IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v129y2024ics0306919224001751.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do women’s empowerment metrics measure up? A comparative analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Bageant, Elizabeth
  • Lentz, Erin
  • Narayanan, Sudha
  • Jensen, Nathan
  • Lepariyo, Watson

Abstract

Research has identified women’s empowerment as a critical factor for nutritional outcomes and a priority area for understanding women’s mental health status. At the same time, there is no consensus on how empowerment should be measured. The surrounding debate has produced several empowerment metrics that are widely used, yet we know little about whether they can be substituted for one another or their respective strengths and weaknesses. Using data collected from a single sample of women from rural, northern Kenya, we compare five empowerment metrics: The Project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI) and associated Health and Nutrition Module (HN), Women’s Empowerment in Nutrition Index (WENI), Women’s Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI), and the Survey Based Women’s Empowerment Index (SWPER). The metrics have shared theoretical origins and are commonly used in the food, nutrition and health spaces to study rural women’s lives across low- and middle-income countries. We examine the metrics’ characteristics, distributions, pairwise correlations and capacity of each metric to predict outcomes often associated with the concept of empowerment: body mass index (BMI) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). We find striking differences between these common empowerment metrics. The metrics’ correlations with one another are highly variable as are the predictive capacities for both outcomes. Further, our analysis finds that the choice of metric can dramatically influence which individuals are identified as empowered. In sum, our results suggest that while these metrics are used in remarkably similar ways to understand rural women’s empowerment and its consequences, unless they are computed with many identical survey questions, the metrics do not capture the same underlying concept and are not interchangeable. We recommend that our work be replicated elsewhere and caution should be taken when implementing and interpreting research using these metrics, as findings may be highly sensitive to the choice of metric.

