable access to and control over the resources needed to meet their roles and responsibilities. Indeed,
overcoming gender-based inequities in resource access and decision-making could very much enhance women’s
contributions to food security and its nutritional benefits (UNFPA, 1999). Furthermore, improving women’s health
3
and nutrition, and their access to education and training opportunities, enhances their human capital as an input to
ensuring individual and household food security (FCND, 1999).
The sustainable production of food is the pillar of food security. Women account for 70 to 80 percent of household
food production in Sub-Saharan Africa, 65 percent in Asia, and 45 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.
They achieve this despite unequal access to land, to inputs such as improved seeds and fertilizer, and to
information. Given equal access to resources and human capital, women farmers can achieve yields equal to or
even, as some studies show, significantly higher than those of men. Around 50 developing countries depend on
the exports of three or fewer mainly agriculture commodities, which not only represent more than half of their
exports earnings (UNCTAD, 2004), but also play a major role as a source of employment as well as a vital means
for fulfilling food security and rural development needs of their population. According to the FAO, rural women are
responsible for half of the world's food production and have a prominent role in agriculture at all levels, in home
farm production critical to household maintenance as well as in commercial agriculture mainly oriented to export
crops. Women contribute significantly to secondary crop production, such as legumes and vegetables, which
provide essential nutrients for their families and are often the only food available during the lean seasons or in
case the main crop fails. Women are therefore fundamental for guaranteeing food security and household
maintenance not only for their own families, but also for their community in general.
However, food security as a concept came into focus and has developed, multiplied and diversified ever since the
World Food Conference of 1974 (Maxwell, 1996). The main concern has shifted from global and national to
household and individual food security and from availability to accessibility. The shift to food accessibility is partly
attributed to Sen’s (1981) work on entitlement theory. This is because of the crucial role that households (being
an integral part of the nation and the supplier of primary products) play in ensuring food security. Food is a basic
human necessity, its availability (via production and distribution) and accessibility (i.e. affordability) remains a
major challenge in developing economies. Food security” has a long history as an “organizing principle” for social
and economic development (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992). Over time, this concept has been operationally
defined in a number of ways. In most cases, the definitions include elements of availability (supplies of food),
accessibility (both physical and economic), and utilization (physiological ability to absorb and utilize consumed
nutrients) (USAID, 1997). In general, “food security” refers to that situation in which there is “access for all people
at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life” (FCND, 1999; FAO, 1997; World Bank, 1986). Food security
is about equitable access to markets, distribution of resources – within households, among individuals, across
communities – and viable options and opportunities to take action and make decisions.
In many countries, changes have been taking place in dietary habits, with increasing consumption of meat, dairy
products, and processed foods, and decreasing consumption of cereals and other basic foods. Methods of food
production, processing, and marketing are also changing rapidly and international trade in raw commodities and
4
processed foods has grown substantially. The increases in world population and urbanization are critical issues in
terms of food availability, access to food and nutritional well-being- more people will require more food, more
goods, more services, and more employment opportunities. With a projected world population of 7.8 billion people
by the year 2025, there is considerable concern on how to provide for this number of human beings, and to meet
their changing demands, in an adequate and sustainable way.
Statement of the Problem
Notwithstanding women’s contribution to global food security, women farmers are commonly underestimated and
ignored in development strategies and trade negotiations processes. They have experienced few concrete
benefits and in several cases have even been adversely affected in their living and development conditions as
result of the implementation of some policies. In fact, there is a general idea among policy makers, politicians,
trade officials and negotiators that trade liberalization will reduce poverty equally for men and women. It is also
believed that market access will promote development and improve the conditions of men and women evenly.
Accordingly, the design and implementation of policies at national and multilateral level are gender-blind in their
orientation; but not gender-neutral in their effects.
Women are frequently neglected in economic, trade and development policies and planning because of socio-
historical patterns in regard to gender-based division of labour. The role of women is generally associated with
non-economic and unpaid work, most of which takes place within the so-called reproductive economy. However, it
is the reproductive economy that supplies labour and social capital to the economy and transmits social and
cultural values to communities, even when such a contribution is not registered in systems of national accounts
(since no market value is attributed to the labour involved). Socio-historical standards and stigmatization of the
role of women lead as well to a lack of gender disaggregated data (FAO, 1999), particularly in agricultural
activities, which is one important obstacle for policy makers when taking into consideration the gender dimension
and performing an in-depth analysis of the impact of developmental policies on women as a group. According to
studies of FAO: “Gender bias and gender blindness persist: farmers are still generally perceived as 'male' by
policy-makers and development planners. For this reason, women find it more difficult than men to gain access to
valuable resources such as land, credit and agricultural inputs, technology, extension, training and services that
would enhance their production capacity. A lack of available gender-disaggregated data means that women's
contribution to agriculture in particular is poorly understood and their specific needs ignored in development
planning.
From the foregoing and considering the importance of household as a motivating unit for increased food
production and the participation of men and women in national development, there has to be a well-guided
5
incentives and policy to increase household women’ status and reduce gender inequity in decision-making
especially in those decisions bothering on well-being. Thus, this study will attempt to answer such question as;
• Who does what and with what resources?
• Who takes major decisions on the type of food to buy, eat and grow?
• Who has access to or control over resources and benefits within the household?
