• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Literature review
 Research procedure
 Presentation and interpretation...
 Discussion and conclusion
 Appendix
 Reference














Title: Gender Analysis in Agriculture in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089347/00001
 Material Information
Title: Gender Analysis in Agriculture in Luribay Valley, Bolivia
Physical Description: 77 p. : ;
Language: English
Creator: Garcia-Pabon, Jose Luis
Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.)
Publisher: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,
Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse
Place of Publication: S.l
Publication Date: 1994
Copyright Date: 1994
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural Education   ( ericd )
Agricultural Production   ( ericd )
Decision Making   ( ericd )
Developing Nations   ( ericd )
Economic Development   ( ericd )
Foreign Countries   ( ericd )
Home Management   ( ericd )
Homemakers   ( ericd )
Sex Differences   ( ericd )
Sex Role   ( ericd )
Sex Stereotypes   ( ericd )
Luribay Valley
Genre: Dissertations/Theses   ( ericd )
Tests/Questionnaires   ( ericd )
Dissertations/Theses.   ( ericd )
Tests/Questionnaires.   ( ericd )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Bolivia
 Notes
Summary: A study focused on gender issues in Luribay, an isolated Andean region that shelters small, resource-limited farmers in the province of La Paz, Bolivia. Gender analysis was used as a tool for the planning and implementation of development programs. The research was carried out during June, July, and August 1993. A literature review focused on findings regarding gender issues in developing countries in general and in Bolivia in particular. Twenty-four households were randomly selected from four villages, and interviews were conducted with household heads. Differences among men, women, and children with respect to their role in production, reproduction, and intrahousehold dynamics were identified. Women had less formal education and far less access to agricultural extension than men. Men and women had high levels of complementarity in carrying out agricultural tasks. However, with respect to household-related activities, women carried a considerably larger burden. Inequalities between genders were visible in the decision-making sphere. However, males and females tended to share authority. Also, in almost all households, women had little or no access to two key resources--land and information. A suggestion was that development projects in Luribay Valley would substantially increase their impact if they took the women's situation into consideration. Gender analysis could help implement a more participatory development approach. (Contains 32 references. The survey instrument is appended.) (YLB).
Restriction: Access rights: Yes.
Statement of Responsibility: Jose Luis Garcia-Pabon.
General Note: ERIC Note: Non-Thesis Research, University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089347
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 271461548

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
    List of Figures
        Page iv
    Abstract
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Literature review
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Research procedure
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
    Presentation and interpretation of results
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    Discussion and conclusion
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
    Appendix
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    Reference
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
Full Text




























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.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs