Institute of African Studies

Gendered Tensions in Rural Livelihoods and Development Interventions

Author(s): Akua Opokua Britwum
Source: Feminist Africa , 2022, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2022), pp. 1-13
Published by: Institute of African Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48728279

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Institute of African Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Feminist Africa

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Editorial · 1 ·

Gendered Tensions in Rural Livelihoods and

Development Interventions

Akua Opokua Britwum

This issue of Feminist Africa revisits rural women and agricultural livelihoods,
focusing on the persistence of contexts that compromise their ability to benefit
from development interventions. An accumulation of studies over the years
have set out to unravel the hindering factors. Some such studies, premised
on the economic efficiency argument, push for greater attention to women’s
productivity in rural agriculture. These studies note that women’s enhanced
productivity could increase agricultural output and end poverty, hunger, and
malnutrition in rural communities (Agarwal, 2011; Kelkar, 2013; Kumase et
al., 2010). In response, interventions have been designed to benefit women,
reaching them directly as individuals or in groups. Others have used women
as agents to introduce high-yielding crops and animal breed varieties. Some
interventions target resource access, while others deal with environmental
challenges in weather, soil, and water content. Yet more of these interventions
are devoted to providing agricultural communities with alternative livelihoods
to end rural poverty. Such projects have increased over the years as different
institutions attempt to resolve the perceived challenges in agricultural produc-
tion, especially in the follow-up to the liberalisation of public service delivery
as part of structural adjustment policies (Tsikata and Torvikey, 2021; Kelkar,
2013; Doss and Morris, 2001).
Following the failure of interventions to deliver according to expectations,
subsequent research attention turned to understanding the differential outcomes
for women engaged in rural agricultural projects (Doss and Morris, 2001;
Padmanabhan, 2004; Tsikata and Torvikey, 2021). The earliest studies focused
on the gendered impact of agricultural technology, especially the negative effect
on rural women’s productive and reproductive labour. Such research to account
for the situation noted that gendered access to resources caused women’s failure
to benefit from agricultural interventions (Agarwal, 2011; Doss and Morris,

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
·2 · Feminist Africa 3 (2)

2001). The direct culprits identified were literacy skills to read and write in the
language of innovations, time use burdens, independence to decide land use,
and control over labour, either their own or others (Zakaria et al., 2015). The
requirements for adopting new crop and animal breed varieties affect gender
orders because they introduce new demands on skills, time, or resource use
by participating farmers. Britwum and Akorsu (2016) contend that factors
affecting land access, especially land size and tenancy arrangements, are critical
to adopting interventions. Women’s ability to control their earnings and the
opportunities offered by innovations to assist them in performing their gender
roles are the factors that account for their ability to participate in agricultural
interventions (Britwum and Akorsu, 2016; Okali, 2012).
Because intervention uptake is closely related to women’s status, most
studies blame patriarchal norms and values as the main constraining force – a
situation that makes rural women’s resource constraints the most glaring form
of patriarchy. Patriarchal traditions in all social institutions entrench women’s
subordination, thus becoming relevant to agrarian livelihoods. This connection
to patriarchal norms and values enables gendered constructions around produc-
tion relations to flourish within rural communities and to support other forms
of discrimination. Many studies trace the basis of the patriarchal system from
the conception of farmers as male along with the notion of the trickle-down
effect, which assumes that accumulated benefits to household heads will reach
all members equally. Patriarchy thrives through the invisibilisation of women’s
labour, riding on beliefs that materially and symbolically undervalue women’s
labour (Apusigah, 2009; Mitra and Rao, 2016). This situation leads observers to
note that agricultural interventions are gendered to the extent that they uphold
systems that entrench patriarchy (Padmanabhan, 2004). The conclusions point
out that approaches with significant potential for uptake strengthen women’s
productive resource access by packaging the inputs into divisible or small-sized
technologies and targeting women in groups to achieve economies of scale.
Those that present inputs as integrated and not in single disparate units also
have high levels of uptake (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). Women might be unable
to adopt innovations because the latter carry the barriers that structure women’s
production status in agriculture. Women’s supposed preference for traditional
agricultural practices and inputs might be a safety measure to circumvent the