Answers to all these questions will enhance analyses of gender roles and responsibilities, constraints,
opportunities and incentives (resources) available to household members.
Objectives of the Study
The general objective of this study is to examine how the decision-making power of men and women influence the
food security status of rural households in Ekiti State. The specific objectives of the study are to:
1) Investigate and characterize the determinants of food security among rural households in Ekiti State.
2) Examine the effect(s) of gender inequity in decision making on the food security status of these households.
3) Access various food insecurity coping strategies (formal or informal) adopted by the households whenever
there is a shortfall.
Rationale for the Study
There is a need to acknowledge the fact that improving women’s decision making power relative to men’s within
households would lead to improvements in a variety of well-being outcomes for members. This is because while
women’s decision making power within households, where most of the decisions about care for household
members take place, is known to be lower than that of men, women are the main caretakers of household
members (especially children and the aged) in most of the developing countries of the world. Past studies have
demonstrated that when women’s power is increased, they use it to direct household resources toward improving
their caring practices and therefore the health and nutritional status of household members (Thomas, 1997;
Kishor, 2000; Smith et al, 2003; Smith and Byron, 2005).
On the other hand, persistent malnutrition among inhabitants of these countries is continuously crippling the future
of the generations upon which any country must ultimately depend. Food insecurity problem is often reflected
among pregnant women and is a major cause of low birth weight and associated high infant and preschool
morbidity and mortality. These are exacerbated when mothers are undernourished during lactation because of
food insecurity. This malnutrition also limits the contribution of these mothers to their important and social
responsibilities to their families and communities at large. Again, food insecurity has indirectly contributed to the
declining productivity levels recorded among farmers and even children in their schools in terms of cognitive
performance. Research focusing on food security has now shifted from global and national to household and
6
individual food security and from food availability to food accessibility. Despite these developments, much of the
literature on food security has concentrated at higher levels, paying little attention to household level (especially
rural households). Also, the issues of food accessibility (affordability) are yet to receive adequate attention in
Nigeria.
Therefore, research is needed on how best to reduce gender inequity and ensure food security as it relates to the
present and future policies on household roles and responsibilities, information on which food or nutritional
problems should receive priority and how resources are to be allocated among various target groups. Moreover,
socio-cultural/economic factors affecting food distribution, availability and accessibility within the household needs
to be known as the knowledge of community food supplies or overall household consumption alone is not enough.
This study is therefore justifiable based on the issues raised above.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK/LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Framework
The first framework employed considers household as a motivation creating unit for improving the food security
status, the level of productivity and the decision-making abilities of its members, especially women. Two
approaches for thinking about household decision are the unitary household model and the collective household
model (World Bank, 1995; Thomas, 1997). The unitary household model assumes that households pool resources
and allocate them according to a common set of objectives of their members by allocating income and other
resources to the individuals and enterprises that promise the highest rate of return, as reflected in prices and
wages. An increase in household income increases the well-being of all household members. However, recent
evidence has challenged the underlying assumption that the household’s interest can be aggregated into a single
utility function. These assumptions are especially problematic in many societies where the division of obligations
for family maintenance is highly gender specific. In these societies, men and women allocate the resources under
their control to activities that best enable them to fulfill their obligations rather than to activities that are most
productive. A very clear case is that of a polygamous household, in which income is not pooled and each wife has
clear and distinct responsibilities to herself and her children.
In the collective household model, the welfare of individual household members is not synonymous with overall
household welfare. Resources are not necessarily pooled, and the household acts as a collective, with members
having their own preferences. Decisions on resource allocation reflect market rates of return. But they also mirror
the relative bargaining power of household members within the group. Bargaining power is a function of social and
cultural norms as well as of such external functions as opportunities for paid work, laws governing inheritance and
control over productive assets and property rights. Thus, an increase in household income may benefit some
7
household members but leave others unaffected or worse-off. The outcome depends on member’s ability to
exercise control over resources both within and outside the household and it cannot be assumed that individual’s
well-being increases as household income rises. The collective household model helps to explain why gender
inequalities persist even though household income increase over time. The gender concept here will enable us to
provide evidence for the fact that household food security status is determined mainly by intrahousehold
differences.
The second framework is a household production framework used to examine the determinants of household food
security (Strauss and Thomas, 1995). The household is postulated to maximize a utility function, which comprises
the nutrition of each household member, food and non-food items purchased, household production and leisure.
This will be achieved by modeling household activities. This is because household models account for the
interrelationship of production, consumption and resource use or allocation. However it is worthy of note that the
literature on the determinants of household food security makes it clear that the choice of dependent variables has
varied across studies. Thus, there has been a shift from objective measures to subjective measures (e.g. Maxwell,
1996; Maxwell et al. 1999). While some researchers have used such objective measures as food availability as a
proxy for food security, others have measured the same using food intakes. The latter takes into account the food
accessibility issues.
Literature Review
Women have been ascertained to play a very significant role in national development but it is rather unfortunate
that women are still being treated as second fiddle while in some communities they are relegated even to the
extent that they are not allowed to hold any key positions and yet the bulk of household responsibilities rest on
them. Redressing gender inequalities in developing economies since the United Nations Decade for women
between 1975 and 1985 has brought some progress to understanding gender related issues but a lot still need to
be done to adequately address the problem associated with it. Gender inequality therefore describes the socially
determined attributes of men and women including male and female roles (Poats, 1971) and this has proved to be
the most useful way to disaggregate the rural households and analyze intrahousehold behaviour (Cloud, 1987).
