IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/rdevec/v5y2001i1p76-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Model of a Gender‐Segregated Low‐Income Economy Reconsidered: Evidence from Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Evers
  • Bernard Walters

Abstract

This paper examines Darity’s model of gender‐segregated low‐income agrarian society in light of evidence from Uganda. It identifies three important features of the interactions between men and women which are likely to have economic effects but which are subsumed within Darity’s schematic presentation. It suggests a reformulation of the Darity model in terms of a bargaining framework. This facilitates greater insights into gendered economic processes that otherwise are ignored, and investigation of a wider range of macro outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Evers & Bernard Walters, 2001. "The Model of a Gender‐Segregated Low‐Income Economy Reconsidered: Evidence from Uganda," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 76-88, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:rdevec:v:5:y:2001:i:1:p:76-88
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9361.00108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9361.00108
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9361.00108?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nazier, Hanan & Ezzat, Asmaa, 2022. "Gender differences and time allocation: A comparative analysis of Egypt and Tunisia," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 174-193.
    2. Golan, Jennifer & Lay, Jann, 2008. "More coffee, more cigarettes? Coffee market liberalisation, gender, and bargaining in Uganda," Kiel Working Papers 1402, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Lim, Sung Soo & Winter-Nelson, Alex & Arends-Kuenning, Mary, 2007. "Household Bargaining Power and Agricultural Supply Response: Evidence from Ethiopian Coffee Growers," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1204-1220, July.
    4. Lay, Jann & Golan, Jennifer, 2009. "The Impact of Agricultural Market Liberalisation from a Gender Perspective: Evidence from Uganda," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Frankfurt a.M. 2009 20, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    5. Mather, David & Donovan, Cynthia & Jayne, Thomas S. & Weber, Michael T. & Chapoto, Antony & Mazhangara, Edward & Bailey, Linda & Yoo, Kyeongwon & Yamano, Takashi & Mghenyi, Elliot W., 2004. "A Cross-Country Analysis of Household Responses to Adult Mortality in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications For HIV/AIDS Mitigation And Rural Development Policies," Food Security International Development Working Papers 54571, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    6. Llambí, Cecilia & Laens, Silvia & Perera, Marcelo & Ferrando, Mery, 2008. "Assessing the impact of the 2007 Tax Reform on poverty and inequality in Uruguay," Conference papers 331810, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Diksha Arora, 2014. "Gender Differences in Time Poverty in Rural Mozambique," Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Utah 2014_05, University of Utah, Department of Economics.
    8. Thomas Daum & Filippo Capezzone & Regina Birner, 2021. "Using smartphone app collected data to explore the link between mechanization and intra-household allocation of time in Zambia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 411-429, June.
    9. 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.

    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:bla:rdevec:v:5:y:2001:i:1:p:76-88. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1363-6669 .

    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.