Land ownership and farm management in Ecuador : perceptions of husbands and wives

1. Land ownership and farm management in Ecuador: perceptions of husbands and wives Jennifer Twyman, University of Florida IAFFE Annual Conferemce. Barcelona Carmen Diana Deere, University of Florida June 27- 29, 2012

2. Objective Determine if female landowners are also the farm managers. • Not typically addressed: assumed that owner/landholder and managers are the same • Generally, the household head • Most studies don’t take into account: • Land parcels might be jointly owned • Farm management might involve more than 1 person • Decision-making might vary depending upon the activity

3. The Problem • Lack of individual-level data on landownership and agricultural decision-making • When carry out gender analysis of productivity (and/or efficiency) based on headship or landholder, don’t really know who is making the decisions

4. Data: 2010 Ecuador Household Assets Survey (n=2,892; nationally representative) Household Questionnaire Individual Questionnaire Interviewed husband & wife together when possible • Household registry • Assets inventory • Household level characteristics and experiences Interviewed husband and wife separately • Participation in decisions • Financial assets • Marital & inheritance regimes—legal knowledge

5. Data: Form of Ownership • 12.4% of households reported owning land • 513 parcels • Owned & worked by HH members • Analyzed here: responses of landowning women who are part of a couple

6. Data: Agricultural Decision Questions (last 12 months) • Who in the household made the decision on what to plant? • Who made the decision on what inputs to use? • If some of the harvest was sold, who made the decision on how much to sell? • Who decided how to spend the money generated from the sale?

7. Research Questions • Does the participation of female landowners vary according to the farm decision? • Does the form of ownership (individual vs. joint) of land and other means of production influence whether women participate in decision-making? • What other factors explain whether or not women landowners participate in decisions regarding their own plots? • Women’s bargaining power (share of couple wealth) • Off-farm employment • Participation in field work

8. Data: Sample Size & Cultivation Decision Partnered Women’s Responses Woman’s Participation in the Cultivation Decision • 228 parcels • Owned by women and • Land worked by household members

9. Data: Input Use Decision Women’s Participation in Input Use Decision n = 164

10. Data: Selling & Spending Decisions Women’s Participation in Selling Decision Woman’s Participation in Spending Decision n = 115

11. Decision-making Index • 0 to 1, based on percentage of ag decisions in which female landowner participates (alone or jointly with her partner) out of total number of decisions taken for that plot • Construct two versions of index: based on wives’ and husbands’ separate reports of women’s participation in the decisions • Paired sample – where have information on decision-making from both husbands and wives on the plots that they own

12. Distribution of Index Scores, Wives and Husbands’ Responses (Paired sample)

13. Models • Dependent var = index (%) • Separate OLS regressions based on responses of wives & husbands • 4 models for each • Key Variables of interest: • Form of land & equipment ownership (individual v. joint) • Wife’s share of couple’s wealth • Off-farm employment • Participation in fieldwork

14. Explanatory Variables Descriptive Stats—Categorical Variables (Paired sample, n=180); only women’s responses shown

15. Descriptive Stats—Continuous Variables (Paired sample) Explanatory Variables

16. Results—Fieldwork (Couple sample, Model IV) • Wives who participate in fieldwork on the parcel are more likely to participate in decision-making than wives who do not do fieldwork.

17. Results— Ownership of Ag Equipment (Couple sample, Model IV) • Women who are joint owners are more likely to participate in agricultural decisions than when only the husband owns the equipment

18. Results—Wife’s Share of Couple’s Wealth (Couple sample, Model IV)

19. Other significant variables: wife’s reporting • Size of parcel (+)** • Consensual union (-)*** • Children under six (+)**

20. Other significant variables: husbands’ reporting • Schooling difference (husband-wife) (-)* • Coast (-)** • Neither participating in off-farm employment (vs. husband only)(-)*

21. Variables that not significant in either wives’ nor husbands’ regressions • Wife being a joint vs. individual landowner • Couple’s wealth • Wife’s age, age difference • Wife’s schooling • Ethnicity • Rural

22. Conclusions • Majority of women landowners in Ecuador are farm managers: participate in the agricultural decisions regarding their own plots • Husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of women’s role in ag decision-making differs • Women’s participation in decision-making highly correlated with their participation in ag fieldwork, alone or with husbands • Participation in decision-making highly associated with women landowners also owning ag equipment jointly with husbands

23. Conclusions • Wife’s share of couple’s wealth negatively related to her participation in agdecisions (wives’ model) • As move towards wealth equality, landowning wives feel less compelled to be involved in ag decisions • Rely on gender division of labor? • Women in livestock production, domestic labor? • Use bargaining power in other ways, hh decision-making

24. Thank You! Project website: http://genderassetgap.iimb.ernet.in