|
GENDER ANALYSIS IN AGRICULTURE IN LURIBAY VALLEY, BOLIVIA
By
JOSE LUIS GARCIA-PAB6N
NON-THESIS RESEARCH PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . ... iii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . ... . iv
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . V
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............. 1
Bolivia, The Luribay Valley and Development . 1
The Problem Statement . . . . . . . 2
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . 4
Purpose and Objectives . . . . . . . 4
Need for the Study . .. . . . . . . 4
The Physical Environment . . . .. ...... 5
Geographical Situation and Geological
Characteristics . . . . . . . . 5
Soils . . . . . . . . . . 6
Climate . . . . . . . .. .. 7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . .. 10
The Distribution of Tasks by Gender in
Agricultural Production and in the Household . . 12
The Allocation of Resources and the Process
of Decision-Making within the Household ... . 17
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE. . . . . . . .. .21
The Sample Population. . . . . . . .. .21
Technique and Instruments. . . . . . .. .22
The Analysis Procedure . . . .. . . 25
Weaknesses and Constraints .. . . . . . 26
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS. . 28
Statistical Demographics on Luribay Households . 28
The Analysis on Gender in the Study Villages
in Luribay . . . . . . . . . . 36
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . ... 55
APPENDIX .... . . ........ . 61
REFERENCE LIST . . . . . . . . . .
. 67
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Number of Members in 24 Households of
Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia . .
2. Age of Male Adults in 24 Households
of Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
3. Age of Female Adults in 24 Households
of Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia. .
4. Number of Boys over Fifteen Years Old per
Household in Four Villages in Luribay Valley,
Bolivia . . . . . . . . ..
5. Number of Girls over Fifteen Years Old per
Household in Four Villages in Luribay Valley,
Bolivia . . . . . . . ..
6. Number of Boys between Eight and Fifteen
Years Old per Household in Four Villages
in Luribay Valley, Bolivia . . . .
7. Number of Girls between Eight and Fifteen
Years Old per Household in Four Villages
in Luribay Valley, Bolivia . . . .
8. Education Level of Male Adults in Four
Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia. . .
9. Education Level of Female Adults in Four
Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia. . .
10. Access to Extension of Male and Female in
Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia .
11. Cross Tabulation Between Education of Male
Adults and Who Has Access to Extension/
Information in Four Villages in Luribay
Valley, Bolivia. . . . . . . .
. . 31
* . 32
* . 32
* . 33
* . 33
. . 34
12. Cross Tabulation Between Education of Female
Adults and Who Has Access to Extension/
page
29
30
. 30
. 31
. 31
Information in Four Villages in Luribay
Valley, Bolivia. . . . . . . .. . 34
13. Land Owned by Families in Four Villages
in Luribay Valley, Bolivia . . . . . 35
14. Number of Plots Among Households in
Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia . . 36
15. Activities Analysis of Agricultural
Production in Four Villages in Luribay
Valley, Bolivia. . . . . . . . ... 39
16. Labor Use by Age-Sex Categories for
Agricultural Tasks in Four Villages in
Luribay Valley, Bolivia. . . . . . ... 46
17. Responsibility by Age-Sex Categories for
Non-Agricultural Activities in Percentage of
Households in Four Villages in Luribay
Valley, Bolivia. . . . . . . . . 46
18. Percentage of Households with Three Levels
of Decision-Making Force in Relation to
Agriculture and Household for Males and
Females in Four villages in Luribay
Valley, Bolivia. . . . . . . . ... 53
19. Percentage of Households with Three Levels
of Access to Resources for Males and Females
in Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia. . 53
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1. Landscape View of Luribay Valley with its
Topographical Characteristics . . . . . 9
2. A View of Collpani and Callaviri Villages
and Pea Plots in the River bed . . . ... 23
3. Gender-Disaggregated Activities Calendar for
Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia. . . 41
4. Total Number of Days for Activities Performed
by Male and Female Adults for Agricultural
Production in Four Villages in Luribay Valley,
Bolivia . . . . . . . . ... . .47
Abstract of Research Project Presented to the Department
of Agricultural Education and Communication of the
University of Florida
GENDER ANALYSIS IN AGRICULTURE IN LURIBAY VALLEY, BOLIVIA
By
Jos6 Luis Garcia-Pab6n
August 1994
Chairperson: Dr. Clifton L. Taylor
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication
The Luribay Valley is an isolated Andean region that
shelters small, resource-limited farmers in the province of La
Paz, Bolivia. This study focuses on gender issues in Luribay
and presents gender analysis as a tool for the planning and
implementation of development programs.
The central purpose of this work is to document the fact
that men, women, and children in Luribay Valley play different
roles in their livelihood systems. Further, this study
accepts the hypotheses that 1) household members use their
time for different tasks in agricultural production and in the
domestic area, 2) men and women have different decision-making
authority, and 3) men and women have different access to
resources for production and consumption.
The research was carried out during the months of June,
July, and August 1993. Twenty-four households were randomly
selected from four villages, and interviews were conducted
with household heads.
A brief description of Luribay Valley, a specific
literature review, and the research procedure are presented.
In addition, the main section of this study addresses the
results and interpretation of demographics and gender
analysis. Differences between men, women, and children with
respect to their role in production, reproduction, and intra-
household dynamics are identified. Women in the study
villages have less formal education and far less access to
agricultural extension than men. Men and women have high
levels of complementarity in carrying out agricultural tasks.
However, with respect to household-related activities, women
carry a considerably larger burden than men.
Inequalities between genders are visible in the decision-
making sphere. However, male and female tend to share
authority. Also, in almost all observed households, women
have little or no access to two key resources, land and
information.
It is suggested that institutions in Luribay Valley need
to become more aware of women's roles in order to increase
institutions' chances of success in development efforts.
Finally, some specific steps are suggested with the aim of
bridging the identified inequalities. This study may be the
first step in this direction, but it is not the ultimate and
definitive one. Rather, it should serve as a basis for
further research on gender issues in Bolivia.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Bolivia, the Luribay Valley, and Development
Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in Latin America.
Its integrated poverty index was ranked the 13th poorest in
the world in 1988 (Jazairy et al., 1992). Poverty conditions
are particularly evident in rural areas throughout the
country. In 1988, 97% of the Bolivian rural population --or
3.36 million people-- lived below the poverty line (Jazairy et
al., 1992). Poverty may impact members of rural households
differently. Women, men, and children in rural households, as
well as female-headed households, may be differently affected
by poverty and the government's structural adjustment
programs. According to Jazairy's (1992) data, 1.81 million
Bolivian rural women lived in poverty in the mid-1980s, and
121,000 poor rural families were headed by women.
Since the mid-1980s, new development approaches for rural
regions of Bolivia have been implemented. Official programs,
supported by international aid organizations and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), addressed small farmers to
help them overcome the poverty which was exacerbated by the
government's structural adjustment programs.
Small farmers in Luribay Valley have also seen a decrease
in their already poor living standards. In 1985, the
2
government included Luribay Valley in a major development
effort for two extensive areas in the provinces of La Paz and
Oruro. At about the same time, two NGOs started two different
and independent projects in Luribay. Previous to these
projects, no agricultural assistance was available to farmers
in the region. The official extension service had stopped its
activities in Luribay in the mid-1970s due to a lack of
resources and financial shortage.
The Problem Statement
All current development projects in Luribay Valley have
focused on increasing agricultural production. For example,
crop programs have included the use of new seed varieties, new
planting and cultivating techniques, and the application of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The development
institutions in the valley have also seen the need for
designing and constructing small irrigation projects, such as
canals and tanks. Irrigation is crucial for agricultural
production, and therefore the response of farmers to these
programs has always been immediate. Other important programs
were the training of farmers on agricultural technologies and
credit programs for the purchase of seed, fertilizers, and
pesticides. Development projects have also implemented
activities involving women. These activities have almost been
exclusively related to domestic tasks such as food preparation
and sewing.
3
Development projects and extension programs in Luribay
Valley have been working with apparently more success in
certain activities than in others. Most infrastructure-
related activities, such as the construction of irrigation
tanks and canals, have succeeded. Other programs, such as
technology innovations for the increase of agricultural
production, training programs for farmers, and credit plans,
seemed to have been partially successful. Some evidence
includes low levels of adoption of new technologies, low
numbers attending training activities, and a low rate of
credit reimbursements. The activities involving women
appeared to have the least success. None of the current
development projects seemed to be able to maintain their
activities involving women.
A possible reason for the projects' limited success is
that several projects' officials have seen agriculture as an
unconnected activity to domestic work and community tasks.
Also, project planners and extension personnel apparently have
considered the household head as the only one directly
involved in agricultural production. Focusing on individual
producers, on a partial set of activities (such as
agriculture), or even on only one element of this set (such as
one crop) may have hindered project planners and implementers
from seeing the complexity of the whole farming system in
Luribay. Moreover, the lack of information about family
composition, the roles of household members, and the inter-
4
and intra-household dynamics may be an important reason for
unsuccessful development attempts.
Hypothesis
Male and female household members in the livelihood
systems in Luribay Valley (a) carry out different tasks, (b)
have unequal responsibilities, (c) enjoy unequal access to
resources, and (d) possess different decision-making
authority.
Purpose and Objectives
The main purpose of this study is to identify and
document the gender-based household dynamics in four villages
in Luribay Valley. The four objectives that support the
accomplishment of the main purpose are:
to identify the productive roles in agriculture of
household members in four villages in Luribay Valley,
to identify the reproductive roles, i.e. the domestic
activities, of household members,
to document the process of decision-making within the
the households, and
to determine the relative access to resources of male
and female household members
Need for the Study
Agricultural research and extension in Luribay seem to be
important factors for the development of the region.
Therefore, improving the effectiveness of both research and
extension is a necessary step to achieving development. One
of the most basic steps to improve effectiveness is to
understand gender issues in the valley and apply that
understanding to the planning and implementing of projects.
This study attempts to meet the need for information on
the roles and responsibilities of household members, the
allocation of resources, and the decision-making process
within households in Luribay. This research, conducted during
June, July, and August 1993, will help development
organizations to identify and target specific audiences, such
as female farmers and female-headed households, in Luribay
Valley.
