IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae14/182731.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agricultural extension in eastern DR Congo: Does Gender Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Lambrecht, Isabel
  • Vanlauwe, Bernard
  • Maertens, Miet

Abstract

Agricultural extension programs often evaluate their gender strategy by the proportion of female participants. However, female participation is not necessarily conducive for reaching program objectives. We analyze whether participation of female farmers in an agricultural extension program in South-Kivu increases adoption of three technologies: improved legume varieties, row planting, and mineral fertilizer. Joint male and female program participation leads to the highest adoption rates. Female participation is not conducive for the adoption of capital-intensive technologies while it is for (female) labor-intensive technologies. Participation of female-headed households is more effective for technology adoption than participation of female farmers in male-headed households.

Suggested Citation

  • Lambrecht, Isabel & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Maertens, Miet, 2014. "Agricultural extension in eastern DR Congo: Does Gender Matter?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182731, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:182731
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.182731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/182731/files/Lambrecht-Agricultural_extension_in_Eastern_DR_Congo-517_a.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.182731?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2008. "How High Are Rates of Return to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field Experiments in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 482-488, May.
    2. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Pandolfelli, Lauren, 2010. "Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers: Resources, Constraints, and Interventions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 581-592, April.
    3. Gary Solon & Steven J. Haider & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "What Are We Weighting For?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 301-316.
    4. Maertens, Miet & Verhofstadt, Ellen, 2013. "Horticultural exports, female wage employment and primary school enrolment: Theory and evidence from Senegal," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 118-131.
    5. David Roodman, 2011. "Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(2), pages 159-206, June.
    6. Udry, Christopher, 1996. "Gender, Agricultural Production, and the Theory of the Household," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 1010-1046, October.
    7. Paswel P. Marenya & Christopher B. Barrett, 2009. "State-conditional Fertilizer Yield Response on Western Kenyan Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 991-1006.
    8. Lambrecht, Isabel & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Merckx, Roel & Maertens, Miet, 2014. "Understanding the Process of Agricultural Technology Adoption: Mineral Fertilizer in Eastern DR Congo," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 132-146.
    9. Doss, Cheryl, 2013. "Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6337, The World Bank.
    10. Doss, Cheryl R., 2001. "Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(12), pages 2075-2092, December.
    11. Fletschner, Diana & Mesbah, Dina, 2011. "Gender Disparity in Access to Information: Do Spouses Share What They Know?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1422-1433, August.
    12. Nassul Ssentamu Kabunga & Thomas Dubois & Matin Qaim, 2012. "Heterogeneous information exposure and technology adoption: the case of tissue culture bananas in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(5), pages 473-486, September.
    13. Asfaw, Solomon & Shiferaw, Bekele & Simtowe, Franklin & Lipper, Leslie, 2012. "Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 283-295.
    14. Cheryl Doss, 2013. "Intrahousehold Bargaining and Resource Allocation in Developing Countries-super-1," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 52-78, February.
    15. Place, Frank & Barrett, Christopher B. & Freeman, H. Ade & Ramisch, Joshua J. & Vanlauwe, Bernard, 2003. "Prospects for integrated soil fertility management using organic and inorganic inputs: evidence from smallholder African agricultural systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 365-378, August.
    16. Fisher, Monica & Kandiwa, Vongai, 2014. "Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 101-111.
    17. Ben D. MacArthur & Richard O. C. Oreffo, 2005. "Bridging the gap," Nature, Nature, vol. 433(7021), pages 19-19, January.
    18. Deon Filmer & Lant Pritchett, 2001. "Estimating Wealth Effects Without Expenditure Data—Or Tears: An Application To Educational Enrollments In States Of India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 115-132, February.
    19. Peterman, Amber & Behrman, Julia & Quisumbing, Agnes, 2010. "A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries," IFPRI discussion papers 975, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Mendola, Mariapia, 2007. "Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: A propensity-score matching analysis for rural Bangladesh," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 372-393, June.
    21. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela & Johnson, Nancy & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Njuki, Jemimah & Behrman, Julia A. & Rubin, Deborah & Peterman, Amber & Waithanji, Elizabeth, 2011. "Gender, assets, and agricultural development programs: A conceptual framework:," CAPRi working papers 99, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    22. Minten, Bart & Barrett, Christopher B., 2008. "Agricultural Technology, Productivity, and Poverty in Madagascar," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 797-822, May.
    23. Doss, Cheryl R. & Morris, Michael L., 2001. "How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations?: The case of improved maize technology in Ghana," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 27-39, June.
    24. Mathenge, Mary K. & Smale, Melinda & Olwande, John, 2014. "The impacts of hybrid maize seed on the welfare of farming households in Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 262-271.
    25. Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele & Muricho, Geoffrey, 2011. "Agricultural Technology, Crop Income, and Poverty Alleviation in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1784-1795.
    26. Sheahan, Megan & Black, Roy & Jayne, T.S., 2013. "Are Kenyan farmers under-utilizing fertilizer? Implications for input intensification strategies and research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-52.
    27. Mark M. Pitt & Shahidur R. Khandker, 1998. "The Impact of Group-Based Credit Programs on Poor Households in Bangladesh: Does the Gender of Participants Matter?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 958-996, October.
    28. T.S. Jayne & Shahidur Rashid, 2013. "Input subsidy programs in sub-Saharan Africa: a synthesis of recent evidence," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 547-562, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ragasa, Catherine & Mazunda, John, 2018. "The impact of agricultural extension services in the context of a heavily subsidized input system: The case of Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 25-47.

