Author
Listed:
- Sharaunga, Stanley
- Mudhara, Maxwell
Abstract
Understanding how the different dimensions of women’s empowerment influence their livelihood diversification strategies is indispensable to any attempt to empower them. Rural women diversify their livelihood strategies beyond agriculture despite its centrality to the rural economy. This study used the proportion of non- agricultural incomes to total household income as a measure of the degree of women’s diversification away from agriculture in Msinga rural areas of KwaZulu-Natal. The Tobit regression model was used for investigating the dimensions of empowerment that influence women’s decision to diversify away from agricultural- based livelihoods. It was found that women with higher levels of human and physical capital forms of empowerment, vocational and farm financial management skills were more likely to diversify away from agricultural-based livelihood activities. On the other hand, women with higher levels of social capital and legal resource empowerment were less likely to participate in non-farm activities. Socio-economic factors including being married and involvement in dry-land agriculture increased the likelihood of women to rely on non-agricultural incomes while higher husband’s incomes and involvement in irrigation agriculture reduced the chances of women to diversify away from agriculture. It was concluded that certain dimensions of rural women’s empowerment influence the extent to which they diversify livelihoods away from agriculture. Hence, this study suggests that policymakers need to consider using empowerment interventions such as human and physical capital forms of empowerment, vocational and farm financial management skills to increase women’s diversification and reduce their household dependence on agriculture.
Suggested Citation
Sharaunga, Stanley & Mudhara, Maxwell, 2016.
"Dimensions of Empowerment Influencing Women in KwaZulu-Natal to diversify away from agricultural-based livelihoods,"
Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 55(1-2), May.
Handle:
RePEc:ags:agreko:346856
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.346856
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:346856. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeasaea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.