The Physical Environment
Geographical Situation and Geological Characteristics
The Luribay Valley is located in the Province of Luribay,
220 km from La Paz. Luribay is a narrow valley that is part
of the great chain of mountains "Tres Cruces" (Three Crosses)
in the Andes. The valley is situated between 16"30' and
17'20' southern latitude and between 67'20' and 68'10' western
longitude. About 90% of the area is uneven, formed by a high
range of mountains with steep hillsides. The valley runs from
southeast to northwest with a decreasing altitude from 2,800
m to 2,200 m above sea level. The mean altitude is 2,500 m
6
above sea level, and the elevation of the mountain-range
fluctuates between 3,000 and 3,800 m above the sea level
(CORDEPAZ, 1993).
Flat areas are located on both sides of the Luribay
River. These flat areas are mostly used for agricultural
production. The widest plots may reach 500 meters across.
The river bed also reaches a maximum width of 500 meters. The
slope of the flatter areas varies between 2% and 30%, whereas
the slope of farming plots on the hillsides varies between 40%
and 70%.
Three different formations characterize the geology of
the valley. First, alluvial terraces are formed by the
mountain-range's erosion and the sedimentation of silt caused
by mud slides. Second, alluvial fans are topographical
surfaces built up by alluvial sedimentation at the edge of the
mountains and heavily affected by mud slides. Third,
mountain-ranges are the dominant landscape with scarce soil
building and severe erosion.
Soils
Soils of alluvial terraces, which are most intensely used
for agricultural production, are shallow. The color of these
soils is gray to dark gray and brown to reddish-brown. The
texture ranges from loam to clay or sandy-clay with the
presence of stones and gravel at certain depths. The soil pH
is neutral to lightly alkaline.
7
Soils of alluvial fans are also shallow, but unlike the
terraces, they have stones and gravel close to the surface.
The color is dark brown-gray and its texture ranges between
loam and sandy-clay-loam soils. These soils are neutral to
lightly alkaline (CORDEPAZ, 1993).
Another analysis of soils in Luribay, conducted in 1978,
revealed that the pH of most soil samples ranges from alkaline
to moderately alkaline, due to the presence of carbonates and
sodium ions. Also, the content of organic matter was found
poor --lower than 1% in most of the samples. Moreover, the
available phosphorus was found to be extremely low.
Generally, soil fertility in Luribay is poor and crops need
additional nutrients (CORDEPAZ, 1978).
Climate
The Luribay Valley is a mesothermal region; that is, a
zone with temperature characteristics between the cold
highland and the warm lowland. The average temperature in
spring and summer (September to March) is 19C, with maximum
temperatures of 30'C and minimum temperatures of 8'C. In fall
and winter the mean temperature is 17'C, with a maximum of
29'C and a minimum of 5C.
The three-year average precipitation from 1974 to 1976
was 376.2 mm. However, according to local residents, a
decreasing tendency in precipitation has been observed in
recent years. Most of the rainfall occurs in the summer and
8
the beginning of the fall, while spring and winter are dry
periods. Some of the precipitation falls in the form of hail,
particularly at the beginning of the rainy season. Freezing
occurs at higher sites of the hillsides (CORDEPAZ, 1993).
Figure 1: Landscape View of Luribay Valley with its
Topographical Characteristics
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review will present points of view and
findings of authors on gender issues in developing countries
in general and in Bolivia in particular.
For decades researchers, national and international
development organizations and extension agencies have figured
the rural household as a "black box", a monolithic
institution. They believed (and many still do) that household
members have the same needs, interests and concerns; the same
access to, and control over, resources; and the same decision-
making authority (Chiappori 1992; Thomas 1992; Safilios-
Rothschield, 1980; Poats et al.,1988).
McCorduck, reviewing Jodi L. Jacobson's book, Gender
Bias: Roadblock to Sustainable Development, states:
Since the 1950s, international development policy has been
based on several fallacious assumptions: First, that current
development strategies benefit men and women equally. Second,
that the traditional "Western" model of a "household" where a
father, mother and children share common interest and work
toward common goals, is applicable to all societies. Third,
that within households, the burdens and benefits of poverty
and wealth will be distributed equally regardless of gender
(McCorduck, 1993).
Western "assumptions" are also mentioned by Moser (1993),
who refers to them as part of the "Western planning theory".
Moser points out that there is an almost universal tendency to
make the assumptions that the household, (a) consists of a
11
nuclear family, (b) functions as a socio-economic unit with
equal resource allocation and decision-making power between
adult household members, and (c) has a clear division of labor
based on gender, where the man is the "breadwinner' and the
woman is the "homemaker".
McCorkle (1991) claims that the interpretation and
analysis of households by researchers and developers usually
has a reductionist and often biased view. She offers the term
reductionistt" to convey that people limit their research and
analysis to few factors in order to facilitate investigation
and arrive at fast and acceptable results. Biased results
occur because researchers and developers often interpret
household dynamics in developing countries from a western and
an own-family experience point of view. McCorkle also states
that the patriarchal prejudice of Western societies explains
the undervaluation of any task other than adult male
agricultural work.
Two main topics that appear in the literature on gender
and development are highly relevant to the present study.
They include: (a) the distribution of tasks by gender in
agricultural production and in the household, and (b) the
allocation of resources and the process of decision-making
within the household. Both topics are discussed below, first
generally and then more specifically about observed Latin
American and Andean patterns.
12
The Distribution of Tasks by Gender in Agricultural Production
and in the Household
The division of labor by gender, age and status has been
occurring for centuries in all societies. Yet these issues
have only been seriously studied for the last two decades.
Feldstein et al. describe some of the most common labor
distribution patterns in rural households of Third World
countries:
Men prepare land, women weed; women raise swine, men raise
cattle; women grow cassava, men grow maize; senior wives work
on their own fields, junior wives on those of their husbands
and the head of the household (Feldstein et al., 1989).
The dynamics of the farm household in Third World
countries are intense and complex. The tasks of each member
are determined by a number of individual factors such as age,
sex, health, skills, appearance and, place in the family
structure; by family factors such as family composition; and
also by socio-cultural factors such as social hierarchy,
economic class, ethnicity, laws, religion, etc. (Johnson,
1985).
Norem et al. (1989) claim that besides the different
roles of men and women in production, the different resource
base for each gender, the constraints that each one faces, and
each one's major or minor needs for the effective functioning
of the production system, knowledge is also different between
male and female household members.
...some types of knowledge are traditionally the domain of
women. Some types of knowledge may be complementary, meaning
that both female and male knowledge systems are needed to
understand a particular dimension of agricultural production,
household decision making or other domains . .: women and
men may have different ways of organizing knowledge or
different ways of preserving and transferring technology
(Norem et al., 1989).
Household production and human capital production, i.e.,
reproductive tasks, seem to be the most widely recognized
female tasks by cultures and societies. However, women play
important roles both in domestic and agricultural production.
They are mothers, food processors, child bearers, water and
wood carriers, agricultural laborers (for their own family and
for others), marketers and even entrepreneurs (Axinn, 1981).
Cloud identifies five categories of women's activities in
agricultural production systems:
agricultural production: the output of crops and livestock
for home consumption or market sale
household production: goods and services produced within the
household for home consumption or market sale
human capital production: childbearing, child care and the
transmission of skills and knowledge
self-employment in the informal market sector: off-farm
activities such as marketing and personal services
wage labor: paid employment, whether in agriculture or other
sectors (Cloud, 1985).
Further, Cloud distinguishes participation patterns in
agricultural production, such as separate crops where women
and men have the responsibility of different crops. This
production practice is often found in African countries.
Separate fields refers to the pattern where women and men
produce the same crop but in different fields. When specific
tasks are assigned to men or women in the same field and with
the same crop, Cloud uses the term separate tasks, which may
include activities for men such as land preparation, plowing
14
or chemical plant protection, and activities for women such as
seed selection and planting, transplanting, post-harvest
processing, storage and marketing. Further, the shared tasks
reflect the participation of more than one member of the
family in the assigned task. However, within the shared
tasks, men and women may have specific activities. For
instance, in the planting assignment, men may open the furrow
and women may put the seed in it, which is common in Latin
America. Cloud also mentions the pattern women-managed farms,
which can be carried out either temporarily when the man
migrates for a period of time, or permanently when the woman
is widowed, divorced, abandoned or not married.
Fernandez observes the various roles of women in
agriculture:
In Andean mixed farming systems, women are the principal
herders. The division of labor among family members by gender
does not necessarily imply specific biological reasons for one
or the other to assume certain production activities. The
distribution of responsibility and tasks is basically a
functional one. Women within a given farming system are often
assigned tasks and responsibilities that are compatible with
the care of small children. Within the farming system, task
allocation and responsibility for production decisions are
overlaid and interacting. While men are responsible for
agriculture, women do the seed selection and planting. While
women are responsible for livestock production, men do the
branding and care for the supplementary feeding of oxen
(Fernandez, 1988).
Research has generated information on tendencies with
respect to women's participation in Latin American
agriculture.
Throughout the world for long periods prior to colonization
there were great differences in what men did and what women
did in agriculture. Men's work in one society was women's
work in another society and viceversa. But there tended to be
a division of labor by sex in most societies, just as there
was a division of labor by age. This division of labor in
agriculture tended to be complementary. That is, what men did
depended on what women did, and viceversa- and neither could
produce without the other. .. In Latin America men do most
of the agriculture. Yet among the Aymara Indians of the Andes
for example, women select the seed potatoes. Women's input
thus is crucial for the production of potatoes. In much of
Latin America, most agriculture is done by men but women have
complementary roles (Butler Flora, 1982).
Deere and Le6n conclude (1987) that first, Latin
American women are agricultural producers; second, that rather
than a male farming system, Latin American peasant agriculture
is best characterized as a family farming system; and third,
that "across Latin America, irrespective of their economic
contribution, rural women carry the burden of reproductive
tasks: housework, childcare, care of the elderly and sick,
and, of course child bearing."
Deere and Le6n distinguish egalitarian from patriarchal
family farming systems in Latin America.
In general, Latin American smallholder agriculture appears
much more egalitarian than the family farming systems of the
middle and rich peasantry. Nevertheless, a more flexible
gender division of labor and of responsibility and authority
-particularly in conditions of extreme rural poverty- does not
necessarily imply an absolute improvement in women's lives or
social position (Deere and Le6n, 1987).