The gender concept here will enable us to provide evidence for the fact that household food security status is
determined mainly by intrahousehold differences.
It has been established that too wide gender gap could lead to lopsided policy, misplacement of priority and
inefficient allocation of resources. For instance, in communities where there are gender discrimination women are
the worst hit of any program or project aimed at boosting the standard of living of the people. In some part of Asia
and other developing countries, young females are often exposed to excess poverty-induced nutritional and health
8
risk within household and these appears to be one factor explaining the missing millions of women (Muhavi and
Preston, 1991). Women work longer than men to achieve the same level of living. There is evidence that, as
women participate more in market work under pressure of poverty their domestic labour is not substantially
reassigned to men (Bardhan, 1985). Also, women face lower chances of independent escape from poverty in part
because women’s large share of domestic commitment prevent them from seizing new and profitable work
opportunities as readily as men (Haddad, 1991). Again, one of the few systematic studies (Dreze, 1990b) shows
that nuclear widow-headed households in India are by far the poorest (even average expenditure per person is 70
percent below overall average). The younger the oldest male in such households, the deeper their poverty. Thus,
an important way in which poverty is feminized is that male-dominated societies make the escape from poverty
harder for women. This suggests that poverty is more likely to be chronic for women and transient for men.
However, enhancing the food security status of household members is a major challenge facing the increasing
number of hungry and undernourished populace of developing countries the world over. A country and its people
are food secure when production, market and social systems work in such a way that food consumption needs are
always met (Maxwell, 1990). Thus, a food-secured household is expected to have access to the food that will
ensure adequate dietary intake for its members. Hunger and under-nutrition has continued to be serious problem
for many people in many countries. Persistent hunger is a condition brought about by not having enough to eat.
Under-nutrition results from insufficient intake of specific nutrients in a diet and this may or may not coexist with
hunger but both are closely related to poverty. The essential determinants of food security are access to food,
availability of food and risks associated with either access or availability. It is clear that a country or region that is
food insecure will have its citizens suffering. Thus, food insecurity leads to hunger and under-nutrition. This
invariably results into loss of productivity and inefficient resource allocation due to diminish work performance,
lowered cognitive ability and school performance, and inefficient or ineffective income-earning decisions. In other
words, food insecurity is a threat to increased production and actualization of national goals and aspirations.
What is very clear from these findings is that in spite of the roles and relevance of women in nation building they
are not remunerated the way they are supposed to. To buttress this assertion, Obasanjo and Mabogunje (1991)
observed that women play a vital role in stimulating and conditioning the performance, contribution and disposition
of the younger generation to matters connected with the development and greatness of the nation. In a way,
women have major control over the most nutritionally at risk group, infants and children as well as nearly total
control over their prenatal health. Data from Brazil show that giving women more control over non-labour income
has a larger impact on child’s anthropometric measures, nutritional intakes, and the proportion of the household
budget devoted to human capital development (Thomas, 1994).
The World Bank (1995; 1996) reported that the depth of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa is typically higher than
elsewhere in the world and that people in Nigeria, as in other sub-Saharan Africa and in southern Asian countries
9
remain the poorest in the world. In the same vein, Broca and Oram (1991) posit that about 595 million people
were calorie deficient in developing countries, with the exception of China. In Nigeria, for instance, during the
period between 1970 and 1979, the average annual deficit in per capita calories intake was 24.4 percent, and
within the periods 1980 and 1989 and 1990 and 1994, it became 23.58 percent and 8.38 percent respectively
(CBN, 1993; African Development Bank, 1996). The food situation in Nigeria has led to a tremendous increase in
the price of food over the years and a decline in the living conditions of many families. Poverty/food insecurity in
Nigeria has been found to be a rural phenomenon with 8.4 million of the 10 million extremely poor people being
from the rural areas. The rural sector is made up of small-scale poor farmers, food processors, informal traders
and other micro enterprises who are said to account for about two-thirds of the population living in poverty
(Okunmadewa, 1998; Oluwatayo, 2004). Afonja (1996) also observed that there are regional differences in the
distribution of poverty; for example, while poverty was found to have declined in the south from 42 percent to 26
percent, extreme poverty in the north only declined from 36 percent to 32 percent.
On the whole, an understanding of the importance of gender issues in decision making as it relates to rural
household food security, access and control of resources will among other things ensure effective resource
allocation, bridge gender gap and play a pivotal role at giving women their prime place in the scheme of things
through empowering and equipping them adequately as the task of enhancing household welfare rest on them.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The Study Area
The study area is Ekiti State. Ekiti State is one of the six states created on the 1st October, 1996 by the Provision
Ruling Council (PRC) of the late Head of State, General Sanni Abacha. This makes Ekiti State one of the thirty-six
States of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The state was curved out of the former Ondo State. Before its creation,
Ekiti has twelve Local Government Areas but four more Local Government Areas were created making the
number to be sixteen on its creation. Ekiti State is located between latitudes 7025 and 8005’N and between
longitude 4045’ and 5’46N East. The State is bounded to the south of Kwara and Kogi States while it is bounded
by Osun State to the west. To the East of Ekiti State is Edo State and to the South is Ondo State. Ekiti State is a
landlocked State, having no coastal boundary.
