A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries

By Amber Peterman, Julia A. Behrman, A. Quisumbing. 2014

414 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Empirical research on gender dimensions in agricultural inputs has focused on land. This chapter reviews existing microeconomic empirical literature from the past 10 years on gender differences in use, access, and adoption of nonland agricultural inputs in developing countries. The review focuses on three key areas: (1) technological resources, (2) natural resources, and (3) human resources. In general, there has been more empirical research on inorganic fertilizer, seed varieties, and extension services than on tools and mechanization and life-cycle effects, and most of the studies are from Sub-Saharan Africa. A consistent finding is that, across different types of inputs, men generally have higher input measures than women, and that this input gap is responsible for observed productivity differences between men and women; however, this finding is often sensitive to the use of models that control for other background factors, as well as the type of gender indicator implemented in the analysis. The final section presents future directions, opportunities, and recommendations for microeconomic gender analysis of nonland agricultural inputs.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5364af1e1872fda57fe12219ce7aa362f261c20a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

Turning waste into value: using human urine to enrich soils for sustainable food production in Uganda (2015, background): “Among women, who are likely to bemore asset-poor and subsistence oriented compared to men, fertilizer use is even lower (Peterman et al., 2010).”
Mainstreaming Gender Sensitivity in Cash Crop Market Supply Chains (2014, background): “A recent review of the literature that assesses the use of fertilizer, sprays, and new varieties of seeds (Peterman et al., 2010) shows that whilst rates of adoption tend to be lower for women than for men, in more than half of the studies reviewed it is differences in human capital, access to…”
‘Triple wins’ or ‘triple faults’? Analysing the equity implications of policy discourses on climate-smart agriculture (CSA) (2018, positive): “Studies of equity have shown conclusively that new technologies tend to be taken up by more powerful local actors, serving to further reinforce local hierarchies (Peterman et al. 2014).”
Gender and Agriculture : Inefficiencies, Segregation, and Low Productivity Traps (2013, neutral): “For purchased inputs overall, Peterman, Behrman, and Quisumbing (2010) review 20 studies from the last decade on gender differences in the use of 88 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 28, no. 1 (February 2013) technological inputs (inorganic fertilizer, insecticide, improved seed varieties, and…”
Engendering Agricultural Research, Development, and Extension (2012, background): “Studies from Africa and South Asia demonstrate that women are disadvantaged in both statutory and customary land tenure systems (Agarwal 1994; Lastarria-Cornhiel 1997; Kevane 2004; Peterman et al. 2009).”
Investigating the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity: Evidence from Uganda (2015, background): “2 For detailed reviews of the literature, see (Peterman, Behrman, and Quisumbing 2010; Quisumbing 1996) accounting for all observable endowments.”