Suggested Citation

  • Bageant, Elizabeth & Lentz, Erin & Narayanan, Sudha & Jensen, Nathan & Lepariyo, Watson, 2024. "How do women’s empowerment metrics measure up? A comparative analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:129:y:2024:i:c:s0306919224001751
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224001751
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102764?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malapit, Hazel & Quisumbing, Agnes & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Seymour, Greg & Martinez, Elena M. & Heckert, Jessica & Rubin, Deborah & Vaz, Ana & Yount, Kathryn M., 2019. "Development of the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 675-692.
    2. Upton, Joanna & Constenla-Villoslada, Susana & Barrett, Christopher B., 2022. "Caveat utilitor: A comparative assessment of resilience measurement approaches," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Malapit, Hazel Jean L. & Quisumbing, Agnes R., 2015. "What dimensions of women’s empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 54-63.
    4. Jeffrey R. Bloem & Duncan Boughton & Kyan Htoo & Aung Hein & Ellen Payongayong, 2018. "Measuring Hope: A Quantitative Approach with Validation in Rural Myanmar," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 2078-2094, November.
    5. Amartya Sen, 2005. "Human Rights and Capabilities," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 151-166.
    6. Katie Tavenner & Todd A. Crane, 2022. "Hitting the target and missing the point? On the risks of measuring women’s empowerment in agricultural development," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 849-857, September.
    7. Hoddinott, John & Yohannes, Yisehac, 2002. "Dietary diversity as a food security indicator," FCND discussion papers 136, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Malapit, Hazel J. & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth S. & Seymour, Greg & Martinez, Elena M. & Heckert, Jessica & Rubin, Deborah & Vaz, Ana & Yount, Kathryn M. & Gender, Agriculture, and Asse, 2019. "Development of the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI)," IFPRI discussion papers 1796, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. C. Leigh Anderson & Travis W. Reynolds & Pierre Biscaye & Vedavati Patwardhan & Carly Schmidt, 2021. "Economic Benefits of Empowering Women in Agriculture: Assumptions and Evidence," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(2), pages 193-208, February.
    10. Mariola Acosta & Margit van Wessel & Severine van Bommel & Edidah L. Ampaire & Jennifer Twyman & Laurence Jassogne & Peter H. Feindt, 2020. "What does it Mean to Make a ‘Joint’ Decision? Unpacking Intra-household Decision Making in Agriculture: Implications for Policy and Practice," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(6), pages 1210-1229, June.
    11. Vaitla, Bapu & Coates, Jennifer & Glaeser, Laura & Hillbruner, Christopher & Biswal, Preetish & Maxwell, Daniel, 2017. "The measurement of household food security: Correlation and latent variable analysis of alternative indicators in a large multi-country dataset," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 193-205.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waid, Jillian L. & Wendt, Amanda S. & Sinharoy, Sheela S. & Kader, Abdul & Gabrysch, Sabine, 2022. "Impact of a homestead food production program on women's empowerment: Pro-WEAI results from the FAARM trial in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Mamadou Sanogo & Roland Yonaba & Abdou Lawane & Malicki Zorom & Fonzia Tassembédo & Hamed Ali Sahad & Isidore Bazié, 2024. "Do Runoff Water Harvesting Ponds Affect Farmers Cropping Choices? Insights from Smallholders in the West African Sahel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Quisumbing, Agnes & Ahmed, Akhter & Hoddinott, John & Pereira, Audrey & Roy, Shalini, 2021. "Designing for empowerment impact in agricultural development projects: Experimental evidence from the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Gender Linkages (ANGeL) project in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Ding, Yawen & Wang, Xiaobing & de Brauw, Alan & Qiu, Huanguang, 2024. "Catch up with my husband as I can: Women’s decision-making power consequences of China’s poverty alleviation relocation program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    5. Kramer, Berber & Mollerstrom, Johanna & Seymour, Greg, 2022. "Valuing control over income and workload: A field experiment in Rwanda," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322298, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Jayachandran, Seema & Biradavolu, Monica & Cooper, Jan, 2023. "Using machine learning and qualitative interviews to design a five-question survey module for women’s agency," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    7. Clapp, Jennifer & Moseley, William G. & Burlingame, Barbara & Termine, Paola, 2022. "Viewpoint: The case for a six-dimensional food security framework," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Lu Gram & Joanna Morrison & Jolene Skordis-Worrall, 2019. "Organising Concepts of ‘Women’s Empowerment’ for Measurement: A Typology," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 1349-1376, June.
    9. Christine M. Sauer & Nicole M. Mason & Mywish K. Maredia & Rhoda Mofya-Mukuka, 2018. "Does adopting legume-based cropping practices improve the food security of small-scale farm households? Panel survey evidence from Zambia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(6), pages 1463-1478, December.
    10. Li, Shengwen & Goerzen, Anthony, 2024. "Improving global value chain governance: Empowering women through third-party interventions within institutionally fragile contexts," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 59(3).
    11. Hossain, Marup & Mullally, Conner & Asadullah, M. Niaz, 2019. "Alternatives to calorie-based indicators of food security: An application of machine learning methods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 77-91.
    12. Yount, Kathryn M. & Cheong, Yuk Fai & Maxwell, Lauren & Heckert, Jessica & Martinez, Elena M. & Seymour, Gregory, 2019. "Measurement properties of the project-level Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Lecoutere, Els & Chu, Lan, 2021. "Changing intrahousehold decision making to empower women in their households: a mixed methods analysis of a field experiment in rural south-west Tanzania," IOB Discussion Papers 2021.06, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
    14. Laszlo, Sonia & Grantham, Kate & Oskay, Ecem & Zhang, Tingting, 2020. "Grappling with the challenges of measuring women's economic empowerment in intrahousehold settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    15. Deakin, S. & Koukiadaki, A., 2011. "Capability Theory, Employee Voice and Corporate Restructuring: Evidence from UK Case Studies," Working Papers wp429, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    16. DeJaeghere, Joan & Pellowski Wiger, Nancy & Le, Hue & Luong, Phuong & Ngo, Nga Thi Hang & Vu, Thanh Thi & Lee, Jongwook, 2022. "Why do aspirations matter for empowerment?: Discrepancies between the A-WEAI domains and aspirations of ethnic minority women in Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    17. Sevias Guvuriro & Frederik Booysen, 2021. "Family‐type public goods and intra‐household decision‐making by co‐resident South African couples," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 1629-1647, August.
    18. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2017. "Sen is not a capability theorist," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 1-19, January.
    19. Canton, César G., 2012. "Empowering People in the Business Frontline: The Ruggie’s Framework and the Capability Approach," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 23(2), pages 191-216.
    20. Ulriksen, Marianne S. & Plagerson, Sophie, 2014. "Social Protection: Rethinking Rights and Duties," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 755-765.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:129:y:2024:i:c:s0306919224001751. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.