Bourque and Warren (1981) claim that domestic tasks are
especially laborious and time intensive in rural societies of
Latin America. Moreover, the reproductive workload of rural
women is heavier than that of urban women due to the lack of
social infrastructure, such as access to running water or
electricity. Also, the perception of work by male and female
farmers seems to be different in certain communities in the
Andes. Men tend to identify women's tasks as primarily on
reproduction, minimizing women's contributions to production.
16
On the other hand, women recognize their own full range of
involvement in productive as well as reproductive activities.
Studer (1983), reviewing the work of Olivia Harris, An
Andean View of Women and Men, states that the labor division
in Andean communities of Bolivia is based on complementarity
between men and women. Agriculture is practiced by both
sexes, the plowing is carried out by men while women sow the
seed. With respect to livestock, men take care of larger
animals such as llamas while women and children care for goats
and sheep. The concept of complementarity, through ancient
traditions and beliefs, may be deeply rooted in rural families
of the Bolivian highlands. The role of rural women in the
productive and reproductive sphere in the Bolivian Andes is
more complex than the sole task distribution by gender.
Work expected of the Bolivian woman are somehow higher
than those of the man (Gumucio, 1977; Condori et al., 1988;
Lora, 1991).
Woman's work in Andean rural settings in Bolivia is as hard
as, or harder than, man's work. She, together with him,
carries out agricultural work. But she also weaves, spins,
bears the bargaining and marketing of products, takes care of
animals and helps in the house construction and repairs. All
this is without counting her responsibilities in food
preparation, taking care of children, and other ordinary
domestic activities (translated from Gumucio, 1977).
Deere and Le6n (1982), citing Mickelwait et al., point
out that indigenous female peasants in Andean Bolivia
participate equally in farming activities with men. Studer
(1983) mentions that men are nearly the exclusive participants
in community businesses in the Andes settings. However,
17
according to Sautu (1982), rural women in the Bolivian Andes
are allowed to work cooperatively, lending their labor force
to relatives and friends. An equal work retribution is "paid
back" at some later date.
The Allocation of Resources and the Process of Decision-Making
within the Household
Intra-household dynamics, defined as the dynamics in the
allocation of resources and the process of decision-making,
may undergo intense negotiation and bargaining. Some
questions must be carefully considered to better understand
the dynamics of farm households (Poats et al., 1988). For
example, What is the access and use of resources by the
household members? What is the degree of control over the
resources by each family member? Who decides about production
strategies or expenditures? Who bears the responsibility for
the use of commodities produced? The goals and interests of
household members may be competing or even totally opposite.
In many societies women and men have quite separate
responsibilities, access to distinct resources and
differentiated control over return from their own activities
(Poats et al., 1988).
The assumption that the utility function of a household
acting in its "own best interest" obscures the fact that the
best interest of a household may not be the best interest of
particular members (Cloud, 1985). Negotiations may be
required among the parties.
18
Feldstein and Poats (1989) suggest that these patterns of
resource allocation and decision-making vary from one society
to another. In some cultures, mostly patriarchal, one
household member is the single decision maker. In others,
different members make different decisions in different
fields. Consultation and negotiation take place between
particular members. Other households may have totally
separated spheres of decisions for each or some household
members.
Within a given system, individual household members may share
some goals, benefits and resources, be independent on some and
be in conflict on others. What we face is complexity, not
homogeneity (Feldstein and Poats, 1989).
Resources may be accessible to part of the household
members or to only one. The control over resources also may
be different for men, women and children. Access refers to
the ability to use a resource, while control refers to the
power to decide about the use of specific resources (Poats et
al., 1988). Access to, and control over, land is one such
example. In some countries access to land is de facto
reserved to men. Men have control over the land and decide
whether or not to sell it, while women only have access to
land for growing crops. In most rural societies women's
access to, and control over, land is largely indirect.
They (women) acquire land by means of their relationship to
individual males such as husbands, fathers or brothers by
virtue of their gender roles as wives or mothers. Men, in
contrast, own land in their own right or by virtue of their
lineage membership or other systems of inheritance (Moser,
1993).
Condori (1988), from her personal experience as a rural
19
woman in Bolivia, explains that in her Andean village, women
do not have any right to land. When a woman (she refers to
her aunt) moves to another community (due to her marriage for
example), she loses all rights to her family's land. Even the
right to express opinion about how to use it is denied her.
Little research attention has been given to intra-
household dynamics. Gittelsohn (1992) identifies some reasons
for this: "These behaviors frequently occur behind doors,
that is, that they are not public, observable phenomena."
Additionally, resource-allocation is made up of many "little"
activities and behaviors that prove challenging for
individuals to recall accurately. Finally, intra-household
behaviors are of a sensitive nature and may be difficult
topics for interviews.
Decision-making within the household may not be a smooth
mechanism. It may be the result of one head with the
authority to make decisions that affect the rest of the
family. Decision-making also may also occur through
interaction between household members, such as consultation,
negotiation, suggestion, or disagreement (Gittelsohn, 1992).
Furthermore, women's characteristics such as age, income or
education, are not significant at the bottom line in decision-
making within the household (Mengesha, 1991).
Household decision-making regarding the allocation of
resources and sharing of household chores and
responsibilities, including childcare, are vital to a more
balanced role. Factors reflecting their (women's) status
include access to income and employment, access to financial
services, land and other farm assets and markets and marketing
services. Of equal importance is women's access to inputs,
appropriate technology, and extension services (Jazairy, et
al., 1992)
Ashby (1985) notes that in Latin America, gender has a
great influence on the amount, quality and stability of food
production as well as on general access to food. She also
claims that the management of food consumption and the
decision-making roles in agricultural production are heavily
subordinated to the allocation of women's time.
Deere and Le6n (1982) found that in an Andean community,
women shared greater responsibility and decision-making
authority in many agricultural activities when they belonged
to small or near landless households. They also found that,
Contracting or arranging for non-family labor to participate
in an agricultural task tends to be a male responsibility
among all the strata. ...(however) women play a much greater
role in decisions concerning product disposition than they do
in the other facets of agricultural decision-making. In the
majority of households women take responsibility for storing
and allocating the crop to consumption and animal feed. A
similar trend characterizes the decision of what, when, and
how much is to be sold of either crops or animals on the
market (Deere and Le6n, 1982).
This chapter has reviewed part of the extant literature
concerning the roles of household members in societies of the
world and Andean regions specifically. The complementarity of
men and women's roles with respect to agricultural tasks in
Andean societies has been noted. Also, the decision-making
process within households and the degree of access to, and
control over, resources of the household members have been
discussed. Finally, the thoughts and ideas of several
researchers concerned with the difficulty of understanding
intra-household dynamics have been presented.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH PROCEDURE
The Sample Population
The Luribay Valley shelters about 40 farm villages. The
study population for this research was small farm households.
The sample population has been stratified based on the
criterion of land ownership. Households involved in the
research had to meet the requirement of owning 0.8 hectare of
land or less. This area is twice the average size of farms in
Luribay and includes the vast majority of farmers in the
valley. Thus, farmers in Luribay are mainly small farmers.
Larger landowners, who usually have other means of income,
have not been included in this research, nor have landless
people, whose number is very small in the valley. The
agricultural production of the sample population involves
table grapes, the most important cash crop, followed by
peaches, apples, and pears. Food crops are potatoes, corn,
and a variety of vegetables. Families have small animals such
as sheep, pigs, poultry, and guinea pigs. Growing green peas
in the river bed is a new and economically important practice
which is threatened by the risk of flooding and changing of
the river course.
Samples came from four villages of the Luribay Valley,
22
Collpani with about 50 families, Cachualla with about 100
families, Callaviri with about 56 families, and Catavi with
about 28 families. Ten percent of the farm families in each
village have been directly involved in the research. That is,
five families in Collpani, six in Callaviri, ten in Cachualla,
and three in Catavi have participated in the research
procedure. In total, 24 families participated directly in the
research.
Collpani and Cachualla are located on the road to the
cities of La Paz and Oruro and at one side of the Luribay
River. The remaining two villages, Callaviri and Catavi, are
located at the other side of the river, but not on the road.
Therefore, trucks must cross the river to be loaded with
agricultural products. This may be an important difference
during the rainy season, since the swollen river can make it
very difficult for trucks to get to Callaviri and Catavi.
Techniques and Instruments
This research is based on a survey, complemented by
observations and by my three-year work experience in Luribay
Valley. The sample population consists of small farmers with
no more than 0.8 hectare of land. Adults of the selected
households were directly involved during the field work.
Face-to-face interviews were the main technique used to gather
data. The instrument used to gather the information was a
questionnaire. This questionnaire was reviewed by professors
23
of the Food and Resource Economics Department and the
Department of Agricultural Education and Communication of the
University of Florida.
Figure 2: A View of Villages Collpani and Callaviri and Pea
Plots in the Luribay River Bed
24
Interviews took place in the house or in convenient
places for the respondents in Luribay. The unit of analysis
was the entire household, with the focus on adult males and
adult females, since they seemed to be the most productive
members, the major decision makers, and the major resource
users within the households. Respondents were family heads,
primarily men. Household heads in Luribay are expected to
take the responsibility of dealing with external people,
giving the interviewer little chance to talk with female
household members.
The questionnaire had a structured format containing
mostly close-end, and some open-end questions. The bases for
the elaboration of the questionnaire have been: The Conceptual
Framework for Gender Analysis in Farming Systems Research and
Extension by Feldstein et al. (1989) and Women's Work in Third
World Agriculture by Dixon-Mueller (1985). The questionnaire
included questions related to demographics, land ownership,
agricultural tasks of the household members, domestic
activities of the household members, decision-making within
the household, access to resources, and community duties (see
appendix).
Qualitative research elements, such as interviewees'
social perceptions and household interpretation, were
important parts of the analysis. The analysis was supported
by the information gathered in informal conversations with
household members of different villages and by observations
25
during the researcher's work experience in Luribay Valley.
Also, as an additional information source, two informal
interviews with two extension workers were conducted in
Luribay Valley.
The field work was carried out during the months of June,
July, and August 1993. The selected villages are situated
within five to ten kilometers of each other on both sides of
the Luribay River. The interviews were conducted by the
author and a female sociologist. Both walked from village to
village in order to meet the informants and conduct the
interviews.