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Editorial · 3 ·

constraints they face in acquiring the additional land, labour, and finance that
innovations demand.
Mitra and Rao (2016) note that current trends critical to gendered pro-
duction relations in agriculture are the rise of corporate or contract farming,
avenues for non-farm livelihood diversification, and casualisation of agricultural
labour. They made this observation in their work analysing critical literature
on family farms in the Asia-Pacific region to discern how gender relations
have been affected by emerging agrarian structures, state policies, and market
forces. Despite the multiplicity of contexts covered in the region, we find useful
lessons to apply in African situations in terms of the prominence of women’s
labour on family farms, the tenuous connection between women’s production
and their reproductive roles, and the value placed on women’s labour. Tsikata
and Torvikey (2021) note that as national economies increase their levels of
liberalised corporate agriculture, land use gets increasingly diversified and land
markets intensify. The impact of corporate farming on women is generally pre-
sented in the literature as mixed, with some suggesting increased cash earnings
for rural households and the possibility of autonomous incomes for women.
However, there seems to be more agreement about the impact of corporate
farming and large-scale land acquisition as narrowing existing customary routes
for women to acquire land, further marginalising women’s productive labour
(Mitra and Rao, 2016; Tsikata and Torvikey, 2021).
Women are not a homogenous group, even as gendered beings. Here
we are reminded of the question of the diversity amongst rural women,
which mediates patriarchal conditions to circumscribe their productive and
reproductive roles. Later studies acknowledging discrepancies in the impact
of interventions experienced by various categories of women focused on the
additional socio-economic conditions of women which mediate impact. Gender
modifiers identified include class, ethnicity, maternity, marital status, and age
(Mitra and Rao, 2016; Yaro, 2009; Adolwine and Dudima, 2010). Age as a
gender modifier operates in tandem with life cycle changes, particularly around
women’s childbearing and marital status. In subsistence agriculture, where
the distinctions between domestic and productive work are tenuous, women’s
life-cycle changes become closely associated with their access to productive
resources as such changes are tied to their household provisioning roles. The age

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
·4 · Feminist Africa 3 (2)

of women, their household status, either daughter or mother, daughter-in-law

or mother-in-law, count in terms of the opportunities around resource use and
how their households finally benefit from interventions.
Beyond the gendered dimensions of innovation uptake, studies have tried
to understand how women who successfully access development interventions
are motivated to adopt and adapt available innovations. According to Britwum
and Akorsu (2016), female provisioning, especially via their roles within mar-
riage, informed women’s participation in agricultural interventions. Though
farm households are not a unitary whole and members have different needs,
obligations, and rights, Mitra and Rao (2016) note that households in Asia
exhibit both shared interests and conflicts in the performance of household
tasks due to the interconnectedness of roles required for the survival of the
household as a unit and its members as individuals. Thus, women must negotiate
conjugal and familial relations as they adopt new technologies and adapt to
altering tenure regimes. Such negotiations often affect gender orders. The type of
intervention shapes its gender-altering potential; for example, livestock rearing is
noted to shore up women’s income, allowing them to access additional resources
to expand avenues for altering gender orders in household provisioning (Mitra
and Rao, 2016).
Studies also step beyond the direct benefits of interventions to examine
women’s responses to livelihood changes, especially concerning non-farm
diversification strategies. They wonder how alternative employment strategies
impact household income, women’s status, and emerging gender relations. One
observation from such studies is that agricultural labour is feminising. This
process is captured through traditional economic indicators, such as higher
levels of female participation in sections of the agricultural labour force or
more significant involvement of women in market-oriented agricultural work.
Another indicator of agriculture feminisation is where women’s labour force
participation increases in rural agriculture as men take up more non-farm
activities in response to livelihood diversification (Mitra and Rao, 2016). The
final form of feminisation identified in the literature is the expansion of female
waged labour in commercial agriculture. Because women are considered to
be easier to discipline with incredible ability to multitask, coupled with their
lower need for cash income, feminisation tends to be accompanied by less