    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. Lambrecht, Isabel & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Maertens, Miet, 2014. "What is the sense of gender targeting in agricultural extension programs? Evidence from eastern DR Congo," Working Papers 167158, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    2. Lambrecht, Isabel & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Maertens, Miet, 2014. "Integrated soil fertility management: from concept to practice in eastern DR Congo," Working Papers 180062, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    3. Fisher, Monica & Kandiwa, Vongai, 2014. "Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 101-111.
    4. Raju Ghimire & Wen-Chi Huang, 2015. "Household wealth and adoption of improved maize varieties in Nepal: a double-hurdle approach," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 7(6), pages 1321-1335, December.
    5. Kazushi Takahashi & Rie Muraoka & Keijiro Otsuka, 2020. "Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 31-45, January.
    6. Rieko Shibata & Sarah Cardey & Peter Dorward, 2020. "Gendered Intra‐Household Decision‐Making Dynamics in Agricultural Innovation Processes: Assets, Norms and Bargaining Power," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(7), pages 1101-1125, October.
    7. Diiro, Gracious M. & Fisher, Monica & Kassie, Menale & Muriithi, Beatrice W. & Muricho, Geoffrey, 2021. "How does adoption of labor saving agricultural technologies affect intrahousehold resource allocations? The case of push-pull technology in Western Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    8. Mugizi, Francisco M.P. & Matsumoto, Tomoya, 2021. "A curse or a blessing? Population pressure and soil quality in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from rural Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    9. Larson,Donald F. & Muraoka,Rie & Otsuka,Keijiro, 2016. "On the central role of small farms in African rural development strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7710, The World Bank.
    10. Jayne, T.S. & Mason, Nicole M. & Burke, William J. & Ariga, Joshua, 2016. "Agricultural Input Subsidy Programs in Africa: An Assessment of Recent Evidence," Food Security International Development Working Papers 245892, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    11. Ragasa, Catherine, 2012. "Gender and Institutional Dimensions of Agricultural Technology Adoption: A Review of Literature and Synthesis of 35 Case Studies," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126747, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Sophie Theis & Nicole Lefore & Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Elizabeth Bryan, 2018. "What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(3), pages 671-684, September.
    13. Garbero, A. & Marion, P., 2018. "IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 28 - Understanding the dynamics of adoption decisions and their poverty impacts: the case of improved maize seeds in Uganda," IFAD Research Series 280077, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    14. Estelle Koussoubé & Céline Nauges, 2017. "Returns to fertiliser use: Does it pay enough? Some new evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(2), pages 183-210.
    15. Ndiritu, S. Wagura & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele, 2014. "Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 117-127.
    16. Torres Franco, Nicolás Arturo & Dávalos, Eleonora & Morales, Leonardo Fabio, 2021. "Heterogeneous Effects of Agricultural Technical Assistance in Colombia," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 459-481, November.
    17. Andre Croppenstedt & Markus Goldstein & Nina Rosas, 2013. "Gender and Agriculture: Inefficiencies, Segregation, and Low Productivity Traps," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 79-109, February.
    18. Cheryl R. Doss & Agnes R. Quisumbing, 2020. "Understanding rural household behavior: Beyond Boserup and Becker," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 47-58, January.
    19. Musa Hasen Ahmed & Kassahun Mamo Geleta & Aemro Tazeze & Hiwot Mekonnen Mesfin & Eden Andualem Tilahun, 2017. "Cropping systems diversification, improved seed, manure and inorganic fertilizer adoption by maize producers of eastern Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Sara Ratna Qanti & Alexandra Peralta & Di Zeng, 2022. "Social norms and perceptions drive women’s participation in agricultural decisions in West Java, Indonesia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 645-662, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:eaae14:182731. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.