The ‘Ekitis’ are culturally homogenous and speaks a dialect of the Yoruba language known as Ekiti. In terms of
arts and culture, Ekiti State is among the richest in the federation in the variety and quality of its tradition, arts,
music, poetry and witty sayings. The Ekitis are good wood carvers, blacksmith, and ornamental potters, mat
weavers and basket makers. The main occupation of Ekiti people is farming. There are 123,000 farm families in
Ekiti State, hence the State is agrarian in nature and therefore has many rural settlements. According to the
population census of 1991, the State had 824,224 males and 804, 538 females making a total of 1,628,782.
10
Data Requirements and Sources
The study used primary data collected with the aid of well-structured questionnaires. Open discussions, interviews
and physical observation were also employed to complement the data for accuracy and reliability. Information
gathered includes:
a) Socioeconomic/Demographic Data: Data under this category include-age of household head, gender, marital
status, years of formal education, type of occupation, household type, household size, total household income
(from farm and off-farm and income received as gift from relatives, friends), membership of any association (e.g.
cooperative societies).
b) Information on decision making within the households-Decisions on who provides money for food, the type of
food to buy, food to eat, crops to grow, decision on how to spend income generated from proceeds, decision on
acquisition of assets, whether the woman is involved at all or not, whether she has access to own private property
e.t.c.
c) Household Consumption Data: Data were collected on expenditure on food and non-food items (health,
education, transportation, water, furniture, household, recreation, books, wears, newspapers and magazines) and
non-commodity expenditures - transportation, communications, repairs and other household utilities.
Sampling Technique
A multistage sampling technique was employed. Ekiti State is divided into two zones by the Agricultural
Development Projects with each zone administering eight local government areas. The data used for the study
were collected from a sample of 254 households in Ekiti State using a multistage sampling technique. The first
stage was the selection of ten local government areas (LGAs) from the two Agricultural Development Projects
zones. The second stage involves the selection of 15 villages based on the number in each LGAs. The third stage
was the selection of representative households using probability proportionate to size.
Methods of Data Analysis
(i) Descriptive Statistics: This was employed to analyse the socioeconomic characteristics of the households,
access and control profile of resources and benefits among the respondents. This helps us to identify what
resources individuals command within the household.
(ii) Construction of Food Poverty Line: This was done to categorise the respondents into food secure and non-
food secure group using the two-third mean per-capita food consumption expenditure (World Bank, 1986; IFPRI,
11
2001; Oluwatayo, 2005) as the benchmark. Households whose mean consumption expenditure falls below the
food poverty line are regarded as being food insecure while those with their expenditure above the benchmark are
food secure.
Per-capita Food Consumption Expenditure (PCFEXP) = Food Consumption Expenditure/Household Size
Total Per-capita Food Consumption Expenditure (TPCFEXP) = Summation of PCFEXP
Mean TPCEXP = TPCEXP/ Total Number of Households = MTPCEXP
Food Poverty Line (FPL) = 2/3 * MTPCEXP
(iii) Logit Analysis: The logit model was used to investigate the determinants of food security among households
in the study area (Objective 1). A food poverty line (FPL) was constructed to disaggregate the households into
food secure and food insecure group. Therefore, households whose per-capita food consumption expenditures
(PCFEXP) were above the poverty are regarded as being food secure while those with their PCFEXP below the
FPL are regarded as being food insecure. Thus, the regressand takes the value ‘1’ and ‘0’ for food secure and
food insecure households respectively. Households’ socioeconomic characteristics were used as regressors
(independent variables).
Logit model is a model used in estimating the probability of events based on dependent dichotomous variables
(Gujarati, 1995). This model has found several applications in the literature (Cramer, 1991; Adesina et al, 2000). A
dichotomous dependent variable assumes only two values (either zero or one).
Suppose that food security is represented by ‘fs’ where, fs is 1 if a household is food secure and 0 otherwise. The
logit model to be estimated is given as:
)exp(1
)exp()1(
itfs
itfsitfs Z
ZYP
ββ
+==
)exp(1
1)1(1)0(
itfsitfsitfs Z
YPYPβ+
==−==
Where, Yit is the dependent variable, which takes on the value of ‘1’ if the ith household is food secure and ‘0’
otherwise,
β is a vector of unknown coefficients and
Zit is a vector of explanatory variables related to ith household.
Previous studies in sub-Saharan Africa suggest that food security is influenced by various household
characteristics. The magnitude and direction of these influence are however country and/or location specific, and
determined by cultural factors and socioeconomic environment.
Thus, in this study, the explanatory variables included in the model are:
X1 = Age of household head (AGE) in years
12
X2 = Gender of household head (GEND) – Male =1, Female = 0)
X3 = Marital Status of household head (MSTAT) – Married =1, Not married = 0)
X4 = Household Size (HSIZE)
X5 = Household head years of formal education (HEADUS)
X6 = Belonging to Social Group (BELSRG) - Yes =1, No = 0
X7 = Primary Occupation (Farming = 1, Non-Farming = 0)
X8 = Income of Respondent (Naira)
X9 = Expenditure on Non-food items (NONFOOEXP) – Naira
Household food security is an important dimension of well-being. Although it may not encapsulate all dimensions
of poverty, the inability of households to obtain access to enough food for an active, healthy life is surely an
important component of their poverty. In this context, devising an appropriate measure of food security outcomes
is useful for several reasons: to identify the food- insecure, characterize the nature of their insecurity (for example,
seasonal versus chronic), monitor changes in their circumstances, and assess the impact of interventions.