The Analysis Procedure
The data collected in the interviews were programmed and
entered into the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software on
a personal computer. For descriptive statistical analysis,
the frequency procedure which includes the cumulative
frequency, the percent and the cumulative percent, was used.
For further analysis, comparisons and the generation of
tables, the procedures means, charts and cross tabulations,
given the nominal nature of the data (Schlotzhauer and
Littell, 1987) were employed. No inferential statistical
tests were performed due the small number of observations.
Weaknesses and Constraints
The Luribay Valley is a remote and economically
insignificant region of Bolivia. Studies and scientifically
based information on Luribay are practically nonexistent.
Furthermore, neither logistical support nor institutional
funds were available. Consequently, this research on gender
issues for Luribay has not only been a challenge, but also an
accomplishment.
This research partially meets the need for complete and
comprehensive information on gender issues in Luribay Valley.
This is the first step in sheding light on important topics
for the development of Luribay, but it is by no means the
ultimate one. More extensive research is needed on intra- and
inter-household dynamics, the specific impact of current
development projects on male- and female-headed households and
on household members, the out-migration of men and its impact
on women, as well as women and environment in Luribay.
One limitation of this study is that interviews were made
mostly with adult males, since they were considered household
heads and consequently were responsible for responding to the
interview questions. This cultural bias gave the research an
overwhelming proportion of male informants, who presented only
their viewpoints and may have underrepresented or overlooked
women's perspectives on agricultural production and household
dynamics. Information on agricultural production seemed to be
recalled faster and more accurately by male respondents than
27
was information on household activities and marketing. Men
also appeared to feel somewhat comfortable responding either
to, or in presence of, an already-known person and male
interviewer.
Finally, inquiring about sensitive topics, such as
decision-making and access to resources, is difficult and time
consuming. Consequently, responses to these questions may be
somewhat superficial and require more in-depth study.
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
The first part of this chapter presents a summary of
general demographic information for the Luribay families.
This contextual information is important for a better
understanding of gender analysis in the four study villages.
The second part will discuss outcomes of the SAS analysis that
directly relate to the objectives of this study.
Statistical Demographics on Luribay Households
Twenty-four households were interviewed in four villages
in Luribay Valley. In one interview, both the husband and
wife were present and answered several questions after
consulting each other. In matters such as household
expenditures and domestic activities, the wife seemed to have
more exact ideas. Another interview was done with a widower
and a third interview was done with a widow. In sum, twenty-
two respondents (or 92% of the sample population) were male,
one respondent was female and one interview involved a husband
and wife. Two families had only two members, the husband and
the wife, and one household had nine members. Four to seven
household members seemed to be the usual range for the valley,
comprising nearly 80% of all households. The average number
29
of household members for the twenty-four families is 5.5
(Table 1).
Table 1: Number of Members in 24 Households of Four Villages
in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
No.of Memb. Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
2 2 8.3 2 8.3
4 6 25.0 8 33.3
5 4 16.7 12 50.0
6 4 16.7 16 66.7
7 5 20.8 21 87.5
8 2 8.3 23 95.8
9 1 4.2 24 100.0
As shown in Table 2, the ages of male family heads range
between 26 and 65 years old, with five male family heads 50
years or older and five male family heads 35 years old or
younger; 13 male family heads are between the ages of 36 and
49 years. The average age is 41 years old. Table 3 indicates
the ages of adult females in the observed households. The
youngest adult female is 24 years old and the oldest is 60
years old. Fifty percent of the women are 36 or younger. Two
households do not have an adult female. The average age for
the adult females in the four villages is 37 years.
Table 2: Age of Male Adults in 24 Households of Four
Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia.
Cumulative Cumulative
Males Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
4.3
4.3
8.7
8.7
4.3
4.3
13.0
8.7
13.0
8.7
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
8.7
17.4
26.1
30.4
34.8
47.8
56.5
69.6
78.3
82.6
87.0
91.3
95.7
100.0
Frequency Missing = 1
Table 3: Age of Female Adults in 24 Households of Four
Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
Females Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
4.5
4.5
9.1
13.6
9.1
9.1
18.2
9.1
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
9.1
18.2
31.8
40.9
50.0
68.2
77.3
81.8
86.4
90.9
95.5
100.0
Frequency Missing = 2
Tables 4 to 7 present information on the number of
Tables 4 to 7 present information on the number of
households with children of different ages. About 54% and 62%
of all households do not have a boy or girl over fifteen years
old, respectively. Also, 62% of all sampled households do not
have boys between 8 and 15 years old. The percentage of
households without girls between 8 and 15 years is lower at
46%. There seem to be a migratory trend of young boys and
girls over eight years old to cities.
Table 4: Number of Boys over Fifteen Years Old per Household
in Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
No.of Boys Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
0 13 54.2 13 54.2
1 6 25.0 19 79.2
2 3 12.5 22 91.7
3 2 8.3 24 100.0
Table 5: Number of Girls over Fifteen Years Old per Household
in Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
No.of Girls Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
0 15 62.5 15 62.5
1 8 33.3 23 95.8
2 1 4.2 24 100.0
------------------------------------------------------
Table 6: Number of Boys between Eight and Fifteen Years Old
per Household in Four Villages in Luribay Valley,
Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
Nr.of Boys Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
-----------------------------------------------
0 15 62.5 15 62.5
1 4 16.7 19 79.2
2 4 16.7 23 95.8
3 1 4.2 24 100.0
----------------------------------------------
32
Table 7: Number of Girls between Eight and Fifteen Years Old
per Household in Four Villages in Luribay Valley,
Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
Nr.of Girls Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
0 11 45.8 11 45.8
1 6 25.0 17 70.8
2 6 25.0 23 95.8
3 1 4.2 24 100.0
Male farmers in Luribay seem to have more education than
females. Table 8 indicates that in 14 households out of 24
(58.3%) male adults have completed at least six years of
school (primary school). One male adult has even completed
high school (12 years). Female adults at their highest level
of education are equivalent to only two-thirds of men's
highest level of education. Two female adults were able to
finish the eighth grade (9.5%). Only seven adult females
(33.3%) have finished primary school, and one adult female did
not have any formal education (Table 9).
Table 8: Education Level of Male Adults in Four Villages in
Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
Grade Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
1 1 4.2 1 4.2
2 2 8.3 3 12.5
3 2 8.3 5 20.8
5 5 20.8 10 41.7
6 5 20.8 15 62.5
7 2 8.3 17 70.8
8 3 12.5 20 83.3
9 1 4.2 21 87.5
10 1 4.2 22 91.7
11 1 4.2 23 95.8
12 1 4.2 24 100.0
---------------------------------------------
33
Table 9: Education Level of Female Adults in Four Villages in
Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
Grade Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
0 1 4.8 1 4.8
1 1 4.8 2 9.5
2 2 9.5 4 19.0
3 4 19.0 8 38.1
4 5 23.8 13 61.9
5 1 4.8 14 66.7
6 4 19.0 18 85.7
7 1 4.8 19 90.5
8 2 9.5 21 100.0
Frequency Missing = 3
Regarding access to extension (Table 10), in twenty
households (or 83% of all households) only the adult male
interacts with extension workers. In three households (or
12%), both male and female adult members have a relation to
the extension component of the development projects, and one
household appears not to have any connection to extension.
Table 10: Access to Extension of Male and Female in Four
Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
Fam. Member Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Nobody 1 4.2 1 4.2
Male Adult 20 83.3 21 87.5
Female Adult 3 12.5 24 100.0
-----------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Tables 11 and 12, in households where the
male adult has completed primary school (15 households), all
male adults (100%) have access to extension, while no female
adult has access to extension. In households where female
34
adults have completed their primary education, it seems that
in 76%, or 13 households out of 17, the male adult is the only
one with access to extension. In general, women seem to have
a far more limited access to extension compared to men.
Another point is that primary schooling seems to be important
in using extension services. This may be due to the way
projects' extension components are designed or to the approach
of extension agents to farmers in the valley.
Table 11: Cross Tabulation Between Education of Male Adults
and Who Has Access to Extension/Information in Four
Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
(Education of the father)
(Who has access to extension)
Frequency
Row Pct None 1 Ad.Malel Ad.Fem.1 Total
----------+--------+--------+--------+
primary 0 1 15 0 1 15
0.00 1 100.00 0.00
----------+------------------------+
secondary 1 5 3 9
11.11 1 55.56 33.33
------------------+----------------+-
Total 1 20 3 24
Table 12: Cross Tabulation Between Education of Female Adults
and Who Has Access to Extension/Information in Four
Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
(Education of the mother)
(Who has access to extension)
Frequency I
Row Pt I none I Ad.Malel Ad.Fem.1 Total
----------+--------+--------+--------+
no educ. 0 1 1 0 1
0.00 | 100.00 0.00
----------+--------+----------------+
primary 1 | 13 3 17
S 5.88 1 76.47 1 17.65
----------+---------+----------------+
secondary 0 1 3 0 3
0.00 1 100.00 1 0.00
----------+--------+--------+--------+
Total 1 17 3 21
35
In terms of land, Luribay farmers own very small plots.
Results of the sample population in Table 13 show that about
66%, or two out of three farmers own 0.3 hectares or less.
Table 14 shows that eight farms, or 33% of all households, own
one plot of land; whereas 50%, or twelve farms, have two to
three plots of land. The remaining four farms have four or
five plots. The pattern of ownership seems to be influenced
greatly by marriage between people of different villages and
by plots inherited from relatives from other villages. Land
ownership is crucial for families in Luribay because of its
importance as the fundamental resource for farmers' survival
and, also, because of religious and mystical ties between
farmers and land. Land ownership and its implications for
household members may be important for future research and
project planning in Luribay Valley.
Table 13: Land Owned by Families in Four Villages in Luribay
Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
No.of ha. Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
-------------------------------------------------------
0.1 4 16.7 4 16.7
0.2 6 25.0 10 41.7
0.3 6 25.0 16 66.7
0.4 4 16.7 20 83.3
0.5 3 12.5 23 95.8
0.8 1 4.2 24 100.0
----------------------------------------------------
36
Table 14: Number of Plots Among Households in Four Villages in
Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Cumulative Cumulative
No.of Plots Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
one 8 33.3 8 33.3
two 6 25.0 14 58.3
three 6 25.0 20 83.3
four 3 12.5 23 95.8
five 1 4.2 24 100.0
The Analysis of Gender in the Study Villages in Luribav
The second part of Chapter 4 examines topics directly
related to the objectives of this research. In the study
villages of Luribay Valley, both men and women seem to have
high levels of complementarity in several crop-related tasks.
