IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ajy/icddwp/7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decent work? How self-employed pastoralists and employed herders on ranches perceive their working conditions

Author

Listed:
  • M. Aufderheide
  • C. Voigts
  • C. Hülsebusch
  • B. Kaufmann

Abstract

Pastoralism and ranching are two different rangeland-based livestock systems in dryland areas of East Africa. Both usually operate under low and irregular rainfall and consequently low overall primary biomass production of high spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Both are usually located far from town centres, market outlets and communication, medical, educational, banking, insurance and other infrastructure. Whereas pastoralists can be regarded as self-employed, gaining their livelihood from managing their individually owned livestock on communal land, ranches mostly employ herders as wage labourers to manage the livestock owned by the ranch on the ranches’ own land property. Both production systems can be similarly labour intensive and – with regard to the livestock management – require the same type of work, whether carried out as self-employed pastoralist or as employed herder on a work contract. Given this similarity, the aim of this study was to comparatively assess how pastoralists and employed herders in northern Kenya view their working conditions, and which criteria they use to assess hardship and rewards in their daily work and their working life. Their own perception is compared with the concept of Decent Work developed by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Samburu pastoralists in Marsabit and Samburu Districts as well as herders on ranches in Laikipia District were interviewed. A qualitative analysis of 47 semi-structured interviews yielded information about daily activities, income, free time, education and social security. Five out of 22 open interviews with pastoralists and seven out of 13 open interviews with employed herders fully transcribed and subjected to qualitative content analysis to yield life stories of 12 informants. Pastoralists consider it important to have healthy and satisfied animals. The ability to provide food for their family especially for the children has a high priority. Hardships for the pastoralists are, if activities are exhausting, and challenging, and dangerous. For employed herders, decent conditions are if their wages are high enough to be able to provide food for their family and formal education for their children. It is further most important for them to do work they are experienced and skilled in. Most employed herders were former pastoralists, who had lost their animals due to drought or raids.There are parallels between the ILO ‘Decent Work’ concept and the perception of working conditions of pastoralists and employed herders.These are, for example, that remuneration is of importance and the appreciation by either the employer or the community is desired. Some aspects that are seen as important by the ILO such as safety at work and healthy working conditions only play a secondary role to the pastoralists, who see risky and dangerous tasks as inherent characteristics of their efforts to gain a livelihood in their living environment.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Aufderheide & C. Voigts & C. Hülsebusch & B. Kaufmann, 2013. "Decent work? How self-employed pastoralists and employed herders on ranches perceive their working conditions," ICDD Working Papers 7, University of Kassel, Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften (Social Sciences), Internatioanl Center for Development and Decent Work (ICDD).
  • Handle: RePEc:ajy:icddwp:7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://kobra.uni-kassel.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/12413/ICDD_WP32_Sinha.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayne, T. S. & Yamano, Takashi & Weber, Michael T. & Tschirley, David & Benfica, Rui & Chapoto, Antony & Zulu, Ballard, 2003. "Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: implications for poverty reduction strategies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 253-275, June.
    2. repec:ilo:ilowps:362262 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lesorogol, Carolyn K., 2005. "Privatizing pastoral lands: economic and normative outcomes in Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 1959-1978, November.
    4. Tache, Boku & Sjaastad, Espen, 2010. "Pastoralists' Conceptions of Poverty: An Analysis of Traditional and Conventional Indicators from Borana, Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1168-1178, August.
    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. Das Gupta, Monica & Bongaarts, John & Cleland, John, 2011. "Population, poverty, and sustainable development : a review of the evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5719, The World Bank.
    2. Genti Kostandini & Bradford F. Mills & Steven Were Omamo & Stanley Wood, 2009. "Ex ante analysis of the benefits of transgenic drought tolerance research on cereal crops in low‐income countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 477-492, July.