(iv) Coping Strategies Use Index (CSUI): This was also employed to access the extent of use of the coping
strategies by these households (Objective 3). The knowledge of this allows a better understanding of the possible
area(s) of intervention (formal or informal strategies) either by government or other stakeholders in the area.
In analysing the extent of use of any of the coping strategies by the rural households, a coping strategy index
(CSI) was developed by ranking. The extent of use of the CSI was expressed using a four-point scale with the
scoring order 3, 2, 1 and 0 for frequently used, occasionally used, rarely used and not used respectively. The
formula used to obtain the CSI score was adapted from Islam and Kashem (1999) where they estimated the use
of Ethno-veterinary medicine in livestock management and rearing. This was modified to obtain the CSI as:
0123 4321 XNXNXNXNCSUI +++=
Where:
CSUI = Coping strategies use index
N1= Number of households using a particular CSI frequently
N2= Number of households using a particular CSI occasionally
N3= Number of households using a particular CSI rarely
N4= Number of households not using any of the Coping strategies.
The CSUI was used in rank order to reflect the relative position of each of the CSI in terms of their use. The extent
of use of the CSI was then obtained for all households in the study area.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
13
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents
Respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics- age, gender, marital status, household size, educational status,
religion, primary occupation, secondary occupation and membership of social groups were analysed descriptively
and the results are presented thus.
The results reveal that the mean age of household head in the study area is 44 years indicating that majority of
the respondents are youth and therefore are still in their active years. Household heads distribution by gender
reveals that there are more male-headed households (54.3 percent) than female-headed households (45.7
percent). Also, there are more married household heads (52.8 percent) than single (40.2 percent), divorced and
widowed (7.0 percent) household heads in the study area. Average household size is 5 indicating that household
size in the study area is fairly large and that men in the study area have at least secondary education while
women in the study area have at least primary education. Meanwhile, household heads’ distribution by religion
indicates that Christianity (85.0 percent) is the predominant religion of the respondents, the next to this is Islam
(10.6 percent) and the rest of them are traditional worshipers (4.4 percent).
However in terms of occupational distribution of respondents, farming is the highest employer of labour (47.6
percent), this is closely followed by government salaried job (23.6 percent) while others are engaged in the
informal sector. More so, households’ distribution by secondary occupation reveals that even for those engaged in
non-farm activities as their primary occupation, a lot of them still rely on agriculture (55.9 percent) as their
secondary income source. This in other words explains the relative importance of farming as the most patronized
activity in the study area. Others are either engaged as to social group shows than those belonging to social
group (60.6 percent) are more than those traders or artisans to augment their income sources. Again, household
heads’ distribution by those belonging not belonging (39.4 percent) to any of the social groups in the study area.
Their belonging to social group is seen as the easiest means of coping with food insecurity since the association
could assist them with loan to augment household needs especially when there is a shortfall. The distribution is
depicted in Table 1 below:
14
TABLE 1: Households’ Distribution by Socioeconomic Characteristics
Household Characteristics Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Age <25 26-35 36-45 46-55 >55
22 60 64 59 49
8.6 23.6 25.2 23.3 19.3
Gender Male Female
138 116
54.3 45.7
Marital Status Married Single Divorced Widowed
134 102 9 9
52.8 40.2 3.5 3.5
Educational Status No education Primary Secondary Tertiary
11 27 105 111
4.3 10.6 41.4 43.7
Household Size 1-3 4-6 7-10 >11
84 114 36 20
33.1 44.8 14.2 7.9
Religion
Christianity Islam Traditional
216 27 11
85.0 10.6 4.4
Primary Occupation Farming Government Salaried Job Trading Artisans Private Salaried Job
121 60 32 27 14
47.6 23.6 12.7 10.6 5.5
Secondary Occupation Farming Government Salaried Job Trading Artisans Private Salaried Job
142 28 76 3 5
55.9 11.0 29.9 1.2 2.0
Belonging to Social Group Yes No
154 100
60.6 39.4
Source, Computed from Survey Data No. of Observations: 254
Estimation of the Food Poverty Line (FPL)
Per-capita Food Consumption Expenditure (PCFEXP) = Food Consumption Expenditure/Household Size
Total Per-capita Food Consumption Expenditure (TPCFEXP)
= Summation of PCFEXP = N420, 065.8
Mean TPCEXP = TPCEXP/ Total Number of Households
15
= MTPCEXP = N420, 065.8/254
= N1, 653.802
Food Poverty Line (FPL) = 2/3 * MTPCEXP = 2/3 * N1, 653.802
= N1, 102
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Food Poverty Status and Gender
Food Insecure Food Secure Gender Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Male 63 60.6 66 44.0
Female 41 39.4 84 56.0
Total 104 100.0 150 100.0 Source: Computed from Field Survey Data As revealed in Table 2, more male-headed households are food insecure (60.6 percent) than female-headed
households in the study area and this is consistent with findings in many of the developing countries of the world
(e.g. Haddad, 1991).