From Table 15 (p.39) it may be concluded that, according to
the respondents' perception, men work longer hours than women
in the two major food crops, corn and potatoes. Men work an
average of 35.2 days per year in corn and 37.5 days per year
in potato production. Women work an average of 23.4 days per
year in corn and 24.8 days per year in potato production. For
both crops, women work between twelve and thirteen days less
than men. Also, land preparation and irrigation for corn and
potato seem to be the most time-consuming activities for men,
requiring between 9.3 and 10.9 days per year. However, in key
activities such as sowing and harvesting, women work an
equivalent or greater number of days than men. Moreover, the
marketing of both crops seems to be a mainly female task.
This pattern persists on the farmers' newest crop, peas.
37
The sowing activity for peas is one of the heaviest and most
difficult to complete. Both men and women work almost the
same number of days per year, 6.7 and 6.5, respectively. Pea
plots are located in the river bed which is a hard mixture of
sand, gravels, and rocks. Rocks need to be removed before the
specific action of putting seed in the soil. The husband and
wife remove enough rocks and stones to be able to sow, then he
opens the furrow with a manual plow or pick and she deposits
the seeds in the furrow. All activities associated with peas
require about the same average number of days per year from
the adult male and female (28.7 days from the male and 27.3
days from the female).
Regarding grapes, irrigation requires the largest number
of days from male adults, on average, 11.5 days per year. On
the other hand, the marketing task is again primarily a female
responsibility which takes, on average, 7.2 days per year.
Altogether for grapes, men seem to work 25.3 days per year
versus 20.3 days per year of the women's time. A similar
figure presents itself in terms of tree fruit, including
peaches, apples, and pears. Activities for these fruits are
tied to grape activities; that is, irrigation is carried out
at the same time for both crops, grapes and tree fruits. Men
spend an average of 16.4 days per year on tree fruit crops,
and women 13.7 days.
A very different labor distribution by gender is shown in
the last part of Table 15 which is related to animals.
38
Herding sheep takes an average of 5.4 days of men's time each
year, whereas women put in an average of 90.4 days per year.
Adult female household members put in nearly twenty times more
time herding sheep than do adult males. Furthermore, feeding
sheep seems to be an exclusively female task (23.5 days per
year of women's time versus none of the men's time). A
similar tendency presents the task related to other small
animals such as pigs, poultry, and guinea pigs. The wife
spends an average of 158.3 days per year in feeding the small
animals, compared to an average of 22.8 days per year spent by
the husband. In sum, for the tasks related to sheep and other
small animals, females spend an average of 273.3 days per
year, which is between nine and ten times more than the number
of days per year spent by males (29.5 days).
It must be mentioned at this point that there is no
systematic record of the number of days used for the different
agricultural tasks by household members. This analysis, as
mentioned elsewhere, is based on the interviewees'
recollection of facts and activities.
Figure 3 (p.41) displays an approximate gender-
disaggregated calendar for agricultural and non-agricultural
activities for a household in Luribay. The figure shows a
concentration of activities for the months of August,
September, and October for both male adult and female adult.
Various tasks are carried out during those months: pest
control and irrigation of corn and potato, involving mainly
Table 15: Activities Analysis of Agricultural Production in Four Villages in
Luribay Valley, Bolivia (in days per year).
Activity Adult Male Adult Female
Crop production
*Corn
-Land Preparation 9.3 3.2
-Sowing 3.5 3.9
-Weeding/Cultivation 3.9 2.9
-Irrigation 10.9 4.9
-Pest/Disease Control 2.7 0.9
-Harvesting 2.2 2.0
-Marketing 2.0 5.2
-Storage 0.7 0.4
TOTAL 35.2 23.4
*Potato:
-Land Preparation 9.8 3.5
-Sowing 4.3 4.3
-Weeding/Cultivation 3.5 2.5
-Irrigation 10.3 4.9
-Pest/Disease Control 2.9 0.8
-Harvesting 5.2 4.8
-Marketing 1.4 4.0
TOTAL 37.5 24.8
*Peas:
-Sowing/Fertilization 6.7 6.5
-Irrigation 9.8 6.1
-Weeding/Cultivation 2.2 1.6
-Pest/Disease Control 3.6 1.3
-Harvesting 5.8 5.5
-Marketing 0.6 6.4
TOTAL 28.7 27.3
*Grapes:
-Irrigation 11.5 4.8
-Diseases Control 4.4 2.6
-Pest Control 1.8 1.3
-Harvesting 3.6 3.1
-Pruning 2.1 1.3
-Marketing 2.0 7.2
TOTAL 25.3 20.3
*Fruit trees:
-Irrigation 12.1 5.2
-Harvesting 2.7 2.3
-Marketing 1.6 6.2
TOTAL 16.4 13.7
Animals
*Sheep
-Herding 5.4 90.4
-Processing 1.0 0.2
-Feeding 0.0 23.5
TOTAL 6.4 114.1
*Small Animals
-Feeding 22.8 158.3
-Processing 0.3 0.9
TOTAL 23.1 159.2
40
the husband and boys; harvest and marketing of peas, involving
the entire family for the former and mainly the wife and girls
for the latter; irrigation in grapes which is mainly a male
task; pest/disease control in grapes which is a shared task;
and herding and feeding animals which is a female task.
Finally, most domestic activities are carried out by women.
These include: carrying water, collecting fuelwood, preparing
food, cleaning, washing, and taking care of children.
However, August, September, and October are not the
busiest months for the Luribay farm families. The harvest of
grapes and tree fruits, carried out by all household members,
is a tedious and time-consuming activity. Moreover, taking
the products to the city markets, which is a female
responsibility, needs to be done within a couple of days after
each harvest activity. During the peak days from February to
April, the family works the entire day in the field. In
addition, women have to dedicate extra time for their domestic
duties. This points to a double burden for females in the
study villages.
Most domestic activities that run throughout the year
seem to be carried out by women, with the exception of
collecting fuelwood. All temporary tasks may be performed by
men such as home repairs/construction, handicrafts (which is
basket making for the transportation of grapes), and the
cottage industry (which is the making of a grape liquor after
the harvest season is over).
Figure 3: Gender-Disaggregated Activities Calendar for Four Villages in Luribay Valley,
Bolivia
Activity Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May
Corn:
Land Prep.
Sowing
Weed./Cult.
Irrigation
Pest Control
Harvest
Marketing
Potato:
Land Prep.
Sowing/Manure
Weed./Cult.
irrigation
Pest Control
Harvesting
Marketing
Peas:
Sowing/Fert.
Irrigation
Weed./Cult.
Pest Control
Harvest
Marketing
Grapes/Fruits
Irrigation
Pest/Dis.Ctrl
Pruning
Harvest
Marketing
Sheep/Sm.Anim
Herding
Feeding
Domestic Tsks
Water Carrng.
FuelWood Col.
Food Prep.
Rep./Const.
Cleaning
Clothes Wash.
Child Care
Handicrafts
Cottage Ind.
Community
AMrbraf
AM,AFb,
AM,af
AM,B
AM,af,b
AM,b,af
AM, AF
AM, af
AM B
AMaf
AMAF
AF, G am
AMAFB,G
AF, G, am
AMAF
AMAF B G
AF, Gam
AM,B
AM,af
AMAF B G
AF G
AFG
AF, G, b
AF, G
AM B, af
AF,G
AM, B
AFG
AF.G
AF,G
AM
AM
AM
AMaf
AMaf
AM
Legend:
AM=Male Adult's Major Contribution
AF=Female Adult's Major Contribution
B=Boy's Major Contribution
G=Girl's Major Contribution
am=Male Adult's Minor Contribution
af=Female Adult's Minor Contribution
b=Boy's Minor Contribution
g=Girl's Minor Contribution
I
42
Table 16 (p.46) presents the sum of all labor days for
agricultural tasks in Luribay. The table includes adult males
and females, as well as boys and girls over 15 years old. The
information displayed in Table 16 corroborates the trend of
the above analysis. Averages of men's longest activities seem
to be: irrigation, with 42.5 days per year; animal feeding,
with 22.8 days per year; harvesting with 19.5 days per year;
and land preparation, with 19.1 days per year. Women, on the
other hand, work on average the largest number of days feeding
animals such as sheep and other animals, with 181.8 days per
year; followed by sheep herding, with 90.4 days per year;
marketing, with 29.0 days per year; and irrigation, with 20.7
days per year.
A great difference between men's labor use and women's
labor use is observable in the feeding task, 22.8 days
compared to 181.8 days respectively. Other activities, such
as sowing, harvesting, and processing animals, are equally or
almost equally shared by adult men and women. Boys and girls
contribute to agricultural tasks to a lesser degree. Their
largest contribution is related to animal feeding, into which
the girls put an average of 71.0 days per year and the boys
38.0 days per year. The girls also contribute to sheep
herding, with an average of 53.5 days per year. On the other
hand, the boys help with the irrigation duties averaging 11.7
days per year.
Total numbers show that women's average work is 376.7
43
"days" per year. This actually indicates that women
accomplish 376.7 "days' worth" of agricultural activities per
year, or more than one activity per day on average. For
example, women may feed small animals, herd sheep, and work in
the crop field in a single day, in addition to their domestic
duties. As discussed above, animals take a large part of the
women's time in agricultural activities. Feeding and herding
are not heavy activities, nor do they require long hours but
they need to be done on a daily basis.
To a lesser degree, men are also involved in these
specific tasks, particularly when females are absent
fulfilling other duties, such as marketing. Men's total labor
in agriculture is 159.8 "days" per year. A similar difference
is also noted between boys and girls. The boy works on
agriculture an average of 89.0 "days" per year and the girl
contributes to agriculture with 146.2 "days" per year.
Figure 4 (p.47) presents two charts displaying the total
number of days per year for agricultural activities carried
out by men and women in relation to the number of households.
The chart at the top shows that the least number of days of
activities involving the man is about 40 and occurs in one
household. In another household, the male adult performs up to
360 days of activities. In twelve households, which represent
the highest frequency, men carry out 120 days of agricultural
activities. The chart at the bottom discloses first that in
three households, women perform 800 days of agricultural
44
activities per year. Second, in seven households, which
represent the highest frequency, women are involved in 400
days of activities per year. Third, in five households, women
seem to have little or no participation in agricultural
activities.