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Editorial · 5 ·

secure jobs. These often fall outside of ILO-defined decent jobs, thus having
a higher propensity to be exploitative. Here mention is made of work forms
seen as feminine because they remain unskilled and temporal without formal
contracts (Mitra and Rao, 2016).
Raising some critical questions about what Mitra and Rao (2016) con-
sidered to be sweeping generalisations of agriculture feminisation, the authors
advise that research should focus on exceptions to the rule, such as situations
of higher levels of female out-migration or what they term ‘masculinisation of
agriculture‘ (Mitra and Rao, 2016: 67). Existing studies also question the source
of agriculture feminisation, whether it is the general lack of state investment,
low value placed on agriculture, or general lack of opportunities for women
outside the agricultural sector. They suggest as a way out a number of modalities
for understanding agriculture feminisation. The first is increased male employ-
ment in the non-farm sectors, leaving women to assume full responsibility on
household farms. Well-placed households could benefit from remittances to
hire labour to compensate for the male absence in farming. Feminisation can
also occur when women take up commercial farming on household plots of
land, even when men remain within the rural space. The pressure on women
emerges from the need to spend long hours outside their homes as they market
their agricultural produce. The most crucial consideration is that agriculture
feminisation takes a form which is dependent on the nature of female productive
labour that is engaged (ibid).
Even though rural agricultural production relations are situated within
patriarchal relations, Doss (2002) observes that the ensuing gendered production
relations respond to specific cultural, social, and economic contexts. She notes
that, as a result, conceptual framing is essential for a critical unpacking of the
specificities of the contexts. Following Boserup’s seminal work highlighting
distinctions between female and male farming systems, Young (1993) extended
our conceptual tools by pointing to the fact that agricultural production is seg-
regated around tasks and products. She elaborated further that the segregation
around farm tasks can also be sequential. Thus, even around so-called male
agriculture products, women’s labour is needed, occurring with and in between
male tasks. Apusigah (2009) also explains that the limited land access granted
to women is derived from the cultural construction of their labour within farm

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
·6 · Feminist Africa 3 (2)

households. Some cultures view women as farmhands, while others perceive

their status as farmers only in relation to male household members.
For Young, we need to proceed with our research into rural agricul-
tural production relations from a deeper understanding of how femininity
and masculinity are constructed around particular farm tasks and products.
Such analytical debates are essential for understanding alterations around
cropping patterns and husbandry practices in rural communities. Padmanabhan
(2004) explains that the gender orders around agricultural production shift
in response to modifications in provisioning roles as the agrarian contexts
make concessions for women or men to transgress known gender orders to
ensure household well-being. Studies have, therefore, been interested in how
interventions affect women’s status, what Padmanabhan (2004) calls staple
replacing varieties that have the potential to shift gender restrictions around
agricultural resources. Instances of how interventions have allowed women
to bypass male household heads’ control over maize in northern Ghana have
been highlighted (Padmanabhan, 2004). Thus, for Doss (2002), our focus when
exploring agrarian livelihoods should be on how gender relations play out in
agricultural production relations and the emerging gender orders that become
necessary to support them.
Given that change is inherent in agricultural enterprises, some authors ask
that while paying attention to gender relations and rural livelihoods, researchers
should consider changes in household structures and production relations.
They demand new lenses to unravel the role that gender relations play in
alterations in the choice of agricultural products and the vexed questions of
access to productive resources (Mitra and Rao, 2016). They ask that the new
lenses should capture gendered relations within agrarian livelihoods through
individual and community trend studies. They also believe that understanding
women’s strategies for household maintenance is just as critical as their ability
to resist patriarchy. However, they contend that gender roles should feature in
the design and implementation of projects that seek to bring new technologies
or farm practices to rural communities (Meinzen-Dick, et al., 2010).
The feature articles in this issue focus on rural interventions that purport
to improve the lives of agrarian workers in rural Africa. Taking a cue from