    3. Lenyeletse V. Basupi & Claire H. Quinn & Andrew J. Dougill, 2017. "Pastoralism and Land Tenure Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Conflicting Policies and Priorities in Ngamiland, Botswana," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Jayne, Thomas S. & Chapoto, Antony, 2006. "Emerging Structural Maize Deficits in Eastern and Southern Africa: Implications for National Agricultural Strategies," Food Security Collaborative Policy Briefs 54620, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Sam Barrett, 2015. "Subnational Adaptation Finance Allocation: Comparing Decentralized and Devolved Political Institutions in Kenya," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(3), pages 118-139, August.
    6. L'Roe, Jessica & Detoeuf, Diane & Wieland, Michelle & Ikati, Bernard & Enduyi Kimuha, Moïse & Sandrin, François & Angauko Sukari, Odette & Nzale Nkumu, Junior & Kretser, Heidi E. & Wilkie, David, 2023. "Large-scale monitoring in the DRC’s Ituri forest with a locally informed multidimensional well-being index," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Attahiru, Yusuf Babangida & Aziz, Md. Maniruzzaman A. & Kassim, Khairul Anuar & Shahid, Shamsuddin & Wan Abu Bakar, Wan Azelee & NSashruddin, Thanwa Filza & Rahman, Farahiyah Abdul & Ahamed, Mohd Imra, 2019. "A review on green economy and development of green roads and highways using carbon neutral materials," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 600-613.
    8. Shunji Oniki & Melaku Berhe & Koichi Takenaka, 2020. "Efficiency Impact of the Communal Land Distribution Program in Northern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Walker, Thomas S. & Tschirley, David L. & Low, Jan W. & Tanque, M. Pequentino & Boughton, Duncan & Payongayong, Ellen M. & Weber, Michael T., 2004. "Determinants of Rural Income, Poverty, and Perceived Well-Being in Mozambique in 2001-2002," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 56061, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    10. An Ansoms & Donatella Rostagno, 2012. "Rwanda's Vision 2020 halfway through: what the eye does not see," Review of African Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(133), pages 427-450, September.
    11. Tharakan, Joe & Lefèvre, Mélanie, 2011. "Intermediaries, transport costs and interlinked transactions," CEPR Discussion Papers 8615, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Herrera, Gabriel Paes & Lourival, Reinaldo & da Costa, Reginaldo Brito & Mendes, Dany Rafael Fonseca & Moreira, Tito Belchior Silva & de Abreu, Urbano Gomes Pinto & Constantino, Michel, 2018. "Econometric analysis of income, productivity and diversification among smallholders in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 455-459.
    13. Sitko, Nicholas J. & Chamberlin, Jordan & Hichaambwa, Munguzwe, 2015. "The Geography of Customary Land in Zambia: Is Development Strategy Engaging With The Facts?," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 211222, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Nyoro, James K. & Ariga, Joshua, 2004. "Preparation of an Inventory of Research Work Undertaken in Agricultural/Rural Sector in Kenya," Working Papers 202629, Egerton University, Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development.
    15. Bambio, Yiriyibin & Bouayad Agha, Salima, 2018. "Land tenure security and investment: Does strength of land right really matter in rural Burkina Faso?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 130-147.
    16. Qun Zhang & Cifang Wu, 2022. "Optimization Model of Permanent Basic Farmland Indicators Distribution from the Perspective of Equity: A Case from W County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, August.
    17. Christopher B. Barrett, 2005. "Rural poverty dynamics: development policy implications," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(s1), pages 45-60, January.
    18. Jayne, T.S. & Chamberlin, Jordan & Traub, Lulama & Sitko, N. & Muyanga, Milu & Yeboah, Kwame & Nkonde, Chewe & Anseeuw, Ward & Chapoto, A. & Kachule, Richard, 2015. "Africa’s Changing Farmland Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Miscellaneous Publications 208576, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    19. repec:ilo:ilowps:458221 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Sietz, Diana & Boschutz, Maria & Klein, Richard JT & Lotsch, Alexander, 2008. "Mainstreaming climate adaptation into development assistance in Mozambique: Institutional barriers and opportunities," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4711, The World Bank.
    21. Holden, Stein T. & Otsuka, Keijiro, 2014. "The roles of land tenure reforms and land markets in the context of population growth and land use intensification in Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 88-97.

    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:ajy:icddwp:7. 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: Webadmin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ickasde.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.