Explaining Determinants of Food Security among Households in Ekiti State, Nigeria
In explaining the determinants of food security status among households in Ekiti State, Nigeria the regressand
(i.e. the food poverty index- 1 for food secure and zero otherwise) was regressed against a number of
socioeconomic variables – age, gender, marital status, household size, educational status of household head,
income, belonging to social group, expenditure on non-food items using a logistic model. The results of the
analysis as depicted in Table 3 reveals that age, gender, educational status of household heads, income and
belonging to social group are positively related to the respondents’ food security status. In other words, an
increase in the value of any of these variables is associated with the likelihood (log-odds) of an increase in the
value of the regressand (e.g. as educational status of respondents increases, their food security status increases
as well). However, household size, non-food expenditure and primary occupation are negatively related to the
regressand. For instance, as household size increases there is the likelihood of household being food-insecure.
This is because increase in household size indirectly reduces income per-head (per-capita income) and this affect
households’ expenditure on food thereby increasing the likelihood of the household being food insecure. Also,
farming households have the likelihood of being food insecure than non-farming households. More, so, the higher
the expenditure on non-food items, the higher the likelihood of the household being food insecure. However, while
the coefficients of gender, educational status of household head, primary occupation are significant at 1 percent,
the coefficient of household size and belonging to social group are significant at 5 percent. On the other hand,
16
while the coefficients of age is significant at 10 percent, that of marital status and non-food expenditure are not
significant in the study area.
From the foregoing, the results generally reveals that age, gender, household size, educational status of
household head, income, and belonging to social group are major determinants of food security among
households in the study area.
Table 3: Logistic Results Showing Determinants of Food Security in Ekiti State Socioeconomic Variables Coefficient X1 0.0317* (0.0172) X2 0.1251*** (0.0916) X3 0.1679 (0.0452) X4 -0.0557** (0.0232) X5 0.1932*** (0.0993) X6 0.2469** (0.2101) X7 -0.2736 (0.1960) X8 0.1297*** (0.1024) X9 -0.5207 (0.1726) Constant - 0.0677 (1.0109 Author’s computation from Survey Data *** Coefficients significant at 1 percent No of Observations = 254 ** Coefficients significant at 5 percent Standard Errors are in Parenthesis * Coefficients significant at 10 percent Log likelihood = - 87.214671 Prob. > chi 2 = 0 >0.001000
Households’ Decision-making on Food by Gender and Its Effects on Food Security
In addressing the effect of gender inequity in decision-making and its effect on food security status of the
respondents, a number of information bordering on decisions about food security were obtained and analysed
using discuss analysis and the results are presented as indicated in Table 4. Thus, decisions on food and other
household needs were coded 1 for respondents taking the decision and 0 otherwise.
17
Table 4: Households’ Distribution by Decisions on Food and Other Needs Household Decisions Decision Maker
Type of Food to Buy Men Women
0 1
When to Take the Food Men Women
0 1
Number of Times to Take Food Men Women
1 0
Acquisition of Inputs Men Women
1 0
House Rent Men Women
1 0
School Fees Men Women
1 0
Keep Household Money Men Women
1 0
Spend Proceeds from Occupation Men Women
1 0
Coping Mechanisms to Adopt Men Women
0 1
Other Households’ Needs Men Women
0 1
Source: Computed From Survey Data
The result in Table 4 revealed that of the ten decisions bothering on food security considered, only three decisions
were taken by women. The decisions taken by women are those concerning type of food to buy, when to take the
food and food insecurity coping strategies to adopt. Other decisions like input acquisition, house rent, paying of
school fees, keeping of proceeds from occupation and spending of the proceeds were the sole responsibility of
men in the study area. From the analysis above, it is very clear that the bulk of the decisions impacting on food
security are taken by men thus putting women at a disadvantaged position in spite of their prime importance in
ensuring household food security. More so, a critical look at the data revealed that about three-quarter of the
respondents indicated that women are usually not consulted by men when taking decision about their households.
This is because in most of these households, women interviewed reported that they are frequently left out of
decision-making in their households simply because their husband feels they know how best the house should be
run.
18
Ranking of Food Insecurity Coping Strategies Based on Frequency of Use
The ranking of food insecurity coping strategies (Table 5) was done by using a four-point scale to score
households’ responses. These scores are 3, 2, 1 and zero for frequently used, occasionally used, rarely used
and not used respectively. Generally, about 11 different coping strategies were very prominent among the
available strategies employed. The study indicates that withdrawing from personal savings is the most widely
used of all the informal coping strategies in the study area. This is closely followed by reduction in the number of
meals taken and taking loans from friends and relations respectively. The respective percentages of households
using these strategies are 23.0 percent, 18.1 percent and 12.9 percent. However, a good number of the
respondents (11.9 percent) resort to selling their assets as means of coping especially in households having land.
The overall distribution explains the clearly explains the importance of credit as insurance against food insecurity
and this why a good a large number of the respondents belong to one social group or the other. Credit as an
important means of coping with risk has however been stressed in a study in Northern Nigeria and India by Udry
(1994); Eswaran and Kotwal (1989). Meanwhile, the least used of all the food insecurity coping strategies
employed is begging for alms from passers by where only about 2.3 percent of the respondents indicted its usage.
