IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/2137.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can agricultural development projects empower women? A synthesis of mixed methods evaluations using pro-WEAI in the gender, agriculture, and assets project (phase 2) portfolio

Author

Listed:
  • Quisumbing, Agnes R.
  • Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela
  • Malapit, Hazel J.
  • Seymour, Greg
  • Heckert, Jessica
  • Doss, Cheryl
  • Johnson, Nancy
  • Rubin, Deborah
  • Thai, Giang
  • Ramani, Gayathri V.
  • Meyers, Emily

Abstract

Agricultural development projects increasingly include women’s empowerment and gender equality among their objectives, but efforts to evaluate their impact have been stymied by the lack of comparable measures. Moreover, the context-specificity of empowerment implies that a quantitative measure alone will be inadequate to capture the nuances of the empowerment process. The Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project, Phase 2 (GAAP2), a portfolio of 13 agricultural development projects in nine countries in South Asia and Africa, developed the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI) and qualitative protocols for impact evaluations. Pro-WEAI covers three major types of agencies: instrumental, intrinsic, and collective. This paper synthesizes the results of 11 mixed-methods evaluations to assess these projects’ empowerment impacts. The projects implemented the pro-WEAI and its associated qualitative protocols in their impact evaluations. Our synthesis finds mixed, and mostly null impacts on aggregate indicators of women’s empowerment, with positive impacts more likely in the South Asian, rather than African, cases. There were more significant impacts on instrumental agency indicators and collective agency indicators, reflecting the group-based approaches used. We found few significant impacts on intrinsic agency indicators, except for those projects that intentionally addressed gender norms. Quantitative analysis does not show an association between the types of strategies that projects implemented and their impacts, except for capacity building strategies. This finding reveals the limitations of quantitative analysis, given the small number of projects involved. The qualitative studies provide more nuance and insight: some base level of empowerment and forms of agency may be necessary for women to participate in project activities, to benefit or further increase their empowerment. Our results highlight the need for projects to focus specifically on empowerment, rather than assume that projects aiming to reach and benefit women automatically empower them. Our study also shows the value of both a common metric to compare empowerment impacts across projects and contexts and qualitative work to understand and contextualize these impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela & Malapit, Hazel J. & Seymour, Greg & Heckert, Jessica & Doss, Cheryl & Johnson, Nancy & Rubin, Deborah & Thai, Giang & Ramani, Gayathri V. & Meyers, , 2022. "Can agricultural development projects empower women? A synthesis of mixed methods evaluations using pro-WEAI in the gender, agriculture, and assets project (phase 2) portfolio," IFPRI discussion papers 2137, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:2137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifpri.org/cdmref/p15738coll2/id/136405/filename/136617.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    SOUTH ASIA; WEST AFRICA; AFRICA SOUTH OF SAHARA; AFRICA; EAST AFRICA; women's empowerment; gender equality; agriculture; impact assessment; impact evaluation; agricultural development projects;
    All these keywords.

    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:fpr:ifprid:2137. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.