Comparing and contrasting both charts, we observe that in
households with the largest number of days, the number of days
worked by women are far more than men's (800 "days" compared
to 360 "days"). We also observe that, in the largest number
of households in the bottom chart, women's work is 400 days'
worth per year, compared to the 120 days' worth of men shown
by the top chart. Finally, women in some households do not
appear to participate in any agricultural activity. However,
when women do participate, they do so in large proportions.
We should keep in mind that measuring the time use and
the allocation of labor is difficult and time consuming.
Furthermore, the information given by the interviewees is
based on their recall of events which may decrease the
accuracy of the information. However, the trend identified in
this analysis seems to be sufficiently strong to allow some
lack of preciseness.
The household activities shown in Figure 3 run over the
whole year, with the exception of repairs/constructions,
handicrafts, and cottage industry. Figure 3 also indicates
that household-related activities are primarily female
responsibilities. In this regard, Table 17 (p.46) presents
45
data on the distribution of household responsibilities between
males and females. The numbers tell us about the percentage
of households where males or females may or may not be
responsible for a particular activity. The information
presented in Table 12 is again based on mostly male
informants. The table may, therefore, reflect the male's
appreciation of the distribution of responsibilities among
household members.
In six out of nine activities, the majority of households
give the responsibility to adult women. Further, key tasks
such as water carrying, food preparation, house cleaning and
washing clothes are female responsibilities in nearly nine out
of ten households (83% to 88% of all households). For
temporary tasks, such as house repairs/construction,
handicrafts and cottage industry, only a few households, 8%,
4%, and 8% respectively, expect that adult women take
responsibility. The table presents a more even distribution
in relation to male adult responsibilities. In only one
continuous activity, fuelwood collection, is there a tendency
of households to give male adults this responsibility (79%).
The responsibility least frequently assigned to male adults
concerns child care, where only 4%, or one household expects
him to carry out this task. The second least frequent
responsibility for male adults is food preparation. Only 8%
of the households, two out of twenty-four, expect him to cook.
Table 16: Labor Use by Age-Sex Categories for Agricultural Tasks in Four Villages
in Luribay Valley, Bolivia (in days per year).
Activity Adult Male Adult Female Boy ov.15 Girl ov.15
Land Preparation 19.1 6.7 7.6 2.8
Sowing 14.5 14.7 8.6 5.5
Weeding/Cultivation 9.6 7.0 4.3 2.5
Irrigation 42.5 20.7 11.7 0.5
Pest/Disease Control 15.4 6.9 3.4 0.3
Harvesting 19.5 17.7 8.4 4.8
Marketing 7.6 29.0 2.3 5.4
Pruning 2.1 1.3 0.5 0.0
Herding 5.4 90.4 4.2 53.5
Feeding Animals 22.8 181.8 38.0 71.0
Processing Animals 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 159.8 376.7 89.0 146.2
Table 17: Responsibility by Age-Sex Categories for Non-Agricultural Activities
in Percentage of Households in Four Villages in Luribay valley,
Bolivia.
Activity Ad. Male Ad.Female Boy ov.15 Girl ov.15
No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Carrying Water 63 36 17 83 79 21 58 42
Fuel Wood Collection 21 79 42 58 54 46 83 16
Food Preparation 92 8 12 88 96 4 71 29
Repairs/Construction 12 88 92 8 54 46 100 0
House Cleaning 79 21 17 83 92 8 71 29
Clothes Washing 71 29 12 88 96 4 67 33
Children Care 96 4 42 58 92 8 71 29
Handicrafts (baskets) 54 46 96 4 96 4 96 4
Cottage Industry (Liquor) 88 12 92 8 88 12 100 0
Community 4 96 92 8 79 21 96 4
Figure 4: Total Number of Days for Activities Performed by Male and Female Adults
for Agricultural Production in Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Number of
Households
12 + ****
i* ****
8 + *****
S***** ***** ** *****
4 + ***** ***** *****
I ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
40 120 200 280 360
Total Number of Days for Men's Activities in Agricultural Production per
Household
Number of
Households
I *****
6 + *****
***** ***** *****
4 + ***** ***** ***** ****
I ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
2 + ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
------------------------------------------------------------
0 200 400 600 800
Total Number of Days for Women's Activities in Agricultural Production per
Household
48
Well over fifty percent of all households seem not to
give great responsibilities to boys and girls. However, girls
help carrying water in more households than boys (42% of all
households for girls and 21% for boys). On the other hand,
46% of all households expect boys to take some responsibility
for the collection of fuelwood, whereas only 16% of all
households expect girls to take the same responsibility. For
food preparation and house cleaning, girls take responsibility
in 29% of all households. Boys, on the other hand, are
expected to take responsibility for the same tasks in only 4%
and 8% of all households, respectively. Finally, no household
expects girls to take responsibility for duties such as house
repairs/construction and making grape liquor (cottage
industry).
The authority to make decisions seems to vary for males
and females in the villages of Collpani, Cachualla, Callaviri
and Catavi. The kind of task, and its relation to
agricultural production or to the domestic domain, seems to
have an impact on who makes what decisions. Three categories
are shown in Table 18 (p.53): low or no decision-making
authority, medium or shared decision-making authority and high
or total decision-making authority. Women seem to have more
frequent high/total authority to make decisions in all three
activities related to domestic work. Women are the major
decision makers in 58% of all households regarding food
expenditures, 54% of households regarding clothing
49
expenditures, and 42% of households concerning school
expenditures.
However, in other important tasks related to agricultural
production, women seem not to play a major role in terms of
decision-making. On the use of family labor, for instance, no
household named the female adult as having authority for major
decisions. Moreover, in 71% of all households, the woman has
low/no decision-making authority for the use of family labor.
In 50% of all households, men seem to be the major decision-
makers regarding the use of family labor, but in 21% of all
households, men do not play a decisive role in the decision-
making.
Regarding income control, in 79% of all households, the
husband appears to have a low/no decision-making authority.
The same thing seems to occur in 71% of all households for the
wife. However, in 17% of all households, women have
high/total authority to decide versus only 8% of all
households where men are the major decision makers. These
numbers may tell us that in many households income is a rarely
available resource, and therefore for only a few families is
income control an important issue.
Despite some considerable gender differences in decision-
making such as "Family Labor Use", where male adults have a
greater authority than female adults, there is a tendency, for
most activities and in most households, to share the decision-
making authority between both sexes. The most dramatic
50
examples are "Harvest Use", where in 88% of all households the
authority is medium/shared for males and in 83% of all
households the authority is medium/shared for females. Also,
"Marketing" is a task where a medium/shared authority is
enjoyed by males in 83% of all households and by females in
79% of all households. This tendency may be a signal that
consultation and a shared decision-making process take place
within households in the study villages. Furthermore, this
pattern may be more significant, since the majority of the
respondents were male. Adult males of the observed Luribay
villages may be somewhat aware of women's role in the
decision-making process.
The decision-making analysis may be better understood
after looking at access to resources. Access to resources is
defined as the ability or permission to use them based on the
usage need. Factors such as the number and the quality of
resources, the generation of resources, and when it occurs may
have a considerable impact on the decision-making mechanism
within households. In the villages of Collpani, Cachualla,
Catavi and Callaviri, resources come mainly from the domestic
production of goods. Table 19 (p.53) shows the different
percentages of households related to three levels of access to
resources: low or no access, medium access, and high or total
access. The information in the table refers basically to the
access to resources, instead of both access and control. The
reason is that access to, and control over, resources were
difficult to separate and confusing for interviewees.
Land may be the most crucial resource for farmers in
Luribay. Table 19 indicates that in 96% of all households,
that is, in 23 out of 24, female adults seem to have low/no
access to land, and only in one household does the woman have
medium access to land. This household may be the one where
there is no male adult, and, even in this household, the woman
seems to have only partial access to land. On the other hand,
the percentage of households where adult males have high/total
access'to land is 50. However, in 46% of all households, the
man has low/no access to land.
Women seem to have more frequent access to two resources
in the study villages. They appear to have high/total access
to the resource animals in at least 50% of all households and
medium access in 21% of all households. They also seem to
have high/total access to the resource cash in 71% of all
households. In total, women may have medium or high/total
access to cash in 88% of all households, or in 21 households
out of 24. Cash is an important resource for the family. One
reason why women have such a high access to the resource cash
may be that they seem to be the primary marketers and
consequently the cash managers. Another reason may be that
households use a significant portion of their earnings for the
purchase of food. Women are in charge of the food
preparation; consequently, they are probably responsible for
its purchase.
52
For both resources, animals and cash, men appear to have
less frequent access. In both cases, the percentage of
households where men have low/no access is 71. Adding the
medium access frequency, in 96% of all households, men seem to
have medium or low/no access to animals, and in 88% of all
households, men appear to have medium or low/no access to
cash.
Although the table indicates 67% of households with
low/no access to the market for women, that figure is better
than the 71% of households with low/no access to the market
for men. Again, these figures are mostly men's responses and
may differ from women's appreciations.
Access to information should be given major attention in
gender analysis. In the four villages, it seems that adult
males have far more frequent access to information, especially
through extension. In 54% of all households, men seem to have
high/total access to information versus no households where
women have the same access. Further, in 4% of all households,
possibly the only one without male adults, the woman seems to
have only a partial access to information.
In general, access to resources, shown in Table 19, is
highly limited for women. Women do not seem to have
high/total access to seven resources (58% of the counted
resources) in any household, including two key resources: land
and information. Moreover, they seem to have medium access to
all resources in only a few number of households, nine
Table 18:
Percentage of Households with three Levels of Decision-Making Force in
Relation to Agriculture and Household for Males and Females in Four
Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia.
Table 19: Percentage of Households with three Levels of Access to Resources for
Males and Females in Four Villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia.