Table 5: Ranking of Food Insecurity Coping Strategies Based on their Frequency of Use COPING STRATEGY Frequently
Used (3) Occasionally Used (2)
Rarely Used (1)
Not Used (0)
CSUI % of Households
RANK
Reduce Meals taken 35 27 173 29 332 18.1 2
Begging for alms 2 10 17 25 43 2.3 11
Withdraw from Personal
Savings
106 35 34 5 422 23.0 1
Borrowing from
Relatives/Friends
45 28 45 129 236 12.9 3
Sell Assets e.g. land 23 41 67 56 218 11.9 4
Run to Relations/Friends 10 6 26 124 68 3.8 10
Cut down expenditures on
non-food items
21 9 44 103 125 6.8 5
Migrate to cities 5 12 51 77 90 4.9 8
Withdraw Children from
school
3 2 101 139 114 6.1 7
Send out Children for paid
Jobs
11 4 74 117 115 6.2 6
Result to Praying and
Fasting
16 10 5 12 73 4.0 9
TOTAL 1836 100.0
Source: Computed From Survey Data
19
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings
The findings of this study revealed that women are still not actively being involved in decision making as their
male counterparts and this however has some effects on food security attainment for men and women in the study
area. The reason(s) for inactive participation of women could be linked to the gender inequity in resource
allocation and asset acquisition. It was also found that the male respondents were better educated than their
female counterparts and this directly impact on their earning capacity and their ability to exert some influence on
decision-making within the households. On the issue of food security, it was found out that large-sized,
uneducated, low-income and male-headed households are less food secure than small-sized, educated, high-
income and female-headed households.
Conclusion and Recommendations
As revealed by the findings of this study, it is very clear that there is gender inequity in decision-making among the
households surveyed and this is impacting negatively on the food security status of households in the study area.
Also, female-headed, small-sized, educated, high income households and those belonging to social group are
more food secure than male-headed, large-sized, uneducated, low income and those not belonging to association
respectively. Thus, it is recommended that:
●Efforts should be intensified at capacity building (education of the girl-child) through increasing investment in
education as this will better enhance the earning capacity of respondents and invariably improve their food
security status.
●Households in the study area should be educated on the need to imbibe the use of contraceptives of other
family planning facilities so as to curtail their family size having found that large-sized households were less
food secure.
●There should be redistribution of income to favour women more than men since it has been documented that
women are better managers of homes and that the more the resources they are in control of the higher the
likelihood of the household being food secure.
REFERENCES
Adesina, A. A., D. Mbila, G. B. Nkamleu and D. Endamana (2000) Econometric Analysis of the Determinants of Adoption of Alley Farming by Farmers in the Forest Zone of Southwest Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 1581 (2000) 1-11.
Afonja, S. (1996) The Challenge of Underdevelopment and Poverty. Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife
Inaugural Lecture Series 109, OAU Press Limited, Ile-Ife.
20
African Development Bank-ADB (1996) Selected Statistics on Regional Member Countries. Bardhan, K. (1985). “Women’s work, Welfare and Status”, Economic and Political Weekly 20: 51-52. Bhargava, A., H. Bouis, and N. Scrimshaw (2001) Dietary Intakes and Socioeconomic Factors Are Associated
With the Hemoglobin Concentration of Bangladeshi Women. Journal of Nutrition 131 (3): 758-764.
Broca, S. and P. Oram (1991) Study on the Location of the Poor. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C. USA.
Carr, Marilyn (editor). 1991. Women and Food Security: The experience of the SADCC Countries. London:
Intermediate Technologies. Central Bank of Nigeria-CBN (1993) Economic and Financial Review 31(2) June. Cloud, K. (1987) “Gender Issues in AIDS Agricultural Projects: How Efficient Are We”? USAID Washington, D. C.,
USA. Division of the Advancement of Women-DAW (1999) World Survey on the Role of Women in Development:
Globalization, Gender and Work. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations.
Dreze, J. (1990b) “Widows in Rural India”, DEP No 26, London. London School of Economics. Development Economics Research Programme.
Eswaran, M. and Kotwal, A. (1989) Credit as insurance in Agrarian Economies. Journal of Development
Economics, Vol. 31, no. 1, 37-53. Food and Agriculture Organization- FAO- (1997) Agriculture food and nutrition for Africa: A resource book for
teachers of agriculture. Food and Nutrition Division. Information Division, Rome, Italy. FAO (2001) The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Food and Agricultural Organisation. Rome, Italy. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division- FCND (1999) Technical Guides for Operationalising Household Food
Security in Development Projects. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute. Gujarati, D. N. (1995) Basic Econometrics, Third Edition. New York and London. McGraw-Hill International
Editions. Haddad, L. (1991) “Gender and Poverty in Ghana”, IDS Bulletin, 22 (1): 5-16. Harcourt, W. (2005) The Millennium Development Goals: A Missed Opportunity? Development, 48(1), 1-4, Society
for International Development (SID) 1011-6370/05. IFPRI (2001) Food Security in Practice, Methods for Rural Development Projects, Edited by John Hoddinott.