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Editorial · 7 ·

Mitra and Rao (2016), who caution against the singular focus on the impact
of interventions on women’s labour burdens, we agree that just focusing on
the manifestations of women’s participation in agricultural interventions will
ignore the underlying political economy of rural spaces and how women are
integrated into capitalist structures for surplus extraction. New framings are
necessary to avoid erasing other forms of extraction that depend on women’s
productive or reproductive labour. The feature articles examine two main
intervention processes: land tenure and agricultural inputs. The two articles
on land focus on tenure forms arising from large-scale land acquisition for
commercial farming and for post-apartheid land redistribution. The other two
features are on inputs and consider the introduction of livestock breeds targeting
women and the theoretical framing of interventions. Examining women and
agrarian livelihood interventions with different lenses brings to the fore the
new issues that help to devise more transformative strategies.
Natacha Bruna addresses how rural women’s productive and reproductive
labour are incorporated into the capitalist economy. She does this by examining
large-scale land acquisition in post-independence Mozambique, focusing on
women’s direct relations with commercial agriculture as household heads or
indirect relations as members of households headed by men. In the latter
case, the men are of varying social and economic statuses, due to the size of
their land holdings and ownership patterns. Bruna outlines the differentiated
outcomes of compensation mechanisms adopted by the commercial entity
Portucel Mozambique, by drawing on Shivji’s explanation of capitalist pro-
cesses of surplus extraction from rural workers. Bruna clarifies how different
categories of women subsidise the surplus extraction by Portucel through the
differential land tenure conditions. Relying on Nancy Fraser’s discussions on
social reproduction to explain how women’s reproductive labour is exploited,
Bruna notes that land acquisition for plantation agriculture in Mozambique
rides on female labour, irrespective of the employment status and income levels
of household heads. Thus, the emerging work forms, whether waged labour,
permanent, temporal or peasant farming, do not preclude female labour from
subsidising capital. However, pre-existing social hierarchies modify how house-
holds are incorporated into the production relations around Portucel plantation

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
·8 · Feminist Africa 3 (2)

agriculture. Differences in household land holdings determined the levels of

peasantisation of women; for men, it was the process of proletarianization.
In the second feature article, Petronella Munemo, Joseph Manzvera
and Innocent Agbelie try to unravel the benefits that women derived from
Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform Policy. They adopt the feminist political
ecology approach to understand how women’s everyday experiences shape their
identities as gendered subjects and how the social orders around reproduction
and production are manifested and challenged. Their work, based on a review
of existing literature on the subject, shows that women’s benefits from the
land redistribution programme, although limited, surpassed those of previous
land reform policies. The authors conclude that women’s participation and
contribution to land invasions in Zimbabwe provided them avenues to acquire
and own land.
The findings of Bruna as well as those of Munemo, Manzvera and Agbelie,
draw attention to how women who are free from marital bonds can access
land outside customary holdings. Under customary holdings, it is women’s
connection to men that provides them access to land. Women without marital
ties appear to stand a better chance to access land under systems governed by
statutory instruments. Thus, whereas marital status gives access to communally
held lands, statutory access seems to work better for women with little or no
ties to men through marriage. This finding needs further interrogation.
Gendered divisions in agricultural tasks revolve around food staples
and livestock. Agricultural interventions, especially those that carry new
technologies, are directed towards shifting products from those meant for
consumption to petty commodities. They carry demands for new inputs such
as seeds, fertilisers, and agrochemicals like pesticides and weedicides. The
accompanying inputs are also gendered in terms of the new labour forms
required and those that disappear or intensify with intervention uptake. More
importantly, there are the symbolic meanings attached to agricultural products,
inputs, and tasks. Studies note that all of these are affected and, in turn, affect
gendered access to productive resources, household provisioning and repro-
ductive labour (Mitra and Rao, 2016; Rao, 2016; Quisumbing et al., 1995;
Bryceson, 1995). Using interventions around livestock, Patricia Aboe, Akua

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Editorial · 9 ·

Britwum, and Ernest Okorley note how gendered institutional rules and norms
shape women’s adoption of technologies concerning small ruminant husbandry.
Introducing small ruminants to women broke the norms establishing male
household heads as the automatic beneficiary of development interventions,
whilst increasing women’s livestock asset base. Other norms broken were
women taking up more husbandry practices, such as providing health care
for small ruminants. However, critical male roles remained intact; thus, men
retained control over the sale of small ruminants. Men also set the rules on
community-level ruminant husbandry practices and ensured adherence to these
rules. Although women made some intrusions into small ruminant husbandry,
the alterations in gender roles around the husbandry practices were insufficient
to break the male monopoly over small ruminant ownership and marketing.
Since interventions extend existing patriarchal barriers to resource use,
the demand for conscious gender targeting programmes as a solution has
been pursued over decades. Agricultural interventions that address women’s
constrained access, observers have cautioned, should not reinforce existing
gender orders (Mitra and Rao, 2016). In this issue, Loretta Baidoo pursues the
viability of women-targeted interventions. She notes that how interventions are
framed and how the are goals set out, are critical for altering women’s status
in agricultural households. Baidoo draws on radical feminist analytical tools to
examine how interventions that have tackled the non-transformative shortcom-
ings in liberal feminist approaches still fail to realise their intended outcomes.
Drawing on her experience with two interventions targeting rural women’s
livelihoods, Baidoo sets out to unravel, through an autoethnographic account,
the viability of development interventions to challenge patriarchal gender orders
and address other discriminatory social hierarchies differentiating women’s lived
experiences. To do this, she combines gender analytical frameworks from three
sources: Moser’s gender needs assessment, social relations approach, and Sara
Longwe’s women empowerment frameworks.
The selected analytical tools were applied to assess the interventions in the
planning, implementation and outcomes. Baidoo’s interest was to determine the
agentic opportunities that development interventions provide women. She also
analysed the gender sensitivity of the interventions and drew on Sara Longwe’s
empowerment framework to analyse the practical deployment of empowerment