Resource Adult Male Adult Female
Low or High or Low or High or
None Medium Total None Medium Total
Land 46 4 50 96 4 0
Seeds 17 25 58 67 21 12
Tools 8 8 84 96 4 0
External Inputs 71 17 12 83 16 0
Farm Inputs 92 8 0 100 0 0
Animals 71 25 4 29 12 50
Family Labor 37 38 25 62 38 0
Hired Labor 12 13 75 83 13 4
Exchangeable Work 21 17 62 83 17 0
Market 67 21 12 71 21 8
Cash 71 17 12 12 17 71
Information 38 8 54 96 4 0
Decision-Making Adult Male Adult Female
on: Low/ Medium/ High/ Low/ Medium/ High/
None Shared Total None Shared Total
Family Labor Use 21 29 50 71 29 0
Hired Labor 8 46 46 52 42 4
Exchangeable Labor 8 71 21 29 67 4
Purchase of Inputs 9 58 33 42 54 4
Crops Selection 4 79 17 21 75 4
Harvest Use 4 88 8 13 83 4
Marketing 4 83 13 17 79 4
Income Control 79 13 8 71 12 17
Food Expenditures 58 21 21 21 21 58
Clothing Expenditures 67 21 12 25 21 54
School Expenditures 67 25 8 33 25 42
54
households out of 24, or 38% of the total. The level of
low/no access seems to be even more frequent. Women have a
low/no access level in 62% to 96% of all households with the
exception of cash and animals.
In this chapter, the most relevant facts of tables and
figures have been discussed. After reporting demographic
information on family composition, education levels, access to
extension and land ownership, this chapter deals with the
interpretation of data related to the activities analysis,
gender disaggregated activities calendar, household
responsibilities, decision-making within the household and
access to resources.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The most relevant outcomes of gender analysis in four
villages in Luribay Valley, Bolivia have been presented and
analyzed. This study also gave basic demographic information
on age, education, access to extension/information, and land
ownership. In this chapter, I will draw conclusions based on
the hypothesis and the objectives of this research.
The hypothesis stated that household members in farming
systems in Luribay Valley (a) have different tasks, (b) have
unequal responsibilities, (c) enjoy different degrees of
access to resources, and (d) posses unequal decision-making
authority. The research objectives relate to the
identification and documentation of productive and
reproductive roles of male and female household members.
Also, the research objectives are associated to the
identification and documentation of the decision-making
process within households and the access to resources of
household members.
The first conclusion is the acceptance of the hypothesis
of this research. My second conclusion is that this study has
identified (a) the productive roles in agriculture of
household members, (b) the domestic activities of family
56
members, (c) the decision-making process within the household,
and (d) the degree of access to resources of household
members.
Third, I claim that in Luribay Valley, complementarity
seems to be practiced in almost all activities concerning
growing crops. Male and female farmers tend to have specific
assignments within a shared task, such as in the sowing task
where the man opens the furrows and the woman puts the seed in
it. However, the figure looks different concerning domestic
chores and animals. Female adults and girls seem to be in
charge of the vast majority of domestic tasks and also seem to
spend much of their time taking care of animals.
Fourth, although this research has presented information
on the distribution of labor based on gender and age, it does
not deal with the intensity, the monotony, the danger, and the
relative importance of tasks among farms in the Luribay
villages. For instance, male adults, as family heads, do not
allow their children or wives to spray pesticides. When asked
why children and women are not supposed to carry out that
assignment, men answered that spraying may be hazardous for
their health. Still, women and children seem to help by
carrying water, which also is a heavy and demanding job. An
example of intense work is the task of sowing and fertilizing
peas. As explained elsewhere, both the husband and wife spend
long days removing rocks from the river bed, opening furrows
and planting seeds.
57
Concerning the value of tasks in Luribay, a question is
raised at this point: What is the relative importance and the
economic value of tasks performed by household members?
Marketing, a female domain, is of great economic significance
for the family survival. However, domestic chores and taking
care of animals tend to be seen by the respondents as
secondary functions rather than principal ones. We see that
women are critical players in important tasks, and they also
perform other, for some, "less important" tasks.
Fifth, we realize differences in the decision-making
process within the household in Luribay Valley, but we also
observe a tendency to share decisions among male and female
adults. Female adults seem to have a certain degree of
authority in making decisions in some fields. Their authority
may increase or decrease, depending on the kind of task and
probably on its importance. The domestic area seems to be
most dependent on women's decisions. Also, in the
agricultural area, women seem to have some influence on the
decision-making process. Nevertheless, their authority may be
weaker than in the domestic domain.
Finally, the gap seems to be larger concerning the access
to resources. Women have nearly no access to key resources
such as land and information. Land ownership in several
Andean regions may be an exclusively male business, and
Luribay seems to be one of those regions. Moreover, as
discussed before, access to information/extension also seems
58
to be a male-only activity. In this regard, development
projects and extension components must put great emphasis on
giving women access to land and knowledge to improve women's
situations. Becoming informed and aware will help women to
achieve self-reliance and to be better prepared in facing the
challenges in their households and in society.
We also found that there is a deep inequality between men
and women in their access to extension/information. This fact
must be seriously considered by development projects and
extension services in Luribay. The question to mind is why so
few women have little or no access to extension/information?
Some reasons may be: an all-male extension and projects
personnel, male-biased approaches to farmers, lack of
awareness of the role of women in agricultural and household
production, and women's lack of education. Finding what the
causes for this gap are and conducting efforts to bridge them
is critical for helping women to improve their situation.
Based on the data analysis, I claim that male and female
household members show differences concerning agricultural
activities and even greater differences concerning household
activities. I also claim that male and female household
members have an unequal number of responsibilities, an unequal
decision-making force, and highly unequal access to resources.
I believe that development projects in Luribay Valley
will substantially increase their impact if they take the
women's situation into consideration; that is, to understand
59
what the role of women is and what their hierarchical
situation is within the household and in the community.
Gender analysis can contribute to make projects' decision-
makers and staff more aware of the women's situation in
Luribay. Further, gender analysis should reflect a new way of
approaching development in Luribay and a change in attitudes
and behaviors among people involved in the development of the
valley. All this can be achieved by organizing seminars and
training workshops on gender issues for projects' personnel,
hiring female extension personnel and administrative
officials, and giving female farmers access to education.
The dimension of gender analysis and gender awareness can
and should cross institutional borders and reach villagers.
Male farmers may also have to change some attitudes and
behaviors.
Gender Analysis can help implement a more participatory
development approach. A specific measure that I suggest is
that projects allow household members, and women in
particular, participation in all project phases. Women have
to have a high degree of participation not only as receptors,
but also as active contributors and decision makers. Also,
women should be able to obtain access to resources provided by
projects, such as seeds and fertilizers. This may be a
precedent and an example to be followed within households in
Luribay.
Farms in Luribay are systems of production and
60
reproduction in which crops, animals, and people are closely
interrelated. Women and other household members are integral
parts of the system. Furthermore, the household seems to be
fundamental for the survival of its members and the target of
their production and reproduction strategies. Therefore,
women, men, and children must be seen as integral parts of
that system and not as isolated individuals. Gender analysis
in Luribay may disagreggate and deconstruct the household, but
gender analysis does not suggest considering household members
as unconnected individuals regarding each other or the farming
system. For instance, the time use among household members is
not a series of single tasks carried out by one or another
household member, but a number of inter-connected activities
within the production and reproduction system.
My final point is that some activities may have a more
holistic and ceremonial character than others. Some may have
a symbolic and mystical significance where men and women play
different roles. Gender analysis may shed light on some
aspects of the livelihood systems in Luribay, but gender
analysis can not and should not be the only tool used in
planning and implementing development projects for the Luribay
Valley.
Appendix
ENCUESTA A FAMILIES CAMPESINAS EN LURIBAY
Entrevista Nr.
Comunidad
I INFORMATION GENERAL
1. zCuantos son los miembros de esta familiar?
2. zQu6 edad tiene el padre?
la madre?
3. ZCuantos son los hijos mayores de 15 aios?
4. LCuantos son los hijos entire 8 y 15 anos?
5. LCuantos son los hijos menores de 8 afos?
6. zQu6 nivel de educaci6n tiene el padre?
la madre?
hijo var6n?
hijo var6n?
hijo var6n?
hija mujer?
hija mujer?
hija mujer?
7. LTodos en la familiar estan saludables?
En caso de respuesta negative, quien(es) e
Fecha
Varones
Mujeres
Varones
Mujeres
Varones
Mujeres
Si _____No
stan enfermos?
8. ZEn caso de enfermedad o accident, donde buscan ayuda?
Hospital del pueblo
Posta mddica
Curanderos
Otros (especifique)
9. ZCon que medicines cura a sus enfermos? pastillas,etc.
hierbas
10.lCuales miembros de la familiar tienen acceso a los servicios de extension?
II PRODUCTION AGRICOLA
11.LCuantas hectareas tiene la familiar? ha.
12.zComo est& distribuida la tierra? __Un pedazo
Dos o mas(especifique)
13. Tiene alguna parcela dada en alquiler? __ Si (cuantas?)
No
14. Tiene alguna parcela tomada en alquiler? Si (cuantas?)
No
Survey on Peasant Families in Luribay
Interview Nr. Date
Community
I GENERAL INFORMATION
1. How many members are in the family?
2. What is the age of the father?
the mother?
3. How many children are older than 15? Male
Female
4. How many children are between 8 and 15 years? Male
Female
5. How many children are under 8 years? Male
Female
6. What is the education level of the father?
the mother?
boy 1
boy 2
boy 3
Girl 1
Girl 2
Girl 3
7. Do all family members are healthy? __ yes no
In case of a negative answer, who is (are) sick?
8. In case of illness or accident, where do you look for help?
Medical center in main town
Health station
Medicine men
Other (specify)
9. What medicines do you use for the sick? Tablets, etc.
Herbs
10. What family members have access to extension services?
II AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
11. How many hectare has the family? ha.
12. How is the land distributed? __ one piece
two or more (specify)
13. Do you have any plot given on lease? yes (how many?)
no
14. Do you have any plot taken on lease? yes (how many?)
no
Tabla l:Actividades agricolas de los miembros de la familiar en jornales
Jefe fam. Esposa Var6n ad Mujer ad. Niios Niias mes
maiz:
Prep.terreno
Siembra
Aporque/deshierbe
Riego
Ctrl.plagas
Cosecha
Mercadeo
Almacen.
Papa:
Prep.terreno
Siembra
Aporque/Deshierbe
Riego
Ctrl.plagas
Cosecha
Mercadeo
Arverjas:
Siembra/Fertiliz.
