IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/125017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bargaining-Power and Biofortification: The Role of Gender in Adoption of Orange Sweet Potato in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Gilligan, Daniel O.
  • Kumar, Neha
  • McNiven, Scott
  • Meenakshi, J.V.
  • Quisumbing, Agnes R.

Abstract

We examine the role of gender in adoption and diffusion of orange sweet potato, a biofortified staple food crop being promoted as a strategy to increase dietary intakes of vitamin A among young children and adult women in Uganda. As an agricultural intervention with nutrition objectives, intrahousehold gender dynamics regarding decisions about crop choice and child feeding practices may play a role in adoption decisions. Also, most households access sweet potato vines through informal exchange, suggesting again that gender dimensions of networks may be important to diffusion of the crop. We use data from an experimental impact evaluation of the introduction of OSP in Uganda to study how female bargaining power, measured by share of land and nonland assets controlled by women, affect adoption and diffusion decisions.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Gilligan, Daniel O. & Kumar, Neha & McNiven, Scott & Meenakshi, J.V. & Quisumbing, Agnes R., 2012. "Bargaining-Power and Biofortification: The Role of Gender in Adoption of Orange Sweet Potato in Uganda," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 125017, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:125017
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.125017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/125017/files/Gilligan.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.125017?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1, March.
    2. Alan de Brauw & Patrick Eozenou & Daniel O Gilligan & Christine Hotz & Neha Kumar & J V Meenakshi, 2018. "Biofortification, Crop Adoption and Health Information: Impact Pathways in Mozambique and Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 906-930.
    3. Klaus Deininger & Daniel Ayalew Ali & Takashi Yamano, 2008. "Legal Knowledge and Economic Development: The Case of Land Rights in Uganda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 593-619.
    4. Daniel O. Gilligan, 2012. "Biofortification, Agricultural Technology Adoption, and Nutrition Policy: Some Lessons and Emerging Challenges ," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 58(2), pages 405-421, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Agnes R. Quisumbing & John A. Maluccio, 2003. "Resources at Marriage and Intrahousehold Allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 65(3), pages 283-327, July.
    7. McElroy, Marjorie B & Horney, Mary Jean, 1981. "Nash-Bargained Household Decisions: Toward a Generalization of the Theory of Demand," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 22(2), pages 333-349, June.
    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. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Rubin, Deborah & Manfre, Cristina & Waithanji, Elizabeth & van den Bold, Mara & Olney, Deanna K. & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela, 2014. "Closing the gender asset gap: Learning from value chain development in Africa and Asia:," IFPRI discussion papers 1321, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Anderson, C. Leigh & Reynolds, Travis W. & Gugerty, Mary Kay, 2017. "Husband and Wife Perspectives on Farm Household Decision-making Authority and Evidence on Intra-household Accord in Rural Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 169-183.
    3. Agnes R. Quisumbing & Neha Kumar & Julia A. Behrman, 2018. "Do shocks affect men's and women's assets differently? Evidence from Bangladesh and Uganda," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(1), pages 3-34, January.
    4. Murphy, David M. A., 2017. "Underground Knowledge: Soil Testing, Farmer Learning, and Input Demand in Kenya," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258372, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Gilligan, Daniel O. & Kumar, Neha & McNiven, Scott & Meenakshi, J.V. & Quisumbing, Agnes, 2020. "Bargaining power, decision making, and biofortification: The role of gender in adoption of orange sweet potato in Uganda," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Valera, Harold Glenn & Yamano, Takashi & Pede, Valerien & Puskur, Ranjitha & Habib, Muhammad Ashraful & Bashar, Khairul, 2021. "Impact of Nutrition Training on Long-Term Adoption of High Zinc Rice: A Randomized Control Trial Study Among Female Farmers in Bangladesh," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315165, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Matthias Doepke & Michèle Tertilt, 2019. "Does female empowerment promote economic development?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 309-343, December.
    4. Malapit, Hazel Jean L., 2012. "Why do spouses hide income?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 584-593.
    5. Matthew Gnagey & Therese Grijalva & Rong Rong, 2020. "Spousal influence and assortative mating on time preferences: a field experiment in the USA," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 461-512, June.
    6. Holger Seebens & Johannes Sauer, 2007. "Bargaining power and efficiency-rural households in Ethiopia," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(7), pages 895-918.
    7. Xu, Zeyu, 2007. "A survey on intra-household models and evidence," MPRA Paper 3763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Gaspart, Frederic, 2007. "The Perverse Effects of High Brideprices," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1221-1236, July.
    9. Schultz, T. Paul, 2008. "Population Policies, Fertility, Women's Human Capital, and Child Quality," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 52, pages 3249-3303, Elsevier.
    10. Jacob, Arun, 2016. "Gender Bias in Educational Attainment in India : The Role of Dowry Payments," MPRA Paper 76338, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Corradini, Viola & Buccione, Giulia, 2023. "Unilateral divorce rights, domestic violence and women’s agency: Evidence from the Egyptian Khul reform," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Meinzen-Dick, R., 2010. "Engendering agricultural research," IWMI Working Papers H043604, International Water Management Institute.
      • Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Quisumbing, Agnes & Behrman, Julia & Biermayr-Jenzano, Patricia & Wilde, Vicki & Noordeloos, Marco & Ragasa, Catherine & Beintema, Nienke, 2010. "Engendering agricultural research," IFPRI discussion papers 973, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Gianni Betti & Lucia Mangiavacchi & Luca Piccoli, 2020. "Women and poverty: insights from individual consumption in Albania," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 69-91, March.
    14. Hallward-Driemeier, Mary & Gajigo, Ousman, 2015. "Strengthening Economic Rights and Women’s Occupational Choice: The Impact of Reforming Ethiopia’s Family Law," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 260-273.
    15. Klein, Matthew J. & Barham, Bradford L., 2018. "Point Estimates of Household Bargaining Power Using Outside Options," Staff Paper Series 590, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    16. Robert Kaestner, 1995. "The Effects of Cocaine and Marijuana Use on Marriage and Marital Stability," NBER Working Papers 5038, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Rute M. Caeiro & Pedro C. Vicente, 2020. "Knowledge of vitamin A deficiency and crop adoption: Evidence from a field experiment in Mozambique," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(2), pages 175-190, March.
    18. Leanne Roncolato & Alex Roomets, 2020. "Who will change the “baby?” Examining the power of gender in an experimental setting," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 823-852, September.
    19. Fletschner, Diana K., 2000. "Enhancing Rural Women'S Access To Capital: Why It Is Important And How It Can Be Done. The Case Of Colombia," Staff Papers 12640, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    20. Helen V. Tauchen & Ann Dryden Witte & Sharon K. Long, 1985. "Domestic Violence: A Non-random Affair," NBER Working Papers 1665, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    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:aaea12:125017. 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/aaeaaea.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.