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
· 10 · Feminist Africa 3 (2)

in the selected interventions. Baidoo notes that interventions can only be gender
transformative when women are involved in all stages of the project cycle and
make essential inputs. The project which allowed women to participate in
the process seeking to promote women’s access to productive resources, also
sensitised women in field schools and community activities. Because women
were given opportunities to be actively involved in the project cycle, they showed
greater confidence and agency during the project implementation. The second
project, which addressed women only in terms of needing credit, could not
develop women’s sense of confidence.
Faustina Obeng Adomaa’s Standpoint also discusses recurring poverty
among rural women despite decades of development interventions. She blames
the standards set by these interventions, which she calls ‘the low hanging fruits’,
as the cause of their failure to break the barriers that women face in accessing
farm and non-farm livelihood resources. Adomaa explains that the failure
to address differences among women constrains their access and only ends
up entrenching disadvantages in rural communities. Therefore, the framing
of development interventions matters not only for addressing patriarchal
discrimination but other forms of hierarchy as well.
The two conversation pieces present activist experiences within a com-
munity-based system and within larger institutional structures. In the first case,
Fati Abigail Abdulai, the director of the Widows and Orphans Movement
(WOM) in Ghana, shares her experience organising at-risk women, widows
and orphans in patrilineal Ghana. Her work reveals the challenges in using leg-
islation to protect women’s interests in agricultural resources, particularly land.
The patriarchal system that supports women’s differential access to resources
also stands in their way and prevents them from using protective legislation
to promote their interests. Women’s literacy, economic status, and time use
burdens prevent them from using existing legislation to protect their access
to resources, especially those acquired together with their husbands, which
should divulge to them through the law on intestate succession in Ghana. In a
situation where women’s productive activities in subsistence production are tied
to their marital obligations, inheritance rights are critical to the well-being and
economic survival of widows and their orphaned children. In this context, the
work of WOM becomes a crucial part of sustaining the conditions of women

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Editorial · 11 ·

in rural agriculture. A grassroots-based organisation like WOM discovers

that the traditional institutional setting matters and that building alliances
with traditional leaders can allow inroads for addressing customary rules of
granting women land in patrilineal communities. Abdulai’s experience in WOM
highlights the limits of activism devoted to providing relief to women. In the
long run, the achievements of NGOs are undermined by institutional failures
outside their control. Thus, assisting women to gain control over their dead
husbands’ property does not provide solutions to intergenerational poverty.
The daughters of widows cannot break the poverty cycle without repro-
ductive health facilities to avoid teen pregnancies that cut short their formal
educational opportunities. Feminist Africa draws on lessons from an Asian
country with regard to activism addressing institutional structures, especially
the UN and state-sponsored interventions. Rizwana Waraich of Pakistan, a
board member of the NGO Lok Sanjh Foundation, shares her experiences.
As she explains, her task is to ensure that state institutions live up to their
international commitments to gender equality and women’s rights. Waraich’s
tasks include sensitising male departmental heads about the need for gender
mainstreaming. Affirmative action provisions have increased women’s presence
in public office and politics; however, patriarchy still enables men to push back
against women’s autonomy in several ways. Waraich’s experience in Pakistan
and Abdulai’s in Ghana, show the limits of legal reform in dealing with systemic
structures that promote patriarchy.
This issue of Feminist Africa responds to an earlier one, Feminist
Africa 12, on ‘Land, Labour and Gendered Livelihoods’, which encouraged
the application of alternative conceptual tools for examining gendered rural
livelihood insecurities. The application of such conceptual tools highlights policy
inadequacies and pushes the debate towards re-evaluating development practices
and intentions under neo-liberalism. It is clear, however, that development as
practised, will not address the persistent inequalities produced by capitalism
and its modification of patriarchy. This awareness then emphasises the need
for feminist scholarship and activism to confront the question of alternative
frameworks for pursuing a transformative agenda.