Aporque/Deshierbe
Riego
Ctrl.plagas
Cosecha
Mercadeo
Uvas:
Riego
Ctrl.hongos
Ctrl.Plagas
Poda
Cosecha
Mercadeo
Otras frutas:
Riego
Cosecha
Mercadeo
Ovejas:
Pasteo_
Aliment.
Procesam.
Anim.menores:
Aliment.
Procesam.
Table 1:Agricultural Activities of household Members in days
Fam.Hea Spouse Old.Boy Old.Girl Yng.Boy Yng.Girl Month
Corn:
Land Prep.
Sowing
Weed./Cul.
Irrigat.
Pest Ctrl.
Harvest
Marketing
Storaging
Potatoes:
Land Prep.
Sowing
Weed./Cul.
Irrigat.
Pest Ctr.
Harvest
Marketing
Peas:
Sowng/Fer.
Weed./Cul.
Irrigat.
Pest Ctr.
Harvest
Marketing
Grapes:
Irrigat.
Fungi Ctr.
Pest Ctr.
Pruning
Harvest
Marketing
Tree Frts.
Irrigat.
Harvest
Marketing
Sheep:
Herding
Feeding
Processing
Sm.Anim.:
Feeding
Processing
Tabla 2: La toma de decisions de los miembros de la familiar en % (0-25-50-75-100)
Agriculture: Jefe fam. Esposa Var6n ad. Mujer ad. Niios Niias
Uso del trabajo fam.
Jornaleros
Trabajo interc.
Compra de insumos
Elecci6n de cultivos
Uso de cosechas/residuos
Mercadeo
Actividades remmuneradas:
Elecci6n de la actividad
Venta de products
Control sobre ingresos
Hogar y reproduccion:
Gastos en alimentos
G. en vestidos
G. en mejoras al hogar
G. para escuela
G. en medicines
Tabla 3:Acceso a recursos de los miembros de la familiar
en % (0-25-50-75-100)
Hombre Mujer Hijo May. Hija May.
Tierra
Semillas
Herramientas
Insumos adquiridos
Insumos propios
animals
Trabajo familiar
Jornaleros
Trbjo.intercamb.
Mercado
Dinero
Information
Tabla 4:Responsabilidades hogarefas y no-hogareras de los miembros de la familiar
Hombre Mujer Hijo May Hija May Niios Niias epoca
Recol.agua
Recol.leiia
Prep.alim.
Repar/Const.
Limpieza
Lavado ropa
Cuido menor
Artes man.
Indust.hog.
Comunidad
Table 2: Decision-Making among Family Members in % (0-25-50-75-100)
Fam.Hea Spouse Old.Boy Old.girl Yng.Boy Yng.Girl
Agriculture:
Use of Fam.wor
Hired Labor
Exchg.Labor
Inputs Purch.
Crops choosing
Harvest Use
Marketing
Income Generat.
Activity Choose
Sell of Products_
Income Ctrl.
Household:
Food Expenses
Clothes Expens.
Home imprvm.e
School Expens.
Medicine Expen_
Table 3:Access to Resources by Household Members in % (0-25-50-75-100)
Fam.Hea Spouse Old.Boy Old.Girl
Land
Seeds
Tools
Purch.ipts.
Farm Inputs
Animals
Fam. Labor
Hired Lbr.
Exch.Labor
Market
Cash
Information
Table 4:Responsibility in Domestic Activities in % (0-25-50-75-100)
Fam.Hea Spouse Old.Boy Old.Girl Boys Girls Season
Water Carrng.__
Fuelwood Col.
Food Prep.
Repairs/Const.
Cleaning
Clothes Wshng.
Child Care
Handicrafts
Cottage Ind.
Community
REFERENCE LIST
Ashby, Jackeline; 1985. Women, Agriculture and Rural
Development in Latin America, International Fertilizer
Development Center and Centro Internacional de Agricultura
Tropical.
Axinn, Nancy W.; 1981. "The Family Focus for considering the
needs and Role of Women" in Eloise Murray (ed.) Responding to
the Needs of Rural Women. Proceedings of a conference,
Pennsylvania State University. pp. 53.
------; 1982. "The Family and the Farm System" in Butler-
Flora, Cornelia and Nancy Axinn Families, Farm and
Development. The President's World Universities series. No.4,
Texas A & M University. pp. 23-33.
Beneria, Lourdes; 1984. "Some Questions about the Origin of
the Division of Labor by Sex in Rural Societies: A Summary" in
Women in Rural Development. Critical Issues, International
Labor Office, Geneva, Switzerland. pp. 12.
Bourque, Susan C. and Kay Barbara Warren; 1981. Women of the
Andes. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 117-118.
Butler Flora, Cornelia; 1982. "The Family and Food Production:
Macro Economic Trends and Farming Systems" in Butler-Flora,
Cornelia and Nancy Axinn Families, Farm and Development. The
President's World Universities series. No 4. Texas A & M
University. pp. 11.
Chiaporri, Pierre Andre; 1992. "Traditional vs. Collective
Models of Household Behavior: What Can Data Tell Us?" in
Understanding how Resources are Allocated within Households.
IFPRI Policy Briefs 8. pp. 39-40.
Cloud, Katheleen; 1985 "Women's productivity in Agricultural
Systems: Considerations for Project Design" in Overholt,
Catherine; Mary B. Anderson; Katheleen Cloud; and James E.
Austin (eds.). Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Case
Book. Kumarian Press. pp. 17-56.
----; 1985. "Women's Productivity in Agricultural
Households: How Can We Think About It? What Do We know?" In:
Monson, Jamie and Marion Kalb (eds.). Women as Food Producers
In Developing Countries. UCLA African Studies Center, African
Studies Association, OEF. International.
Condori, Ana Maria; Ineke Dibbits; and Elizabeth Peredo; 1988.
Nayan Uhatatawi. Mi Despertar. Ediciones Hisbol/Tanipamu, La
Paz, Bolivia.
CORDEPAZ (Coorporaci6n de Desarrollo de La Paz); 1993.
"Ordenamiento Urbano Luribay". Unpublished. La Paz, Bolivia.
--------; 1978. "Estudio de Factibilidad T6cnico-Econ6mico y
Financiero para el Cultivo de la Vid en la Zona de Luribay,
Provincia Loayza, La Paz." Unpublished. La Paz, Bolivia.
Deere, Carmen Diana and Magdalena Le6n; 1987. Rural Women and
State Policy. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. pp. 3-5.
----; 1982. Women in Andean Agriculture. International
Labour Office. Geneve. pp. 98-99.
Dixon-Mueller, Ruth; 1985. Women's Work in Third World
Agriculture. International Labor Office. Geneva, Switzerland.
Feldstein, Hillary S. and Susan V. Poats; 1989. "Conceptual
Framework for Gender Analysis in Farming Systems Research and
Extension" in Feldstein, Hillary S. et.al. Working Together.
Gender Analysis in Agriculture. Kumarian Press. pp. 11, 7-37.
Fernandez, Maria E.; 1988. "Technological Domains of Women in
Mixed Farming Systems of Andean Peasant Communities" in Poats,
Susan; Marianne Schmink; and Anita Spring (eds.) Gender Issues
in Farming Systems Research and Extension. Westview Press. pp.
213-214.
Gittelsohn, Joel; 1992. "Applying Anthropological Methods to
Intrahousehold Resources Allocation" in Understanding how
Resources are Allocated within Households. IFPRI Policy Briefs
8. pp. 7-8.
Gumucio, Mariano Baptista; 1977. El Pals Machista. Ediciones
Los Amigos del Libro, La Paz, Bolivia. pp. 109-114.
Jazairy, Idriss; Mohiuddin Alamgir; and Theresa Panuccio;
1992. State of World Rural Poverty: An Inquiry into its
Causes and Consequences. Monograph. International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD). New York University Press.
New York. pp. 276.
Johnson, Ellen C.K.; 1985. "Gender and Development in Cultural
Context". Curriculum Guide No.2. Office of Women in
International Development. University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. pp. 15-50.
Lora, Guillermo; 1991. La Mujer en Bolivia. Ediciones Muela
del Diablo. La Paz, Bolivia. pp. 13
McCorkle, C.M.; 1991. Plants, Animals and People:
Agropastoral Systems Research. Westview Press.
Mengesha, A.C.; 1991. "The Role of Women in Agricultural
Production and Household Decision Making: A Cross-Cultural
Comparison between India and Camerum" in Dissertation-
Abstracts-International. A, Humanities and Social Sciences.
Iowa State University. pp. 170.
Moser, Caroline O.N.; 1993. Gender Planning and Development.
Routledge Publishers, London, New York. pp. 24.
Norem, R.H.; R.A. Yoder; Y. Martin; R. Huisanga-Norem; 1989.
"Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge and Gender Issues in Third
World Agricultural Development" in Warren, D.M. et.al. (eds.)
Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and
International Development. Technological and Social Change
program. Iowa State University. No.11. Abstract.
Poats, Susan V.; Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring; 1988.
"Linking FSRE and Gender: An Introduction" in Poats, Susan V.
et.al. (eds.) Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and
Extension. Westview Publishers. pp. 1-18.
Safilios-Rotschield, Constantina; 1980. "The Role of the
Family: Neglected Aspect of Poverty" in Knight, Peter (ed.)
Implementing Programs of Human Development. World Bank Staff
Working Paper # 403. pp. 318.
Sautu, Ruth; 1982. "El Trabajo Femenino en el Sector
Agricola: Analisis Comparativo de Argentina, Bolivia y
Paraguay". In: Magdalena Le6n (ed.), Las Trabajadoras del
Agro. Asociaci6n Colombiana para el Estudio de la Poblaci6n.
Bogota, Colombia. pp. 205.
Schlotzhauser, Sandra D. and Ramon C. Littell; 1987. SAS
System for Elementary Statistical Analysis. SAS Institute
Inc. Cary, NC.
Studer, Hans Martin; 1981. Trabajo Femenino y Resistencia en
America Latina. Una Bibliografia Comentada, Especialmente
Referente a M6xico, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Perr y
Bolivia. Centro de investigaciones sobre America Latina.
University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. pp. 112.
Thomas, Duncan; 1992. "The Distribution of Income within the
Household and Household Expenditure Patterns" In Understanding
how Resources are Allocated within Households. IFPRI Policy
Briefs 8. pp. 43-44.
|
RSS
HIDE
