Francesco Burchi and Sara Vicari Roma Tre University Manchester, 3 rd July 2012

1. To be or not to be a member of a primary co-operative in Brazil: any difference in gender equality and household decision making? Francesco Burchi and Sara Vicari Roma Tre University Manchester, 3rd July 2012

2. Aim and hypothesis of the research Aim: to investigate the specific effect that being members of a co-operative has on people’s capability to participate in household decision making, thus providing insights into the relationship between co-operative membership and gender equality within the household Hypothesis: the democratization process activated in the workplace by participating in the co-operative enterprise may be then transferred to the household

3. Human Development and Capability Approach “Process of expanding real freedoms that people enjoy” (Sen, 1999) The expansion of humancapabilities, not income per-capita nor GDP, is the central feature of the process of development Capabilities: various combinations of beings and doings, reflecting person’s freedom to choose from possible livings HDCA is not a theory to explain poverty, inequality or well-being, although it provides concepts and normative frameworks within which to conceptualize, measure and evaluate these phenomena as well as the institutions and policies that affect them (Robeyns and Crocker, 2009)

4. Capability Approach as an adequate framework to evaluate co-operatives Participation • People viewed as active agents of change through both individual and collective action • Role in creating and reforming institutions, particularly social institutions such as firms, families, markets, public policy making: structure of social power within institutions is not exogenous • Co-operatives unique enterprises, characterized by placing people at the heart of their business and making participation its way of working (Sen, 2000) Genuine co-operatives: institutions able to challenge power distribution among people

6. Could co-operative behaviour be transferred from the workplace to the household? • Household = co-operative conflict (Sen, 1984, 1987, 1999) • “Individuals reproduce social institutions over time as they behave in accord with accepted social practices [and that] change begins when individuals, who share a perception that change is necessary or desirable, initiate new practices” (Hill, 2005) • This change can be (in our case) the result of: (1) male members’ attitude to adopt in the household the democratic process they have experimented with at work; (2) women members’ demand for the democratic space in the household that they have obtained (or are practicing) at work.

7. Empirical literature on co-ops and gender equalityMayoux (1992; 1993; 1995a; 1995b) • Co-operatives do not automatically operate in favor of more gender balanced relations • They can contribute to it only if they are able to challenge pre-existent power structures and division of labor • Importance of ad hoc training programmes, addressing issues such as reproductive issue or division of labor, in order to enable the co-operative to work effectively for gender equality

8. The case study of COPPALJ, a primary co-operative located in Maranhão State, Brazil Lago do Junco, HDI: 0.567 (Angola, 143rd) Maranhão HDI: 0.68 Brazil HDI: 0.813 (Undp, 2009) Patriarchal culture

9. COPPALJ, Cooperativa de PequenosProdutoresAgroextrativista de Lago do Junco Mostly women deal with Babaçu nuts extractive and trading activity, earning, on average, 80% of household income Founded in 1992, as a result of a common action against monopsonistic power of landowners Owned by 136 members, who are small-scale farmers and “Babaçu breaker women”, involved in family agriculture and extractive activities

10. Main economic activity: to buy members’ production, that is, the nuts from the Babaçu coconuts; to transform them and sell the derived oil (labeled as organic) in domestic and international market (main buyers: Body Shop - UK; MondoSolidale Coop. - Italy ) Genuine co-operative: “open door”; 40.4% of members has been in charge of decision making positions (max for 4 years – turnover – gender balanced in the Board)

11. Objective of the quantitative analysis • To test the hypotheses that: • Members of the cooperative have a higher capability to take decisions in household-related matters • Members of a genuine cooperative are more likely to take joint decision with the partner (gender equality)

12. Measuring the outcomes • 3 domains: household expenditures, HH members’ health, respondent’s job • 2 sets of indicators: capability-related indicators (the person has a high or low possibility to decide in…?), and functioning-related indicator (does the respondent decide in… with the partner?)

13. Questions on HH decision making (based on OPHI questionnaire) Table 2. Question on the capability to decide in household-related issues Table 3. Question on who decides in household-related issues

14. Our outcome Indicators • Capabilities-related indicators: 3 dummy variables plus 1 count variable of the number of domains in which the person has a high capability to decide • Gender equality indicators: 3 dummy variables indicating whether or not the person decides jointly with the partner and 1 count of the number of domains in which the person actually decides with the partner. • It is important to stress not just whether the person has the freedom to participate to the decisions or whether there is gender equality, but also in what: there is a large literature showing that if a person has a say in one domain she does not necessarily have a say in another (Malhotra and Mather, 1997; Kishor, 1995).

15. Sample

16. Propensity Score Matching Atechnique used since few years in programs evaluations (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983, 1984; Baker, 2000; Bernard et al., 2007; Khandker et al., 2009) It answers: Are cooperative members more capable to take decision and more incline to take shared decisions than non-members who decided not to join Coppalj, being their conditions about the same? It tries to assess whether the difference is due to participation in the co-operative since it accounts for “selection bias in observables”

17. PSM Results Note: *** p-value<0.01; ** p-value<0.05; * p-value<0.1. The results of PSM give support to the hypothesis that being member of a co-operative does affect people’s decision making process

19. Qualitative method results WOMEN • EnhancingBabaçu, enhanced women’s work and identity • Activeparticipationincreasedtheirself-confidence and self-esteem MEN • They modified social practices working with women cooperators • Role of women cooperators in defending rights of men cooperators’ wives • REMARKS • Crucial conversion factors: ad hoc training courses and women networking • Still unequal distribution of tasks among partners in the household

20. Future research • Promoting further research applying HDCA framework to evaluate co-operatives’ impact on household gender equality and decision making: • Importance of mixed-method approach forgaining a comprehensive view • Studying in-depth the role of conversion factors