IFPRI, Washington, D. C. USA. Islam, M. M. and M. A. Kashem (1999) Farmers use of Ethno-veterinary Medicine (EVM) in the rearing and
management of livestock: An Empirical Study in Bangladesh, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 13, No.4 pp. 39-56.
21
Johnson-Welch, Charlotte (1999) Focusing on Women Works: Research on Improving Micronutrient Deficiencies through Food-based Interventions. Washington: International Center for Research on Women.
Kishor, S. (2000) Empowerment of Women in Egypt and Links to the Survival and Health of their Infants. In
Women’s Empowerment and Demographic Processes, ed. H. Presser and G. Sen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, Carol, Daniel G. Maxwell, Margaret Armar-Klemesu, Marie T. Ruel, Saul S. Morris, and Clement Ahiadeke
(1999) “Working Women in an Urban Setting: Traders, Vendors, and Food Security in Accra.” Discussion Paper No. 66. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Lupien, J. R. (1999) Food Perspectives and Food Demand Beyond 2000. Keynote Address for the 10th World Congress of Food Science and Technology Sidney, Australia, October 4, 1999.
Maxwell, S. (1996) “Food Security: A post-modern Perspective”. Food Policy, 41(2): 385-99). Maxwell, S. (1990). Food security in Developing Countries: Issues and Options for the 1990s, IDS Bulletin 21 (3):
2-13. Maxwell, Simon and Timothy R. Frankenberger (1992) Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators,
Measurements. New York and Rome: UNICEF and International Fund for Agricultural Development. Maxwell, D., C. Ahiadeke, C. Levin, M. Armar-Klemesu, S. Zakariah and G. M. Lamptey (1999) “Alternative Food
Security Indicators: Revisiting the Frequency and Severity of Coping Strategies”. Food Policy, 24:411-29. Muhavi, D. K. and Preston S. H. (1991) “Effects of Family Consumption on Mortality Differentials by Sex among
children in Matlab, Thana, Bangladesh Population and Development Review, 17 (3). Obasanjo, O. and A. Mabogunje (1991). “Elements of Development” Printed by C and A Prints (Nigeria) Ltd,
Africa Leadership Form. Okunmadewa, F.Y. (1998) Poverty and the Agricultural Sector in Nigeria: Situation Analysis. A seminal paper
presented in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Seminar Series, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Dec. 1998.
Oluwatayo, I. B. (2004) Income Risk and Welfare Status of Rural Households in Nigeria: Ekiti State as a Test
Case. WIDER Research Paper (RP. 2004/61), 20pp. UNU/WIDER, Helsinki, Finland. Oluwatayo, I. B. (2005) The Effect of Poverty on Children’s Upbringing in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria: A Case
Study of Abadina Community. Multidisciplinary Journal of Empirical Research Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 21- 30. Poats, S. V. (1971). “The Role of Gender in Agricultural Development Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Issues No. 3. Quisumbing, A. R., and J. A. Maluccio (2003) Resources at Marriage and Intrahousehold Allocation: Evidence
from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 65 (3): 283-328.
22
Rao, S., C. S. Yajnik and A. Kanade (2001) Intake of Micronutrient-Rich Foods in Rural Indian Mothers Is Associated With the Size of Their Babies at Birth: Pune Maternal Nutrition Study. Journal of Nutrition 131 (4): 1217-1224.
Sen, A. (1981) Poverty and Famine: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smith, L. C., U. Ramakrishna, A. Ndiaye, L. Haddad, and R. Martorell (2003) The Importance of Women’s Status
for Child Nutrition in Developing Countries. Research Report 131. Washington D. C.: IFPRI, USA. Smith, L. C. and M. E. Byron (2005) Is Greater Decision making Power of Women Associated with Reduced
Gender Discrimination in South Asia? FCND Discussion Paper 200, IFPRI, Washington D.C. USA. Swiss International Development Agency-SIDA (1985): Plan of Action: The Women’s Dimension in Development
Assistance, SIDA Authority, Sweden. Strauss, J. and D. Thomas (1995) “Human Resources: Empirical Modeling of Household and Family Decisions”.
In J. Behrman and T. N. Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Thomas, D. (1994) “Like Father, Like Son; Like Mother, Like Daughter: Parental Resources and Child Height”.
Journal of Human Resources, 29(4): 950-88. Thomas, D. (1997) Income, Expenditures, and Health Outcomes: Evidence on Intrahousehold Resource
Allocation. In Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Models, Methods, and Policy, ed. L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott, and H. Alderman. Baltimore, Md., USA: John Hopkins University Press for the IFPRI.
United Nations Family Planning Agency (1999) Food for the Future: Women, Population and Food Security.
UNFPA website (http://www.unfpa.org/modules/intercenter/food). Udry, C. (1994) Credit Markets in Northern Nigeria: Credit as Insurance in a Rural Economy, In World Bank
Economic Review, Vol. 4 no. 3, 251-71. U. S. Agency for International Development (1997) Draft USAID Policy on Food Security. Washington, D. C. USA.
World Bank (1995). A New Agenda for Women’s Health and Nutrition, Towards Gender Equality: The Role of Public Policy. Development in Practice, Washington, D. C., USA.
World Bank (1986) Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries.
Washington, D. C., USA. World Bank (1996) Poverty Reduction and the World Bank-Progress and Challenges in the 1990s. The World
Bank, Washington D. C. USA.