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
· 12 · Feminist Africa 3 (2)

References
Adolwine, William Mark and Dudima, A. 2010. “Women’s Access to Emerging
Urban Land in the Sissala East District in Northern Ghana”, Journal of
Science and Technology 30(2), 94-104.
Agarwal, Bina. 2011. Food Crises and Gender Inequality. United Nations,
Department of Economics and Social Affairs. New York: UNDESA.
Apusigah, Agnes Atia. 2009. “The Gendered Politics of Farm Household Pro-
duction and the Shaping of Women’s Livelihoods in Northern Ghana”,
Feminist Africa 12, 51-68. Available at https://feministafrica.net/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2019/10/fa12_feature_apusigah.pdf
Britwum, Akua Opokua and Akorsu, Angela Dziedzom. 2016. Qualitative
Gender Evaluation of Agricultural Intensification Practices in Northern
Ghana. Ibadan: IITA. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10568/78479
Bryceson, Deborah. 1995. “African Women Hoe Cultivators: Speculative Ori-
gins and Current Enigmas”, in Bryceson, D.F. ed. Women Wielding the
Hoe: Lessons from Rural Africa for Feminist Theory and Development
Practice, 3-22. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Doss, Cheryl R. 2002. “Men’s Crops? Women’s Crops? The Gender Patterns
of Cropping in Ghana”, World Development 30(11), 1987-2000.
Doss, Cheryl R., and Morris, Michael. L. 2001. “How Does Gender Affect
the Adoption of Agricultural Innovations? The Case of Improved Maize
Technology in Ghana”, Agricultural Economics 25, 27-39.
Kelkar, Govind. 2013. Women, Work and Gender Regimes in Asia. Geneva:
ILO.
Kumase, Wokia-azi N., Bisseleua, Herve, and Klasen, Stephan. 2010. Oppor-
tunities and constraints in agriculture: A gendered analysis of cocoa
production in Southern Cameroon. Discussion Papers, No. 27. Georg-Au-
gust-Universität Göttingen, Courant Research Centre - Poverty, Equity
and Growth (CRC-PEG), Göttingen Available at https://www.econstor.
eu/bitstream/10419/90510/1/CRC-PEG_DP_27.pdf
Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbung, A., Berhman, J., Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Wilde,
V., Noordeloos, M., Ragasa, C. and Beintema, N. 2010. Engendering
Agricultural Research. International Food Policy Research Institute.

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Editorial · 13 ·

Mitra, Amit and Rao, Nitya. 2016. “Families, Farms and Changing Gender
Relations in Asia”, in FAO & MSSRF. Family Farming: Meeting the Zero
Hunger Challenge, 41-123. New Delhi: FAO and MSSRF.
Okali, Christine. 2012. Gender Analysis: Engaging with Rural Development
and Agricultural Policy Processes. Brighton: Future Agricultures Con-
sortium.
Padmanabhan, Martina A. 2004. The Making and Unmaking of Gendered
Crops in Northern Ghana. International Agricultural Research for Devel-
opment. Berlin: Deutcher Tropentag.
Quisumbing, A., Payongayong, E., Aidoo, J.B. and Otsuka, K. 1999. Women’s
Land Rights in the Transition to Individual Ownership: Implications
for the Management of Tree Resources in Western Ghana. Washington
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Tsikata, Dzodzi, and Torvikey, Gertrude Dzifa. 2021. “Rural Women’s Live-
lihoods and Food security in Africa”, in Berik, G. and Kongar, E. eds.
The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Economics, 214-222. London:
Routledge.
Yaro, Joseph A. 2009. “Customary Tenure System under Siege: Contemporary
Access to Land in Northern Ghana”, GeoJournal 75(2), 199-214.
Young, Kate. 1993. Planning Development with Women: Making a World of
Difference. London: Macmillan.
Zakaria, H., Abujaja, A. M., Adam, H. and Salifu, Y. K. 2015. “Does Gender
Make any Difference in Livelihoods Diversification? Evidence from
Northern Ghana”, International Journal of Agricultural Extension and
Rural Development Studies 1(1), 36-51.

This content downloaded from

188.26.215.101 on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms